Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:no groping please? (Score 1) 141

by CelticWhisper (#46371011) Attached to: Live Q&A With Ex-TSA Agent Jason Harrington

This is it, right here. Mod parent up. If we have no other question answered in this discussion, I'd be fine with it as long as we get an answer to this.

Scope-n-grope is the most disgusting betrayal a government agency has perpetrated against the American people in recent memory (I consider it worse than the Snowden revelations). There is no excuse for what is being done to innocent air travelers and it is unconscionable that I would have no guarantee of being free from unwanted forced physical contact with government clerks (remember, they're not officers of anything) if I were to go to an airport with the intention of boarding a plane.

How can we guarantee that we will not be touched? Going through a nude-o-scope isn't enough, as they've been shown to alarm on sweat or rumpled clothing. Medical exemptions aren't enough as there's the risk of a TSA clerk overstepping their (barely existent) authority and demanding a grope anyway. Pre-(CHECK! LOOK AT HOW CUTE OUR TRADEMARK IS!) isn't enough as the T&C explicitly state that nobody is guaranteed expedited screening.

I'm happy to keep giving Amtrak my money - I don't care about speed and the experience is much nicer. However, I can't ignore principle. A US citizen should have the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and even if one does have to clear some kind of Checkpoint Charlie at airports, they absolutely must have the right not to be touched against their will.

How do we effect this?

Comment: Hand swabbing (Score 2) 141

by CelticWhisper (#46370871) Attached to: Live Q&A With Ex-TSA Agent Jason Harrington

I've heard of the practice of "hand swabbing" - randomly selecting passengers to have a cotton swab coated in some chemical run over their hands and tested for explosive residue. I do NOT consent to any contact with my skin (or any physical contact from strangers at all, excepting lifesaving medical procedures) - how would I go about refusing this and what would happen afterward?

Note that this question is academic - I refuse to set foot in airports and have done since the introduction of the Reign of Molestation in 2010, and will continue to do so until the RoM is stopped and (hopefully) John Pistole is sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, the entirety of his sentence to be spent in solitary confinement with the cell door permanently welded shut.

Comment: Re:Advice on how to play the game (Score 1) 21

by CelticWhisper (#46360941) Attached to: Live Q&A With Ex-TSA Agent Jason Harrington Tomorrow 3pm ET

As best I'm able to tell, there is no answer. I stopped flying 3 years ago (well, more now - October 2010) when they started with their policy of sexual assault because I realized that there is no way to guarantee I won't be touched. Strangers do not have my permission to place their hands on me for any reason, ever, and it was clear that there was a long list of secret reasons why these pig-thugs would take it upon themselves to force physical contact on a traveler. I've been taking Amtrak for all my long-distance trips (except for one in which my wife and I drove) and not only are there no security checkpoints (DHS poisonous-snake teams notwithstanding but I haven't run across those scum myself), the onboard experience is vastly superior to that of a plane. Definitely worth the tradeoff in speed.

The only winning move is not to play.

Comment: Re:Valet Key (Score 4, Informative) 453

by CelticWhisper (#44328811) Attached to: TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport

On my car (2008 Subaru Legacy 2.5i SE, USDM) it actually does. There's a keyhole by the trunk-release lever that can be toggled with the "master" key but not the valet key. It will lock out the lever and prevent the trunk from being opened.

There are keyholes by the rear-seatback-release buttons as well to prevent access to the trunk via folding the rear seats down.

Comment: Re:They don't care. (Score 4, Interesting) 110

The problem with that is that they can "presume" all they want, but they still have less money coming in. Granted, it doesn't address the aforementioned issue of needing a critical mass of participants for the boycott to be successful, but the mere act of assuming a given cause for a reduced revenue stream doesn't magically restore the revenue stream to previous levels.

Comment: Re:Nice Try China! (Score 3, Informative) 282

by CelticWhisper (#43198093) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Block Web Content?

Adblock used to have an option to do just that. It disappeared many versions ago.

Pity, because it was a good idea if you really wanted to stick it to the advertisers. You'd lose the bandwidth savings as the ad content would still download, but if you're unmetered and sporting a vendetta against marketroids it was a great option to use.

Comment: Re:Xanax (Score 1) 303

by CelticWhisper (#43141203) Attached to: I most look forward to flying with ...

Too bad for them. I'm on the Autism spectrum and while I function adequately in my day-to-day life (more often than not, anyway), --I-- don't take kindly to situations where a complete stranger has total control over whether or not another complete stranger can touch me without my consent.

They get semi-unconscious me or nervous-wreck-meltdown me. Their call, but I recommend the former.

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long