Congress Wants To Cut Funds To The TSA For Naked Scanners

from the looks-like-someone's-paying-attention dept

Via Slashdot we learned that the House Appropriations Committee’s latest plan specifically cuts funding for the TSA’s naked body scanners. In the section about the TSA, it notes:

The bill includes $7.8 billion for the TSA, an increase of $125 million over last year?s level, and $293 million below the President?s request. These funds will be used to sustain the current cap level of 46,000 full time screening personnel, and for explosive detection systems, security enforcement, cargo inspections, Federal Air Marshals, and other TSA activities. The bill also includes an additional $10 million to address air cargo threats. However, the bill does not provide $76 million requested by the President for 275 additional advanced inspection technology (AIT) scanners nor the 535 staff requested to operate them.

This won’t stop the many such machines already in service, but could potentially slow the expansion of the use of such machines. Of course, I’m sure one carefully placed “soft on terrorists!” fear mongering report will ensure such machines get funded soon enough anyway.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Congress Wants To Cut Funds To The TSA For Naked Scanners”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
John Doe says:

I wish they would

I have been flying in and out of Atlanta a lot lately and there are only two naked scanners for over 20 security lines. If you are unlucky enough to hit one of those two, you get scanned or groped. Until last week, I have successfully avoided the lines. Last week I got line number 12, avoid this line if you can, and ended up at the naked scanner. I opted to be groped. It wasn’t as bad as I expected but it still sucked. I imagine the groping is a far more reliable method for finding hidden items than the scanners.

Funny thing was, I told the guy at the scanner I wasn’t going through it. He got testy and asked why. I got testy back and told him it was my choice and I wasn’t going to do it. I figured he would make the groping as horrible as possible to encourage me to be scanned instead. But he didn’t which could be because he doesn’t enjoy fondling me anymore than I enjoy the fondling.

cc (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ok, add another ~$50bn for the MPAA.

That’s 60 billion out of 14 trillion, or 0.4%.

Compare that to the IT industry. Google alone has a market cap of over $180bn.

Seriously, cut the TSA and you’re 1/6 to making up the difference.

It’s just too much ado about nothing. I can’t believe we’re putting up with things like internet censorship for an industry this size. What are the politicians even thinking?? — especially when the protectionist laws they’re making are getting in the way of innovations like YouTube, Bittorrent, Google Books…

That Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A but if they pass a law to stop it, they get called soft on terrorism and get tossed out. If they don’t fund the damn thing, they are for smaller government and saving us from the evil people who want to spend us into oblivion.

As to stopping reproductive health care, I would really like the other “side” to consider the following…
I do not want my tax dollars to pay for wars.
Why are my demands ignored while you get to hold everyone hostage for your “religious” beliefs?

You refuse to educate them so they avoid the problem, you refuse to help them even if they are raped, and you refuse to help the unintended offspring who often find themselves wards of the state. Please pull your head out of the sand and stop pretending that these problems are not connected. I understand your desire to make sure there are still guests for the afternoon talk shows looking for their baby daddy, but I think your just being selfish again.

Maybe if you stopped worrying about having control over somebody elses uterus because your “religious leader” told you you have that right, and focused on the real problems in our society we might solve some of them.

That Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Getting Called ?Soft On Terrorism?

No they have a plethora of them to choose from…

Illegal Immigrants!

Domestic Terrorists!

Anyone who dares to be Muslim!

Gays! They want to get married and destroy the world!

The “theft” of our valuable intellectual property!

CyberWorld War!

Bradley Manning!

Julian Assange!

People who question how we torture!

Teachers! How dare they expect a contract to be upheld!

For the children!

All of societies ills are caused by easily identifiable targets, unless you take the pragmatic approach.

We didn’t have these problems until the government created the situations that caused them, and they cause them to get elected and stay in power. I look at it like religion, your beliefs are fine and dandy up until you expect someone else to tell you how to do it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...