TSA Admits $1B Nude Body Scanner Fleet Worthless! (My New Video)

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Affection, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. RB

    RB Founding Member

    If she didn't disclose SSI then there is no problem, but if TSA say's she did then she will either plead or defend, either will cost her something.
  2. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    The TSA will probably claim that the statement "The machines don't work" reveals the SSI data that shows the machines don't work.
    phoebepontiac likes this.
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I don't see how anything she talked about could be considered SSI given that she's far from the first person to point out that the scanners are a sham. Demonstrations of their shamaliciousness go back years, to all kinds of security experts and testers revealing this fact. I linked to just three in this post:

    TSA News Blog: Passenger Slips Metal by TSA Scanners Repeatedly

    So one could argue that she's merely repeating what we've already known for a long time.

    None of it matters, of course. Evidence of their ineffectiveness is meaningless, as we've already seen. The sheeple love them because they can pretend they're doing something To Keep Us Safe, the manufacturers love them because they're getting rich, our overlords love them because they're one more tool with which to enforce compliance. Nothing will change.

    I am, of course, all for demonstrations like this. But I don't have any illusions that anyone in power gives a (expletive deleted).
  4. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    This certainly explains why no disgruntled screener has ever released a copy of the SOP. For all intents and purposes, it's a phantom document.

    It also explains why procedures can vary so much from airport to airport: no one actually knows what correct procedures are.

    Jon, have any other screeners told you in the past that they have never seen the SOP manual?

    Thank you Jon and Jennifer! Thank you, thank you, thank you.
    phoebepontiac and Lisa Simeone like this.
  5. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Interesting to note that PV is not available:

  6. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    I'm no lawyer, but unauthorized disclosure of SSI (by a "covered person") is punishable only by civil penalty, not with a trip to jail.

  7. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    To clarify, she has seen the SOP, it's just that she hasn't read it. Apparently they break it out every once in a while to show the screeners new things, but that's it. It's absurd that training does not require them to read this document.

  8. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Thanks for correcting me, Jon.

    "Read" it, hells bells! If the SOP is so sacred, then every screener needs to have a copy and as well as memorize it.
  9. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Way back in June I made a long, windy remark in response to this article:


    I guess I was on to something. Your former screener says there was no SOP at the checkpoint, and I believe her. We've seen plenty of evidence that there is no "Standard Operating Procedure."
    barbell and Lisa Simeone like this.
  10. RB

    RB Founding Member


    Text at #10 suggest possible criminal actions.
  11. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    They can suggest all they like, but as best I'm aware, no criminal statute exists

  12. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It's like the Torah in Jewish Temple -- every copy is meticulously handcrafted and the document is carefully stored.

    Unlike the Torah, it appears that the local scribes are encouraged to ad lib & embellish.
  13. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Great comment from someone at Jon's site -- I heard the same thing from a friend who used to work at GAO -- she said they had to deal with TSA/DHS all the time and that the incompetence was off the charts:
    barbell, phoebepontiac and Sunny Goth like this.
  14. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    What do you expect when you have 60,000 employees with no useful purpose and no ability to achieve one if they had it?

    The only legitimate parts of DHS are FEMA and the Coast Guard, and both should be returned to their original owners, if they have not already been damaged and corrupted beyond repair.
    barbell and Sunny Goth like this.
  15. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I love that comment, Lisa! Moronity and political goonsmanship! Those are great words all by themselves, and as applied to DHS? Excellent snark.
    barbell and phoebepontiac like this.
  16. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    It's so pathetically true, and the waste in time, money, etc., is just sickening.
  17. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I don't see how stating that you were not trained and that they failed tests could qualify as disclosing SSI since it isn't part of any instruction or procedure.

    The GAO exposes this information all the time.
  18. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    Well...yea...and...so? Jon did the same thing with his first video. Your point is? Could Jennifer be charged with repeating what is now "common knowledge"? :confused:
  19. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Are you familiar with TSA?

    They will claim it's SSI, whether it is or ins't, then they will threaten her with fines.

    The entire organization is full of nothing but loser bullies.
  20. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    That's just a little unfair. I'm certain that many of them could achieve a useful purpose if they overcame their natural tendency to grab at the opportunities to be a thief, thug, or pervert as offered by the TSA.

Share This Page