How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[I Ratant]

A real suicide terrorist would eat the sandwich, Allah forgives you for such things if it's necessary to carry out your jihad. It's quite common for suicide bombers to do all sorts of forbidden things just prior to carryoing out their mission.

.
I believe the Sepoy mutiny in India was created by the Russians spreading the rumor that the cartridges of the era were sealed with pig fat. These cartridges had to be bitten through before placing them in the chamber of the rifles, and... the Muslim sepoys refused on direct command, to do this biting, when ordered to do so by their British officers.
Probably other irritants were in place at the time to exacerbate the situation.

 

[Segnosaur]

Body scans do a whole lot of good.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ge-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades.ars
Is Adam Savage a credible witness?

Keep in mind that at at best, this is merely anecdotal evidence. (The same sort of evidence that us skeptics complain about when someone says "I don't need to get vaccinated because I never get sick", or "A psychic predicted my future".)

Its possible that full body scanners are completely useless (as his story suggests). Or its also possible that they are the most effective security technique in the history of the universe, work in 99.9999% of cases, and he just happened to be the example of the 1 in a million case where something slips through. At this point, we just don't know.

And something else to consider: Remember, the 9/11 hijackers managed to make it through security supposedly with box cutters even though airports had metal detectors and other techniques. Does that mean we should just forget about all security measures? Would you feel just as safe flying if there were absolutely no security before getting on a plane? After all, if anecdotes were "proof" that a particular security measure is ineffective, then metal detectors and other security personnel would be eliminated years ago.

To really say whether the body scanners are effective or ineffective, we'd have to run some sort of large-scale survey/test, where we send a large number of people with planted weapons through security at random, and compare the number of people who are caught by the scanners with the number caught through other means (metal detectors, observant security personnel, etc.) Until then, we're just relying on anecdotes.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think someone else was correct when they questioned how exactly you'd go about investigating just how much income a person has.

Was the ticket purchased with a VISA card?
Doesn't need any steeken' prying into the purchaser's income situation, and creates a possible paper trail.

Not exactly sure what your point was. (It was another poster that said they should "red flag" people with no income yet purchase expensive plane tickets.)

Having a paper trail may be useful after a terrorist attack, but are you suggesting they investigate everyone before the flight? To what purpose? Its easy to get a Visa card (even a prepaid one might do), so simply having one might not tell you if the person is flying via a plane ticket purchased by Bin Laden.

 

[mhaze]

Keep in mind that at at best, this is merely anecdotal evidence. (The same sort of evidence that us skeptics complain about when someone says "I don't need to get vaccinated because I never get sick", or "A psychic predicted my future".)

Its possible that full body scanners are completely useless (as his story suggests). Or its also possible that they are the most effective security technique in the history of the universe, work in 99.9999% of cases, and he just happened to be the example of the 1 in a million case where something slips through. At this point, we just don't know.

And something else to consider: Remember, the 9/11 hijackers managed to make it through security supposedly with box cutters even though airports had metal detectors and other techniques. Does that mean we should just forget about all security measures? Would you feel just as safe flying if there were absolutely no security before getting on a plane? After all, if anecdotes were "proof" that a particular security measure is ineffective, then metal detectors and other security personnel would be eliminated years ago.

To really say whether the body scanners are effective or ineffective, we'd have to run some sort of large-scale survey/test, where we send a large number of people with planted weapons through security at random, and compare the number of people who are caught by the scanners with the number caught through other means (metal detectors, observant security personnel, etc.) Until then, we're just relying on anecdotes.

One of the links I posted, believe it was the security expert Schneider, referenced studies that indicated that with the prior xray scanners and pat down techniques, using trial runs, the TSA caught 20% of people with bomb parts, while private security firms using the same protocols caught 70%.

That tells you something.

Is someone in the government dumb enough to think that you can buy your way out of moron level employees with a rule set and fancy equipment?

Well that won't work.

As previously suggested this could all just be about the money to be made from selling the equipment.

 

[bokonon]

Tell ya what how about they just take that entire budget for the porno-scanners (one contract for one delivery only was $178 million)

Source?

It seems an interesting claim, in light of the fact that this anti-scanner site is saying the cost for "one delivery only" is about 1/1000th of that, and the total budget requested for "detection systems" is less than half of your figure:

The Department of Homeland Security is requesting $72 million to invest in detection systems, which includes funding for the backscatter machines, which cost between $100,000 and $200,000 each.

 

[Segnosaur]

One of the links I posted, believe it was the security expert Schneider, referenced studies that indicated that with the prior xray scanners and pat down techniques, using trial runs, the TSA caught 20% of people with bomb parts, while private security firms using the same protocols caught 70%.

I see. (Sorry I must have overlooked your link... but the thread seems to have gotten up to 8 pages fairly quickly.)

Of course, the question is.... for any given level of security ability, how much of an improvement is there when full body scanners/pat downs are used. (For example, would TSA success still be at 20% even if they were only using traditional metal detectors? Or would it be even worse?)

If it doesn't improve the success rate given employees of equal skill/competence then scrap them. If it leads to some improvement then decide whether there is enough improvement to warrant the supposed invasion of privacy. If performance is still poor, keep the machines and attempt to fix whatever problems exist elsewhere (be it better training, employee selection, etc.)

 

[Ducky]

One of the links I posted, believe it was the security expert Schneider, referenced studies that indicated that with the prior xray scanners and pat down techniques, using trial runs, the TSA caught 20% of people with bomb parts, while private security firms using the same protocols caught 70%.

That tells you something.

Is someone in the government dumb enough to think that you can buy your way out of moron level employees with a rule set and fancy equipment?

Well that won't work.

As previously suggested this could all just be about the money to be made from selling the equipment.

Who?

 

[mhaze]

Who?

http://www.schneier.com/

Spelling of name wrong, my error.

 

[rwguinn]

...
And something else to consider: Remember, the 9/11 hijackers managed to make it through security supposedly with box cutters even though airports had metal detectors and other techniques. Does that mean we should just forget about all security measures? Would you feel just as safe flying if there were absolutely no security before getting on a plane? After all, if anecdotes were "proof" that a particular security measure is ineffective, then metal detectors and other security personnel would be eliminated years ago.

To really say whether the body scanners are effective or ineffective, we'd have to run some sort of large-scale survey/test, where we send a large number of people with planted weapons through security at random, and compare the number of people who are caught by the scanners with the number caught through other means (metal detectors, observant security personnel, etc.) Until then, we're just relying on anecdotes.

The bolded part renders you argument an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
The metal detectors probably did catch the totally-legal-to-carry items(at the time)
You have not a clue what you're talking about.

 

[mhaze]

this anti-scanner site is saying the cost for "one delivery only" is about 1/1000th of that, and the total budget requested for "detection systems" is less than half of your figure:

The $178 million was for one contract delivery, not one machine. Not sure how many machines were in that, but it wasn't my intent to project that it was one machine.

 

[qayak]

So, the machines:

- maybe a health threat.
- don't seem to work.
- take pictures of children's privates.
- take pictures of adult's privates.
- assume everyone is guilty without cause.
- cause long line-ups.
- irritate the hell out of the people they are to protect.
- allow pictures to be taken, printed, and posted to the net.

What's the benefit here? This is just another absurd measure for TSA/CATSA to justify itself and make people believe they are safe.

Maybe the Hokey Pokey really is what its all about!

 

[I Ratant]

Not exactly sure what your point was. (It was another poster that said they should "red flag" people with no income yet purchase expensive plane tickets.)

Having a paper trail may be useful after a terrorist attack, but are you suggesting they investigate everyone before the flight? To what purpose? Its easy to get a Visa card (even a prepaid one might do), so simply having one might not tell you if the person is flying via a plane ticket purchased by Bin Laden.

.
There are problems with everything.
The cash, no baggage, one-way, swarthy is probably as good a checklist as any.

 

[Segnosaur]

And something else to consider: Remember, the 9/11 hijackers managed to make it through security supposedly with box cutters even though airports had metal detectors and other techniques. Does that mean we should just forget about all security measures? Would you feel just as safe flying if there were absolutely no security before getting on a plane? After all, if anecdotes were "proof" that a particular security measure is ineffective, then metal detectors and other security personnel would be eliminated years ago.

To really say whether the body scanners are effective or ineffective, we'd have to run some sort of large-scale survey/test, where we send a large number of people with planted weapons through security at random, and compare the number of people who are caught by the scanners with the number caught through other means (metal detectors, observant security personnel, etc.) Until then, we're just relying on anecdotes.

The bolded part renders you argument an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
The metal detectors probably did catch the totally-legal-to-carry items(at the time)
You have not a clue what you're talking about.

Ummm.... First of all, before you start calling someone 'clueless' and claiming they are arguing from ignorance, perhaps you should, you know, actually get the facts straight yourself....

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/12/attack/main528967.shtml
A manual written by the airline industry years before the Sept. 11 attacks instructed airport screeners to confiscate from passengers boxcutters like those used by the hijackers, documents show. Though the federal government did not specifically bar the objects before Sept. 11, the airlines were in charge of security and the manual they compiled was the guidebook for determining what items could be brought aboard flights.
Maybe CBS news is ignorant too.

Secondly, I could have also pointed out that even if boxcutters were not banned before 9/11, they certainly were after. Yet still there have been reports of box cutters being smuggled on board planes. For example, from: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-05-09-box-cutter-delay_N.htm (2007, before the full body scanners were implemented)
A box cutter found by a passenger onboard a United Airlines plane delayed a Denver to Dallas flight for nearly two hours Tuesday.

I could have also pointed out that other weapons (including guns) have regularly been smuggled on board. Could have also pointed out that while the report of "boxcutters" being used came from one of the passengers, its quite possible that other forms of knives were used as well. (And I think there was at least one report of a bomb being shown.)

So, my point is still quite much in tact:
If you are using only anecdotes to show body scanners are ineffective, then the presence of stories of prohibited items smuggled on board planes prior to their implementation must mean that you feel any and all security measures (metal detectors, etc.) are ineffective.

 

[Segnosaur]

So, the machines:

- maybe a health threat.

Pretty big 'maybe' there. At this point, its kind of like cell phones... they 'may be' a cause of brain cancer.

- don't seem to work.

Again, right now all we seem to have are anecdotes. At this point, its no more useful than someone saying "The flu vaccine doesn't work because I got vaccinated and still got sick".

Its quite possible that the machines are totally ineffective. Its possible that the machines can catch things other security measures miss. Relying on anecdotes is not proof.

- take pictures of children's privates.
- take pictures of adult's privates.
- allow pictures to be taken, printed, and posted to the net.

Ummm... I was under the impression that the machines do not "take pictures" but only show images in real time.

And lets face it, the quality of image produced by the machines is not exactly "erotic" in any way. (Unless you get turned on by watching "Ghost Busters".)

- assume everyone is guilty without cause.
- cause long line-ups.

Ummm... that's pretty much the nature of any security measure. Flying anywhere pre-9/11 still required someone to go through metal detectors, etc., causing delays (even if there was no reason to assume they were a threat.)

Now, I want to stress that I don't necessarily think the scanners are a good idea. What I'm saying is that if we're engaging the proper level of skepticism, we should be saying we don't have enough evidence to know either way whether the scanners are useful. So far, all we have are anecdotes and claims that may or may not be baseless.

 

[mhaze]

... I was under the impression that the machines do not "take pictures" but only show images in real time.

And lets face it, the quality of image produced by the machines is not exactly "erotic" in any way.....

Yes, the machines are required BY CONTRACT to have digital image storage capabilities. And any TSA moron can snap his cell phone camera at the screen.

The images are not erotic? Let's rephrase that.

Only a total moron wouldn't see that just reversing the image gives you an actual nude photo of those hot babes going through that TSA line.

So IF you agree that TSA screeners are morons, you are safe from having them grab naked pics of your wife, kids and grandmother.....

That is UNTIL the iphone app comes out to reverse the images.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is UNTIL the iphone app comes out to reverse the images.

Or until the capability exists to transfer the image from the iPhone or other camera-equipped cell phone to a regular desktop-type computer, and to then use an application such as GIMP or Photoshop to reverse the image.

 

[Segnosaur]

... I was under the impression that the machines do not "take pictures" but only show images in real time.

And lets face it, the quality of image produced by the machines is not exactly "erotic" in any way....

Yes, the machines are required BY CONTRACT to have digital image storage capabilities. And any TSA moron can snap his cell phone camera at the screen.

Yes they can... and hopefully they'll set up rules that will have anyone who uses their cell phone to take a picture to be fired right on the spot.

The images are not erotic? Let's rephrase that.

Only a total moron wouldn't see that just reversing the image gives you an actual nude photo of those hot babes going through that TSA line.

Ummm... proof?

Have you ever actually seem someone 'recreate' a relatively accurate nude picture of a person from one of the body scan images? I tried to track one down, but I couldn't.

Keep in mind that there was an image circulating around earlier in the year supposedly showing such a reversed picture, but it was eventually found that the original source of the image was a stock model that had been manipulated to look like the body scan pic, and then 'reverted' back.

http://www.tatumba.com/blog/archives/1369

 

[Segnosaur]

Or until the capability exists to transfer the image from the iPhone or other camera-equipped cell phone to a regular desktop-type computer, and to then use an application such as GIMP or Photoshop to reverse the image.

View attachment 20246 View attachment 20247

Ok, maybe its just me, but that reversed image looks more like something out of a horror movie than something that is a turn on.

Maybe other people get excited at the thought of having sex with hairless zombies dressed as ninjas, but its not exactly my thing.

 

[bokonon]

The reversed image only looks erotic ("an actual nude photo of those hot babes going through that TSA line") after it's passed through the "irrational fear" lobes of a human brain. Or maybe the "I was making a joke" lobe.

 

[I Ratant]

Probably have to be some kinda boneologist to get excited by an image reversal...