×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Next Step For US Body Scanners Could Be Trains, Metro Systems

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the how-to-radicalize-americans dept.

Security 890

Hugh Pickens writes "The Hill reports that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for US vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary. '[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,' Napolitano said in an interview with Charlie Rose. 'I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime.' Napolitano added she hoped the US could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against terrorist attacks as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a terrorist becomes radicalized. 'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano. 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Step after that (4, Funny)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | about 4 years ago | (#34331060)

The obvious next logical step would be body scanners to get into your car, and should you refuse, your car will grope you inappropriately.

Although I'm sure the car fetishists are salivating at that prospect already.

The slippery slope is real (2, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#34331220)

In your car maybe, More likely in your house [slashdot.org]

Tag article witchhunt (5, Insightful)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | about 4 years ago | (#34331432)

Oh, Janet! Sure we can take over boats and wreck them using mere boxcutters and explosives. I'm sure you've seen the movie Speed.

But let me give you a hint. Trains? Didn't you watch old cartoons as a kid? When we want to derail them, we don't need to be on them, and if we are, we have wasted some kamikaze brothers who could have better employed elsewhere.

I also think understanding what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.

Yours,
The Terrorists

Re:Tag article witchhunt (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 years ago | (#34331598)

Actually, this is a case where it is GREAT to be in the USA!!

I mean, since we really don't have much at all in the way of trains or other mass transportation over the majority of the country, this won't be a budget breaker.

Then again...didn't I hear the current administration is trying to fund to build out new long distance high speed rail systems?

Hell, that is just spending money, to make a new target that we have to spend money on to protect from terrorists?!?

OMG...have I happened upon a vicious cycle?

:D

Re:Step after that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331304)

Maybe people should just have to walk around naked.

Re:Step after that (5, Insightful)

Migraineman (632203) | about 4 years ago | (#34331546)

I would suggest that, since they're heading toward "universal" security measures, we take a cue from the Old West and require that everyone carry a sidearm. That'll take security down to the individual person, regardless of mode of transportation.

Yes, there will be some irresponsible behavior at first (consider it an initial boundary condition,) but things will sort themselves out once the yahoos have removed each other from the equation.

In every train station? LOL (3, Informative)

intellitech (1912116) | about 4 years ago | (#34331080)

No offense, but this is completely speculative, and seems to ignore the fact that these body scanners can cost up to and exceeding $100,000 [epic.org], and that's not even including the costs of hiring and maintaining staff to manage the machines. I personally find it hysterical that anybody would think we'd see these in the _many_ train stations out there in even the distant future. Toss in buses as well, and you're quickly approaching $1M just to "secure" one bus/train route.

As it stands, the cost of these technologies is far too great to be presently implemented at this level. Although, if the TSA is indicative of the average IQ required to operate these machines, even the morons who work for our fabulous local CTA here in Chicago might be able to run these things.

Re:In every train station? LOL (5, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 4 years ago | (#34331136)

Not to mention that they will be unable to ensure the entire route between stations is secure. Why risk being caught boarding a train with a bomb when you can plant a bomb next to the track?

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

intellitech (1912116) | about 4 years ago | (#34331172)

That's a good point. I hadn't even thought of that.

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 years ago | (#34331314)

And an even better point, even if you can't make it to to track (fence, a guard making rounds etc.), you can still launch an IED onto a passing train with a simple catapult (just make some newtonian calculations) with reasonable accuracy, and with no risk of harm to yourself, and when it explodes just outside, the passengers sure won't be protected by the (rather thin) walls. I doubt that a dedicated terrorist can be stopped by any amount of passenger scanning.

Re:In every train station? LOL (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 4 years ago | (#34331506)

You'll do a hell of a lot more damage with a lot less boom if you can derail the train.

Note that this doesn't even require explosives...

Re:In every train station? LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331532)

And an even better point....

I'll be the judge of that!

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331466)

Well i am pretty sure the terrorist have. Since bombing railway tracks goes back a real long way. The French resitance did it to great effect during WWII.

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 years ago | (#34331572)

If you're willing to spend, you could. Have an unmanned sweeper vehicle run down the track a little ahead of the train, inspecting for damage or breaks and automatically stopping the train if it picks anything up that seems suspicious. Terrorists wouldn't be able to use simple bombs then - they'd need someone to watch, and press the 'boom' button after the sweeper has passed.

Re:In every train station? LOL (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 4 years ago | (#34331584)

And let's not forget "road-side bombs." I'm not sure we fully appreciate how dangerous things are in Afghanistan and Iraq, so let's just bring the whole frikken war back home so everyone can experience a little bit of it.

I think it's important to always remember that the reason the "terrorists" are interested in attacking US targets isn't because they "hate our freedom" it's because we are affecting their freedoms and assaulting their ideals with our imperialism. And no, I don't mean "because we are imperialists" I mean because we are essentially defending and enforcing our business activities and other interests in the middle east in such a way that it causes the locals harm and stress.

Re:In every train station? LOL (2, Insightful)

Voulnet (1630793) | about 4 years ago | (#34331286)

Actually the gigantic sum of money there is what can make me believe it might actually happen. Lots of money there to lobby for.

Re:In every train station? LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331308)

No offense, but this is completely speculative, and seems to ignore the fact that these body scanners can cost up to and exceeding $100,000 ...

It doesn't. Imagine all the DMD^H^H^H body scanner manufacturers salivating at potential profit. Imagine their lobbyists, greasing the gears of $PARTY's election campaign. It's all very logical, even if it seeks the wrong objective from the people's point of view.

Re:In every train station? LOL (2, Interesting)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331324)

I don't care about the financial cost of these machines. I care about the privacy and liberty costs of these machines. They don't make us safer, they don't protect us and we end up giving up freedoms and privacy for absolutely nothing.

But if these machine do cost 100K each (doesn't sound bad for a certified x-ray machine), then how much does Janet Napolitano get per machine?

You seem to forget, its government (1)

Shivetya (243324) | about 4 years ago | (#34331372)

Since when in recent memory has what something costs prevented the government (state, local, or federal) from doing something?

When your dealing with an entitle that considers deficit spending as being caused by not taxing enough instead of spending too much how can you write off this idea?

It will find its way to select train stations, places where politicians routinely need to advertise their concern.

Cost won't be the primary concern in their implementation outside of airports, the primary concern is, how much money my district gets and credit I get versus scorn I receive for spending said money or scorn received for what was implemented.

Meny train station don't even have full time ticke (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331382)

Meny train station don't even have full time ticket agents and you have to buy them on the train and what the point when any dumb ass can just drive around the gates and maybe crash a train by having it hit his car?

Maybe the cta it is setup pre boarding gates but not metra the train stations are way to open. some times the trains stop and the door opens in part of a road.

Re:In every train station? LOL (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#34331430)

It's completely absurd. Anyone with half a brain can think of at least half a dozen reasons why they can't secure trains this way.

  • The average Amtrak station is a double wide about 100 feet of the tracks. They would have to build real thousands of real train stations at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
  • Unlike planes, which leave the airport up in the air, trains leave the station on the ground. So all someone has to do to get around security is to walk along the tracks.
  • There has never been even one single case of a terrorist boarding any train in the United States with the intent to cause it harm. There has never even been intelligence suggesting that this is a credible threat.
  • The easiest, safest, and most effective way to target a train is not to target the trains themselves, but rather the approximately 233,000 miles of unsecured railroad tracks. If we want to make it at least as secure as the U.S. Mexico border fence (with fences along both sides of every track), it would cost approximately 1.8 Trillion dollars, or about 14% of the total U.S. national debt.
  • That's not counting the tens of trillions of dollars you would have to spend on adding bridges at every railroad crossing in the nation to allow cars to go over the fences.

In short, Ms. Napolitano clearly has not thought this through. Either that or she has thought it through and she's just the biggest idiot on the face of the planet. With political appointees, it's often hard to say. Either way, it's time to defund the TSA and Homeland Security. They're the biggest laughingstock of the security world since Windows XP.

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#34331502)

Oh, I should have gone for half a dozen. Okay.

  • Amtrak is barely staying afloat and cannot afford any loss of passengers in the name of safety. As there is only one passenger rail company currently in operation in the U.S. (apart from regional rail carriers), there's no possibility of the sort of consolidation that kept the TSA from bankrupting the airline industry.

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331522)

That's pretty mean. XP wasn't *that* bad.

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#34331488)

Nothing that a 600 billion dollar "stimulus" can't take care of... What's the problem?

Re:In every train station? LOL (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 4 years ago | (#34331576)

Careful, $100,000 doesn't sound that much to me.

According to this document [PDF] [tfl.gov.uk] Transport for London are spending £1,672 million on 191 new trains. That's over £8 million per train, $100k doesn't sound so much any more.

Argue against it because of liberty, not economics.

Next Next Step (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 4 years ago | (#34331100)

Next Next Step will be places of work and all public places.

Tons of people have worked out that this stupid policy is not a solution - why hasn't the government?

Re:Next Next Step (1)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | about 4 years ago | (#34331328)

Tons of people have worked out that this stupid policy is not a solution - why hasn't the government?

TFS says that they have:

'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano.

Re:Next Next Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331336)

pubic places?

Re:Next Next Step (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 4 years ago | (#34331574)

You won't need a naked-scanner for that one.

so life is becoming like star trek? (2, Funny)

alen (225700) | about 4 years ago | (#34331104)

seen most of the movies and tv shows and reading some of the books now. everyone is always getting scanned

geeks should rejoice

Re:so life is becoming like star trek? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 years ago | (#34331416)

Yeah, but the scanning equipment vendors keep forgetting to add the sexy female Vulcan into the packaging.

Hi Janet Napolitano (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#34331114)

Fuck you.

Hi John Pistole.
Fuck you too.

And Obama. God it pains me to say it.
Fuck you. What the fuck, man?

And to the 82% of people who think this is good,
Fuck all of you.

Re:Hi Janet Napolitano (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331250)

And fuck you for using made up statistics on a useless straw man argument.

Re:Hi Janet Napolitano (2, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#34331348)

LOL! You got me!

It's 81%
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023682-503544.html [cbsnews.com]

Re:Hi Janet Napolitano (2, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 years ago | (#34331536)

Actually, the very story you linked to puts the number down in the 60s and dropping fast.

Re:Hi Janet Napolitano (4, Informative)

dcollins (135727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331554)

"And to the 82% of people who think this is good, Fuck all of you."

Of course, the 81% number was 2 weeks ago. (CBS poll Nov 7-10). Link. [cbsnews.com]

More recent poll has approval at 64%. (ABC/Washington Post poll Nov-21). Link. [washingtonpost.com]

At this rate, expect to have it under 50% by early December. People are rapidly become educated about the absurdity, invasiveness, high cost, lack of security, lack of privacy, and radiation of this procedure.

how much radiation are we supposed to endure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331128)

And yes, I get it that getting scanned is equivalent to the radiation exposure of ~3 minutes at 30,000 feet, but that is unavoidable whereas the scanner is.

Re:how much radiation are we supposed to endure? (2, Interesting)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331412)

That's what they tell you get in radiation. There is a very big lack of 3rd party oversight and data to support the claim. This is really the first use of x-rays without some kind of medical benefit. And across the whole population.

Even worse are the van scanners. They are designed to see inside a steel shipping container, so no so soft x-rays, and quite a lot higher dosage. And they just need to drive past your house.

at least the public tranist sucks in the US (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 4 years ago | (#34331174)

Thankfully the US doesn't have (m)any widely-used metro systems. How about implementing this on a bus as well ... lol Europe will never go for this, and this is another reason that I have no interest in returning to the states. ugh ... when will Americans actually actively protest against something.

Re:at least the public tranist sucks in the US (2, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 4 years ago | (#34331192)

you have never been to NYC

population 8 million and 20 million during the workday. most of the 12 million come in via mass transit

Re:at least the public tranist sucks in the US (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 4 years ago | (#34331260)

I have been to NYC and lived in Boston ... and that's why I know this is NOT implementable. But, in all seriousness, outside of the Northeast Corridor, mass/public transit is extremely lacking (see DFW Metro region for example.) In addition, people over here just wouldn't put up with that level of intrusion (even after the Madrid bombings.)

Re:at least the public tranist sucks in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331378)

Returning to the states? As though you were from here and left?

If so, Americans will start protesting when the ones who get upset stop running away ...

Re:at least the public tranist sucks in the US (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 4 years ago | (#34331460)

running away? better opportunities over here. if I didn't leave (and contribute to the brain drain), nothing would ever change because they'd be no selective pressure on the government to change.

Re:at least the public tranist sucks in the US (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 4 years ago | (#34331428)

Put scanners at the Superbowl. That's when.

Re:at least the public tranist sucks in the US (1)

Colonel Sponsz (768423) | about 4 years ago | (#34331608)

Despite the fact that you're using "lol" as a word and thus deserves to be banned from all means of communication, I'm going to reply to this.

Thankfully the US doesn't have (m)any widely-used metro systems. How about implementing this on a bus as well ... lol Europe will never go for this, and this is another reason that I have no interest in returning to the states.

O RLY? [civilliberty.org.uk] And don't forget that the EU is for absolutely anything that violates privacy or decreases freedoms in any other way, so they will probably mandate it all across their territory.

Interfering (0, Flamebait)

Inda (580031) | about 4 years ago | (#34331178)

The USA interfering in other country's business has a lot to do with radicalising terrorists. The sooner they realise that they're not the World Police(TM), the sooner everyone can go back to minding their own business.

It's too late to stop funding the IRA, but staying out the way of those thieving Israelis would be a good start.

Re:Interfering (1)

Voulnet (1630793) | about 4 years ago | (#34331322)

Indeed. Why won't they believe that karma is indeed a bitch?

what's the big deal? (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 years ago | (#34331184)

You don't have the right to fly. Or take the train. Or the bus. Or drive. If you don't want to be molested by the government, you can walk.

Re:what's the big deal? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331244)

If you don't want to be molested by the government, you can walk.

For now.

Re:what's the big deal? (1)

daid303 (843777) | about 4 years ago | (#34331248)

If you don't want to be molested by the government

, then you better start molesting the government.

That's exactly what the government wants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331528)

then you better start molesting the government.

That's exactly what the government is trying to push you into doing.... retaliation.

All the DHS goons are trying to create job security for themselves and are also on a quest to more and more power.
They know if they push the American public hard enough, hard enough then sooner or later some fringe idiot(s) will be driven to the point of pushing back and doing something stupid, then DHS will say "Look, we told you so... domestic terrorism!" and use that to justify the furtherance of their goals. Even though the DHS was supposed to be created to protect us from foreign terrorists, and while they may be doing some of hat, it's become painfully obvious that they are primarily targeting us citizens. All the evidence in the public to that effect has become overwhelming. All the govt goons really want to do is to put gold stars on their report cards, not necessarily catch terrorists. Catching real terrorists is hard and dangerous work, DHS has found a much easier way to get their gold stars and that is to push reasonable people so hard that one of them cracks and then use that as a propaganda tool.

Re:what's the big deal? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331438)

Where do you get the right to walk unmolested from? Government should be able to molest you in any way once you are outside your house.

Maybe even when you are in your house as you could be doing something dangerous.

Re:what's the big deal? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#34331604)

Actually a mass movement (that of course will never happen) could actually create the right to access to transportation and set the conditions for its use. For what it's worth, I would advocate such a thing. Actually through our apathy, we already have set policy. We're staring it right in the face...

Source? (1)

x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) | about 4 years ago | (#34331188)

What is "The Hill"? Can someone link to the source or are we just to take Hugh Pickens on faith that this actually happened?

Sarcastic remark (1)

KDN (3283) | about 4 years ago | (#34331196)

What's next? Are they going to mandate these devices on the doors of every house in the United States? That you would need to go through one to be approved to be outside? After all, if you are outside you could hurt someone. This presumption of guilt and having to prove your innocence is getting crazy.

Catch 22 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331208)

"Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating."

You are in trouble now!!!

More reasearch (1)

spribyl (175893) | about 4 years ago | (#34331212)

says Napolitano. 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'"

You mean other then having nothing else to loose. They don't hate us or our freedom but they do hate when they have nothing to care about. Fastest way to create a terrorist is to take away rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The three letter acronyms will fail as they squeeze tighter. Fastest way to defeat a terrorist is to give him a real job or business to support loved ones with out interference from corruption.

Islamic Terrorism (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#34331586)

The World Is Flat [amazon.com] has a very interesting theory as to why Islamic Terrorism is happening and, according to the author, he has been approached privately by Muslims - especially Arabs - to tell him that he's right.

In a nutshell, the Muslim community feels that no one respects them.
They look around and see all this prosperity around the World except in their countries (Indonesia has come a long way since the book was written, btw).
The author also points out that the Muslim community really needs to have a hard look at themselves and the leaders they insist on backing. The need to stop this horseshit that America and Israel is keeping them down.

What we the US can do? Stop fucking with them. Stop overthrowing their Governments, for one. Stop "projecting power" for another - especially in the Muslim World.

Let's face it, the only group that's indiscriminately targeting American civilians in mass transportation are radicalized Muslims. Someone will probably mention McVeigh or go through the last few decades to come up with a list of a half dozen white guys who were "terrorists". They weren't terrorists. All of them had specific targets - people or Government buildings - in order to take those targets out: they were murderers. They were NOT targeting groups of Americans for the sake of creating terror.

You don't know what you're missing. (1)

Airdorn (1094879) | about 4 years ago | (#34331218)

I got the enhanced pat-down the other day and I must say it was some of the best sex I've had in months.

Replace the word 'could' with 'will' (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331228)

The technology will get cheaper and easier to use. They will probably even fix the radiation concerns.

Unless the citizens of the USofA, get their asses in gear and fight for their liberty (and common sense) this technology will become ubiquitous. We will become a police state that will extend beyond Joe Stalin's wildest dreams.

It is a characteristic of bureaucrats to extend their power infinitely unless they are somehow limited.

naturist village (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331256)

100% safety & security ! Where terrorists can not strike...

What is next? (1)

Jetrel (514839) | about 4 years ago | (#34331262)

What ever happened to illegal search and seizure?!?! How are these even remotely legal? Seems like we are one step away from Big Brother listening in on our phone and Internet conversations. Oh wait....

Re:What is next? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#34331446)

What ever happened to illegal search and seizure?!?!

Hey calm down. We've got it at your nearest airport. No need to get antsy.

Fine News for Train Travelers (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 years ago | (#34331264)

I take a train to work every day, here in central, rainy right now, and just plain miserable central Europe. The train service here is fantastic. Efficient and cheap (OK, maybe you might want to avoid an ICE in summer, when it is hot). Lot's of folks take commuter trains to work; something like the "High Speed Line" in Philly, or BART in San Francisco.

If they start putting scanners in here . . . the economy would go to hell in a hand basket.

Two problems, one solution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331270)

We have two problems: fear/threat of terrorism, and encroachments on individual liberty.

Instead of trying to balance between them (and continuously failing miserably), we could be seeking the solution which addresses both problems. At the core of both problems is the existence of the nation-state. It results in vast governmental entities that are targets for terrorism and which have inherent totalitarian tendencies.

The nation-state was a great invention, and has served us well over the centuries. But in the modern world, nation-states are very counter-productive. They promote ethnic divides, cultural divides, and economic divides. How does that make sense in a world where we have massive travel and emigration, ubiquitous global communication, and vast global trade networks?

Well, OK, suppose states are outdated... how can we possibly make them go away without a completely disastrous transition? For that, look no further than the Metagovernment [metagovernment.org] , which is building governance systems which have nothing to do with nationalism: they are completely modern systems of collaborative governance for communities of interest.

If you've read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom [wikipedia.org] , you will have a general idea of how this will work; though Metagovernment has already evolved beyond some of the concepts in there.

Re:Two problems, one solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331508)

Nation-states ARE terrorists.

No link to article? (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | about 4 years ago | (#34331274)

No link to the article?

Baby (1)

Robert Bowles (2733) | about 4 years ago | (#34331288)

I don't want to put my baby daughter through a scanner, pure and simple. Studies can say many things (and in this case, they do), but we won't know the true effect of this largely untested family of (lucrative and rushed to market) technologies for 20 years.There are clear shortcomings evident in many of the "its safe" studies (such as the testing which uses volumetric radiation measurements while the technology doesn't pass through (suggesting much higher concentration at a lower depth)).

Short answer: I think all of us (with children) would prefer our children to opt out of the the complimentary skin cancer and just get the college diploma at 21.

Body scanners for everything (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 4 years ago | (#34331294)

Let's consider for a moment that more murders, assaults, robberies, drug deals and general lawlessness happens outside of train stations and airports. Doesn't it make sense then that we have random body scans, with the option of full-body pat downs, on our highways and bi-ways and perhaps even random checks of our homes. After all, that's where those bombs, guns and other assorted weapons would be in the first place. I say, let's stop playing around and just throw out the Fourth Amendment and admit we made a mistake accepting it in the first place.

http://www.famalegoods.com (-1, Troll)

falas105 (1946722) | about 4 years ago | (#34331306)

welcome to: W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m jordan shoes $32 nike shox $32 Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $16 Sandal $32 christian louboutin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27 handbag $33 AF tank woman $17 puma slipper woman $30 W W W ( famalegoods ) c o m

I hate to say this, but as an Arizonan (4, Informative)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | about 4 years ago | (#34331330)

I knew she was this stupid when it comes to security. She was good at education and better at the budget than some, but her border security policy was awful and never did jack shit towards actually keeping anyone safe. Why she was selected for this, of all jobs, is beyond me. As I said, she could have been good at something else like Secretary of Education, but Homeland Security is possibly the worst possible position for her. She just has no grasp of what makes things secure (hint: it's not a fence/scanning machines).

Ha-Ha... Nelson-style (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331332)

Well, that's what you get for being the bully in the school yard.

What makes a terrorist (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about 4 years ago | (#34331334)

'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano. 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'

Was I the only one that picked up on this part of it and immediately thought of "thought crimes"?

There has to be some way that I can fly to visit family without getting a cavity search. Also, there has to be some way that people who might not like the way the government is doing things (but doesn't intend on killing a plane-full of innocents) can do the same.

Benjamin Franklin said... (1)

SurfMan (969573) | about 4 years ago | (#34331338)

'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'

What's next? Full body scan and TSA style cavity search, nut-grabbing patdown when you pick up your kid from daycare?

Thanks Janet! (3, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 4 years ago | (#34331342)

'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'

Really? It took you ten years to realize this?
Hint: being sold by your neighbor to the CIA, blindfolding, extraditing, torture, more flying, Guantanamo Bay, ten years of lock-down will turn ANYBODY and his brother into a so-called "terrorist".

Full body scanners, on the other hand, don't do shit, terrorism-wise.

As for a fear-free future: stop being afraid.

recognize being free has a cost: risk (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 4 years ago | (#34331344)

'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano.

Recognize that the cost of freedom is accepting that someone else might use that freedom to hurt you. If you think you should be searched in order to travel because it'll make "us" safer, you need to turn in your US citizenship.

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither." (Jefferson)

It might also help to recognize that in countries which are far less free, there's still plenty of terrorism.

For the memory of a lifetime (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | about 4 years ago | (#34331350)

Body scanners in the subway? Screw that, I'll just take a Johnny Cab instead!

We need to man up (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 4 years ago | (#34331370)

I would love it if we had a president who said something like this:

"Yeah, about the TSA. We're ending it. Same with Homeland Security. Folks, the simple truth of the matter is there's no possible way to secure ourselves against all risk. I think we can all agree that the Soviet Union operated as a police state none of us would want to live in and even with all that security, they still had serial killers. China routinely uses the death penalty for drug smugglers and yet they still have a drug problem.

"The trappings of the police state represented by the TSA does not deter terrorists, it represents the illusion that government is doing something. It also is making a great deal of money for people who provide goods and services for the paranoia industry.

"The fact of the matter is that we will get hit again. We don't know by who, we don't know where, we don't know when, but it'll happen. You know what, though? We're strong. We can take whatever they dish out. They could fly ten more planes into ten more buildings, they could set off a nuclear device in downtown New York. No, we won't like it. But we'll crawl out from under the rubble and rebuild. Living as we have before, uncowed, unbowed, not conceding a goddamn thing to terrorists, that's middle finger resolutely extended right back at them. It says 'If that's all you've got, we've got nothing to worry about.'

"What we're no longer going to do is live our lives looking over our shoulder, jumping at shadows, giving up the way we live our lives because someone has rattled us, because we've lost our nerve, because we've been beaten.

"Oh, and while we're on the topic, Middle Eastern nuts wouldn't have so much money to finance terror attacks if we weren't giving it to them for the goddamn oil. They wouldn't even have a reason to attack us if we weren't involved in their politics in the first place. Our post-oil energy policy is also our anti-terror policy."

glass 1/2 full (1)

rev_sanchez (691443) | about 4 years ago | (#34331384)

At this point I'm just glad that militant Islam probably has some pretty strict rules about sticking things up their butt. If one of those guys put a stick of dynamite up their ass and blew up a plane with it then the new air travel rules will largely restrict willing passengers to porn stars.

Enough cowardice (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | about 4 years ago | (#34331394)

The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?

By not being fucking cowards, that's how. The motive of terrorism is terror; killing people is just the means. As long as we are contorting ourselves in fear -- and programs that border on institutionalized sexual assault to secure airplanes are definitely contortions -- we are encouraging, not discouraging, terrorism.

This joke has gone too far (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 4 years ago | (#34331400)

I know this was an elaborate hoax designed for my entertainment, but come on, let's stop with the scanners and touching people inappropriately and all that. That's crossing the line. I mean, surely no one did this for real. Tomorrow I will wake up and this will all be just a crazy dream, right?

Banner Impression (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | about 4 years ago | (#34331418)

If I'm ever required to go into one of those scanners, I'm going to exit screaming "HULK SMASH!"

And all those guns in the US? (1)

kaptink (699820) | about 4 years ago | (#34331420)

I would have thought all the guns carried by Americans would be far more of a threat than any terrorist bombers. After all, how many suicide bombers have killed people on public transport recently?

scan everyone everywhere (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 4 years ago | (#34331440)

and don't stop scanning until every last person on earth has been scanned, and then start scanning over again!

Might I suggest (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331444)

research into the psychology of how a politician becomes radicalized

Thanks everyone! (1)

KnownIssues (1612961) | about 4 years ago | (#34331452)

Look where all those arguments about how ridiculous it is to have such draconian security at airports but not in malls and trains leads -- to draconian security in malls and trains.

The Hill reports that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for US vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.

Terrorists hadn't figured out that malls, schools, buses, trains, etc. are US vulnerabilities? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard and just shows how little respect Homeland Security has for the intelligence of US citizens.

I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime.

Translation: Look at how terrified and inconvenienced we've gotten away with making people. It's time for Phase 2 of Operation Immobilize the Populous.

The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?

If we haven't gotten out of this by now (because that's not really the goal), we're never going to.

I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.

Perhaps it's, oh I don't know, feeling your religion, culture, way of life, and independence are being threatened by a force dramatically more powerful than you? Let's stop picking on people smaller than us and maybe the won't retaliate in desperation.

I'd love to be less tin-foil-hat about this, but I just don't see any other realistic way to interpret what Homeland Security is trying to accomplish. I just can't see how it's truly about the security of the populous.

Of course - what else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331464)

The lobbyists for the scanner manufacturers have succeeded in getting them in airports. They need to continue to expand their market.

Illegal Searches Everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331470)

But abusive federal agents are exempt.

More victories in your stupid war on Drugs.

America is a fucking joke, I can't believe I moved here on purpose once.

A dose of radiation every single morning? No thanks. There's a fucking reason the dentist leaves the room when i get a dental X-Ray.

The cumulative exposure would be much greater than the imaginary 'dirty bomb' I'm supposed to have nightmares about.

And to the partisan morons rallying behind their president on this one (the only explanation why the anti-Bush "omg my freedoms are gone" crowd is suddenly in favor of the most invasive security procedures imaginable). Fuck you, you shit eating dirtbag hypocrites. Good thing you got Obamacare. You deserve the cancer.

Can not undo increased security... (1)

njen (859685) | about 4 years ago | (#34331476)

Once you implement more security, it is extremely unlikely that it will be rolled back in the future. So basically, once it's here, it's here to stay for good. The government probably won't stop until every door is a scanner.

Shopping Malls anyone? (1)

swordgeek (112599) | about 4 years ago | (#34331482)

What better terrorist attack could there be than blowing up a huge bomb in a shopping mall at Thanksgiving or Christmas? Then we'll need metal detectors (and then backscatter scanners) at all 27 entrances to the malls, and we'll end up shopping online. "The economic recession is closing stores!" No, it will be paranoia and stupid governments closing stores.

But what then? What if a terrorist decides to work at Amazon, or UPS, or the post office? You could get a bomb delivered to YOUR OWN HOME!!!

The only way we can be perfectly safe is to stay at home, eat nothing we didn't grow ourselves, drink nothing we didn't produce ourselves, cut off from the rest of humanity. Scratch that--the only way we can be PERFECTLY safe is to be dead.

There will always be random attacks, terrorists, and accidents. There is always a chance you're going to die today. Don't let the world turn into a police state (run by private, for profit corporations). Go out, take some risks, tell the government you won't accept "complete security", and live.

Re:Shopping Malls anyone? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 4 years ago | (#34331558)

FEAR keeps them in control, FEAR is the new religion

Well of course.... (1)

cyberkahn (398201) | about 4 years ago | (#34331486)

Tyranny has to be implemented incrementally. Nazi Germany changed in the same way. One little individual liberty by one. It's the old Frog in the pot analogy. Because of that I say the U.S. is self righteous regarding its history. Not that we have a clean past. What I mean is that if the same thing were to happen here the people wouldn't be outraged or speak up out of fear. Yes, there are some that are rebelling by opting out of the scanners, but still flying. A real rebelling would be a boycott of flying effecting the bottom line, protests etc., however, I don't see that. The reality is while most people are upset they are really more concerned about celebrity news.

I would be willing to be that if we were to have another major terrorist attack and the government started to round up Arabs/Persians the masses would be silent. Don't believe me? Just ask the Japanese Americans from the 1940's. Yes they weren't gassed etc., but they were denied their liberties for a long period of time. I guess it sucks if you are part of said ethnic classification group.

I know I might be invoking Godwin's law, but the Nazi analogy does apply here. My Grandmother immigrated from Germany to the U.S. in the 1920's. She went back to Germany for a last visit in 1935. She was outspoken against the Nazis among family and friends, however, I am sure it fell upon dead ears as being over-reactionary etc.

Life is 100% fatal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331500)

Maybe we could just realize that we cannot control everything in the world of 6 billion plus people.

Honestly, I worry more about my kids living in a failed civilization and being exposed to hunger, war; maybe torture and frequent violent crime over the course of years. I worry about them having their very souls worn down by evil and misery than I worry about them dying in a plane crash. The latter is quick. The former is a very real possability if fear motivates all our decisions.

Being strong doesn't just mean subjecting ourselves to all kinds of silly crap to stay safe. Some of that is OK, but being strong also means realizing that occasionally some of us will get picked off from the herd. We want that risk minimized and shared in a fair and equitable way, but we cannot 100% eliminate it.

A good example is 911. Not only did the people in the planes die, but thousands more in buildings. We put some locks on the cockpit doors and we now have a flying public and flight crew unwilling to negotiate with hijackers. It is much less likely that a plane would be used in this way again. It didn't cost much to get lots of benefit.

I'd really like to see some good statistical analysis of how many incidents these scanners could reasonably be expected to prevent, crossed with how many people trips are made each year, etc., etc. and digest that into a % decrease in your overall chance of death for the average person. I bet it goes out quite a few decimal places.

Where's the source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331514)

Where's the source for this news item?

This is bullshit (1)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | about 4 years ago | (#34331516)

I can't think of a faster way to shut down New York City. The traffic is always so bad you can't drive, so everyone takes the subway to work, home, grocery shopping... There is no way people would wait in line to be scanned, if they did you'd have millions of people who suddenly had 1+ hours added to their already long commute, you would make traffic worse, so the delay would affect everyone whether they drove or took the train.

You don't even have to go through a metal detector to get on the subway - maybe they'll start that first. A part of me isn't even opposed to metal detectors on subways (besides the delay it would cause), because disarming criminals on subways would probably cut down on other crimes, and make subways safer for women, and people carrying cash or laptops (so long as they don't make you take your laptop out, or show if you're carrying something valuable).

There is no way they're going to use body scanners in places they don't even use metal detectors now.

Not Body Scanners, but Chemical Sniffers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331556)

A sealed chamber with a chemical sniffer to smell the explosives that a body scanner won't see. A dog can sniff out explosives, and with modern equipment it should be easy to do the same. The sensor can self-test/calibrate before each check. The body scanners are over-kill.

Police State (1)

Batmunk2000 (1878016) | about 4 years ago | (#34331578)

I have been shrugging off the Big Brother alarmists over the last few months but man it is hard not to see that the current administration is seeing how far they can push it on us. It is slightly terrifying.

On a side note, a lot of this is caused by law enforcement being ordered to see everyone as a terrorist instead of profiling them and using common sense. When they look for a serial killer they look for loner white males because you know what? Almost all serial killers are loner white males. Don't harass the potential victims because you are afraid of harassing the potential terrorists.

You want to know why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34331602)

It's because your secret departments made those nutjobs, trained those nutjobs, funded, supplied and empowered those nutjobs. Also invading and bombing their countries doesn't help.

Want a recent example of what happens? Try Northern Ireland. Locked in bombings, killings and other DAILY terrorist activites for decades. Look at the difference between the daily life in the UK in the height of the IRA's activites and how oppressive the USA has become.
One thing that particularly irks me is that in the past two months, there have been more bombs in the North than terrorist actions against the USA, yet I can fly in and out of Belfast or anywhere in Northern Ireland a hell of a lot easier than the "Land of The Free", and I don't have to log my radiation exposure.

Maybe the USA got really pissed off about 9/11 because it was foreigners who did it instead of the traditional home grown, good ol' boys standard. Damned outsourcing. Tim McVeigh anybody?

Go on, mod this as troll all you like. The truth can hurt.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?