If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(White House)   TFer's friend's petition to force TSA to review "full body imaging" at airports has more than 20000 signatures; will go in front of Obama if it gets 4600 more. Difficulty: By tomorrow. DIT   (petitions.whitehouse.gov) divider line 290
    More: Spiffy, TSA, White House, rulemaking process, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

8524 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2012 at 1:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



290 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-08 03:59:42 PM
This doesn't need a petition. It just needs a judge with balls to toss the head of TSA in jail for contempt.
 
2012-08-08 04:00:05 PM
Signed.

Metal detectors coupled with bomb sniffing dogs are far more reliable than this technological gimmickry anyway.
 
2012-08-08 04:00:29 PM

OgreMagi: This doesn't need a petition. It just needs a judge with balls to toss the head of TSA in jail for contempt.


Unfortunately, those are in short supply these days.
 
2012-08-08 04:01:33 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Must be exhausting to be so afraid all the time.

Not afraid at all. I fly all the time, for work and pleasure. Zip through the lines no problem, and although I wish we lived in a perfect world where crazy people didn't try to do stupid shiat on a plane, we do. And because the TSA is basically staffed by retards, I'd like an extra layer or two of security to make sure one of them isn't asleep, looking at the tits on the girl in line, or being bribed.

Also, you've just pointed out a work around to that specific security system. It's comforting to know that there couldn't possibly be workarounds to other security systems.

Of course there can be. But the more you have, the fewer work arounds there are. I've flown to Israel, and believe me, we don't have to deal with hardly anything compare to what they put you through.



Your problem is that all you have is hyperbole and anger, backed by nothing. I know people who have chosen not to fly because they feel the scanners are intrusive and TSA pat-downs are sexual assaults. That's their choice. I'm married though, so I'll take all the pat downs I can get.



I disagree. We've established that there will always be a chance for danger. It's possible that there will be a slight increase in safety (nothing will ever be 100% safe) as safety measures become more extreme. But, at a point the loss of freedoms start to outweigh the benefits. I think we've crossed that point.
 
2012-08-08 04:02:02 PM
3883. Happy hunting.
 
2012-08-08 04:02:30 PM
Signed.
 
2012-08-08 04:04:00 PM
Finally was able to log in (apparently, one or more of my coworkers can't remember their passwords and got us a temporary IP ban), so signed. Also Facebooked.
 
2012-08-08 04:04:41 PM

HeartBurnKid: OgreMagi: This doesn't need a petition. It just needs a judge with balls to toss the head of TSA in jail for contempt.

Unfortunately, those are in short supply these days.


Regretfully, you are correct.

We shouldn't need to file petitions to get the government to adhere to the law and our courts. In fact, that's a losing proposition since a government that will ignore those will have no problem ignoring a petition. The problem is far worse than most people realize. The government no longer cares about the law and no longer fears the wrath of the people.

I blame Andrew Jackson.

/obscure?
 
2012-08-08 04:05:40 PM
Signed and facebooked :)
 
2012-08-08 04:07:08 PM
if the intent of creating panic and fear, why wouldn't a terrorist just bring the bomb to the security line where everyone is all queud up in one small area and detonate it there? Because it is not about security, it's about the illusion of security.

But mostly it's about the money people at DHS made by investing in the company that inventing them and then they used tax dollars to purchase them.

As for why is it reasonable for them to at least listen to public comments, given that Europe has actually banned them, then yes I think considering to view the continued use is a reasonable thing to do.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&fo r mat=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
 
2012-08-08 04:11:40 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: A whitehouse.gov account is required to sign Petitions.


Too bad I only have a whitehouse.com account.
 
2012-08-08 04:13:45 PM
Did my part. 3848 to go.

/listen, whatever you think of the scanners, there was a court order that the TSA is ignoring
//ignoring federal court orders == bad
 
2012-08-08 04:14:02 PM

OgreMagi: HeartBurnKid: OgreMagi: This doesn't need a petition. It just needs a judge with balls to toss the head of TSA in jail for contempt.

Unfortunately, those are in short supply these days.

Regretfully, you are correct.

We shouldn't need to file petitions to get the government to adhere to the law and our courts. In fact, that's a losing proposition since a government that will ignore those will have no problem ignoring a petition. The problem is far worse than most people realize. The government no longer cares about the law and no longer fears the wrath of the people.

I blame Andrew Jackson.

/obscure?


For once, I completely agree with you. I signed the petition, but I don't know that it'll make any difference. The TSA have been a bunch of jackbooted scofflaws since their inception, and I find it frustrating to no end that so many people (especially the ones that scream the loudest about "FREEDOM!") are more than willing to play along with the kabuki security they know is overly-intrusive and full of holes because they're so scared of the terrorists, even to the point of standing behind them when they blatantly and openly defy court orders. Bunch of pussies, if you ask me.

/the terrorists are winning; America is well and truly terrorized.
 
2012-08-08 04:14:16 PM
Yeah, went ahead and shared the link again in case anybody missed it this morning.
 
2012-08-08 04:14:45 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: A whitehouse.gov account is required to sign Petitions.


www.moonbattery.com
 
2012-08-08 04:16:26 PM
GhettoWinter:

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Must be exhausting to be so afraid all the time.

Not afraid at all. I fly all the time, for work and pleasure. Zip through the lines no problem, and although I wish we lived in a perfect world where crazy people didn't try to do stupid shiat on a plane, we do. And because the TSA is basically staffed by retards, I'd like an extra layer or two of security to make sure one of them isn't asleep, looking at the tits on the girl in line, or being bribed.

Also, you've just pointed out a work around to that specific security system. It's comforting to know that there couldn't possibly be workarounds to other security systems.

Of course there can be. But the more you have, the fewer work arounds there are. I've flown to Israel, and believe me, we don't have to deal with hardly anything compare to what they put you through.



Your problem is that all you have is hyperbole and anger, backed by nothing. I know people who have chosen not to fly because they feel the scanners are intrusive and TSA pat-downs are sexual assaults. That's their choice. I'm married though, so I'll take all the pat downs I can get.


I disagree. We've established that there will always be a chance for danger. It's possible that there will be a slight increase in safety (nothing will ever be 100% safe) as safety measures become more extreme. But, at a point the loss of freedoms start to outweigh the benefits. I think we've crossed that point.


I'm kinda curious as to what your baseline is there.

I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

I'd have a lot more respect for these "freedom fighters" if they didn't have Facebook accounts, didn't just move on when the NSA piped every bit of a major node's traffic to their servers, stuff like that. If you give a damn about privacy, it's not going to be because some bored clerk saw your digtitized junk on a screen and promptly forgot about you.

/ Also, learn ecryption, kids!
 
2012-08-08 04:20:46 PM

maxheck: I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.


Well, except for implementing scanners that have been banned over health concerns in the EU.
 
2012-08-08 04:26:01 PM

GhettoWinter: I disagree. We've established that there will always be a chance for danger.



So you want to ignore it, or not try to reduce it? I get not taunting the dynamite monkey, but it would be better if the monkey didn't have dynamite.

It's possible that there will be a slight increase in safety (nothing will ever be 100% safe) as safety measures become more extreme.

You need way more information here. It's also possible it will make it 100% safe. You don't know.

But, at a point the loss of freedoms start to outweigh the benefits. I think we've crossed that point.

Don't fly. It's that simple. You are free to never ever, in your whole life, enter a TSA airport checkpoint.
 
2012-08-08 04:26:14 PM
There are so many exemptions to the security system that the system is completely useless. Examine everyone - any age, job status, ethnicity, handicap etc - the same or don't examine anyone. Never mind those security pre-check in services and cards. It's pretty simple, but no, every few weeks there is another exemption added to the list of people who can just waltz through security.
 
2012-08-08 04:26:31 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Teufelaffe: At this point, the rock would be more effective than the TSA.

That's ind of an argument for more security, not less, don't you think?

You're new at this logic and arguing thing, aren't you?


No, it's an argument for more effective security. If you're having trouble driving nails with your hands, that doesn't mean you need more hands. It means you need the right tool.


Teufelaffe: And if the person takes the incredibly devious step of strapping said explosives or knife to their side, the full body scanner won't catch them either.

[Citation needed]


http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-sca nn ers-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-n ude-body-scanners/


FFS people, it's like someone broke into your home so you called Jimmy-Ray's Fly-by-Night Home Security to install an alarm, only to discover that anyone can disable the alarm just by jiggling the doorknob, but by golly that's just fine with you, because it's a "deterrent."

Your example is a straight-up non-sequitur. Your arguments lend credence to the folks who want more security, of various types, not less. You are pure anecdote, with nothing to prove that you know a better way to get it done.

Which, I suppose, is something you have not been asked. In your opinion, what should be done instead of metal detectors, scanners, and pat-downs?


Honestly, it's not a matter of replacing what we have, per se, it's a matter of using what we have more effectively. Better training and hiring practices for TSA personnel, for starters. Right now, TSA hiring and training appears to be a slight step above McDonalds. For the body scanners, take the image at a slight angle in order to defeat the "strap stuff to your side" method of defeating them.

We're dealing with a security agency that fails on a regular basis, but as far as any one can tell, makes excuses instead of putting forth effort to do a better job.
 
2012-08-08 04:30:55 PM
HeartBurnKid:

maxheck: I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

Well, except for implementing scanners that have been banned over health concerns in the EU.


Can we get a citation so I know whether I should give a damn or not?

That was kind of my objection about the petition. All sorts of emotional language, nothing to work with. It's like the Rush Limbaugh show. I don't even necessarily disagree with the author, but if they put airy crap like that out there.... No. I have no way to know if they're more reputable than the Birfers.
 
2012-08-08 04:31:35 PM

maxheck: GhettoWinter:

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter:

I'm kinda curious as to what your baseline is there.

I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

I'd have a lot more respect for these "freedom fighters" if they didn't have Facebook accounts, didn't just move on when the NSA piped every bit of a major node's traffic to their servers, stuff like that. If you ...


Risk/Reward. What am I giving up/What am i getting in return.

Closing and locking the cockpit door is a bummer, especially for little kids. But, it's not that hard to do and isnt expensive or intrusive. What you get out of that is a pretty good guarantee that no one is going to run in there and take control of the plane. To me, the risk/reward seems like a pretty good trade off.

The math for these full body scanners does not add up. Intrusive and extremely expensive machines that have not been shown to be any more effective than metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs.

Forgive the slippery slope argument but with the ways we make these knee jerk safety precautions (take your shoes off) I worry about what happens after someone sticks a bomb up their ass.
 
2012-08-08 04:32:45 PM
Signed.
 
2012-08-08 04:33:00 PM

peterquince: gunga galunga: Absolutely. Anything I can do get to shine a spotlight on the TSA's shenanigans.

** clicks link **

Wait, you mean I have to create an account? Awwww, man.

All you have to do is give an email address - they're trying to prevent spam bots.


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2012-08-08 04:33:33 PM

maxheck: HeartBurnKid:

maxheck: I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

Well, except for implementing scanners that have been banned over health concerns in the EU.

Can we get a citation so I know whether I should give a damn or not?

That was kind of my objection about the petition. All sorts of emotional language, nothing to work with. It's like the Rush Limbaugh show. I don't even necessarily disagree with the author, but if they put airy crap like that out there.... No. I have no way to know if they're more reputable than the Birfers.


Europe Bans Airport Body Scanners For "Health and Safety" Concerns
 
2012-08-08 04:34:40 PM

Teufelaffe: Honestly, it's not a matter of replacing what we have, per se, it's a matter of using what we have more effectively. Better training and hiring practices for TSA personnel, for starters. Right now, TSA hiring and training appears to be a slight step above McDonalds. For the body scanners, take the image at a slight angle in order to defeat the "strap stuff to your side" method of defeating them.


So even you aren't arguing to get rid of the scanners? Jesus y'all need to get on the same page.
 
2012-08-08 04:36:09 PM
I signed it...

chicagorants.com

three times!

/vote early
//vote often
 
2012-08-08 04:37:21 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: I disagree. We've established that there will always be a chance for danger.


So you want to ignore it, or not try to reduce it? I get not taunting the dynamite monkey, but it would be better if the monkey didn't have dynamite.

It's possible that there will be a slight increase in safety (nothing will ever be 100% safe) as safety measures become more extreme.

You need way more information here. It's also possible it will make it 100% safe. You don't know.

But, at a point the loss of freedoms start to outweigh the benefits. I think we've crossed that point.

Don't fly. It's that simple. You are free to never ever, in your whole life, enter a TSA airport checkpoint.


Well now I know you're full of shiat.
 
2012-08-08 04:44:53 PM
GhettoWinter:

maxheck: GhettoWinter:

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter:

I'm kinda curious as to what your baseline is there.

I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

I'd have a lot more respect for these "freedom fighters" if they didn't have Facebook accounts, didn't just move on when the NSA piped every bit of a major node's traffic to their servers, stuff like that. If you ...

Risk/Reward. What am I giving up/What am i getting in return.

Closing and locking the cockpit door is a bummer, especially for little kids. But, it's not that hard to do and isnt expensive or intrusive. What you get out of that is a pretty good guarantee that no one is going to run in there and take control of the plane. To me, the risk/reward seems like a pretty good trade off.

The math for these full body scanners does not add up. Intrusive and extremely expensive machines that have not been shown to be any more effective than metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs.

Forgive the slippery slope argument but with the ways we make these knee jerk safety precautions (take your shoes off) I worry about what happens after someone sticks a bomb up their ass.


I'm with you on the risk/reward. Again, it's theatre. Theatre that we demand, and we'd freak out if they didn't do it.

I still maintain A) it's the silliest and least intrusive part of of what is done to us, and B) if someone really gave a damn they'd be shouting from the rooftops that everyone should be using encryption.
 
2012-08-08 04:48:14 PM

GhettoWinter: Well now I know you're full of shiat.


That assertion is as full of shiat as the "it might make it a tiny bit safer" argument.

Hint: THAT WAS MY POINT. Baseless claims aren't helping anyone's case here.

Neither is citing a blog for authority called "TSA Out Of Our Pants."
 
2012-08-08 04:49:21 PM
Teufelaffe:

maxheck: HeartBurnKid:

maxheck: I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

Well, except for implementing scanners that have been banned over health concerns in the EU.

Can we get a citation so I know whether I should give a damn or not?

That was kind of my objection about the petition. All sorts of emotional language, nothing to work with. It's like the Rush Limbaugh show. I don't even necessarily disagree with the author, but if they put airy crap like that out there.... No. I have no way to know if they're more reputable than the Birfers.

Europe Bans Airport Body Scanners For "Health and Safety" Concerns


While I'm glad that someone actually tried backing their concerns up with a citation, I have to ask... Did you actually read what you linked to?
 
2012-08-08 04:54:15 PM
Signed. Best of luck in reaching the goal.
 
2012-08-08 04:56:08 PM
The big boys need to expose millions to radiation in order to protect other sources of radiation:

1. the military and/or its civilian contractors if we or another major get into a nuclear war.

2. the wireless phone industry

/My tin foil hat? Well, it was handsome--large, wide-brimmed with a sort of tri-corner effect. Until the TSA took it away from me. At the bowling alley
 
2012-08-08 04:56:16 PM

coyo: Excactly, that's why he's released his tax returns but is refusing to release the diary he wrote when he was 3. Thank god we are not supposed to pry into the life of white superrich guys.

Yeah, troll snax


well, not exactly. We're supposed to be so concerned with what Romney does with his own money, despite his not being under one iota of suspicion by the IRS for tax evasion. Yet Obama's college records are sealed, lending credence to claims that he received a Foreign Exchange Student scholarship. What does he have to hide? Certainly, not from "when he was three."

So, which is it? Is he guilty of fraud, or were the "Birthers" right all along?
 
2012-08-08 05:04:01 PM

maxheck: Teufelaffe:

maxheck: HeartBurnKid:

maxheck: I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

Well, except for implementing scanners that have been banned over health concerns in the EU.

Can we get a citation so I know whether I should give a damn or not?

That was kind of my objection about the petition. All sorts of emotional language, nothing to work with. It's like the Rush Limbaugh show. I don't even necessarily disagree with the author, but if they put airy crap like that out there.... No. I have no way to know if they're more reputable than the Birfers.

Europe Bans Airport Body Scanners For "Health and Safety" Concerns

While I'm glad that someone actually tried backing their concerns up with a citation, I have to ask... Did you actually read what you linked to?


Not really. Someone asked for a citation about the EU banning body scanners due to health concerns, so I grabbed one. I view the scanners much like I view the hullabaloo about bovine growth hormone: Lack of study on the health effects means you study the health effects, not freak out and try to ban it.
 
2012-08-08 05:06:50 PM

maxheck:
Funny thing that...

Imagine the squeals if if the TSA *didn't* make you take off your shoes or dump bottles with X amount+ of liquid.


I lol'd at the reality of that. arethereanybeernamesleft would have a fit.
 
2012-08-08 05:17:31 PM
The website doesn't seem to explicitly say you have to be a U.S. citizen to start or sign a petition to the President but it does require a ZIP code to create a login. I guess that counts me out. I could in theory use a phony zip code like 90210 but since the US government is already reading everybody's email, they'd probably catch you if you did that, especially if your email address is h­ax­or[nospam-﹫-backwards]y­psder*cn. (I'm not saying my email address is ha­x­0r[nospam-﹫-backwards]y­p­sd­er*cn--I'm just using that as an example of a bad email address to use when petitioning the President.)

I think this type of intrusive security violates constitutional rights agains unreasonable search and seizure but the sexual assault argument is bad because if it were sexual assault to stick your arm up somebody's digestive track, they wouldn't be allowed to search for drugs which is absurd because the USA is all about random, involuntary, warrantless searches for drugs, at least if you are not rich, white, male, old and fugly. Even being a Republican won't save you if you are driving the wrong car, namely a car that a cop would like to own but can't afford, say a Ferrari or one of those $10 million sports cars that most people don't know exist unless they are Farkers or similar.
 
2012-08-08 05:19:12 PM
I'd like to add some sources:

Here is the link discussing the 6-100 cancers these machines cause in a year - this was based on a scientific study done on these machines by a radiation expert.

Here's a story discussing their total ineffectiveness - they aren't designed to detect powdered explosives! (what was used in the Christmas Day bombing incident)

And Here's EFF's discussion - body scanners have cost taxpayers 2.4$ billion (and, remember, they don't work!)

Finally - the government documents describing all of the above can be seen on the Electronic Privacy Information Center's website, here. And the webpage for the Court case.
 
2012-08-08 05:20:51 PM
Here's the deal.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the petition gets the required number of signatures, there will be no real response on the issue - only a canned statement about the White Houses inability to comment on the matter - or a bunch of platitudes designed to calm the very small portion of signers that come back to examine the results of the petition. Hell, their petition system is looked on as such a farce they felt that it was necessary to make a public comment stating that they actually take the petitions seriously.

When that site went live, the petition requirements were 5,000 signatures, and when some uncomfortable questions started being raised they increased the signature requirement to 10,000, and then to 25,000. I expect to see that number doubled to 50,000 any time now.

Some of the petitions that successfully met the signature requirements have been modified so that they will not show up in a search of the site. Try searching for Chris Dodd, Casey Anthony or Sholom Rubashkin - none of them will show up in a search of the site even though there are successfully signed petitions regarding them. And don't try to say it is because they are petitions that mention a person by name, there are plenty of others that do mention people by name (Rush Limbaugh and Bradley Manning being two of them). These are simply petitions that they want to brush under the rug and pretend never existed.

The whole thing is a joke, designed to defuse situations in the public eye by making people think they are doing something when nothing is ever changed by it.

/not saying I endorse or agree with any of the above mentioned petitions
//just think that signers are deluded if they think this will change a thing
 
2012-08-08 05:23:05 PM
So, re the patdowns- do the TSA agents actual touch your genitals and rear end, or is it just near that area? I'm just wondering if Americans are overreacting or if it really is that intrusive (I've been in countries with such patdown systems already in place and it never bothered me much).
 
2012-08-08 05:24:37 PM

peterquince: They cause cancer, they probably violate the 4th amendment, they have cost us $2.4 billion, AND they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money. Not to mention the questionable lobbying.

And they let the government see your wiener.

/quoting cuz you probably posted before seeing my first.




The cause less incidents of cancer than, you know, flying at 33,000 feet for a few hours.
 
2012-08-08 05:27:43 PM
So, re the patdowns- do the TSA agents actual touch your genitals and rear end, or is it just near that area? I'm just wondering if Americans are overreacting or if it really is that intrusive (I've been in countries with such patdown systems already in place and it never bothered me much).

They really are that intrusive. They are fully...exploratory of all regions that need to be explored.


Also, the machines are totally ineffective - they don't detect powdered explosives - the terrorist weapon of choice - and they can't see inside body cavities. Also, one person recently said that people with children were told they didn't have to go through them - only through the metal detectors. With so many loopholes...there is no reason to be spending billions on these machines.

Either way, this isn't to stop them, per se, but to at least let the public have their say and require the TSA to respond to public concerns meaningfully as required under law. That has to be worth a signature!
 
2012-08-08 05:29:04 PM
The cause less incidents of cancer than, you know, flying at 33,000 feet for a few hours.

They still cause 6-100 cases of cancer per year that wouldn't exist otherwise.
 
2012-08-08 05:32:47 PM

astepanovich: The cause less incidents of cancer than, you know, flying at 33,000 feet for a few hours.

They still cause 6-100 cases of cancer per year that wouldn't exist otherwise.


That's actually a pretty weak argument.

I'd stick with the human rights/dignity angle.
 
2012-08-08 05:34:12 PM
I would like to see them abolish the TSA, the DEA, the BATF, and the FBI, turning the latter's "work" as it were, over to the U.S. Marshals.
 
2012-08-08 05:44:31 PM
www.aclu.org

TSA Frisks Another Little Kid

Because this is so WRONG (and just one example)
 
2012-08-08 05:44:53 PM

maxheck: HeartBurnKid:

maxheck: I travel internationally... Well, maybe not *often*, but pretty regularly every 2 years for the last 20, so perhaps often for an American. The US isn't implementing some sort of new freakish policies that hasn't been done for years elsewhere.

Well, except for implementing scanners that have been banned over health concerns in the EU.

Can we get a citation so I know whether I should give a damn or not?


Well, here's a citation, but really, I'd think that the fact that the TSA is openly defying court orders would be enough of a reason to give a damn.
 
2012-08-08 05:49:22 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: A whitehouse.gov account is required to sign Petitions.


Do like I did and throw a hotmail account you haven't accessed in 8 years at them.
 
2012-08-08 05:54:29 PM

peterquince: Here's the deal. A federal court told the TSA (airport security) that they had to "promptly" review the use of the "rapiscan" bodyscans in airports. They use them on everyone going through O'Hare. Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer, and they probably violate the 4th amendment, AND they have cost us $2.4 billion, they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money.


I disagree. While there is a pork element to it I think their primary mission is catching drug smugglers.

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.


None exist because the government won't permit them. They are X-ray devices, though, and we have long-standing models of the harm they cause. By the TSA numbers sending everyone since 9/11 through the nude-o-scopes would kill *MORE* than the attacks did. The real numbers are no doubt higher.

JackieRabbit: The court has ruled and if the TSA has not complied with the court's order, it is a matter for the court to hold them in contempt and enjoin them to cease and desist in their use of the scanners until it's order has been satisfied. I cannot see how a petition can help here. The Office of the President of the United States cannot be compelled to action by a citizen petition. But the voting booth can. (make that should)


Agreed. The court isn't doing it's job. The top guys at TSA should be held in jail on contempt charges until they have compiled with what the court ordered them to do.

maxheck: Personal experience, YMMV, but pretty much the only thing that is new to me in 20+ years of flying is the "take off your shoes" thing.

So far as the scanners, I'm having a hard time picturing even a TSA employee so hard up that they're getting off on a blurry picture of your bod or mine, so... Why exactly are we giving a damn other than feeling sorry for those people?

If you're going to claim "fifth amendment" then boy howdy do I have an earful for you.


There are enough reports of young, attractive women being selectively sent to the scanner (in situations where some passengers get the metal detector and some get the nude-o-scope) that it appears that they do.

coco ebert: So, re the patdowns- do the TSA agents actual touch your genitals and rear end, or is it just near that area? I'm just wondering if Americans are overreacting or if it really is that intrusive (I've been in countries with such patdown systems already in place and it never bothered me much).


It really is that intrusive if you get the full patdown. If you go up the leg until "resistance" is met, what are you touching?

astepanovich: Also, the machines are totally ineffective - they don't detect powdered explosives - the terrorist weapon of choice - and they can't see inside body cavities. Also, one person recently said that people with children were told they didn't have to go through them - only through the metal detectors. With so many loopholes...there is no reason to be spending billions on these machines.

Either way, this isn't to stop them, per se, but to at least let the public have their say and require the TSA to respond to public concerns meaningfully as required under law. That has to be worth a signature!


Also, consider the video from earlier this year of that guy taking the metal box through the scanner and not being caught. That was real, no camera trickery.

Furthermore, it was based on a scientific analysis of how the scanners appear to operate (they couldn't get their hands on a real one) that showed the flaw--and it showed another flaw, also. The scanner can't detect a pancake of organic matter with feathered edges. In other words, it will miss properly shaped explosives.

The detonator would of course be revealed but it can be put in a box and carried beside the body like he did.
 
2012-08-08 06:23:05 PM

peterquince: darwin


Sorry, but I don't see it. Maybe I've lived longer or I'm a tad more cynical, but I believe there's more bad people now than ever. Everyone's out to get the other guy because they won't agree with their brand of fundamentalism. If the worst thing that happens to you is some guy working in security happens to see your wiener then you've lived an extraordinarily blessed life.
I don't see the problem, and I don't support the petition. It keeps people safe. I think that over rides any concern or embarrassment. It's an argument about nothing for the sake of semantics or an idea that's stuck in your head. It smacks of the same fundamentalist ideas that pre-occupy the people that are willingly and gladly trying to kill you. You don't see my point of view, because in your head your more concerned about someone invading your privacy. And again, I say, no one is forcing you to fly. So don't fly. Issue solved.
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report