Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Spiffy, TSA, White House, rulemaking process, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

8538 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2012 at 1:52 PM (3 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
 
2012-08-08 11:54:18 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-08 11:54:42 AM  
What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.
 
2012-08-08 11:57:09 AM  
Signing this and passing it along.

/haven't flown in years
//will continue not flying as long as the TSA exists
 
2012-08-08 11:57:26 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-08 12:06:50 PM  
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......
 
2012-08-08 12:06:54 PM  
I wouldn't mind reviewing some of those full body scans.
 
2012-08-08 12:06:54 PM  
Signed and facebooked.
 
2012-08-08 12:07:29 PM  

wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply


Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.
 
2012-08-08 12:09:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.


This. And the people who have been staging naked protests lately have had their right to do so upheld by judges citing the 4th amendment.
 
2012-08-08 12:10:53 PM  

peterquince: They cause cancer


Flying "causes" cancer. The risk is small in comparison.
 
2012-08-08 12:12:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.


Implied consent
 
2012-08-08 12:13:00 PM  
A whitehouse.gov account is required to sign Petitions.
 
2012-08-08 12:13:59 PM  

wineskigolf: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

Implied consent


That doesn't apply to search and seizure. Oh my god, you let a cop search your car every time you get stopped, don't you? You know you don't have to do that, right?
 
2012-08-08 12:14:34 PM  

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


All you need is an email address; it doesn't ask for any other info afaik.
 
2012-08-08 12:18:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

Implied consent

That doesn't apply to search and seizure. Oh my god, you let a cop search your car every time you get stopped, don't you? You know you don't have to do that, right?


cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

Implied consent

That doesn't apply to search and seizure. Oh my god, you let a cop search your car every time you get stopped, don't you? You know you don't have to do that, right?


It does. A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine. If you refuse you lose your license. If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.

To answer your question/statement. No, not unless they have a warrant.
 
2012-08-08 12:40:13 PM  
While some of your premises are highly questionable, Submitter, I can't argue that these rape-scan things are nothing more than an expensive set-piece in security theater.

Signed, and passing it on.
 
2012-08-08 12:40:51 PM  

wineskigolf: It does. A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine. If you refuse you lose your license. If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.

To answer your question/statement. No, not unless they have a warrant.


Wow. That is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance there.
 
2012-08-08 12:43:48 PM  

wineskigolf: A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine


You might want to check up on that. In Texas they have "no refusal" weekends (usually holidays and the like) where if you refuse to be tested a judge will sign a search warrant and then you WILL be tested. Now if you do refuse and are not subject to a warrant, you can lose your license for a period of time but you cannot be prosecuted for DWI due to lack of evidence.
 
2012-08-08 12:45:50 PM  
I like refusing and making them go through the process of frisking me.
 
2012-08-08 12:46:11 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: wineskigolf: A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine

You might want to check up on that. In Texas they have "no refusal" weekends (usually holidays and the like) where if you refuse to be tested a judge will sign a search warrant and then you WILL be tested. Now if you do refuse and are not subject to a warrant, you can lose your license for a period of time but you cannot be prosecuted for DWI due to lack of evidence.


Yeah, I think it depends on the state. In NY, if you refuse you're automatically arrested. It's a stupid law and likely unconstitutional, but nobody will ever repeal it because of MADD.
 
2012-08-08 01:14:00 PM  
wineskigolf is the reason we can't have nice things in this country.
 
2012-08-08 01:21:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: It does. A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine. If you refuse you lose your license. If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.

To answer your question/statement. No, not unless they have a warrant.

Wow. That is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance there.


Not at all.

When you get your license you sign an "implied Consent" agreement allowing them to test you (most states).

There is no implied consent in regard to a car search..

You have a choice to fly. Choosing to fly and enter an airport is implied consent to search. ""implied consent," which means that you cannot refuse to be searched; your consent is implied when you purchased your ticket."
 
2012-08-08 01:24:09 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: wineskigolf is the reason we can't have nice things in this country.

 
2012-08-08 01:24:47 PM  

wineskigolf: You have a choice to fly.


I dare you to say that to the face of someone who travels for a living.
 
2012-08-08 01:26:09 PM  

Aarontology: I like refusing and making them go through the process of frisking me.


This. And I usually have a couple farts stacked up for the occasion.
 
2012-08-08 01:31:30 PM  

wineskigolf: Since flying is optional


i.imgur.com

That settles it. You can't be Val Kilmer's wingman anymore.
 
2012-08-08 01:36:59 PM  

wineskigolf: If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.


i.imgur.com

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.
 
2012-08-08 01:56:19 PM  

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.


I travel for a living, so does my wife.
 
2012-08-08 01:56:38 PM  
Meh. Last time I heard, Obama isn't concerned with privacy.

Except his own.
 
2012-08-08 01:57:06 PM  
Just out of curiosity (because I dont fly anymore). Do other countries force people to submit to this? I dont fly because I am scared shiatless of it, but if I did I think this would really piss me off.
 
2012-08-08 01:57:19 PM  

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk.


This is exactly why I don't use the machines.
 
2012-08-08 01:59:23 PM  
So we want pat downs instead?

I think someone didn't think their cunning plan through.
 
2012-08-08 01:59:53 PM  

wineskigolf: A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine.


This is entirely false. Cops have to have a reason (swerving, you smell of alcohol, you appear disoriented, etc.) to pull you over and demand you submit to the testing, they can't just stop you for no reason and make you piss in a cup or stab you with a needle.
 
2012-08-08 02:00:15 PM  

Sapper_Topo: Just out of curiosity (because I dont fly anymore). Do other countries force people to submit to this? I dont fly because I am scared shiatless of it, but if I did I think this would really piss me off.


If you're flying into the US, they body scan you. It's happened to me twice flying back home from Canada.
 
2012-08-08 02:00:21 PM  

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..


It is "forced consent" by a government agency therefore your 4th amendment protections could be violated. Now, I am not sure, but I would hazard a guess that there is reams of case law stating that the TSA security guidelines are not unreasonable.
 
2012-08-08 02:00:24 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Signing this and passing it along.

/haven't flown in years
//will continue not flying as long as the TSA exists


Well you can go through the about 6 airports that don't have TSA but you still have to follow the same exact procedures. So I don't understand what you think one has to do with the other.
 
2012-08-08 02:00:52 PM  

peterquince: And they let the government see your wiener.


I tuck it back when I go through. It makes me laugh.
 
2012-08-08 02:01:55 PM  

Sapper_Topo: Just out of curiosity (because I dont fly anymore). Do other countries force people to submit to this? I dont fly because I am scared shiatless of it, but if I did I think this would really piss me off.


Yup, I've been through many of them when flying around Canada. So far I've gotten my rapescan passport stamped at Halifax, Toronto, and Vancouver.
 
2012-08-08 02:02:28 PM  
Wait, subby thinks that petitions have the ability to apply legitimate force onto bureaucrats?

This is why we can't have nice things!
 
2012-08-08 02:03:13 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Meh. Last time I heard, Obama isn't concerned with privacy.

Except his own.



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
 
2012-08-08 02:03:50 PM  

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......


If I wanted to hijack a plane, I could do it naked. The only "deterrent" is to people who believe that somehow 9/11 would not have happened if only the hijackers had not had their little knives. Just so you and your wife feel better, it wasn't the boxcutters that allowed 9/11 to happen, it was the regulations then in place which required pilots and flight crews to obey hijackers' demands and not fight back. Those policies have now changed. But if someone wanted to get a bomb onto a plane, which seems to be your fear, they would simply find another way. I can think of several offhand, but I don't post suggestions like that on line. But it is entirely possible.
 
2012-08-08 02:03:51 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.

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.


I've already signed this. I'd sign again, but I don't feel like creating a fake identity. I hope it gets the signatures we need though!
 
2012-08-08 02:04:16 PM  
I don't give a rats ass about the modesty issue or radiation fears, but I am pissed as hell that the damn things are _slow_ compared to a good old metal detector. Both in the time for the scan and the added time from having to empty pockets of absolutely everything, not just metal. I'll sign if only in hopes of getting back to slightly less cumbersome security theater.
 
2012-08-08 02:04:31 PM  

Sapper_Topo: Just out of curiosity (because I dont fly anymore). Do other countries force people to submit to this? I dont fly because I am scared shiatless of it, but if I did I think this would really piss me off.


They are relatively rare and the countries that have them started using them within the last five to ten years. Some countries that use them are compulsory, some are not. They're fairly expensive which is probably why only a few developed countries use them at all.

AFAIK, they're not compulsory in the U.S., but if you refuse you have to get fingered and felt up instead. So pick your poison. You can get your balls fingered by some kid who answered an ad on the inside of a pizza box or you can walk through a machine that shoots you with radiation and has little study surrounding its health effects.

Or you can drive, I guess...
 
2012-08-08 02:04:46 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Now, I am not sure, but I would hazard a guess that there is reams of case law stating that the TSA security guidelines are not unreasonable.


I doubt it, since they haven't been around very long. Probably reams upon reams of case law that could be considered applicable, but I haven't heard of too much directly regarding the TSA.
 
2012-08-08 02:05:23 PM  

wineskigolf: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

Implied consent


Implied consent still requires probable cause. Atleast here in Virginia, you are already under arrest before implied consent is an issue.
 
2012-08-08 02:05:29 PM  

FTGodWin: Wait, subby thinks that petitions have the ability to apply legitimate force onto bureaucrats?

This is why we can't have nice things!



legitimate .....
rjw57.github.com
 
2012-08-08 02:07:30 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-08 02:08:15 PM  

Aarontology: I like refusing and making them go through the process of frisking me.


Up to about seven patdowns myself. If they wanna make me uncomfortable, it's going to be mutual.
 
2012-08-08 02:08:55 PM  

wineskigolf: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: It does. A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine. If you refuse you lose your license. If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.

To answer your question/statement. No, not unless they have a warrant.

Wow. That is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance there.

Not at all.

When you get your license you sign an "implied Consent" agreement allowing them to test you (most states).

There is no implied consent in regard to a car search..

You have a choice to fly. Choosing to fly and enter an airport is implied consent to search. ""implied consent," which means that you cannot refuse to be searched; your consent is implied when you purchased your ticket."


How about no? Blood and DNA are covered under unreasonable search and seizure and they must either have a warrant authorizing them to TAKE these things, or you must give them willingly.

Because religious nuts, and it being a major violation of personal privacy etc. driving does not void this magically.

I believe they can breathe test you just fine though, for no reason other than 'suspicious behavior'.

Good luck on the petition. I don't believe it's possible to change TSA since so many powerful and rich people make so much money from it, like most other things in this country.
 
2012-08-08 02:09:35 PM  
Oh joy! I have to pass through O'Hare next week.
 
2012-08-08 02:09:43 PM  

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.


Flight crew (not sure about airport personnel) are exempt from searches. I see them go through the checkpoints without going through the medical detector or having their bag scanned almost every time I go to the airport.

Last time I went through, they only scanned every other person (including myself, but I opted for the pat down). That doesn't make any sense to me. If we're not scanning everyone, it's not a very effective system. Some of the checkpoints didn't even have the scanner, which means probably only 1 out of 50 people entering the airport got scanned. Sounds like good odds /sarcasm.

Not only are you being irradiated, but it's also a waste of time and money while not keeping anyone safe.
 
2012-08-08 02:10:34 PM  
This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.
 
2012-08-08 02:10:58 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-08 02:12:12 PM  

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.


Why not? Far too easy to abuse without some form of user verification.
 
2012-08-08 02:13:27 PM  
Signed it.
 
2012-08-08 02:14:00 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.

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.


So don't fly. Take a f*cking bus.

Some people have too much time on their hands.
 
2012-08-08 02:14:37 PM  

wineskigolf: What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.


What about the court order directing the TSA to provide information to the public & the TSA doing nothing?

You okay with a government agency ignoring a federal court order?
 
2012-08-08 02:14:56 PM  

Aarontology: I like refusing and making them go through the process of frisking me.


Yeah, same here. I've got enough radiation exposure as it is.

Yes, I realize I'm flying on a plane and getting exposure there too. If I do these days it's for work or going somewhere where other travel isn't really practical. And I don't need more. Not to mention the pat down, to me, is actually *less* of an invasion of privacy.
 
2012-08-08 02:15:22 PM  

indarwinsshadow: 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.

So don't fly. Take a f*cking bus.

Some people have too much time on their hands.


It's not about the scanners. It's about getting a federal agency to comply with a court order. Why would you be opposed to that?
 
2012-08-08 02:15:32 PM  
signed
 
2012-08-08 02:15:36 PM  

Surpheon: I don't give a rats ass about the modesty issue or radiation fears, but I am pissed as hell that the damn things are _slow_ compared to a good old metal detector. Both in the time for the scan and the added time from having to empty pockets of absolutely everything, not just metal. I'll sign if only in hopes of getting back to slightly less cumbersome security theater.


Slow? It's about 15 sec tops usually there is a back log at the metal dectectors anyway as the people looking at the x-ray machine get their jollies at looking at girls naughty toys in their carry on bags, so the time it takes is about the same.
 
2012-08-08 02:16:36 PM  
Unless this is for more powerful scanners that can see clearer... no thanks...
 
2012-08-08 02:17:14 PM  

wineskigolf: What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.


A complex combinations of economics and politics (through propagandizing).

Economically, the cost of these things is a straight loss. Destruction is not profit: since the scanners do nothing useful, society is left bereft of the monetary value of one scanner for each one owned and operated. It's the same as if you randomly went and burned down somebody's house every week: you can argue that you've done a great service making work for contractors and construction workers and inspectors and the like, but the insurance companies lose money and then go and raise everyone's insurance rates to compensate for the distributed risk of a total loss pay-out on homeowner's insurance (i.e. if you've got a 1/1000 chance each week of having your house burned down and your house costs $250,000, then you pay $250/wk more in insurance to cover the risk OR the insurance company soon goes bankrupt).

Basically the people selling the scanners are leeches on society, like muggers and Nigerian scammers, just taking peoples' money and offering nothing in return.

As for politics, it's easy to get people to let you put in all kinds of crazy tyrannical 1984 conspiracy theorist loony stuff if they're afraid of being killed. Cameras and microphones along the streets and sidewalks, increased police power, etc. Where I live, we're encouraged to spy on our neighbors: if you see someone acting "suspiciously" you should call the police, and they claim someone is "suspicious" if they look nervous, or inappropriately happy, or appear to be talking to themselves... the propaganda here even goes so far as to imply that if somebody seems to be under stress and is furiously texting on their cell phone, they may be part of a terrorist plot to blow up the train, and calling the police immediately "could save your life".

Posters and pictures of bloody boxes here help give us an image of fear. Yes, they show a picture of a cardboard box that has blood soaked into one corner and is leaking red fluid, and say "SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE" (severed head in a box?). Routinely searching people is a good way to remind folks that the government is "protecting" you. Bringing in multi-million-dollar expensive high-tech machines that use gamma, phi-boson, and tachyon scans to do a full-depth physical scan and detect bombs and guns and knives shows people that the threat is more serious than a simple pat-down or looking for a suspicious character. The little old lady next to you could have a nuclear weapon in her purse.

With all this fear, we're encouraged to let the government do anything they want to "ensure our safety." People still make excuses for FDR throwing every Japanese and German person--even natural born American citizens of a generation or two from Japanese descent--into concentration camps "to protect us", but I think the trade-off was too high. We're not here because we're free; we're here because the government has decided to let our leashes out far enough for us to trot around and stretch our legs. They want to remind us that the leashes are there so they can catch us if we go wandering off a cliff? I'd rather take my chances with the cliff.

Costs aren't just in terms of money, I guess.
 
2012-08-08 02:17:51 PM  

Boxingoutsider: This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.


All the huge pussies who are scared of terrorists can drive, walk, swim, whatever.
 
2012-08-08 02:19:13 PM  
Signed. 4437 to go. Let's get this done.
 
2012-08-08 02:19:56 PM  
Don't they already review the full body images? know what I mean say no more?
 
2012-08-08 02:20:17 PM  

Boxingoutsider: This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.


Dumbfarks like you are the reason the 4th amendment is dying. Because you let them take it away. Terrorists don't give a shiat about laws. Governments are the biggest terrorists there are, and always have been. By your logic virtually every daily activity is voluntary. They can take it away too and they are working damn hard to be able to do so.
 
2012-08-08 02:20:32 PM  

indarwinsshadow: 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.

So don't fly. Take a f*cking bus.


Except the TSA is working on getting in the bus/train/subway business. Sounds awesome.
 
2012-08-08 02:20:40 PM  
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)
 
2012-08-08 02:20:53 PM  

wineskigolf: Implied consent



If you don't know the answer then just admit it. Pulling your answer at of your ass (or worse off of what they post in the airport) isn't acceptable. Your answer is a dramatic oversimplification that fails to respond to the previous post since it doesn't provide a distinguishing characteristic. One could simply respond that driving on roads is "implied consent" to a search of your vehicle which would be an error since it contravenes Supreme Court precedent. The correct answer is that it is an special needs search which balances the need to conduct the search versus the intrusiveness of the search. This is an exception to the warrant requirement for searches as well as the need to show individualized suspicion.
 
2012-08-08 02:21:22 PM  

indarwinsshadow: 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.

So don't fly. Take a f*cking bus.

Some people have too much time on their hands.


I recognize your concerns, but I also believe in political engagement. Even if it doesn't work, at least for a minute we weren't apathetic. And if that helps even a half of an iota, it's maybe worth it.

BTW - the petition's gotten almost 200 "signatures" since this went green. Thanks everybody!
 
2012-08-08 02:21:33 PM  
Since when do petitions have time limits?

Related:
My name is Billy Evans. I AM A very sick little boy.
My mother is typing this for me, because I can't. She Is crying. The reason she is so sad is because I'm so Sick. I was Born without A body. It doesn't hurt, Except when I try to breathe.

The doctors gave me an artificial body. It is A burlap Bag filled with leaves. The doctors said that was the Best they could do ON account of us having No money OR Insurance.

I would like to have A body transplant, but we need More money. Mommy doesn't work because she said nobody Hires crying people. I said, " Don't cry, Mommy and " and She hugged my burlap bag. Mommy always gives me hugs, Even though she's allergic to burlap and it makes her Sneeze and chafes her real bad.

I hope you will help me. You can help me if you Forward this email to everyone you know. Forward it to People you don't know, the too. Dr. Johansen said that for Every person you forward this email to, Bill Gates Will team up with AOL and send A nickel to NASA. With That funding, NASA will collect prayers from school Children all over America and have the astronauts take Them up into space so that the angels can hear them Better.

Then they will come back to earth and go to the Pope, And he will take up A collection IN church and send All the money to the doctors. The doctors could help Me get better then. Maybe one day I will be able to Play baseball. Right now I can only be third base.

Every time you forward this letter, the astronauts can Take more prayers to the angels and my dream will be Closer to coming true. Please help me. Mommy is so Sad and and I want A body. I don't want my leaves to rot Before I turn 10

If you don't forward this email, that's okay. Mommy Says you're A mean and heartless bastard who doesn't Care about A poor little boy with only A head. She Says that if you don't stew IN the raw pit of your own Guilt-ridden stomach, she hopes you die A long slow, Horrible death and then burn forever IN hell.

What kind of cruel person are you that you can't take Five freakin' minutes to forward this to all your Friends so that they can feel guilt and shame about Ignoring A poor, bodiless nine-year-old boy? Please Help me.

I try to be happy, but it's hard. I wish I had A Kitty. I wish I could hold A kitty. I wish I could Hold A kitty that wouldn't chew ON me and try to bury Its turds IN the leaves of my burlap body. I wish that Very much.

Thank You,

Billy " Smiles " Evans
 
2012-08-08 02:23:16 PM  
 
2012-08-08 02:23:53 PM  
Signed.
 
2012-08-08 02:24:38 PM  

JackieRabbit: The Office of the President of the United States cannot be compelled to action by a citizen petition.


Who said anything about compulsion?
 
2012-08-08 02:24:44 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-08 02:24:45 PM  

Boxingoutsider: 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activi


So is going outside your house.
 
2012-08-08 02:25:37 PM  
Already signed it....
 
2012-08-08 02:26:51 PM  

aseras: Boxingoutsider: This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.

Dumbfarks like you are the reason the 4th amendment is dying. Because you let them take it away. Terrorists don't give a shiat about laws. Governments are the biggest terrorists there are, and always have been. By your logic virtually every daily activity is voluntary. They can take it away too and they are working damn hard to be able to do so.


OMFG just pick one instead of biatching about everything chicken little:

1) Scanners
2) Intrusive pat downs that slow down lines and drive costs up
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)

Don't be such a goddamn baby, demanding a magic bullet when none exists.
 
2012-08-08 02:27:47 PM  
Ok, I still haven't read the entire thread, but maybe I need a refresher. I've read the article, I've read the Boobies.

What exactly are we protesting here?


I don't mind a review of bidding process, I know something about that...

But this:

we petition the obama administration to:
Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!

In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines. If the government is going to "body-scan" Americans at U.S. airports, President Obama should force the TSA to begin the public process the court ordered.


You may want to refine your message a bit. Here's what you're petitioning:

"TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines."

Name specifics. I see no references to where TSA promised anything, I see no reference to the court case, I see no reference to anything but what you're telling us with bad grammar. You're just the guy on the bus going "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" and you're much less likely to cause armageddon at the moment..
 
2012-08-08 02:27:53 PM  
I don't know where I sit on this issue. I don't have a huge problem with these scanners but I figure this petition may get us on the way of better studies, particularly with the cancer element.
 
2012-08-08 02:27:59 PM  
God forbid some TSA employee will see your tinny dick below your overweight diabetic physique.
 
2012-08-08 02:28:06 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 02:28:30 PM  
yeah! totalfarkers will get things changed!

*yawn
 
2012-08-08 02:28:46 PM  

redmond24: I don't know where I sit on this issue. I don't have a huge problem with these scanners but I figure this petition may get us on the way of better studies, particularly with the cancer element.


People who don't have problems with the scanners should still have problems with federal agencies ignoring court orders.
 
2012-08-08 02:29:10 PM  

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.


Yup, he sure can. This is just a way of saying that this is something important that 25,000 people think he should prioritize.
 
2012-08-08 02:29:40 PM  
Do you seriously think anyone in government doesn't know how disgusted and angry people are by the TSA?

They're not going to do a thing about this even if you get 10x that amount by tomorrow. The TSA has been in violation of at least one court order for months now.

The first step would be to require every single solitary member of congress to pass through the TSA pat downs 100% of the time when they fly. If they're going to impose this on us then it's only fitting they get to experience it for themselves. That's never going to happen so...

The second step is to get even 1/50th of the OWS and Tea Party movements to start raising complete non-violent hell anytime the TSA gets near them. The line hold ups and disruption of general airport operation would create massive backlash. I figure about a week of having TSA supervisors and other officials having to walk all over airports should do the trick.
 
2012-08-08 02:30:06 PM  

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



Exposing yourself to radiation sources (especially X-Rays) is a cancer risk. The question is one of degrees, how much your risk increases depends on how much radiation you were exposed to. In the case of the TSA, the Rapiscan systems need to be regularly calibrated, otherwise the dosage levels can reach or exceed those used for chest X-Rays (which should not only be limited per annum but when performed take place behind shielding). Given the poor pay and training of TSA agents who (are no where near the level of quality, expertise, or pay of medical technicians who normally operated such machines), most recently, didn't realize the scanner was turned off the risk is extremely real.
 
2012-08-08 02:30:25 PM  

wineskigolf: 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.

I travel for a living, so does my wife.


Okay, so say it to somebody that isn't yourself or your wife. I guarantee that not everybody who does is so willing and happy to take such poor treatment.
 
2012-08-08 02:30:47 PM  
I've signed one of these in the past that did get the required amount of signatures, and the White House did issue an official response. Want to know how they responded? "We can't comment on this issue at this time."

/waste of time
 
2012-08-08 02:31:53 PM  
Done.

/F the TSA.
 
2012-08-08 02:33:25 PM  

peterquince: Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer


[Citation needed]

and they probably violate the 4th amendment

This is clearly not true.

AND they have cost us $2.4 billion

I don't like this either.

they have never even once uncovered a bomb.

Is that because they don't work, or because people don't wear bombs and get scanned? Have they uncovered guns? Knives? A bomb isn't the only thing to worry about on a plane--the 9/11 folks didn't have a single bomb, either.

This is pure pork money.

At that level, almost all money is.
 
2012-08-08 02:33:38 PM  

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


The fact that there hasn't been a study doesn't mean that they're okay to aim at my junk.

Also, petition signed. Follow the court order, a-holes!
 
2012-08-08 02:34:08 PM  

spiderpaz: Don't be such a goddamn baby, demanding a magic bullet when none exists.


Same to you.
 
2012-08-08 02:34:59 PM  
Signed. I effing hate what the TSA has done since 9/11. Pure security theater.
 
2012-08-08 02:35:26 PM  

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.


I've had an account there for over a year now, and unlike a lot of other petition sites this one actually leaves you the fark alone after you sign.
 
2012-08-08 02:35:51 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: wineskigolf is the reason we can't have nice things in this country.


on several levels...
 
2012-08-08 02:36:09 PM  
I fly all the time for work, there is absolutely no reasonable alternative for me (and many, many others), and the scanners don't bother me in the slightest. They seem to speed things up a bit in the airports where they're used.

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.
 
2012-08-08 02:36:33 PM  

fred_chan: I've signed one of these in the past that did get the required amount of signatures, and the White House did issue an official response. Want to know how they responded? "We can't comment on this issue at this time."

/waste of time


Oh no, you didn't get an immediate response. Better give up forever.
 
2012-08-08 02:37:14 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?


No and no.
 
2012-08-08 02:39:02 PM  
I signed, but I have a feeling the white house is going to default to these terms on the participation page:

To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.
 
2012-08-08 02:41:22 PM  
And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.
 
2012-08-08 02:41:34 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?

No and no.


Then they are operating as a deterrent. Convenient that you ignored everything else, though.
 
2012-08-08 02:41:35 PM  
Update: 2000 people added to No Fly List.
 
2012-08-08 02:41:42 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 02:42:28 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh no, you didn't get an immediate response. Better give up forever.


What's that definition of insanity again? Something about doing something over and over again...?
 
2012-08-08 02:43:04 PM  

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)


This.

Specifically, the D.C. Circuit ordered the TSA to explain themselves by August 30, last Wednesday. So, your petition is a bit premature.
 
2012-08-08 02:43:12 PM  

maxheck: And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.


"The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months" is an insufficient indicator of "what is going wrong"?
 
2012-08-08 02:43:28 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: peterquince: Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer

[Citation needed]

[citation]

and they probably violate the 4th amendment

This is clearly not true.
That's an ongoing legal debate. Here's a google: google

AND they have cost us $2.4 billion

I don't like this either.

[citation]

they have never even once uncovered a bomb.

Is that because they don't work, or because people don't wear bombs and get scanned? Have they uncovered guns? Knives? A bomb isn't the only thing to worry about on a plane--the 9/11 folks didn't have a single bomb, either.

Guns, knives, and box-cutters would all be caught by metal detectors.

This is pure pork money.

At that level, almost all money is.

It seems to be a giant amount of money being paid for unnecessary and carcinogenic machines, in a situation where former administration officials are getting paid a lot of money to convince their friends to buy them. I call that pork.
 
2012-08-08 02:43:54 PM  

fred_chan: The My Little Pony Killer: Oh no, you didn't get an immediate response. Better give up forever.

What's that definition of insanity again? Something about doing something over and over again...?


You agree that if you don't get an immediate response, you should give up forever?
 
2012-08-08 02:44:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?

No and no.


But shockingly enough, people have gotten through security with guns and knives without them being picked up by the scanners...
 
2012-08-08 02:45:14 PM  

qorkfiend: JackieRabbit: The Office of the President of the United States cannot be compelled to action by a citizen petition.

Who said anything about compulsion?


The petition is to the Obama administration, which means that the president may never even know about it. Some aid (or the TSA even) can just round file it. Even is he does see it, he can simply look at it and say "so what?" and get on with his day. He isn't require to take any action on it or even to acknowledge it. That is what I meant by he cannot be compelled. For such a citizen campaign to successful, it would require a lot more than some 20K-odd signatures. A media blitz to raise awareness and put political pressure on the president would also be needed. but you just never know what President Obama is going to decide to pay attention to in an election year. However, given that the TSA works for him and they are not complying with a year-old court order, he isn't in the best position to draw too much attention to this himself. He knows Mitt Romney would be all over him, if he did so.
 
2012-08-08 02:45:52 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?

No and no.


Hey, give credit where credit is due. When bombs are prominently displayed, attached with many wires, painted bright red and have "BOMB" written on them, the TSA finds nearly half.
 
2012-08-08 02:45:59 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Is that because they don't work, or because people don't wear bombs and get scanned? Have they uncovered guns? Knives? A bomb isn't the only thing to worry about on a plane--the 9/11 folks didn't have a single bomb, either.


You know what else detected guns and knives? Metal detectors. Which were used in every airport before 9/11 and they didn't irradiate every passenger.

The 9/11 perpetrators got on planes at airports where security was the worst. That is, human error, not failing machines, allowed 9/11 to happen.

Additionally, if a bunch of people with box cutters get up and try to take over an airplane in today's environment:
1) They have a high degree of probability of being shot by a Sky Marshall.
2) There's no way they're getting through the secured cabin with box cutters.
3) The other passengers are going to punk them out before anything really bad will happen.
 
2012-08-08 02:46:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 02:48:58 PM  

JackieRabbit: The petition is to the Obama administration, which means that the president may never even know about it. Some aid (or the TSA even) can just round file it. Even is he does see it, he can simply look at it and say "so what?" and get on with his day. He isn't require to take any action on it or even to acknowledge it. That is what I meant by he cannot be compelled.


I didn't ask you what you meant by "cannot be compelled". I asked, "Who said anything about compulsion?"

Has anyone indicated that the President would be required to act on this petition? I'll give you a hint: no, they have not.
 
2012-08-08 02:49:00 PM  
Is this another hoax like the last story that involved a farker?
 
2012-08-08 02:49:24 PM  

spiderpaz: aseras: Boxingoutsider: This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.

Dumbfarks like you are the reason the 4th amendment is dying. Because you let them take it away. Terrorists don't give a shiat about laws. Governments are the biggest terrorists there are, and always have been. By your logic virtually every daily activity is voluntary. They can take it away too and they are working damn hard to be able to do so.

OMFG just pick one instead of biatching about everything chicken little:

1) Scanners
2) Intrusive pat downs that slow down lines and drive costs up
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)

Don't be such a goddamn baby, demanding a magic bullet when none exists.


The regular metal detectors were not a problem. We don't HAVE to have backscatter x-ray hi-tek OO WOW scanners. And the old x-ray machines to check your luggage also worked fine.

What slows things down at the current TSA Security Theater is: having to take off your shoes, belt, jacket, put your laptop in a separate container and out of its case, put them all on the belt, walk through the detector and then...pick up your shoes, belt jacket, laptop and carryon, grab them and get out of the way of the next person trying to get through the detector, put on your shoes, belt, jacket, stuff the computer back in its case, and hope you can still make your flight. THAT is what makes this process so onerous and ridiculous.

The backscatter scanners are only in place because somebody thought up a way someone MIGHT be able to get a weapon onto a plane and then sold the government on the idea that this was the way to stop something that has never happened. And because everyone is so scared of teh terrists, they went for it. What happened instead is that IF anyone was planning to blow up a plane by hiding a grenade in his rectum, which nobody ever has, they had to think of a new way. All this security theater nonsense has done is dream up new ways someone "MIGHT" hijack a plane and then react as if it had been done. If someone ever comes up with the idea to hijack a plane by smuggling live snakes onboard inside those spring-snake practical joke containers--we'll next see a ban on any peanuts in containers larger than 2 oz., and a ban on snake-patterned clothing in case someone sees it and panics.
 
2012-08-08 02:49:41 PM  

Dog Welder: petition signed.


This.

Dog Welder: Follow the court order, a-holes!


And this.
 
2012-08-08 02:50:02 PM  
qorkfiend:

maxheck: And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.

"The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months" is an insufficient indicator of "what is going wrong"?


Which one. Citation?

I'm not even unsympathetic, but if you can't do your own homework before crafting a petition, don't expect 10,000 people to do it for you before they sign said online petition. You should be the adult in the room. It's your petition.

Do you in fact know the circumstances where ""The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months?"

I don't. I am willing to look it up further, but...
 
2012-08-08 02:50:25 PM  

spiderpaz: OMFG just pick one instead of biatching about everything chicken little:

1) Scanners
2) Intrusive pat downs that slow down lines and drive costs up
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)

Don't be such a goddamn baby, demanding a magic bullet when none exists.



Pretty sure you've forgotten a bunch of other options. I'll add one:
4. Metal detectors and x-ray of bags as is standard in most countries and was standard in ours until all of this BS started.

And yes 9/11 was terrible but as many many people have pointed out, it was a failure of the rules: comply with hijackers, box cutters being allowed on planes (which scanners or metal detectors have NOTHING to do with) that caused the problem not.

As always, if the terrorists really wanted to screw our country up they would take the same amount of people used in 9/11, spread them out in the country and then once a month shoot up a mall, theater, school, whatever. Why do we think the airport is some magic place and only there they will strike?

/Eroding civil rights in the name of safety is more dangerous than any terrorist
 
2012-08-08 02:50:54 PM  
Why would you sign this, you know some jackass is going to use it as an excuse to put you on a no fly list.
 
2012-08-08 02:51:12 PM  

wineskigolf: What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.


They're absolutely not maintained or regulated, and NOBODY at the airport can tell you what type of radiation you're getting, how it works, or when it was last checked/calibrated.

Next time you're at the airport, ask the TSA if the machine you're about to walk through is a backscatter X-ray or a millimeter wave scanner, and then watch the dumb look you get. Yes, backscatters only cause 4 more cancers per million people if they fly everyday, but that's IF they're properly regulated and calibrated, which they're NOT. Again, ask the TSA the last time they were calibrated or checked, and watch the dumbfounded look.

That's why I avoid them and take the pat down. There's just too many unknowns surrounding their usage.
 
2012-08-08 02:51:23 PM  
What's with all the TSA sympathizers on FARK all of a sudden? It's like there's a vast conspiracy at work.

Signed. It's pretty obvious to me that these scanners do little to improve security or dissuade prospective wrongdoers from doing harm. They're obvious pork-barrel spending at its worst.
 
2012-08-08 02:52:00 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: The My Little Pony Killer: arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?

No and no.

Then they are operating as a deterrent. Convenient that you ignored everything else, though.


If you believe that then I have a rock that keeps aliens away to sell you.
 
2012-08-08 02:52:53 PM  

netweavr: Why would you sign this, you know some jackass is going to use it as an excuse to put you on a no fly list.


Good.

Work just told me I have to be on a plane next week, and I will miss my oldest son's 8th birthday because of it.

If I'm on a no-fly list, it means I won't have to go.

And if writing my rep and senators about this when it first happened didn't get me on a list, signing this petition won't either.
 
2012-08-08 02:53:08 PM  

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.


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.


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.

 
2012-08-08 02:53:32 PM  
As of my signature, there were exactly 4200 left to go.
 
2012-08-08 02:54:15 PM  
Boy you people are farking stupid. You could get 25 million signatures and still nothing would happen. The crooks who made the rapiscanners have paid off the necessary politicians and bureaucrats and money speaks so much louder than stupid little petitions that no one of any importance will farking see it. America is not a democracy or a republic, it is an oligarchy. So unless you have enough money to buy off the right politicians and their flunkies you need to just shut the fark up, eat your shiat sammich, and carry on like a good mindless citizen.
If you want proof just look at what happened to the petition to investigate the RIAA for bribing congressmen.

/MmmmMMMmmm....fresh shiat sammiches for everybody!!!
 
2012-08-08 02:54:49 PM  

maxheck: qorkfiend:

maxheck: And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.

"The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months" is an insufficient indicator of "what is going wrong"?

Which one. Citation?

I'm not even unsympathetic, but if you can't do your own homework before crafting a petition, don't expect 10,000 people to do it for you before they sign said online petition. You should be the adult in the room. It's your petition.

Do you in fact know the circumstances where ""The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months?"

I don't. I am willing to look it up further, but...


It says it exactly where you'd expect - on the farking petition page. It's hilarious to see someone complaining about not doing your homework when crafting a petition, when you haven't bothered to read the petition you're criticizing.

"In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines."

I'm wrong about the 18 months, it's actually 13. Doesn't change anything.
 
2012-08-08 02:54:51 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

This. And the people who have been staging naked protests lately have had their right to do so upheld by judges citing the 4th amendment.


the car is your property. that's why the 4th amendment applies. reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, there is an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement when an officer has cause.

the airport is not your property and provides no reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, you have consented to the search by entering the secure area. it's not a matter of 4th amendment applying, it's a matter of satisfying the protections afforded.

oh well... not a big issue to me... unless it actually causes cancer. then i might sign
 
2012-08-08 02:56:03 PM  

pute kisses like a man: The My Little Pony Killer: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

This. And the people who have been staging naked protests lately have had their right to do so upheld by judges citing the 4th amendment.

the car is your property. that's why the 4th amendment applies. reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, there is an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement when an officer has cause.

the airport is not your property and provides no reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, you have consented to the search by entering the secure area. it's not a matter of 4th amendment applying, it's a matter of satisfying the protections afforded.

oh well... not a big issue to me... unless it actually causes cancer. then i might sign


The petition is not about the scanners or their effects. It is about getting federal agencies to comply with court orders.
 
2012-08-08 02:56:12 PM  
I'd sign it, but I don't trust my email address with whitehouse.gov. Besides, if it's a FEDERAL court order, why can't they just hold the damn TSA in contempt?
 
2012-08-08 02:56:30 PM  

qorkfiend: JackieRabbit: The petition is to the Obama administration, which means that the president may never even know about it. Some aid (or the TSA even) can just round file it. Even is he does see it, he can simply look at it and say "so what?" and get on with his day. He isn't require to take any action on it or even to acknowledge it. That is what I meant by he cannot be compelled.

I didn't ask you what you meant by "cannot be compelled". I asked, "Who said anything about compulsion?"

Has anyone indicated that the President would be required to act on this petition? I'll give you a hint: no, they have not.


Sigh... I used the verb, he used noun form of the verb. Again to the dictionary:

compel |kəmˈpel|
verb ( compels, compelling , compelled ) [ with obj. ]
force or oblige (someone) to do something: [ with obj. and infinitive ] : a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions.
• bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure: they may compel a witness's attendance at court by issue of a summons.
• literary drive forcibly: by heav'n's high will compell'd from shore to shore.
ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin compellere, from com- 'together' + pellere 'drive.'

compulsion |kəmˈpəlSHən|
noun
1 the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint: the payment was made under compulsion .
2 an irresistible urge to behave in a certain way, esp. against one's conscious wishes: he felt a compulsion to babble on about what had happened.
ORIGIN late Middle English: via Old French from late Latin compulsio(n-), from compellere 'to drive, force' (see compel) .
 
2012-08-08 02:56:39 PM  

qorkfiend: darwin


Simple. I'm not crazy about some nut who wants to see Allah, Buddha, Brahma, God, Jesus, the Jetsons or whoever blowing me up. Somethings are worth a little invasion of privacy. And, being Canadian we're used to Americans pushing their wants and needs on us even though it inconveniences us. You get used to having your privacy violated. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. But. It's a fact of life. Terrorism is here to stay, this is a way of averting terrorism, so I can put up with it. End of story.
 
2012-08-08 02:57:07 PM  

Theaetetus: 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)

This.

Specifically, the D.C. Circuit ordered the TSA to explain themselves by August 30, last Wednesday. So, your petition is a bit premature.


You're right. But all they have to do is come up with a reason that they haven't done anything. The order you mention doesn't say they have to do anything - just make the explanation.
 
2012-08-08 02:58:38 PM  
Dateline 2059: skin cancer rates have skyrocketed in the last decade. AG Bill Clinton II promises to sue scanner makers but speaker of the house John Boehner JR condems the suit saying Americans were well aware of risks in 2012.
 
2012-08-08 02:58:46 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Somethings are worth a little invasion of privacy.


And where that line is drawn is the fundamental disagreement between most of us here.
 
2012-08-08 02:59:03 PM  

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......


I think the point of the petition is that the courts ordered the TSA to "publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input." They have not yet, essentially telling the court to screw off. Signing the petition would request the President put more pressure on them to follow through with the court order.
 
2012-08-08 02:59:09 PM  

GhettoWinter: If you believe that then I have a rock that keeps aliens away to sell you.


No thanks, I already have a rock that keeps lions away, and I'd kind of like to get probed by an alien once or twice (the closest I have come was when I dated an Armenian--boy do I miss that girl).

Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.
 
2012-08-08 02:59:21 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.


Flying causes cancer. We going to outlaw that, too? I doubt these cause more than your cell phone does.

Sorry, I'm not that concerned. It's faster and doesn't require a pat down if I forget to take my watch off. So what if they haven't found a bomb. We haven't had a bomb successfully go through them either, AFAIK. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass, but it's better than having no security in place, which is our other option.

As for my weiner, it is kind of weird that they keep having to call supervisors and other TSA staff over to look at my scans, I'm assuming the machine is just having a hiccup?

Good luck with the petition, but I'm not signing it.
 
2012-08-08 03:00:31 PM  

peterquince: Theaetetus: 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)

This.

Specifically, the D.C. Circuit ordered the TSA to explain themselves by August 30, last Wednesday. So, your petition is a bit premature.

You're right. But all they have to do is come up with a reason that they haven't done anything. The order you mention doesn't say they have to do anything - just make the explanation.


When a judge tells you to do something, you don't do it, and then the judge demands an explanation, then the follow-up is usually telling you to do it and initiating sanctions or contempt proceedings unless you have a really good reason...
... and if they have a really good reason, then this petition isn't going to do anything either.

Frankly, I'd give this about two-three months to wait for the D.C. Circuit, and then file it. Or not, depending on what their results are.
 
2012-08-08 03:00:59 PM  

indarwinsshadow: qorkfiend: darwin

Simple. I'm not crazy about some nut who wants to see Allah, Buddha, Brahma, God, Jesus, the Jetsons or whoever blowing me up. Somethings are worth a little invasion of privacy. And, being Canadian we're used to Americans pushing their wants and needs on us even though it inconveniences us. You get used to having your privacy violated. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. But. It's a fact of life. Terrorism is here to stay, this is a way of averting terrorism, so I can put up with it. End of story.


Eh? This petition is only tangentially related to privacy violations...
 
2012-08-08 03:01:47 PM  

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


The presence of a cancer risk is not up for debate. These devices emit x-rays into live human flesh, which will cause cancer in some of the people exposed, full stop. This same risk applies to medical x-rays and all other emitters of ionizing radiation, including the sun.

The magnitude of the cancer risk is more difficult to answer. If you believe the manufacturer about the operating specs, and assume the machines are working properly and being used as intended (neither of which is monitored in the ways we require for all other x-ray emitters), it's probably not very big*. But as you note there have been no studies -- not because no one cares, or because no one believes there's a risk, but because no study has ever been allowed by the TSA or the manufacturer.

*Also note that even if the actual risk as used is small, which is at least somewhat plausible even in spite of the ridiculous lack of safety controls, it still could be large in comparison to the risk of terrorist attack that this device could prevent, making the device a net loss to the safety of citizens
 
2012-08-08 03:02:06 PM  

Mikey1969: 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.

Flying causes cancer. We going to outlaw that, too? I doubt these cause more than your cell phone does.

Sorry, I'm not that concerned. It's faster and doesn't require a pat down if I forget to take my watch off. So what if they haven't found a bomb. We haven't had a bomb successfully go through them either, AFAIK. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass, but it's better than having no security in place, which is our other option.

As for my weiner, it is kind of weird that they keep having to call supervisors and other TSA staff over to look at my scans, I'm assuming the machine is just having a hiccup?

Good luck with the petition, but I'm not signing it.


The petition is not about the damned machines.
 
2012-08-08 03:02:33 PM  

pute kisses like a man: oh well... not a big issue to me... unless it actually causes cancer.


We don't know.

They refuse to let anyone else test the machiones and their calibration procedures aren't clear.

Gyrfalcon: What slows things down at the current TSA Security Theater is: having to take off your shoes, belt, jacket, put your laptop in a separate container and out of its case, put them all on the belt, walk through the detector and then...pick up your shoes, belt jacket, laptop and carryon, grab them and get out of the way of the next person trying to get through the detector, put on your shoes, belt, jacket, stuff the computer back in its case, and hope you can still make your flight. THAT is what makes this process so onerous and ridiculous.


Not really.

I always end up waiting when I get ot he metal detector. And the few times I was selected to go throug the scanner (I declined) theu told me to wait in a line to go through.
 
2012-08-08 03:02:40 PM  

Dog Welder: Additionally, if a bunch of people with box cutters get up and try to take over an airplane in today's environment:
1) They have a high degree of probability of being shot by a Sky Marshall.
2) There's no way they're getting through the secured cabin with box cutters.
3) The other passengers are going to punk them out before anything really bad will happen.



So we may as well let them on the plane, amirite?
 
2012-08-08 03:03:59 PM  
oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.
 
2012-08-08 03:06:34 PM  

TNel: Slow? It's about 15 sec tops


Yes, slow. It takes 5 seconds or less to walk through a metal detector. Unless you're flying amateur hour, frequent flyer bags with a computer, underwear, socks and shirt (a suit jacket and pants can go a week, hotel laundry takes care of the off-day shirt and can dryclean overnight in a pinch) move right through the xray machine at the same pace.

Until one of these idiotic scanners is put into use to constipate the whole system. Even when I'm flying with the kids (making me one of the slow clots in the system with overstuffed bags and not enough hands to get my shoes off) I regularly see bags languishing on the port side of the belt while their owners wait for the guy who needs a pat down because he had a tissue in his pocket to get the fark out of the way.

Give me Total Recall (original) style scanners that do their job without making you break stride and I'm all in.
 
2012-08-08 03:07:08 PM  

dok9874: oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.


...aaaannddd I'm done.
 
2012-08-08 03:07:29 PM  
Done and done.
 
2012-08-08 03:07:30 PM  
Not that I disagree with the spirit of it, Peterquince... I just think that the petition is both premature and somewhat useless.

When I fly, I opt-out of the screening and demand a pat down... And during the pat down, I express my concern for the worker and discuss the Johns Hopkins TSA cancer study, the study on the imaging machines "unzipping DNA", the study about the number of machines that are out of specification and leaking radiation, the fact that all the comments about how the machines are safe for passengers who are only near them for a few seconds is irrelevant to the workers, and the fact that under any other circumstance, OSHA would require them to wear radiation badges, but the TSA is explicitly exempt from OSHA regulations...
Then I suggest they talk to their Union rep about those safety issues.

Mind you, this was even more fun a few months ago when I could then say, "but oh, wait, you guys aren't allowed to be in a union."
 
2012-08-08 03:07:46 PM  

dok9874: oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.


How YOU doin'?
 
2012-08-08 03:07:46 PM  

dok9874: oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.


I'll bet they like you! This is a win-win situation. They get to fondle and you get fondled without any entanglements. Smart girl.
 
2012-08-08 03:08:22 PM  
4500 left to go.

Ya got sign in (the captcha is REALLY bad and watch out for the mailings checkbox), return an email, and then click to sign it. And when they get it, they all laugh at the new mail list they just received and throw the petition in the trash.

/I did it, but I don't expect anything to happen.
//It's an election year. Promises are just promises
///but all the same...vote for Mitt? That's funny
 
2012-08-08 03:08:54 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 03:09:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 03:10:00 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 03:10:10 PM  

Surpheon: 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.


trendwire.com
Problem?

 
2012-08-08 03:10:50 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: If you believe that then I have a rock that keeps aliens away to sell you.

No thanks, I already have a rock that keeps lions away, and I'd kind of like to get probed by an alien once or twice (the closest I have come was when I dated an Armenian--boy do I miss that girl).

Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.


Are metal detectors not also a deterrent? It would be a deterrent to make everyone strip naked and have anal cavity exams before flying but (at least for the time being) we've deemed that an inappropriate over reach. It seems that there are limits.
 
2012-08-08 03:11:33 PM  

indarwinsshadow: qorkfiend: darwin

Simple. I'm not crazy about some nut who wants to see Allah, Buddha, Brahma, God, Jesus, the Jetsons or whoever blowing me up. Somethings are worth a little invasion of privacy. And, being Canadian we're used to Americans pushing their wants and needs on us even though it inconveniences us. You get used to having your privacy violated. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. But. It's a fact of life. Terrorism is here to stay, this is a way of pretending that we're averting terrorism but it's pure security theater and has already been shown to not be able to detect something viewed edge on, so I can put up with it. End of story.


FTFY
 
2012-08-08 03:11:37 PM  

qorkfiend: The petition is not about the damned machines.


You should tell that to the farker that opened up that page as if he had just started this thread. He's the one that talked about cancer, the 4th amendment and weiner visibility. I merely answered that.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:01 PM  

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

The presence of a cancer risk is not up for debate. These devices emit x-rays into live human flesh, which will cause cancer in some of the people exposed, full stop. This same risk applies to medical x-rays and all other emitters of ionizing radiation, including the sun.

The magnitude of the cancer risk is more difficult to answer. If you believe the manufacturer about the operating specs, and assume the machines are working properly and being used as intended (neither of which is monitored in the ways we require for all other x-ray emitters), it's probably not very big*. But as you note there have been no studies -- not because no one cares, or because no one believes there's a risk, but because no study has ever been allowed by the TSA or the manufacturer.

*Also note that even if the actual risk as used is small, which is at least somewhat plausible even in spite of the ridiculous lack of safety controls, it still could be large in comparison to the risk of terrorist attack that this device could prevent, making the device a net loss to the safety of citizens


The cancer risk to passengers is probably miniscule. The cancer risk to TSA workers, standing around those things all day long, is probably orders of magnitude higher. So we won't know for sure until about 10 years from now when there is a sudden rise in cancer cases, and subsequent legal action, by former TSA workers who could have been protected, but weren't because terrorism.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:25 PM  

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.


Sure. Doesn't change the fact that the petition is only tangentially related to the scanners themselves.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:53 PM  

Gyrfalcon: But if someone wanted to get a bomb onto a plane, which seems to be your fear, they would simply find another way. I can think of several offhand, but I don't post suggestions like that on line. But it is entirely possible.


Well there are always more complicated ways of getting something done that people have put measures in place to make it more difficult to do. There are ways to hack your bank account. Hopefully your bank has put up some measures to make this harder than typing in your name. But you don't remove all security just because perfect security is unobtainable.
 
2012-08-08 03:13:33 PM  
Signed, but it's a bit unsettling that you don't want to show your weiner to strangers.
 
2012-08-08 03:14:15 PM  

gilgigamesh: While some of your premises are highly questionable, Submitter, I can't argue that these rape-scan things are nothing more than an expensive set-piece in security theater.


I'm not convinced but leaning in this direction.
4086 to go.
 
2012-08-08 03:14:30 PM  

Mikey1969: qorkfiend: The petition is not about the damned machines.

You should tell that to the farker that opened up that page as if he had just started this thread. He's the one that talked about cancer, the 4th amendment and weiner visibility. I merely answered that.


FTF Boobies:

peterquince: So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.

 
2012-08-08 03:15:02 PM  

qorkfiend: pute kisses like a man: The My Little Pony Killer: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

This. And the people who have been staging naked protests lately have had their right to do so upheld by judges citing the 4th amendment.

the car is your property. that's why the 4th amendment applies. reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, there is an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement when an officer has cause.

the airport is not your property and provides no reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, you have consented to the search by entering the secure area. it's not a matter of 4th amendment applying, it's a matter of satisfying the protections afforded.

oh well... not a big issue to me... unless it actually causes cancer. then i might sign

The petition is not about the scanners or their effects. It is about getting federal agencies to comply with court orders.


More specifically, it's about whether "promptly" means "within a year". It's not a given that TSA is in violation of the court order.

If they are, suing TSA is more likely to accomplish something than a petition.
 
2012-08-08 03:15:52 PM  
i'm sorry subby. the money spent on this pork project cannot be recovered. no logic here.

/support denied
//please try again
 
2012-08-08 03:16:56 PM  

GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?


Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.
 
2012-08-08 03:17:01 PM  

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?
 
2012-08-08 03:17:19 PM  

sweetmelissa31: peterquince: They cause cancer

Flying "causes" cancer. The risk is small in comparison.


I'm willing to undergo the small risk of cancer by flying. That's a risk I'm unwilling to take by going through a cancer-rape machine, just because some ex-government employee wants to scam the government out of billions by making me walk through them. Plus, you say the risk is small, but that is only if the machine maintains proper calibration, and if it doesn't break down, malfunction, and continuously zap you in a single point on your body. What are the chances of that happening? well, the machines are maintained by these people:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-08 03:17:23 PM  
I'll sign it because I GET THINGS DONE!


heh heh heh.
 
2012-08-08 03:18:46 PM  
qorkfiend:


maxheck: qorkfiend:

maxheck: And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.

"The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months" is an insufficient indicator of "what is going wrong"?

Which one. Citation?

I'm not even unsympathetic, but if you can't do your own homework before crafting a petition, don't expect 10,000 people to do it for you before they sign said online petition. You should be the adult in the room. It's your petition.

Do you in fact know the circumstances where ""The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months?"

I don't. I am willing to look it up further, but..

It says it exactly where you'd expect - on the farking petition page. It's hilarious to see someone complaining about not doing your homework when crafting a petition, when you haven't bothered to read the petition you're criticizing.


Funny thing that. Here is the text that anyone outside of Fark will read, and I don't think that Fark is the audience that matters.

"In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines."

I'm wrong about the 18 months, it's actually 13. Doesn't change anything.My bad. I worked with what the petition said and what anyone outside of Fark would read:

we petition the obama administration to:
Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!

In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines. If the government is going to "body-scan" Americans at U.S. airports, President Obama should force the TSA to begin the public process the court ordered.
Created: Jul 09, 2012


You know... The part that isn't on Fark.

It's very easy to get enthused about an idea and write an online petition. This one has zero information in it, and I (for my part) wouldn't sign anything of the sort. The author should read up and provide a little more by way of facts to go with his indignation, just saying.
 
2012-08-08 03:21:06 PM  
As someone who flies alot and has two artificial joints, these scanners have been a godsend. I used to have to get the patdown every single time.
 
2012-08-08 03:24:03 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?

Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.


Must be exhausting to be so afraid all the time.

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.
 
2012-08-08 03:25:03 PM  
Entered my email, got a message that there were too many attempts from my IP and that it had been blocked. After one attempt.
 
2012-08-08 03:25:30 PM  
Ah, the power of the InterWeb to promote Dumbassery (Zat a word?)

And the really scary thing is the petitioners are expecting Obama to do the smart thing
 
2012-08-08 03:26:16 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-08 03:27:15 PM  

gilgigamesh: While some of your premises are highly questionable, Submitter, I can't argue that these rape-scan things are nothing more than an expensive set-piece in security theater.

Signed, and passing it on.


THIS
 
2012-08-08 03:28:18 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.


You mean like that time that Adam Savage got a 12" razor through TSA security?
Or that time that a guy got a loaded gun past the TSA?
Or the guy with the knife in his carry on that the TSA totally missed?
Or how about the guy who would have gotten on the plane with a couple of box cutters if they hadn't fallen out of his luggage after he'd passed the security checkpoint?

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


arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?

Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.


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.

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."
 
2012-08-08 03:28:44 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-08 03:29:14 PM  

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.


Fine - I'll claim fifth amendment. Lay it all out for me big dawg.
 
2012-08-08 03:30:07 PM  
Welp, signed.

4000 to go.

Good luck!
 
2012-08-08 03:34:52 PM  

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?

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]

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?
 
2012-08-08 03:36:12 PM  
The sign-up page has, hands-down, the worst CAPTCHA images I've ever seen. I had to refresh about 20 times to get one I could read. Confirmation email too 5m. But I signed and Facebooked - and I never go on Facebook, so hopefully that should get some attention just for the pure shock of a post from me.
 
2012-08-08 03:38:55 PM  
I'm amused at Fakers who normally downplay cancer risks from other radiation sources and are now suddenly concerned about cancer risks from using these airport scanners.
 
2012-08-08 03:40:45 PM  
Signed
 
2012-08-08 03:41:19 PM  
All these posts and no doctor-facebook like picture? Fark I am disappoint.
 
2012-08-08 03:41:27 PM  
I'd much rather the Judge grow a pair and Issue a injunction barring the TSA from operating until it complies. SHUTDOWN EVERYTHING style.

I'm pretty sure the outrage would solve the little TSA problem really fast.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:03 PM  
www.lolroflmao.com
 
2012-08-08 03:43:15 PM  
Wow some of the answers here are pretty surprising!

All this petition does is suggest the TSA (a gov't department) comply with a legally required court order, which they have apparently not done yet.

So by that reasoning, if the TSA doesan't have to follow the law then I do not have to either, correct?

If that is a false statement I would like to see what reasoning is used to arrive at your conclusion.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:23 PM  
Kome:

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.

Fine - I'll claim fifth amendment. Lay it all out for me big dawg.

Pook. Meant 4th. Although the 5th does raise some amusing questions.

F'rinstance, if you're passed by a scanner by a proper representative of the law, have you passed the first instance of a potential double jeopardy?

/ facetious mode off, but you KNOW someone is going to try that.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:41 PM  
Lots of bootlickers in this thread. Even worse, they know it's theater AND STILL DEFEND IT.

Talk about the definition of sheeple.

/go sit in the corner until you're called
//that's a good citizien
 
2012-08-08 03:44:42 PM  

Teufelaffe: arethereanybeernamesleft: Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.

You mean like that time that Adam Savage got a 12" razor through TSA security?
Or that time that a guy got a loaded gun past the TSA?
Or the guy with the knife in his carry on that the TSA totally missed?
Or how about the guy who would have gotten on the plane with a couple of box cutters if they hadn't fallen out of his luggage after he'd passed the security checkpoint?

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


At least if a terrorist does get on the plane, you can throw the rock at his head.
 
2012-08-08 03:45:39 PM  

mdeesnuts: Talk about the definition of sheeple.


We're just not as brave, smart, independent, or good-looking as you, I guess.
 
2012-08-08 03:49:42 PM  

qorkfiend: Mikey1969: qorkfiend: The petition is not about the damned machines.

You should tell that to the farker that opened up that page as if he had just started this thread. He's the one that talked about cancer, the 4th amendment and weiner visibility. I merely answered that.

FTF Boobies:
peterquince: So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.


Yeah, a little farther up in that post:
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.

Hmmmmm, scanners, scanners, scanners, scanners everywhere!
 
2012-08-08 03:59:08 PM  
mdeesnuts:

Lots of bootlickers in this thread. Even worse, they know it's theater AND STILL DEFEND IT.

Talk about the definition of sheeple.

/go sit in the corner until you're called
//that's a good citizien


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.

It's Kabuki theatre. You know it's bullshiat, they know it's bullshiat. But you (you being the public) demand they keep it going. Purely reactive from start to finish. Anyone with half a brain could circumvent whatever "magic bullet" safeguards they put in place.

There isn't a magic bullet.

On the other side, we don't yet have internal checkpoints, and it's not as stupid as some of the countries I've visited.
 
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.
 
2012-08-08 06:23:19 PM  
Put it on reddit and you'll have enough signatures in a matter of a few hours.
 
2012-08-08 06:23:23 PM  
Loren

So they essentially brush up against that area. Meh. I thought they actually had to search your genital area like they would your leg, arm, etc.
 
2012-08-08 06:33:36 PM  

indarwinsshadow: And again, I say, no one is forcing you to fly. So don't fly. Issue solved.


"No one is forcing you to leave your government-provided 10'x10'x10' living cubicle if you don't want to agree to being searched at any time and any place. So don't leave. Problem solved."

All you have to do to avoid flying is never want to go overseas, never have a family emergency across the country (or for that matter, never want to travel across the country), and for some people, change careers. It's a light burden.
 
2012-08-08 06:39:38 PM  

consider this: Put it on reddit and you'll have enough signatures in a matter of a few hours.


You really think Regedit gets more hits than Fark?

Where are your loyalties, man?
 
2012-08-08 06:46:48 PM  

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.


It's entirely different to be subject to background radiation and to have someone shooting it at you.

Besides which, these are complicated machines that need proper calibration and monitoring. I can't count how many times I've heard that an airport terminal had to be dumped and re-scanned because they didn't notice that the metal detector was turned off. You trust those same people to say that the body scanners aren't emitting excess levels of radiation?

Incidentally, it's funny that the same sorts of people who say that we don't need to invest in rail in this country, and we shouldn't improve our highway system, also say that air travel is "optional" because there's other options.
 
2012-08-08 06:50:13 PM  

whidbey: You really think Regedit gets more hits than Fark?

Where are your loyalties, man?



reddit - #133 world #66 USA

Fark - #2910 world #1172 USA

I think Fark is way better than reddit, mostly because of the layout, but the numbers don't lie.
 
2012-08-08 07:06:58 PM  

astepanovich: TSA Frisks Another Little Kid

Because 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?
 
2012-08-08 07:35:18 PM  

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.


The problem is, some people want us to be AS SAFE standing in line for a movie as on a plane. Which obviously means MOAR GUNZ.
 
2012-08-08 07:43:18 PM  
Does this have to be at 25k by midnight tonight or sometime tomorrow? If it's by midnight, we're not going to make it at the current pace.
 
2012-08-08 08:18:30 PM  
I fly pretty often for work, and what I find hilarious about the scanners is that as soon as the airport gets even remotely busy, they shut down the machines and switch to using metal detectors only in order to get people through security in a reasonable amount of time. If a terrorist group wanted to avoid the scanners, all they would have to do is figure out the peak time for an airport and bypass the backscatter machines entirely.
 
2012-08-08 09:01:36 PM  

doubled99: yeah! totalfarkers will get things changed!

*yawn


Your $5 at work!!!11!!1
 
2012-08-08 09:44:26 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: astepanovich: TSA Frisks Another Little Kid

Because 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?


Considering this particular case I would suggest you look at the creators of the program and their affiliates. Those individuals found will answer your question.
 
2012-08-08 09:51:49 PM  
6396 clicks and 3000 signatures to go on the petition. A lot of people looking at this aren't signing.
 
2012-08-08 09:54:19 PM  

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.


As a commercial airline pilot, I have never gone through the body scanners. Flight crew are exempt. Good thing too, as on my last 3-day trip, I went through security at least 5 times.

However, it wasn't without lots of biatching and complaining by Pilot & FA groups that got us exempted. The Thousands Standing Around are pretty obtuse about regs and whom they should apply to.
 
2012-08-08 10:04:56 PM  
I signed and added this to my FB as well...

As long as the TSA keep doing things the way they have been, I will continue to avoid flying... I work in the nuclear industry and have to get a report on my exposure to radiation, so who's to say these things don't affect my exposure report? I certainly don't trust the idiots who say these things are safe, because those are the very people who build them and sell them to the airports...

Besides, I know what types of radiation are stopped, and by what... So if it can see through your clothes, I know it can go through your skin, so I'd really like to see the specs on the emitters, for example...
 
2012-08-08 10:11:43 PM  
3159 to go with my sig. Shared with as many people as I could think of. Good luck.
 
2012-08-08 10:41:05 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.

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.


If you weren't begging by starting the headline with "TFer's friend's petition" maybe I'd consider it. WTF does it matter if you're a TFer or not? GFY.

/you also used "here's the deal" twice
//here's the deal- you're a twat
 
2012-08-08 10:52:49 PM  

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.



I'm the friend. Today I was introduced to Fark, which I think may be one of the best websites I've ever seen, and this community has been awesome.

And I'm begging, because this petition has been my life for the last month and I totally believe in it.
 
2012-08-08 11:10:17 PM  
Dumb people think the TSA keeps them safe, news at 11.
 
2012-08-08 11:36:11 PM  

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?


They already missed the very first deadline
 
2012-08-09 12:36:42 AM  

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.


Again the petition is asking the TSA to follow the law. How you or anyone else feels about the machines is irrelevant.

I would think that a government agency thumbing their nose at a federal court order should be disturbing enough. However, given this particular agency is in that "law enforcement" domain of government makes this even more disturbing.

But again, don't let facts pull you away from your soapbox man. Keep pushing this machine legitimacy angle.
 
2012-08-09 12:38:42 AM  

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


So much this.

Fark these guys. Hard.
 
2012-08-09 12:41:28 AM  

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......


As mentioned, there have been none because they are not allowed.

If the manufacturer's untested advertising claims are correct they cause 3 or 4 cases of cancer a year among passengers, unknown amounts among TSA workers.
 
2012-08-09 12:43:17 AM  

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?
 
2012-08-09 12:58:40 AM  

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?


I fail to see how class warfare fits into this debate.

I see nothing wrong with a petition askin the executive branch to enforce the law - something they are supposed to do.

That has nothing to do with rich or poor.

Now if your point was that rich people enjoy more freedoms and influence over government - gee - real suprise there. Since when in like, forever has that not been the case? And do you seriously believe that will ever change?
 
2012-08-09 01:59:38 AM  
maybe some people don't have a problem with this sort of thing.

I don't fly, but if i did i would have no problem walking through one.
 
2012-08-09 03:34:52 AM  
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
 
2012-08-09 04:27:00 AM  

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


And yet you think he somehow is personally responsible for unemployment, failing to close Gitmo, and get us out of Afghanistan instantaneously.

Is today an odd day or an even day? It's the ODD day's he is omnipotent, remember.
 
2012-08-09 05:05:17 AM  
chase this

martyrobertsblog.com

/fuc*in' idiots
 
2012-08-09 05:30:33 AM  

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.


Welcome to my favorite's list. Signed and shared. Thanks very much.
 
2012-08-09 06:41:55 AM  

wineskigolf: What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.


yeah. sometimes that radiation has wonderful effects! The last time I went through the scan, I noticed my manhood had grown 4 inches from the radiation.

/ although that might also have been from the patdown....
 
2012-08-09 06:56:19 AM  
Don't waste your time. The government doesn't give a damn what the people think or want. Go ahead and sign the stupid position. Then, in November, you'll vote for the same people who came up with the policies that you protest against. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE A RETARD!!!
 
2012-08-09 07:01:26 AM  

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.


And it's irrelevant. The Constitution doesn't say that the government needs a search warrant to search you only if you're doing something that is not optional.
 
2012-08-09 07:22:59 AM  
Signed. Now 2,897 to go...reachable if we push it.

Sure, you can say it won't help. You can use the same rationale to justify not voting in elections, either. But as with voting, this doesn't take much time, and I chose to believe that every little bit helps.

For those who are opposed to the petition for reasons other than laziness, why do you think the TSA doesn't need to obey court orders? Even if you defend all of the theatrics, time wasting, money wasting, theft and physical abuse the TSA has dumped upon us, why do you think they must be allowed to blatantly thumb their noses at the Federal Court of Appeals? The only thing that the court ordered the TSA to do was to take public comments over its controversial scope-and-grope program. Why is allowing us to comment on TSA proceedings so dangerous that the TSA should be allowed to break the law to prevent us from being heard?
 
2012-08-09 09:53:22 AM  
So...how do we get the last 2,800 - any ideas, farkers?
 
2012-08-09 10:24:41 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-09 10:41:49 AM  

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.


This is the post on Reddit. I seem to fail at it - I'm still learning.
 
2012-08-09 11:18:08 AM  
Thanks everyone - the petition has expired. I thought we had until midnight, but the White House obviously disagreed.
 
2012-08-09 07:44:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving 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.
 
2012-08-09 08:37:09 PM  

Arctic Phoenix: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving 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.


You'd be wrong
 
Displayed 290 of 290 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report