http://gizmodo.com/5693455/orlando-airport-kicks-out-the-tsa

Orlando airport gives TSA the boot amidst all these concerns.

11/18/2010 2:05:05 PM

AND NSFW WINSS!!!


seriously ... they're hired... find someplace else to fly from.

Quote :

" Airplane emissions account for 12% of transportation CO2 and 3% of total emissions by the US. Not to mention NOx, an ozone depleter, and water vapor that increases cirrus cloud cover."

really a whole 12% and they fly how many people how much farther ???

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:06:20 PM

It should be noted that libertarianism originated in Europe and was more closely associated with socialism (rights of the worker, right not to be exploited or ripped off or price-gouged, etc)

11/18/2010 2:07:54 PM

^^^ Damn that's awesome, I was totally unaware the TSA could be kicked out

^^ You were right.

I wonder if lobbyists have enough power to force private firms to use the machines. Hopefully more airports kick the TSA out

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:08:46 PM

Quote :

"allows them to replace the TSA with one of five approved third-party security firms"

Haha. What freedom. I wonder who owns those firms.

11/18/2010 2:09:27 PM

ya that owns

11/18/2010 2:10:23 PM

Quote :

" really a whole 12% and they fly how many people how much farther ???"

so wait, now we're talking about utility? I was proving that you're wrong about them being harmless w.r.t. emissions and so are thus a public health issue. Goalposts are back here buddy, nice try.

Also I assume from the silence on the issues that you're conceding that the subsidies indeed exist, housed communities do exist prior to airports, poor or not, and corporations do in fact answer to consumers

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:10:35 PM

Quote :

"I wonder if lobbyists have enough power to force private firms to use the machines"

probably. but either way this is a fleeting victory. all the fed needs to do is pass some law that forces all airports to use the TSA. The idea that you can fight fair against the government is laughable.

11/18/2010 2:11:45 PM

libertarianism is just as flawed as any other political party because they, like the more mainstream democrats and republicans, are just as naïve in their belief that they know what's "right" and "fair"

true and complete liberty can only be had through anarchy...to say otherwise puts a person into a political group that supports government and as such, their views are just as retarded as any other political party's because it becomes a matter of OPINION

11/18/2010 2:12:19 PM

...also, earlier this year at the Indianapolis airport i got the ultra mega super pat down. and it just so happened that this young lady was really hot. she had a righteous body and big almond shaped eyes. my contribution to this thread is at best a plot line to a pron - but hey, this is chit chat..

11/18/2010 2:12:27 PM

Wow thats classy mcdanger...

i agree with you on most things.. i understand an sympathize with your position.


I don't smoke pot though lol i'm more of a democrat who hates welfare and a few more things.


str8,

you have what qualifications or backing for your position on airports?

i mean seriously you are probably a poli-sci major that spouts off stats he doesn't completely understand like the rest of our politicians.

I knew small airports are subsidized because no one needs them large ones actually earn their own revenue.



[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:12:56 PM

Quote :

""These people are just republicans that like to fuck and smoke pot, don't kid yourself""

11/18/2010 2:18:25 PM

Quote :

"Responding to outcry about the TSA's scanning, Orlando's Sanford Airport has invoked a little-known clause that allows them to replace the TSA with one of five approved third-party security firms, citing "more accountability and better customer service." Here's hoping. "

OH SHIT, there's competition in the airport security market?
I had no idea... these other companies need to get the fucking word out, because everyone knows the TSA sucks a bag of cocks.

Then again, Orlando's measure might just be symbolic against the TSA, because the other firms are probably just as goonish and authority-loving.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:18:47 PM

of course theres competition in security. its huge money.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:26 PM. Reason : s]

11/18/2010 2:20:06 PM

^I didn't mean security in general... But in terms of airport security, I thought the government required people to use TSA and only TSA.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:21:30 PM

The private firms still have to follow TSA regulations. It's going to be an overpaid goon fondling you now instead of an underpaid one. Don't get too excited.

And how much you wanna bet that the private firm is someone like Halliburton or Blackwater. So now your money is going to Dick Cheney instead of the government! Hooray!

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 2:22:01 PM

airport security isn't that complex or different from any other type of security.

11/18/2010 2:27:42 PM

more than likely the TSA agents will be "laid off" and "re-hired" by the private agency to do the same job.

So, we'll be back to the same game, but with different badges on the uniforms.

11/18/2010 2:30:14 PM

Quote :

"libertarianism is just as flawed as any other political party because they, like the more mainstream democrats and republicans, are just as naïve in their belief that they know what's "right" and "fair" true and complete liberty can only be had through anarchy...to say otherwise puts a person into a political group that supports government and as such, their views are just as retarded as any other political party's because it becomes a matter of OPINION"

quag you keep demonstrating that you're on a middle school intellectual level with respect to worldly issues

at least you can program or wahtever i guess so it's not a total wash

11/18/2010 2:30:52 PM

Ron Paul saying what needed to be said: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599164944

Private property should be secured by the owners. It makes no god damn sense to have the pilots go through these things. Airports should be allowed to profile (gasp!) if they determine that it's effective. If the owners want to use these scanners or do patdowns, fine. They should be liable for any harm the radiation causes, if that is indeed a concern.

11/18/2010 2:31:30 PM

Quote :

"Private property should be secured by the owners."

The problem with self-policing of privately owned airlines/airports is that it's been demonstrated that an unsecured airplane can be used as a weapon of mass murder.

You go full-on laissez faire economic policy on air travel and you can end up with an anti-american terrorist organization buying up their own airline. Some regulatory standard is necessary for airport security, the big problem with this scanner shit is that it's both an invasion of privacy and doesn't really help at all in terms of stopping a legitimate threat.

11/18/2010 2:40:36 PM

Quote :

"quag you keep demonstrating that you're on a middle school intellectual level with respect to worldly issues ONLY TRAITORS DISAGREE WITH ME"

fixed it for you

11/18/2010 2:48:09 PM

11/18/2010 2:49:53 PM

How does a terrorist organization raise the capital to buy their own airline? How will they get customers? Provide really good customer service until one day, they crash a plane into a building? Do you think airports were incapable or unwilling to take their own steps to secure airlines?

11/18/2010 3:00:41 PM

there are 10000000000000000 better, easier, and cheaper ways to incite terror than trying to hijack an airplane.

The TSA does nothing of value. Every single precaution is useless.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 3:04 PM. Reason : a]

11/18/2010 3:03:38 PM

Quote :

"You go full-on laissez faire economic policy on air travel and you can end up with an anti-american terrorist organization buying up their own airline."

I'm not sure what is stopping them from buying private planes and doing this anyway.

11/18/2010 3:07:25 PM

Quote :

"Every single precaution is useless."

are you joking? i get the hate for this new thing, and agree that it's useless, but to say that EVERY precaution is useless is pretty retarded

11/18/2010 3:10:50 PM

Wow.

11/18/2010 3:16:15 PM

there are plenty of ways to bring on sharp objects that aren't metal. Or objects you can use as bludgeons. Or you could simply bring on enough people to run interference while you break down the cabin door.

its a minor point, but if someone really wants to bring down an airplane, they will. The main point that you really need to understand is that if someone wants to create terror, they dont need to use an airplane.

Al Queda got what they wanted, so they have no reason to come back and start blowing stuff up. They want us over there fighting because its a recruitment tool. They may occasionally send some idiot through so he'll get caught and stir up our media, but they have no need to create anymore real terror.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM. Reason : a]

11/18/2010 3:40:47 PM

Best way to set off a nuke in this country would be to put it in a sea cargo shipping container. Those things basically have zero security. Why aren't we worried about them???

11/18/2010 3:43:38 PM

http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/11/terror-is-not-an-existential-threat.html

Quote :

"Here's a scenario: Middle Eastern terrorists hijack a U.S. jetliner bound for Italy. A two-week drama ensues in which the plane's occupants are split into groups and held hostage in secret locations in Lebanon and Syria. While this drama is unfolding, another group of terrorists detonates a bomb in the luggage hold of a 747 over the North Atlantic, killing more than 300 people. Not long afterward, terrorists kill 19 people and wound more than a hundred others in coordinated attacks at European airport ticket counters. A few months later, a U.S. airliner is bombed over Greece, killing four passengers. Five months after that, another U.S. airliner is stormed by heavily armed terrorists at the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, killing at least 20 people and wounding 150 more. Things are quiet for a while, until two years later when a 747 bound for New York is blown up over Europe killing 270 passengers and crew. Nine months from then, a French airliner en route to Paris is bombed over Africa, killing 170 people from 17 countries. That's a pretty macabre fantasy, no? A worst-case war-game scenario for the CIA? A script for the End Times? Except, of course, that everything above actually happened, in a four-year span between 1985 and 1989. The culprits were the al-Qaidas of their time: groups like the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Revolutionary Cells, and even the government of Libya. And yet the US government didn't fall apart or turn into a regressive fascist state. Food for thought. Al Qaeda and their underwear bombers aren't much of a comparison to the peak of airline terror in the 1970s and 1980s. It's a shame our myopic politicians and leaders can't think back that far or put things into proper context."

This.

11/18/2010 3:52:28 PM

they talked about these on NPR today. a woman called in saying that she felt "violated" by going through the scanner. The host asked if she thought they were necessary to provide safety for passengers. She replied that she's tired of "all this PC stuff about profiling." It pissed me off! She was for scanners, as long as they do it to brown people instead of her.

11/18/2010 4:48:50 PM

Quote :

"there are plenty of ways to bring on sharp objects that aren't metal. Or objects you can use as bludgeons. Or you could simply bring on enough people to run interference while you break down the cabin door. its a minor point, but if someone really wants to bring down an airplane, they will. The main point that you really need to understand is that if someone wants to create terror, they dont need to use an airplane. Al Queda got what they wanted, so they have no reason to come back and start blowing stuff up. They want us over there fighting because its a recruitment tool. They may occasionally send some idiot through so he'll get caught and stir up our media, but they have no need to create anymore real terror."

i don't disagree with anything that you say in this...i definitely agree that if they WANT to do some damage, they can and will (shoot...without these body scanners, just about anyone can get a large ceramic knife through a checkpoint)

i just take issue with the generalization that ALL security measures are "useless"...at the very least, x-raying carry-on luggage and using metal detectors can serve to minimize the ease with which things like bombs and guns can be brought on a plane, which is a deterrent for all but the most dedicated...if anyone could simply stroll onto a plane without identification and ANYTHING in their bag and on their person, i truly believe the crazies would be far more likely to come out and get away with causing problems

again, let me be clear in that i don't think these body scanners actually solve any problems...i'm just of the camp that is relatively indifferent

11/18/2010 5:10:40 PM

Quote :

"there are plenty of ways to bring on sharp objects that aren't metal. Or objects you can use as bludgeons. Or you could simply bring on enough people to run interference while you break down the cabin door. its a minor point, but if someone really wants to bring down an airplane, they will. The main point that you really need to understand is that if someone wants to create terror, they dont need to use an airplane. Al Queda got what they wanted, so they have no reason to come back and start blowing stuff up. They want us over there fighting because its a recruitment tool. They may occasionally send some idiot through so he'll get caught and stir up our media, but they have no need to create anymore real terror."

there is a lot of stupid in here.

11/18/2010 5:39:15 PM

shit, if I could pick an airline where I could bring what I wanted, and didn't have to go through all the security, I would pick that every time.
It should be cheaper as well.

11/18/2010 6:06:38 PM

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/

Another TSA Outrage

Quote :

"A friend of mine sent me this about his TSA experience. He, unlike most of us, was coming back into the country from Afghanistan on a military charter. ——– As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following: When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards. Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started. First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine. It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs. The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN. This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols. So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this: TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane. Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country. TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them. Soldier: Why? TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon. Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on. TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets. Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers? TSA Guy: [awkward silence] Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set. Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security] This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon."

11/19/2010 9:00:44 AM

I was listening to the radio for a few minute this morning, and two hosts were outraged that anyone could be pissed about any of this...right after they talked about TSA molesting children, going kids diapers and making toddlers hysterical. They literally said that they would be completely fine with a mandatory colonoscopy if that is what it took to have save planes, and that the people who were complaining should get on their own plane, or ride the bus with the other child molesters.

Wait, what?

Also, don't wear skirts: http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=140233&catid=14

Quote :

"Enhanced pat down leaves Grand Rapids airline passenger in tears Phil Dawson Christa Graban GRAND RAPIDS (WZZM) - Before boarding a flight in Grand Rapids, a woman says the search at the security checkpoint was violent, unnecessary and extremely upsetting. "When I got on the plane all I wanted to do was sob," says traveler Ella Swift. Swift was one of an increasing number of passengers Transportation Security Administration officers are thoroughly searching by hand. They call it an "enhanced pat-down." Swift says they told her she was singled out because she was wearing a skirt. She says the search earlier this month was very rough and left her in tears. "The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels," she says. "I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary." After reviewing the incident, a TSA spokesman says officers involved in the Grand Rapids search acted "appropriately and respectfully." The TSA says people in what they call "bulky clothing" may be singled out for the enhanced pat-down. Some passengers may also be selected for the search at random. The TSA says they have installed full body scanners and added the pat-downs to improve aviation security. "

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 9:31 AM. Reason : article]

11/19/2010 9:27:53 AM

^^OH MY GOD HE'S MODIFIED HIS MACHINE GUN TO SHOOT NAIL CLIPPERS!

11/19/2010 9:29:53 AM

Awesome. Hopefully others will follow the lead of NY and Orlando and protest this. I have doubts that NY will be able to get these out of the airports, but at least someone has the balls to try.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/scan-ban/

Quote :

"A New York City lawmaker on Thursday introduced legislation to prohibit the TSA from using its advanced body scanners at New York airports, including JFK, the busiest international airport in the country. Democratic councilman David Greenfield says six fellow council members have signed onto the proposal, which comes amid growing unease over the so-called Advanced Imaging Technology scanners, which allow airport screeners to see beneath a traveler’s clothes. Critics of the screening have already called for a National Opt-Out day on Nov. 24, traditionally the busiest travel day of the year, to protest the scans, and privacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are seeking a federal court order to halt the use of the scanners. Now Greenfield hopes to set off a chain of local legislative action around the country, starting with New York. His legislation would ban the used of the devices anywhere in the New York, including the airports. “We’re not opting out of screening altogether,” Greenfield told Threat Level. “We’re simply banning one type of screening that hasn’t proven effective.” New York City Councilman David Greenfield As of last month, 341 of the scanners were in use in more than 65 airports around the United States, and total number machines is expected to near 1,000 by the end of year, according to TSA. The imagery from the devices are viewed by screeners in an isolated room, away from the checkpoint, but privacy concerns are mounting as more Americans encounter the scanners. Travelers are allowed to opt out of the electronic strip search, but under new TSA policies they must then accept an aggressive pat-down instead. “It violates the privacy of everyone, including small children who go through these scans,” said Greenfield. “Which is really outrageous when you think about that.” Greenfield argues that the technology is unsafe, and of dubious security value. A March report from the GAO found that such scanners might not have detected the hidden explosive used by “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in his failed Christmas day attack on a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit last year. And, though the TSA says the scanners are safe, some medical experts have voiced health concerns over the long-term effect of the backscatter technology used by about half the machines. Federal law gives the TSA jurisdiction over airline security, but Greenfield says he believes the city has the authority to prohibit a particular type of screening. “The city owns the airports,” says Greenfield. “They’re operated by the Port Authority…. Hopefully we’ll get the law passed soon, and if the TSA disagrees with us they can sue us.” The TSA had no immediate comment Thursday."

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 9:54 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2010 9:51:45 AM

hahaha

11/19/2010 9:52:23 AM

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/index.html

11/19/2010 4:43:02 PM

So, apparently a deal is in the works where pilots in uniform with 2 forms of ID don't have to go through the scans or pat-downs.



bullshit!
This is obviously a way to curb some of the criticism, and appease a very small minority.

I mean, fuck... I had to sign and agree to the same public trust agreements and clearances that all of these pilots did when I took my jerb. I'd argue that I'm just as crucial to these flights as any pilot

11/19/2010 6:05:23 PM

Can you choose whether a dude or a chick touches your junk? I think I'd actively encourage a chick to fondle my sack.

I also think it should only be fair, if a screener is going to feel up my private bits, I should get to feel hers up to make sure she isn't a double agent. This is the only democratic way to do this.

11/21/2010 9:18:30 AM

^ Normally no. That said Im not uptodate on the gender change rules but if you said you were a pre-op female you might get a chick to do it.

11/21/2010 9:39:18 AM

beats dealing with the airlines

11/21/2010 9:40:05 AM

^^lol

[Edited on November 21, 2010 at 9:52 AM. Reason : only if you can point to who you want to do your full search ]

11/21/2010 9:51:42 AM

Quote :

"i just take issue with the generalization that ALL security measures are "useless"...at the very least, x-raying carry-on luggage and using metal detectors can serve to minimize the ease with which things like bombs and guns can be brought on a plane, which is a deterrent for all but the most dedicated...if anyone could simply stroll onto a plane without identification and ANYTHING in their bag and on their person, i truly believe the crazies would be far more likely to come out and get away with causing problems"

most of us (all of us?) are not saying this. security measures that are not overly intrusive or rob you of rights are just fine, but these post-9/11 feel-good measures do little to make us any safer and are overly intrusive.

11/21/2010 11:05:37 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM

11/21/2010 2:48:14 PM

let's see what's happened recently

Young Boy Strip Searched by TSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news


TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news?ns=travel-news

11/21/2010 4:16:20 PM

I think it's fairly fucked up that they can detain you for not submitting to either, it's the ultimate in presumed guilty and you have to prove you are innocent. I could understand if they just say "sorry, you can't go past this checkpoint if you submit to neither", but fucking detaining someone?

I don't understand where the disconnect is between our leaders and the people is coming from. It's a resounding fuck you to these new rules, and yet our leaders haven't backed off them. The fuck?

11/21/2010 4:39:07 PM