Slashdot Mirror

For those of you not familiar, knitting needles are often up to seven (or more) inches long; they can be made of wood, plastic, or metal. A sturdy needle can also slide nicely into soft tissue without any major difficulties assuming the wielder is strong enough.

But hey, at least it's not like they let the REAL deadly things on board. Like factory-sealed bottles of soda, and similar threats.

Any American LEO can carry his service weapon on a flight if he's willing to take the TSA course and his agency approves of him carrying on the aircraft.

So what's this "or dangerous" bit? Ammunition? Websites promoting cults? Websites attacking cults? Websites selling material that promotes anything that senators don't like, like free thought, opposing political positions, naked bodies that they can't grope for themselves?

This ain't about piracy, people.

You're right. The whole thing is security theatre at its finest. That's been true for years. Does anybody really think that an old ladies sewing needles are a threat to the airplane?

No. Not even the TSA (as of this posting) thinks knitting needles are a threat. From http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/05/tsa-urban-legends-nail-clippers.html:

Knitting needles, carried by grandma, Mrs. Claus or Jeremy down the street are permitted. Plastic, metal, clay, titanium... Whatever... Permitted.

Kids, on the other hand, (and their subversive teddy bears) are a definate threat.

You're right. The whole thing is security theatre at its finest. That's been true for years. Does anybody really think that an old ladies sewing needles are a threat to the airplane?

No. Not even the TSA (as of this posting) thinks knitting needles are a threat. From http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/05/tsa-urban-legends-nail-clippers.html:

Knitting needles, carried by grandma, Mrs. Claus or Jeremy down the street are permitted. Plastic, metal, clay, titanium... Whatever... Permitted.

Kids, on the other hand, (and their subversive teddy bears) are a definate threat.

If everyone on the plane had an 18" combat knife, I think I would feel much safer in general.

News at 11, a man successfully smuggled explosives onto flight Q and was stopped from detonating the device when his seatmate rammed a knife through him. This sounds like a good reason to change security policy to me. After all, they are letting metal pointy scissors and screwdrivers on board, so why not "sharps"?

You're right. The whole thing is security theatre at its finest. That's been true for years. Does anybody really think that an old ladies sewing needles are a threat to the airplane?

Funny thing about that example: Knitting needles are explicitly allowed. 'course, who knows that's what the TSA agents are doing on the ground. Luckily, I have a set of modular circular needles made of plastic. Pop the ends off, and in an x-ray, they look like a set of pens. *shrug* OTOH, the cable would make a rather handy garrote...

http://www.ustravel.org/about-us-travel/contact-us
http://www.tsa.gov/contact/index.shtm

Write politely and literately. Don't rant, and explain your position as briefly as you can. But let them know that you are no longer travelling by air as long as this security theatre is in place.

You can also write to your representatives with the same message, but I cannot give you that contact info.

(I know I'm an AC, but I hope someone mods this up, and people take the advice to heart)

for example, the requirement to notify the government 72 hours in advance when you travel domestically

Keep in mind though that his only applies to airlines. There is no government intrusion for people packing up their own private vehicle and driving across the country (almost none anyway).

That's fine and good until you drive within 100 miles of any national border and border agents detain you while they search your car with drug sniffing dogs. The supreme court has already ruled that this infringes upon our rights, but nobody is stopping them from continuing their oppressive checkpoints. Checkpoints. In the United States. Not near any actual border. Think about that. I fear we'll just continue the slide down the slippery slope until we have no personal rights or freedoms left.

Much of the recent Security Theatre, for example, the requirement to notify the government 72 hours in advance when you travel domestically in the USA now being phased in as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was, of course, passed by a Republican Congress.

You can still buy a ticket less than 72 hours before the flight and fly anywhere. From the link you provide in you post:

"Will passengers still be able to book a ticket within 72 hours of a flight? Yes. TSA’s Secure Flight program can conduct watch list matching for passengers up until the time of the flight. Passengers will be prompted to provide Secure Flight information when booking travel. For reservations booked on short notice, or within 72 hours of the scheduled flight departure time, airlines must submit the required passenger information as soon as the reservation is made."

The passenger has no duty to notify anyone, anytime. It's all on the airlines.

Then you're not paying attention.

TSA list of where they are:
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm

Includes almost every airport you listed.

for example, the requirement to notify the government 72 hours in advance when you travel domestically

Keep in mind though that his only applies to airlines. There is no government intrusion for people packing up their own private vehicle and driving across the country (almost none anyway).

I don't support the intrusion on privacy in general, but I also acknowledge that when electing to use nationally critical infrastructure for travel I must submit to some kind of vetting before I'm allowed on it. The current state of security theater has gone too far, but I don't think we can ever rightfully expect to completely eliminate security screening.

Much of the recent Security Theatre, for example, the requirement to notify the government 72 hours in advance when you travel domestically in the USA now being phased in as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was, of course, passed by a Republican Congress. But I agree with you in spirit, that I expected more from him in this regard.

Oh please, the US is the country that forces its security theater on the flights of foreign nations that land in the US. It's not the other countries who want to force their security requirements on us. I think it's a reasonable expectation to place on these flights that they have the same security as domestically originating flights, though I happen to think that the security for a domestic flights is largely a farce.

In a tit-for-tat move, Brazil now fingerprints visiting US citizens (only US citizens mind you) because this is what the US does to visiting Brazilians.

The US is one of the most paranoid countries in the world when it comes to flight security, though not all of the security measures increase security in a meaningful way.

It's really not that difficult. They screen for a fairly select set of obvious disqualifying crimes on your record. They don't care about the Minor In Possession you picked up in college or your Driving Under the Influence convictions, and even that Breaking And Entering you got nailed for 10 years ago and did two years in lockup wouldn't disqualify you. The random drug testing might make it more difficult to keep the positions filled, but it doesn't seem to be posing the TSA with any problems. If it did, they'd relax the requirements.

The article you link is only a handbook any only covers narcotics.

No, I linked to 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 121, which are the operating regulations that govern general aviation and scheduled airlines, respectively.

Cargo is covered by a different set of TSA and FAA rules.

For air taxi aircraft (part 135 operations) and scheduled commercial aircraft (part 121 operations), that may be the case, but I have yet to see such a regulation for general aviation. I'll admit that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but in 18 years of flight training and flight instruction given (I'm a flight instructor), I have never run across it.

Oh and it's a private site the official FAA site says the same thing, but is well, official.

If it says the same thing, what difference does it make? I linked to that site because I didn't have a lot of time to search, and that site was easier to find than the official regs on the faa.gov web site. Just about every pilot in the country flies with a copy of the regs that are from commercial vendors (like Jeppesen or ASA), rather than "official" documents that came from the Government Printing Office. For that matter, I'd wager that most professional pilots fly with charts and instrument approach plates from a commercial vendor rather than the government published ones.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32022.pdf has a half decent, if somewhat long (and admittedly largely unnecessary discussion) about how cargo is to be carried. Radioactive and hazardous goods, and goods in general need a TSO number from the FAA.

I will confess, I was unaware of that document. I'll check it out, and thanks for the link.

The TSA has a (very long and nearly impossible to read) breakdown of their rules http://www.tsa.gov/research/laws/regs/editorial_1786.shtm.

Yes, but you specifically said "...the FAA might have something to say about it.", so I specifically addressed the FAA's regulations. In truth, what you carry into a secure zone at an airport is more a TSA issue than an FAA issue, which, in a round-about way, was more or less my point.

Going back to february they were looking to extend existing rules to basically block all sorts of stuff from private use the way commercial use planes are. They have backed off much of that plan...

Yeah, they've basically been in a power grab since their inception. Don't get me up on my soap box. AOPA and other pilot groups (successfully, so far) have lobbied against the less reasonable and more onerous of their power grabs.

...but you don't extend rules that don't exist.

Since when was the U.S. government constrained by logic? I think you are giving TSA *waaaaay* too much credit (but then again, I'm a cynical old curmudgeon).

Being neither an american nor a private plane owner I feel no compelling reason to try and hunt down hand weapons in their documentation, but if they don't like it, they have rules about it. That's what government is for I suppose.

Being neither American nor a private plane owner, then no, it probably has little relevance to you. I suppose I could have just posted, "[citation needed]" after you claimed that the FAA might have something to say about what you can carry in your own, private airplane because in my experience, the FAA actually says very little about that.

It works pretty simple. You pack a firearm in your hard-sided suitcase, you lock it with a secure lock, you take it to the baggage check counter, you declare the firearm, and they don’t open it. If they need to open it for any reason at all, they must either get your permission or (failing to contact you) refuse to load it onto a plane. Otherwise, they cannot open it (and it would, I think, be a pretty severe crime for them to do so).

Note that I have never tried it, but if I had to pack valuables in my luggage I’d certainly consider it.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm

* You must declare all firearms to the airline during the ticket counter check-in process.
* The firearm must be unloaded.
* The firearm must be in a hard-sided container.
* The container must be locked. A locked container is defined as one that completely secures the firearm from access by anyone other than you. Cases that can be pulled open with little effort do not meet this criterion. The pictures provided here illustrate the difference between a properly packaged and an improperly packaged firearm.
* We recommend that you provide the key or combination to the security officer if he or she needs to open the container. You should remain in the area designated by the aircraft operator or TSA representative to take the key back after the container is cleared for transportation. If you are not present and the security officer must open the container, we or the airline will make a reasonable attempt to contact you. If we can't contact you, the container will not be placed on the plane. Federal regulations prohibit unlocked gun cases (or cases with broken locks) on aircraft.
* You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
* You can't use firearm magazines/clips for packing ammunition unless they completely and securely enclose the ammunition (e.g., by securely covering the exposed portions of the magazine or by securely placing the magazine in a pouch, holder, holster or lanyard).
* You may carry the ammunition in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as you pack it as described above.
* You can't bring black powder or percussion caps used with black-powder type firearms in either your carry-on or checked baggage.

It also recommends contacting the airline to make sure you’re aware of any additional restrictions they have, and if traveling internationally making sure that the local authorities are okay with it.

The TSA knew this was going to happen, which is why they already have procedures for screening monkeys at airports!

Catch it tonight with on-demand video from your cable company or streaming from Netflix! ("In Soviet Russia, you watched TV!")

NO! The TSA should NOT be given the key to keep. The TSA's own guidelines specify this: "You should remain present during screening to take the key back after the container is cleared."

Do not give advice about subjects you don't know anything about.

• You can legally have the firearm at both your origin and your destination
• It is unloaded
• The firearm is in a locked hard container and checked in

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm

Be aware that each airline has its own policies. This is the best guide I know of for this subject. You should of course be familiar with the baseline federal standard.

Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.

According to what I could find they recommend Halon extinguishers are effective, followed by cooling of the battery.

Relevant links I found are:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09013.pdf

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/batteries.shtm

five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.

Really? We've had, what, like one terrorist attack - the fort hood guy - since then that killed anyone. Ok, I guess the DC sniper counts too.

If anything, we are reeling from too much action - the tens of billions of dollars of wasted productivity every year just because of the pointless hassle at the airports. How many people have died indirectly because of that? What life-saving drugs have been slowed coming to market by 6 months or a year? What charitable contributions to food banks and medical procedures have dried up because the money went to dealing with the inefficiencies created by the TSA?

I'm confident in saying we've killed more people indirectly with our counter-terrorism programs than we have saved. After all, the TSA makes a press release every time they bust a guy with a lot of drugs or water bottle and a taped-up battery pack, but they have never once issued a press release stating that they've stopped an actual terrorist attack on a plane. And when they are actually tested - they miss the bomb 90% of of the time. And just look at the idiots they actually convict of plotting terrorist attacks - like the guys who thought they could blow up JFK by igniting a gas pipeline. The guys they "catch" are so hopeless they were no threat to begin with.

The image you link appears to be a passive IR with fairly low resolution. However, I was under the impression that these sensors were acrive (i.e. they emit mm waves and detect the backscatter) and had much higher resolution than the image you show (cf. new report linked from a TSA page on the topic).

Obviously the latter raises a much more blatant privacy concern (it's basically a strip search without removing your clothes). So...is the TSA mostly going for the former tech, the latter, both, a random mix or what?

Handing over information regarding a passenger's name, gender and birth-date may violate Canadian privacy laws

What's worse is that the TSA can't even get any of those three facts right in many cases.

Last Name: "Alphabetic, no numeric or special characters, except dash ( - ) and single quote ( ' ). Do not include suffixes (e.g., jr.). Truncate names longer than 35 characters to 35 characters".
First Name: "Secure Flight allows first initial only;" otherwise, same as last name. Honorifics are not to be placed in the name.
Middle Name: same as first name.

So if any of your three names doesn't perfectly fit this convention, you will be hit with a $100 Change fee, including if you don't have a middle name. This is particularily problematic for asian, greek, or many other nationalities whose names include special characters or when translated to english result in a name longer than 35 characters.

Gender: Once again, the TSA fails to account for any manner of diversity in the human population. Anyone who doesn't conform to the gender stereotype fixed to your official documents will be subject to additional (unwanted) attention. I wonder if they'll be offering sensitivity training for the crossdressers, transgendered, butch lesbians, and intersexed amongst us. And god help you if the Driver's Bureau screws up, or you live in a state that won't alter birth records after surgery, or one of a dozen other very real problems.

Birthdate: Did you know a lot of people who immigrate to this country don't know when they were born? In fact, in developing countries, it's quite common for people not to know their actual age. People assume a person's date of birth is a fixed thing -- how could you screw that up? And if you live in this country, you don't have to worry about this anyway. Well, remember that until the mid-90s the Social Security Administration wasn't so on about immediately registering newborns -- and did you know some people choose to have their kids at home? Some people don't get a birth certificate until they're five years old because parents just plain forget -- and for a variety of reasons, sometimes they fudge the actual date. Try getting this changed later -- it's fun.

In short, there's no real security being added here. All of it can be defeated quite easily in any event by putting a gun to the head of your wife, kid, or anything else you don't feel like losing. And as we make these security restrictions increasingly ethnocentric, the terrorists will adapt their strategies accordingly, because the payoff is so damn good! They sucked the US economy of trillions of dollars and all they had to do was crash four passenger planes. We offer the best "bang for the buck", literally and figuratively. It doesn't matter if they make it ten thousand times more difficult and expensive to pull another 9/11 job -- it's still an amazingly good deal for the terrorists.

Handing over information regarding a passenger's name, gender and birth-date may violate Canadian privacy laws

What's worse is that the TSA can't even get any of those three facts right in many cases.

Last Name: "Alphabetic, no numeric or special characters, except dash ( - ) and single quote ( ' ). Do not include suffixes (e.g., jr.). Truncate names longer than 35 characters to 35 characters".
First Name: "Secure Flight allows first initial only;" otherwise, same as last name. Honorifics are not to be placed in the name.
Middle Name: same as first name.

So if any of your three names doesn't perfectly fit this convention, you will be hit with a $100 Change fee, including if you don't have a middle name. This is particularily problematic for asian, greek, or many other nationalities whose names include special characters or when translated to english result in a name longer than 35 characters.

Gender: Once again, the TSA fails to account for any manner of diversity in the human population. Anyone who doesn't conform to the gender stereotype fixed to your official documents will be subject to additional (unwanted) attention. I wonder if they'll be offering sensitivity training for the crossdressers, transgendered, butch lesbians, and intersexed amongst us. And god help you if the Driver's Bureau screws up, or you live in a state that won't alter birth records after surgery, or one of a dozen other very real problems.

Birthdate: Did you know a lot of people who immigrate to this country don't know when they were born? In fact, in developing countries, it's quite common for people not to know their actual age. People assume a person's date of birth is a fixed thing -- how could you screw that up? And if you live in this country, you don't have to worry about this anyway. Well, remember that until the mid-90s the Social Security Administration wasn't so on about immediately registering newborns -- and did you know some people choose to have their kids at home? Some people don't get a birth certificate until they're five years old because parents just plain forget -- and for a variety of reasons, sometimes they fudge the actual date. Try getting this changed later -- it's fun.

In short, there's no real security being added here. All of it can be defeated quite easily in any event by putting a gun to the head of your wife, kid, or anything else you don't feel like losing. And as we make these security restrictions increasingly ethnocentric, the terrorists will adapt their strategies accordingly, because the payoff is so damn good! They sucked the US economy of trillions of dollars and all they had to do was crash four passenger planes. We offer the best "bang for the buck", literally and figuratively. It doesn't matter if they make it ten thousand times more difficult and expensive to pull another 9/11 job -- it's still an amazingly good deal for the terrorists.

Handing over information regarding a passenger's name, gender and birth-date may violate Canadian privacy laws

What's worse is that the TSA can't even get any of those three facts right in many cases.

Last Name: "Alphabetic, no numeric or special characters, except dash ( - ) and single quote ( ' ). Do not include suffixes (e.g., jr.). Truncate names longer than 35 characters to 35 characters".
First Name: "Secure Flight allows first initial only;" otherwise, same as last name. Honorifics are not to be placed in the name.
Middle Name: same as first name.

So if any of your three names doesn't perfectly fit this convention, you will be hit with a $100 Change fee, including if you don't have a middle name. This is particularily problematic for asian, greek, or many other nationalities whose names include special characters or when translated to english result in a name longer than 35 characters.

Gender: Once again, the TSA fails to account for any manner of diversity in the human population. Anyone who doesn't conform to the gender stereotype fixed to your official documents will be subject to additional (unwanted) attention. I wonder if they'll be offering sensitivity training for the crossdressers, transgendered, butch lesbians, and intersexed amongst us. And god help you if the Driver's Bureau screws up, or you live in a state that won't alter birth records after surgery, or one of a dozen other very real problems.

Birthdate: Did you know a lot of people who immigrate to this country don't know when they were born? In fact, in developing countries, it's quite common for people not to know their actual age. People assume a person's date of birth is a fixed thing -- how could you screw that up? And if you live in this country, you don't have to worry about this anyway. Well, remember that until the mid-90s the Social Security Administration wasn't so on about immediately registering newborns -- and did you know some people choose to have their kids at home? Some people don't get a birth certificate until they're five years old because parents just plain forget -- and for a variety of reasons, sometimes they fudge the actual date. Try getting this changed later -- it's fun.

In short, there's no real security being added here. All of it can be defeated quite easily in any event by putting a gun to the head of your wife, kid, or anything else you don't feel like losing. And as we make these security restrictions increasingly ethnocentric, the terrorists will adapt their strategies accordingly, because the payoff is so damn good! They sucked the US economy of trillions of dollars and all they had to do was crash four passenger planes. We offer the best "bang for the buck", literally and figuratively. It doesn't matter if they make it ten thousand times more difficult and expensive to pull another 9/11 job -- it's still an amazingly good deal for the terrorists.

That guy needs a lawyer. But looking at the authorities referenced in the "subpoena", there are some real questions. It's an "administrative subpoena", not one issued by a court. Some agencies can do that. (The FBI has been refused that authority by Congress). The Department of Transportation has subpoena authority for its hearings and investigations, and Homeland Security inheirited that authority when TSA was transferred from DOT to DHS. For all administrative subpoenas, the party served can file a motion to quash the subpoena with a District Court, and the court has to rule before anything happens.

But that section (49 USC 46104) refers to a "hearing or investigation", a formal proceeding presided over by a hearing officer. This is just some "special agent", and the subpoena is signed by someone with the title "Senior Counsel - Civil Enforcement". There's a list of people who can sign these things at 49 CFR 1503.303, and a "Senior Counsel" isn't high enough up the food chain to sign off. A Deputy Chief Counsel or the Chief Counsel is supposed to sign. This probably reflects who the TSA had in the office on December 26. A more senior official probably would have considered the political implications of doing something this embarrassing.

This is a touchy area, related to the "National Security Letter" debacle. See this Congressional Research Service analysis. The FBI got in trouble for issuing demands for documents without statutory authority.

The Associated Press reports that the blogger is going to challenge the subpoena in court.

You know, it's pretty pathetic that if you go to the TSA website, either there is nothing on there about their change in policy, or their website is so poorly organized that I can't find anything about it (as of 11:37am eastern on Saturday). Their most recent announcement is from yesterday. It's not like people might be traveling today and need to know these things.

Binary explosives are a bit hard to mix

That's an understatement.

The TSA itself has admitted that it is nearly impossible to pull off:

The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet. You have to have significant uninterrupted time with space and other requirements that are not easily available in a secured area of an airport.

2.04.2008 More on the Liquid Rules: Why We Do the Things We Do

That's right -the TSA has admitted that binary explosives are essentially impossible to pull off, and yet they still insist on on the totally pointless liquid restrictions.

OMG! I saw the same thing once! Only it turned out the prohibited item not allowed in the cabin was actually Megatron.

The article has some serious flaws. It claims that these machines are in use. I dont think the author understands that millimeter wave machines are passive. They are not active. So all the concerns about radiation are unfounded scaremongering. Again, Im asking for studies that show these machines that are in use are dangerous.

Any security focused organization that doesn't listen to its people on the ground is failing at its mission. Not to mention that an inability to provide feedback is a good way to kill moral in an organization.

Well, yes, and I think this is the most apt description I've read so far of the TSA.

They are failing at their mission, which is supposed to be "protecting the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." They are actually restricting the movement of people and commerce, and without increasing the protection of either.

And I can't think of a job with lower morale. People hate you, your job is boring repetition, and it serves no actual purpose. Plus no one higher up cares about the problems or inefficiencies you see day-to-day.

I fly all the time without ever taking off my shoes, specially conceiting all the germs and other nasties you are tracking though of the others around you.

Just say "I have a open foot wound and I am a diabetic".

Even though you do not set off the metal detector, they still have to stop and scan you, wipe your shoes to see if you have bomb traces. They try hard to take your shoes off, but just keep repeating "I have a open foot wound and this is not a medically sterile away. Do you have one?". I had one TSA try to say I could not fly, because I refuse to be scanned without my shoes. I pointed out over and over that I will take off my shoes once the sterilized the area. It was the unsanitary method that they kepted the area that prevented me from removing my shoes. Asked for his manager. Then they remembered there was a method to bypass the requirement.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1371.shtm

Last time I checked (30 seconds ago), you are allowed to bring all of those in the carryon. The TSA's 3-1-1 rule allows you to bring as many 3.4 oz. (100 ml) containers of any liquid (or toothpaste) as you can fit in a single 1 quart clear plastic bag. It's just a pain to limit to those amounts and have the bag separated from your carryon at security.

Here's an article from just last month about the guys that MI5 nailed in 2006. So, no, this isn't just some security wonk dreaming this stuff up. The TSA Blog has some interesting details that were not available to the public until the trial concluded.

More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.

What is the reader supposed to draw from this? Will we see 4x as many in the next 3 years? 1.5 years?

This is a great example of misusing statistics to imply the wrong conclusions. What's the degree of relevance? Or is that left as an exercise for the reader, to guess if we have twice as many people travelling with electronics or if electronics are more dangerous, or what?

We've seen iphones explode and laptop fires, but when you use scary events like that and then add some sort of implication that the rate is increasing, that's bad reporting in my book. It's why concepts that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny (intelligent design, anyone?) can gain such momentum: pick and choose statistics that sound relevant enough to convince, yet mean nothing without further data and degree of relevance.

In case you don't remember, lighters and matches are allowed on planes again. Isn't that a more obvious, more common fire hazard?

No. Most priority lines are first class, business class, or frequent flyers. By the way, this is where the TSA got the family-casual-expert lines idea (which I think is one of the few things they've ever done right).

The second major change implemented by TSA that was likely the death knell for CLEAR is the new identification rule that went into effect on June 15th, and will beginincreased phase-in over the next 6 months. TSA now requires all tickets to be reserved/purchased in the EXACT full name that is on your government issued ID. For example, if your full legal name on your DL/Passport is Jonathan Quincy Public, but you are known by and go by Jon Public & in the past you bought your ticket for 'Jon Public', that is no longer acceptable, your ticket will now need to be issued to 'Jonathan Quincy Public'.

This doesn't appear to actually be true:

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm

Q. If the name printed on my boarding pass is different than what appears on my government ID, will I still be able to fly?

A. Boarding passes may not always display the exact name you provided when booking your travel. The name you provide when booking your travel is used to perform the watch list matching before a boarding pass is ever issued, so small differences should not impact your travel. Secure Flight is a behind-the-scenes process that TSA and airlines collaborate on to compare the information you provide against government watch lists. The additional data elements that you may be asked to provide, such as date of birth and gender, serve to better differentiate you from individuals on the government watch list.

You should ensure that the name provided when booking your travel matches the government ID that you will use when traveling. However, TSA has built some flexibility into the processes regarding passenger name accuracy. For the near future, small differences between the passenger's ID and the passenger's reservation information, such as the use of a middle initial instead of a full middle name or no middle name/initial at all, should not cause a problem for the passenger. Over time, passengers should strive to obtain consistency between the name on their ID and their travel information.

So eventually, maybe, they'll require it be like you said, but for now, it's not that big a deal.

Which is good, because the DMV made a mess of my middle names on my driver license, and I can't imagine any airline employee duplicating it precisely.

How readily available is it? Is there a site that explains how to get moving efficiently through the airport? I don't know if it would help anyone else, but I would like one.

Try the giant graphical link in the middle of http://www.tsa.gov/ that says "Traveling soon? Learn how to get through the line faster."

How's this? It includes both text and videos.

Doesn't Orlando have self-select back diamond lanes? Wouldn't that solve the problem of skipping past the many families that your company was solving using Clear?

Nudie scanners:
        * Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
        * Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
        * Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
        * Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
        * Denver International Airport
        * Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
        * Detroit Metro Airport
        * Indianapolis International Airport
        * Jacksonville International Airport
        * McCarran International Airport
        * Los Angeles International Airport
        * Miami International Airport
        * Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
        * Raleigh-Durham International Airport
        * Richmond International Airport
        * San Francisco International Airport
        * Salt Lake City International Airport
        * Tampa International Airport
        * Tulsa International Airport

Now we have two reasons to avoid Detroit and Atlanta.

In short: Yes, but you need to have a conductor to shield EM radiation efficiently, and that is going to be detected by the Metal detector first. (unless you are using some spy material I've never heard of).

So I went to here to check on some info: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/mwave.shtm

Turns out that power used it much, much less than a dangerous amount. It simply isn't needed. Cell phones are much more tested and emit much more power right next to your skull.

This is because the models they're using right now have their image quality degraded from what the sensors see.

The full-quality versions (which can be accomplished by changing a setting on the device) provide extremely intimate detail. Those images have not been released, only the degraded quality images have been released.

From Wikipedia:

It is "possible for backscatter X-raying to produce photo-quality images of what's going on beneath our clothes", thus, according to the TSA, the images have been distorted with the private parts being blurred (Layton). According to the TSA further distortion is used in the Phoenix airport's trial system where photo-quality images are replaced by chalk outlines

([1][2])

In addition these scans can reveal privileged medical information such as whether the traveler uses a colostomy bag.

The Thai King has very little real power but he yields immense moral authority and is very popular. Thailand is legally a constitutional monarchy but in reality the situation is much more complex. They are supposed to be run by an elected gov't (which is usually a little bit corrupt)

That's an understatement. Anyone familiar with Thailand ATM knows that there is a power struggle between the ousted PM Thaksin Shintarawa who is primarily supported by the numerous lower class Thai's and the currently ruling party supported by the Mid/upper class that came to power after forcing out the last PM due to the fact that he was being paid to host a cooking show (it's illegal in Thailand to accept money from a private institution whilst holding the PM's position). There have been several protests from both sides (one is still happening at Thailand's Government House as I type this) including the occupation of the two Bangkok airports last year by protesters that shut down the airports for 2 weeks.

Both sides claim that they have the Kings support (as AC said the king is politically powerless) and this is just another ploy to try to convince other Thai's that the King is on their side. This has little to do with us Farang (Thai word: non-Asian foreigners) althouhg it will certainly be abused by those in power. SE Asia is full of corrupt nations and Thailand is a fine example.

but that rule is enforced by the military and about every 10-15 years, there is a military coup (often fairly or completely bloodless) that throws out an exceptionally corrupt gov't and reboots.

In some ways, the Thai Gov't kinda reminds me of an unpatched Windows Machine that needs lots of reboots and eventually a disk-wipe to get working again -- but talking about the gov't structure itself doesn't really explain why insulting the King is a big deal.

Thailand has had 19 coups since the monarch gave up absolute power in 1932. That's almost the same number of democratic elections the US has had in the same time period.

That said, I'd rather visit Thailand again anyday than the many countries in the world that are significantly less tolerant.

I'd echo that sentiment, having been there a few times I'd definately prefer to go there as opposed to some more hostile nations.

It's dumber than that. You're actually allowed to bring lighters. You can even buy them at news stands past security.

If you check the list, you'll see that you can carry up to two on, but you can't have them in your checked baggage.

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine?
Hear that? Teacher blew her whistle, recess is over.

FYI, she actually bought them in a store in the airport after she had already checked her bags, and was told by that store that they didn't need to be checked. Nail files are allowed in carry-on, a nail file is much easier to use as a weapon than a butter spreader. It's sharper and longer. There's no reason for someone to think that butter spreaders wouldn't be allowed on a plane when compared to the list of TSA's "permitted items". http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2002/press_release_0104.shtm

Just tell TSA it is cooled by saline solution, which has no limitations. 'Cause, ... uh ... you keep your contact lenses inside your computer.