Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Transportation News

TSA Employee Caught With $200K Worth of Stolen Property 655

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-at-first-you-succeed,-try,-try-again-until-you-don't dept.
The plane moves me or I move the plane? writes "After years of people complaining about their luggage locks being broken in the name of the Transportation Security Administration, and after countless properly-stowed utilities and tools had been scrutinized from a paranoid point of view, an employee of the TSA (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) has been captured with evidence of over $200,000 worth of stolen property he was selling on eBay. With the help of local police and the USPS, a search of his house found a great deal of property pilfered from the un-witnessed searches that occurred after luggage had been checked, where the rightful owner was not allowed. 'Among the items seized were 66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras and two DVD players, the affidavit said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Employee Caught With $200K Worth of Stolen Property

Comments Filter:
  • by pxlmusic (1147117) <pxlent@gmail.com> on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:17PM (#25432195) Homepage

    jesus christ.

    i'm mailing my shit next time.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:21PM (#25432235)

      66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras and two DVD players

      $200K? That can't be right. 11 MP3's are worth that much according to the RIAA.

    • by johndmartiniii (1213700) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:30PM (#25432295) Homepage
      Yah, that doesn't always work either. I live in Egypt, and once your shit hits the border here it gets opened so that a tariff can be levied, but half the time you never get the tariff notice, because someone who works in the postal service, the trade bureau, or wherever just steals it.

      You also face import tariff in almost any country if you ship certain items. That can make it very expensive.

      Soon, it is only going to be safe and easy to take whatever you can carry in your pockets or shove up your ass.
      • by sdturf (968920) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:44PM (#25432983)

        Soon, it is only going to be safe and easy to take whatever you can carry in your pockets or shove up your ass.

        So you're saying that the watch my dad wore in Vietnam is the only thing safe when I'm traveling?

    • by SterlingSylver (1122973) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:42PM (#25432403)
      The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees. Lazy employees have been stealing random valuables being transported from the time that the first wagons and boats got invented.
      • by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prjek.net> on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:57PM (#25432543) Homepage Journal

        The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees.

        ...who only have the opportunity/incentive to be dishonest because of the "un-witnessed searches", yes?

        • by Neoprofin (871029) <neoprofin@hotm a i l.com> on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:01PM (#25432585)
          Right, because nothing was ever stolen from baggage until a few years ago...
          • by Russ Nelson (33911) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:04PM (#25432619) Homepage

            We weren't prevented from locking our baggage until a few years ago.

            • by tacocat (527354) <tallison1@noSPAm.twmi.rr.com> on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:18PM (#25432705)

              Actually, it used to be that you could carry on all your most valuable items and be able to travel with some degree of personal property security because you were personally in charge of it.

              Today the less you carry on, the less hassle you get. Problem now is that everything you check is likely to be rummaged. I've lost diving gear without recourse. Kind of a pain.

              I have little interest in traveling by air anymore for just this reason. The less you carry, the better chance of you arriving. I don't think there is any real security considering. For $200,000 from one person, I wonder just how many travelors are victims of robbery there are since HSA versus the number of travelors turned victims from terrorists.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by SL Baur (19540)

                For $200,000 from one person, I wonder just how many travelors are victims of robbery there are since HSA versus the number of travelors turned victims from terrorists.

                There have been 0 acts of terrorism in the US since 2001 unless you count the recent US$700^H^H^H850B bailout.

                I am a victim of theft of by the TSA, sometimes they leave a little piece of paper saying that they took something and sometimes they do not. They do not say what they decided to steal.

                And no, no matter how many times they ask me at the border, I never lived in Oakland and why do you keep asking me that every time I go through?

            • by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:53PM (#25433039)

              We weren't prevented from locking our baggage until a few years ago.

              You're not prevented from locking your luggage. The TSA doesn't want you to lock your luggage because they're searching it after you check it. Therefore, locking it makes it difficult for them. However, if you lock it, they'll deal with it. You might not like the way they deal with it, but they'll deal with it and you've broken no law by locking your luggage. TSA does offer a compromise; you can use one of those locks they have keys to. It's not foolproof; there have been lots of reports of those locks being destroyed. However, it's worth a shot.

              Some of us have been forced to learn the ins and outs of this crap in more detail than we wish. If, like me, you travel with firearms, you'll learn that the FAA is statutorily in charge of what can and can't be checked and the TSA can't order me to do anything that violates FAA regs. FAA regs mandate that luggage with firearms must be locked. Period.

              There are some tips and tricks for dealing with this situation but they're beyond the scope of this discussion. My point is simply that it's incorrect to say that we're "prevented" from locking our baggage. We most assuredly are not.

              • by drawfour (791912) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @03:03PM (#25433135)
                So you can lock your luggage. They will either:

                1. Cut the lock off
                2. Open the lock because they have a key

                In both cases, the result is the luggage is now open and they can steal any property they wish.

                Previously, when we could lock the luggage and it would REMAIN locked, we could be assured our stuff would not be stolen. We no longer have that assurance, whether we lock our luggage or not. That's the point the GPP was making...
                • by i.r.id10t (595143) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @05:33PM (#25434539)

                  Well, no they can't at least when traveling with a firearm. You get to have real locks, the bag(s) are inspected in front of you, and you lock 'em. They also can't label it as having a firearm in it, in plain English or in a code/symbol/special tag, other than the bag has been cleared.

                  And any firearm will do. For under $100, you can get the action (serial numbered part, the part BATFE says is the gun) for a single shot shotgun - you don't need to keep the stock, barrel, etc. attached. You can put it in a camera sized case, locked, and put that in your regular luggage, also locked with a proper lock. Check in, tell them you need to declare a firearm (helps to have your airlines policies printed out, as well as the FAA and BATFE regs), get it checked, adn life is good.

                  Best part is getting to watch the look on the luggage guys face if your stuff doesn't show up or has been opened. Amazing what the phrase "Will you call the BATFE, or do I need to?" will do.

                  Of course, this doesn't help with international travel, but for domestic it works like a champ.

    • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @04:22PM (#25433861) Homepage

      I could have advised that... in fact, I believe I have. If all of my comments are available for your viewing (I think paid subscribers can see them all) you would know that I am an ex-TSA screener. I screened both baggage and passengers. And in the case of baggage, some screening is done in the presence of the passenger and some is not. (It depends on the air carrier and the airport.)

      In any case, the opportunities are very obvious and I have no doubt that temptation plays out as a huge contributor to the problem. Sometimes things are accidentally left out of bags when re-packing them. I know I personally failed to repack a toiletry kit with prescription drugs inside. Unfortunately by the time I realized what I had done, the bag was already loaded onto the plane. I could have simply pushed it aside, but instead I insisted that I be allowed to bring the toiletry bag to the carrier and ultimately to the passenger with my apologies. (I felt it was necessary because I had no idea how critical those drugs may have been.) Also, there are regulations about other things such as compressed gas containers (like hair spray and butane) and even hard liquor above certain volumes. (These are FAA rules, not TSA.)

      So it is not uncommon to not put everything back... and because of this, other things slip through. And while I was with TSA, there was no rule about reporting items removed at the time. (There may be now, but there wasn't several years ago.) And while the items removed were "seized" it is unclear, even to myself, what was done with them... big ole bottles of whiskey? I have no idea... I didn't have the balls to want to take any home with me personally, but I am sure some may have.

      Now with all that said, these expensive items... well, damn. I feel really bad for the passengers and for the innocent TSA screeners who will now be watched more closely or simply viewed with suspicion. I hope the guy gets nailed to the wall with all sorts of charges and that this story is paraded all around the TSA as an example. But with this said, the problem has always existed. Baggage handlers have been known to steal all sorts of things and even moreso as they often have access to vehicles for carrying things off. (I recall a baggage handler who was busted with a pickup truck full of golf bags and laptop bags... and he had, as I was told, been doing it for YEARS.) Furthermore, in the case of baggage claims, it is quite common to see someone randomly come up to the carousel and pick up bags and walk away with them... treasure hunting. LOTS of stuff goes missing in that way especially.

      The short of it? Yes, it is better (and often cheaper these days) to send things via UPS or FedEX! Checking into a hotel? Send it a day in advance and let your hotel know it's coming. Visiting friends or family? Same thing. But if you can't depend on that, there are other rules that allow you to carry extremely valuable things with you in spite of the carry-on limitations. So camera bags and laptops can also go with you even if it doesn't fit in with your carry-on luggage. Simply put: You insist that it is going with you and that it is too important or valuable to be put in with regular luggage.

  • flying sux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:19PM (#25432211)
    And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.
    • by ColdWetDog (752185) * on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:24PM (#25432259) Homepage

      And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.

      But Ebay is great: A++++ seller, would buy from him again!

    • Re:flying sux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Z00L00K (682162) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:31PM (#25432311) Homepage

      Just curious - will they actually have the right to inspect your property (open your bags) without you being present if you look at it from the strict view of what the constitution says?

      More specific the Fourth Amendment [usconstitution.net].

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Of course - X-raying wasn't on the list when that amendment was written, but that should be OK, but as soon as the property is to be opened I would like to first have a warrant and then also be able to contest that before any proceeding.

      Has there ever been a court verdict saying that the fourth amendment isn't valid here?

      • Re:flying sux (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bender0x7D1 (536254) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:47PM (#25432439)

        You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket.

        • Re:flying sux (Score:5, Interesting)

          by v1 (525388) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:10PM (#25432659) Homepage Journal

          You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)

          • Re:flying sux (Score:5, Insightful)

            by jlowery (47102) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:24PM (#25432771)

            What are you smoking? A Miranda warning spells out your rights, then asks if you wish to waive them. How much more expicit does it need to get?

            • Re:flying sux (Score:4, Insightful)

              by MiKM (752717) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:56PM (#25433063)
              If you speak after being given your Miranda rights, you do not permanently give up your rights under the fifth amendment. That is, even if you say something potentially incriminating, you can then decide to keep quiet and still be protected by the fifth amendment.
      • Re:flying sux (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Beached (52204) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:49PM (#25432465) Homepage

        But you forget. It is a voluntary search as you give them permission by boarding. They will say that you did not have to enter the boarding areas that are usually clearly marked.

        Oops that still is the rule in Canada but in the US it is no longer the case http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/court-says-trav.html [wired.com] as you pretty much cannot enter the airport without automatically agreeing to be searched at any time.

        Oh well, if you drive or take the bus or train you still have some rights that are upheld. But to get people to refuse to fly and hurt the airline industry in a way that makes them listen probably will not happen.

        This still leaves private aircraft.

    • by thewils (463314) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:41PM (#25432397) Journal

      Cheer up. At least you don't get tased to death.

  • Who watches (Score:5, Interesting)

    by starfishsystems (834319) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:20PM (#25432217) Homepage
    "Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?"
    (But who is to guard the guardians?)
    Juvenal, Satires, circa 120 AD
  • by AndGodSed (968378) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:22PM (#25432245) Homepage Journal

    You yanks are safe from terrorism!

    Your own officers is a different matter though...

  • Told to F-O (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:23PM (#25432251)
    After having my TSA-approved lock ripped off of my new suitcase on its very first trip and basically told to F-O about complaints over it (Oh, it might have gotten caught in the machinery, and btw, why are you locking it at all) this is vindication - but no better protection than yesterday - of what a lot of us have been saying for a very long time. Yes I want my flight to land as safely as it took off since I'm in it, but providing a secret open hunting ground for minimum wage employees doesn't cut it for me.
    • Re:Told to F-O (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ChromaticDragon (1034458) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:38PM (#25432367)

      Furthermore, I don't quite see why this is that terribly hard to handle properly. All the searches (yes ALL of them) should be videotaped and the videos held for a duration significantly long enough to permit any traveler to file a claim against any loss. This should be codified into law and rigorously enforced by independent oversight.

      Why is this hard?

      Yes, I realize the difficulties this would pose of documenting everything everyone is carrying. But this seems inevitable anyway given where we seem to be headed.

      There needs to be a deep shift in perception away from the idea that the TSA polices us to the concept that they WORK FOR us. In the same vein, a transition is needed from the idea that we are all criminals to the idea that they are as well. Indeed, if the TSA has nothing to hide surely they wouldn't mind such oversight...

  • by Ihlosi (895663) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:25PM (#25432265)
    that there might be people who find this surprising.
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:28PM (#25432287)
    This tells us nothing we didn't know already: airport security is riddled with thieves. Whether they take stuff out of your checked luggage, or take it off you blatantly at the security gates - there are no safeguards, oversights or checks to stop these people acting with impunity.

    These are the modern day (government approved) highwaymen and the only solution I can think of is to label them socially ("you work in airport security? oh dear - is that the time already ...") as the pariahs they really are.

  • According to TFA, Brown has been employed as a screener since 2002. How much has he already sold?

    Are there more sophisticated screeners in organized crime?

    I'm so disgusted we pay people to waste our time, harass us, and steal from us. I'm looking at you, dept. of homeland security and TSA. Go out and get productive jobs, you leaches.

  • by mishehu (712452) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:34PM (#25432337)
    ...why the TSA is allowed to open up packages without the presence of the owner of said packages. If they were forced to page the owner to come back and observe the TSA performing a screening on the contents, that would cut down a lot on the opportunity for this type of theft to occur. If the owner doesn't respond to the page from the TSA, then the package simply is not allowed onboard is a fair policy I think. Also, make sure that the TSA personnel are required to fill out paperwork for every package they page the owners for will cut down on abuse of powers as well.
    • by pak9rabid (1011935) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:42PM (#25432405)

      ...why the TSA is allowed to open up packages without the presence of the owner of said packages. If they were forced to page the owner to come back and observe the TSA performing a screening on the contents, that would cut down a lot on the opportunity for this type of theft to occur. If the owner doesn't respond to the page from the TSA, then the package simply is not allowed onboard is a fair policy I think. Also, make sure that the TSA personnel are required to fill out paperwork for every package they page the owners for will cut down on abuse of powers as well.

      That's some good thinkin you got there....almost a little too good. You're a witc...er terrorist!

  • by Dude McDude (938516) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:34PM (#25432339)

    Imagine all the photographs of naked children that could be taken with 66 cameras.
    Imagine all the child porn that could be download/stored/viewed using 31 laptop computers.
    Imagine all the phone calls paedophiles could make with 20 cell phones.
    Imagine all the children that could be lured into a paedophiles house with 17 sets of electronic games, and 13 pieces of jewellery.
    Imagine all the children that could be tracked with 12 GPS devices.
    Imagine all the children that could be deafened by paedophiles letting children use 11 MP3 players at high volume.
    Imagine the sick movies made and viewed using six video cameras and two DVD players.
    And the eight camera lenses......dear God the eight camera lenses!!!

  • Tip of the iceberg? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by symbolic (11752) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:35PM (#25432343)

    I remember reading a statistic recently citing that over 100,000 laptops were "lost or stolen" within the realm of airline travel. Now I wonder how many of these occurrences are inside jobs.

    • by jlowery (47102) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:21PM (#25432739)

      I have never, ever trusted TSA enough to put a laptop in my checked baggage when on a business trip.

      In some cities, TSA has gotten so rude. Just went through Denver and organization was a mess, helpful signage was sparse to none, and yet somehow they expected passengers to go through security like little inerring automatons. At one point, I had to try to juggle two bins carring my laptop and briefcase (along with a jacket) so that the TSA worker there could replace the stack of bins underneath with a fresh stack of bins. As the passenger next to me said, "Was that really necessary?" Well, who cares? Inconveniencing the flying public is at the heart of their job.

      As bad as Denver was, Philly is the worst. The contempt for passengers is thick in the air. I half expect cattle prods to make their appearance there within the next two years.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gewalt (1200451)

      Why is there any doubt in your mind that the value is less than 100%?

  • Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colonel Sponsz (768423) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:35PM (#25432347)

    I guess TSA Gangstaz [youtube.com] (NSFW!) was actually a documentary then...

  • by LM741N (258038) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:37PM (#25432355)

    Then epoxy it together. When I get to my location, I tear it apart and buy more cheap luggage. Problem solved. I suppose now someone will see this and make epoxy illegal.

  • I remember clearly the latter half of September 2001. Of course there were the plastic flags flying from almost every motor vehicle, but what stands out for me is the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving.

    I didn't feel safe. Not that I'd ever been safe, but my perception had always been so.

    The thing that still puzzles me, though, is how we in the US have tolerated such a rapid erosion of civil liberty. It's not that our documented rights and freedoms haven't been violated all along, but now there are legal provisions--and already some legal precedent--to protect and justify such violations.

    Sure, sure, human psychology, thinking with the fear centers of our brains, even the Milgram Experiment--these and more describe how we react to a perceived threat. And fear is known to reduce the blood supply to the brain.

    I find it sad to consider that this particular finding will have no effect on the encroachment on human rights in these United States. I suppose this man is just one "bad apple." Like the cases of the prosecuted torturers at Abu Ghraib (and other locations), the years-later finding that the illegal and shocking techniques were known and even encouraged by the entire organization will have no effect on the policies which shall remain in place.

    • by gilgongo (57446) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @03:37PM (#25433425) Homepage Journal

      ... the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving.

      Interesting. I'm British, and born when the "Troubles" started in Northern Ireland. I lived through a number of mainland bombings during that time, one of which I was very nearly injured by (the Bishopsgate bombing [wikipedia.org] on 24 April 1993). The sound of the blast temporarily deafened me and a couple of people I knew were hospitalised. No 9/11 to be sure - but look at that photo.

      After the bombing, I don't recall feeling unsafe in London. The English political reaction to the IRA was markedly different to the way the Americans reacted to 9/11 though. There was no security theatre - if anything rather the opposite. The mood was basically that if the bombings changed the way we lived, the IRA would be winning. So we just put up some road blocks in London and deployed armed police around sensitive areas. I would say that made ordinary English people feel pretty good about their safety. Politicians didn't talk about the IRA very much, and we all just lived our lives as normal.

      You guys have had it tough I think. Not by the hands of terrorists as much as by the hands of your politicians.

  • by microcars (708223) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:52PM (#25432493) Homepage
    in the AP Photo!

    but I am comforted to learn from the article that:

    "...less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft."

    I read that as
    "CLOSE TO THREE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FOR THEFT!"

  • The best part... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shados (741919) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:53PM (#25432509)

    The best part of the article is near the end. Something along the line of "Don't worrie, crimes like these are REALLY rare. Only about 300 TSA employees have ever been fired for theft".

    300 employees fired for theft. If you read the article (i know, i know...) the only reason this guy got caught was because he's a retard (putting his return address on the stuff he sells, always using the same name on ebay, etc). So if 300 were caught, there's probably several times that many. Then you add that the TSA has like 40-45 thousand employees... and that adds up to 2/3rd of a percent of their total workforce (of course, the 300 figure is over time, but its still interesting to put the numbers in perspective).

    Thats just insane. It takes only one person to steal enough to really ruins some people's days. And here you have -hundreds- (just the ones that were caught!!!). I'll suffer through GreyHound busses, thank you.

  • by electrogeist (1345919) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:01PM (#25432589)
    where victims of theft get 600-26000 times the actual damages these days. Right? [slashdot.org]

    Oh wait, this is real hard property...

    She also said that his crimes were rare and that less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft.

    That is not exactly an encouraging number.

  • by Atrox666 (957601) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:04PM (#25432617)

    How dare you criticize anything the administration does during any of the wars they fraudulently start.
    If you criticize anything you're with the terrorists.
    It's all being stolen for your security.
    Most of that equipment could be used to access or record information that could undermine the current administration with stuff like facts.

  • by 3seas (184403) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:11PM (#25432667) Journal

    ... sorry but this shit just ain't acceptable.

    Its another of a long and growing list of government abuses that are easily amounting to be worse than the terrorism its supposed to be protecting us from.

    "Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, will have neither."

    who said that?

  • by kilodelta (843627) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:13PM (#25432681) Homepage
    When you pay people roughly minimum wage to run security.

    You don't exactly get the best people and you get the opportunity for theft.

    That said, my electronics NEVER get checked. They go through the x-ray machine where I can keep a fairly good eye on them.
  • by JambisJubilee (784493) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:17PM (#25432699)
    From TFA:

    465 transportation security officers have been terminated for theft since May 1, 2003

    Does anyone find this a little extreme? That's a little over one firing for theft every 4 days!

    Makes one wonder...

  • by EaglemanBSA (950534) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:26PM (#25432801)
    I was traveling through Cincinnati Int'l, where you have to go through security to get out of the airport (which is dumb as hell) - I speak french, and had just arrived from Paris. I witnessed firsthand a TSA employee trying to wrongfully take something from a person who clearly didn't speak English, and the employee was taking advantage of this - it wasn't until I intervened and demanded a supervisor come before the agent let up.

    What the fuck is up with this?? If this is SOP for Security Theater, the sooner the TSA and DHS fall apart, the better.
  • TSA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:31PM (#25432847)

    Taking Stuff from Airtravelers

  • Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xRelisH (647464) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:33PM (#25432873)
    Quoting the TSA:
    The actions of a few individuals in no way reflect on the outstanding job our more than 43,000 security officers do every day to ensure the security of the traveling public," she said.

    I'm of South Asian ethnicity and have a few Middle Eastern friends. We're all used to getting the secondary protocol at the airport due to our last names. Funny how they say a few bad TSA employees shouldn't reflect upon the other employees, yet they treat anyone with a brown shade of skin as a criminal.
  • by ilsa (197564) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:35PM (#25432897) Homepage

    But this summer, Brown got too ambitious for his own good, allegedly stealing a $47,900 camera from an HBO crew and a camcorder from a CNN employee, authorities said.

    Steal from Joe Sixpack and Lizzy Hockeymom all you want. But don't screw with corporate media!

  • by John Jorsett (171560) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:42PM (#25432975)

    If I were in charge of things, there'd be security cameras recording the inspectors. Also, each inspector who opened a bag would be required to stamp his/her identity number on a tag affixed to the bag. If anything was reported missing, those inspectors would be the first ones looked at, particularly if their id number shows up on a lot of bags with missing items.

  • A story.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wickerprints (1094741) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @03:07PM (#25433167)

    So I have a good friend who is on the rather kinky side. Last year, he went on a trip to a certain event that involved bringing various "toys." So he packed various items into checked luggage, and went through the security screening. When he arrived at his destination and opened his luggage to unpack, he discovered a slip of paper that indicated that his suitcase had been opened by a TSA screener.

    What he found remarkable was not the paper itself, but where it had been located. It was very neatly and securely wrapped around a large black rubber dildo.

    The first thing that came to mind when he told me this was to ask whether he had put it in some kind of ziploc bag. (I am a big fan of storage bags.) He replied, "Why would I do that?" I then pointed out that perhaps the person who put that paper there would have chosen to "handle things differently" (gloves notwithstanding) had they given some thought as to where this object has been.

    The moral of the story, my friends, is don't put anything worth stealing in your checked luggage. For example, I would never put computers or electronic equipment in checked luggage. That is like putting a giant bulls-eye on your stuff, saying, "STEAL ME." And sometimes, putting something a little...distasteful might even help prevent stealing. I imagine the TSA screener wasn't about to abscond with an already-used (though clean, my friend claimed) sex toy.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...