Find the hottest women in the terminal and stand behind them. Barbara Diamond reports from PVD:
Saw two gorgeous 20yr olds, so I moved into there line.
Both of them were complaining to each other that they thought it was strange they always have to go thru them - and like clockwork they got pulled - had to strip down to their tshirts...and went in the machine...since that was busy they directed me without a thought to the metal detectors.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
So what's the message to hot women?
By samablog
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:28am
So what you're saying is that if you're an attractive woman, you should ugly yourself up before heading to the airport?
Just experienced this myself
By Lily
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:44am
I just flew through Logan last week. All women: full body scanner. All men: regular scan. Also, the "private" video screen? Attached to the back of the scanner and visible to everyone waiting for their luggage to come through the scanner.
In plain view?
By Lecil
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:23am
We have been told, repeatedly, that the person observing the scans cannot also see the subject of the screen. I take it this is a lie? ("I'm from the governement, I'm here to help...")
Extra screen
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:49am
Some body scanners have an extra screen attached to the floor console. This is not the same screen as the guy jerking off in the back room sees. The console screen just sort of shows a mannekin with an area indicated for a search. It's a way for the ogler in the back room to communicate with the screener on the floor, because otherwise each time there's ten minutes of "No, not your left, her left." Yes, we have been lied to repeatedly about these machines (e.g. "they can't save pictures"), but it is true that the person in the back room seeing the real scan image can't see the person who is on the floor being scanned. The floor agents just pick out the hot chicks with big boobs for extra naked scanning because one hand washes the other.
Yes, in plain view
By Lily
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:51am
Yes, from what I could see, the person standing by the screener could also see the scanner screen. Maybe I missed something in the chaos of the security line, but a screen is definitely attached to the scanner and that's what the security official was watching.
As someone who has both traveled through a fair few American airports as well as lived in Israel, this felt much more like security-theater than actually security, but I must say I feel that way about many other security procedures in America as well.
What a disgrace this New World Security is
By Dan Farnkoff
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:32am
I think Napolatino and Obama should post their naked scan photos on the Internet, to reassure the rest of us that it's not really such a big deal. Also, a YouTube video of them and their kids all getting the Full Monty feeldown from some young TSA malchiks might help me feel better about it.
Or maybe it'll just make me sick.
Different rules
By Lecil
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:34am
Take a naked picture of your own two year old in the bathtub to share with the grandparents; get busted for kiddy pornography. Send the same two year old though the naketron; you're doing your patriotic duty!
Am I the only one confused here?
I think the message is don't
By anon
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 10:26am
I think the message is don't fly unless you're comfortable with some random high school dropout running his hands over your legs and boobs.
i was at logan a few weeks
By anon
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 10:54am
i was at logan a few weeks ago. Very slow day, no one in line at security. i walk through first, regular scan. My girlfriend behind me.. takes for ever.. shes like "dont you hate the full body scan thing?" I'm like huh? i didnt do that.
Feel me...
By anon (dmcboston)
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 12:48pm
Just got back from midwest Sunday. Did the opt-out (hey, when Johns Hopkins adds their two cents, I have to listen)I think the guy that searched me was more embarrassed than I was.
So, 'Opt Out Day', http://www.optoutday.com/.
Works for me...
One blogger suggested a nice
By anon
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 3:04pm
One blogger suggested a nice tack for the unashamed to take in order to increase the discomfort factor for the TSA gropers. They said if you're a guy wear a kilt and opt out. Bonus points if you wear a kilt with nothing underneath.
Tranny In A Kilt
By samablog
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 3:39pm
Would love to see the look of surprise on the groper's face reaching up the skirt of a pre-op tranny who was wearing no underwear...
or do something that could be more fun
By btmitch
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 3:23pm
Some group of Germans did a protest where they stripped down and walked around an airport and through security in just their undies. Mildly NSFW video at http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/11/14/strip-to-pro....
My flight home for Christmas is at 7:15am. If that were pm and I could have a Four Loko or two beforehand, I might have the balls to do this.
I'd love to see this at Logan
By Iseut
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 5:02pm
I'd love to see this at Logan
I'm thinking full flesh
By Katia
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:05am
I'm thinking full flesh colored bodysuit a la George Costanza streaking during a Yankees game.
Legalese?
By Lecil
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 2:59pm
Can anyone explain to me how the mandatory use of these scanners/pat downs is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment?
Presumably since this is not
By anon
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 3:03pm
Presumably since this is not directed at random people but at folks who choose to fly it's not considered an unreasonable search and seizure.
How optional is being
By Anon
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:23pm
How optional is being searched at the airport?
I've heard stories of people being threatened with arrest when they didn't accept the xray-or-grope procedure.
At the very least, you'd lose the money you spent on your flight. And the current level of security harassment might not have existed when you bought the ticket, so you weren't agreeing to it then.
As it stands now
By Kaz
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 4:06pm
At this point, if you reach the front of the line for security access to the terminal, you can not leave the line and refuse both the scanner or the grope-down without potentially incurring a civil penalty at the minimum.
The excuse is that if you refuse the scanner (because you're bomb-laden for Bin Laden) and they tell you to spread'em and you want to walk away, then you're just attempting to find a weak point in the protocol (like someone willing to put you through without a grope even though you refused the scanner) so that you can bring the bomb with you. Therefore, if you start the procedure, you have to fully complete it, otherwise you might be a terrorist.
I don't agree with this, but there it is.
The 4th amendment
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 12:00pm
is about unreasonable searches and seizures by government employees. You would need a court to rule that these searches are "unreasonable" in regards to your privacy.
Kinda my point...
By Lecil
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 12:34pm
Because I find groping a three year old to be way the far side of "unreasonable".
Yea maybe.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:38pm
I'm not sure a suicide bomber would stick some explosives on their own kids and send them on a plane, but they might do it to your kids.
That would be the reasoning behind it anyway.
It's it simply easier for a
By J
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:41pm
It's it simply easier for a terrorist to get a job as a baggage handler and deposit a bomb that way?
Or how about putting a bomb inside a dog. I doubt the dogs get screened when theyre loaded into cargo.
Or working on maintenance and deliberately sabotaging the plane?
Or how about standing near the airport and aiming a missile at it?
Or even easier, get in line at best buy on black friday. 600 targets right there.
probably easier to do a lot of those things.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:49pm
but amateur terrorists like to do things to planes and they like to attempt to bring things on planes and then cause terror when they are on them.
They don't fire rockets at planes, they don't shoot up people at crowed American places like Best Buy, they haven't taken jobs as maintenance (yet, although they have been persecuted from cropdusting jobs).
I've sent dogs on planes before. They do check them and the paperwork for them is usually 10x worse than any type of screen. I'm not sure if they screen them but I'm willing to bet they do.
Im talking about putting the
By J
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 4:25pm
Im talking about putting the dog in cargo and surgically inserting a bomb into the animals body.
Problem is
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 4:51pm
Problem is it keeps killing the dogs prematurely.
If the dog was anything like
By Milwaukee Mike
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:58pm
If the dog was anything like my yellow lab was, all you'd have to do is cover it in peanut butter and he'd swallow it whole, no additional prompting necessary
Yea I was going to say.......
By Pete Nice
Fri, 11/19/2010 - 6:19pm
You would need to keep the dog alive. Probably not the best way to blow up a plane in the sky if you really wanted to.
I'm also thinking these terrorists want to do the deed themselves and try to hijack the plane in the meantime. Cargo bombs would have the same effect as if you were to fire a rocket at it. No fear or terror.
Biggest problem with cargo bombs
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 11/21/2010 - 6:10am
Is that you tend to blow up cargo planes. It's much scarier to blow up people.
"One move and your delivery gets it" just doesn't have the same cachet.
Being a minor threat to international shipping won't get you into the international league of evildoers. The only point in blowing up a cargo plane would be if you could take something else out with it - besides a few numbers on a spreadsheet.
That said, I imagine Bin Laden is rolling around on the floor in his cave right now laughing. "Because of me every American has to get his ass groped by strangers! Ha ha!"
Boobs
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 6:08pm
Boobs make women a target of scanners, for somewhat legitimate reasons.
I'm in my 40s and not a cougar by any stretch. I actually prefer the nude-o-tronic scanner because it is seriously difficult and embarassing to have to shake my tits loose and shake out my bra and then try to stuff it all back in in any effective manner while keeping my clothes on and my eyes on my laptop.
Sorry if that's too graphic - but women with boobage are often targeted because of a plausible theory that we could be hiding stuff in there - I say plausible because I've found them handy for sneaking certain items of contraband into concerts and events in the past.
Bonus points for leering value on the younger more buoyant specimens.
why are you taking off your
By anon
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 6:25pm
why are you taking off your bra and shaking your jugs around? I don't understand the logic here. I've been flying for years and have never seen a woman take off her bra and start shaking her funbags.
You are quite a character.
i've been told to take my bra off...
By bandit
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 6:39pm
although i tend to think it's due less to concerns about national security and more due to concerns about trying to figure out if my breasts are natural or not.
Not taking it off
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:01pm
Holding it out from my body and shaking it so that anything hidden might drop out. This is standard procedure.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to do this to the satisfaction of the screeners without the girls gettin' loose.
You don't see this because they at least search behind a screen in most places.
Don't worry
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 8:03pm
The body scanner machines will improve your ability to hide things in your cleavage. They don't see through flesh.
Gotta get me
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 9:35pm
a small Waldo doll. Heh heh.
Indignity
By Chris Dowd
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 6:13pm
This stuff makes me nauseous and ashamed. I wonder if that is the point?
Opt out
By fenwayguy
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 1:52am
Read last week's Ask the Pilot column by Patrick Smith (from Somerville) about our loss of not only dignity but of liberty in the name of anti-terrorism. Then opt out of the naked body scanners.
Listen to the Head of MI5
By issacg
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:43am
This could all go away when the U.S. public stops thinking that, as the director of MI5 in the UK recently said, a failure to prevent all terrorist acts is a culpable government failure. This allows politicians to hide behind the blanket of "we need to do everything we can". And Mr. Evans of MI5 was also right when he said that the U.S. media is responsible for propagating this nonsensical idea. Here is his common sense thought:
“In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure,” he said.
“This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment."
Full Article here.
We would all do well to remember that Britain has substantially more experience in dealing with terrorism than the U.S. does, and that matters for reasons that you can glean from the article.
If you are willing to cede a few planes and a thousand people a year, you will not have to go through this kind of screening, and we could focus on the real problem - which is not someone blowing a plane out of the sky and killing everyone on board (which is what this kind of screening is designed to prevent). The real threat is blowing a plane out of the sky with a nuclear or chemical weapon over New York City and killing hundreds of thousands of people or more on the ground.
If you want to stick to the 100% preventability standard, that's okay, but get up against the wall and spread 'em. Otherwise, let's focus the enormous amount of resources we currently devote to this kind of passenger screening on the areas where we could be hit harder.
There is Precedent for alt. of the 100% Preventability Standard
By issacg
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:06am
Btw, I should add for anyone who thinks that this change in thinking is too big of a jump, you need only look at our intercity and commuter train and subway networks. Millions of people are riding these things everyday, and they almost always do so without being subjected to any screening whatsoever.
For reasons that I will not get into because most of you can figure them out, this is arguably substantially riskier than applying the less than 100% standard to aircraft. Particularly in and around New York.
On top of that
By Kaz
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:41am
I've heard a compelling argument for reducing the security theater.
Right now, people buy into the security theater. They feel safer when they really aren't. Remember, we reacted to the shoe bomber (X-ray your shoes)...and the underwear bomber came by to show us that our shoe X-rays were useless.
IF we were to back off the ledge and return to the way things were, then people wouldn't feel as safe. They'd be more aware of their surroundings because they'd have to pull up their own bootstraps (let's go, Mrs. Palin, why aren't you all aboard this cause yet!) and take a role in maintaining their own safety and security.
Flight 93 went down because the people on board decided to take their own security into hand.
The shoe bomber was stopped by someone who noticed him trying to light his sneaker on fire.
The underwear bomber was on fire but was put out before his explosives could ignite by passengers being aware of their surroundings.
The TSA hasn't trumpeted one stopped terrorism attempt and, in fact, have simply driven terrorists to begin their attempts overseas out of reach of our other anti-terrorism task forces. In fact, when someone leaks the result of covert security pressure tests of the TSA, we always learn that they failed miserably to stop any planted bombs or guns from passing through security.
Running more and "better" security gauntlets doesn't make us any safer flying than having your doctor run a gamut of tests every year stops you from getting cancer. (N.B. - A recent study showed that getting a physical each year actually fooled people into NOT getting their symptoms checked out and thus allowing a disease to progress to dangerous levels because "they couldn't be sick, they just had a physical"). I hope one day soon we have a reassessment as to what it means to be free and we decide the water is a tad too hot before we're just another boiling frog.
Thanks!
By eeka
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:53am
I knew there was something else I was supposed to do today. Just called and scheduled a physical!
(Now where should I put this black powder...)
Who cares about black powder?
By Kaz
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:32pm
I have this magic rock that keeps cancer away!
I'll sell it to you for $10.