A Peek At the National Opt-Out Day Numbers 297
Yesterday was a big travel day for Americans, and the organizers of National Opt-Out Day hoped to use it to highlight widespread, though not universal, dissatisfaction with stepped-up screening measures in US airports, by encouraging people selected for body screening to insist instead on the pat-down alternative. Reader Willtor writes with a story in the New York Times on the effect of the protest: "'39 people had opted out of the body scans in Atlanta by 5 p.m. In Los Angeles, 113 had. One had opted out in Charlotte, N.C. Boston seemed to have something of a mini-spike, with 300.' This is a tiny fraction of passengers, of course. But when I flew out of Boston this afternoon, they had opened a line that led to a traditional metal detector. When I flew out in June all lines went to the nudie scanners. Is it safe to be optimistic that we have been heard and policies have changed? I am not particularly concerned whether we get credit or whether it is reported that the protest fizzled. But it would be nice to know that some of the more invasive theatrics have become optional."
According to its organizers, meanwhile, the opt-out protest was a "rousing success." If you traveled yesterday by air, what was your impression?
Duh (Score:4, Funny)
The TSA has not changed policy (Score:5, Insightful)
They are switching to standard metal detectors until the furor dies down, then they will ramp up with the scanning and patting.
I expect the switch to resume after Thanksgiving when most travelers will be business travelers who can't afford to spend their time protesting.
Now, if the TSA is right about the necessity of these scanners and enhanced patdowns, this move to temporarily disable the scanners seems like a massive security problem.
Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Insightful)
this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
- Winston Churchill [wikiquote.org], 29 October 1941
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Funny)
Never give up, never surrender! - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Funny)
Never give up. Trust your instincts. - Peppy, Star Fox 64
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Pepper, Give It Up
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:4, Funny)
Four months later he regained consciousness on the vomit strewn bathroom floor of a third rate Key West motel struggling to remember how he got there...
Wait... Damn... Not again. This happened to me last year...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the pat-down stuff is codified in law; it's an administrative thing. I'm not sure the administrator of the TSA can be fired by Obama since he was confirmed by the Senate, but in 2012 a new administrator can be nominated that will be able to stop the new search procedures with a simple signed memo.
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the money. Exactly right. And I think we can see that both political parties have turned against the founding principles of the US. One of them brought us this police state in the form of the nazi-in-clown-suit TSA and DHS, and the other has continued and magnified the policy. We still in possession of our wits DO see the enemy ... and he is ... you know it.
It's worse. (Score:5, Informative)
Read this. [shtfplan.com]
Opt-outers (presumably of any TSA procedure on any mode of transport) are tagged "domestic extremists" whose data will be referred to the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division [blogspot.com].
Re:It's worse. (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, the thugs in charge of the US want to create an estranged and disenfranchised domestic enemy for some strategic purpose. They will get it. I just hope it surprises them, exceeds their plans, takes them by the throat, strangles them all and kicks the gang of thugs into the sewer where they belong.
Re:It's worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read this. [shtfplan.com]
Opt-outers (presumably of any TSA procedure on any mode of transport) are tagged "domestic extremists" whose data will be referred to the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division [blogspot.com].
Your source is a blog of a blog of an un-named source that doesn't show anyone the putative memo. No pdf of the thing at all. For all we know, it's a bunch of electrons made up by somebody with an axe to grind.
A few seconds wandering around the Internet will yield hundreds if not thousands of similar posts about similar horrible things with about the same degree of provenance.
Tape the foil on tighter if you like, I'm going for the turkey.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tape the foil on tighter if you like, I'm going for the turkey.
They got to you, didn't they? How much did they pay you? Are they holding your family?
Re:It's worse. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know what? Even if those fancy scanners would reduce my risk of being killed by a terrorist from 1 in 10 million, down to 1 in 20 million... That guy with the ostomy pouch whose was doused in his own urine... that 79 year old WW-II vet with the metal hip... the 3 year old crying child being fondled while her mother restrained her...
I would gladly accept that extra risk to give them a measure of human dignity.
Re:Get used to the Police State... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just too late, there was never anything we could do to prevent this. For every person who cares, there's a hundred people who don't give a shit. For every hundred people who care, there's maybe one who cares enough to do something. It's a lost cause, not because it's been too long, but because the system follows the people. The people are happy to tolerate this shit in order to feel safe.
Got a problem with the scanners? Care about civil liberties? Guess what? You're a minority that nobody gives a shit about, except much of the country finds your views suspicious. Those of us who care about civil liberties can't compete with the masses who are happy as long as they get theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
He is obviously American, you non-American insensitive clod!
Re:The TSA has not changed policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, that's what I've been hearing - that the TSA is shutting down the naked people scanners today, presumably in order to deflate the number of people who opt-out of naked people scanning.
What I would really like to see is the number of people who went through the naked people scanners, as a percentage of the total number of passengers passing through airports today. If the TSA was purposefully shutting down the naked scanners in order to deflate the number of people who can object to going through them, then that sort of manipulation would show up in such a statistic.
Re:The TSA has not changed policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, that's what I've been hearing - that the TSA is shutting down the naked people scanners today, presumably in order to deflate the number of people who opt-out of naked people scanning.
Actually, I strongly suspect it's because, let's face it, the scanners hurt overall passenger throughput, which would make a bad travel day absolutely horrendous.
Which, of course, is really quite ironic: during a period when you probably want real, functional security procedures the most (ie, when the most people are traveling), the TSA has to ratchet down their policies in order to handle the load...
Doubletalk abounds on this issue (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing ironic about it at all. It is simply proof that even the TSA doesn't believe their own bullshit regarding the importance of said scanners for the purpose they claim. The scanners are already serving their purpose, which is to generate lots of cash and kickbacks. On the one hand they are claiming it keeps things super secure, and on the other the authorities are looking into the possibility a teen stowed away on a plane from North Carolina to Logan [bostonherald.com]. I mean, which is it? These procedures are super important and keep us all safe, or these procedures may well have not even been able to keep some random teen from stowing away on a plane?
Re:The TSA has not changed policy (Score:4, Insightful)
> Which, of course, is really quite ironic: during a period when you probably want real, functional security procedures the most (ie, when > the most people are traveling), the TSA has to ratchet down their policies in order to handle the load...
Which proves that, the scanners are there not to protect people at the most vulnerable travel day if you would look at it from common sense perspective, but rather, to train the cattle to be more obedient cattle.
That's a tacit admission: teh scanners are crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
If on the busiest travel day of the year, the TSA felt it was more important to get people on the planes than to scan them like that, which means they know perfectly well the risk of a terror attack is not that great, and the scanners do fuckall to address the risk.
Now we just have to rub it in their faces.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I was all set to opt-out on Wednesday but they just sent me through the regular metal detector like they used to before this whole mess started. Opt-out numbers aren't so meaningful if you don't even have the chance to opt-out.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were sure they were right, they would never bypass them. The fact that they do indicates that they are not a necessity, just a convenience or scare tactic. Rumor is that the enhanced pat-downs were initiated to "encourage" people into accepting the back-scatter scans.
I read an article that the TSA is considering software to ei
Re:The TSA has not changed policy (Score:5, Informative)
Seatac had scanners galore but weren't using them. (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't see anyone getting a pat-down, "enhanced" or otherwise. Just the same old shoes-on-the-xray-belt routine as always.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seatac is one of the few airports with TSA staff who have a reasonably sane approach to this BS. I've had two positive interactions with them recently.
First was my young daughter being selected randomly for one of their more extreme searches. The TSA staffer who was on point for those clearly wasn't happy but grimaced and waved her over, ready to follow the rules no matter how insane. An apparently higher ranking TSA person stopped him though saying quietly, "C'mon, it's a little gi
Re:Seatac had scanners galore but weren't using th (Score:5, Insightful)
how fucked up is it when the nicest thing anyone has to say about the TSA is that they didn't fondle his daughter and let him have bottled water after they "examined it fairly closely". and you refer to these as "positive interactions"...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say it's a good experience to meet a decent human being who understands that there's more to security on air travel than making people carry tiny bottles of water and feeling up children. It's not the best, but
Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Interesting)
This was entirely predictable. It's not easy to convince people to let other people--strangers of the same gender--touch them intimately as a form of protest.
It was also predictable that the media would spin it as a failure.
In fact, it probably helped speed security clearances on one of the busiest travel days of the year, because the TSA planned for a larger disruption. At least, that is what I would do, to be safe, and I'd imagine they did it.
The major media covers the story by repeating the TSA talking point that the majority of Americans support the scans. They base this on a Washington Post/ABC poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_11222010.html?sid=ST2009122902788 [washingtonpost.com]
I do think you'd get different numbers if you polled at the airport.
Re:Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm seeing in these articles are simply lies.
A woman says "I took the scanner, because I was even more unfomfortable with the enhanced pat down" and that's spun as supporting scanners. That's a bald faced lie.
Another woman says "I took the scanner, because I thought if I opted out I would look suspicious, and I just want to get through without a hassle", and that's spun as "not being against scanners"...
For my part, I'd submit to get onto a plane too. My last flight was part of a $5000 vacation package. If my wife and I are not on the plane, its not like we get the money back. I want to enjoy my vacation, and not watch $5k go up in smoke to make a point at the airport.
Bottom line, you can't look at how much resistance you actually see at airports. Its a coercive environment, they hold your vacation or business trip, your freedom, and even your dignity over your head. For a lot of people these are "high stakes"... make a fuss and your expensive flight is missed, your relaxing vacation, or family visit, or business meeting is ruined. And instead your in some sort of legal limbo where they can confiscate your stuff, strip search you, delay you indefinitly... Its no wonder that most travellers just want to fade into the background and get to their destination without hassle.
People don't support for the TSA system. They are terrified of it.
Re:Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't support for the TSA system. They are terrified of it.
And now we can all see who the real 'terrorists' are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what terrorism is.
Actually, that's exactly what terrorism is - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear [google.ca]
Or in simpler terms, they make you do what they want, because you're afraid of what will happen if you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO part of the problem is that they positioned the protest wrong. People don't want to screw up time with family to make a protest. If you cause a fuss you may never get where you're going. If they'd set the protest for sunday it would be a protest coming back. And you could always tell your boss you got caught up in the protest, true or not. Going out do you really want to explain to your relatives that you were busy protesting?
The other thing is people travelling with kids might not want to protest
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed - advertising a single "boycott day" sounds great on paper, but it makes it easy to control and spin.
This needs to be an "everyday" thing - "don't be an exhibitionist - avoid the scanners"
Re:Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO part of the problem is that they positioned the protest wrong.
Actually, I think they did a pretty good job with this. This protest generated a lot of news stories about these scanners and that is a good thing. Without this protest, any stories about scanners would be filled with quotes from TSA officials about how much this makes us safe and their would be no counterpoint to this. The threat of a great disturbance on the busiest travel day of the year drove lots of stories with people that are critical of the scanners. It also forced the TSA to answer these criticisms in a highly publicized way. The press seems to sense that the TSA arguments seem week and this has led the press to be more skeptical of TSA claims. These are all good things.
Now whether this momentum will continue remains to be seen. I'm not too worried about the number of opt-out's for this day because there are tons of people who would be willing to protest, but happened to not be traveling on protest day. But if it gets into people's heads that it is okay to skip the scanner, then we will see a longer term trend of opt-outs and that will greatly undermine the TSA's position. It is going to take a long, concerted effort to inject some sanity into the TSA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And if that isn't the very definition of Tyranny, i don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
tyranny /trni/ Show Spelled[tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
YW!
Re:Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Americans want freedom, they will have to stand up and deal with the inconvenience of ruined trips.
Or buckle and give up their freedom.
Re:Entirely predictable. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up...this is exactly right.
I'm not an American, but my wife is. I therefore enter the US to visit family on a regular basis ... over 20 visits in the last decade. The first time I visited was in 2001, prior to 9/11. The change I have seen in US airports in that time is stunning.
I put up with the slower, more detailed bag x-rays. I put up with the taking your shoes off crap (that you don't have to do in any other country). I put up with the dudes at the immigration desk becoming far more threatening and suspicious and just downright rude.
I ... reluctantly ... put up with the fact that they took first one, then two, and now ALL TEN of my fingerprints on every entry. To put this in perspective, in my country, fingerprints are not used as a form of ID as they seem to be in the US. The only people who have their fingerprints recorded are criminals. So the only people on earth who have a record of my fingerprints are a FOREIGN government (not even my own government has them). Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else? But I digress...
But this year when I entered I had to go through the damn nudie scanners. Now I realised I could opt out, and I did. But as a foreigner, they really gave me the once over. Now let me clarify here - I'm Australian - I speak English, I'm white, I have no criminal record, and I in no way would be considered a 'high risk' profile. But they made it very clear that they didn't want scary foreigners like me opting out of the scanning. And frankly, next trip, I will just go through the damn scanner. The alternative took ten times longer and was far more invasive and left me with a bad impression of the US as a whole. I thought the fingerprinting was the final straw for me but no, this is ridiculous.
So yes, the TSA is terrifying. They make the alternatives to the scanner very unattractive due to the lost time and increased questioning. So people 'preferring the scanner' is not because the like the idea. It's just the lesser of two evils.
It's a real shame - I love visiting the US. For all it's flaws it's a fascinating country. But GETTING there is such an awful experience that I would never do it if not for the fact I have family there. The American tourism industry must REALLY be hurting, because everyone I talk to here says "oh I'd love to go to the US, but all that security and fingerprinting ... no thanks". They all go to Europe or Asia instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in pretty much the exact same situation myself. My wife's family is over in the states, and that's the only reason I don't just say "fuck this shit" and abandon the US forever. I've felt like a criminal suspect every time I've entered the land of the free, and it only gets worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The no-show (Score:2)
This was entirely predictable. It's not easy to convince people to let other people--strangers of the same gender--touch them intimately as a form of protest.
From the WSJ:
George Donnelly, one of the organizers of the Opt Out day boycott, said Wednesday that his group hadn't received any reports of significant opt-outs. He said the group will continue its efforts after the Thanksgiving holiday. Few Travel Problems, as 'Opt Out' Day Fizzles [wsj.com]
It's Thanksgiving.
Flights are booked solid weeks - often months - in
Not in NC (Score:2, Informative)
Well played, TSA, well played (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to opt-out if the thing you're opting out of is roped off and not used.
This was a brilliant move by an organization that is not known for its brilliance, ever. Somebody at the TSA is sipping champagne and laughing today at pulling the rug out from underneath the protesters' feet.
The scanners will be back online within days, and then it will be more of the same from the gestapo. But the protest? FAIL. All of the mainstream stories show this to be a non-issue, and now the "protest" numbers back this up in the TSA's world of spin. We got played.
Comply citizen.
Re:Well played, TSA, well played (Score:5, Interesting)
By turning the scanners off, they tacitly admitted that the public's discontent is a bigger issue than Al Qaeda.
Now we just have to make them say it outright.
No Problems -- I guess I'm a sheep... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you traveled yesterday by air, what was your impression?
I flew out of Milwaukee, WI, got through security in only a few minutes, and the TSA people were very nice.
I guess that makes me a sheep for bending to the will of the government that's hellbent on making me in to a slave. Or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you find that people are usually nice to you when they are grabbing your vagina?
MDW/ORD/CLT: No Scans (mostly) (Score:2)
Funniest thing I saw in Chicago was the guy in front of me trying to opt-out of the metal detector, and get a pat-down instead. He was a little confused.
They went about this the WRONG way. (Score:2, Interesting)
If they wanted to cause some issues and slowdowns, everybody flying should have been hiding metal and more all over their person.
Or everybody should have shown up with a large knife.
What's the TSA going to do, then?
Not much since they're sorely outnumbered.
Re:They went about this the WRONG way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or everybody should have shown up with a large knife. What's the TSA going to do, then?
Confiscate everybody's large knife, and possibly cancel flights or shut down the airport, if they think some sort of potential organized attack is in progress. What do you think they would do, let everyone on board because everyone brought a knife?
Better stunt (Score:2, Interesting)
Missing data (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Succeeded Before Yesterday (Score:5, Insightful)
The protest was a success well before yesterday. The goal of such civic participation in government is to raise public awareness. The head of the TSA had to think about this, and talk about it in the national media. This enlivened the public debate. That is the exact definition of victory.
If one wants to muse about more concrete short-term victories, consider the lines at the airports yesterday. I have flown on the day before Thanksgiving -- it is not pretty. According to reports, yesterday went significantly more smoothly than in the past. Think about the cause/effect. I suspect the TSA decided they had to stage a good show of efficiency yesterday to defuse the opt-out protest. They put on extra staff and gave rousing pep talks -- and; the airports sucked a little bit less yesterday than they would have otherwise. That is a nice outcome. The protest changed the behavior of our government for a day.
Did this one effort to organize civic participation go exactly as designed and solve the whole problem in one shot? Of course not. Decentralized civic displays -- almost by definition -- cannot work like that.
Civic management of government is a process, and this was a fine step. Much like our debates here in these forums are part of the process. It is the road to a better society. An endless and engaging road winding through an increasingly healthy societal system.
Or more viscerally: It is like using a spray bottle of water to train a puppy; we're going to have to do it more than once before the government learns not to poop on the carpet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I ever received mod points, I would mod you up. I especially like the last line.
The surprising thing (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, this whole charade must be about one picture of a VIP's micro-tool away from being permanently canned.
The real litmus test for this is (Score:5, Insightful)
The real litmus test for this is whether you'd support a nasty, middle-Eastern looking guy with a thick beard and a white prayer cap, if he chooses to opt out. I know it's all just security theatre and so on, but I'd like to see the reaction of the folks who opt out on principle if they end up in this situation, and have to board the plane with this dude who also opted out.
Re:The real litmus test for this is (Score:5, Insightful)
I would absolutely support them. I would sit next to them, and trust my children to them. If there's a terrorist on the plane they're not going to be dumb enough to dress like the one type of person GUARANTEED to get them looked at with suspicion.
BTW, the 911 hijackers wore western style clothing.
Min
TESTIFY! (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA decided that the Opt Out protest was a bigger concern than Al Qaeda.
That is a tacit admission that 1. the threat is not that great and 2. these damn scanners accomplish nothing to reduce it.
Don't let them forget this!
Cut to the chase (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's cut to the chase already.
What they really want is for every house to have a scanner like that on the entrance, so you are scanned and/or patted down every time you enter and exit your house and every other building (and of-course every mode of transportation as well, including the buses, planes, trains and automobiles, yachts and ships and dirigibles and even you bikes.)
This is actually very amusing to me, as I was born in the USSR and one of our best satirists ever (Zhvanetsky) had a few monologues, where he described the soviet experiences in a half-imaginary way
Here is one of the monologues (my translation):
As usually, you are going somewhere, the face as usually is facing forward; The back of the head has no clue.
All of a sudden from behind:
- Continue moving!
- I am continuing.
- So go as you are going.
- I am going as I am going.
- Take a little to the right.
- Will take... taking.
- Don't talk!
- I am silent.
- Stand there, don't look back!
- Standing. Not looking. Letting something pass on the left. What is that behind me?
- DO NOT LOOK BACK!
- Not looking.
- OK, you are free to go!
- Yes, I am free!
here is another one, please don't get on my case for the translation style, it's difficult to translate something well anyway, and to make it even remotely funny while doing so is just ... very hard and I was trying to keep to the way the monologue was read, which was with leaving many of the necessary verbs out of the text on purpose, to create an 'air' of the idea that not every word needs to be spelled out for the listener.
Turnstiles.
At the end of every street need to set up turnstiles. Obviously, you can walk this and that way, as much as you want, but this is pure lack of responsibility - going wherever you want. So at the end of each street set up the turnstiles. Nothing special. They should let everybody through for now without any questions. Don't be afraid. Only the ricketting noise lets you know... And the security guards with sleeve insignia. Let them stand there and let everybody through. For now. Just their presense, just the steel stare... You are coming towards them - the face is burning up, you pass them - you back is burning up. And they are not asking anything... yet. This is the entire effect. And it's increasing the discipling. And at any moment you can lock everything up. Those with special commands have access to any house, etc.
By the perimeter of the plaza - until the security checkpoint. A man is walking along the fence, with the hands moving over the fence. Let's suppose three, four times he moves the hands over the fence - and into the security checkpoint, where NOBODY is stopping him, though the security guards are standing there of-course. Special paint on the fence, easy to check the fingerprints, this and that, etc. My god, nobody REALLY will be taking the fingerprints off the fence, don't worry about it. But in case there is some emergency... the fingerprints are right there and what are you going to do? For now of-course, let them go through without showing any papers. Though to have the papers on your person, that's for sure, just in case they mustc check, some emergency, etc. So obviously as you are coming closer towards the guard there, you already want to show something. To come through without showing - that's only to be suffering in doubt. In time you won't mind any of the checks. It will be a shame to walk around unchecked. All the more so - to come of a sudden and somewhere, as you do now. Or to yell - "my house is my castle" - that's just from internal immorality.
But IN the corridors you don't need to put security guards. For now. You have to start at the entrance, of-co
Why does everyone just accept those numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
The source is an opinion piece that is quoting the TSA, both of which have reasons to release numbers that serve their purposes.
The TSA is lying about all of their numbers (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, I also tried pointing out that their numbers were not correct, they wouldn't approve my comment.
My experience at BOS (Score:4, Interesting)
It was going to be grand. I had worn my nicest boxers, with a button-fly to ensure no actual laws would be violated, even accidentally (giving a valid reason to jail me). No belt, loose-fitting jeans. When the man asked to to step into the scanner, I would politely accept, step inside and, when his back was turned, drop 'em.
"Oh-h say can you SEE, by the dawn's early LIGHT!..."
Amid the lengthy mouse-maze queue of holiday travelers, a few lightbulbs would come on as the irony began to sink in. Nervous TSA officials would move in. Maybe they'd react, pulling me aside by force, ordering me to shut my face and put my pants back on. Maybe I'd get through the whole thing before being tased into submisison.
"In the land of the FREE, and the home of the BRAVE!..." *dzzt!* *thud*
What really happened:
My gf and I show up at the Logan Airport security checkpoint. It was a ghost town. We present our boarding passes (not IDs); I swear I see a tumbleweed blow by. Every TSA lane is staffed, but where are the passengers? There are exactly two travelers ahead of us, in separate lanes, and nobody behind. They're gone by the time we get our shoes off and all our crap onto the conveyer. Dropping my pants for a handful of screeners and zero travelers suddenly doesn't seem worthwhile any more.
My gf (who is not particularly bothered by the body scan) steps into the scanner, and I get waved through the metal detector, despite there being two other open scanners and nobody behind us in line. Cheery TSA guy at the metal detector says he likes my t-shirt. If I was a bad guy, you'd have seen it on the news already, because this "screen" was a complete joke. Afterward, I realized I was so busy contemplating my own "security theater" performance that I left my laptop in its case inside my backpack. They didn't care. My gf had separately forgotten to unpack her big bag o' liquids. They didn't care.
Conclusions:
TSA's "solution" to both the holiday crush and the potential protests was to drop the theater act and just let everyone sail on through. To me, this speaks volumes about both their perceived effectiveness and value of the new "enhanced" security processes. I can't say to what extent the potential for protests was a factor in this, but if it was, this was a doubly-brilliant move on the part of the TSA. The best way to stop a protest cold is to take away its audience, and that is exactly what happened here. Meanwhile, everyday sheep travelers are probably marveling at how painless the process was today - on the busiest travel day of the year! - and making associations between this and the new body scanner procedure. Well played, TSA, well played.
Re:the opt-out protest was a "rousing success." (Score:5, Informative)
AAA numbers...
In 2000 6+ million traveled by air
After 2001 it was about 4m. It rebounded to 4.5-5m over next few years.
2008 you begin the slide down in air travel
This year is expected to be slightly more than last year, about 1.6m
Next year??
so 6+million => 1.6 million slide
I used to fly frequently (on average standard). Terrorism never would have stopped me. Maybe 10 flights in 2006. And I was good for the airlines. Only 1 small carry on, no luggage, and I even dressed to get through the metal detectors without causing slowdowns. But now, no way. I will not be paying to be treated as if I was in prison. It doesn't make me feel safer to be xrayed and groped.
I may actually need to travel from Chicago to San Francisco early next year and I'm actually looking at AmTrak. 3 days on a hotel on wheels - sounds better than xrays and molestation...
BTW: New Hampshire has a motto "Live Free or Die". They should change it. We have created our of prisons and the terrorists are laughing...
Re: (Score:2)
so 6+million => 1.6 million slide/quote?
Please, p[ease, please, provide a reliable citation for those numbers.
My google-fu is not strong enough.
I promise to use the power wisely and email just about everybody I know with them if they are supportable.
Re:the opt-out protest was a "rousing success." (Score:5, Informative)
so 6+million => 1.6 million slide/quote?
Please, p[ease, please, provide a reliable citation for those numbers.
My google-fu is not strong enough.
I promise to use the power wisely and email just about everybody I know with them if they are supportable.
You ask and I deliver,
AAA Thanksgiving travel chart [sfgate.com]
Let's hope it will be there for a while :)
I try not to bullshit and pull random stuff out of my ass... Good luck.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/24/state/n000112S70.DTL
More than 40 million people plan to travel over the Thanksgiving holiday, according to AAA, with more than 1.6 million flying — a 3.5 percent increase from last year.
And a 75% decrease from 2000, but never mind that.
Mine is: (Score:5, Interesting)
I've completely opted out of flying commercially since 2001. That's a protest that allows me to vote with my wallet. It has transferred tens of thousands of dollars away from the airlines, and I expect that trend to continue. In the interim, I've very much enjoyed driving about the nation, traveled internationally via cruise ship (though that is now beginning to suffer similar indignities as commercial passenger service), and learned that "luxury" train travel in the US appears to be something descended from Torquemada's collection of techniques.
The first car ride I took (that I can recall) was in 1959; like many American males, I've had a vibrant interest in cars since very early on. I've owned quite a number of them across the years. From that perspective, most of today's vehicles are amazingly well made, comfortable, handle extremely well, and are stupendously reliable - truly a joy for me to drive. That, combined with a lifelong passion for photography, and I have to say driving is something I've happily rediscovered over the last decade. Occasionally I rent a higher end vehicle that I would not normally have the opportunity to drive for a cross-country run; I can't even begin to tell you how much fun that can be if you actually enjoy driving. Large portions of the American west, particularly around the Rockies, still offer driving challenges worth taking on... it gets considerably more tedious, road-wise, as you get closer to the coasts (55 in what is essentially a supercar is kind of annoying), but on the other hand, the photo ops become quite numerous, so I sort of change objectives as I go.
I would suggest that if driving is an option you can consider, this is a much more effective -- and fun -- way to protest the approach taken by the government and the airlines. Like it or not, money is the longest, strongest lever you can apply in this society. Writing "TSA sucks" on yourself or going to the checkpoint in a kilt, sans underwear... these things don't really accomplish much, other than get you your ten minutes of infamy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the Airlines will be deemed 'too big to fail' and you'll end up paying for it anyway.
Re:Mine is: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not the airlines that are pushing for this shit. They can do trend-analysis just fine, too. If their numbers suddenly take a nosedive after the implementation of operation anal probe, you can bet your sphincter that they'll figure out the cause real fast.
Re:Mine is: (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally have my boycott list yet I expect no change: the economy is a real thing only for small fish. Big players decide how much money to put in circulation; airlines, coaches, all depend on the same banking cartel.
You go against "them" when you regain some independence (growing your own food is a disobedience act) Note that independence is different from individualism: e.g. a big family is always more independent than the same members living on their own.
You go against them when you live unaffected by greed for the money and associated power and instead follow your conscience and a moral system (one that *you* chose, because zeitgeist = culture filtered by propaganda).
If big players exert control through a system, they want it to be the only universally effective one. They might pit all alternative moral systems against each other until people gets hurt, push the idea that religion and cultural difference is an obstacle to peace (in this context, atheism is like religion whenever it involves activism, organization, moral choice...).
Winning battles against these people is next to impossible, but since powerful people won't ever be satisfied and require more control on all aspects of life, you win the war simply acknowledging the situation and, no matter what the circumstances may force you to do, recalling you have a conscience.
So by all means, go on as much as you can, but do not call it voting with the wallet, call it being a man.
PS. even more OT, but since I condensed my theory of everything I can spare a paragraph.
The desire for control is exemplified very well in the last words of Orwell's 1984- Big brother wins when it forcefully obtains Winston's love. Christians may recall the devil asks Jesus to adore him in exchange for power. Envious of God, he mirrors, perverting it, the universal love. Aptly, Latin term for "a bad person" is "captivus", prisoner.
Re: (Score:3)
..."luxury" train travel in the US appears to be something descended from Torquemada's collection of techniques.
Sorry, you lost me here. And there are too many Torquemadas [wikipedia.org] for me to figure it out with Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada [wikipedia.org]
The wikipedia page mentions his reputation for fanatical zeal and mentions his role in the Spanish Inquisition; he's a bit of a "public face of the worse excesses of the inquisition". No idea whether that's justified or not but frankly he's been dead for half a millenia so I'm not too fussed.
Re: (Score:3)
You really should have expected the Spanish Inquisition.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess you don't vote in elections then, because your single vote is insignificant, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True but there can come a point in an individual's life when they feel they can no longer participate in something for their own reasons, even if they know 99.999% of people don't care about their "protest".
They feel better about what they are doing and why they are doing it but don't feel the need to create converts by standing on a street corner telling everyone about it. Or taking over a TV station [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
OR...
Policies could have been changed due to the tremendous load of the biggest travel day of the year that was likely to overtax the new systems to the point that the old systems would be re-opened even without any sort of "protest."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The scanners were shut down to keep people from opting out. The gate rape was also skipped. Solid proof that if enough citizens even look like they MIGHT have a spine, the TSA can be forced to crawl back under it's rock.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are missing the fact that the objections in the US have nothing to do with luggage screening. It's the hand searching and scanning of people that is objectionable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No bombs on that plane!
And no tigers in my room, thanks to my tiger-repelling pebble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's a worthless waste of time? (Score:4, Informative)
Remember: The TSA has never caught a single terrorist. The TSA has never foiled a single terrorist plot. Tests succeed in getting weapons past them more than half the time. But they've made sure people can't get "bombs" in inside water bottles... by putting all the suspected "bombs" into a trash bin 5 feet from the line. Meanwhile, at El Al you won't star in your own porn or be groped and they don't care if you bring a bottle of water or shampoo, yet no flight out of El Al has ever been hijacked in more than half a century.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
yet no flight out of El Al has ever been hijacked in more than half a century.
FYI, that's close, but not quite true. [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Because it's a worthless waste of time? (Score:5, Insightful)
To loosely quote Schneier,
Implementing measures, whether popular or not, give the illusion that they are doing something and therefore can justify their own existence.
It is human nature to think that something is better than nothing. Even when you point out that the measures are worthless, many people will think "but at least they are trying".
Taking a big-picture long-term view of the loss of freedoms and subjugation by agents of the government, things aren't looking good for the USA and (by association and intimidation) the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No bombs on that plane!
No bombs in your bag, you mean. Did you use to have them?
As there are, as has been demonstrated, a whole lot of other ways they can get onto the plane, if you enjoy worrying about risks less frequent than accidental bathtub deaths, you should probably go right on worrying.
Or do the scanners do some harm?
As far as I'm concerned they're probably not worse than asbestos. Sure, there are some indications that ionizing radiation may be harmful, but hey, the parties who profit from the scan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The lesson is that you get what you pay for! In your case, first-class service. You can have even better service, and skip the security, if you have enough money - just get a private jet. Or, become a congressman.
Stewardesses in the US sometimes try, but usually don't care about you at all if you're in economy class. Especially if it's a smaller plane, they'll probably be bitter and mean instead. However, there is a different set of flight attendants (usually the younger, more attractive ones) that work in