Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Government Transportation United States

TSA Says Screening Drinks Purchased Inside Airport Terminal Is Nothing New 427

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-do-you-got-there dept.
First time accepted submitter lcam writes in with a story about a video that has started a new round of condemnation against the TSA over the testing of drinks. "The video, posted on YouTube on Monday and featured on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams Tuesday night, has already garnered almost 125,000 hits and nearly 900 comments from angry travelers. It shows two TSA officers swabbing bottles of water, a carton of coconut water and a cup of coffee, among other liquids. 'Now remember that this is inside the terminal, well beyond the security check and purchased inside the terminal ... just people waiting to get on the plane,' YouTube user danno02 says in the video's description. 'My wife and son came back from a coffee shop just around the corner, then we were approached. I asked them what they were doing. One of the TSA ladies said that they were checking for explosive chemicals (as we are drinking them).' The TSA insisted Tuesday that its policy of checking liquids beyond the security gate has been in place for five years now. TSA agents will randomly patrol the gates using a test strip and dropper containing a non-toxic solution, it said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Says Screening Drinks Purchased Inside Airport Terminal Is Nothing New

Comments Filter:
  • Explosive (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:17PM (#41243089)

    What about the explosive diaerara you get from eating the junk they have in the terminal?

  • by puterguy (642044) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:17PM (#41243097)

    Why not use this "technology" to resume allowing people to carry liquids >3oz in carry-ons?
    Perhaps limit the number of such bottles to save time but if they can swab drinks bought in the security zone, they can swab our drinks while we wait to be nakey-scanned...

    • by ExploHD (888637) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:14AM (#41243489)
      Because then the terrorist would WIN!
      • by gman003 (1693318)

        At this point, I think I'd rather have the terrorists than the TSA.

      • by LVSlushdat (854194) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:37PM (#41249619)

        Hey, sparky.. in case you hadn't noticed, the terrorists HAVE won.. I can just see what remains of OBL's guys sitting over there in Afgan-land laughing their asses off at how those stupid ass Americans are chasing their tails.. No matter WHAT precautions TSA or ANY other three-letter-agency does, they CANNOT completely 100% PREVENT any terrorist attack.. I gar-ron-tee if you think the bozos at TSA are good at security theater now, wait till they get what their drooling for.. 100% surveillance of EVERYBODY.. EVEN with that, a determined OBL-wanna-be can easily cause big kaboom, since by definition he WANTS to die, and have sex with his 72 virgins.... So, whats next after 100% surveillance? Use your imagination.... (shudder)

        I'm FAR FAR FAR more afraid of the US goverment and its security theater than I am the remote chance of my being killed by some OBL-wanna-be... I'm quite sure I'm NOT the only one who feels this way...

    • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:45AM (#41243681)

      "Get your stinkin' paws outta my Coke! You damn dirty ape!" (Say that to a black TSA agent, and you'll probably make the national news when they charge you with "hate speech".) Oh what a fun non-free country we are.

      BTW who's testing the hundreds-of-pounds of food and drink being loaded by outside convenience companies into the airplane? What a perfect way for a terrorist to land a job, get cleared, and then sneak several pounds of liquid explosive onboard.

      Excuse me while I bend over.
      The TSA say they need to check my cavity.
      Whatever it takes for safety, eh?

    • by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @01:01AM (#41243775)
      I'd suggest it's because one must always add to the security theatre. They took away the >3 oz carry-ons to make you feel safe so long as they were around to take such things and afraid should they leave. Now that you're accustomed to that, they have to add a new unnecessary procedure to remind you how necessary they are. Most importantly: they must be seen doing it and therefore mere restrictions are inadequate. Alternatively, John Pistole had already been watching too many episodes of Burn Notice, when Janet Napolitano, who remembers back to an early era of television, turned him onto MacGuyver. It quickly became apparent to him just how dangerous things you can buy at a convenience store can be.
    • by kmahan (80459) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @01:11AM (#41243851)

      There is big pressure to not relax the 3oz rule. From the vendors in the airports. The 3oz rule is perfect for vendors because they have a monopoly on selling you overpriced drinks.

    • by Penurious Penguin (2687307) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @01:40AM (#41244017) Homepage Journal
      Swab® Brand Beverages - The only beverage endorsed and trusted by the TSA. Make the Swab® Choice - The only Choice© for honest passengers.

      INGREDIENTS: Reclaimed Water, Radiocontrast Agents, Aspartame, MDMA, Potassium Sorbate, Castoreum, Scopolamine, Nano Lead.
      • by Inda (580031)
        I'm an honest passanger! I'll take a crate!

        Any chance I could have the Aspartame-free version? I hear it's dangerous.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:18PM (#41243103)

    Fuck the TSA

  • non-toxic? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hawguy (1600213) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:23PM (#41243129)

    Is the strip and solution really non-toxic? Will TSA provide independent test lab results to prove it? (unlike the poorly tested backscatter x-ray machines)?

    If they have a reliable test to determine if a liquid is hazardous or not, then how about letting me bring liquids through the checkpoints?

    TSA security theater story of the day:

    On a recent flight from IAD, just before the flight started boarding, the gate agent announced "Please have your ID available for inspection, TSA will be conduction random ID checks and baggage searches upon boarding". And sure enough, as we boarded, there was a TSA guy with his magic flashlight, randomly checking ID's for validity, and farther into the jetway was a pair of TSA agents randomly searching luggage.

    What's the point of a random check if it's announced when passengers can choose not to participate? If I were a bad guy with a fake ID or something bad in my luggage, I'd go home and try again a different day with a different fake ID.

    • by khallow (566160)

      What's the point of a random check if it's announced when passengers can choose not to participate? If I were a bad guy with a fake ID or something bad in my luggage, I'd go home and try again a different day with a different fake ID.

      He'd be recorded as a no-show. If someone got ambitious and went through airport video (or a computer program did so), they just might notice that the bad guy left after hearing about the random check.

      Having said that, I don't see the point, unless they're trying to catch people who repeatedly break the law, like smugglers. Or to put up a show.

      • Re:non-toxic? (Score:5, Informative)

        by hawguy (1600213) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:44PM (#41243301)

        What's the point of a random check if it's announced when passengers can choose not to participate? If I were a bad guy with a fake ID or something bad in my luggage, I'd go home and try again a different day with a different fake ID.

        He'd be recorded as a no-show. If someone got ambitious and went through airport video (or a computer program did so), they just might notice that the bad guy left after hearing about the random check.

        Having said that, I don't see the point, unless they're trying to catch people who repeatedly break the law, like smugglers. Or to put up a show.

        If he has a fake ID, he'll just use a different one the next time.

        But being a no-show is not enough to get you on a no-fly or scrutiny list - I've canceled flights a number of times even a short time before departure and have never had any trouble getting back through security the next time I flew. This was both with full-fare unrestricted tickets and restricted discount tickets.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'll add my own security theatre anecdotes :

      I wear contacts. On a recent plane trip, I had forgotten about the 24oz bottle of saline solution in my backpack. I saw it as I threw my wallet/watch/etc. into my bag, and was certain they'd make me throw it out. Much to my surprise, it qualified as a medical necessity and was exempt from the 3oz limit. No testing or swabbing, no questions asked. Just an easy walk through with 24oz of mystery fluid in a bottle marked "saline."

      But I can do you one better:

      A

    • by moeinvt (851793)

      How many dangerous explosive components or poisons could you DRINK without experiencing immediate side effects? Couldn't that be the 'test' for the liquid in a cup, bottle or thermos?

      Synthesizing nitric esters requires concentrated acids. Drinking bleach and ammonia would be painful as hell and the odor emanating from an open container would be easily recognized. If you had a high tolerance for pain, I guess you could probably chug down a concentrated solution of potassium chlorate, then dump it on the f

    • by sacremon (244448)

      It is my training as a toxicologist coming out here, but the term "non-toxic" is nonsense. There is no such thing as non-toxic. Be exposed to enough of anything, including water and oxygen, and it is toxic, even fatally so. The question is "how much is safe". The assumption here is whatever they are using, the amount being used is within the expected maximum tolerable dose for humans. I would start to worry if they are doing this to bottles of baby formula, as what is tolerable for a 60kg adult might n

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:26PM (#41243139)

    I was an American teenager in the 1970s. Back then, people made fun of the Soviet Union. One of the most popular jokes referred to a Soviet citizen's internal passport, which apparently they were supposed to carry even when going from city to city. And of course there were all the stories about the KGB.

    Fast forward to now. The TSA is becoming more and more intrusive into all aspects of our lives. They are even trying to worm their way into searching you on city buses and trains. Also Congress has, on more than one occasion, entertained proposals that would require US citizens to carry what amounts to an internal passport.

    Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall... and we thought we won the Cold War. But I guess Breshnev and company are having the last laugh.

    • by Cyberax (705495) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:37PM (#41243233)
      The joke is, in the USSR you didn't have to carry internal passport (which is just a form of country-wide standardized ID) anywhere. You could fly on airplanes or ride trains without showing ANY form of ID.
    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:39PM (#41243251)

      I was an American teenager in the 1970s. Back then, people made fun of the Soviet Union. One of the most popular jokes referred to a Soviet citizen's internal passport, which apparently they were supposed to carry even when going from city to city. And of course there were all the stories about the KGB.

      The most popular joke is our Pledge of Allegiance, which until the red scare, did not include the words "under god". Communists were portrayed as being godless heathens, and thus atheists and agnostics were frequently profiled (to use the modern vernacular) by police and the authorities. Of course, sixty years later, revisionist history has all but forgotten it. This country has a long and inglorious history of sacrificing its citizens on the altar of public opinion whenever an external threat was perceived. "I hold in my hand a list of 80 names of communist party members in the democratic caucus" is laughed at as an example of how 'backwards' people in the 50s and 60s were, even as we nod our heads agreeably to watchlists containing tens of thousands of names of suspected terrorists.

      Change the names and places, and people forget it's the same dance.

  • by nickovs (115935) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:26PM (#41243143)

    If you are going to check something at a checkpoint then it makes sense to stochastically sample with secondary checks to test your error rate. Apparently the TSA believe that there is a reason to limit the liquids through airport checkpoints and screen those liquids that they do allow through. Irrespective of if this is itself a rational position, if you believe that it is then it is also rational to check randomly sample liquids after the checkpoint.

    • by wvmarle (1070040) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:03AM (#41243413)

      If you are going to check something at a checkpoint then it makes sense to stochastically sample with secondary checks to test your error rate.

      This may be true in general, but not for this situation. Checking your error rate with such random checks works only if the number of items making it through is big enough. If nothing comes through, or what makes it through is only a very small percentage of the total, you have a big chance to miss that one offending item when you do your random checking.

      Here we're talking about chances literally in the order of one in a billion, if not one in ten billion. The chance that someone brings a bottle of explosive liquids to an airport checkpoint is simply that small - actually afaik no-one ever really tried to bring explosive liquids through an airport checkpoint.

      So the chance that someone will bring such an item to your airport is extremely small. So basically on normal days, as in well any day actually, there is nothing to detect. Your "non-toxic test liquid" may as well be plain water as the test is going to be negative anyway. It's total and utter nonsense. Testing liquids people have bought in the restricted area, and that they are drinking at the same time, makes even less sense. It's hard to imagine that an explosive liquid would make for a good drink.

  • Random swabbing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:30PM (#41243175)

    The real reason for this is to make you, the idiot public, feel safe by having some random person in a uniform approach you and proceed to do something vaguely scientific-looking while assuring you that you're very safe here. See, you're safe because we're doing this thing of dubious value, but we're dressed in uniforms that command authority.

    If you want to see this first hand, dress up in a suit, wear an official-looking nametag (it needs to have a BIG official-looking gold seal on it) covered in laminate, and then walk around a commercial building telling people what to do. Tell them men's room is closed and everyone has to use the women's (or vice versa). Stand in front of an elevator and tell people it's out of order (even as people exit from right behind you). Now, take it to Troll Level 99 by getting a couple of your friends involved in it: Come up with something completely outrageous (claim you're an USDA food inspector and need to look at anyone carrying a sandwich while in front of a cafe), and make sure your friends agree to do whatever you're doing. Then demand the same of other random people. Take a bite out of their sandwich and then tell them it's "acceptable" and let them go. You can have one of your friends object, at which point you eat the entire sandwich and treaten to write them a citation for interfering in official inspector business.

    You'd be surprised just how far you can take it. I mean, you can basically rob someone of everything they own, and as long as other people are complicit to allow it, they'll just fold in like a deck of cards. No. I really mean it. But don't do it since it's unethical. But they do, they really do. :(

    • Re:Random swabbing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Larryish (1215510) <larryishNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:14AM (#41243493)

      To the tune of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A.":

      I was born in America,
      Where I'm often told I'm free.
      And I voted for the pice of shit,
      Who told that lie to me.
      And I'll prick my finger,
      Next to you,
      At the all-you-can-eat buffet.
      I can't afford to move abroad;
      Trapped in the U.S.A.

    • Re:Random swabbing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:36AM (#41243617)

      >>>If you want to see this first hand, dress up in a suit, wear an official-looking nametag (it needs to have a BIG official-looking gold seal on it) covered in laminate

      I saw this on a plane recently. As I was getting off I put on my workbadge, since I knew I was going directly to my job. When I said "excuse me" people looked at my badge and said, "Oh certainly sir" or "yes sir" and let me get past them in the aisle. My seat was close to the rear, but by using this technique I ended-up as one of the first persons off the plane.

      That wasn't part of my original plan, but just happened to work out.

  • by hawguy (1600213) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:31PM (#41243187)

    How do you know it's a TSA agent dripping a strange liquid into your drink and not a crazy guy dripping a slow acting poison or virus that won't be noticed until hours later after hundreds of people come down with a strange affliction all across the country?

    Even if you demand to see ID first (is the TSA agent obligated to show ID upon request?), how many people know what a TSA badge is really supposed to look like?

    • by Altus (1034)

      LSD might be fun, plane full of dosed travelers!

  • by MacAndrew (463832) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:36PM (#41243219) Homepage

    I've had a sneaking suspicion that the TSA is a stealth jobs program for the otherwise unemployable. It's not so much the intrusive searches and so on as the STUPIDITY of their measures (how are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?). As a game I stand in line at the checkpoints daydreaming about all the ways I could sneak things through—ideas that I won't share because it appears that terrorists are generally, thank goodness, even dumber than the gatekeepers. Many critics have already dissected their policies, e.g., http://www.schneier.com/ [schneier.com] It's just too easy.

    Terrorism is a very serious problem that can get people killed. So is the TSA.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Just wondering. Not that I can vote in your country or so, but I hear a lot about it in the news and so about your upcoming presidential elections. This Mitt Romney, hasn't he promised to create something like 12 million jobs or so? I don't recall the exact number but it was pretty much the same as the number of registered unemployed in the US. Quite impressive a promise. I always wondered how he's going to create those jobs. Just nicely asking companies to hire more people usually doesn't work very well.

      No

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:18AM (#41243523)

      I've had a sneaking suspicion that the TSA is a stealth jobs program for the otherwise unemployable.

      You assume incorrectly. The marginally employable in this country are those who are any/all of the following: under the age of 25, over the age of 65, overweight, physically disabled, have a criminal record (this one overshadows all the rest combined except age), lack a degree/diploma of any kind, or do not speak english fluently. The TSA's hiring criterion specifically disqualify most of the people in the former categories; You can't have a criminal record, you need to be physically fit enough to stand on your feet for an 8 hour shift, and you need to speak english fluently. I believe they also required a high school diploma or GED -- and unlike most other employers, they will check.

      It's not so much the intrusive searches and so on as the STUPIDITY of their measures (how are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?).

      You assume that the reason for the intrusive searches and 'stupid' measures are to improve security. They aren't. They're there to make the passengers feel safe. All of these searches and measures are highly visible (there are no privacy shields for most of their activities -- they prefer it be in public view), obvious, and very visually-orientated. It is quite literally theatre. The phrase "security theatre" describes what they're doing perfectly; they are actors on a stage, and you are the audience. The polls have consistently shown people support these procedures; It has broad public support. Articles like this are a tempest in a teapot; the general public simply doesn't care about those things. They may agree with everything the article states, but they'll quite happily keep right on doing it because it makes them feel safer.

      And that, my friend, is all the TSA offers: A feeling of security.

      • you can swap religion for TSA, in your post, and a lot of it maps just as well.

        people want security that makes them FEEL good. TSA gives them warm fuzzies and so does religion.

        surprisingly, give people that and they'll be mostly compliant. alternate word: controlled and kept in their place.

        if more people only knew how they were being played. its so sad to see what those in control are doing to us all. and that most of us can't or won't see it.

        security theater or promise of 'heaven'. both are there to k

  • So they go around sticking test strips and liquid in peoples drinks. Sure it's perfectly safe we told you so. Has the FDA even approved it or is it super secret we cant let them know it does not work.

  • Human Intelligence? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:42PM (#41243295)

    I read a comment on one of the other sites carrying this story that the test itself was of minor interest to the TSA - instead the goal is to talk to more passengers in order to gain "human intelligence." To these cynical ears, that sounds like exactly the kind of half-baked plan the TSA would come up with. Somebody thought it would be a clever way for their "behaviour profilers" to have an excuse to "profile" people without obviously creeping them out.

    My personal experience is that I've flown once in the last 8 years, and the one time I did fly one of those TSA guys tried to talk me up while I was in line. It was uber-creepy - I spent the next hour trying to figure out if the guy was just naturally creepy or if he been trying "profile" me. Either way I did my best to say as little as possible to the guy and just get on past the checkpoint as quickly as possible. Talking up someone while you both wait a minute or two for the "test strip" to change color is probably going to be less obviously creepy. Still assinine and utterly ineffective, but less creepy.

  • by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @11:48PM (#41243333) Journal

    I really hate to defend the TSA but there is a legitimate infiltration vector that this does address - that employees beyond the checkpoint can being in substances and transfer them to passengers.

    Now, I do not defend their approach - that the passengers are the ones that get interfered with. The TSA should be working behind the scenes so that dangerous materials never get brought in by employees. Someone could slip some C4 onto a palette which gets passed along to the cashier then to the traveler. Then at another store picks up the detonator, then assembles it all on the plane.

    I have no idea what security there is on getting stuff into airports, I figure it's got to be nearly impossible to adequately screen everything. .

    And another thing is that you wouldn't put C4 into coffee, you'd put it on the bottom of the cup in that little area created by the seam. Of course, a coffee cup is the last place. You could just cram it in a hollowed out book. You'd fit way more.

    So the other give away here is that they are after a liquid threat, and we already know there are no liquid threats capable of being produced in mid-air, or on the ground without raising a lot of suspicion. It'd have to be pre-packaged.

    Someone somewhere must have gotten some intel about this vector.

    • Darn, I was with you all the way until we got to your last assumption:

      Someone somewhere must have gotten some intel about this vector.

      Intel? At the TSA? Not going to happen (aka "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here").

    • by zill (1690130)
      Why would the terrorists go through all that trouble? Just book first class and use the complimentary metal knifes. The 9/11 guys didn't need any fancy schmancy liquid explosives; all they used was just knifes.
    • by chrismcb (983081)

      I really hate to defend the TSA but there is a legitimate infiltration vector that this does address - that employees beyond the checkpoint can being in substances and transfer them to passengers

      If an employee is going to bring in explosives disguised as a bottle of water, the person who will explode the device won't be walking around the terminal drinking from said bottle of water. They will stick the bottle in their carryon and move on.
      The TSA does NOTHING to stopping anyone but a layperson.

  • by TClevenger (252206) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:07AM (#41243445)
    At Ontario airport over a year ago. We were lined up ready to board, and two fossils with a cart came up to us and then waited for the line to actually start to board the plane to start pulling people out to screen them. They used some kind of test strip and held it over my open bottle of water (I had drunk half of it while they watched), stuck it in a machine, and then a few seconds later, moved on to the next guy.

    They didn't bother to check my backpack, where I had two other bottles of water I had bought from the same shop.
    • Terrorists would obviously have their explosives on display, and would sip from them. Same with knives, which us why a couple of friends have repeatedly made it through screening with knives in their carry-on. Real terrorists would carry knives prominently.

  • by ZenDragon (1205104) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:52AM (#41243717)
    I would say, "hell no you're not putting that shit in my drink!" and chug it really quick!
  • Can we sue the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chrismcb (983081) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @12:58AM (#41243759) Homepage
    Can we sue the TSA for putting us in harms way? I am sick and tired of them making me stand in line, next to a barrel full of suspected explosives.
  • by net_oholic (222829) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @01:04AM (#41243805)

    Someday, people will come to realize that there was one single change after 9/11 that effectively eliminated the possibility that hijackers could use our planes to fly into targets - they put locks on the cockpit doors.

    Everything else is a charade. The TSA was created and is funded specifically to allow politicians to brag that they "created jobs", even if those jobs are completely worthless and nothing more than "security theater". It's a federal work program, nothing more. You might as well named it the "Ditch Digging Administration" and put the same low income, low skill workers in fields digging ditches and filling them back in. At least that would have some tangible benefit and stop causing so many people the nuisance.

    In fact, the privacy invasions, delays, and "no fly lists" put in place by the TSA have caused significantly more deaths than happends on 9/11 - because people avoid the airports more and drive... getting into highway accidents.

  • Seriously.

    If they are going to spot check the liquids, just do it before I purchase said liquid. That's kind of a nice deal, given it actually has some impact on my safety. Random checks after the purchase has a really shitty end game:

    1. Liquid found to be benign: "Sorry for bothering you, and trust us the chemicals used for testing are no big deal." Right. Feeling good about that one. NOT!
    2. Liquid found to be dubious: "I'm afraid we need to conficate your coffee miss..." She asks, "Well, what about that guy over there, who got one too?" Yeah, that's ugly. Do they go and get his to put up a brave face, eventually just taking all the coffee? Or is it just a lie, or menacing behavior to get her to just shut down? And if she asks, "But you guys certified them for sale inside the terminal right?" Their reply? LOL!!!
    3. Liquid found to be dangerous: See dubious, but for a lawsuit. +1 for pain and suffering on all sides. Might as well just start handing out good drugs to prevent the headaches that are going to happen. Here in Oregon, somebody might just strip over it! State law permits nudity as a legit protest. Hello 10 O'Clock news!

    There are times when I seriously wonder whether or not anyone actually thinks about these things on more than a basic level.

    Of course, the vendors would throw a fit! They need to make the money, so fuck us, right? Right.

  • by ufpdom (556704) <ncc1701p@hotmDEGASail.com minus painter> on Thursday September 06, 2012 @03:43AM (#41244687) Homepage
    I travel back and forth from Japan pretty regularly. They have a special machine that they take the drink pop it in a holder and within seconds throws the green light or the 'Abunai' Red alert signal. Its been there for years. Kinda cool that I can buy my tea from outside the security zone and bring it right now.
    Swabbing? LOL..
  • by mr100percent (57156) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @04:01AM (#41244777) Homepage Journal

    So they're admitting the security theater at the checkpoint is ineffective? And more theater is needed?

  • by linuxwrangler (582055) on Thursday September 06, 2012 @09:54AM (#41247185)

    Well, that's one way to build up a DNA database. Didn't the spooks recruit a doctor to get Bin Laden DNA under the guise of vaccinations?

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...