Insane new TSA rule for film inspection

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Matt Clara wrote:

Two summers ago I flew to Ireland. At Chicago O'hare I asked for a hand
inspection, and they did as you said, swabbing every single canister
down.
And this guy was slow. And my wife was peckish. Shortly thereafter, I
was
"pecked".

Has your hen gotten over the 17-35 yet?


Actually, yes, as I managed to pay off $700 of the $1000 in sale of
equipment within a month of my purchase.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Subject: Insane new TSA rule for film inspection
From: (Stephen H. Westin)
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 12:11 PM
Message-id:

(Bill Hilton) writes:

From:

snip

Anybody with a brain can tell it's film.

Anybody with a brain could also figure out how to open the
cannisters and put explosives in them too ... that's why they swab.

And anyone with such a brain would put the resulting device
through the X-ray machine rather than singling himself out
for attention by asking for a hand search.

Why would asking for a hand search flag you for more intensive
examination? Examination that can be avoided just by putting your bag
on the belt?

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.


Anyone with a brain will stand up for their rights and request a hand searhc if
they have half a brain and don't want their film X-rayed as is their right to
request (hand inspection) regardless of any extra
dificulties/encumberances/twist on the hand inspection of film rules.

FAA regulations allow for hand inspection if requested, its your right and
their rules as an American.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Sander Vesik writes:

snip

All legit manufacturers of C4 (and other plastic explosives) include
by agreements special compounds in the explosives to make them
identifyable by sniffer dogs, etc. If that was not the case, swabbing
the film canisters would be very pointless.

Right. So why not swab those that go through X-ray?

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Subject: Insane new TSA rule for film inspection
From: TP
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 10:31 AM
Message-id:

(Sabineellen) wrote:

Funny how the US officials in this harrowing account sound like so
many of the Americans on this newsgroup - ignorant, aggressive and
innately hostil

TP your are you from? your style of humor feels australian or south african.



You can feel where you like (!), but I'm from Europe.

But I think you will find most people in the world have similar views
of Americans.


General impressions aside, I have found that nationalism matters little, take
everyone on an individual basis, you are just as likely to find jerks in
America as in Europe/the rest of the world regardless of nationality. Assholes
and decent people know no boundaries, just different accents ;-).

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

From:

8. Bill Hilton wrote to Lionel:

Just how burdensome is it to wait an extra five minutes while they check
your
film by hand? Big deal.

Five minutes? Bill, if it was only five minutes you never would have
seen a post from me. It was 20 minutes at Sea-Tac and nearly half an
hour at Midway.

Next time unpack all the film ahead of time, including taking it out of the
cannisters, and put it in large clear baggies. They'll appreciate it and
things will go much faster. Last time I flew with large quanties of film
(which will indeed be the LAST time now that I have a 1Ds digital it took
about five minutes for them to swab 300 rolls.

6. I don't ever recall hearing about explosives disguised in film.

I don't ever recall terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into
skyscrapers either ... until 9/11.

You can get a lot of explosives in 100 film cannisters if you open them and
pull out the film first, a lot more than Richard Reid had in his sneaker soles.
How many times would they have to do it before you figure it's worth a few
minutes inconvenience to you to have your film checked?

9. I've received off-list e-mail from other photogs whose experiences
mirror mine. They're not happy, either. They're equally powerless to
do anything about it.

None of us who travel with film are "happy" about it, but that's the way it is
right now due to security concerns. Ship the film ahead (I know the downsides,
especially for remote areas) or use slow film and toss it on the xray belt or
hand them your baggies ... those seem to be the choices for film right now.

Bill

Next trip, use your computer to find a camera store in
Chicago....there has to be a few in a city that size.


And, surprise, the camera store will probably have film for sale.


Loads of time saved over the mental midgets fun-and-grin parade at the
airport.
= = =
wrote in message . ..
Well, here ya go, people -- our tax dollars at work.

Last week I flew to Chicago from Seattle to photograph the Chicago
Blues Festival.
SNIP

Lionel wrote in
:

Kibo informs me that ospam (Lewis Lang)
stated that:

[...]
If the events are in or near major cities you could buy
film there and/or how about shooting 400 speed (and slower)
film (could your lenses apertures/technique handle the 1
stop drop in speed?) which might be less sensitive to get
by with no fogging after a couple of passes through
inspections lower dosed x-ray unit (forget about cargo's
hand checked luggage as they are supposed to have much more
massive doses of x-rays there).

Do a test to see how much if any the x-ray passes affect
your 800 spee film (or 400 speed film if you switch over to
that). Why not _let_ a roll or five of your 800 speed film
go through the X-ray machine (place them in strategic
places in your bag and mark them "C" (Center of bag between
clothes, gear,
[Huge, enormous snip]
to spare you from going over to "digimania" ;-).

Maybe there are even more way(s) around this Orwellian
problem without having to go digital or FedEx...

Jesus. I think I'll avoid the USA until all this insanity
goes away.

Anybody else?

Wouldn't it be easier to either go digital, or just delay
any air-travel until monkey-boy's been voted out of office?



Voting Bush out won't help. I'll bet dollars to donuts that
TSA under Kerry would be just as bad. Once bureaucrats like
these have power, they won't give it up and most of the media
will support their pleas about "keeping the traveling public
safe."

The real problem started years ago when we changed the title
of officers from "peace officers" to "law enforcement
officers." A "peace officer" might have felt that they had
some discretion about what to do. A "law enforcement
officer" has a different mind-set. That title says that they
have to do everything, even crap, by the numbers.

in message ,
wrote Lionel ...

(6) Pressed into a flat plate that could be stuck behind the LCD
panel on a laptop. This method would have the bonus that you could
even wire in a detonator & set it off under software control.

....just after you are asked to show that your computer is indeed a
computer.


- parv

--
As nice it is to receive personal mail, too much sweetness causes
tooth decay. Unless you have burning desire to contact me, do not do
away w/ WhereElse in the address for private communication.

Bill Hilton writes:

None of us who travel with film are "happy" about it, but that's the way it is
right now due to security concerns.

Right now? Over the history of commercial aviation, which "security
measures" have been put in place ... and have then been removed later
on?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

4. Write my Congressman? Amazingly, my particular Congressman is one
of the few who've consistently resisted the lunacy. He's pretty much
outnumbered by about 400 votes. (P.S. to Dieter: I've written
President Bush many times, all of which I'm sure are now included in
my FBI file.)

JJ,

While you're bitter and cynical about results not obtained by writing the
President, let me share a "fer-instance."

In the early 1990s, my (now deceased) father had successfully been hired by the
State of New Jersey to work in the computer-records department of a state
psychiatric hospital. Everything was "go," but one signature prevented my dad
from officially working, and the person responsible for that signature was
dragging his feet. As you can imagine, Dad was a bit bummed out by this.

My mother and I suggested Dad write then-Governor James Florio for resolution.
At first he was reluctant, saying he didn't want to "bother" the governor, but
he eventually agreed when we said that, by definition, Florio represented him.

We helped him compose the letter. In it, Dad cited that one, the job exists,
and two, it needed to be filled. However, the one obstacle in his was was a key
signature that would allow him to report. A few weeks later, we received a blue
postcard from the Governor's office thanking fhim for taking the time to write,
and, IIRC, that the matter would be investigated.

A little while later, Dad called the man who would be his boss once he was
hired, to find out how things were going. "You wrote the Governor, didn't you?"
was the gist of this man's question to Dad. It seems Dad's letter had gotten
the attention it deserved, and was passed down the hierarchy to the topmost
person at each level with a mandate to "deal with this." Dad went to work in
late November 1993 and retired from the State in May 2000. That gambit worked.

There's an underlying message here. To the President, or your representation in
Congress, a sole letter may not have much impact when seen by itself, but what
if you start multiplying it by, say, 10,000? That kind of volume -- and I'm not
talking about form letters -- is hard to ignore, and will effectively serve to
give those in charge a wake-up call. It's definitely worth thinking about.

Dieter Zakas