Black Raven Dragoons

[Zancarius]

Anyone want to take bets on what the TSA will come up with if the terrorists plot a "cavity bombing?"

On a slightly related note, I'm not sure if my health insurance covers colonoscopies, but somehow I'm not terribly worried once I get older.

[Tirian]

In theory, that is what the full-body scanners are for. Heaven knows if they'll be able to manage it. I admit though, I don't want my junk fondled by your average TSA goon.

[Gnomegrenade]

I'm waiting for the media to leak information that the TSA has hired gays and pedophiles.

Stay tuned....

[Tirian]

Ha. Gays wouldn't bother me. On the other hand, this guy:

[Zancarius]

PEDOAGENT

On Slashdot, the discussion was pretty hilarious. One poster mentioned that he was going to tell the TSA: "Hey man, at least offer to buy me dinner first!"

Course, someone else followed up with "That sounds funny until you get arrested..."

Honestly though, the backscatter scanners they're using don't sound particularly safe. I think I'd rather opt for the humility of having some random guy grope me than to deal with the equivalent of 10 x-rays.

Oh, Gnome--did you see that video of the 3 year old girl being forcefully taken away and groped by a TSA agent? Speaking of pedophiles... (I'm sure they'd claim that she was hiding a bomb in her teddy bear.)

[Killemal]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

I'm lazy and talked this to death yesterday with my boss and a couple of staffers, so I'm gonna keep my argument short.

TSA screeners @ airports are a false sense of security. In reality, TSA is only a deterrent and only catches the 'stupid' terrorists. The smart ones would have no problem orchestrating a terror attack without the need for 'conventional' weapons.

Not to mention the hundreds of major seaports that are unguarded. What about a well placed explosive aboard a cruise ship? Ever think about what would happen if an Amtrak train was targeted? These are all mostly unprotected resources that would be easy targets for terrorists.

There was an interesting article I saw a while back, but can't find now, suggesting that maybe the terrorists just got lucky on 9/11, being that if they really wanted to do more damage, they wouldn't have to try very hard with all of the security holes we leave open.

[Zancarius]

TSA screeners @ airports are a false sense of security. In reality, TSA is only a deterrent and only catches the 'stupid' terrorists. The smart ones would have no problem orchestrating a terror attack without the need for 'conventional' weapons.

There's a word in information security that describes exactly this. It's called "security theater"--or security that's only intended to make you feel better that something is being done about it. I'm no expert, but Bruce Schneier (who is an expert) has a couple of articles on the subject. It's important to note that the first article "In Praise of Security Theater" was written before the full body scanners, so I'm sure Schneier would probably have different things to say about it. Killem is 100% correct, though.

Not to mention the hundreds of major seaports that are unguarded. What about a well placed explosive aboard a cruise ship? Ever think about what would happen if an Amtrak train was targeted? These are all mostly unprotected resources that would be easy targets for terrorists.

There was an interesting article I saw a while back, but can't find now, suggesting that maybe the terrorists just got lucky on 9/11, being that if they really wanted to do more damage, they wouldn't have to try very hard with all of the security holes we leave open.

Here's something Schneier says about it:

Any terrorist attack is a series of events: something like planning, recruiting, funding, practising, executing, aftermath. Our most effective defenses are at the beginning and end of that process -- intelligence, investigation, and emergency response -- and least effective when they require us to guess the plot correctly

And it's true. They only attack high profile targets for the fear value. Plus, if all the circumstances Killem points out were covered security-wise, the national budget wouldn't be able to afford it. The problem, though, is that our liberties are slowly being eroded for this inane feeling of security. Course, that's to say nothing about the bazillion conspiracies that launched following 9/11 about the US shooting its own planes down and so forth... I guess the terrorists really have won!

Slight edit: You're absolutely right about other targets. I recall reading about how most of our watersheds are easy to access, and if someone really wanted to kill a lot of people badly enough, they'd do something there. I also think it's hilarious that we're going absolutely stupid with security when Israel (as your article points out) faces worse threats and doesn't do half the stupid stuff we do. Probably because they actually know what to do with terrorists...

I'd like to read that article, if you can find it, Killem. I think it'd be highly educational. But like you said--what we're suffering is the bad side of security theater. It's just ridiculous.

I'm still waiting for the cavity searches.

[Grimblast]

*The snapping of gloves can be heard*

[Zancarius]

Proctologists and gynecologists line up at TSA offices nationwide...

[Killemal]

Thal; I'll try to find the article. I searched for awhile and couldn't find it. However, on the part of luck in relation to terrorism; in 1984 when the IRA attempted and failed to assassinate Margret Thatcher, the British PM at the time, the IRA made a statement and finished it with the line “You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once.”

In the mean time, I think we can all laugh at these TSA bumper stickers.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-bumper-stickers.html

[Zancarius]

So it looks like everyone, including the ACLU can see the writing on the wall. Butt-searches for all!

[Grimblast]

[Zancarius]

Pedo pat downs. Just what we need from a government agency...

[Gnomegrenade]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/2 ... 88127.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/2 ... 88137.html

This (imo) is just the beginning.

[Zancarius]

Transportation Security Administration spokesman Dwyane Baird says the man isn't a security threat and won't be detained.

Probably because he doesn't have many secrets after wearing a speedo!

You know what worries me? I'm afraid Americans are too complacent to give a flying leap about what happens. When you have people commenting on the ACLU's site that "[they] don't care so long as [they're] safe," there's almost no hope.

This also comes at the same time Napolitano just announced that she isn't going to rule out installing the security scanners to cover transport by rail or boat. When the entire executive branch of our government has already hinted that we, as citizens, waive our fundamental rights of privacy (and, more specifically, our 4th amendment rights) the moment we buy a plane ticket, there's something grossly wrong. The US Constitution exists for a reason, and these idiots are trampling it more and more every day.

Personally, I think Napolitano needs to be arrested and thrown in jail along with the head of the TSA, but that's another rant entirely. Maybe they should be subjected to invasive scans and pat downs.