

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

======
J3L2404
RIP HN. You will be missed.

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

Maybe some keyword filtering would do HN some good.

------
dotrob
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
> 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
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.

