Word on the street is that this Wednesday, the 24 of November, is "Opt-out" day for people travelling out of the airports. The idea is that everyone should opt-out of the body scan, and take the much longer to accomplish pat-down procedure, to slow down the airports to a crawl as a form of protest.
Sure, it sounds a lot like picking a day to not but gas for your car to put the "screws" into the big oil companies, and it may not accomplish anything, but I figured I'd pass the word.
Actually because the procedure is so much slower, I believe it could potentially have a MUCH bigger impact than not buying gas for a single day.
I'll be driving. So in solidarity, I will opt out of following the speed limit.
TAKE THAT, THE MAN!!!!!
Suppose to counter the TSA, to counter this nonviolent protest to their security methods, simply states that it's "x-rays or GTFO NO REFUND FOR YUO". They could call it a matter of short staff, necessity to keep the cooperative customers moving, and / or pressure from airlines, and easily painting the refusers as noncomformist malcontents to the NEW WAY OF THINGS tm.
Nope, I haven't thought through what kind of political / public relations / business nightmare this would be. Just tossing it out.
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Suppose to counter the TSA, to counter this nonviolent protest to their security methods, simply states that it's "x-rays or GTFO NO REFUND FOR YUO". They could call it a matter of short staff, necessity to keep the cooperative customers moving, and / or pressure from airlines, and easily painting the refusers as noncomformist malcontents to the NEW WAY OF THINGS tm.
Nope, I haven't thought through what kind of political / public relations / business nightmare this would be. Just tossing it out.
It's possible, though it seems unlikely. What about cancer survivors? People with pacemakers or other sensitive medical devices? A harmless scan for normal people could have dangerous effect on them.
Quote from: Remington on November 23, 2010, 12:43:56 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Suppose to counter the TSA, to counter this nonviolent protest to their security methods, simply states that it's "x-rays or GTFO NO REFUND FOR YUO". They could call it a matter of short staff, necessity to keep the cooperative customers moving, and / or pressure from airlines, and easily painting the refusers as noncomformist malcontents to the NEW WAY OF THINGS tm.
Nope, I haven't thought through what kind of political / public relations / business nightmare this would be. Just tossing it out.
It's possible, though it seems unlikely. What about cancer survivors? People with pacemakers or other sensitive medical devices? A harmless scan for normal people could have dangerous effect on them.
Good point. They'd mostly have notice from their doctor for those kind of conditions though, wouldn't they? I'm pretty certain this is the case for pacemakers and implants (cousin has one, and needs her note with her when she flies).
Almost nobody (I only say "almost" because I'm sure someone, somewhere, is an exception) carries a doctor's note about their pacemaker or having had cancer. There's never been a reason for them to have to. I don't carry a doctor's note about brain tumor or my heart problem... hell, I don't even have anything documenting it at all. It's all filed away in my medical records.
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 12:52:12 AM
Quote from: Remington on November 23, 2010, 12:43:56 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 12:41:18 AM
Suppose to counter the TSA, to counter this nonviolent protest to their security methods, simply states that it's "x-rays or GTFO NO REFUND FOR YUO". They could call it a matter of short staff, necessity to keep the cooperative customers moving, and / or pressure from airlines, and easily painting the refusers as noncomformist malcontents to the NEW WAY OF THINGS tm.
Nope, I haven't thought through what kind of political / public relations / business nightmare this would be. Just tossing it out.
It's possible, though it seems unlikely. What about cancer survivors? People with pacemakers or other sensitive medical devices? A harmless scan for normal people could have dangerous effect on them.
Then there's people like the guy who had the bladder implant, couldn't go through the scanner, and then while getting patted down, the TSA agent broke the seal on his tube and doused both of them with his urine.........
Good point. They'd mostly have notice from their doctor for those kind of conditions though, wouldn't they? I'm pretty certain this is the case for pacemakers and implants (cousin has one, and needs her note with her when she flies).
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2010, 01:31:59 AM
Almost nobody (I only say "almost" because I'm sure someone, somewhere, is an exception) carries a doctor's note about their pacemaker or having had cancer. There's never been a reason for them to have to. I don't carry a doctor's note about brain tumor or my heart problem... hell, I don't even have anything documenting it at all. It's all filed away in my medical records.
My brother-in-law's the exception to that rule. He carries a dr's note when he travels because he's a transplant patient and needs his anti-rejection meds. If he doesn't have a note, security makes him check his meds in his baggage, which would be a disaster if the bag got lost. The note also excuses him from being scanned because he's had so many already that it's a possible health hazard.
Since the scanners don't work through creased clothes, it might be worth getting as many people as possible to wear anything that might screw with the scanner.
"Why am I wearing this pleated skirt, you ask? Do you follow fashion, sir?"
1) Obtain a large amount of money to buy absurd amounts of tickets for absurd amounts of absurdly fat people.
2) Obtain an absurd amount of absurdly fat people and get them all to opt out.
3) Hide candy in their rolls.
4) ?????
5) There's no profit, but it will probably be funny.
Quote from: Grade 7 Pannus on November 23, 2010, 03:49:02 AM
1) Obtain a large amount of money to buy absurd amounts of tickets for absurd amounts of absurdly fat people.
2) Obtain an absurd amount of absurdly fat people and get them all to opt out.
3) Hide candy in their rolls.
4) ?????
5) There's no profit, but it will probably be funny.
:spittake:
Hilariously relevant: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
Quote from: Telarus on November 23, 2010, 04:01:42 AM
Hilariously relevant: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
This man is awesome.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 23, 2010, 04:08:40 AM
Quote from: Telarus on November 23, 2010, 04:01:42 AM
Hilariously relevant: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
This man is awesome.
Limit exceeded :cry:
Quote from: Lysergic on November 23, 2010, 08:20:41 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 23, 2010, 04:08:40 AM
Quote from: Telarus on November 23, 2010, 04:01:42 AM
Hilariously relevant: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
This man is awesome.
Limit exceeded :cry:
Coral cache
http://noblasters.com.nyud.net/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/
QuoteThe Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.
Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.
Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.
TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.
"That's the old fine," Aguilar said. "It has been increased."
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 08:41:19 AM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/
QuoteThe Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.
Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.
Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.
TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.
"That's the old fine," Aguilar said. "It has been increased."
I hope he fights it in court and it goes to the SOCTUS. This case would be perfect for the ACLU to take.
If people really opt out on the day before thanksgiving, I'll tell you what happens:
TSA agents give a half-smile, and say, "Fine. Step this way." They then spend fifteen minutes patting the person down. While this is happening, no one else is allowed to go through security.
Cut to three hours later, when 80% of passengers have missed their flights and are still waiting in line, and this fun little protest isn't so fun anymore.
It's the TSA's job to stay at the airport for the duration of their shift, and then go home. It's the airline's job to depart on time.
Nowhere does it say that either the TSA or the airline is responsible for getting passengers on their flights. What the protesters are failing to grasp is that the majority of passengers don't want to be in the airport any longer than they have to be, and just want to get to their destinations. "Sticking it to the man" by missing their flight isn't really going to benefit them.
End result: The passengers are screwed, nothing changes.
LMNO
-Just nuke me and get me to the fucking gate, already. Enjoy the pictures of my cock.
LMNO is flying the correct jet liner.
The opt out day will make for good headlines, but it isn't going to change screening procedures. I mean, it's great people are pissed and are thinking about doing something. It's just that, this something really isn't going to do anything.
"Give me liberty or give me death. Just don't inconvenience me."
- Patrick Somebody
Perhaps my rant came out that way. However, that's not really my intention.
My choices appear to be:
1) Backscatter, look at my junk, continue on my way.
2) Groped, feel my junk, continue on my way.
3) Refuse both, be detained, face possible fine.
4) Don't fly in the first place.
NONE of these choices would change the current procedure. There has to be a better way to get the TSA to change their policies, because opting out won't do it.
Angry mobs at town halls. Look what it did to health care.
Or maybe angry mobs at airports. Maybe it isn't enough to just opt out. Maybe folks need to opt out AND get mad.
The way I look at it, maybe I can scar someone for life by them having to look at my fat white ass when I walk through the backscatter...because when I head to Tampa next month for Christmas, I will be PISSED if I get stuck in the fucking line because everyone is opting out. Fuck you, I wanna get on my goddamn plane! It's bad enough I'm flying out of Logan and not Green.
Write letters or something...Call your senators...It worked for me with Sallie Mae and the student loan bullshit, it can work for this if you have enough people.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 02:19:10 PM
Angry mobs at town halls. Look what it did to health care.
Or maybe angry mobs at airports. Maybe it isn't enough to just opt out. Maybe folks need to opt out AND get mad.
True, but those would have to escalate pretty far to get attention. Otherwise, it's just another minor blockage in the great pre - airplane ride colon.
They were talking about this on the news this morning. It's like LMNO said, the only result of a mass protest is a lot of people missing their flight.
They had some representative from Lambert Airport who said that people who missed their flight because of delays would not be reimbursed. It sucks but at $600 +/- for a round trip flight, I don't think most people can afford to miss their flight.
It's not that I agree with the grope downs or even the see me naked scan. I just don't see protesting at the airport and making people miss flights and lose money as a positive way to sway people to a cause. :?
Get Republicans all riled up. They'll introduce legislation to abolish the TSA and then Obama will compromise and get rid of the scanners and gropings.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 02:28:24 PM
Get Republicans all riled up. They'll introduce legislation to abolish the TSA and then Obama will compromise and get rid of the scanners and gropings.
Get Rand Paul, if he doesn't change your mind he'll stomp the idea into your head??
That would require listening to him talk. Is it just me or does anyone else find the cadence of his voice to be extremely annoying? Every time I hear him talk I want to punch the TV.
The Republicans won't get all riled up. We're obviously doing this for the good of America™.
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 02:24:11 PM
Write letters or something...Call your senators...It worked for me with Sallie Mae and the student loan bullshit, it can work for this if you have enough people.
not to threadjack, but what was that about?
I love love love stories in which sallie mae gets the short end of the stick
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 02:24:11 PM
The way I look at it, maybe I can scar someone for life by them having to look at my fat white ass when I walk through the backscatter...because when I head to Tampa next month for Christmas, I will be PISSED if I get stuck in the fucking line because everyone is opting out. Fuck you, I wanna get on my goddamn plane! It's bad enough I'm flying out of Logan and not Green.
Write letters or something...Call your senators...It worked for me with Sallie Mae and the student loan bullshit, it can work for this if you have enough people.
Freedom is often an inconvenience.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 02:28:24 PM
Get Republicans all riled up. They'll introduce legislation to abolish the TSA and then Obama will compromise and get rid of the scanners and gropings.
not working.
the orbital mind control lasers are making all my Red-Team friends and family that i've talked to about this ignore the liberty aspect, and focus on the 'security' aspect...
hell, my folks just flew to France, and were
disappointed when they didn't get to announce their choice of which form of invasion they wanted...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 01:11:36 PM
If people really opt out on the day before thanksgiving, I'll tell you what happens:
TSA agents give a half-smile, and say, "Fine. Step this way." They then spend fifteen minutes patting the person down. While this is happening, no one else is allowed to go through security.
Cut to three hours later, when 80% of passengers have missed their flights and are still waiting in line, and this fun little protest isn't so fun anymore.
It's the TSA's job to stay at the airport for the duration of their shift, and then go home. It's the airline's job to depart on time.
Nowhere does it say that either the TSA or the airline is responsible for getting passengers on their flights. What the protesters are failing to grasp is that the majority of passengers don't want to be in the airport any longer than they have to be, and just want to get to their destinations. "Sticking it to the man" by missing their flight isn't really going to benefit them.
End result: The passengers are screwed, nothing changes.
LMNO
-Just nuke me and get me to the fucking gate, already. Enjoy the pictures of my cock.
Um... not even sure where to begin with this...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 01:33:42 PM
LMNO is flying the correct jet liner.
The opt out day will make for good headlines, but it isn't going to change screening procedures. I mean, it's great people are pissed and are thinking about doing something. It's just that, this something really isn't going to do anything.
Actually its the ONLY way screening procedures will change. You think accepting it with a smile is going to change anything?
Chatted with a co worker about this, and she was in favor of it. She wanted to know she was safe when she flies. I replied that statistically, my diet, my car, crap in the air, or lightning will kill me before a terrorist does. The money and time might be better allocated.
Oh MAN did I get stink-eye for that.
Drove home Roger's point though, people THOUGHT this was necessary, they asked to have their rights violated and voided in the name of this security, and the folks in charge obliged. The sphincter is shut, it is made by the TSA and the TSA keeps it. The TSA will not suffer any to easily pass.
People who want safety over freedom will be the first ones to start whining when the Victory Gin starts pouring.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 23, 2010, 02:41:23 PM
Actually its the ONLY way screening procedures will change. You think accepting it with a smile is going to change anything?
Well, obviously not. Call my cynical, but I think it's more likely than not the scenario will be as LMNO described. That people will opt out, it will cause delays and people who didn't want to opt out will miss their flights. So then you have people getting pissed about screenings mixed with people pissed at the people pissed about the screenings. The message becomes muddy.
However, given that our President has a backbone made out of gelatin, I will concede that it is possible this will result in some kind of change. I'm just not super optimistic it will happen.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 02:47:35 PM
Well, obviously not. Call my cynical, but I think it's more likely than not the scenario will be as LMNO described. That people will opt out, it will cause delays and people who didn't want to opt out will miss their flights. So then you have people getting pissed about screenings mixed with people pissed at the people pissed about the screenings. The message becomes muddy.
However, given that our President has a backbone made out of gelatin, I will concede that it is possible this will result in some kind of change. I'm just not super optimistic it will happen.
It probably will because a lot of people at the last second will suddenly be thinking the same way LMNO and Suu are here, in which case I guess we get the security measures we deserve.
I mean, really, why
should the personal freedoms of an individual come before the minor aggravation of the herd? What was I thinking?
Quote from: Hoopla on November 23, 2010, 02:38:30 PM
Freedom is often an inconvenience.
My point isn't that these screenings are ok. My point is that opting out won't actually change anything, unless you consider groping to be more "free" than the backscatter. Because if you want to fly, then it's one or the other right
now.
And another point-- If you're looking to get enough citizens to stand up and protest the government, shutting down the airport by opting out won't do it. That will get citizens mad at the
protesters, not the
government.
The political ideology is nice, but it has to take place in a world where human psychology and sociology play a larger part. Monkeys won't follow the logic that it's the TSA policies that are preventing them from seeing grandma and her pumpkin pie. They'll blame the "damn liberal hippie terrorist-loving protesters blocking security and making me wait in line for three hours."
Quote from: Hoopla on November 23, 2010, 02:51:58 PM
I mean, really, why should the personal freedoms of an individual come before the minor aggravation of the herd? What was I thinking?
Again, what freedoms? You're going to be violated either way if you want to get through security. Ideally, the way to protest would be
not to fly.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 02:54:27 PM
My point isn't that these screenings are ok. My point is that opting out won't actually change anything, unless you consider groping to be more "free" than the backscatter. Because if you want to fly, then it's one or the other right now.
And another point-- If you're looking to get enough citizens to stand up and protest the government, shutting down the airport by opting out won't do it. That will get citizens mad at the protesters, not the government.
The political ideology is nice, but it has to take place in a world where human psychology and sociology play a larger part. Monkeys won't follow the logic that it's the TSA policies that are preventing them from seeing grandma and her pumpkin pie. They'll blame the "damn liberal hippie terrorist-loving protesters blocking security and making me wait in line for three hours."
There is no way to know what it would change unless it is done. The TSA has gotten more criticism in the media in the last two weeks than I've seen in the last 9 years combined, simply because people are pissed off and have had enough.
If people feel they are inconvenienced tomorrow by people protesting for their own freedoms, pardon my French, but FUCK THEM.
I think the airlines won't like it one bit if all those people miss their flight.
And apparently, people will care as soon as it hits their wallet.
In the line, are all tickets the same price? What's the cheapest option for people that just want to be there and opt out?
So if all the people that didn't care before get really pissed when they miss their flight, what are they going to do?
It sucks but they shouldnt be angry at the people opting out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 02:54:27 PMAnd another point-- If you're looking to get enough citizens to stand up and protest the government, shutting down the airport by opting out won't do it. That will get citizens mad at the protesters, not the government.
The political ideology is nice, but it has to take place in a world where human psychology and sociology play a larger part. Monkeys won't follow the logic that it's the TSA policies that are preventing them from seeing grandma and her pumpkin pie. They'll blame the "damn liberal hippie terrorist-loving protesters blocking security and making me wait in line for three hours."
I really wonder about that.
Either way, the ones getting mad at the damn hippies have it coming, simply for not being mad enough ad the TSA policies.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 23, 2010, 02:57:32 PMThe TSA has gotten more criticism in the media in the last two weeks than I've seen in the last 9 years combined, simply because people are pissed off and have had enough.
And don't forget: also because it inconveniences white American citizens now.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 02:55:52 PM
Again, what freedoms? You're going to be violated either way if you want to get through security. Ideally, the way to protest would be not to fly.
True, you make a very good point, hitting the airlines where it hurts is the best way... its too bad there wasn't an airline that was allowed to work without security, as a control, to show where the money
could be going if people had the choice.
Honestly, if I had any faith in the Acela line (high speed train between Boston and DC) and I hadn't already bought non-refundable tickets, I'd probably do that. It's looking like a four-hour train ride might be quicker and more comfortable than a 90-minute flight these days.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 23, 2010, 02:38:26 PM
not to threadjack, but what was that about?
I love love love stories in which sallie mae gets the short end of the stick
Shoot me a PM if you want to know more.
Long story short, SLMA was dicking me and my grandmother around to the point of it being unbearable. We would be called, harassed to the point of illegality, and when we would ask for a supervisor, they would hang up on us. It got to the point where enough was enough and I wrote letters to my Congressman (Patrick Kennedy...WASTE of time) and both of RI's senators. I also wrote to NY's senators (my grandmother lives there), HER Congressman, the senators in PA where SLMA is based, the senators in FL where I went to school, as well as the President and Vice President (their addresses are public. Fucking WRITE TO THEM.)
I got called by personally by Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the RI Senators, and a senator from NY. They called SLMA on our behalf and gave them what for. I received a signed letter of apology from SLMA, and remarkably as of this past summer, no private institutions are permitted to fund or service federal student loans, and private loans are now being strictly regulated.
Writing letters: YES. IT CAN WORK FOR YOU.
Your legislators were elected by YOU. They are put in place to work for YOU, and are paid with YOUR tax dollars. They will listen to YOU if they want to win another fucking election. Sometimes they seriously don't know wtf is going on unless you tell them. They each have a website with email forms AND snail mail addresses listed for a reason.
We live in a republic which has representative democracy. The system is not broken [yet]. Use it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 03:11:56 PM
Honestly, if I had any faith in the Acela line (high speed train between Boston and DC) and I hadn't already bought non-refundable tickets, I'd probably do that. It's looking like a four-hour train ride might be quicker and more comfortable than a 90-minute flight these days.
Next time I go to Florida I'm going to take the train. It's pretty much the same price as a plane ticket anyway, and it's something different, just a hell of a lot longer.
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 03:15:34 PM
Writing letters: YES. IT CAN WORK FOR YOU.
Your legislators were elected by YOU. They are put in place to work for YOU, and are paid with YOUR tax dollars. They will listen to YOU if they want to win another fucking election. Sometimes they seriously don't know wtf is going on unless you tell them. They each have a website with email forms AND snail mail addresses listed for a reason.
We live in a republic which has representative democracy. The system is not broken [yet]. Use it.
Hmmm. New thread to be started.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 03:11:56 PMHonestly, if I had any faith in the Acela line (high speed train between Boston and DC) and I hadn't already bought non-refundable tickets, I'd probably do that. It's looking like a four-hour train ride might be quicker and more comfortable than a 90-minute flight these days.
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 03:16:40 PMNext time I go to Florida I'm going to take the train. It's pretty much the same price as a plane ticket anyway, and it's something different, just a hell of a lot longer.
And that is the moment when airlines definitely start caring.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 03:40:56 PM
And that is the moment when airlines definitely start caring.
No they won't. Amtrak, unlike real train systems like they have in Europe, kinda sucks. They'll jack up the prices, the trains will run as late as usual, and soon we'll see TSA there too (they occasionally bring dogs around and do random searches at stations).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 02:16:29 PM
Perhaps my rant came out that way. However, that's not really my intention.
My choices appear to be:
1) Backscatter, look at my junk, continue on my way.
2) Groped, feel my junk, continue on my way.
3) Refuse both, be detained, face possible fine.
4) Don't fly in the first place.
NONE of these choices would change the current procedure. There has to be a better way to get the TSA to change their policies, because opting out won't do it.
But paralyzing the entire air transport system in one day by having thousands of people opt for the physical search, legally, will.
Of course, it might not change it in the way the opters want. Given the nature of our government, they'll spazz out completely and come down like a ton of bricks.
Quote from: Niamh on November 23, 2010, 02:27:34 PM
They were talking about this on the news this morning. It's like LMNO said, the only result of a mass protest is a lot of people missing their flight.
The penalty for rebelling in 1776 was death by hanging, if the judge was in a good mood.
The penalty for rebelling in 2010 is a potentially missed flight.
Rudyard Kipling wrote something about this...A poem called
Tomlinson, IIRC.
Quote from: Niamh on November 23, 2010, 02:27:34 PM
They were talking about this on the news this morning. It's like LMNO said, the only result of a mass protest is a lot of people missing their flight.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 04:11:19 PM
The penalty for rebelling in 1776 was death by hanging, if the judge was in a good mood.
The penalty for rebelling in 2010 is a potentially missed flight.
Rudyard Kipling wrote something about this...A poem called Tomlinson, IIRC.
I don't have the money to be noble. Rebellion is expensive.
Quote from: Niamh on November 23, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
I don't have the money to be noble. Rebellion is expensive.
Okay.
But most of the foot soldiers in the revolution didn't have the money to walk away from their trades and/or farms. And they weren't trying to be noble, they were trying to be free.
I will be the LAST person to tell you to get chucked in jail for this sort of nonsense. But there are other ways.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 04:22:24 PM
Okay.
But most of the foot soldiers in the revolution didn't have the money to walk away from their trades and/or farms. And they weren't trying to be noble, they were trying to be free.
I will be the LAST person to tell you to get chucked in jail for this sort of nonsense. But there are other ways.
Mine is to not fly. :oops:
yeesh, I didn't realize how split the concesus would be when I posted this (although, I probably should have :mrgreen: ). Personally, I'm on board with Trip, Hoops, and Rog on this one, but I totally understand where LMNO and RWHN are coming from. Maybe it won't do shit, but at the moment, it's all we have, outside of Suu's suggestion (though, I feel it's easier to ignore a letter than it is to ignore an airport full of angry people).
That said, these new procedures are really, really fucked. My ex-bass player, a right-wing nutter said to me, after I expressed my concerns with the TSA situation, "you don't even fly!" As if the only person I should be concerned about is myself. That attitude makes me even more pissed. Sure, I don't fly, but my loved ones do, and it really bothers me to think about what these INNOCENT AMERICAN CITIZENS are being subjected to (especially women, children, and abuse victims). People should be pissed, and if you don't think an Opt-out day will work (even I expressed my doubts in the OP), then DO SOMETHING ELSE instead. Write a letter. Start a dialogue with your friends. Protest, protest, protest. I know how pissed you guys can get, let's figure out ways to channel it in a way we can see resuts (which is probably a combination of all above mentioned ideas).
Frig, I'm a broke-ass, but I'm thinking about getting a cheap ticket to somewhere, just to participate in the opt-out. And so the TSA can fondle my glorious junk. But, I'm not going to limit mysef to one course of action. I'll be writing letters, and I'll be telling my friends to do the same, but I am certainly NOT going to sit here and say: "That won't work." Because this is fucked, and as a sign of things to come, inconcievably scary. (even more-so than the Turrirists)
Quote from: Niamh on November 23, 2010, 04:27:02 PM
Mine is to not fly. :oops:
And that, too, works.
Interesting fact: During the revolutionary war, only about 1/3 of colonists wanted to rebel. Another 1/3 wanted to stay with England. The remaining 1/3 didn't give a fuck, and just wanted people to stop trampling their bean patches with armies.
Problem is, being that 1/3, just wanting to be left alone, doesn't mean that the other 2/3rds will avoid stepping on your toes.
The TSA COULD simply form multiple lines, go through THIS line if you want to opt out, and go through THAT line if you are in a hurry or don't care, and don't mind the perv machine.
But they won't, because they're neither that quick on their feet, nor do they actually give a fuck if you make your flight, and it serves their interests to have the last 2/3rds listed hate the rebellious 1/3rd, which is of course what 99.5% of the non-involved people will do. They won't hate the government for their abuses, they'll hate the people opposing the abuses, because they've been
inconvenienced.
In the end, the attempt to bollux the system will backfire, and the American people will continue getting the government they deserve, good & hard.
I'm only driving about an hour for thanksgiving, and the only person who's gonna examine me naked or cup my balls is coming with me, so I sadly won't have the opportunity to participate in the latest edition of American Outrage Theater.
There are good arguments for both participation and nonparticipation, and if it came to it, I'm not sure which avenue I'd choose.
I am swayed by this gem that Cain found over at Who Is Ioz:
Opt-In, You Dummies (http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2010/11/opt-in-you-dummies.html)
National Opt-Out day ain't gonna do shit. Obviously the proper tactic here is to submit to the invasive search and then litigate. Litigate the fuck out of that shit. Accuse the people who touched you of rape, molestation, assault, etc. etc. Sue them in civil court. Get together a thousand fondled men and women and go for a class action. Demand a bajillion googleplex dollars for emotional harm. Tie up every TSA official in depositions and whatnot for the next thirty years. Require ACT clearances and their by-state equivalents of every screener. Demand citizen review boards. Keep shitting in the same toilet until the goddamn pipes explode.
Um, if you opt in, you don't get groped. You go through the perv machine.
Heh, Dimo's bass player's argument reminds me of my own co-workers. I've been arguing against the TSA policies with them for a few weeks now, and one of the things they ask is "How do you feel about us searching inmates, since you're against searching travelers?"
"You're talking about the difference between a convicted rapist and a grandmother going to visit her family."
"YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONVICTED RAPIST AND A GRANDMOTHER GOING TO VISIT HER FAMILY!"
"YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONVICTED RAPIST AND A GRANDMOTHER GOING TO VISIT HER FAMILY!"
I feel like fucking Yossarian in that place sometimes.
But it always comes down to this, on their side, "I'd rather be a little inconvenienced if at least I know we're safe." The terrorists already won. All flight passengers should be cuffed, naked, and be forced to cough while bending over a mirror.
I'm all for people opting out Wednesday. Fuck this shit.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 23, 2010, 04:35:22 PM
Opt-In, You Dummies (http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2010/11/opt-in-you-dummies.html)
National Opt-Out day ain't gonna do shit. Obviously the proper tactic here is to submit to the invasive search and then litigate. Litigate the fuck out of that shit. Accuse the people who touched you of rape, molestation, assault, etc. etc. Sue them in civil court. Get together a thousand fondled men and women and go for a class action. Demand a bajillion googleplex dollars for emotional harm. Tie up every TSA official in depositions and whatnot for the next thirty years. Require ACT clearances and their by-state equivalents of every screener. Demand citizen review boards. Keep shitting in the same toilet until the goddamn pipes explode.
:mittens:
See, there's a million and one ways to go about it. PICK ONE!
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on November 23, 2010, 04:39:18 PM
I feel like fucking Yossarian in that place sometimes.
Welcome to my life. :lulz:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on November 23, 2010, 04:39:18 PM
But it always comes down to this, on their side, "I'd rather be a little inconvenienced if at least I know we're safe." The terrorists already won.
Bonus: These screening aren't really making you "safer".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 04:40:58 PM
Bonus: These screening aren't really making you "safer".
To my mind, that's utterly irrelevant.
Even if they COULD find underwear bombs and similar hilarity (they can't), I'd still be just as against it as I am now.
In addendum to all I've said so far, I feel the need to express how terrifying this really is to me. I have a far greater fear of a "secure state" than any potential terrorist attacks. And "I don't even fly."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 04:40:58 PM
Bonus: These screening aren't really making you "safer".
THIS. From what I've read and heard, while your junk is getting scanned and/or manhandled. There are all kinds of bags, packages, etc., going to cargo that are getting little more than a pair of eye-balls.
Quote from: Cuddlefist on November 23, 2010, 04:43:42 PM
In addendum to all I've said so far, I feel the need to express how terrifying this really is to me. I have a far greater fear of a "secure state" than any potential terrorist attacks. And "I don't even fly."
You're just not
serious about having a good time, 21st Century America™-style.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 04:42:34 PM
To my mind, that's utterly irrelevant.
Even if they COULD find underwear bombs and similar hilarity (they can't), I'd still be just as against it as I am now.
I know, I'm just taking that argument off the table. It's bogus, and shouldn't even be considered.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 04:44:14 PM
THIS. From what I've read and heard, while your junk is getting scanned and/or manhandled. There are all kinds of bags, packages, etc., going to cargo that are getting little more than a pair of eye-balls.
Not only that, the perv machine won't pick up a pair of RDX-lined underwear, nor will being groped.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 04:45:33 PM
I know, I'm just taking that argument off the table. It's bogus, and shouldn't even be considered.
Point.
And, to add to my previous post, the fact that the public response to this has been so minimal, angers, frustrates and scares me even more.
It's been on the nightly news ever since that cellphone video went viral. Every single person they've asked has been against it.
What more do you want, armed insurrection?
Any terrorist organizations worth their salt are going to find ways around whatever cockamamie system we put up. Even if these screenings were making it impossible for terrorists to wear explosives on the plane. they'll just exploit the loopholes in cargo security. Or they will abandon planes altogether and ship something in the bazillion containers that enter our ports that don't even get the eye-ball treatment.
One of the problems America has is it seems to suffer from multiple personalities. We want to be open and free while also being safe and secure. I'm not sure it is possible to have both. I think on some level, people have to accept that, well, we're people. There are people who's hobby and/or profession and/or raison 'd-etre is to kill other people. Of course we still need some kind of security and defense systems, but it is utterly unrealistic to think we can protect ourselves from harm forever. People who want to kill us will find a way to kill us. We just have to hope we aren't living in their bullseye.
I am putting "MERRY CHRISTMAS" across my ass in magnetic tape when I fly, and I'm walking through the perv machine. If anything, maybe I can start the "IT'S HAPPY HOLIDAYS NOT MERRY CHRISTMAS" bullshit amongst the minimum wage wackjobs they hire, and continue to my Jet Blue Extra Legroom 3 hours and 10 minute gate-to-gate experience in piece.
(http://www.tortus.com/images/mce/lp.jpg)
Perhaps it should be, "live free and die".
As the saying goes, you can have liberty or safety, but not both.
All that means is "WE DON'T WANT TO PAY TAXES SO FUCK YOU......but we still pay federal income tax and property taxes."
Freestaters are scary.
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2010, 04:55:25 PM
(http://www.tortus.com/images/mce/lp.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 04:57:10 PM
Perhaps it should be, "live free and die".
As the saying goes, you can have liberty or safety, but not both.
I agree. And oddly symbolized by Nigel's post, considering that Man in the Mountain rock formation picture on the license plate has since, died/fallen off.
Quote from: Cuddlefist on November 23, 2010, 04:43:42 PM
In addendum to all I've said so far, I feel the need to express how terrifying this really is to me. I have a far greater fear of a "secure state" than any potential terrorist attacks. And "I don't even fly."
Me too.
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/images/donttouch.gif)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 04:52:46 PMAny terrorist organizations worth their salt are going to find ways around whatever cockamamie system we put up. Even if these screenings were making it impossible for terrorists to wear explosives on the plane. they'll just exploit the loopholes in cargo security. Or they will abandon planes altogether and ship something in the bazillion containers that enter our ports that don't even get the eye-ball treatment.
One of the problems America has is it seems to suffer from multiple personalities. We want to be open and free while also being safe and secure. I'm not sure it is possible to have both. I think on some level, people have to accept that, well, we're people. There are people who's hobby and/or profession and/or raison 'd-etre is to kill other people. Of course we still need some kind of security and defense systems, but it is utterly unrealistic to think we can protect ourselves from harm forever. People who want to kill us will find a way to kill us. We just have to hope we aren't living in their bullseye.
Um, no, it REALLY doesn't have anything to do with security, even IF the prevention would have worked, the likelihood of getting killed in a terrorist attack is statistically about the same as the likelihood of getting ill from the backscatter radiation.
... and the radiation you're exposed to in an airplane speeding through high altitude is about a 100x more than that.
... and (I'm not sure on this one though) crossing the road is probably yet an even bigger risk to your health.
Seriously, not only do those systems not protect you against what they claim to protect you from, the thing they are supposed to protect you against is a danger that is completely insignificant when compared to every-day life, in the first place.
In addition to that, let me quote Schneier:
QuoteExactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcement of cockpit doors, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else is security theater.
(from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html )
---------
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 04:54:25 PMI am putting "MERRY CHRISTMAS" across my ass in magnetic tape when I fly, and I'm walking through the perv machine. If anything, maybe I can start the "IT'S HAPPY HOLIDAYS NOT MERRY CHRISTMAS" bullshit amongst the minimum wage wackjobs they hire, and continue to my Jet Blue Extra Legroom 3 hours and 10 minute gate-to-gate experience in piece.
Um, so on the one hand you say you're going to be pissed about people holding up the line by opting to be patted down, and on the other hand you are going to pull a prank that is going to get you BOTH backscattered AND pat down? That doesn't make sense.
Also, if you think about trying that, I'd make sure that magnetic tape on your ass is actually going to show up on the screen before putting a lot of effort into it. As far as I know the backscatter machines work because they bounce low-power x-rays on your body, go through (most) clothes, but reflect (mostly) on your skin, so if you put tape on your skin, the most they're going to see is a very slight embossing? Maybe I'm completely wrong, but have there been any reports of successful "taping messages on your body / using strips of aluminium foil / etc" actions with the nude-scanners?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 04:50:19 PM
It's been on the nightly news ever since that cellphone video went viral. Every single person they've asked has been against it.
What more do you want, armed insurrection?
Yeah, I've seen a few reports on it, but they were all, IMO, really slanted. Y'know, sensational sounding headlines: "4 Year Old Groped by TSA" but they all wrapped up by saying "but now your safe from people that want to harm 'Murricans."
Regardless, I'd say there's a matter of degrees between news coverage and armed insurrection. Meaning, I can want more without wanting armed insurrection. Though, one can dream...
Quote from: Cramulus on November 23, 2010, 05:11:42 PM
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/images/donttouch.gif)
:lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 05:12:17 PM
Also, if you think about trying that, I'd make sure that magnetic tape on your ass is actually going to show up on the screen before putting a lot of effort into it. As far as I know the backscatter machines work because they bounce low-power x-rays on your body, go through (most) clothes, but reflect (mostly) on your skin, so if you put tape on your skin, the most they're going to see is a very slight embossing? Maybe I'm completely wrong, but have there been any reports of successful "taping messages on your body / using strips of aluminium foil / etc" actions with the nude-scanners?
I honestly don't know. I'm actually pretty sure I'm exposed to more radiation living within 20 miles of Fall River, let alone the MRIs and X-Rays I've had regularly for orthopedic purposes. But I don't particularly like the idea of being touched. Ever. By ANYONE, unless I'm dating you. So while people have their right to opt-out, I'll take my 3 seconds in the perv-scanner. This isn't actually a win-lose situation either way, and if someone actually gets a thrill out of a silvery scan of my size 14 ass, then good for them......The least I could do is wish them a Merry Christmas in the process.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 04:57:10 PM
Perhaps it should be, "live free and die".
As the saying goes, you can have liberty or safety, but not both.
The statement is incorrect. The government cannot make you safe.
So you get neither.
Quote from: Suu on November 23, 2010, 05:22:39 PM
I honestly don't know. I'm actually pretty sure I'm exposed to more radiation living within 20 miles of Fall River, let alone the MRIs and X-Rays I've had regularly for orthopedic purposes. But I don't particularly like the idea of being touched. Ever. By ANYONE, unless I'm dating you. So while people have their right to opt-out, I'll take my 3 seconds in the perv-scanner. This isn't actually a win-lose situation either way, and if someone actually gets a thrill out of a silvery scan of my size 14 ass, then good for them......The least I could do is wish them a Merry Christmas in the process.
If that's all it was, I'd agree.
But it isn't. It's the not-so-thin edge of the wedge. They're busy seeing just exactly what we'll put up with.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 05:29:57 PM
If that's all it was, I'd agree.
But it isn't. It's the not-so-thin edge of the wedge. They're busy seeing just exactly what we'll put up with.
Write your letters, then. That's what I'm doing.
...but I'd really like to see an angry mob storm into a terminal at JFK with sticks and pitchforks and take these machines out. That...THAT would be worth it.
Also: Off to class. Just in case you post to me and don't get a response for a while.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 05:12:17 PM
Um, no, it REALLY doesn't have anything to do with security, even IF the prevention would have worked, the likelihood of getting killed in a terrorist attack is statistically about the same as the likelihood of getting ill from the backscatter radiation.
... and the radiation you're exposed to in an airplane speeding through high altitude is about a 100x more than that.
... and (I'm not sure on this one though) crossing the road is probably yet an even bigger risk to your health.
Seriously, not only do those systems not protect you against what they claim to protect you from, the thing they are supposed to protect you against is a danger that is completely insignificant when compared to every-day life, in the first place.
It doesn't matter what the actual statistical probability is. You are dealing with a public that bought into "death panels". You are dealing with a public that just put back into power a political party that was at the steering wheel when our economy went into the drink. You aren't going to get the horse to the trough to look at the water, much less drink it. The American people overall believe we must be doing something to secure the country against terrorists. Look at what we've done to 9/11. It's practically a National Holiday. This country has latched onto that and incorporated it into its overall identity and there are absolutely no signs that we are going to let go of that.
So then the question becomes how much something do we do, how much something do we put up with in the name of security. If we have to do something (have it in that the American people demand that we do something) what can we do that minimizes impact on liberty and freedom. And in this thread, when it goes too far how do we address it so that it changes.
But the arguments around statistics simply won't get us anywhere because the people aren't willing to listen to that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 05:46:36 PM
It doesn't matter what the actual statistical probability is. You are dealing with a public that bought into "death panels". You are dealing with a public that just put back into power a political party that was at the steering wheel when our economy went into the drink. You aren't going to get the horse to the trough to look at the water, much less drink it. The American people overall believe we must be doing something to secure the country against terrorists. Look at what we've done to 9/11. It's practically a National Holiday. This country has latched onto that and incorporated it into its overall identity and there are absolutely no signs that we are going to let go of that.
So then the question becomes how much something do we do, how much something do we put up with in the name of security. If we have to do something (have it in that the American people demand that we do something) what can we do that minimizes impact on liberty and freedom. And in this thread, when it goes too far how do we address it so that it changes.
But the arguments around statistics simply won't get us anywhere because the people aren't willing to listen to that.
This. Logic isn't a viable tool with the American public, these days.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 23, 2010, 05:11:42 PM
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/images/donttouch.gif)
Heeeee! Oh shit. I want a flag of that.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27486.0
I still think suing them for sexual harassment and assault is the way to go.
Gonna be hard to run the TSA when it's drowning in court orders and paying out tens of thousands of dollars to everyone.
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 06:48:17 PM
I still think suing them for sexual harassment and assault is the way to go.
Gonna be hard to run the TSA when it's drowning in court orders and paying out tens of thousands of dollars to everyone.
I don't think I said so before, but yes I agree.
In particular the airline employees (and possibly some TSA people as well) suing on the sexual harassment thing will be hard for the courts to ignore. Even if the TSA wins all the suits a lawsuit is expensive and time consuming, and the judges will have to at least pretend to hear out the prosecution.
I would be highly tempted to go through the scanner, with "fuck you perverts" written across my stomach under my clothes, and give them all a nice smile before striding off to my flight.
Of course, this is all easily remedied for me if I simply drive, or take the train somewhere instead (within reason).
What if we simple through without wearing underwear? Be bold! Drop trou, look at them, and say, "WHAT?!"
Hoopla and Requia, precisely.
Sometimes, I am a fan of the "lawfare" route. Rarely, as laws are obviously written by the same vested interests they so often fail to catch, but sometimes, it is the right tool for the right job. And this seems to be a perfect situation for it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
What if we simple through without wearing underwear? Be bold! Drop trou, look at them, and say, "WHAT?!"
wear baggy shorts commando style. bring back Umbro gym shorts and call em TSA shorts.
take a jog around the airport before you get in line so you got a nice film of sweat on your boys.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 05:46:36 PM
It doesn't matter what the actual statistical probability is. You are dealing with a public that bought into "death panels". You are dealing with a public that just put back into power a political party that was at the steering wheel when our economy went into the drink. You aren't going to get the horse to the trough to look at the water, much less drink it. The American people overall believe we must be doing something to secure the country against terrorists. Look at what we've done to 9/11. It's practically a National Holiday. This country has latched onto that and incorporated it into its overall identity and there are absolutely no signs that we are going to let go of that.
I get that.
But unless you're saying that those people are actually RIGHT, it actually DOES matter what the statistical probability is.
For one thing, it matters, because it is the TRUTH. And the tRUTH doesn't care about the public opinion.
Quote
But the arguments around statistics simply won't get us anywhere because the people aren't willing to listen to that.
I'm not arguing, I'm just stating the facts.
And you do realize that your reply just pretty much placed you in the category of "people not willing to listen to <statistics>", right? Maybe it's for a different reason, but it's still the same.
Look at what you were saying in the post I replied to (damnit for the nested quotes being gone), you were saying the terrorists are going to find ways around it, talking about "protecting us from harm", etc. YOU actually said you don't think it's possible to be both free and secure. And you said it in the context of terrorist threats. The statistics I quoted directly contradict that: As far as terrorist threats go, you're already as secure as you're going to be when you compare it to every-day risks. For freedom, just subtract the absurd TSA crap.
Sure that's not going to happen, but for a moment it seemed you were actually buying into their bull, acknowledging it. It wasn't "the people" ignoring the statistical facts, in this case it was you. And as far as problem solving goes, that's not very useful.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
What if we simple through without wearing underwear? Be bold! Drop trou, look at them, and say, "WHAT?!"
I'm still all for the ladies that opt out and get groped to wear huge fake penises.
(or real penises, I don't care*)
(*as long as they're from a sustainable carbon-neutral source, and organic)
Quote from: Hoopla on November 23, 2010, 06:51:39 PM
I don't think I said so before, but yes I agree.
3rd'ed.
A long stream of letters, complaints, cries of harassment, demands for proof of image destruction, class aciton suits, etc., are going to eat time, and therefore money from the TSA. The only way they win is if everyone walks unprotesting through the scanner.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 23, 2010, 07:16:06 PM
wear baggy shorts commando style. bring back Umbro gym shorts and call em TSA shorts.
take a jog around the airport before you get in line so you got a nice film of sweat on your boys.
I'm leaning towards flying kilted.
Quote from: Subetai on November 23, 2010, 06:48:17 PM
I still think suing them for sexual harassment and assault is the way to go.
Gonna be hard to run the TSA when it's drowning in court orders and paying out tens of thousands of dollars to everyone.
How many people will actually sue?
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 07:27:19 PM
I'm leaning towards flying kilted.
We may have a winner.
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 07:27:19 PM
I'm leaning towards flying kilted.
that beats my suggestion all to hell. fuck that's the best idea ever.
:potd:
:mittens:
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 23, 2010, 07:21:16 PM
I get that.
But unless you're saying that those people are actually RIGHT, it actually DOES matter what the statistical probability is.
For one thing, it matters, because it is the TRUTH. And the tRUTH doesn't care about the public opinion.
I'm not arguing, I'm just stating the facts.
Well of course they're not right. And sure, it matters in figuring out who is right and who is wrong. But agendas and policies are not set in America totally on the basis of what is right and wrong. It is set based upon what the people want, whether it is right or wrong. Again, I point to health care reform. So much of what happened, or didn't happen to HCR, was based upon misinformation. The Death Panel BS helped to derail it. It helped to remove the public option. The Obama Administration tried combating it with the truth and facts and look where that got them. That's all that I'm pointing out here. That when you are faced with the stiff headwinds of ignorant policy making, the facts don't make a difference.
QuoteAnd you do realize that your reply just pretty much placed you in the category of "people not willing to listen to <statistics>", right? Maybe it's for a different reason, but it's still the same.
Nowhere did I say that I'm not willing to listen to statistics. I mean, I am a professional evaluator. I understand completely the statistics. I also understand completely the lay of the land right now and that the statistics don't matter. That doesn't mean you discount them or get rid of them. It just means you have to think of different ways to get at the masses to effect change.
QuoteLook at what you were saying in the post I replied to (damnit for the nested quotes being gone), you were saying the terrorists are going to find ways around it, talking about "protecting us from harm", etc. YOU actually said you don't think it's possible to be both free and secure.
When I said that I was talking about America, not me as an individual. It is not possible to with 100% certainty and success, protect America from another terrorist attack. It WILL happen again. Now, on an individual level, that next terrorist attack is very unlikely to happen in Maine. So, sure, I'm pretty safe. Though, that doesn't mean the ripple effects won't get to me. (economy, Patriot Act, etc.)
QuoteAnd you said it in the context of terrorist threats. The statistics I quoted directly contradict that:
For the individual, yes. I'm not arguing that.
QuoteAs far as terrorist threats go, you're already as secure as you're going to be when you compare it to every-day risks. For freedom, just subtract the absurd TSA crap.
And I'm not arguing against subtracting the TSA crap. But we still have other items like the Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc., intact. So it's more freedom, but it isn't Freedom.
QuoteSure that's not going to happen, but for a moment it seemed you were actually buying into their bull, acknowledging it. It wasn't "the people" ignoring the statistical facts, in this case it was you. And as far as problem solving goes, that's not very useful.
I think I was pretty clear with what I was arguing and I think I was pretty clear I wasn't arguing against the statistics. I was simply pointing out the utility of those statistics in the face of an ignorant public who don't give a fuck about facts and figures these days. And those idiots are voting and effecting policy. Statistics won't help, no matter how true they are.
Enrico does not understand all the outrage... x-rays see through clothes and enforce groping? Sign Enrico up!
Where the Generalissimo can find TSA peoples to set up in basement apartment?
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on November 23, 2010, 07:49:22 PM
Enrico does not understand all the outrage... x-rays see through clothes and enforce groping? Sign Enrico up!
Where the Generalissimo can find TSA peoples to set up in basement apartment?
Once again, Generalissimo Salazar points to the obvious solution.
Why haven't we given this guy Napalitano's job, yet?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2010, 05:29:57 PM
If that's all it was, I'd agree.
But it isn't. It's the not-so-thin edge of the wedge. They're busy seeing just exactly what we'll put up with.
YEP. This.
Ok, fair warning, I am a fucking nutjob.
Having said that, here is my humble solution: take away ALL security measures in airports, and on the back of each seat of the airplane is a smallish baton, something like what an average police officer would carry. It would usually sit slipped into a little holder, and every single passenger on the plane would have access to one.
If someone tried something crazy on the plane, each passenger would have a potential weapon to use on the terrorist. Certainly, he might be able to get a few of them, but not most. I think almost all terrorists could be neutralized in this manner.
Thoughts?
Combine this with endless amounts of free scotch, and you've got a deal.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 23, 2010, 08:30:00 PM
Ok, fair warning, I am a fucking nutjob.
Having said that, here is my humble solution: take away ALL security measures in airports, and on the back of each seat of the airplane is a smallish baton, something like what an average police officer would carry. It would usually sit slipped into a little holder, and every single passenger on the plane would have access to one.
If someone tried something crazy on the plane, each passenger would have a potential weapon to use on the terrorist. Certainly, he might be able to get a few of them, but not most. I think almost all terrorists could be neutralized in this manner.
Thoughts?
Oh, I absolutely think this would ALMOST work. It would completely eliminate hijack attempts. It wouldn't work on suicide bombers, but then the most damage a suicide bomber could do was blow up a plane over a major city or when it was coming in for a landing.
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2010, 08:41:32 PM
Oh, I absolutely think this would ALMOST work. It would completely eliminate hijack attempts. It wouldn't work on suicide bombers, but then the most damage a suicide bomber could do was blow up a plane over a major city or when it was coming in for a landing.
Very true, if a guy was just sitting quietly with a bomb strapped to his chest, my method would be pointless.
And seriously, how fucking likely is that, anyway? Less likely than the fucking thing crashing from a malfunction.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 08:35:30 PM
Combine this with endless amounts of free scotch, and you've got a deal.
God, you're good.
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2010, 08:42:38 PM
And seriously, how fucking likely is that, anyway? Less likely than the fucking thing crashing from a malfunction.
Exactly.
It's impossible to protect against EVERY POSSIBLE CONTINGENCY. We should be taking REASONABLE precautions, not spending billions and making people miserable to MAYBE BUT NOT REALLY prevent something that's less likely than the wings icing up. FFS.
In the spirit of being responsible for myself, my safety, and being competent with a baton, I see nothing wrong with Hoopla's idea.
LMNO: I support this. A tumbler full of whiskey, a stick raised in anger, and a rousing chorus of "William Zanzinger" with my fellow fliers after we senselessly beat anyone doing odd things with their shoes.
To play the jerk card, would this extend only to passenger body screening? Would luggage / carry one still be scanned?
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2010, 08:44:18 PM
It's impossible to protect against EVERY POSSIBLE CONTINGENCY. We should be taking REASONABLE precautions, not spending billions and making people miserable to MAYBE BUT NOT REALLY prevent something that's less likely than the wings icing up. FFS.
Spot on Nigel. We're terrorizing ourselves to protect ourselves from terrorism.
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 08:45:42 PM
In the spirit of being responsible for myself, my safety, and being competent with a baton, I see nothing wrong with Hoopla's idea.
LMNO: I support this. A tumbler full of whiskey, a stick raised in anger, and a rousing chorus of "William Zanzinger" with my fellow fliers after we senselessly beat anyone doing odd things with their shoes.
To play the jerk card, would this extend only to passenger body screening? Would luggage / carry one still be scanned?
I'm still surprised nobody ever beat William Zanzinger to death.
The only thing one could do with their luggage would be to blow up the plane, which as Nigel points out, my idea wouldn't protect from anyway, so I will say no. No luggage scans.
Quote from: Richter on November 23, 2010, 08:51:06 PM
Terrorizing ourselves to protect ourselves from terrorism.
Is this what "counter-terrorism" s'posed to mean?
Quote from: Cuddlefist on November 23, 2010, 11:48:39 PM
Is this what "counter-terrorism" s'posed to mean?
I thought that was when your folks do it in the kitchen.
I think that's just normal terrorism. At least in my case.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 02:13:39 AM
I think that's just normal terrorism. At least in my case.
So your counters aren't terrified?
Quote from: Cuddlefist on November 22, 2010, 11:40:53 PM
Word on the street is that this Wednesday, the 24 of November, is "Opt-out" day for people travelling out of the airports. The idea is that everyone should opt-out of the body scan, and take the much longer to accomplish pat-down procedure, to slow down the airports to a crawl as a form of protest.
Sure, it sounds a lot like picking a day to not but gas for your car to put the "screws" into the big oil companies, and it may not accomplish anything, but I figured I'd pass the word.
My mother's side of the family are all from Boston. Basically I travel from West Roxbury to Hyde Park this year.
My father's side of the family are all Europeans.
Doktor Blight,
Having mom drive me for about 12 minutes. :D
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/23/georgia.tsa.employee/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)
Quote from: Suu on November 24, 2010, 03:47:57 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/23/georgia.tsa.employee/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)
What can be said? We're in good hands...
Security guards with delusions of grandeur...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2010, 07:41:59 PM
Nowhere did I say that I'm not willing to listen to statistics. I mean, I am a professional evaluator. I understand completely the statistics. I also understand completely the lay of the land right now and that the statistics don't matter. That doesn't mean you discount them or get rid of them. It just means you have to think of different ways to get at the masses to effect change.
For the record, they do matter. Whether people in general listen or not. If for some reason the statistics would have showed any significant sort of danger with regards to terrorism, not only would my assessment of the situation be different, I'm pretty sure the entire situation would be different.
But yes, the people won't listen.
QuoteWhen I said that I was talking about America, not me as an individual.
Okay, my apologizes for the misunderstanding then, because when you said
"We want to be open and free while also being safe and secure. I'm not sure it is possible to have both."
I take that to mean that indeed the first sentence is speaking as "we America", therefore if you contrast that with the second sentence in the first person I'm going to assume that is your actual personal opinion.
But you intended that too as the opinion of the American People in general, because you yourself know it to be nonsense since you are not afraid to look the statistics in the eye.
QuoteIt is not possible to with 100% certainty and success, protect America from another terrorist attack. It WILL happen again. Now, on an individual level, that next terrorist attack is very unlikely to happen in Maine. So, sure, I'm pretty safe. Though, that doesn't mean the ripple effects won't get to me. (economy, Patriot Act, etc.)
For the individual, yes. I'm not arguing that.
Maybe you need to read Cain's "history longer than 5 minutes ago" thread again. Apparently in the 80s there were bunches of terrorist attacks in Europe*, without any "ripple effects" as bad as what you're saying.
So that shows you do NOT in fact need very much protection from terrorist attacks**, since the individual risk is insignificant compared to taking part in ground traffic. And the attacks in the 80s show that it is NOT the terrorist attacks that causes the ripple effects, but your government, the TSA, etc.
So, if you want more protection from the negative effects of terrorist attacks, you need protection from your government and protection from the TSA, and all that.
Which, IRONICALLY, also happens to
increase your freedom.
Really, that is what I was trying to say.
At least, as long as I am talking to RWHN making the statement of "I don't think we can both be secure from terrorist attacks and be free", on a personal account.
If I had known I was talking to RWHN re-voicing the opinions and "thoughts" of the American People in General, I would probably not have bothered.
(*and I lived there, but being born in 1980, I don't remember much from that decade except Tchernobyl and the fall of the Wall)
(**I'm still all for the education of passengers, as Schneier suggested, because it is actually a freedom increasing precaution)
QuoteStatistics won't help, no matter how true they are.
Yeah and I still disagree with that, on principle, but it's not really important.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 23, 2010, 04:08:40 AM
This man is awesome.
That man is a true Patriot. Damn, we need more like him.
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2010, 08:44:18 PM
It's impossible to protect against EVERY POSSIBLE CONTINGENCY. We should be taking REASONABLE precautions, not spending billions and making people miserable to MAYBE BUT NOT REALLY prevent something that's less likely than the wings icing up. FFS.
Al-Qaeda in Yemen's grand strategy is based around this approach to security. Find a flaw. Send a small bomb through the flaw. It either blows up, or it doesn't. Either way, countries spend millions securing the flaw. Find another flaw. Repeat. For the cost of a few thousand they are going to run foreign nations into the ground.
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010 (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010)
(http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/aa-American-Empire-onward-Christian-soldiers-poster.jpg)
Non-confirmed, but it fits with the TSA.
If I manage to properly hide a garden weasel in my pance, I will take the scanner.
Remington's article is very grave news. Anybody who opts out, ever, can be considered a domestic "extremist", aka terrorist. Says the PRESIDENT.
In saw a surprisingly refreshing opinion piece on the TSA from (what appear to be the quite liberal anchorwomen of ) KGW Channel 8 News. Aside from the completely anti-TSA attitude ("BTW, we contacted TSA to join us for this interview and they blew us off *sharp look at the camera*."), they key piece was an interview with some older guy with one of the actual 'orgs' protesting this.
New lady: So why are you protesting here. PDX airport doesn't even have these X-Ray machines.
Dude from Org: Well, we're here to spread information and to educate. Yadda yadda.
...later....
News Lady: Don't you think that if there are travel delays that it will just make the travelers at the airports angry at the protesters?
Duse from Org: I don't expect travel delays this week. Currently, only 10-15 percent of the major airports even have the X-Ray Backscatter machines. So I don't think it'll be much of a problem. At least, not this time.
TSA calling this a "win" is very much marketing.
It's a win because they got a memo from the white house giving them carte blance to whip out the patriot act on anyone who resists.
Chalk another one up to the spiders. Opposition crushed.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:34:45 PM
Remington's article is very grave news. Anybody who opts out, ever, can be considered a domestic "extremist", aka terrorist. Says the PRESIDENT.
It was probably inevitable that it would come to this. Your citizens don't behave the way you want them to? Brand them as terrorists. Simple.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 24, 2010, 07:46:21 PM
It was probably inevitable that it would come to this. Your citizens don't behave the way you want them to? Brand them as terrorists. Simple.
Well, a group of unempowered citizens enountered action by the government that they wanted to address by causing problems through unconventional means, and thereby garner media attention for their cause.
Quote from: Remington on November 24, 2010, 06:56:05 PM
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010 (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010)
Non-confirmed, but it fits with the TSA.
oh my fucking god
The logic is rather elegant, actually:
TSA groping and ritual humiliation is necessary to combat terrorism.
The anti-TSA protestors wish to remove these necessary methods.
In this zero-sum struggle, hindering the TSA ends up abetting terrorists.
Aiding and abetting terrorism can be considered a crime, such as materially supporting terrorist groups.
In recent years, the law has not distinguished between terrorists who engage in violence and the various support networks behind them.
Therefore, TSA protestors are terrorists.
As they are not wearing uniforms or acting under a formal chain of command, they are unlawful combatants.
Therefore, Obama can have them assassinated.
Hail Eris.
All Hail Discordia.
Well, It's either that, or they're trying to make us all into sexually traumatized sleeper agents. Shit, if they start playing THE WIZARD OF OZ on domestic flights, I''ma crap my pance.
On the plus side, this ought to shut up anybody who still think that Obama is on their side. :horrormirth:
Woman wears a bikini to LAX: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/traffic/transit/Traffic-LAX-holiday-travel-thanksgiving-110384004.html?dr (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/traffic/transit/Traffic-LAX-holiday-travel-thanksgiving-110384004.html?dr)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 24, 2010, 08:29:40 PM
On the plus side, this ought to shut up anybody who still think that Obama is on their side. :horrormirth:
I havent even looked at
The New Republic in the past month, but I'm pretty sure Marty Peretz and the op-ed squad over there are cheering this on. They have to show how "serious" and "concerned"* they are about terrorism, after all.
*I'm pretty sure this word, in this context, is short for "concern-trolling". Not by design, but that's how it normally turns out.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:34:45 PM
Remington's article is very grave news. Anybody who opts out, ever, can be considered a domestic "extremist", aka terrorist. Says the PRESIDENT.
Oh no, you don't have to opt out. Simply objecting to the whole process is enough to do the trick. Congratulations, you're a terrorist!
I'm most concerned about the 'alternative media' bit. This is basically a full scale announcement that the first ammendment is gone.
Can someone cut & paste, for the nannywall-impaired?
the shtfplan.com site one, you mean?
I'm trying, but I cannot even get the page to load currently.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 24, 2010, 09:00:06 PM
Can someone cut & paste, for the nannywall-impaired?
If the information recently acquired by Doug Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network is accurate, then something really big is happening in America right now - and it's most certainly not a step towards individual liberty.
According to Mr. Hagmann, he was contacted by a source within the DHS who provided an alarming memo detailing a new administrative directive agreed upon by DHS chief Janet Napolitano and the head of TSA John Pistole. The memo, according to Doug Hagmann, "officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as 'domestic extremists'."
The memo leaves no doubt as to who, exactly, is leading the charge to label Americans who refuse current security measures due to health and privacy concerns as extremists. "The measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President," it says.
Under the new labeling procedures, those who choose to opt-out or are perceived as being troublemakers will be detained, questioned and processed for further investigation:
The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who "interferes" with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, "including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day" as a "domestic extremist." The label is then broadened to include "any person, group or alternative media source" that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.
For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.
The United States government, under complete control and direction of our elected President, is now actively labeling anyone who exercises their 4th amendment Constitutional right which protects against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures as, essentially, engaging in terrorism as defined by Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act:
Section 802 [USA Patriot Act]
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
'(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that–
'(B) appear to be intended–
'(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
'(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Though it may seem a broad interpretation, the definitions for domestic terrorism are very vague, allowing for a variety of views depending on who happens to be making the decisions. The very fact that TSA is allegedly going to label opt-out travelers as 'domestic extremists' suggest that they are, by today's standards, considered no different than terrorists - and thus - may have their Constitutional rights stripped and be held without trial. In a previous article we discussed Matt Kernan, who may have found a Constitutional argument that works to avoid enhanced security in the airport. But, what if the-powers-that-be determined, by whatever vague definition, that the Constitution doesn't apply?
With the outrage from American travelers and the pressure being put on corporate profits, the President and TSA may eventually change their tune. But if they don't, then we can expect more intrusive checkpoints from our government in the very near future. Ms. Napolitano has already publicly stated that DHS is looking at other mass transit systems like buses and trains as the next target.
Something big is happening. And either the American people are going to force the change - starting with each individual making a personal decision to stand up against policies that can be described as nothing less than tyrannical - or the expansion of surveillance and control systems will continue to spread.
If the American people fail this time as we did with bailouts and healthcare, the end result will be backscatter machines in schools, malls, stadiums, and any other public venue which is deemed a security threat by our government.
I think I crashed it by sending it to Penn Jillette, and him tweeting it. Oops.
:mittens:
That's fucking hilarious.
Obama isn't the next Carter, he's the next LBJ.
NO ONE IS LOYAL. EVERYONE IS HERETIC
Terrorist
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 24, 2010, 10:11:36 PM
That's fucking hilarious.
Obama isn't the next Carter, he's the next LBJ.
It really does seem that way.
I bet he'd even wear brown shoes with a grey suit.
Apparently the source for that document is highly suspect. It may not be genuine.
Quote from: Remington on November 24, 2010, 11:02:05 PM
Apparently the source for that document is highly suspect. It may not be genuine.
I hope so... where did you read that about the source?
Quote from: Remington on November 24, 2010, 11:02:05 PM
Apparently the source for that document is highly suspect. It may not be genuine.
I couldn't find the part where it says there is some doubt.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 11:10:49 PM
I couldn't find the part where it says there is some doubt.
The source is an anonymous blogger.
Hardly anonymous. his name is right on the blog, and he has presence on the occasional radio show. Trustworthy is another matter of course.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 24, 2010, 11:24:55 PM
Hardly anonymous. his name is right on the blog, and he has presence on the occasional radio show. Trustworthy is another matter of course.
Yes, that. Sorry.
I want to get confirmation of this.
If it's true, we are THIS close to any political dissent being labeled terrorism.
Quote from: Remington on November 24, 2010, 06:56:05 PM
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010 (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010)
(http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/aa-American-Empire-onward-Christian-soldiers-poster.jpg)
Non-confirmed, but it fits with the TSA.
Waitaminit... I dun a bad thing?
Quote from: Nigel on November 25, 2010, 12:15:38 AM
I want to get confirmation of this.
If it's true, we are THIS close to any political dissent being labeled terrorism.
They did that 8 or 9 years ago. Maryland cops came clean a while back that they had been putting people on the terrorist list for protesting the war. Not as department policy, but because the crime statistics software the feds gave them was doing this.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 25, 2010, 12:52:03 AM
They did that 8 or 9 years ago. Maryland cops came clean a while back that they had been putting people on the terrorist list for protesting the war. Not as department policy, but because the crime statistics software the feds gave them was doing this.
Oh awesome.
Also, the protests against the Republican Party in St. Pauls in 2008, and the followup raids in 2010 were justified on anti-terrorism grounds.
I would say this makes my discipline look bad, but then I recall no-one who actually knows a damn about terrorism is anything more than a consultant or spy, and I feel a little better.
Heh.
I'm seeing a lot of implication in liberal circles lately that complaining about TSA screening methods means you are a Koch-backed Teabagger.
This is just like 2003, only in bizarro world, and more retarded.
Quote from: Subetai on November 25, 2010, 07:46:36 AM
Heh.
I'm seeing a lot of implication in liberal circles lately that complaining about TSA screening methods means you are a Koch-backed Teabagger.
This is just like 2003, only in bizarro world, and more retarded.
Liberals are becoming almost as ridiculous as Republicans during the Bush administration.
(http://www.networkworld.com/community/files/imce/img_blogs/smith-tsa-bumperstickers.jpg)
:lol: Saved.
So, I've done a bit of research and I think you could protect yourself from the worst of the x rays by wearing a lead lined hat with resistance of 2mm Pb at 125 Kv.
Which is to say, you would need an equivalent of 2 millimetres of lead lining your head. The worst of the radiation is purported to come down at the top of the head, at 20 times the intensity the TSA reports for their instruments.
I tried to find a faraday cage method instead, but was unsuccessful in determining if that would be practical, based on the scant data available to me.
What? So far I've read, the dangers of that scanner are as good as negligible? Got a link to where it says it could actually pose risk?
Link:
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-scanners-pose-cancer-risk-at-airports-us-scientists-warn/98552/1
The risk is low on an individual basis, but still.
I'm just not gonna fly, and wait for the hilarious reports of cancer clusters among TSA employees and flight staff.
I will readily say that I know nothing about radiation effects. At all. The way I see it, though, is that if these deliver a tiny amount of radiation small enough to be deemed harmless, that's still more than people were being exposed to before. So yeah, it might be less harmful than other devices producing radiation, but if you're combining it with all the other things that give off harmless radiation, how many times before it adds up?
Like mercury in fish. Small fish eat mercury runoff and aren't harmed, bigger fish eat lots of smaller fish, biggest fish eats lots of bigger fish and suddenly you have a high mercury concentration. Bioaccumulation motherfuckers.
Or
:?
Edited to remove microwaves because I don't understand things, and really if I replaced radiation with magic in this post it could only serve to improve my comprehension of it.
Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. X-rays are ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiations can cause burns. Ionizing radiations can also cause mutagenic effects.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 26, 2010, 04:56:47 AM
Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. X-rays are ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiations can cause burns. Ionizing radiations can also cause mutagenic effects.
Okay I'll take microwaves out of there because it's not important to the message, thanks. The point still stands that while these machines might emit harmless amounts of radiation, we still don't know how harmless they are when topping off the rest of the radiation we're already exposed to also deemed to be at a harmless level.
I'm not prepared to devote the amount of time it would require to have an impact on whether backscatter machines are used in airports, so the best solution I can come up with is to figure out how to minimize my risk. That is, best I can figure, by getting a hat with a few millimetres of lead lining.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on November 26, 2010, 05:17:30 AM
Okay I'll take microwaves out of there because it's not important to the message, thanks. The point still stands that while these machines might emit harmless amounts of radiation, we still don't know how harmless they are when topping off the rest of the radiation we're already exposed to also deemed to be at a harmless level.
Yes. This is already taken into account in any statement about possible risk of radiation exposure.
If they were to ignore the cumulative effects, the radiation would be 100% harmless, because nobody gets cancer from one backscatter scan.
However, people get radiation from all sorts of sources (as well as generally in the background of everywhere--thank you Tchernobyl), and it's a certain amount of cumulative radiation exposed to over a year that they can correlate with X% risk of cancer or other radiation-related illnesses.
So while you have the right idea, you would
really do well on reading up a littlebit about radiation. Just start on Wikipedia, the basics are easy enough to understand.
Just remember to never trust Greenpeace when they start talking about radiation.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 25, 2010, 02:56:05 PM
Liberals are becoming almost as ridiculous as Republicans during the Bush administration.
Yeah. They're not quite there yet, but it may only be a matter of time.
Perfect examples here, from the ever-reliable comment section of Balloon-Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/22/statist-media/):
QuoteIf your name is Erin Andrews or similar celebrity with similar concerns, I might be able to understand not wanting to get ones goods exposed.
Everyone else? Shut up and get scanned.
QuoteJust for the record, there is no question that this is Drudge-created.
January 2010
http://www.infowars.com/drudge-big-sis-wants-to-see-under-your-clothes/
August 2010
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050012
There was a June sally as well, but I can't find it now.
As Drum noted, "Liberals have been badly rolled on this."
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/living-matt-drudges-world
Too bad the President and Napolitano are the only people who have the balls to stand up to Drudge and the brains to see this fake populism coming from a mile away.
QuoteWell, separate from your personal likes or dislikes (which, really, you can see are probably not going to be reflected in policy for a country of 250 million people, right?), Drudge saw what this was and pushed it.
Pisses me off no end that the supposed political geniuses of the left blogosphere ate it up. Political f'in malpractice indeed. When did it become "liberal values" to demean civil service workers and call them freaking perverts, to push the meme that govt can't do anything right, to follow a line of argument that so obviously leads to "well, let's just pat down the dark people" that you'd really really have to be blind not to see it.
At what point does the frustrated left look in the mirror and say, "Part of the problem is that we suck as advocates"? I'd settle for a moratorium on, "Here's what the President should do—easy peasy" pieces.
Quote@jwb:
So the question is do you believe that these scanners and pat downs actually improve security or are just so much security theater?
Well now, that is the relevant question, isn't it. I do not know the answer to that question, but I wonder that the TSA would be standing pat under the withering fire they are getting from all directions, if they didn't believe there was some benefit to it. And getting scanned, whether or not it can detect explosive underwear with a lot of accuracy, I think may act as a deterrent. And unless there is some measurable health impact to getting scanned, what is the big deal for not submitting to it? as per my question in my first comment.
But I do not see this as some big brother boogyman authoritarian power grab by evil statists. That is absurd and paranoid bullshit imo. and some ideological pol theater in it's own right.
And on and on and on.
Basically, these people really truly and honestly believe reversed stupidity is intelligence. If a wingnut declared the sky blue, they'd argue it was red just not to concede any possible ground to the Hated Enemy and play into their hands.
Incidentally, here is an actual security expert, talking about the TSA
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html
Bruce has a point, that it is interesting this has only become an issue since it starting being trouble for white people, but as someone who has been hammering airports for nearly 5 years now about their use of security theatre, I think I'm justified in using whatever publicity is going to get them to stop.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 25, 2010, 09:03:56 PM
What? So far I've read, the dangers of that scanner are as good as negligible? Got a link to where it says it could actually pose risk?
Negligible yes, but still more substantial than the risk of terrorism. (multiply a 16 hundred thousands of one percent risk by 600 million travelers, you get nine or ten deaths a year, compared to roughly zero from airplane attacks).
Quote from: Remington on November 25, 2010, 05:44:21 PM
(http://www.networkworld.com/community/files/imce/img_blogs/smith-tsa-bumperstickers.jpg)
This deserves some :mittens:
most erotic news EVAR
http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573
This unfortunately shoots holes in my theory that the best way to counter this stuff is to get aroused by it.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 29, 2010, 04:39:58 PM
most erotic news EVAR
http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573
This unfortunately shoots holes in my theory that the best way to counter this stuff is to get aroused by it.
Damn.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 29, 2010, 04:39:58 PM
most erotic news EVAR
http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573
This unfortunately shoots holes in my theory that the best way to counter this stuff is to get aroused by it.
Percy CUMMINGS?
I call bullshit.
ahhh you're right
it's a fake news site
I was had.
GOOD SPOT, HOOPS
Quote from: Cramulus on November 29, 2010, 05:01:31 PM
ahhh you're right
it's a fake news site
I was had.
GOOD SPOT, HOOPS
I was duped by two probably fake stories in the last couple weeks, to my embarrassment... I am now disbelieving everything as a matter of principle.
In fact, I doubt Leslie Neilson is actually dead.
In the words of Ed Rooney, roll his bones on in here...
So, there wasn't really an opt-out, was there?
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2010, 07:46:36 AM
Heh.
I'm seeing a lot of implication in liberal circles lately that complaining about TSA screening methods means you are a Koch-backed Teabagger.
This is just like 2003, only in bizarro world, and more retarded.
There are no fucking liberals.
(http://lolsnaps.com/upload_images/real/1715.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 25, 2010, 12:52:03 AM
They did that 8 or 9 years ago. Maryland cops came clean a while back that they had been putting people on the terrorist list for protesting the war. Not as department policy, but because the crime statistics software the feds gave them was doing this.
How did Maryland even determine who they were?
I call bullshit on the cops on this one.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2010, 04:59:07 PM
Percy CUMMINGS?
I call bullshit.
... and his partner Sergio Armani :)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 26, 2010, 05:57:58 PM
Negligible yes, but still more substantial than the risk of terrorism. (multiply a 16 hundred thousands of one percent risk by 600 million travelers, you get nine or ten deaths a year, compared to roughly zero from airplane attacks).
From what I read so far is that the level of radiation is checked to be "safe enough" when the power of the radiation is spread evenly throughout the volume of the body, as would happen with normal X-rays, but because the backscatter machines radiation only penetrates a few millimetres (or centimetres) of the surface of the skin, the dosage the skin gets is an order of magnitude higher.
Additionally, there's no extra protection being made for the head and eyes, which are even more sensitive, yet you can't hide a bomb in your head or knives behind your eyeballs.
Additionally this machine has not gone through the extensive testing medical X-ray machines go through. There are many dangerous points of failure, for example if the ray gets stuck at some point, that point will get an really big amount of radiation (if you ever notice a backscatter machine that only produces half images like it stopped halfway through a scanline,
opt out).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2010, 08:09:13 PM
How did Maryland even determine who they were?
I call bullshit on the cops on this one.
It was only people who actually got processed that went on the list, not every protester.
Quote from: Remington on November 24, 2010, 06:56:05 PM
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010 (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010)
Non-confirmed, but it fits with the TSA.
I wish I could find a more credible link for this story. I Googled some of the quoted phrases from the memo, but can't seem to find anything that looks reliable.
http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment#799609/Home
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 02:15:50 AM
http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment#799609/Home
Love it!