View Story | 611 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. - Calvin
by iconoclastic cat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Plus the cretins who do this work are hopeless anyway. Purportedly there is "sound scientific" evidence that facial recognition works in detecting lies etc. There is even a cottage industry and are a few books on how to recognize liars.
However, there have been a few real studies of this which found, among other things, that:
"The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau
by shigeru on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM PDT
and I never saw a single peer-reviewed study that showed they worked. Not a single one.
by webranding on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM PDT
a set of handcuffs, a can of pepper spray, and a cell where you can confine a passenger till she's dead?
"...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."
by beagledad on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM PDT
Whether or not it works is only part of the issue. I was really angry when I first heard about this, back in August, and sent the TSA a complaint. I'm sure I'm on a list now. Their response has some handy contact info, but is otherwise completely useless:
Thank you for your e-mail message. So that we can better assist you we encourage you to call us at 1-866-289-9673 for assistance. If you are outside the United States and cannot use the toll-number, please call us at 1-571-227-2900. We hope this information is helpful. TSA Contact Center
Thank you for your e-mail message.
So that we can better assist you we encourage you to call us at 1-866-289-9673 for assistance. If you are outside the United States and cannot use the toll-number, please call us at 1-571-227-2900.
We hope this information is helpful.
TSA Contact Center
Uh...not very helpful, no.
"Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini
by revelwoodie on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM PDT
into your cellphone now. I bet they won't give them to you later, when you might need TSA.
Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry. F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Great Gatsby
by riverlover on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM PDT
IMO, their goal is to piss everyone off so badly that we all quit flying.
Those planes use up a lotta oil sitting there on the tarmac, waiting to take off, ya know. Big Brother has to start somewhere, in weaning us all off it, no doubt.
On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place
by o the umanity on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:22:13 PM PDT
making us reluctant to fly (it's so damned irritating to have to open our personal belongings for public inspection), by making us stand in that line, (no, you go over there in that line... and have your ID out of it's little plastic wallet pocket and boarding pass in your hand) and gee, sorry you missed your flight because the security lines were so long. No, we can't put more TSA screeners on line or open up more xray machines. Do you have a complaint? Just step over here, and keep your hands visible at all times.... Sigh. Big brother has arrived, is here to stay, and expects us all to act like good little sheeple.
John McCain is a big liar.
by Lisa Lockwood on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:09:50 AM PDT
care about individuals, or about reason. They always claim that what they do is "within policy guidlines", regadless of the outcome. Just following orders.
Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.
by StrayCat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:07:24 PM PDT
Totally Screwed Agency
Keep their phone (1-866-289-9673) ringing
by duende on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:28:27 AM PDT
not TSA. Not that it makes it right, but she was showing far more than subtle cues.
Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!
by barbwires on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM PDT
by catnap1972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM PDT
looking for a no-bid government contract to help fight the GWOT.
Lord knows, they would have hauled me away a few dozen times for that momentary "flash of anger" tell.
Like the time I was going through security and my bag was opened after going through the X-ray thingy and one of TSA's finest triumphantly rooted around and pulled out my toothpaste.
I had, what originally had started out as a standard tube of toothpaste and now, after a period of usage at home consisted of a tube containing about enough squeezes of dentifrice to get me through a four day trip - or so I thought.....all told, well under an oz.
But, that was no defense for TSA which informed me that the TUBE itself, when fully loaded, had a capacity to hold more than the allowed 3 ounces of product. Never mind that there was nowhere near 3 ounces actually IN the tube.....just that it COULD hold more than 3 oz. IF I could somehow locate 3+ ounces of C4 or primer cord or dynamite or whatever inside security.
I was then asked if I would like to take my entire bag and go back to airline check-in.....check the bag through and retrieve my ounce of paste and the bag at my destination. Or, they could confiscate the dangerous dentifrice to save me and the free world from a Colgate conflagration.
I seethingly flashed my telltale anger by replying, "Do I look like I got Stupid tatooed on my forehead? and then advised them that having already spent 20 minutes in line just to reach their location, taken off my jacket, belt and shoes, my cell phone, and pen, put the two computers I was carrying in their own trays, and emptied my pockets, I would forgoe that pleasure and that they could therefore keep the damned tube and put it in the museum they must have which let them display yet another example of how they had made the world safe once more for truth, justice and the American way. They did not seem to find that amusing....nor did I.
Oh By the Way....in thinking about how these procedures make us all safe....remember that about 17-20% of the fake weaponry which security system testers try to slip through -- is NOT found by TSA. There....don't you feel safer now?
Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.
by dweb8231 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:44:42 PM PDT
security, maybe you could get by with fake toothpaste?
(Sure, it doesn't make sense, but what does anymore?)
by beagledad on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM PDT
Mahna Mahna!
by David R on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:25:31 AM PDT
that talks about microexpressions. It's been used for years.
I don't agree at all that the rocket scientists at the TSA I have encountered should use it. But it aint new.
Just Sayin
Scientif American article
Republicans only care about republicans. Democrats care about the Republic.
by beaukitty on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:39:03 PM PDT
I am:
(1) Questioning if it is legal.
(2) The people doing it have the training and experience required.
From the article linked in my post:
Blas-Bamba and her team were trained in fall 2006. She says she did behavioral detection of a sort in her last job as a probation officer. "We all do it to a degree. It's just a matter of understanding and articulating what we see."
by webranding on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM PDT
thanks. Again, I don't like minimally qualified TSA workers doing this. But, my understanding, and I'm sure as hell no lawyer, is that we have no right to expect privacy in a public place. Second, it just results in a secondary screen. I've had MORE than my share of those. I don't like it, it's just a show for the flying public, it is grossly ineffective, but it ain't the end of the world.
by beaukitty on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM PDT
my facial expressions? Is that probable cause? Have the courts rules on this? I mean I fly a lot and never really read the fine print on the back of my ticket but I wasn't aware that using it meant I did away with my rights. These are questions cause I really don't know.
by webranding on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM PDT
supreme that is, said a few yars back that you do have to show a cop your id when they ask, and added that it was not unreasonalbe to be questioned by law enforcement for a couple of minutes, just cause they want to speak with you, the I gotta think that this would pass muster.
Again no lawyer..mebbe one of our fine kossack barristers will stop by.
My experience with the airlines, which is extensive, they say fine, don't comply with our request, but you aint flying today. So they don't take your rights, you give them up..or drive
by beaukitty on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:24:20 PM PDT
snatched from you. The government has no right to stop you from flying because you excercise your rights. That they sometimes, even often, get away with it does not make it legal.
by StrayCat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM PDT
that my comment was with respect to the airlines and my experience with them.
by beaukitty on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM PDT
Filler up.
I have always resented that the artist should be relegated by the politician to a place with no voice in political or human affairs. -- Errol Flynn
by Mlle Orignalmale on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:00:38 PM PDT
I have a relative who was diagnosed in the past year with multiple sclerosis (MS).
The symptom which triggered the diagnosis was a repetitive muscle twitch in this relative's face.
So imagine that you have some uncontrollable expression or twitch which triggers these screens, and have to travel a lot.
Should he have to carry around a doctor's note to deal with low-level paranoid TSA screeners? Would such a note carry any weight with ramped up law enforcement agents eager to make a big splash by catching a terror suspect?
Then there are the many people without medical conditions who can't control (or aren't aware of) their facial expressions. I had a roommate in college who often seemed angry even when he was not -- he just wasn't good at modulating his voice or his facial expressions.
I strongly suspect that this technology has got to be b.s., and whatever its supposed benefits, is far more likely to put innocent people in horrible situations than to catch a serious terrorist.
"Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw
by Hudson on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM PDT
the cops aren't very careful about diabetics and other suspects with serious medical conditions being allowed access to their meds, then no, it's safe to say a doctor's note would carry no weight whatsoever. Maybe a medicalert bracelet...but I'm not holding my breath.
Our economy is a house of cards. Don't breathe.
by Youffraita on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM PDT
bracelet would help a person avoid problems, why not have one with them when they fly? When a politicized Justice Department is engaged in putting political opponents in prison on the behest of Karl Rove, I don't see why having a note to get through airport security is a federal case. We all have lost certain "rights" as members of a modern technological society. I would focus on the loss of rights that actually mean something and carry consequences.
And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996
by MrJersey on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:18:21 PM PDT
by MrJersey on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:19:08 PM PDT
in a slow moving line, with no place/way to sit down, with upset children, having to go to the bathroom for at least 30 minutes of that time, tired from traveling, lugging luggage, rushing to the airport, dealing with a cranky rental agent & their slow bus from a distant parking lot (which is why I didn't have time to go to the bathroom) - and my face does not reflect that I am "miss mary sunshine"; I will be pulled over because of that "tired, cranky, desperate, contemptuous of the whole stupid process" expression?
Forget the cowed courts - has the flying public said ENOUGH?
And they wonder why people won't fly? Maybe it's because I don't want to have to wear Depends when I want to fly and I refuse to participate in the indignity of it all! The terrorists bomb us a thousand times a day with this.
by PinHole on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM PDT
wouldn't worry about it.
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley
by murrayewv on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:16:48 PM PDT
our world of freedom, autonomy and privacy.
by StrayCat on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM PDT
In 2003 I clipped the ad in the Boston Globe for TRAINERS at the TSA. The requirement: A High School diploma or a G.E.D. Yup, you read that right. These are the people training the TSA staff.
I rest my case.
by Cambridgemac on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM PDT
The article states:
Since January 2006, behavior-detection officers have referred about 70,000 people for secondary screening, Maccario said. Of those, about 600 to 700 were arrested on a variety of charges, including possession of drugs, weapons violations and outstanding warrants. . . . . Lynette Blas-Bamba manages Sea-Tac's 12-officer behavior-detection team. Since the program started here in November 2006, more than 600 people have been referred for secondary inspections, she said. Of those, 11 were arrested.
In the first case, only 1% of the secondary screenings came up with anything, and in the second example, still less than 2%. They could probably do better using pure chance.
Ditto to everyone's comments about poorly trained and harried TSA workers unable to use these "techniques effectively."
This is a monumental waste of resources (time, money, personnel) that could be used much more effectively. Another boondoggle courtesy of Bushco's climate of fear tactics.
by Native Light on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:36:32 PM PDT
local fuzz last year for DIU.......he thought he was on the cutting edge of CSI type deductive science. Only problem was, I was clean and sober, but only tired. He was very surprised when I blew 0.00 BAC and gave a clean drug free urine.
Microexpressions may work in the lab and with educated professionals, but in the hands of a bunch of high school drop-outs, I fear more mischief than solid, useful results.
Sometimes the magic works.......sometimes it doesn't
by Unrepentant Liberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM PDT
by beaukitty on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:35:49 PM PDT
... are potentially a far greater danger to our freedom and way of life than what the neocons fear from A-rabs.
The more I think of it, the more bogus and risky the implementation of such technology seems to be.
I have a very close friend whose last name sounds a lot like the name of the former dictator of Iraq. A yahoo captain on a ferry called in her license plate to the FBI after hearing her name and seeing her take tourist pictures on a boat. The FBI searched her parents' house and called her in for questioning on suspicion of terrorism. After a while they realized how ridiculous the whole thing was, and she went home without a problem... But those were some very tense 24 hours for her and her family.
Is this what we want our country to become? A place where we not only fear asymmetrical attacks, but have such low confidence in our government to protect us and use the tools at their disposal properly
by Hudson on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM PDT
but it is pretty much what we have.
Personally, I do not trust the federal government to do anything competently anymore. I am suspect of the skills of anyone who would actually still work for this government. I start to wonder why anyone with actual talent would stick around taking orders from a bunch of not that bright, totally unqualified, 20-something, evangelical, perverts.....maybe for the insurance?...more likely they are funneling tax payer money to their personal business interests.
Republicans need people to be stupid
by strengthof10kmen on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM PDT
I am suspect of the skills of anyone who would actually still work for this government.
Like the biomedical researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health?
Like the meteorologists and marine scientists at NOAA? Astronauts at NASA? Or maybe the FAA's air traffic controllers?
Yeah, the country would sure be a lot better off if the whole civil service resigned. Funny, I think I've heard that line before . . . which party did you say you belonged to?
by rodentrancher on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:36:54 PM PDT
and intelectually, I know everyone working for the government is not completely unqualified, but reading the news...it does make you wonder. Do you have a way for me to seperate the good and noble from the agenda driven and incompetent?
In the list of scientists/employees you mention, I think, by any reasonable measure, you could say that each of their works has been compromised to some degree by the Bush administration. How many times do we have to hear that some 26-year-old-Regent-University-Herritage Foundation-wanabee-Horse-Show-lawyer from the Bush Administration has "altered", "edited", "with held data", "didn't know what to do", before we are allowed to doubt the work product of the people he/she oversees?
Just because I believe in Government, doesn't mean I have to believe the Government.
by strengthof10kmen on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM PDT
. . . the same way you would for anyone else: you look at their work. It helps if you remember that about 80% of fed worker jobs aren't really policy or political - they're technical & administrative jobs that is almost unaffected by the policies of whoever is president.
For example, let's say Joe Fed is a meteorologist for the National Weather Service. If you find that he's writing that climate trends are not affected by human activity, and that global warming is a myth, well, he's surely earned your contempt.
If you find the Joe has written journal articles showing how CO2 emissions can be linked to extreme weather, but that publication was stopped by a Bushie, does he deserve your contempt for not resigning in protest? Would the protest value of folks like that leaving offset the damage that would be caused by turning the NWS over to political incompetents? I'm not so sure the answer to that is clear.
Finally, lets say Joe isn't a high level climate expert, but just a guy who tracks storms and writes warnings. In fact, maybe Joe is like Robert Ricks, the guy who wrote the Katrina warning and quite possibly saved thousands of lives. Would the country be better off if people like Ricks left the government every time we had an anti-science idiot in the White House?
by rodentrancher on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:32:53 PM PDT
Did you get the arrest voided? Are your fingerprints in IAFIS? When asked on a form or application if you've ever been arrested, are you required to say yes? Does it matter who issues the form or application?
"Proud to be part of DailyKos -- the Best Political Team on . . . well, ANYWHERE"
by Alden on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:08:02 PM PDT
by Alden on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM PDT
24 hours without sleep and you drive like 0.1 blood alcohol. If the officer stopped you for erratic driving, he may have done you a favor of sorts by waking you up with adreniline.
by murrayewv on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:18:03 PM PDT
They should have been able to get a breath test right away, unless they suspected drugs. And arrests do show up in records and are not likely to go away, so this is a fairly serious issue.
by murrayewv on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM PDT
Some Facts About Drowsy Driving
The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 100,000 of reported crashes occur as a result of drowsiness, and considers sleep deprived drivers a hazard equal in severity to drunk drivers. Studies show that staying awake for 18 hours and driving produces the same effect as being legally drunk behind the wheel. The greater the sleep deprivation, the closer the correlation to higher levels of intoxication. Actual statistics on crashes, injuries and fatalities caused by drowsy driving are difficult to calculate as there is no way to test the fatigue level of drivers. The cost, damages, injuries, and fatalities resulting from sleep deprived drivers have been estimated at $12.5 billion.
The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 100,000 of reported crashes occur as a result of drowsiness, and considers sleep deprived drivers a hazard equal in severity to drunk drivers. Studies show that staying awake for 18 hours and driving produces the same effect as being legally drunk behind the wheel. The greater the sleep deprivation, the closer the correlation to higher levels of intoxication.
Actual statistics on crashes, injuries and fatalities caused by drowsy driving are difficult to calculate as there is no way to test the fatigue level of drivers. The cost, damages, injuries, and fatalities resulting from sleep deprived drivers have been estimated at $12.5 billion.
New Jersey passed a law in 2003 making drowsy driving a crime.
Pull over and take a nap. Wherever you're trying to get to is most likely not important enough to risk the lives of yourself and others.
Tired driving is against the law in some states.
Hillary, I want my campaign donation back.
by SleepingWillow on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:58:51 PM PDT
tired posting.
See if you can spot it. :D
by SleepingWillow on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:12:53 PM PDT
...also arouses unwelcome attention.
Having had a few long-distance relationships, I've found myself in the position of having to pull over for some quick shut-eye many times. And when you need to pull off the road, there isn't always an 'appropriate' spot to park. If you're that tired, judgement as to what is a good spot can suffer as well.
You are likely to be interrupted, and it's not pleasant to wake up to an 8-cell maglite beam in your eyes. And then trying to sound coherent to a nervous cop in the first seconds after being awakened.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and DO be sure to lock your doors....
you were sick, but now you're well again and there's work to do- vonnegut
by zzyzx on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:27:36 AM PDT
Did they have a brief flash of fear? Or were they too exhilerated?
Impeachment is a duty, not an option that can be taken off the table.
by bushondrugs on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:59:26 PM PDT
They work incredibly well - At putting millions of $$ in the accounts of the "security" corporations.
by johnnygunn on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM PDT
Interactive/Self-Administered Training METT/SETT Hybrid http://www.paulekman.com/...
by tommurphy on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM PDT
No wonder I don't fly anymore--thank Goddess I don't have to. But I deeply resent having to think twice about hopping a short flight somewhere. They've clipped our wings not by forbidding us to fly but by daring us to do so unimpeded. Thank you--I think--for scaring me half to death...
by Mlle Orignalmale on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:58:43 PM PDT
-- Either get behind Obama 100% of GTFO of DailyKos.
by DemCurious on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:56:03 AM PDT
this is bad news for those of us with anxiety disorders, particularly social anxiety disorder. Egads.
by little liberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM PDT
If I had been asked questions when I flew a couple months ago, I'm sure I would've been pulled aside. Just making myself stand in line, talking myself out of leaving is hard enough, nevermind getting grilled by lame TSA workers.
Plus when I get nervous, my face turns beet red.
But it made me smile when I realized I made it through Logan security with my shoes on. I was completely awed by seeing a full grown dog go through an X-Ray machine (not in a cage, standing on the conveyor belt) that I forgot to take my shoes off. I didn't realize until I picked up my bag on the other side that everyone was putting their shoes back on.
Whoops!
Peace
by ClapClapSnap on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:56:04 PM PDT
This is designed to catch up average citizens who may have made a mistake, been confused, don't know the answer to a pop question, have physical problems or are, god forbid, just plain jet-lagged after an 18 hour trans-con flight, with attendant layovers.
The results even in the Scientific American article run counter to practical experience with trained police who have used these techniques. Again they are wrong as often as they are right. No matter how much the police believe that they can find a liar.
Also the people who are least likely to be caught are in order; trained intelligence agents, trained terrorists and sociopaths. The people most likely to be caught are great-grandmom and great-grandad with an undeclared prescription drug. Added to this is that the studies cited in SciAm are preliminary at best, deal with an isolated subculture in white America and you have catchy but bad science at its worst.
Some people have no problem with being pulled over for second round interviews or third round interviews or interrogations, but it irks the hell out of me and is just another sign of our slipping further and further into a police state. Those that think that this would have prevented 9/11 are out of their minds. We already had the technology to catch the terrorists before the fact back then - we caught them on video. The real problem was that we had incompetent people from the top to bottom of our government who were asleep at the switch.
by shigeru on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM PDT
Were they afraid that it was a drug mule (dog) or something?
AAPI Wellesley grad in Austin for Obama! (Obama-(Donna) Edwards '08!)
by lirtydies on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:11:26 PM PDT
I think that made me do a triple-take!
No lie, I look up to the next line over, and the dog is coming out the other side, standing up and wagging his tail.
And it wasn't even one of those lap dogs...it looked like a 60lb golden mix.
by ClapClapSnap on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:01:40 AM PDT
Didn't somebody get in trouble for accidentally putting a baby through one of the machines? I can't imagine that it's healthy for animals either. (Then again, I see that you mention that it was at Logan...)
by lirtydies on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM PDT
without some asshole asking to see my boarding pass, and putting a nice big red letter on it, that causes every subsequent asshole to pull me aside and pull my luggage out, piece by piece.
Maybe if they'd stop victimizing my ass and let me take my flight in peace, I wouldn't get the 'oh, fuck, here we go again' look whenever Johnny Body Language asks me a question.
Fool me once, I'll punch you in the fucking head.
by HollywoodOz on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM PDT
...and you think they're all assholes?
by Alden on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM PDT
He is always harassed by the airport security guards. Maybe he has a bit of a cocky attitude, but it is truly horrid the stories of being held, searched, questioned for so long he misses his flight, etc. Even when he has his wife and kids in tow. It's gotten so he gets to the airport a few hours earlier than normal just to deal with security.
Personally, I think he probably ticked some TSA goon off years ago, who put his name on 'the list' and so now they harangue him at every opportunity.
by ColoradoWantsWolves on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM PDT
I've been interrogated for 45 minutes on occasion, leading me to miss my flight and a connecting flight, and as a result, a friend's wedding.
Last time I tried to go through, by road, I got turned around and sent back to Vancouver. So much for the Mariners tickets...
by HollywoodOz on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:49:53 AM PDT
that a group of Japanese (I think) scientists did a few years ago, analyzing the expression on the Mona Lisa, to try and figure out why she was smiling. Answer: she was happy.
by HugoDog on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:16:21 PM PDT
screeners as "cretins". There are good people doing the screening and there are a few bad ones also, but to label them all as "cretins" does no one any good. Perhaps this facial expression idea has it's problems, but what does it trigger, a further examination, not incarceration. Yes, TSA screening is a pain in the ass for all of us, but on the odd chance that they may deter someone from blowing up or taking control of an aircraft, it's a pain in the ass that I am willing to put up with. If you are from a culture that doesn't make eye contact, you get a more thorough search. I have bee more thoroughly searched many times, so what, that's why I get to the airport early.
by MrJersey on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:08:40 PM PDT
I fly several times per month on average, and I never, ever go through an airport in this day and age without much anger and a huge amount of contempt. Can't wait to get called out for my 'tude. In the words of Jeffrey Lebowski, "You fucking fascist[s]!"
by Island Expat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM PDT
by saildude on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM PDT
My last flight I was flagged because of a gift I was bringing for a friend's daughter.
Yep, they wanded me, and searched my luggage, because the gift I was bringing was a bright orange alarm clock with a cat's face, shaped like an old-fashioned alarm clock (with orange "bells" on the top.)
When I asked why I was flagged, the screener told me that "old-fashioned alarm clock" was on the list of suspicious articles.
"But it meows!" I said. "Just let me push the button and show you."
"No! You can't touch it until we've finished examining it."
I was good humored about the whole thing, but really -- where the hell would terrorists even find an old-fashioned bell alarm clock these days?
And surely an orange cat clock -- that meows -- would be even lower on their list of articles in which to stash a bomb, unless those particular terrorists were into kitsch.
But lucky thing I was laughing through the whole process -- and made the clock meow as soon as I could.
Lord knows if I'd been pissed off, or afraid I'd miss my flight -- I might have been strip searched over a clock that meows.
by judybrowni on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM PDT