indarwinsshadow: And again, I say, no one is forcing you to fly. So don't fly. Issue solved.
consider this: Put it on reddit and you'll have enough signatures in a matter of a few hours.
Another Pretentious Nickname: Also, leaning on a little bit of credibility as a cancer survivor, take your cancer alarmism about these things and shove it directly up your ass. It's not credible and it's not proportional. If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely.
whidbey: You really think Regedit gets more hits than Fark?Where are your loyalties, man?
astepanovich: TSA Frisks Another Little KidBecause this is so WRONG (and just one example)
Surpheon: spiderpaz: 3) Nothing - which means terrorists will be able to easily get knifes and bombs on the plane with you and your kids (a side benefit is that this is the cheapest option per ticket)Metal detectors are good, and quick xrays are fine too.I see no rational reason to demand that I am safer on a plane than I am on a bus or standing in line for a movie.
doubled99: yeah! totalfarkers will get things changed!*yawn
BraveNewCheneyWorld: astepanovich: TSA Frisks Another Little KidBecause this is so WRONG (and just one example)Yes, let's teach our kids to scream and kick if they're being molested... unless it's a government employee, then shut up and take it. What the fark is wrong with our society?
Somacandra: wineskigolf: If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.[i.imgur.com image 318x283]I've decided to become a commercial airline pilot who refuses to ever be searched. I can't believe I didn't think of this before. Just sit back and let the Benji's roll in. Its not like I need to be searched to do my job or anything anyway.
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.Oh, and former Homeland Security officials have made a butt-load on the sale of these things ($170,000 each) after they left the Bush Administration. [Citation]So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.Here's the deal, this petition thing needs 25,000 signatures to get in front of Obama. By tomorrow. It's getting pretty close, but please consider signing this to push it over the edge. Yes, you have to confirm an email address, but I've never gotten any spam from them.
Your Average Witty Fark User: If you weren't begging by starting the headline with "TFer's friend's petition" maybe I'd consider it.
Another Pretentious Nickname: China White Tea: qorkfiend: All of you: the point of the petition isn't the scanners or their effectiveness. The point of the petition is to get the TSA to comply with a federal court order. I imagine most of us would be on board with government agencies complying with court orders.A few things.1. There is already a standing court order for the TSA to respond to the (initial) petition by Aug. 30th. If that doesn't get the job done, it's doubtful that 25K signatures on a new petition is going to change that.2. The We The People petitions really only compel them to respond - not to actually comply. "No" is a response, and is basically what was given the last time a WH petition was directed at the TSA.I signed it, of course, because I loathe the TSA, but it's little more than a gesture at this point.So there's a set date for response, it hasn't been reached yet, and people are all up in arms? Sheesh. This petition is truly pointless.I mean, they'll probably miss the deadline, but why submit a petition before it's even been reached?
Another Pretentious Nickname: JK47: Another Pretentious Nickname: Also, leaning on a little bit of credibility as a cancer survivor, take your cancer alarmism about these things and shove it directly up your ass. It's not credible and it's not proportional. If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.Father died of cancer, both grandfathers died of cancer, my sister (at 22) had cancer. I prefer to avoid X-Ray machines operated by inexperienced, under-paid, and under-qualified personnel who may or may not have properly calibrated it that morning and have, in the last decade, developed a "stellar" reputation for maintaining and operating complicated pieces of equipment. What's more, since it's government operated, in the event they do fark up I have almost no recourse to redress my injury.In any event, to match your tone, shut the fark up you ignorant prick.It's amazing that your grandfathers died of cancer... how could that have happened before these devices were in use? My grandmother died of cancer and never even flew on a plane! She should have been immortal!I'm sick of people trying to use bullshiat cancer scare tactics as a trump card against anything ever being done. You are all Jenny McCarthy to me.ElusiveWookiee: Another Pretentious Nickname: If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.Because, you know, there's absolutely no difference in ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation.You mean non-ionizing radiation like that produced by millimeter wave technology? Or ionizing radiation like that you're already exposed to, in quantities far exceeding the backscatter scanning, during even the shortest flights?Besides, you always have the pat down option. So if you can't do math or science and are freaked out about radiation, just do the pat-down. Why make everyone else wait? Just go be slow over in the paranoid line.
The Bananadragon: 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
wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply. I believe that it's already been appealed and turned down.As for the bombs. i think the word i deterrent.Both my wife and I spend more time on airplanes than we do at home so this interests me......
akula: Is there some reason the President needs a petition to have him do this?Methinks some folks don't understand what "chief executive" means... he can make the TSA do this review at ANY time. If he hasn't yet, it's because he has chosen not to. I really doubt the President is unaware that people are generally unhappy about the TSA's activities, he just doesn't consider that unhappiness significant enough to impose change upon the agency.A petition won't change that.
TheBigJerk: akula: Is there some reason the President needs a petition to have him do this?Methinks some folks don't understand what "chief executive" means... he can make the TSA do this review at ANY time. If he hasn't yet, it's because he has chosen not to. I really doubt the President is unaware that people are generally unhappy about the TSA's activities, he just doesn't consider that unhappiness significant enough to impose change upon the agency.A petition won't change that.Considering how many jackasses think this is a GOOD thing here in this thread? Considering the rich and powerful can already ignore the TSA rules because they're special?
urban.derelict: F*ck you, pay me. Nothin's free and I didn't make that rule, the bankers did.Sponsor me and I'll sign your stupid form that will be ignored by the president like the top 8 f*cking requests which garnered 1000x as many as 4600 at we the people dot whatever for reforming our asinine anti-minority-based drug laws./you still think the president has any control? lol let me laugh harder
wineskigolf: What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.
The My Little Pony Killer: wineskigolf: You have a choice to fly.I dare you to say that to the face of someone who travels for a living.
astepanovich: So...how do we get the last 2,800 - any ideas, farkers?
HeartBurnKid: astepanovich: So...how do we get the last 2,800 - any ideas, farkers?Somebody mentioned Reddit before. They're good at this kind of thing.
cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not applyDriving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.
Arctic Phoenix: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not applyDriving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.I think the key is that when you drive, you own the vehicle. If it's public transit, then (to the best of my knowledge), you *can* be searched at any time without a warrant.That's the way it works on ferries, too (never had my car searched, but I've seen others be searched before)./Yes, I'm late//Wanted to sign the petition, but was too late.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 25 2017 16:53:15
Runtime: 0.341 sec (340 ms)