StrangeSox

"Albert Haynseworth just fell down!"

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) It's not the privately owned airline that is asking that we get searched in order to use their services. It's the government who does not own the airlines. The same is true for any critical infrastructure regulated by the federal government under the CFR.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) Absolutely not, but to each their own. I'm sure plenty of people are weekend warriors that occasionally use it or ocassionally tow something. In no way do I think the majority of trucks are used by people who use it at least twice a week. Personally I love SUV's/Trucks because they are incredibly convenient and I feel more comfortable sitting up and driving in them versus a car. They are also incredibly convenient. But there are also a ton of financial reasons for why I'd be better off with a car and that is part of why the family will be going to the route of one SUV and one mid size sedan. Still have flexibility but also have that nice gas mileage vehicle that is comfy too. It is so evident that kids are in my near future, haha (and no, wife isn't expecting). but the real question is, are they convenient? I'd be interested to see these analyses you mentioned--any links or references?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) If the government wants to listen to my wife and I discuss why the dog has the s***s or what I forgot to take out for dinner, then they could go right ahead. This doesnt bother me because there's not gonna be anything worth listening to anyway. Now this I don't agree with.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) OK, so why all the body scanners and puffer machines? Why not just a metal detector, followed by the explosive scanner? Why the body scanner instead of just a metal detector? You can see non-metallic objects as well as metal. You have to remove everything so that nothing is obstructed and they know what they're seeing. I've only been through these twice, but from what I remember, there wasn't a metal detector, just the body scanner. And I've never been through an explosives scanner at an airport. The puffer is the explosive scanner. The air blowing on you will pick up any traces of explosives, and it is then collected and analyzed by the machine. This is solely because of the stupid "Shoe Bomber." You take your shoes off so that can run them through the x-ray. Metal detectors, explosives detectors and, presumably, body scanners all work with shoes on. Like others have said, it's just security theater for the most part.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:00 PM) Further, I cannot believe we haven't been able to create a scanner for both metal AND explosives, or hell even just thought to put the two one after the other and run through both. I did one of those stupid puffer machines previously, but you STILL have to take off your shoes and all metal to use it, so what's the point? Maybe they had you take metal off because you were also going through a metal detector, but the explosives scanners work without removing your shoes. My guess is that the market for a combined machine is going to be limited since most places will already have metal detectors in place.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Good point, make it a violation of my privacy argument then. Clearly checking my bags and whatnot are not invading my...body. Right, but it's still search and seizure. The 4th amendment does not make a distinction between searching a person or searching their things, thankfully.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) I believe I have a right to not have my naked body scanned or physically searched in order to get on a plane. It goes too far. As an added bonus, it's also not effective. Courts disagree How do you define x-ray scanning your bag, walking through metal detectors and then a potential pat-down if you fail the MD as "reasonable" while excluding back-scatter?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be groped and/or recorded naked as part of some bulls*** security measure? Your argument against unreasonable search and seizure would apply to all security measures, such as screening your bags and metal detectors, not just back-scatter and pat-downs. Groping is not part of TSA guidelines or rules, though they can get awfully close.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) Which is also not being checked for. We are not protecting against X, therefore we should not protect against Y isn't exactly a strong argument.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) In terms of damaging other buildings, you'd need one particularly powerful explosive or one very poorly designed structure. Look how well, for example, the WTC took a massive car bomb explosion directly underneath it. Right, back to DBT. Theoretically, you could pack an entire train full of C4, but is that a reasonable threat to design to? Probably not.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:43 PM) This seems like outrage for the sake of outrage if anyone thinks images like the below are anything to worry about. Hot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) "No one is making you use a phone. If you don't like the NSA tapping it, there are tons of other modes of communication available." Seriously, if this is our thinking these days, the terrorists have absolutely won. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a phone. "If you have nothing to hide" doesn't fly here imo, regardless of what Scalia says. This clearly does not apply in all cases, such as nuclear plants, military bases and federal buildings. Is an airport another reasonable exception, given past acts and future threat risks? QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:40 PM) But the damage inflicted by blowing up say the PATH train tunnel would be pretty devastating to a number of buildings in NYC and Jersey City. You could be right, I don't know. This would go back to design basis threats and risk assessment.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:35 PM) And like you mentioned earlier, this particular method can and will likely be breached anyway. There are always holes in security plans. Always. You need to find a reasonable threat basis to design a security plan around, otherwise you can always "what if" a situation forever and spend more and more money or, alternatively, say "f*** it" and do nothing.

Yeah, an example of security measures being reactive instead of proactive.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing). You can't fly a train into the side of a building.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) Check out my "oops" link. It was a courthouse body scanner, but they weren't supposed to save the images either. I have about a .001% faith that the TSA will be different. And you ought to know that you don't simply give up your basic constitutional rights simply because you want to travel by air. Last time I checked a stewardess couldn't deny all blacks from flying on their plane. It's the same idea. You have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. As it is, they are assuming everyone is a terrorist with a bomb with no probable cause. That's unconstitutional whether you're in your car on the road or whether you're about to board a plane. You can't enter a nuclear facility (public or private) or military base or federal building without a pretty substantial search. Is that unreasonable search and seizure? I agree that TSA is mostly "security theater," but I don't see it amounting to Constitutional violations. Clearly, access to some areas, even if public, can be controlled and monitored for security reasons.

Maybe it's an expense thing, but I don't know why they don't use explosives scanners. They take no longer than a body scanner and are much less invasive. edit: this thing:

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) Since this scan will not see what's inside your mouth or other orifices what the hell is the point? More exposure to radiation? I'd hate to be a flight attendant that's pregnant and has to walk through one of those everyday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X...#Health_effects Other scientists at Columbia University have made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[46] "A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said. "I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning," he added. For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) You haven't seen the fully body scanners yet at O'Hare? No, I've been through them there and at other airports. I meant in terms of procedures. I don't care about the body scanners as a "violation," just that it's a PIA to remove everything from your pockets and that it takes longer than walking through a metal detector.

I've not noticed anything new lately, and we're usually flying with product samples that get us pulled over to the side for questioning/testing. Also, I immediately assume anything from Prison Planet is crazy bulls***. Pretty safe bet. edit: I felt more uncomfortable being frisked going into a concert this weekend than at any airport.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) The tree hugger in me and the Texan in me are fighting it out. For some practicle reasons, I will be buying a pick up truck. I really want a F250 HD or equal, which appeals to my Texas manhood. The tree hugger is thinking the F150 will be sufficient to tow what I need to tow *and* will offer better mileage for my 40 mile daily commute. (round trip) I wish I could afford two vehicles. http://www.porsche.com/usa/aboutporsche/po...ronment/hybrid/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 12:50 PM) Wasn't the same thing said about the Prius at first? but the Volt is considerably more expensive than the Prius was, IIRC. Oh I know, and it's the same for any new technology. I'm just not going to get too excited about a $40k sedan that's also pretty ugly.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 12:31 PM) Wow, she's basically right there the same as the others. 15-17% seems like those candidates are all evenly divided. I think she will do for the Tea Party what Ross Perot did for the Reform Party. Ensure a second term for the incumbent and then fade away?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 11:25 AM) Motor Trend car of the year: Chevrolet Volt. Way too expensive, imo.