TSA Detains Rand Paul

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by CelticWhisper, Jan 23, 2012.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

  2. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    True whether you are referring to the scanners, or the "rude mechanicals" operating them.
     
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    To hramos@fox34.com
    Dear Mr. Ramos:

    Your article, "TSA says security scanner less invasive," ends with this assertion:

    "It doesn't totally eliminate it, but it reduces it a great deal," Casanova said.

    Mr. Ramos, this statement is a lie. The MMW (millimeter-wave) scanners that use ATR (automatic target recognition) software have an extraordinarily high false positive rate, as has been widely reported by reputable sources including ProPublica. That's why so many European countries aren't using them.

    It is false to claim that the MMW scanners with ATR reduce the chance of a patdown. On the contrary, they increase it.

    Lisa Simeone
    Travel Underground
     
  4. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Apparently none of our comments got past the censor, err, moderator.
     
  5. Doober

    Doober Original Member

  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Yes. See my question to them about this further up-thread.
     
  7. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I just edited Bill's piece at TSA News and it's live:

    Responses to TSA propaganda 101

    These are facts we've already presented ad nauseam, of course, but so many people don't get it that they bear repeating. I fear they will always bear repeating.
     
  8. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Minor complaint: the primary reason that 9/11 actually went through is that the passengers had been indoctrinated to cooperate with hijackers in the hopes that they'd simply get a free vacation to Cuba. This fallacy persisted for three of the four, but was no longer a viable plan as of Flight 93's passenger intervention.
     
  9. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Indeed. Please leave that comment at the original entry. I've written it at TSA News and elsewhere more times than I can count.
     
  10. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I'd love to - but I do not use Disqus. Too many problems.
     
  11. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Ah, interesting. What kinds of problems? Should I be worried about this? I use it all over the web.
     
  12. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    Well you guys might not be as hard-core as me, so I braved the registration and got a comment through for you. ;)

    For posterity:

    The NFTA, much like the TSA, is missing the real issue at hand: no matter how politely you do it, strip searching grandma is wrong. Using equipment that emits harmful radiation in order to digitally remove our clothing is wrong. Requiring passengers to submit to a manual "pat-down" inspections of their genitals, breasts, and buttocks is wrong. Scanning groping, and terrifying children is wrong. Trying to fix the morally and legally bankrupt TSA via "sensitivity training" is akin to a rapist arguing at trial, "Well, I tried to be gentle..."

    It's not that there aren't other options (bomb-sniffing dogs, portals like "the puffer machine", explosive trace detection swabs, etc.), and it's not that the scanners are particularly effective (the false-positive rate is huge, and the possibility exists to conceal weapons under material of the same density as skin). It's that the TSA likes new, expensive toys, and implements them without conducting the proper safety studies, efficacy studies, and notice-and-comment rulemaking that are required by law and common-sense.

    "Anything to keep us safer?" I, for one, prefer my dignity, privacy, freedom, and Constitutional rights. These are what made our country great, and you can imagine what the reaction of our founding fathers would be if some bureaucrat dictated that "their wives breasts would need to be patted down before boarding a ship to ensure safety against the treasonists." I urge that the same reaction is approriate here and now.

    Jonathan Corbett
    http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/
     
  13. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I always forget to check which account is being used to ID which comments on which site. Easier just not to use it.
     
  14. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Well, that column at Homeland Security Today now has about 30 comments -- all of them against the TSA and against the blowhard who wrote the column. Hurray!! The editors finally posted Celtic Whisperer's comment but they didn't post mine.
    "Ron Paul Owes TSA an Apology"
     
  15. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Speak of the devil, I just checked my email and found this:

     
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    ^

    Indeed, mine was published:

     
  17. Sky Dancer

    Sky Dancer Original Member

    They say a"Targeted" pat down is usually done. That's BS. I was patted down for Baggy Pants Pockets. The pervert went straight to my crotch.
     
    KrazyKat and Lisa Simeone like this.
  18. JoeBas

    JoeBas Original Member

    The worm of public opinion certainly seems to have turned. Let's hope it's not too late to avoid hitting that iceberg.
     
  19. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    In other words, David Silverberg is reaping what he sowed in that silly article. :p^
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  20. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    What did you think they meant by "targeted?" That they'd only pat down the area that alarmed?

    That'd require a display of common sense - and we all know that nobody who currently works for the TSA has any.

    ...or common decency, for that matter. They're all liars, thieves, thugs, and perverts. Every last gosh darned one of them.
     

Share This Page