What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

[Blind_Io]

Oh, here's a good one from the professionals over at the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently they are now trolling the WeWontFfly website. The comment went viral on Reddit and the traffic crashed the servers, but here is a cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...m/homeland-security-trolling-we-wont-fly-blog

I was about to delete an offensive comment on this blog ? one of the very few we get ? and thought, hmm, I wonder where this guy is posting from? Because, really, it is quite unusual for us to get nasty comments. Lo and behold, the troll posted to our website from an IP address controlled by the federal government?s Department of Homeland Security! Here is the taxpayer-funded troll?s gem of a comment, for your entertainment:

Fuck you, Fuck all you cocksuckers, you wont change anything. ride the bus, TSA is here to stay there doing a great job keeping americia safe.
​

(Later, I checked our comment database and found 19 more of these gems from the same IP address. See below.)

Here is a link to the screenshot of the WordPress comment. As you can see, the IP address it was posted from is 216.81.80.134. Here is the publicly accessible whois record for that IP:

NetRange: 216.81.80.0 ? 216.81.95.255
CIDR: 216.81.80.0/20
OriginAS:
NetName: ONENET
NetHandle: NET-216-81-80-0-1
Parent: NET-216-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS5.DHS.GOV
NameServer: NS6.DHS.GOV
NameServer: NS3.DHS.GOV
NameServer: NS4.DHS.GOV
RegDate: 2008-05-07
Updated: 2009-09-01
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-216-81-80-0-1
OrgName: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
OrgId: DHS-37
Address: 7681 BOSTON BLVD
Address: NDC I
City: SPRINGFIELD
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 22153
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-12-05
Updated: 2008-05-22
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/DHS-37
OrgTechHandle: DIA9-ARIN
OrgTechName: DHS IPv6 ADMINISTRATION
OrgTechPhone: +1-703-921-7595
OrgTechEmail: DHS.IPv6.ADMIN@dhs.gov
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/DIA9-ARIN
OrgNOCHandle: DIA9-ARIN
OrgNOCName: DHS IPv6 ADMINISTRATION
OrgNOCPhone: +1-703-921-7595
OrgNOCEmail: DHS.IPv6.ADMIN@dhs.gov
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/DIA9-ARIN
​

Some questions come to mind:

• Is this an official statement?
• If not, is it an accurate representation of the DHS position?
• Was this person on the public dime when he or she posted this?
• Who posted this and what is their position with DHS?

This is not the first time we have been trolled by individuals connected to the TSA. Someone posted a personal attack on me from an IP belonging to mitre.org, a corporation whose core competency is securing federal government contracts, including DHS and TSA ones. Any effective TSA resistance threatens not only the TSA itself but also the bureaucrats who got us to this point and the corporations who are getting paid for the technology.
EDIT: In fact, there are are 19 comments from that IP address in our comment database! Here are some choice ones:
November 9:

Funny site you have going on here, looking forward to the guest comic postings.. what a bunch of rubes you all are.. BTW TSA officers make on avg $14.50 per hour to start. Much more than your bottle collecting jobs you have.
​

In this one, the troll identifies himself as ?Butch Forman? with an email address of BForman@hotmail.com.

You people are really messed up. That you sit around and put forth the hatred that you spew. If any of you are parents who have children, I feel sorry for the kids because you will raise them to be cynical, skeptical and totally paranoid. The TSA who work everyday trying to earn a living are parents, retired professionals, students, ex-law enforcement a whole diverse population of people who are trying to support their families and hope that they are doing what is necessary to protect those who travel. Give it a rest would you and if you feel that way about flying, then do me and the TSA a favor and don?t fly, that is your right, exercise it please. It makes the line at the airport alot shorter for those of us who get it.
​

You can refuse to fly too. Train, car, bus, boat, walk, bicycle, motorcycle,..You don?t have to fly?You know that TSA perosnnel travel by air also..and they go through security just as anyone lse does?.Are you for real or just argumentative?Homeschooled your kids..makes sense now
​

Another one from that same IP is from ?DP? with email address darryl.price@cox.net. Another one from ?Jeff? with email address burniate@gmail.com.
November 15 from yabba3@aol.com

Like I said before; This is turining into one of the best comedy sites on the internet? I love the fact that you have people all wound up about this liar.. Good for your ad dollars I?ll bet.. Ohhh let me guess what you folks have in mind next to generate $$ ?. Ummm oh yeah TSA ?agents? are really aliens looking for food!!!!!
​

From ?iLoveTSAandtheUSA? with email sweet_n_tender_hooligans@yahoo.com

Do any of you really think TSA is going to care if everyone requests a full body pat down instead of walking through the metal detector or body scanners?
They get to go home once their shift is over, no matter how long the lines are.
Less passengers flying means less work for them!
TSA must be doing something right if no hijackings or attacks have occured on American soil since 9/11.
I?d feel much safer if everyone was screened thoroughly. A terrorist can be anyone.
​

November 18 from ?Anonymous? with email 00machgt@gmail.com

Wow so what you people want is a Private Security firm with no accountability to take over a Federalized, controlled, accountable and impregnable screening force. Good luck, I see an attack in our near future. Americans are so spoiled. You want protection with no loss of freedoms. Think back to 9-11. would you have been saying the same things if this took place right after that day? Grow up and get a life instead of bashing a working system. Everyone hates the IRS but no one complains when a Police officer comes to assist you when your being assaulted. Sounds funny because the tax laws the IRS enforces pays all civil service salaries. Once again society announces its ignorance.
​

Let me clear this up for you people who clearly are misinformed. At EVERY airport you visit there will be a little sign stating in a blip, that you are voluntarily subimiting youself and your property for screening. So when you walk through, no one is putting a gun to your head and making you fly. its your choice. And because this is a Commercial airline transporting people, it must require that everyone be screened throughly. And because you are so upset and not thinking you fail to realize the simplicity of it. You put your bags in and you walk through. So no it isnt illegal people. Is it illegal for Private companies to do it? no because its security duhhh. Then how is it illegal when TSA does it. You people dont think. And if you read the press reslease from TSA, they state that the images are not kept and that the officer isnt allowed to see theface of the person being screened. If you feel something is off when you go to get scanned, then inform a Law enforcement official or ask for a TSA rep. Simple. Stop throwing out lies and nonsense people. I can imagine you all sitting around thinking up crazy rumors to circulate. Also Im 4 years Army MP and I know a thing or two about security. thanks
​

November 25 from ? YourWrong? with email Johnny324234@hotmail.com

Why has your great Opt-Out leader never posted on this site what he would do to keep passengers who choose to fly safe from being blown up? Being a critic is for simpletons ? experts however actually have to look for solutions.
Think about it!!!
​

And there are more. These are just the best ones.
EDIT: I?ll release the screenshot from the WordPress admin interface shortly.
EDIT: Here is the screenshot [744KB PNG]. It?s big and you may have to zoom in on it in your browser or image viewer. Note: this is just of the other 19 comments. There is a screenshot of the latest one at the top of this page, and I marked it as spam so I suppose it doesn?t show up in the search.

I wonder how those in this forum would defend these actions? Remember these comments are being posted by TSA and DHS employees from government computers - presumably while being paid.

Congratulations, everyone, we now have a federally funded internet trolling department. I sure hope these guys are low-level flunkies, because I'm not sure I could handle the higher-up leadership of TSA being this illiterate and obtuse.

 

[GRtak]

Fuck you, Fuck all you cocksuckers, you wont change anything. ride the bus, TSA is here to stay there doing a great job keeping americia safe.

I really hope he is low level too. It would be really bad to have one of the brains in the outfit not able to spell America correctly.

 

[Spectre]

I really hope he is low level too. It would be really bad to have one of the brains in the outfit not able to spell America correctly.

Well, our Treasury Secretary can't even do his own taxes right, so why should we expect competence elsewhere?

 

[Blind_Io]

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Woma...ter-refusing-enhanced-pat-down-112354199.html

Early Wednesday morning, a computer glitch shut down a security checkpoint for a couple of hours at Austin Bergstrom International Airport. The line snaked out the door as many travelers waited for more than an hour and some missed their flights. One of the first people in line after that shutdown never made it through. She was arrested and banned from the airport.

Claire Hirschkind, 56, who says she is a rape victim and who has a pacemaker-type device implanted in her chest, says her constitutional rights were violated. She says she never broke any laws. But the Transportation Security Administration disagrees.

Hirschkind was hoping to spend Christmas with friends in California, but she never made it past the security checkpoint.
"I can't go through because I have the equivalent of a pacemaker in me," she said.
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down.

"I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.

Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.
"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.
When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. "They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."

An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.

Other travelers we talked to say they empathize with Hirschkind, but the law is the law.

"I understand her side of it, and their side as well, but it is for our protection so I have no problems with it," said Gwen Washington, who lives in Killeen.
"It's unfortunate that that happened and she didn't get to fly home, but it makes me feel a little safer," said Emily Protine.


The TSA did release a statement Wednesday that said in part, "Our officers aroue trained to treat all passengers with dignity and respect ... Security is not optional."
The TSA says less than three percent of travelers get a pat-down.

Fuck you, Gwen Washington and Fuck you Emily Protine.

So now TSA is saying that if you alarm you can walk away? Odd, because it doesn't sound like this woman was given that option. Yet another example of either incompetence or willful disregard for passengers' dignity and civil rights. Pick one.

 

[Blind_Io]

Found this one kicking around the internet:
https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blind_io/2010/12/23/164867_139651786092660_100001435175487_252456_6234418_n.jpg\

EDIT:
And this one just made the main page at FARK. Apparently you can legally film TSA checkpoints, as long as you aren't a pilot and don't point out how utterly useless TSA is.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=113529&catid=2

SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff's department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.

The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.

"As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It's only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here," the pilot narrates.

Video shot in the cockpit shows a medieval-looking rescue ax available on the flight deck after the pilots have gone through the metal detectors. "This looks a little more formidable than a box cutter, doesn't it?" the pilot asks rhetorically.

A letter from the TSA dated Dec. 6 informed the pilot that "an administrative review into your deputation status as a Federal Flight Deck Officer has been initiated."

According to the letter, the review was directly related to the discovery by TSA staff of the YouTube videos. "The content and subject of these videos may have violated regulations concerning disclosure of sensitive security information," the letter said.

The pilot's attorney, Don Werno of Santa Ana, said he believed the federal government sent six people to the house to send a message.
"And the message was you've angered us by telling the truth and by showing America that there are major security problems despite the fact that we've spent billions of dollars allegedly to improve airline safety," Werno said.

The pilot said he is not in trouble with his airline, but a supervisor asked him to remove public access to the YouTube videos.

He does, however, face potential civil penalties from the TSA. He said he would likely go public when it becomes clear what the government plans to do with him.

So, they take away his firearm, and his State issued CFP card because he may have committed the crime of revealing critical security measures (that can be viewed from any public part of the airport or revealed by reading back news articles), but they are only going after him in civil court? Essentially suing him for money over what they claim is a major security breach?

On what planet does this make sense? TSA has gone off the derp end, they don't even have an internal logical consistency, let alone any logic that makes sense out here in the real world.

 

[Spectre]

I have a sneaky suspicion that the TSA may find itself partially defunded come January.....

 

[Top Geek]

TSA has gone off the derp end

I'm not sure whether this was actually a typo, but it works either way :lol:

I have a sneaky suspicion that the TSA may find itself partially defunded come January.....

All I want for Christmas...

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

Didn't have a single issue with the TSA when I went through yesterday, as crap as some people are I don't like generalising

 

[GRtak]

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/

No Proof TSA Scanners Are Safe

If you believe the government, you have little to worry about from the radiation beam flitting over the front and back of your body in airport watchdogs' search for explosives and other hidden implements of terror this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration says that when working properly, the backscatter Advance Imaging Technology X-ray scanners emit an infinitesimal, virtually harmless amount of radiation.

The problem is that the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are "working properly."

The TSA ticks off a litany of groups that it says are involved with determining and ensuring the safety of the controversial devices, including:

?The Food and Drug Administration
?The U.S. Army Public Health Command
?Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
?The Health Physics Society
However, AOL News has found that those organizations say they have no responsibility for the continuing safety of the alternative to TSA's grope

Further, the Homeland Security agency refuses to release exposure data to top non-TSA safety experts eager to evaluate any risk.

Homeland Security has said the justification for head-to-toe scanning was provided last Christmas, when Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried and failed to ignite a bomb hidden in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

But the questioning of the TSA's "working properly" assurances becomes even more significant with the numerous reports this year that its screeners sometimes missed as many as seven out of 10 guns, knives and mock explosive devices that government testers tried to sneak through airport check points.

Why Worry About Exposure to Scanners?

People are subjected to hundreds of millions of diagnostic X-rays every year, virtually all without incident. So why all the angst over the TSA's scanners, which, when working properly, emit far lower doses of radiation?

To assure that the doses are as low as they are billed to be, it is imperative to accurately calibrate the machines and carefully monitor their performance.

A spike in the intensity of the scanning beam, or a slowdown or pause in the timing of that beam's sweep across a traveler's body, could cause significant radiation damage, AOL News was told by a radiologist and two radiological health physicists, who are trained and certified to ensure the safety of those exposed to or working with radioactive material.

The FDA and many state radiation safety offices license, inspect and monitor almost all medical radiation devices everywhere they're used. But even identical X-ray machines used in nonmedical government venues fall outside FDA scrutiny, the agency said last week.

Nevertheless, the TSA maintains that when it comes to the safety of the full-body scanners, "everything is working fine," an agency spokesman told AOL News.

"The safety of our scanning systems are routinely and thoroughly tested by the manufacturer, FDA, the U.S. Army, the Health Physics Society, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and others," the spokesman said when asked last month how the TSA knows if the scanning system is safe.

The TSA does do some of its own inspections of the scanners, Sarah Horowitz, another TSA press officer, explained.

"Preventive maintenance checks, including radiation safety surveys, are performed at least once every 12 months," she said.

It sounds reassuring when the TSA lists the organizations as the guardians of the safety of the public passing between the two radiation-emitting walls of the scanners.

But in interviews with those same safety sentinels, AOL News found that none of the groups was doing any routine testing of operating scanners in airports. Further, they all said they have no responsibility to monitor the safety of those passing through the airport scanners.

For example, the FDA says it doesn't do routine inspections of any nonmedical X-ray unit, including the ones operated by the TSA.

The FDA has not field-tested these scanners and hasn't inspected the manufacturer. It has no legal authority to require owners of these devices -- in this case, TSA -- to provide access for routine testing on these products once they have been sold, FDA press officer said Karen Riley said.

However, she added that the FDA has received no reports of any radiation safety related problems with these products.

The Army Only Surveyed Three Airports

The TSA boasts about having the Army involved in its safety program. The agency's statements suggest that radiological health experts from the respected U.S. Army Public Health Command routinely check the 464 Advanced Imaging Technology units at 75 U.S. airports.

But that's not the case, Fran Szrom, a certified health physicist with the Army Health Command, told AOL News.


Two-person teams from the Army unit performed surveys of the Advance Image Technology X-ray scanners at just three airports -- in Boston, Los Angeles and Cincinnati, she said. And that was all that the TSA asked the Army to do this year.

"They found no problem with excessive radiation exposure, but none of the 15 machines examined had the required warning label 'Caution: X-Rays Produced When Energized,'" added Szrom, whose command has physicians, nurses, veterinarians, toxicologists and other public health specialists with scientific expertise in 60 different health and safety areas.

The TSA also frequently cites a study it commissioned by the noted Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. But the Hopkins work did nothing to ensure the consistent safety of those exposed to the radiation from the scanners.

"APL's role was to measure radiation coming off the body scanners to verify that it fell within [accepted] standards. We were testing equipment and in no way determined its safety to humans," Helen Worth, head of public affairs for the Johns Hopkins lab, told AOL News.

"Many news articles have said we declared the equipment to be safe, but that was not what we were tasked to do," she added.

Moreover, the study said APL scientists were unable to test a ready-for-TSA scanner at their lab because the manufacturer would not supply one. Instead, the tests were performed on a scanner cobbled together from spare parts in manufacturer Rapiscan Systems' California warehouse.

"The system evaluated may be configured different than the system deployed to the operational environment," the report said. It added that the APL found two areas in the testing mock-up where escaping radiation could cause exposure to the public that exceeded the annual safe limits.

The TSA also cited the 6,000-member, nonprofit Health Physics Society as endorsing the safety of its scanners. The society has long said "that intentionally exposing people to low levels of ionizing radiation for security screening is justified" if nationally accepted exposure standards are routinely monitored and met.

However, the group says that it did not and does not monitor the safety of TSA's devices -- only that if the devices operate as promised, safety should not be an issue, Howard Dickson, the Society's immediate past president, told AOL News.

"The dose rates are so low that you would expect [the scanners] would have to be grossly out of performance with the national standard to create much of a hazard," Dickson said.

"The press of people moving through the scanners is quite rapid, so no one is staying in there for any sustained period of time," he added. "I'm not saying it's foolproof by any means, but it would be a very unusual condition that would create a hazardous condition."

The physicists society has been considered what used to be called pro-nuke, and many of its members work for the nuclear industry. However, it has often served as an honest broker of information on hot-button and emotional radiation issues.

But despite that reputation, the TSA has refused the society's requests for the data that the agency collects on radiation exposure in and around its full-body scanners.

"If the public had and understood this information, all of these calibrations, all of the dose rates measured [for] people going through [the scanners] and those operating them, we wouldn't have all the months of media frenzy," said Kelly Classic, a certified health physicist and member of the society.

Instead, Classic said, "all they do is assure us that everything is safe."

"The fact that the information is not readily available to those that want to know, all of a sudden it conjures questions of what exactly is this,'' she said. "What's going on here?"

The TSA told AOL News that "the report is completed but being fine-tuned and thus can't be released."

How Radioactive Is It?

The amount of radiation generated by a properly calibrated full-body device in the typical 15-second-long scan is equal to about an hour of normal background radiation, such as the amount absorbed while walking through a park, the TSA says.

But physicians and most radiation health specialists say there is no "safe" dose of radiation, so any planned exposure must be justified.

John Sedat, a professor emeritus in the department of biochemistry at the University of California at San Francisco, and three of his colleagues -- a physician and two other scientists -- attempted to verify TSA claims that the full-body scanners were safe.

They studied all the available information on the new system and tried to determine the wavelength of the X-rays, the intensity of the energy released in the design and the safeguards built into these devices.

"We found that essentially none of this information was known or made public, and more interestingly, it looked like this technology had not been independently vetted by the scientific community, published, peer-reviewed or even discussed openly," Sedat told AOL News.

"Essentially, all the information was coming from companies that were making the devices, and it looked like it was being parroted by the FDA and the TSA, which didn't seem reasonable," he said.

In April, Sedat and his colleagues sent a lengthy letter outlining their safety concerns to the White House science adviser, John Holdren, asking that several specific areas -- especially an impartial review -- be considered. It was November, seven months later, before the White House replied.

Sedat says he and his colleagues have "some heavily redacted reports which basically just raise more [danger] flags, because it's very far from an independent, outside review."

The bottom line is that the the University of California at San Francisco group isn't any closer to assessing whether there are health hazards from the scanners.

"I would say we don't know,'' Sedat says. "We just don't have access to the needed information. We've got 5 percent of the population that might be sensitive to X-rays. Are older people, myself included, at greater risk? What about pregnant women and children? These issues need to be addressed."

One important point that Sedat challenges in the TSA's statement is that if there's any danger at all, it's only to the very top layer of skin.

"Not so," the scientist told AOL News. The radiation "penetrates the skin, and then as it goes deeper into the tissue it diminishes. But the skin and adjacent tissue is at risk. There is no question about that."

(Schneider is a former member of the Health Physics Society.)

 

[Top Geek]

TSA Pat-Downs Unlikely to Change

CANDY CROWLEY, HOST, STATE OF THE UNION: Joining me now here in
Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Thank you so much for being here with us on a holiday weekend.

JANET NAPOLITANO, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Thank you.

CROWLEY: I want to talk first about pat-downs. It's been about six
weeks, maybe, since we noticed the enhanced pat-downs.

What have you learned since then about what works and doesn't work?

Has anything changed?

NAPOLITANO: Not for the foreseeable future. You know, we're always
looking to improve systems and so forth. But the new technology, the
pat-downs, is just objectively safer for our traveling public. But in
the meantime, I think it's important to note that what you see at the
gate with the pat-down and the new machine is -- it's just part of a
longer system that begins for international travelers, actually,
internationally, with new partnerships that we have developed,
particularly over the past year, with enhanced relationships with the
private carriers, with enhanced ability to match ticketing information
against other lists that we have.

So there's a whole kind of intel-based system that's going on and then
we get to the actual gate.

CROWLEY: When you say that this has helped, we also know, from various
reports and -- and people speaking on background -- an ABC report out
that 70 percent, sometimes, at majority airports -- there are some
majority airports who had a 70 percent failure rate at detecting guns,
knives, bombs, that they got through in your tests that you all do to
see how good security is.

So how good can it be when you have major airports with a 70 percent
fail rate?

NAPOLITANO: Well, first of all, I think I know the tests to which you
refer. Many of them are very old and out of date and there were all
kinds of methodology issues with them. Let's set those aside.

What we know is that we pick up contraband now and -- we pick up more
contraband with the new procedures and the new machinery.

What we know is that you can't measure the -- the -- the devices that we
are deterring from going on a plane. What we know is that...

CROWLEY: Just people who just are discouraged, thinking they'd be found
out --

NAPOLITANO: Exactly.

CROWLEY: -- is that what you're talking about?

NAPOLITANO: And then...

CROWLEY: But...

NAPOLITANO: And then what we have to do is say, well, what other ways
are they thinking to commit an act, because our job is not only to
react, but to be thinking always ahead, what could be happening. And so
we have enhanced measures going on at surface transportation, not
because we have a specific or credible threat there, but because we
know, looking at Madrid and London, that's been another...

CROWLEY: Trains, subways...

NAPOLITANO: Exactly.

CROWLEY: That's what you're talking about?

NAPOLITANO: -- that's been another source of targets for terrorists.
It means, as we make the -- the land borders harder to cross from a land
border crossing standpoint, that we need to be looking out into our
coasts and to the waters. And so that brings that into play.

So I guess the overall message is everything is objectively better than
it was a year ago, particularly in the aviation environment. But we're
also looking at addressing other areas...

So much for taking the train or bus to avoid gate molestation

CROWLEY: And how do you measure that, I mean, because if we have a
failure rate, we -- we have, anecdotally, the man who had a -- a license
for a gun, forgot that he had it and something-- it was a
Glock. He got all the way to his hotel room at the other end of the
airport trip and said holy cow, a Glock went through airport security,
not in his luggage, as he -- when we went through, putting it through
the -- the machine.

So that tells me -- and there is some criticism that perhaps you all
have relied too much on let's get the latest technology, let's bring in
this new bell and whistle, let's do this, let's do that, all of which
are good, but that you don't have people that are trained well enough to
spot some of this stuff.

NAPOLITANO: Well, first of all, we process one-and-a-half, two million
passengers per day. And if...

CROWLEY: But it just takes one Glock...

NAPOLITANO: -- if there were an incident, then it's immediately looked
at as to well, how was that missed?

And if there needs to be retraining of individuals involved or if
there was a failure in the equipment, that's immediately addressed.

But our -- our TSOs are trained -- are highly trained and we're
constantly looking at ways to improve their training. And these are
individuals who -- these are the ones that have to work Thanksgiving
weekend. These are the ones that have been working this holiday
weekend. These are the...

*Pbpbpbpbpbbbbbbbb...*

CROWLEY: I don't think it's about hard work. I think it's just about
people saying if these things are getting through at a failure rate --
and I'm assuming you still have a failure rate -- you know more than
anyone that one is really too many, that -- that perhaps there needs to
be more training, not that they aren't working hard or doing their jobs
to the best of their ability.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, in law enforcement, we're always looking at
ways to improve and increase training. But I don't think you can
extrapolate from one anecdote to an entire system, that there's failures
in the entire system. So...

CROWLEY: Well, what is your fail rate?

NAPOLITANO: Well...

CROWLEY: What are you finding?

NAPOLITANO: Well, my fail rate is zero. I mean we want nothing to get
aboard a plane that is not safe. So when something does get aboard, if
something does get through the system, and a -- and, again, as I
explained, it's many, many layers before you even get to the
Magnetometer or the new machine.

If something does get through, then we immediately go backward and say,
OK, what happened here and -- and repair that deficiency.

CROWLEY: When you say that you also have to be proactive, not just
reactive, what is coming down the pike?

What are you -- when you look out there and you say, OK, you know, we've
done the underwear bomber, we've done the shoe bomber, we've done the --
you know, and so we've now put things -- systems in place to try to stop
that sort of thing, what are you looking at?

What's coming next?


NAPOLITANO: Well, one of the things we look at is what other avenues
might they select as...

CROWLEY: Right.

NAPOLITANO: -- as a target. So we look at other kinds of
transportation venues. We look at so-called soft targets, the hotels,
shopping malls, for example, all of which we have reached out to in the
past year and have done a fair amount of training for their own employees, as well.

It's incredibly scary to actually be able to see how a country will slip into a police state. It's even scarier to see people willingly accepting it in the name of what their government says is "for security", because they can't be bothered to actually think critically for a half-second.

The TSA worker bees are like the Fingermen of V for Vendetta: poorly-trained half-wits given undeserved power, blindly and punitively enforcing a list of thoughtless rules, using their own brand of "procedures" they invent on the spot.

CROWLEY: You have started this -- the safe -- "see something, say
something" slogan, asking citizens to get involved, telling this to
store owners, you know, that kind of thing.

See what?

I -- I feel like this is one of those kinds of things where, let's say I
have a neighbor from Yemen and he's having late night parties at his
house regularly on Thursday night.

Do I say something?

I mean I -- I feel like this is so fraught with turn -- ratting your
neighbor out.

NAPOLITANO: You know, it turns out -- "see something, say something"
has been in -- in place in several major cities in the United States for
years. I mean it actually started post-9/11 with the New York
Metropolitan Transit Authority. And they've had it in place. And it's
been in place in some other communities.

All we have done is expand it. And the reason we have is because we
want the citizenry of the United States to be alert, not alarmed, but
alert -- alert to situations, alert to unattended packages at the
airport or unattended bags at a bus stop, alert to things that are
highly unusual that would, for example, if you're a street vendor in New
York and you see a car you haven't seen before parked and there's smoke
coming out of it...

CROWLEY: Well, sure...

NAPOLITANO: -- suggest that you should let law enforcement...

CROWLEY: -- I think that's sort of obvious...

NAPOLITANO: -- know.

CROWLEY: But do you...

NAPOLITANO: And then...

CROWLEY: Will -- do you think that there might be some sort of over
reaching that you could turn in -- so this person is acting suspiciously
or that person is doing this. It just sounds very Big Brother to me,
turning in the next door neighbor or the guy who...

NAPOLITANO: Well, it...

CROWLEY: -- just walked off in...

NAPOLITANO: -- it's not. It depends on the common sense of the
American people. I think they have common sense. And it depends on,
again, getting a head -- getting through this notion that our safety,
our security and -- and the world we live in today is a -- a shared
responsibility. The Department of Homeland Security obviously has a
huge responsibility there, as does the federal government as a whole, as
does state and local law enforcement, as does the private sector, as
does our work with our international partners.

But citizens themselves can pay -- can play an important role, as well.

Yes, that's right. Let's tell everyone to be a xenophobic bigot; to be afraid of anything that their churned-to-mush-by-TV brains can't understand.

CROWLEY: Let me ask you about DNI, James Clapper. A lot has been made
about the fact that he did not know, several hours after the fact, of
the 12 arrests in Britain of suspected terrorists. How did he not know? How did that happen?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think he's been pretty up front about it. He had
been working on the Hill on issues involving START and North Korea and
went into the interview before his briefer had a chance to brief him.

CROWLEY: -- you just might be a little disconcerted and say well,
I thought now we were all talking together and all of a sudden the --
the DNI does not know of a major terrorist bust in -- in Britain.

NAPOLITANO: Well, let's -- let's be fair. It -- I knew. John Brennan
knew. We also knew there was no connect that had been perceived to
anything going on in the homeland and that we were in perfect
connectivity with our -- our colleagues in Britain.

So one of the things I think that should be very clear to the American
people is that those of us in homeland security who needed to know, we knew.

CROWLEY: Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary, thanks for
joining us.

NAPOLITANO: Thank you.

- END -

 

[GT VIRUS]

I want to share my sisters trip though LAX. In Dec 2007, she travelled to america for a basketball tornament. She was 17 at the time, traveling with about 20 others her age and 4 supervisiors. For some reason she was singled out for a check, and was separeted from her group. When she couldnt produce her boarding pass (one of the adults had the groups), she was frisked. They did not offer her a private room, and it was done by 2 male officers with 4 other male officers hanging around. They took a good feel around her breats too. If this is what you have to put up with more often now, then i feel very sorry for all americans

 

[Blind_Io]

 

[Dr.Kamiya]

"Look, this is simply human error," Conway said. "When something like this happens, it's human error. I mean, these folks are doing the best job they can."

Obviously the solution is to replace all TSA personnel with new robot agents.
They will not be interested in your sexuality, they will be completely impartial. Not quite sure if they can be stopped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrXfh4hENKs

 

[Blind_Io]

I guess TSA thinks they can make photocopies of your credit cards and personal papers now. Also, TSA's refusal to be filmed is in direct violation of their own stated policy.

 

[GRtak]

I wonder how many times the credit cards have false purchases after the photocopy.

 

[Top Geek]

This just in: The TSA doesn't care about your health.

SAN ANTONIO -- A heart patient from Converse is demanding an apology from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Ora Blake, 70, claims a worker at San Antonio International Airport ignored her medical condition. Blake claims the officer subjected her to security screening that could have jeopardized her health.

"I've just been through hell," said Blake.

Blake says her problems all started September 1, 2010 when a TSA officer at San Antonio International Airport would not allow her to go through special medical screening for her heart condition.

"I said I've got a pacer, and I showed him," said Blake. "I said I want to go through medical screening. I always go through medical screening."

Blake, who's had a pacemaker for six years, says she has always been able to bypass the large magnetic scanners at the airport, until that day. Blake says she believes the scanner she was directed to walk through caused her pacemaker to act-up.

"When they said to me that I didn't look good, I was just holding my heart, I was breathless, and perspiring."

Blake complained to the TSA. A letter she says she received from a Senior Advisor of Field Operations shows someone looked into the problem and determined there was miscommunication between Blake and the officer. Blake says the explanation doesn't cut it.

"In my mind's eye, there was no investigation, because they didn't ask me my side," said Blake.

A TSA spokeswoman told News 4 WOAI security lanes at the airport are equipped with a gate for those passengers with disabilities. She says passengers with medical needs should inform the officers.

The TSA did offer an apology to Blake in its letter. However, Blake says that isn't helping the ongoing health problems she's developed. She says she wants an apology from the San Antonio staff she dealt with that morning in September.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/stor...-apology-from-TSA/ptYoinG6JkCBwjnv1BecqQ.cspx

All she wants is an apology and the TSA is so shameless that they won't even do that? The workers involved should be arrested for criminal negligence.

 

[Blind_Io]

TSA Agents Complain Over Body Scanner Radiation Exposure

TSA Agents Complain Over Body Scanner Radiation Exposure

The source is questionable, but it raises some serious questions
http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-agents-complain-over-body-scanner-radiation-exposure.html

TSA workers are complaining about the amounts of radiation they are being exposed to on a daily basis in the wake of the mass introduction of body scanners to airports around the country.

USA Today reports that TSA agents are unhappy with the fact that they are being kept in the dark by their employers, despite repeated requests for information.
?We don?t think the agency is sharing enough information,? said Milly Rodriguez, occupational health and safety specialist at the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers.

?Radiation just invokes a lot of fear.? she added.

According to the USA Today report, several TSA employees have expressed their concerns to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

?a TSA employee at an unidentified airport asked CDC in June to examine concerns about radiation exposures from standing near the new full-body X-ray scanners for hours a day. The CDC said it didn?t have authority to do a hazard assessment unless three or more current employees at one location made a joint request, according to a September letter from the CDC to the unnamed worker. The CDC provided the letter to USA TODAY.
​

Despite claiming that the body scanners and baggage scanners emit safe doses of radiation and are routinely inspected, the TSA has refused to release its radiation inspection records.

Worse still, an independent study by the CDC carried out in 2004, found that some baggage scanners were in violation of federal radiation standards, and were emitting two or three times beyond the agreed safe limit.

A further 2008 CDC report noted that some x-ray machines were missing protective lead curtains or had had safety features disabled by TSA employees with duct tape, paper towels and other materials.

And I'm supposed to trust these same people with my health? All the safety studies so far are moot in the face of negligence or sabotage of safety systems. All the numbers so far are based on a properly functioning and calibrated machine.

Now there are even more x-ray devices in use, TSA workers? concerns, as well as recent public backlash, is beginning to force the issue.

This has prompted members of congress to get involved, with a group led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, demanding that the TSA release the documents.

As the USA Today report explains, The TSA is responsible for inspecting the x-ray scanners itself, rather than the FDA, because they are not classed as medical devices.

Following the congressional attention, the TSA has said that it will attempt to release the radiation records to USA Today, but has not indicated when this will be, citing the need to review the records for security reasons.

How the fuck is it a security concern to release the radiation exposure numbers for the workers? TSA sure pulls that card frequently, and I've stopped believing most of these are genuine security concerns and have become an excuse to conceal embarrassing information - or the complete lack of security in this farce.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee over federal workforce issues, has vowed to press the TSA for the documentation.

?It should send some flashing red lights when they won?t allow the public to review that data,? said Chaffetz, who oversaw the passage in the House last year of an amendment to ban ?strip-search? imaging at airports.

?You don?t have to look at my wife and 8-year-old daughter naked to secure an airplane,? Chaffetz said at the time.

?You can actually see the sweat on somebody?s back. You can tell the difference between a dime and a nickel. If they can do that, they can see things that quite frankly I don?t think they should be looking at in order to secure a plane,? Chaffetz told the House.

Frankly, more TSA workers should be concerned over the levels of radiation they are being exposed to and are being asked to expose the public to.

Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine recently told AFP that ?statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays?.
??we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,? he added.

John Sedat, a University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences tells CNet that the machines have ?mutagenic effects? and will increase the risk of cancer. Sedat previously sent a letter to the White House science Czar John P. Holdren, identifying the specific risk the machines pose to children and the elderly.

The letter stated:
?it appears that real independent safety data do not exist? There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.?
The TSA has repeatedly stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath.

The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image.

The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively ?unzips? DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted.

The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider ?other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.?

?The Committee cited the IAEA?s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,? reported Bloomberg.

Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck.

?If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,? said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University?s centre for radiological research.

Despite all these warnings, The Department of Homeland Security claims that the scanners are completely safe, pointing to ?independent? verification from the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both federal government bodies.

 

[gtrietsc]

Just wanted to share my experience traveling to CA and back for the Rose Bowl.

Outbound DFW, I was expecting the nude-o-scope but my gate did not have it. Standard metal detectors and X-ray machine. I still had to remove my belt, shoes, etc, but fine, whatever. No problems and I fly with no hassle.

On the way back, got to the airport (San Diego) early. Checked in, checked my bag, and got to the gate. There were zero people in line - I had never seen this before! Wow! But, they have the nude-o-scanner. I tell them I am opting out, as does my wife. They stand us to the side, and then resume hanging out. No explanation, no urgency, nothing. We stood there for, no exaggeration, 15 minutes, before someone came to give my wife the patdown. I fully think the 15 minutes was a punitive measure for opting out, since they were not busy at ALL.

During this time, a family with 3 small kids, and three college cheerleaders came through the checkpoint. The father of the family went through the scanner, but the wife and kids went through the metal detector. I did not see them recieve additional screening. The cheerleaders went through the nud-o-scope, and despite that, still had a minor patdown (someone had to feel their PONYTAILS). I bet those machines that can't save images were saving away.

So, they are all gone, my wife gets screened away from me. (I can still see her though.) Then they come for me. Guy is matter of fact, clearly doesnt want to be doing it, but does tell me what he is going to be doing, when he is going to use the backs of his hand, etc. The actual patdown itself is not too bad, but definately brushes the line of what is acceptable twice, as he feels up each leg and across my pelvis. I would say the whole experience is very borderline wrong. Thing is, this is this one guy, in this one airport. A different (read: dickish) agent in another airport could easily cross the line. And I dont have a pacemaker, and havent been raped or molested or anything, but I could see how those people could and SHOULD be treated differently. You should not have to experience mental trauma to fly somewhere.

 

[chaos386]

A friend of mine came up with the perfect thing to do if you opt for the groping instead of the scanner.

Put on your best serious face, stare the agent right in the eye, and smoothly say "I was hoping it was you."

 

[Top Geek]

I fully think the 15 minutes was a punitive measure for opting out, since they were not busy at ALL.

It absolutely was. The pat-down exists solely to humiliate and shame you into never questioning them again and making their job as easy as pressing buttons, all the while making you wait for your belongings, which remain unwatched and unguarded, so that you can sit there worrying and fretting about them being stolen.

ie.: "maybe next time, you won't question us, prole

I bet those machines that can't save images were saving away

Anyone who works in IT knows that this whole, "drrrrrrrr, dey cant save nutin!", is a complete joke. Computers are machines that have one purpose: copying data. Copying it to memory, to cache, to hard disks, and so on. There is no such thing as a computer that "can't save". Even if there was, there's no existing (or even theoretical) technology that can prevent the dilweed ogling over the cheerleaders' cans from snapping the screen with his cell phone camera.