so i wore a kilt to the airport,

[ben ttech]

and went commando in accordance with ethnic tradition...

said no to the backscatter imaging machine and got shunted to the executive line for a full body pat down...


id complain about the handjob,

but ive been advised by council, relating the story would be a political statement...


and for shame

 

[Bulldog11]

what? wierdest post ever.

 

[joe fresh]

i gotta say if someone did that it would be fukking hilarious, and would prove a point to those fukkers at the airport


i would actually pay someone to do that

 

[Mr. Greengenes]

Very cool.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/going-commando.ars

 

[ben ttech]

i tell you, it just never fails!
think your onto something, then you find out its already been written and sold

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Classic!

So resisting tyranny is a political statement?? The humanity!!!

The Scots are not so easily tamed...

Slàinte mhath!

Get that up yer kilt!!!

 

[Yes4Prop215]

i was walking my dog in the park out here in the east bay and some dude was wearing a kilt jogging on the path....weird shit.

 

[-HC-]

WTF? what park was this?

 

[ixnay007]

Classic!

So resisting tyranny is a political statement?? The humanity!!!

The Scots are not so easily tamed...

Slàinte mhath!

Get that up yer kilt!!!

The scots are not so easily tanned either

 

[Baba Ku]

hoot mon!

I have an idea for anyone traveling soon...and I think it should be a common practice.
Use some metalflake paint and paint little messages on our bodies. Little love letters for the TSA that will be visible during a scan.
Many little phrases and quips come to mind....
Pucker Up
Scan THIS
Eat At Joes (for all the Josephs)

 

[tonto]

im guessing op lurks thechive,this was posted yesterday, wait a while and we'll find out what happens

 

[sailsinthesun]

Can you imagine going commando in a kilt with a shirt that says "Hey, at least I shaved my balls for you!" HAHAHAHA!!!!

Talk about getting someone to quit their job...

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

Here's an article from the Guardian from an employee of the TSA who was interviewed. I really do feel sorry for the employees because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Especially since it's not like all of them can just quit and find new jobs, especially the ones like the guy being interview who are supporting their families working for the TSA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/26/air-transport-theairlineindustry

Who benefits over the TSA controversy?

The civil liberties fight over airport body-scanning and patdowns is tainted by corporate interests. It's time to follow the money

Left-leaning civil libertarians initially welcomed the sudden surge of news reports about anger and revolt over the Transportation Security Administration's new procedures that involve rather intimate patdowns for people who won't or can't use the body-scanning machines at airport security lines. We'd been raising the alarm for years about the long lines and privacy invasions, all done in the name of security, with little to no evidence that any of it made us safer.

But it didn't take long to realise that much, if not most, of the ire aimed at the TSA was coming from conservative corners, which made progressives hesitate. On the one hand, building political alliances is a time-honoured strategy to get things done. On the other, aligning yourself with the American right means bringing on quite a bit of baggage: bad faith arguments, outright lying, racism – and hidden agendas, usually serving predatory corporate interests.

Were rightwingers suddenly interested in civil liberties issues that usually hold little interest for them because the TSA had gone too far? Or was something else going on?

Many of liberals' worst suspicions were immediately fulfilled. Rightwing media instantly harnessed the outrage to demand racial profiling, which is both illegal and ineffective. Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of the Nation discovered that some accounts of being molested by the TSA were concocted by conservative activists. Unfortunately, the Ames/Levine article has been justifiably criticised for using shoddy evidence and arguing through smears and implication, and name-dropping the Koch brothers; this may all cause some people to overlook the most damning argument in their piece.

And that argument is one that blogger Davey D more clearly laid out: all this conservative outrage at the TSA lays the groundwork for arguments in favour of privatising airport security, a cause championed by folks like Congressman John Mica, who is a ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mica has received more than $81,000 in campaign donations from the very firms that would take over airport security if the TSA relinquished authority. Mica's arguments that privatisation would fix the groping problem are farcical, on par with arguing that hiring Blackwater reduces war crimes.

This is about more than the crude influence of industry lobbying, though. Ginning up outrage about government workers and demonising them as perverts serves a larger conservative corporate agenda. The more you can turn the public against the idea of people working for the government, the more you can strongarm the government into privatising those services. In the end, the result of rightwing arguments about the TSA will be continued privacy violations – but just ones that are more inefficient and expensive to the taxpayers.

Not that the people defending the TSA are free from the taint of corporate cash and interests. If anything, the Democrats defending the new protocols are just as beholden to lobbyists' dollars. As USA Today reports, the companies that supply the body-scanning machines have more than doubled their spending trying to convince the government to buy more of the machines.

The problem is getting people to use them, knowing they take quasi-naked pictures of people. The solution? Make the alternative patdowns so excruciatingly embarrassing that people have to go with the body scanners, and demand for the machines remains high. The fact that the scanners are more efficient than the patdowns certainly adds to the incentive for using them.

The influx of money, tied to a perceived political imperative not to be seen as being "soft on terrorism", means the battle lines over this are being drawn in such a way that real change over security protocols is unlikely. Conservatives who are up in arms about this will likely shut up if their team wins by getting security privatised, even though it will remain as invasive. Meanwhile, many Democratic-leaning journalists and pundits seem content to attack dishonest and shady rightwing TSA critics – without examining in detail why such security procedures are invasive and need to stop.

Who does that leave in this game who isn't corrupt and/or in favour of a more authoritarian, paranoid society? Well, I'd say the increasingly small group of Americans I'd call "progressive civil libertarians", like myself, but who usually get denounced as leftists. We get to play the part of Mercutio in this little tragedy, denouncing both houses for escalating the police state, trying to be somewhat honest in the chaos.

The problem with this is that Mercutio never gets to the end of the play. Which is, of course, what I fear for the progressive point of view. In the battles over who gets ownership of the chance to grope us, look at us naked, and otherwise invade our privacy, the question of whether or not that should even happen will be be shoved aside completely.

Amanda Marcotte
guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 November 2010 15.41 GMT

 

[JamieShoes]

unless they're going to start patting down freight/cargo as well the whole excerise is pointless...unless you have a booby trapped printer cartridge in your y-fronts...

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

unless they're going to start patting down freight/cargo as well the whole excerise is pointless...unless you have a booby trapped printer cartridge in your y-fronts...

Oh yeah, I agree. I believe we should be more worried about the nation's seaport, in my opinion. I just think it sucks that some passengers are taking out on TSA employees that aren't aggressive, perverted or condensending toward flyers.

 

[Baba Ku]

Here's an article from the Guardian from an employee of the TSA who was interviewed. I really do feel sorry for the employees because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Especially since it's not like all of them can just quit and find new jobs, especially the ones like the guy being interview who are supporting their families working for the TSA.

First off, I saw no interview of anyone. And you act as if the TSA have very stable jobs that are family supporting type jobs. I duno't know about you..but if I make between 17k-25l I am not supporting much of a family to any great degree. And jobs in that range are to be had on a daily basis. Folks just don't want to work them.

And what the article does indeed provide, is a very biased opinion and take from a so called journalist. One that claims to be a libertarian. The bias of the piece is apparent when statements like this are made:

On the other, aligning yourself with the American right means bringing on quite a bit of baggage: bad faith arguments, outright lying, racism – and hidden agendas, usually serving predatory corporate interests.

You want to follow the money? Research the UNIONS and and you will find the root of the TSA thing. The unions are now sweettalking the TSA since the courts ruled they can now unionize. In fact, that is what it is ALL about. Mark my words.
The over zealous infringements of late are completely by design, and have little to do with actually identifying terrorists.

 

[VirginHarvester]

Baba Ku, thank you very much. Thank you. The article is imo a piece of crap. Does anyone know what "conservative" means? The left sure as hell doesn't conserve our rights as Americans, nor our money as a people that used to have a solvent treasury.

Look, all anyone needs to know about the TSA is they are a bunch of well meaning morons. Most TSA employees had any interest in law enforcement, they just needed a job, a GOVERNMENT job no less. This is another huge scam and we are the victims.

Can you believe we were attacked by a group of Muslims and now WE are losing our freedoms? It hurts to see how bad we are being railroaded. C'mon, phucking liberals actually want to blame this on conservatives? Jesus christ people, protecting our rights from government is conservative. EVERYONE should be conservative on this issue. They aren't trying to save us from Muslims, they are trying to make us believe that so they can search us whenever they feel like it. Airports are just the beginning.

Do you really believe liberals defend our freedoms? All liberals do is steal our rights and erode the Constitution. Oh fuck, what a joke it was to hear liberals pretend George Bush(a moron) was taking their liberties. Look what's happening now? Could you honestly be stupid enough to believe ACLU is looking out for YOUR freedoms? That's a progressive organization. Progressives want to really, and I mean really, change this country.

Better make sure you know what's what people because a lot of us don't even know what we stand for. But we stand in line with groups that say "progressive" or "conservative" or "whatever" and don't know our asses from a hole in the ground politically. You're being used. Wrapped deep inside the "progressive" movement or agenda are a lot of slimy anti American people. Your President is even one of them. Wake up or just admit you'd rather be an idiot. The honesty would be refreshing.

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

First off, I saw no interview of anyone. And you act as if the TSA have very stable jobs that are family supporting type jobs. I duno't know about you..but if I make between 17k-25l I am not supporting much of a family to any great degree. And jobs in that range are to be had on a daily basis. Folks just don't want to work them.

And what the article does indeed provide, is a very biased opinion and take from a so called journalist. One that claims to be a libertarian. The bias of the piece is apparent when statements like this are made:


You want to follow the money? Research the UNIONS and and you will find the root of the TSA thing. The unions are now sweettalking the TSA since the courts ruled they can now unionize. In fact, that is what it is ALL about. Mark my words.
The over zealous infringements of late are completely by design, and have little to do with actually identifying terrorists.

I'm sorry, I posted the wrong article. Thank you for pointing that out.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/22/news/economy/tsa_screener/#

TSA pat downs: 'Horrible' screener job gets worse

By Aaron Smith, staff writerNovember 23, 2010: 1:22 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Getting a pat-down at airport security may be uncomfortable for holiday travelers. But life for the blue-shirted officers of the Transportation Security Administration isn't much fun either. "We just want the passengers to understand: Look, we're not perverts or anything like that; we just have to search everything," said Rick McCoy, the senior TSA officer at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. "We're not here to be abused. We're just here to help you get on your flight and go about your business."


McCoy has been a screener for the TSA for nearly nine years. That means he's been with the federal agency since its inception in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"The work life here is horrible," said McCoy, president of his local union representing officers. Turnover is like a "revolving door" and health benefits are "atrocious," he said. Morale is low and so is the pay, he added.



Officers typically start at $29,000, but that's only if they're working full-time. New officers often start as part-time workers, said McCoy, at about $14 per hour. He said that part-timers, who make up 37% of the screener workforce at O'Hare, typically have to work four-hour days for at least three years before they're considered for full-time.



"I can't sugar coat this to these guys," said McCoy, who described many of the new employees as young students. "I tell them, 'Whatever you do, don't leave school.'" McCoy says he makes about $42,000 a year in base pay, which is near the top of the officer pay scale. He said he relies primarily on overtime to support his family, especially since he pays nearly $500 a month for the TSA's healthcare plan.


The relatively low pay, particularly with the new part-timers, might be contributing to problems with the professionalism of some of the officers, said Anne Banas, executive editor at www.smartertravel.com.
"They're not paid a very high wage and they're not necessarily trained in customer service," said Banas. She said that some of the officers she's encountered are "great and gracious," while others are "power-tripping and controlling," with a "not my problem" attitude.
The best way to deal with stressed-out screeners, said Banas, is to "be as polite as you can. Don't make demands. Try to keep a cool head if you get pulled aside for pat downs."


Things have gotten extra-tough for the officers lately, since the TSA initiated its controversial pat-down procedure ahead of the Thanksgiving travel season. This new method of screening passengers is meant to detect explosives hidden in clothing, like the underwear bomb carried by a suspected terrorist on a Christmas Day flight last year.


Pats downs are implemented when passengers choose not to go through the advanced-imaging body scanners, or when they set off the scanners or metal detectors.
The pat downs result in some embarrassing contact between officers and passengers who consider the procedure to be too intrusive. Airline security blogger Steven Frischling has been posting anonymous complaints from officers on his blog, www.flyingwithfish.com, including this one:
"It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man's private parts, their butt, their inner thigh."


Frischling said that screeners tell him they're "demeaned" by the pat-down procedure, which they describe as "ineffective."
But in a recent statement, TSA administrator John Pistole stood by the new procedure as an effective way of weeding out terrorists.
"We cannot forget that less than one year ago a suicide bomber with explosives in his underwear tried to bring down a plane over Detroit," said Pistole. "The terrorists allegedly behind the thwarted cargo attempt last month are out there bragging about how they will strike again."



"We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary but that just isn't the case," he said.
The pat-down procedure resulted in about a half-dozen incidents at O'Hare where travelers hit or pushed officers, said McCoy. He said these events don't always result in arrest, which further undermines morale.


"We're reminding people that these agents didn't create the policy," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing 600,000 federal workers. "Taking out your frustration on them is inappropriate."
Gage and McCoy said that 12,000 of the 50,000 officers are currently union members, but they don't have the power of collective bargaining. They said that conditions might eventually improve for TSA officersif a majority of them vote to unionize with collective bargaining in the coming months.
For now, despite the poor morale and work conditions, McCoy said the screeners realize their jobs are important and the stakes for failure are high.


"If something happened to a plane coming from any one of these TSA airports, there would be a lot of distraught people," he said.