Is this man a hero?
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">don't know if I could do the same thing</div>This blog post is making the rounds:
<a href="http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter" target="_blank">http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter</a>
And I'm personally enamored by it. The task of spending 2 and a half hours like that and keeping my cool and determination throughout is daunting. The man obviously knows his rights and the important legal phrases which helps.
If in a similar situation would you try the same? I have a flight coming up, but it's not by myself and I doubt my wife would be happy if I kept her at the airport like that.
<a href="http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter" target="_blank">http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter</a>
And I'm personally enamored by it. The task of spending 2 and a half hours like that and keeping my cool and determination throughout is daunting. The man obviously knows his rights and the important legal phrases which helps.
If in a similar situation would you try the same? I have a flight coming up, but it's not by myself and I doubt my wife would be happy if I kept her at the airport like that.
Comments
Not wanting to use the X ray machine is understandable, being bombarded with ionising radiation is not my idea of a fun time and you really shouldn't do it if you can avoid it. As the whole point of the x ray machine is to be a non-invasive alternative to a physical search however it seems stupid to complain about both.
Stop being a damn pansy and do the physical search. Christ people are sensitive about the stupidest things.
There was a very good example within British law that saw the enactment of some sort of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7436883.stm" target="_blank">terrorism act</a> that gave police the powers to detain without due process. The exact same thing has happened in guantanamo bay. What these laws and 'emergency procedures' do is symultaneously chisel at our civil liberties and make us no better than the very people we oppose, those pesky terrorists. It turned out in britain that several thousand uses of the terrorism act were completely unjust and practically unlawful. Can't find that article :(
The idea of being detained without having any rights is terrifying to me, I'm more scared of the atrocities our own security and law enforcement services could be committing 'legally' than the slight risk of terrorist bombing attacks (which all happen on public transport in major capitals at rush hour so it's quite easy to statistically avoid such events, which probably have the same chance of killing you as a basic train crash or other accident).
For a fictional (and heavily dramatised?) account of these issues try <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0007288425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290509171&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Little Brother</a> by the Internet's own Corey Doctorow.
There was a very good example within British law that saw the enactment of some sort of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7436883.stm" target="_blank">terrorism act</a> that gave police the powers to detain without due process. The exact same thing has happened in guantanamo bay. What these laws and 'emergency procedures' do is symultaneously chisel at our civil liberties and make us no better than the very people we oppose, those pesky terrorists. It turned out in britain that several thousand uses of the terrorism act were completely unjust and practically unlawful. Can't find that article :(
The idea of being detained without having any rights is terrifying to me, I'm more scared of the atrocities our own security and law enforcement services could be committing 'legally' than the slight risk of terrorist bombing attacks (which all happen on public transport in major capitals at rush hour so it's quite easy to statistically avoid such events, which probably have the same chance of killing you as a basic train crash or other accident).
For a fictional (and heavily dramatised?) account of these issues try <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0007288425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290509171&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Little Brother</a> by the Internet's own Corey Doctorow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in britain than at the bottom of a hole in a desert somewhere.
Britain is decidedly better than a terrorist hideout.
The government does sleazy, dishonest, underhanded, illegal, power abusing and heinous things, they're <i>the government,</i> it's basically in the manifesto.
However still most people in this country live very good lives compared to most of the rest of the world. We have a level of freedom unheard of throughout all of human history, I have the freedom not to go outside and probably not get shot, I have the freedom not to be invaded by the romans, I have the freedom to eat french cheese on greek bread with indian chicken for a snack. The country is not going to wrack and ruin because people in government, media, and on the street are being the same reactionary and paranoid lot they have been throughout the entire course of time.
People are afraid of silly things, so the government tries to protect them and themselves by instituting security measures, then the papers tell the people that they need protecting from the security measures, but then the next day they write a story because the government maintained train track didn't have enough security fences round it so someone drove their car onto it and got killed, then they follow it with a column about how ridiculous health and safety laws are, and how political correctness has GONE MAD! and so forth.
People in government are still people, which means, just like most of our friends and family, they are often selfish, money grubbing, paranoid about the strangest things, probably <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle" target="_blank">doing a job they are entirely unqualified for</a>, very good at rationalising things as long as they support their existing world view, not very good at communicating with others, and are generally quite nice people despite it all. Being in government doesn't make you evil, nor does it make you very good at your job, especially in a democracy where you get into government not virtue of your ability to govern, but because people like you a lot and voted for you.
Democratic governments are full of incompetent people trying desperately to do what they think is best, probably because if they fail, they don't get to stay in government and have to get real jobs. Occasionally this means they do very stupid things, in fact it quite often means they do very stupid things, but they aren't doing it out of malice, and they aren't doing it to become the supreme overlords of the country, and they aren't very good at doing it in any case so they probably won't be much of a threat even if they were.
So don't worry about it, also don't be a ###### to people working at airports because christ almighty that must be a horrible enough job as it is.
Is the man a hero? Maybe that's a bit too strong a word. But I respect and support what he did, and if anyone who had the spare time for it emulated him, maybe that would accomplish something.
Anyway this isn't a matter of security. There are two arguments for this:
1) If dem terrists want to blow stuff up, what better place to sow a little terror than in the congestion before the backscatter imager? Lots of people packed into a small amount of space. Perfect for an explosive belt.
2) They're screening the pilot too. Why? Are they afraid he'll hold a knife to his own throat and force himself to hijack his airliner? And if they're afraid he's got a bomb, is it REALLY such a good idea to give him control of a huge plane full of kerosene? I mean we've seen what those can do.
No, I see two reasons for this, not mutually exclusive: One is contraband. Of course, drug mules don't hide drugs ON their bodies. They hide them IN their bodies. Sure, that can be detected with a colonoscopy. Maybe that's the next "security" procedure to be instated? Also, what about land borders? Does everyone going across the Mexico border get groped or x-rayed too?
The other explanation is that somewhere there's a lobbyist for backscatter imaging machine manufacturers who is collecting a really fat cheque.
Leastways that's how technological progress usually works, people want to sell stuff and see an opening. Not 'the government wants to zap everyone with x rays and paid an x ray guy to develop a machine to do it'.
Maybe not the search then, but the desire for new security measures is nine years old, so obviously people have been developing new security systems to capitalise on the demand.
Security consciousness has become more prevalent in many places, not just airlines, and many new technologies have arisen to meet the demand. In britain we switched all our debit and credit cards over to a new microchip system a few years ago and away from the magnetic strip, and it was sold on the idea of security. I imagine microchip manufacturers are very happy about this.
It's not a govenrment conspiracy, the government isn't smart enough to conspire.
And where do you get "conspiracy" from? You're the only one talking about conspiracies.
1) Pilots get (or can get) scanned. That is dumb. If the pilot had a full ton of explosives attached under their clothes, they can't really do more damage in the plane than they could by just crashing it. If a pilot wants to damage the plane, they do not need to sneak anything into the cockpit with them. The only reason I can see for pilots being scanned is to give off the impression that "these measures are for everyone, even the pilot has to go through them!" but that is dumb because A) nobody is stupid enough to believe that a pilot could possibly <i>need</i> to sneak anything more deadly than their own hands onto the plane and B)...
2) Members of Congress don't get scanned. Which ###### on the "it's for everyone omg" idea and makes the inclusion of pilots even more stupid. Sure, your average member of congress isn't going to hijack a plane (although I can see them smuggling drugs...), but then neither is a pilot (at least using methods that can be detected by a scanner or pat down or any other security measure).
The increase in security doesn't seem particularly high, either. I can't think of much that can be hidden under the clothes and be dangerous *and* not be picked up by other scanners like a metal detector or a sniffer dog (seriously, use sniffer dogs instead; everyone loves dogs). It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when someone knocks it up a notch and uses an internal (inserted or implanted) bomb or something that can't be picked up by this.
Also stealing from wikipedia:
""I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747...That's why we haven't put them in our airport""
- Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security expert.
I assume the Israelis know a few things about airport security.
And where do you get "conspiracy" from? You're the only one talking about conspiracies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scanning them doesn't make a lot of sense either way though, what the hell ###### pilot is going to run a drug trafficking racket by shoving coke up his ass? Pilots get paid quite a lot of money and have qualifications equal to or greater than many scientists.
But if it IS about contraband, why not say so? Maybe because it's easier to mollify people with "OMG TERRISTS WILL KILL YOU IF WE DO NOT GROPE YOU" than the whole contraband thing. I don't know, none of it makes a whole lot of sense. Well, except for the thing about the lobbyists. That one makes a whole ######load of sense.
But if it IS about contraband, why not say so? Maybe because it's easier to mollify people with "OMG TERRISTS WILL KILL YOU IF WE DO NOT GROPE YOU" than the whole contraband thing. I don't know, none of it makes a whole lot of sense. Well, except for the thing about the lobbyists. That one makes a whole ######load of sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole point about the war on drugs is that most of it is political posturing. There's no actual gain in it. There's no reason to institute a series of security checks that have done nothing but garner bad press and annoy the public and lie about the reasoning behind it from day one. There's simply no reason to lie about contraband checking because there's no gain to be had from it. I doubt it's even crossed their minds.
Lobbyists though, yes. <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/tsa-and-full-body-scanner-lobby" target="_blank">Some of note:</a>
former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank
former assistant administrator for policy at the TSA, Chad Wolf
Kevin Patrick Kelly, "a former top staffer to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee"
Former Senator Al D'Amato (he has a history of lobbying based controversy)
Also, following the links at the bottom of Stickman's article yields more interesting tidbits:
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation/2010/11/naked-scanners-lobbyists-join-war-terror" target="_blank">http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation/2010/...join-war-terror</a>
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/11/george-soros-also-profiting-controversial-new-tsa-scanners" target="_blank">http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltwa...ew-tsa-scanners</a>
Torture people, take my money(FED), take my food(S510), take my internet privacy and freedom, invade countries, assassinate U.S. citizens as admitted policy, take away all my liberties, but don't you dare touch humpty and dumpty.
Before: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Now: "Give me liberty, or at least 'don't touch my junk'!"
--------
Of course I approve of the civil disobedience against the body scanners and am disgusted by the unconstitutional detainment if you refuse to submit to sexual molestation. However, the alternative that will be proposed due to public outrage will undoubtedly be worse. I will resist both. It's probably some form of biometric ID and profiling.
Making people wear a patch on their clothes with a symbol of their religion is historically proven to be effective. This will be the modern version. Yay.
Papiere, Bitte!
Torture people, take my money(FED), take my food(S510), take my internet privacy and freedom, invade countries, assassinate U.S. citizens as admitted policy, take away all my liberties, but don't you dare touch humpty and dumpty.
Before: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Now: "Give me liberty, or at least 'don't touch my junk'!"
--------<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's always been like that. The issues you raised are relatively abstract concepts that for the most part don't directly affect most individuals, so people will complain about it (I'm fairly sure I remember at least seeing active debates about each of the things you've said, and taken part in most in some form) but not really *do* anything, because the motivation isn't there. They don't directly see the results so it's hard to get too worked up over it.
But flying is something that a lot of people either have done, are doing, or will do in the future. And almost everyone knows at least one person who has flown. So it's an issue now; if you fly, there's a real chance you'll get scanner-naked'd or touched up, so people can get actively worked up about it. Even though in the scale of things that have been going on, it's actually a pretty small thing.
I can't remember who said it, or where I read it, or even the actual wording so I'm paraphrasing, but *someone* said this in some form. People will go on about how voting and freedom are the best concepts of western life but if you give them a straight up choice between the right to vote and a modern convenience (say, the washing machine), most people will take the washing machine. Simply because the results are more immediate and obvious to the person.
Torture people, take my money(FED), take my food(S510), take my internet privacy and freedom, invade countries, assassinate U.S. citizens as admitted policy, take away all my liberties, but don't you dare touch humpty and dumpty.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that you're posting suggests you still have your money, food, internet freedom, and liberties.
Yes, I still have fractions of these, for now. So I might as well not worry about it.
Because people are fairly predictable. Most people are fine "fighting the drugs" as long as it doesn't directly affect them. That's why only druggies, ALCU supporters, and hardcore libertarians care so much about say, infrared scanning of homes by police. They wouldn't be able to sell "we need to look at naked pictures of you to find drugs" when a.) most Americans know they aren't carrying drugs, and b.) this will trigger the "innocent before proven guilty" response in enough Americans that it would matter. Also the DHS <i>loves</i> to frame this as a privacy vs security debate. Although everytime someone does that I want to smack them with the biggest clue stick I can find,
<!--quoteo(post=1809296:date=Nov 23 2010, 12:40 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Nov 23 2010, 12:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1809296"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also stealing from wikipedia:
""I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747...That's why we haven't put them in our airport""
- Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security expert.
I assume the Israelis know a few things about airport security.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was an article a read a couple of years ago basically saying that we need to learn airport security from the Israelis because it's safer AND more efficient. People complain/argue that the Israelis profile and that's what the U.S. needs to do, but their missing the point of what the Isrealis actually do. They train people to profile for suspicious behaviors rather than having gov't sponsored mall security everywhere looking for people with beards and a turban.
<!--quoteo(post=1809373:date=Nov 23 2010, 02:36 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 23 2010, 02:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1809373"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's depressingly amusing how well "follow the money" works.
Also, following the links at the bottom of Stickman's article yields more interesting tidbits:
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation/2010/11/naked-scanners-lobbyists-join-war-terror" target="_blank">http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation/2010/...join-war-terror</a>
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/11/george-soros-also-profiting-controversial-new-tsa-scanners" target="_blank">http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltwa...ew-tsa-scanners</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it was well known that Michael Chernoff had close ties to the backscatter contractors. I guess that's what I get for reading news on the internet and not listening to the talking heads on TV.
I find it depressingly amusing that, according to the last article, George Soros is "funder of the country’s liberal political infrastructure". Man, I had no my liberal tendencies were funded by George Soros. My checks must have gotten lost in the mail.
<!--quoteo(post=1809594:date=Nov 23 2010, 08:11 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 23 2010, 08:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1809594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that you're posting suggests you still have your money, food, internet freedom, and liberties.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if we're lazy about our rights they'll slowly be eaten away by those with the most to profit from manipulating them.
Thinking has fallen out of fashion lately, but I'm not opposed to it. Props for him making his stand, and sticking to his guns.
sidebar: I would trust el al on the matter of airport security...
It may well be, I don't seem to remember the guy. Things start falling through the cracks when you have to keep up with the news of four different nations, three of them fairly big ones. :(
Very very large fractions, unless you were a millionaire 40 stone ISP owning demigod.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He said that several House staffers were uncomfortable and averted their eyes when the TSA demonstrated an enhanced pat-down in the room of 200 people.
“The dumbest part: they did two pat-down demonstrations – male on male, and female on female,†the House staffer said. And they used a young female TSA volunteer “and in front of a room of 200 people, they touched her breasts and her buttocks. People were averting their eyes. The TSA was trying to demonstrate ‘this is not so bad,’ but it made people so uncomfortable to watch, that people were averting their eyes.â€
“They shot themselves in the foot,†the staffer continued.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Averting eyes from buttock touching also amuses me. It's almost charmingly prudish.
Why people are terrified of their own bodies I never will understand.
If you have some juvenile hypersensitivity about people touching you then use the machine, if you don't then choose the search.
If you have some juvenile hypersensitivity about people touching you then use the machine, if you don't then choose the search.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, because you know.. slavery is freedom and war is peace.
It must be nice to live in a world where the worst depths of human depravity are inconveniences in your long distance travel.
Your choices are the following: You can get scanned by an x-ray machine that is not operated by a trained radiologist, a machine whose long-term and frequent-exposure effects are untested, and whose manufacturers will not let third parties independently verify its safety. Or you can get groped. Those are not options, that's a choice between plague and cholera. And just to make sure you understand my point, I am not literally equating it with two horrible, deadly diseases, I am using something called a metaphor.
Now it's fine that getting groped by strangers doesn't bother you. That's great, everyone has different tastes. But most people find it offensive to have others fondle their groin or breasts without permission, and if you happen to not be a TSA employee doing so will get you charged with sexual harassment.
What ISN'T fine is that you don't think travel is a basic human right, because it is. And no, "you can travel as long as you let us zap you with this untested x-ray machine or grope you" isn't the same as respecting that right, it's putting an unreasonable restriction on it. It's like saying "we respect your right to free speech as long as you only exercise it in areas away from the public eye." Luckily, we haven't gotten to the point of "free speech zones" quite y-.. OH WAIT.