![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
noabsolutesJohn Pistole says the Obama administration's test run of a program that screens certain travelers based on the risk they pose will expand to 30 more airports around the country. Among them are Washington Dulles International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey and Boston's Logan International Airport - the three airports where the 9/11 hijackers departed from in 2001.
omg yes fuck yes thank you please do this
by Saturday if possible D:
*reads further*
Passengers approved to participate in the program would not have to take off their shoes and belts when they go through security as often as they do now.
IS THIS A JOKE
omg yes fuck yes thank you please do this
by Saturday if possible D:
*reads further*
Passengers approved to participate in the program would not have to take off their shoes and belts when they go through security as often as they do now.
IS THIS A JOKE
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 04:10 pm (UTC)The no-fluids thing I agree with you. I've seen contradicting info about the full body scanners being endangering.
I think the still high airline prices discourages people to travel, too. We're going to Charleston for a meeting and CLE this spring and on Southwest it looks like round trip tickets will cost $300 a piece?!? It would be nice if they also banned luggage fees since that's just insane to try charging someone for taking a bag on a trip!
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 04:15 pm (UTC)TSA claims that NIST and JHU and another agency evaluated them for safety which led to outraged claims by NIST and JHU that say "we said no such thing, in fact we think these are a terrible idea"
I really fucking resent the fact that they are drastically increasing my risk of cancer - because I do fly, a lot - for no actual gain. I resent that my choices are focused radiation or sexual harassment. The TSA needs defunding yesterday.
I can't wait for the class action lawsuits to start popping up.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:45 pm (UTC)I would say they need to be changed, though not necessarily defunded. I'm not sure if I'd be more comfortable having just private companies doing security. I'd rather they be made more useful and less unneedingly invasive!
That would be very interesting if there were class action lawsuits...
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:48 pm (UTC)doing a safe and effective job ofprotecting our country at all.no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:57 pm (UTC)Airports all over the country are submitting applications to evict the TSA. In fact, they sent SO MANY that the TSA instituted a cut-off, so that no other airports could kick their thug asses out.
Enter the senate passing a piece of legislation that would allow MORE airports to submit applications to be exempt from having to use the TSA thugs - essentially forcing the TSA to "reconsider" applications they denied.
You may wish to believe otherwise, Dave, but the TSA is horrible and should be immediately defunded.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ARTICLE:
1. “Security companies would have an easier time winning contracts to operate airport checkpoints,” reports Businessweek.
2. Should airports choose to replace TSA screeners with their own private security, it would not only mean the screeners were better trained and more responsible for their actions, alleviating the problems of thefts and abuse by TSA workers, but it would also create tens of thousands of much needed jobs for the private sector.
3. Some airport executives have argued that contract security personnel are more courteous than government workers,” reports CNN. “It was felt that a private contractor would provide friendlier customer service to the traveling public,” the head of a Roswell, New Mexico, airport wrote to Congress.”
4. Resentment towards the TSA has raged over the last two years amongst Americans, primarily as a result of the rampant criminality in which TSA workers habitually engage. The latest example concerns TSA agent Alexandra Schmid, who stole $5,000 in cash from a passenger’s jacket as he was going through security at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
5. The TSA’s habit of never admitting wrongdoing even when caught has also riled the traveling public. Even when the agency was forced to apologize for strip-searching two women in their 80′s just before Christmas, the TSA claimed its agents had merely violated protocol, when in fact they had sexually molested the women by forcing them to undress.
Sorry, but the fact is? The TSA has zero accountability and private security firms are professional industries dedicated to security, not a bunch of fucking thugs, brutes and sexual predators wearing government badges and uniforms.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:47 pm (UTC)http://www.prisonplanet.com/airport-worker-pervs-over-woman-in-body-scanner-look-at-those-gigantic-tits.html
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:08 pm (UTC)I remember a big dust up when they first were coming out, but I don't remember those scanners being in the news very much lately. I think I went through it only once so far in my travels. Most of the time I've still been going through the standard metal detectors. The last time I traveled out of Midway, I think I still went through the standard ones (which would be last summer).
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:16 pm (UTC)I still know about it, though, because when I heard about it, I went online and did more research, and it was scary as fuck.
I just feel like you of all people should be STRONGLY opposed to the TSA, and the pat downs, and the scanner. I mean FFS you're a lawyer. 4th amendment???? Civil rights????
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:31 pm (UTC)HOLY FUCKSTICKS IS THIS NOT THE DUMBEST SHIT EVER
I DON'T EVEN
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:45 pm (UTC)All I know is that those things are creepy, and evil if you believe in freedom, and also, dangerous if you like to be healthy and not dose yourself with unnecessary radiation.
They have put a huge damper on my travel dreams.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:55 pm (UTC)I agree with you, those things do seem quite a bit creepy.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:01 pm (UTC)You SHOULD be outraged!!!
BE OUTRAGED. Stand up for your rights!!!!!!
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:10 pm (UTC)Granted, I've been outraged lately by a number of other things: the economy, joblessness, student loans, Komen, Plan B, the racist "Chinese" Super Bowl ad, almost anytime any of the Republicans running for President open their mouths. Maybe my outrage is busted and I used it all up for the time being? :/
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:12 pm (UTC)do you think it would bother you more if, say, they used these scanners at the local courthouse instead of metal detectors? and so their risk wasn't an intangible-doesn't-really-affect-me but was something that had a real effect on your risk of getting cancer?
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:22 pm (UTC)Part of it is that I seem to remember hearing that these screenings were fairly negligible in the amount of radiation given off. That may be incorrect or based on older or untrue evidence. I think it was compared to the amount of radiation someone would get just flying across the country in a plane (which, didn't seem like that much to me.)
If I had to go through it all the time, considering what you've shared, I'd be more concerned. I just don't see why standard metal detectors aren't enough for airports! Oddly enough, the court houses often don't make attorneys go through the metal detectors, which I do find kinda strange.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:30 pm (UTC)You've been hearing the TSA & the manufacturer's defenses, which don't really hold up to science. They say that the amount of radiation you experience going through the scanner is equal to something like 2 hours flight time. They don't take into account the difference between focused radiation and background radiation - if you put your arm over an xray film for 2 hours, and develop it, you're not going to get a result, you know?
Standard metal detectors aren't enough for airports because the manufacturers make huge donations in the right places.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:37 pm (UTC)Does that somehow make it less dangerous than the people like Ari, or my uncle, who fly ALL THE TIME?
Does it make it less a violation of your civil rights?
These are the things about you I don't understand. It's like, if there is no direct effect on your life, it just sorta...flies over your head, and you know nothing about it, and you don't feel compelled to learn more.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:38 pm (UTC)I meant, less dangerous FOR the people
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 08:11 pm (UTC)Does that somehow make it less dangerous than the people like Ari, or my uncle, who fly ALL THE TIME? I don't think I ever said that. I am saying that you JUST gave me this information to think about. Like I had said, I had previously heard different information about it.
Let's say the TSA disappeared and airports began their own security systems. What if airlines and airports decided that they wanted to keep these scanners in use?
I'm just not sure what complete outrage on my part would accomplish. Is it a violation of civil rights? I would say so, but I'm sure there are others who would make an argument that it isn't since you give up your right to privacy when you're in a public place (airport).
These are the things about you I don't understand. It's like, if there is no direct effect on your life, it just sorta...flies over your head, and you know nothing about it, and you don't feel compelled to learn more.
I think that's a gross mischaracterization/simplification. I had previously heard that they were relatively safe or heard reports that they weren't, but those reports seemed almost alarmist or from news sources I really wouldn't trust (Fox? Drudge?).
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 08:58 pm (UTC)If I flew as much as you did, I'd probably be more concerned, especially if I was constantly going through them.
2. You have continually said that you "hadn't heard" this or that about the TSA or scanners, or worse, that you just didn't believe the information because it seemed "alarmist", so rather than do your own research, because it didn't directly impact your life, you just...let it go. Then you act surprised or defensive when other people get really up in arms about something, because you didn't think it was a big deal.
You don't seem to read about or research anything that doesn't directly impact your life. You are constantly saying things like, "I hadn't heard X" or "I didn't know about Y", more so than any person I have encountered on LJ. If you post about something I haven't heard of, rather than saying, "I've never heard that", I try to go to google and find some information on it.
I do this on my own, too. I am constantly just looking shit up so I can be at least somewhat informed.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 09:07 pm (UTC)2. I had seen two different points of view on that subject. Some of them seemed alarmist or biased like "OMG government evil! We're all going to die!" and others that didn't, so I chose one bit of information than the other.
I look things up on my own as well,, but apparently I didn't look this one thing up as much as you did. And, yes, there are some times when I do say that I hadn't heard of "x" or didn't know about "y" . Just because I didn't know about it doesn't mean that I necessarily live with my head in the sand.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 09:13 pm (UTC)I think you should reevaluate your own personal bias against news sources that you might judge as "anti-government", because you are probably blocking out information that is factual based on it "seeming" far-fetched to you. It's not that hard to vet information from Fox News or Drudge Report. I do it all the time, because John is constantly sending me articles from those sources. Cross-referencing builds knowledge.
and this is totally my opinion, but I don't think you've looked this issue up as much as you should have, given your self-professed love of traveling and the fact that you are a lawyer and thus probably had to take at least one class on constitutional law way back in the day. I mean I have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the constitution and I've only taken one college-level American history course.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:16 pm (UTC)I also think that we should take a page out of Israel's book. They don't have body scanners. They profile.
And they've actually foiled a terrorist plot.
I'm pretty sure we're doing it wrong.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:43 pm (UTC)I mean FFS you're a lawyer. 4th amendment???? Civil rights????
I've actually never had a case dealing with the 4th Amendment or civil rights. Most of what I do tends to be collections, maybe some estates/guardianship, and torts. Though, you bring up a good point and maybe I should really be more involved actively in looking at that kind of stuff.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:47 pm (UTC)Consider this: if these scanners were being built for a MEDICAL purpose, they would not even be out of approval phase yet. There would be years of testing, of studies to show whether or not they are safe for use. Now, it's come out that the TSA wants to give their employees dosimeters while they're working with these machines.
They aren't safe, Dave. They never were safe, and they never WILL BE safe, because there is no such thing as "safe" radiation.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:55 pm (UTC)If these were medical devices lmao omg this enrages me every time
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 06:58 pm (UTC)Maybe I had just read that TSA employees WANTED the dosimeters.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:01 pm (UTC)TSA is resistant tho. check this out:
Q: Why aren’t your officers permitted to wear dosimeters?
A: There is a really good reason for this. The emissions from our X-ray technology are well below the requirements that would require their routine usage. To help reassure passengers and employees that the technology is safe, however, health physicists with the U.S. Army have been conducting area dosimeter surveys at multiple airports nationwide.
Note that they didn't give a reason!! Also the results of those surveys have not been published. Weird huh!! You'd think they'd want to trumpet them from the rooftops
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 07:03 pm (UTC)http://www.infowars.com/tsa-is-not-planning-to-test-employees-for-radiation/
la la la I hate the TSA with a fiery burning passion
no subject
Date: 2012-02-09 02:06 am (UTC)...and I am pretty sure being in an airport/going one a plane doesn't constitute probable cause. I could be wrong, though.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-09 02:35 am (UTC)WANTING TO TRAVEL = TERRORIST.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-09 02:38 am (UTC)Ari does look pretty sketchy, rite?
no subject
Date: 2012-02-09 03:17 am (UTC)Shs's TOO CUTE, for one thing.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-08 08:49 pm (UTC)