backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by Schrag4.. on Dec 2 at 1:30 PM


Airport passengers are disturbed by the TSA's "nude" scans of adults and children alike. But they're even more repulsed by the idea of being groped by TSA agents under the stricter "enhanced" search procedures.  (Source: Corbis)

Terrorists' new tact of smuggling IEDs in their anal cavity may force the TSA to adopt even more intense search "enhancements".  (Source: World Net Daily)
The public is not happy about increasingly invasive "enhanced" searches and scans

Imagine if you saw this job posting on Craigslist: 
Wanted: A person with good attention to detail and willingness to work long hours.  Your daily tasks will consist of viewing people naked all day, including children.  You will also be asked to pat down the private regions of men, women, and children on a regular basis.
It sounds ludicrous, but that's essentially the job duties of the average Transportation Safety Administration worker at an airport these days.  And it's exactly why the public is outraged and planning an unprecedented, if poorly organized protest for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Prepare to be Searched

In response to the ever imaginative attempts of terrorists, the Obama administration is rolling out mass deployment of the scanners, which show nude images of passengers.  And those who refuse scans undergo much more invasive searches. 

Some passengers are reporting that TSA officers reached into their undergarments, groping their private parts.  Reports one woman, "The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around.  It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."

While there's supposed "protocols" protecting against such gross violations of privacy, there's little in the way of oversight it appears.

Similarly body scanners supposedly can't store or transmit images -- but that might not line up with reality.  However, the U.S. Federal Marshalls recently admitted in a court case that they secretly stored tens of thousands of nude scans of passengers, including, likely, children.  The TSA continues to claim that it's impossible to store images.

The public is not happy about these developments.

Poorly Organized Protests

Growing public outraged has fueled some to propose "National Opt-Out Day".  Some people are proposing going to the airport dressed in protest T-shirts and kilts even.  Rather than agreeing to body scans, they plan on demanding that TSA officers perform "enhanced" pat downs in a bid to delay flight times and press the point.

Robert Shofkom, a 43-year-old Georgetown, Texas native is among those planning on wearing a kilt in protest.  An IT specialist by profession, Mr. Shofkom remarks, "If you give them an inch, they won't just take in inch. Pretty soon you're getting scanned to get into a football game."

Some people have even passed out fliers or brought protest signs to the airport.  The fliers carry messages like, "You have the right to say, 'No radiation strip search! No groping of genitals!' Say, 'I opt out.'"

If enough people are convinced, it could just work.  A scan takes only about 10 seconds.  But a pat down can take four minutes or more.  If a significant portion of passengers opt for pat downs it could seriously delay flight times.

The protesters join America's largest pilot unions, which have boycotted the full-body scanners, which they say pose a small, but substantial cancer risk.

At present, the efforts seem rather poorly organized and ineffectual -- flights have remained on schedule and wait times have been remarkably low at around 10 minutes at many major airports.

Still the protests are clearly catching the public's attention, as evidenced by the "Don't Touch My Junk!" video which went viral.  In that video an Oceanside, Calif., man named John Tyner told a San Diego airport TSA official, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."

TSA Tells Public Not to Resist

The TSA has admonished the protest efforts.  Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole, speaking on ABC's Good Morning America said that protesters are hurting the public, stating, "I just feel bad for the traveling public that's just trying to get home for the holiday.  [The TSA screeners] just want to get you through."

The agency has increased its staff count, bracing for potential protests.  And it's urging the public to comply with its nude scans and pat downs.

What's Next?

With increasing privacy violations at the airport, the hot topic on many people's minds is -- where will the TSA stop?

There's been growing speculation about terrorists trying to smuggle explosives by inserting them in their rectum.  A Saudi suicide bomber already smuggled a bomb in his anal cavity.  A terrorist, in theory could smuggle a bomb onto a plane in their anal cavity and then remove it and detonate it.

Current generation scanners are likely not capable of detecting low-density explosives inside the anal cavity.

If such an attack is attempted, the TSA may have to opt for even greater "enhancements" to its already intimate screening protocol.

And in reality there's probably plenty of vulnerabilities that haven't been thought of.  What is clear is that the public likely faces a choice between continuing to give up their freedoms or drawing a hard line now and resisting the current protocols.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Thanks
By MrBlastman on 11/24/2010 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously, instead of showing those videos of how to use a seat as a floatation device on a plane, they should instead show videos on how to get up and subdue any threatening parties on a plane.

Americans need to stop living in fear!


RE: Thanks
By ClownPuncher on 11/24/2010 2:28:19 PM , Rating: 5
I absolutely agree. Someone might get hurt, but could also save hundreds or thousands of lives.


RE: Thanks
By kerpwnt on 11/24/2010 5:41:31 PM , Rating: 4
My mom always kept a knife in her purse before 9/11. Now she can't. Who will defend her from a nutjob on a plane? Better yet, why shouldn't she be allowed to better defend herself?

Criminals will always have an advantage in combat when there are laws in place to keep people disarmed.


RE: Thanks
By tng on 11/24/2010 6:44:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
why shouldn't she be allowed to better defend herself?
It's worse than that even. Here in California, the police don't want you to defend yourself. Heaven help you if you pull a gun on someone who attacks you or breaks into your house.

In Texas police look at cases where a mugger, assault, or robbery suspect was shot by the victim as a case solved. Here in CA they will arrest you for it and you will probably serve more time than the guy that assaulted you, and that is if the gun was registered.


RE: Thanks
By Lerianis on 11/29/2010 4:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt that. The federal laws have it in them that NO ONE at the state or federal level can be arrested for defending themselves with a weapon in their own home or out in public.

The problem comes when you PURSUE someone who is retreating and shoot them in the back.


RE: Thanks
By Schrag4 on 12/2/2010 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
Laws vary WILDLY from state to state (county or city even). Obviously, if it's illegal for you to even own a gun (which it is in some cities except under strict circumstances) then you will be charged if you end up defending yourself in your own home, even if it was obviously justified. "Those" types of regions tend to have DA's who aren't too keen on you using a weapon to defend yourself, so they'll be unlikely to show leniency to the poor guy who was just defending his family.

Recently, though, those laws have started to be overturned by the Supreme court, since they so obviously violate the 2nd Ammendment. Instead, those cities are simply cracking down on everything else that goes along with firearms ownership. Sure, you can have a gun, but you can't transport it, or practice with it, or buy it in the city. Or you can own a gun but it has to be completely disabled (taken apart, and with ammo in a different location). While the police wouldn't go looking in peoples' houses for fully assembled weapons, they could assume it was assembled and ready to go if you were to use it to stop an intruder.

At any rate, my point is that when you can and can't use a firearm in self defense (even in your own home!) varies quite a bit from place to place as well. Anyone considering gun ownership should spend a lot of time researching the laws in their area to avoid some serious fines or jail time.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki