In Which I "Strongly Caution" The TSA To Snort My Taint

http://www.popehat.com/2012/03/08/in-which-i-strongly-caution-the-tsa-to-snort-my-taint-and-probably-get-on-the-no-fly-list/

by hoganheros • 14 years ago

48 5 14 years ago

popehat.com

dotrob• 14 years ago

I find this whole thing a tempest in a teacup. The original claim that the scanners are flawed doesn't strike me as explosive a revelation as it's being made out to be. My guess is the machines could be modified to change the background color behind the scanned person's silhouette.

The quote from the TSA ("Any guidance provided is to caution reporters not to generalize...") is merely saying "don't jump to conclusions on the basis of some activist's blog post/video," which is quite a reasonable "cautionary" statement. Sure, they're covering their ass some, but if they're truly being sued by this guy, they probably can't even get into things with him in the media anyway.

Granted, I have no love for the TSA, but some of this anti-TSA rhetoric seems like groping of a different kind.

wonderercat• 14 years ago

> My guess is the machines could be modified to change the background color behind the scanned person's silhouette.

For a billion dollars, I would have demanded, at minimum, that modifications to make the machines actually work be included. That they weren't just underscores the idiocy at play.

> The quote from the TSA ("Any guidance provided is to caution reporters not to generalize...") is merely saying "don't jump to conclusions on the basis of some activist's blog post/video," which is quite a reasonable "cautionary" statement.

It would be reasonable, if this were a citizen petitioning the media. Except this is the government, funded by the people, telling the media on their behalf what should and should not be discussed. The most charitable analysis is that my hard-earned tax dollars are being flushed on unsolicited media curation. A less charitable (and I believe, more likely) explanation is an attempt to sidestep the first amendment with no repercussions because it's not censorship, just chilling effects which nobody can be held accountable for.

So at best, complete incompetence, and at worst, conspiracy. Either way, I think the outrage is justified.

lcargill99• 14 years ago

Once you have spent the billion, you no longer have the resources to see if it works or not. Outrage away, it won't change the basic limitations of human cognition.

J3L2404• 14 years ago

RIP HN. You will be missed.

pagekalisedown• 14 years ago

I never thought I'd see the word 'taint' on the front page.

Maybe some keyword filtering would do HN some good.

In Which I "Strongly Caution" The TSA To Snort My Taint

Related Stories