Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing On TSA's "Scanner Shuffle"

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the who's-to-blame dept.

Government 134

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security held a hearing on TSA's recent decision to move X-ray body scanners from major airports to smaller ones, which the subcommittee refers to as a 'Scanner Shuffle.' John Sanders, TSA's assistant administrator for security capabilities, testified that 91 scanners recently removed from major airports were now in storage due to 'privacy concerns.' Although TSA originally planned to relocate the scanners to smaller airports, those plans have been shelved because smaller airports don't have room for them. The subcommitteee is also investigating allegations that the machines' manufacturer, Rapiscan, 'may have falsified tests of software intended to stop the machines from recording graphic images of travelers' (VIDEO). Coincidentally, shares of Rapiscan's parent company, OSI Systems Inc., dropped in value almost 25% today, its biggest intraday decline in about 12 years. If wrongdoing is proven, Rapiscan could face fines, prison terms and a ban on government contracting, according to a former head of federal procurement."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RAPEscan (5, Funny)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 2 years ago | (#41997275)

I never noticed how poorly the scanner machine's company was named...

Re:RAPEscan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997375)

I never noticed how poorly the scanner machine's company was named...

That font on my monitor made your subject look like "RAPEscam"

Punishment should fit the crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997433)

The punishment should be:
1. All Rapiscan executives, and anyone involved with falsifying tests, or who overestimated privacy and underestimated safety, should be forced to walk through their own machines DAILY, and those scans that supposedly couldn't be saved should be posted on the internet labelled with the names of the individuals scanned.
2. The above Rapiscan employees should reimburse the taxpayers for the amount of money misspent on Rapiscan products, AND an additional fine should be imposed if found guilty.
More likely, nobody will be found at fault, and we'll buy even more of the suckers from them.

Ironic: the word to prove I'm a human for this post was: horrible

Re:RAPEscan (0, Flamebait)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41997493)

Good to see Congress working on the important issues of the day...must mean the economy is either fixed or too FUBARed to bother with.

Re:RAPEscan (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#41997921)

Like everyone else, they work on stuff that looks good, but requires little actual effort or brain power.

They only get serious when their contract comes up for renewal.

Re:RAPEscan (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41999843)

Nah. All it means is that Rapiscan shares have peaked and their main competitor's have bottomed out. The politicians have bought all available shares in the competitor and need them to start heading upwards, hence the switch of government contracts.

Re:RAPEscan (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#41998567)

But - is it legitimate rape, or illegitimate rape?

Re:RAPEscan (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#42000115)

Just check if the machine shuts you down and you will know.

Re:RAPEscan (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41999621)

Yeah, and see how they are the MANufacturers. These companies are never WOMANufacturers.

Re:RAPEscan (2)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#42000257)

No no no, it's not "rape scan". That's horrible and serious sounding. It's clearly intended to be pronounced "rapey scan".

Rapiscan must not have a good lobbyist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997287)

Paying the wrong people, not paying enough, no one with a current financial interest on the government payroll. Pick any or all, this must be the problem(s).

My TSA experience (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997307)

A few weeks ago, while working at the airport, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-american football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and married -- and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured.

The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of devouring great loads of it (what TSA agent hasn't?), but I had never done it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract? I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my hankerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom. I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

boing, boing, boing... (4, Funny)

slick7 (1703596) | about 2 years ago | (#41997361)

I can hear the rubber stamp bouncing now.

should be CFA not TSA (4, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#41997377)

the cluster fuck agency. seems they are consistently boorish, idiotic in rulemaking, inconsistent, and being called out as leaders in group comedy, instead of as an effective security force.

Re:should be CFA not TSA (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41997425)

Too reasons:
1) They are a new agency that was thrown together overnight, the TSA will be fine.
2) They are under Homeland security. A group that can't run jack shit properly. Everything under them falls a part, and they don't improve or learn.

Make TSA there one Bureaus, get rid of Homeland security, move the money into CIA and FBI.
Maintain the agency separation policy.

Translation please? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997485)

Can someone please translate the comment above to english?

Re:Translation please? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997773)

I think the translation is something like this:

Two reasons:
A) They are a new agency that was thrown together overnight, and might have been fine if "B" hadn't occurred:
B) They were put under Homeland security which apparently can't do anything right.

Dissolve Homeland security, move the money into CIA and FBI and move the TSA out on it's own so we are left with three Bureaus.
Also maintain the agency separation policy.

Or something like that.

Re:Translation please? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42000063)

In other words pointless insanity. The TSA is probably the most pointless and useless portion of Homeland Security and is not worth saving.

Re:Translation please? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#41999287)

He sez: Homeland security be disbanded. CIA an FBI are cool froods and shoulda be funded.

Re:Translation please? (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#42000125)

He sez: Homeland security be disbanded. CIA an FBI are cool froods and shoulda be funded.

I am rather sure this is not the Queen's English you are using.

Re:should be CFA not TSA (5, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41998673)

seems they are consistently boorish, idiotic in rulemaking, inconsistent, and being called out as leaders in group comedy, instead of as an effective security force.

You are missing the most important part

There are NO demonstrable results that anyone in TSA could show for the last 11 years. The 2-3 half-assed terrorist attempts (shoe bomber, etc.) have been stopped by other passengers. TSA accomplishments are rivaled only by the anti-terrorist rock (though TSA is significantly more expensive)

I asked this before and I will ask again -- how does an agency exist/expand/get funding without demonstrating any results whatsoever? One could dislike CIA/FBI/IRS, but one could at least point to something beneficial that they actually do.

Re:should be CFA not TSA (2, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 2 years ago | (#41999065)

It's a comedy pinata.

Not to mention that the original AQ leadership is mostly dead (and in some cases, All Dead, only thing you can do is sort through their pockets for loose change). Israel is doing just fine with scanner-free profiling (I suppose that requires some form of proper Cop Radar to work though, or a minimum IQ standard). So really, TSA has left the fair shores of bureaucratic annoyance to explore the fresh new horizons of totalitarian repression, for no net value to anyone but themselves.

My solution is pretty straightforward -- I won't fly.

And if some clever person wants to do horrible things to people in bulk, as before, do you think they'll go through the already-hardened option, or find some other piece of critical civil infrastructure to infect?

I'd feel much more secure if water treatment plants had updated security, that there was a solid path for SCADA security, than that the SCF that the TSA has now become re-arranges yet another set of radioactive deck chairs on their bureaucratic Titanic.

Re:should be CFA not TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42000587)

Can't even go through Osama's pockets.

Re:should be CFA not TSA (2)

Jesrad (716567) | about 2 years ago | (#42000005)

how does an agency exist/expand/get funding without demonstrating any results whatsoever?

That's because you fail to understand what the real objectives of this agency are, and what results are actually evaluated.

If an agency has its funding consistently increased, if its antics and public failures are conveniently dismissed or stamped out, and if many ambitious, politically-influent people fight and rush to get a high-responsibility mandate in this agency, then it means it is very successful in providing the results that whoever is funding it, was hoping it'd produce.

Consider that the very act of spending taxpayers' money could in itself very well be the intended result sought after. Providing high-paying, low-effort job opportunities for politicaly-introduced young party cadre members, is another obvious one.

Thomas P M Barnett (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#42000295)

TSA = Thousands, Standing Around

Still not sure if he meant pointless security theater, crowded choke-points making target-rich environments, or both.

The TSA is still a thing? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997417)

What I don't understand is why the TSA still exists. Everybody hates it and it costs us a ridiculous amount of money. Every time I've uttered the phrase "security theater" around normals, they've heard it before and agree with it. Why haven't any politicians jumped at the chance to cut it like the cancer it is and score major points with their electorate?

Is corruption really the answer, or am I missing something, here?

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997439)

You seem to have been in a echo chamber, you should try to read news from variety of sources (including fox news). Not everyone hates the TSA. People still do believe it keeps America safe from terrorist. There was even a poll a few months ago, that said Americans in general are satisfied with the TSA.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997567)

Because they don't feel affected. It's a bit of hassle at the airport in exchange for protection from terrorists. Surveillance without warrants? Fine because they're going after the bad guys. They'll be fine right up until the night it's their door being kicked-down. That's when it'll sink in. The neighbors won't help. It's only bad guys who get hauled away. It's how it works. I'll be that neighbor until it's my turn to be paid a visit.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41997585)

It's all in how you ask the question. On the one hand, you can ask "Do you support airport security or should we quit discriminating against terrorists?". On the other you can ask "Should pre-schoolers be groped by strangers in the airport?". You can also pre-load with a bunch of obvious yes or obvious no questions to get the answers you want. For that matter, you can tilt the stats by asking (or not asking) people who don't fly.

As a whole though, I'll bet few, if any Americans actually support the TSA's current methods, especially groping children and irradiating pregnant women.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (4, Insightful)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 2 years ago | (#41997813)

It's all in how you ask the question.

I absolutely agree with you. On the other hand, I've encountered lots of crazy people (including here in Slashdot) who seem to terrified that an unseen hoard of terrorists are eager to jump on planes and blow them up if we all don't take off our shoes and belts, take the special baggie out of our luggage with our mini-shampoo in it, and do "the special pose" for the new scanners. I've even had serious people here -- not trolls -- tell me that we need to be worried about terrorists shooting lasers at planes from the ground at airports. (I wish I were kidding.)

The government and media has done a great job of convincing people that this invisible hoard exists. And with all that disinformation, any poll is going to be biased in weird ways away from a rational response. In that light, it would not surprise me that the GP's assertion was true and that a large number of Americans are afraid enough to be in favor of the TSA overall.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41998641)

There are paranoids out there, but even many of them would give a pre-schooler a pass on the security or at least acknowledge that they shouldn't be on the no-fly list.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42000089)

tell me that we need to be worried about terrorists shooting lasers at planes from the ground at airports

That's a frequent hassle near several airports, although the perpetrators are dangerous idiots instead of terrorists.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997641)

If you're seriously suggesting Fox News as a credible source, then I would suggest that it is YOU who are living in an echo chamber. Their programming is classified as "entertainment" for a reason.

There are plenty of conservative news sources, but Fox News ain't one of them.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41998145)

So... idiocy is still a thing?

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#42000147)

You seem to have missed the entire US election.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41997455)

Because in the end nobody cares enough to remove them.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41997513)

Everybody hates it and it costs us a ridiculous amount of money.

That ridiculous cost to us is ridiculous profits to somebody else. That somebody can in turn give to any politician who wishes to eliminate the TSA up to 2500 reasons per election cycle to change their mind.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998153)

That is patently not true. Watergate tactics are now legal. All it takes is some paperwork and yet another 'Concerned citizens pac against terrorists' with only one constituent can supply as many reasons as it wants.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998007)

Reading the Drudge Report, there was a story a week ago that 30% of Americans think it would be ok for the TSA to do body cavity searches before allowing people onto the planes. He has also posted numerous poll about the majority of Americans think the TSA does a good job (like 52% majority). Of course Drudge is not biased for the TSA, he also posts every possible story of the TSA messing up as well.

Reading polls like that shows that the majority think it is fine and the TSA could go even further. The government run public education has succeeded in making enough of the country dumb enough so they can do what they want and have the people call anyone who opposes government suppression bigots.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41998689)

He has also posted numerous poll about the majority of Americans think the TSA does a good job (like 52% majority).

They should run a poll that asks Name one useful security measure perpetrated by TSA.

Or Name one incident where TSA had stopped a terrorist attack

See if they can get 52% majority on that... I don't even know what a "good job" means. A good job of what??

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (5, Insightful)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 2 years ago | (#41998405)

Because no one wants to be "that guy" that killed the TSA in case another terrorist takes down an airplane. Simple CYA thinking. Until we, as a nation, make it clear that the TSA is unacceptable, things will just carry on. And from my last visit to the airport, the people seem to be accepting it just fine.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41998779)

What I don't understand is why the TSA still exists. Everybody hates it and it costs us a ridiculous amount of money.

Because they don't hate it. A majority think it's doing a good job [huffingtonpost.com] . So that answers your question. Ron Paul and Representative John Mica have tried to lead a charge to get rid of the TSA.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#41998837)

Ron Paul and Representative John Mica have tried to lead a charge to get rid of the TSA.

But for all the wrong reasons, i.e. that it costs taxpayers money, not that it is an attack on the rights of the little guy to be protected from the big guy.
In the case of the radical right wing populists, the enemy of my enemy is definitely not my friend.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (4, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | about 2 years ago | (#41999023)

> A majority think it's doing a good job.

The vast majority of Americans never fly. All they know is that there haven't been any more airplanes crashing into buildings. Ergo, they conclude that the TSA must be working.

If they did fly regularly, and ever watched some little kid screaming because the TSA agent was groping and touching them "where mom and dad told me never to let anyone touch me," they'd change their opinions in an instant.

Sad, but true.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41999169)

Yes, yes, you are right, but those people still matter because they are voters.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41999521)

Public choice theory explains the human actions at work in situations like this. Unless the cost to everyone is significant enough to outweigh the concentrated benefits to the TSA and the corporation that builds the machines(that benefit being their entire income), the highest bidder to buy control of the direction of state violence will remain in the hands of those who wish to get government to threaten air ports into permitting the TSA to operate and to kidnap any customer who resists voluntary association with the TSA.

It would indeed win a few tips of the hat from some voters if a politician opposed the TSA but that would be an insignificant degree of support compared to the outcry from dependents of government. They would demonize any such politician for threatening their livelihood while the silent majority of people would be indifferent(since relatively few people use air travel). Whats more, there would be those sympathetic with the workers who lost their jobs and they would add their weight with the TSA; this would give the media a wonderful chance to show the families facing eviction and poor living conditions due to losing their government job. News channels would show children crying next to disheveled parents and then compare it to a few angry self righteous people who are glad they don't have to wait in line so long.

See how this works? The theory I just described plays out perfectly for any violent monopoly service inflicted upon us. We point out the immorality of the imposition and then the government shields itself by using the dependent workers it has sucked in. You can see this any time a job is not decided by the value consumers place in the product. When a state position is put on the chopping block for public scrutiny, the argument is always turned away from if it is right to inflict such a 'service' upon us at a cost to us. The debate always moves to 'if you seek peace and freedom you will hurt people'. Of course, it is never mentioned within a mile of mainstream reporting that the people risk being hurt by job loss are those who benefit from violence, from evil.

It isn't impossible to get rid of the TSA now, but the game is certainly rigged against that happening. The best you can hope for is to be in a position of power where you can bribe or influence your way past such annoyances(already happens for politicians and corporate suits). Our rulers already know the TSA sucks, which is why they do not inflict it upon themselves or their friends. This indicates that they simply do not care about us.

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#42000049)

Because of the boogey man

Re:The TSA is still a thing? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42000083)

Corruption is the answer, but it is sometimes called "pork" just as utter lies are called "spin". Another barrier to abolishing the TSA is that is an enormous welfare system that pays a lot of people to do little of use, but that's seen as better than suddenly putting them all out of work.

You Are The Minority (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42000523)

The vast majority of the voting public are weak minded, mouth breathing, halfwits who feel safe knowing that the TSA is there for their protection from evil doers. They will tell you that while it is inconvenient and rectal probes may be uncomfortable, if it is for safety, they understand and accept the need for it.

Why are you so opposed to safety? If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. Your constant worry tell them that you are up to something.

Ooh! (3, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | about 2 years ago | (#41997423)

I want to go through one of the scanners right now. Just to show the TSA how happy I am :)

Re:Ooh! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997595)

Need mod points.

I think the only people afraid of the machines are people who are ashamed of their body.

Personally I feel sorry for the poor bastards running the scanners, just look at the boarding line for southwest airlines for 250 reason why.

Re:Ooh! (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 2 years ago | (#41997731)

The one that gets me is on the last trip - when opting out - the lady was trying to convince me to go through the scanner "Why not go through? There's no radiation from these machines" she says. I was so floored I couldn't even reply.

Re:Ooh! (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#41997769)

The millimeter-wave scanners do not use ionizing radiation.

Re:Ooh! (2)

ibennetch (521581) | about 2 years ago | (#41998737)

The one that gets me is on the last trip - when opting out - the lady was trying to convince me to go through the scanner "Why not go through? There's no radiation from these machines" she says. I was so floored I couldn't even reply.

A TSA agent a few weeks ago told me they're sound waves. I have to question the science portion of their training program...

And yeah, I've had a few agents try to argue with me or try to convince me it's safe as well. I'm not really interested in explaining myself or arguing with them.

Re:Ooh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41999741)

My anecdote: I got a "Why? The machine is way faster." or some such bullshit last time I departed Las Vegas.

Re:Ooh! (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42000139)

A TSA agent a few weeks ago told me they're sound waves

Maybe they were. The way to tell is if they applied some sort of gel or lubricant to the sensor and rubbed it all over you.

Re:Ooh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997989)

I don't see what's wrong with feeling ashamed that there is some low statistical probability that the cells of my body will react to exposure with X-rays by becoming cancerous. It's a ubiquitous biological problem. For that reason I prefer to avoid X-ray exposure that is entirely unnecessary with absolutely no benefit to me (I already know I'm not a terrorist trying to board a plane with a bomb). My objection has nothing to do with any concerns about being seen practically naked via imaging devices.

Re:Ooh! (1, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#41998365)

I understanding what you're saying, I just think it's crap.

I think a lot of people have tried to make this a safety issue, when realistically we're (probably) reasonably safe if you're not flying every day - and maybe even then.

But for some reason, enough people like you have distracted the issue - the point where if they do manage to conclusively prove its safety, there's no longer a leg to stand on.

It's not a safety issue. It's not about people being ashamed of their bodies and wanting to hide them. It's about how it's not ok to foster a culture of fear in the name of security.

Re:Ooh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998717)

I think the only people afraid of the machines are people who are ashamed of their body.

Fuck you. Sorry, that was rude, but... fuck you.

In addition to the general moral opposition, there are also some people who have a family history of cancer or even survivors of cancer. The small risks grow for that group. And small risks are not to be ignored when I GET NO BENEFIT IN RETURN.

If they actually asked you to strip naked and be inspected by a TSA agent, then you would have a point. But not with machines of dubious safety and operated by non-technical personnel. How often are they calibrated, anyway?

Re:Ooh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41999809)

I think the only people afraid of the machines are people who are ashamed of their body.

Are you out of your mind? That is like saying that the only women who don't want to be raped are lesbians.

Seriously. Take away all of the technological babble, remove the fear mongering terrorist alarmists, and set aside government sanctioning and what do we have here?

Total strangers apply force (yes its force, you are required to do this, or you have to suffer something worse, as well as a loss of your time. A threat is force) to take naked pictures of you. Sure their not high rez color pictures showing your face, but they are photo images none the less.

The fact that we allow ourselves to be subjected to this boggles my mind. I'm not talking about allowing them to do it to you in an airport. I understand that sometimes you have to just deal with it to accomplish what you need accomplished. What I mean is that I can not believe that we as a people have not ended the political career of anyone who has been in a position to stop this, and has failed to do so.

Saying that we suffer this to protect us from terrorists is absurd. Try removing all of the colorful double talk, and see if its still an acceptable cost for our "Safety". Instead of, "We just need you and your family to walk through this scanner", try saying "We just need to take some naked pictures of your wife and 8 year old daughter, don't worry its in black and white, and its lower resolution, only about the sort of image quality you could expect from a pinhole camera that someone might hide in a public restroom."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re:Ooh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41999495)

--> Just to show the TSA how happy I am :)

Did you mean: Just to show Mr. Happy? http://xkcd.com/779/ [xkcd.com]

Just shut the airlines down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997459)

We don't need them. Americans can travel by cars and trains. The only aircraft we need are fighters, bombers, ICBMs and cruise missiles.

The sooner we close the doors, the sooner we can have a sane and stable place to live. Right now it's infested with foreigners.

I've got a question (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41997497)

How the fuck do you fail to NOT program a piece of custom hardware to encode JPG and MPG4 files? One would think you would merely have to...not code it to do that! The prosecution rests.

Re:I've got a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997833)

How the fuck do you fail to NOT program a piece of custom hardware to encode JPG and MPG4 files? One would think you would merely have to...not code it to do that! The prosecution rests.

You buy software and/or library that has the feature built in, and fail to disable it.

We're seriously worried about nudie pics when people are being exposed to cancer?

Re:I've got a question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997969)

Feel free to be worried about cancer. That doesn't justify you in disparaging those who don't like forced humiliation.

Re:I've got a question (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41999025)

As someone who does like forced humiliation, the TSA is not on my Goddess's safe list of loaner dommes, either. Hell, they haven't even asked me for my safeword. If I'm going to be abused, violated, and driven through some sort of humiliating sexual theatre act using spurious medical equipment, I at least want it to be by a competent Domme, and not some crackpot psychopaths who are doing it because of their own subconsious demons.

Re:I've got a question (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41998847)

Yeah, cuz they'll have to get nude a bunch of times for cancer treatment and diagnosis. That's like 10x worse.

Won't somebody please (0)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 2 years ago | (#41997499)

"Coincidentally, shares of Rapiscan's parent company, OSI Systems Inc., dropped in value almost 25% today, its biggest intraday decline in about 12 years.

Won't somebody *please* think of the job creators ??!!
.

Naked pics... and CANCER (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997507)

If only privacy was the biggest concern..
These things are skin cancer machines, just do a quick Google search.
That's why they are not found in Europe..

What law allow them in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997613)

What law allows the TSA to take naked, radioactive pictures in the first place?

Re:What law allow them in the first place? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997705)

Certain constitutional protections are suspended at airports and borders. This is for your personal safety and to ensure that bootleg mp3s don't endanger the economic safety of the nation.

Please consider our agents and screeners. While pay is good for the level of qualifications being asked (similar hiring process to a burger joint), it's not a very high salary. Searching just one 10 year old girl can be enough to get a TSA agent through the entire day. Is it really too much to ask, and what else can we do? You want these people out working in schools? Here at airports we can watch them to ensure that they look, touch but don't penetrate.

Re:What law allow them in the first place? (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#41998813)

Here at airports we can watch them to ensure that they look, touch but don't penetrate.

You obviously haven't been subjected to the customs guys with their plastic gloves.

Anyhow, the main problem is neither modesty nor cancer, but that you're treated as a suspect and lose your right not to go through search and seizure without even being suspected of any wrongdoing,

If you have nothing to hide, you get angry when treated like you do.

RapiScan now known as FastScan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997663)

So... RapiScan gets banned from government contracting (long shot anyway)... whats to stop some 'new' company from buying up all the IP/hardware/software and rebranding with a few different people at the top, but mostly the same group, running the show?

Couldn't Happen to a More Deserving Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997665)

Let me be the first to say that I don't enjoy being groped by a TSA agent but I will NOT be scanned by any of these devices.

cheaper to just ditch them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997697)

The agency is moving 91 units worth $14 million to a warehouse instead of redeploying them, Rogers said.

I bet it costs more than $14M to redeploy them. (Especially since the machines won't fit in the airports!)
Better to just write them off.

Grab your nuts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997743)

I grab my nuts when I walk through the scanner. At least the pic will look more appropriate.

To avoid the backscatter Xray (4, Interesting)

jnmontario (865369) | about 2 years ago | (#41997793)

I flew out of Minneapolis a few weeks ago and while on the way down I didn't have to go through the scanner (in Canada we use millimeter wave and always have), they had the backscatter in the airport. I simply, and politely, asked to have my kids go through the metal detector along-side the backscatter instead since I didn't want them to get a blast of xrays. "No problem" said the TSA person (who BTW was incredibly nice and reasonable about the whole thing). In fact, the whole fam. got processed through the metal detector instead. They DID confiscate the ~3 oz. of my kids' toothpaste however. Security theater.

Re:To avoid the backscatter Xray (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998253)

"No problem" said the TSA person (who BTW was incredibly nice and reasonable about the whole thing).

I find that as long as you're not a raging asshole who's either:

  • - Self-important and trying to rush through a security line because you think you're special and shouldn't have to waste your time on security theatre like the rest of the plebs
  • - Trying to make a pointless political statement in a manner which wastes the time of your target audience (who will NOT sympathize with you)

...TSA folks are generally pretty pleasant.

They DID confiscate the ~3 oz. of my kids' toothpaste however.

Terrorists hate us for our beautiful smiles.

Re:To avoid the backscatter Xray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998381)

I flew out of Minneapolis a few weeks ago and while on the way down I didn't have to go through the scanner (in Canada we use millimeter wave and always have), they had the backscatter in the airport. I simply, and politely, asked to have my kids go through the metal detector along-side the backscatter instead since I didn't want them to get a blast of xrays. "No problem" said the TSA person (who BTW was incredibly nice and reasonable about the whole thing). In fact, the whole fam. got processed through the metal detector instead.

They DID confiscate the ~3 oz. of my kids' toothpaste however.

Security theater.

Just so you know, had you beaten the TSA droid to death right there in the airport for touching your child's toothpaste and I was on the jury, you would have walked.

Re:To avoid the backscatter Xray (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about 2 years ago | (#41999167)

I don;t think anyone is saying that avoiding the scanner is difficult; more that it shouldn't be there in the first place.

I've bypassed them several times, only once was I asked why. I said I didn't feel that the safety concerns the machine potentially eliminated was worth the privacy violation it definitely created. The agent smiled and nodded his head before doing a professional pat down, in which each of his actions was explained to me.

The people working there aren't always the issue, it's the policies that are the proble

Re:To avoid the backscatter Xray (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42000611)

MSP has consistently been one of the the "nicest" airports I've gone through. While having a smoke and chatting with one of the agents, she just said "We're all 'Minnesota Nice' here, and we fly too, we want you to experience what we want to experience". It was actually quite refreshing

Fines & Prison? Yeah, Right (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41997869)

Rapiscan could face fines, prison terms and a ban on government contracting, according to a former head of federal procurement."

Yeah, right. That'll happen.

Good luck getting Eric Holder to prosecute.

The only thing Holder is "busting" these days are the very laws and constitution he's supposed to uphold and defend. Heck, all Rapiscan needs to do is put a NBPP member in as the new CEO. They'll be "teflon" and it won't matter if the body scanners disintegrate passengers like one of the "Mars Attacks!" rayguns.

Strat

Re:Fines & Prison? Yeah, Right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41997931)

these days are the very laws and constitution he's supposed to uphold and defend

Didn't you hear? Obama issued a "signing statement" saying he didn't have to obey the laws, and since the Republicans bent over backwards to let Bush do whatever the fuck he wanted, they didn't have a leg to stand on to stop him.

Can't say we didn't warn you. You can see miles of arguments over all this here on slashdot. BTW I voted Libertarian, because at least they have yet to prove that they feel the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

Re:Fines & Prison? Yeah, Right (3, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42000351)

...since the Republicans bent over backwards to let Bush do whatever the fuck he wanted, they didn't have a leg to stand on to stop him.

Oh, no you don't.

You don't get to dump this one off.

Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR...all Progressives...were the ones that started the US government down the path of, and set precedent for future administrations and congresses, for the government to grant itself new and expanded powers far beyond the limits set by the constitution.

You can thank 100 years of the Progressive movement in the US for government treating the constitution like "just a goddamned piece of paper". That's what "Progressive" refers to, and is the Progressive movements' key point; That government power should "progress past" the limits on it's powers set forth in the constitution. It's not like it's something I pulled from my ass...go read up on the history of the Progressive movement in the 20th century.

Now people who voted-in Progressives...in both parties (Bush is a Progressive, as is McCain, btw)...are surprised and upset when the government grabs powers and uses them in a way they don't like or didn't think about? Sorry. You wanted it, you got it Toyota. Enjoy the police state you helped build.

Strat

Re:Fines & Prison? Yeah, Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41999141)

...it won't matter if the body scanners disintegrate passengers like one of the "Mars Attacks!" rayguns.

TSA monkey at airport scanner station: "Next!"

Passenger: "Hey, why does the whole terminal smell like bac..."

[~ZAP~]

TSA monkey: "Next!"

Re:Fines & Prison? Yeah, Right (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42000141)

...it won't matter if the body scanners disintegrate passengers like one of the "Mars Attacks!" rayguns.

TSA monkey at airport scanner station: "Next!"

Passenger: "Hey, why does the whole terminal smell like bac..."

[~ZAP~]

TSA monkey: "Next!"

Sounds almost like another step in the Agenda 21 "Sustainable Development" vision, only I guess they'd actually use some of the millions and millions of .40 caliber hollow-point semi-auto pistol & submachine gun ammo that nearly every Federal agency including the Social Security Agency (wtf?) has purchased over the last year or two, rather than an actual disintegration ray.

Strat

Prison Terms (1)

neffezzle (1862994) | about 2 years ago | (#41997893)

Yeah let's put a Corporation in prison, that would be a good first.

LOL (2)

sootman (158191) | about 2 years ago | (#41998099)

If wrongdoing is proven, Rapiscan could face fines, prison terms and a ban on government contracting, according to a former head of federal procurement.

Yeah, right. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.

Now, time for a good cry.

Rapescam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998353)

Investigate Chertoff's personal enrichment as a result of all this falsification and foisting of cancer-machines on the public as well.

180,000 more pax a day? (3, Interesting)

sam1am (753369) | about 2 years ago | (#41998475)

TFA:

The backscatter machines were pulled three weeks ago from New York's LaGuardia and JFK, Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles, Boston, Charlotte and Orlando airports. The move was designed to speed up security lines at checkpoints there.

Sanders said it's worked and that lines at those airports are now moving 180,000 more passengers each day.

I find this confusing. Were the TSA lines the gating factor in keeping 180,000 passengers from flying each day? According to A4A, 2.4 Million Passengers will fly on 11/25/2012 [airlines.org] . 180,000 passengers is 7.5% of that figure. An average travel day in the US looks to be roughly 1.8 million passengers. 180,000 is 10% of that figure.

What did those 180,000 people do? Wait in line until it closed/they missed their flight, then try again another day? Decide not to fly?

Re:180,000 more pax a day? (1)

tomkost (944194) | about 2 years ago | (#41998553)

Perhaps the airlines simply can't schedule the 180k/x flights where x is the average people per plane. It's a lot of lost revenue, not to mention the wasted tax dollars, civil liberties etc. It's shame that it takes lost revenue to get their attention. Wasted tax dollars and shattered liberties didn't move the needle.

Re:180,000 more pax a day? (1)

tomkost (944194) | about 2 years ago | (#41998589)

I'm guessing x is around 200. So it's 900 flights a day. Another way to look at it is 180k passengers x $300avg/ticket = $54M lost per day.

Re:180,000 more pax a day? (2)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#42000077)

I am guessing that was a misinterpretation. But I did like:

The move was designed to speed up security lines at checkpoints there.

Well DUH. The old metal scanners took like 10 seconds. The new scanners take a couple of minutes (or appear too)
But you know what is even FASTER???? NO security at all! AMAZING

tsa contracts should be non-profit with ceo paycap (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41998769)

my bet is this "security" would not be pushed so hard if there was no money to be made.

The TSA needs to be abolished (3, Insightful)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about 2 years ago | (#41998811)

The TSA needs to be abolished. Period.

Re:The TSA needs to be abolished (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#42000051)

Both the TSA and DHS of homeland security need to be abolished.

Petition TSA on "Priority" Airport Screening Lines (2)

woztheproblem (454186) | about 2 years ago | (#41998969)

This is a little off-topic, but concerns getting TSA to change it's ways. There is a petition [change.org] on change.org asking TSA to get rid of "priority" screening lines. As the petition says, the speed of a government service should NOT depend on how much we pay to an airline, and TSA should not allow airlines to profit by offering better access to a government service as a perk for a high priced ticket (or participation in their reward programs).

The petition doesn't have a lot of signatures yet, but to me it's a no brainer, so I hope it catches on.

Re:Petition TSA on "Priority" Airport Screening Li (2)

hde226868 (906048) | about 2 years ago | (#41999177)

The problem with the petition is that the lines are run by the different airport authorities and not by TSA. So the petition is addressing the wrong institution.

Have all of the 'Rapiscan' jokes already been made (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41998999)

Have all of the 'Rapiscan' jokes already been made?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?