DHS Plans Changes in Air Passenger Screening

narramissic writes "The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday announced plans to revamp its Secure Flight program, with the agency no longer assigning risk scores to passengers or using predictive behavior technology. In addition, the Transportation Security Administration, part of DHS, will have direct control of checking domestic passenger lists against terrorist watch lists, instead of the airlines, said DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. Just the same Marc Rotenberg, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), notes, air passengers still can't see the reasons why they're targeted for extensive searches or kept off flights, nor can they correct bad information on the terrorist watch lists. 'The problems with the watch list are still valid and are not going away,' said Rotenberg."

Comments

I'm still not understanding that.

[khasim]

The "terrorist watch lists" ...

You're too dangerous to be allowed to fly ... but not dangerous enough to be arrested ... even with the "enhanced" authority of the PATRIOT Act (I & II).

So wouldn't any real terrorist just try to get on a plane to see if the government knows about him? If he gets on with no problem, he knows they don't suspect him. If he's turned away, he knows to drop communications with the other terrorists.

This is just stupid. No matter how you phrase it.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just stupid. No matter how you phrase it.

You misunderstand the purpose of the lists. It is not to "protect" anyone from "terrorists". It is to instill a climate of fear and paranoia on a daily basis, in an effort to "justify" the creep of fascism to the sheeple.

Random searches and detentions where the victim had no way to confront the charges were one of the key hallmarks of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Bombula]

We're probably very, very lucky terrorists aren't as smart as that.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[ScrewMaster]

They are now.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because terrorists read Slashdot religiously..

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Jafafa Hots]

Exactly. It's a total scam, especially since they STILL aren't screening cargo that often goes on the VERY SAME FLIGHTS.

Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.

Meanwhile, none of these measures would find a glass or obsidian (sharper than a razor) knife strapped to your leg. Which is just one thing I thought of off hand. I sure hope all terrorists are idiots. I just don't think they are.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[lawpoop]

Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something. Or, it's just to get people used to random and crazy searches by the authorities as a normal part of daily life, without a peep of protest.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[maxume]

What good is a knife? You can't kill all the other passengers, and they think they are going to die the second you take over the plane.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[jofny]

Sigh. I know saying simplistic, emotionally charged things like that feels good, but really - do you believe that's the intent? Look at the country you live in and how it works in -every other situation- and apply that, instead of the paranoia.

Basically, congress (and through it's actions, TSA and DHS) need to look like theyre being strong and "doing something" about a threat amped up by the 24/7 media's need to have high impact news to generate revenue. People are -already- so paranoid and scared because of the reporting that if congress (TSA/DHS) did -not- "do something", there would be political hell to pay (their competition for their seats/jobs would shove down the average citizens throat how they're putting passengers at risk by not doing anything).

The problem is that the idea of using the same attack vector twice is somewhat silly and that there are no easy answers even if it wasn't. So, what does the US government do (and DHS/TSA)? They do the same thing the American people always let them get away with (because we derive our reality from TV and Hollywood) - they put in feel-good , highly visible measures regardless of whether or not theyre effective.

Now, Patriot Act, DHS stupidity, etc. may very well end up leading us into a Fascist or -insert your eee-vuhl government aparatus of choice here- state, but it's certainly not through some dark conspiracy of intent to do so.

Rather, we'll get there through the slow unintentional meandering of a government perfectly happy to cater to public who's more interested in being placated than served in the interest of getting re-elected.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[TheGratefulNet]

Or, it's just to get people used to random and crazy searches by the authorities as a normal part of daily life, without a peep of protest.

I worry that the next generation (maybe even the current high school kids, now) won't even KNOW what they're missing in terms of basic american freedoms ;(

all govs, everywhere, rejoice when they get more control and keep their citizens in check and in fear. once started, they all jump on the bandwagon. I see it over in europe and even australia. lots of restrictions and oppression from the gov to the citizens. if all the govs are doing it, you can't GO anywhere to find a breath of fresh air anymore.

I remember the 60's and the revolution that was going on, then. now we have a different revolution, but its being held BY the governments and its to keep its people in fear. greatest control stems from fear. (see Religion for more on this subject.)

really - I worry that over the next 20 yrs, people will have forgotton what going on an airplane and NOT having to take shoes off was like. ahhh, the good old days when your own foot odor was your own business ;)

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[FleaPlus]

Basically, congress (and through it's actions, TSA and DHS) need to look like theyre being strong and "doing something" about a threat amped up by the 24/7 media's need to have high impact news to generate revenue.

Bruce Schneier had an interesting piece on this a while back on this sort of Cover-Your-Ass security.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

sheeple...I like that.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Torvaun]

The knife is because he read Snow Crash. On the other hand, it wouldn't be a difficult task to turn a cheap Airsoft handgun (made of plastic, shoots little plastic BBs) into a cheap plastic .22 handgun. Don't think for a second that it's impossible to get bullets past checkpoints.

True story: My grandfather used to take a walk every morning down to his local shooting range. He'd pick up trash, and sometimes brass for loading his own cartridges. On this particular morning, he happened to find a .243 cartridge that was live, someone must have accidentally dropped it. He put it in his pocket, and went on his way. Later that day, his daughter (my aunt) was flying out to England, and from there to India. He took her to the airport, and went through the security checkpoint to walk her to the gate. He set off the metal detector, and they had him go through the process of emptying out his pockets of all the change, keys, etc. He reached in, and found that he still had that live rifle cartridge in there. He noticed that neither of the security people were paying attention, and he pulled out the cartridge and dropped it in his shirt pocket. When he went through again, he beeped, and got wanded. His shirt pocket beeped, and so did the other one. Being as those pockets were behind the metal buckles on his suspenders, they let him through.

An old man managed to beat airport security without even trying in the days immediately following 9/11. It has never entered my head that terrorists couldn't do the same.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[lawpoop]

I worry that the next generation (maybe even the current high school kids, now) won't even KNOW what they're missing in terms of basic american freedoms ;( I had a sad realization the other day. At the end of Bush's presidency in 2008, a 9-year-old who became a 17-year-old would really only have known Bush as a model for the president. How sad.

Human life and memory seem so short -- the generations turn too quickly. Now I understand how vitally important it is to teach history.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Original Replica]

What good is a knife?

As good or better than a gun when you are talking about taking over a plane. Don't forget that the 9/11 hijacking were done with knives. You can incite much more terror and pain with some well placed cuts than with a gun. The only way that a handful of people ever take over a plane filled with over a hundred passengers is through psychological control. If they really internalised that the only way they would live would be to overcome the hijacker, then they would overcome the hijacker by sheer numbers, even if it meant attacking until the ammo ran out. But that will almost never be the case, just given the faintest promise of being let go if they coopperate will subdue most people, even making some passengers stop any attempt to over power the hijackers. As most authority today is ultimately achieved through threats and force, people are well conditioned to submit when confronted with a non-choice like "Open the cockpit door or I will have to cut this young lady. Don't make me have to cut her." From and outside objective view we can say that it doesn't matter if they are all going to die anyhow, and the only one making the hijacker hurt the young lady is the hijacker. But the people actually inside the plane are going to turn to appeasing the violent forces in hopes of survival. If offered something that looks like a choice, people will try to appease violence rather than combat it, it's been demonstrated thousands of times through out human history.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[jofny]

Yeah, I largely agree with Schneier's position (in general and in that article in particular). The only exception with it I have is with this statement:

The TSA wants to be sure that if there's another airplane terrorist attack, it's not held responsible for letting it slip through. I believe they're forever looking backwards, but the reasoning isn't as much to prevent themselves from being held responsible as it as to comply with direct, specific requests from Congress in combination with the facts that large bureaucracies have a hard time thinking creatively about risk avoidance (to do something "new" and "unknown" is traditionally viewed as a fairly large risk in and of itself) and there just aren't enough people who understand security floating around the upper echelons of government organizations.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[gvc]

The 9/11 m.o. would not work today. It depends entirely on the passenger and crew's appeasement of the hijackers which, until 9/11, was the recommended response.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[SuperBigGulp]

If we don't have to take off our shoes to get through security, the terrorists will have won.

Wait...

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[maxume]

You missed my point. The 9/11 gambit stopped working *that day*. It wasn't even some later attack that didn't work, part of the 9/11 attack was foiled by angry passengers. That will continue to be the case for a very long time.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[c6gunner]

OMGZ0RS TITS A CUNSPIRACY!!!1ONE!1ELEVEN!!

Or, you know, you might just be one poor, stupid, paranoid bastard.

Either or.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Ptraci]

My 79 year old dad has trouble every time he wants to fly because his name. an EXTREMELY common one, is the same as someone on the list. It seems to me that they could at least include an age, height, and weight in the list or something to narrow it down a bit. As it is it's clearly not meant to be of much use to actually weed out suspected terrorists; they could have picked names out of a hat and done just as much good.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[FleaPlus]

I'm sure part of it's congress, but at the same time I don't think Congress explicitly requested things like the liquids bans and so forth. People at the TSA both want to make sure like they're doing something productive, and also be sure that if something bad happens they won't end up losing their jobs because of the media broadcasting that they should've done some random thing.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"By 1935 all German citizens must be used to showing their personal identifications and being submitted to random interrogation. If our office achieve to make all citizens cooperative, we could step further and become able to locate and eliminate all enemies of the state, German nationals or foreigners" Special Advisory Officer for Public Safety Policy on a letter to the fuhrer, 1934

Well, I dont think that any smart individual has any doubts of what is going on here. First they destroyed the culture creating this Hip-Hop bully gangster mentality on music and movies. Second they moved it to the schools to make sure that kids will have plenty of sex and drugs (not that I dislike to have plenty of both...) so they can alienate them, Wilhelm Reich like. Third they removed politics of the central stages on the national life, as for example for the next presidential race: We will have Hillary against Giuliani, so they can keep the "debate" restricted to the personal offenses, with the issues and scandals of both candidates personal life. And fourth, and most important, they are inserting on the American average citizen mindset a totally meek agreement with the policies of a Police State.

See, I used to ask every time that I was pulled out by a police officer, what was the reason for him to stop me. This is America (still...) and we have the right to come and go, whenever we want. On the past, before Bush Neo-Con dictatorship, they used to get upset but answer on an educated and respectful tone. Now, they will usually say: "step out of the car, sir", and try to humiliate me, as they are instructed to do with all that don't comply with the order to be meek and follow Dubya to the hell he is taking us. I have a friend that is going through police academy now, and he says that they are learning anti-riot techniques and how to fight "internal" enemies, as according their instructions: "all that are not wearing an officer's uniform are potential enemies and harmful".
So, we are not the champions of democracy anymore, fellas. We lost our own mind's war, and have become worse than the enemies we fought through the 20th century, that is really sad to say.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[yaphadam097]

Yep, if they were really interested in protecting the passengers they would give everyone on the plane an knife rather than taking them away.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

See, I used to ask every time that I was pulled out by a police officer, what was the reason for him to stop me. This is America (still...) and we have the right to come and go, whenever we want.

Not quite, you have been subject to Terry stops since 1968. Clearly that was all part of Dubya's master plan.

On the past, before Bush Neo-Con dictatorship, they used to get upset but answer on an educated and respectful tone. Now, they will usually say: "step out of the car, sir", and try to humiliate me, as they are instructed to do with all that don't comply with the order to be meek and follow Dubya to the hell he is taking us

You're a nut. Take off your tinfoil hat. How can a cop possibly tell if you are a Dubya follower or not? And frankly, many cops didn't vote for Dubya either.

Saying "Get the fuck out of the car, nigger!" is humiliating.

Saying "step out of the car, sir" is polite.

I have a friend that is going through police academy now, and he says that they are learning anti-riot techniques and how to fight "internal" enemies,

Riot control has been part of police training for years (decades?). Nothing new or sinister there.

Internal enemies? Those are called criminals. Fighting against criminals has been part of police work for quite a while (centuries?).

as according their instructions: "all that are not wearing an officer's uniform are potential enemies and harmful".

Quite possibly, it is very dangerous being a police officer in many parts of the USA. Is the guy walking on the street just going to corner store? Or is he a gangbanger wanted for murder? Far more likely to be the 1st case, but the 2nd case does occur, and cops should be prepared & trained to handle both.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mpe]

You're too dangerous to be allowed to fly ... but not dangerous enough to be arrested ... even with the "enhanced" authority of the PATRIOT Act (I & II).

An interesting question to ask would be if people who have been responsible for "air rage" get added to such lists. If such people don't automatically get listed then it rather indicates that safety of flights isn't the aim.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mpe]

Random searches and detentions where the victim had no way to confront the charges were one of the key hallmarks of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both.

Actually a truely random method of selecting people for additional searches is likely to be more effective than any kind of list/profiling. Any terrorist group with a braincell between them can quickly find out which of their operatives is allowed to board with the minimum of searches if there is any non random element involved.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mpe]

Meanwhile, none of these measures would find a glass or obsidian (sharper than a razor) knife strapped to your leg. Which is just one thing I thought of off hand. I sure hope all terrorists are idiots. I just don't think they are.

Even if you come up with a screening method to detect this you are still playing the "movie plot" game. Once screening methods are known, people are likely to come up with ways to render them ineffective. (Though smuggling is a more likely motivation than terrorism.)

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[HungWeiLo]

It felt like eons ago when I saw anyone off in the airport. Remember that? Once upon a time, you could wait with your loved ones right at the terminal gate. Imagine that!

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mpe]

Yep, if they were really interested in protecting the passengers they would give everyone on the plane an knife rather than taking them away.

You'd need to make sure that it was a knife suitable for eating food with, since that would be what the vast majority of passengers would want one for.
You could also have NRA Airlines, if you don't have your own gun, the (well armed) flight attendents will issue you with one for the flight.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[phaggood]

>I sure hope all terrorists are idiots.
As in, they carry i.d. with their real name on it, and maybe their Al Queda training application forms too.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[bigstrat2003]

Man, I WISH it was a conspiracy involving tits.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mikael]

Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.

The womenfolk in my family feel safer at the airport when a .

Then I ask them about Jeam Charles De Menezes, and then what they think would happen if a suicide bomber were to run past a queue of passengers. What would happen to the bullets that miss the guy?

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[karmatic]

Actually, they have a legitimate reason for limiting liquids - just not the one they tell you about. Given the strong oxidizer you would need to make an explosive, a liquid bomb isn't really an issue - especially considering we _still_ have nothing to stop a guy with a couple of sticks of TNT on his person and a matchbook.

OTOH, one of the ways drugs were smuggled was inside a bag, inside a liquid. It makes it harder for the drug dogs to smell it, as the scent is masked by the liquid. This is why you are limited to 100ml, in a clear plastic bag.

The more you know.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Jafafa Hots]

Which is another reason why the passenger screening is bullshit.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Jafafa Hots]

The knife is because he read Snow Crash.

Actually, no. I never read that. the idea of fucking OBVIOUS. That's my point - you don't have to be brilliant, or have to have read the right thing to come up with simple ways to get past screening. I didn't have to read a book where some brilliant person came up with the idea, I just had to know two things: 1. there are glass knives. 2. metal detectors don't detect glass.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Torvaun]

What the hell are you going to do once you've gotten a knife onto a plane? You can't hijack planes anymore. Gone are the days of wondering where you're going to go instead, because the answer might be "The ground." A knife will not be enough. Hell, the gun probably wouldn't be enough, but if you got a few terrorists with guns on the plane, it might be.

Yes. Glass knives are obvious, but they are also useless in this situation. Coming up with an idea is easy, coming up with a useful idea is something else altogether.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mgv]

Exactly. It's a total scam, especially since they STILL aren't screening cargo that often goes on the VERY SAME FLIGHTS.

Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.

My own personal example - I fly to the US maybe once a year at the moment. I've been flagged variably, but not consistently.

One year I get the "SSSS" on the boarding passes for every flight, then they disappear the next.

Most interesting, was this year - I flew a New York -> Miami -> Los Angeles.

At Miami, my boarding passes were reprinted by America Airlines, having been issued by a code share carrier.

On the reprint the rest of the trip comes up as "SSSS". So presumably I had already been flagged by the software this trip, but because the non-USA code share carriers aren't tied into the database, I've already been flying for a while without the security checks.

Even more funny - the boarding passes were re-issued airside, so I was already on the good side of security, free from any further checks.

On the plus side, four days later I fly out, and the "SSSS" printout on the bottom right corner of the boarding pass is gone..

It makes no sense to me what they are doing. Readers can, however, remain reassured that I have no plans to see any plane that I am in get blown up or fly in to any buildings....

Michael

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mgv]

The problem is that the idea of using the same attack vector twice is somewhat silly and that there are no easy answers even if it wasn't. So, what does the US government do (and DHS/TSA)? They do the same thing the American people always let them get away with (because we derive our reality from TV and Hollywood) - they put in feel-good , highly visible measures regardless of whether or not theyre effective.

Every day, about 3000 people die on the roads somewhere in the world. A September 11 every day. And yet, life goes on.

The amount of money and resources devoted to "terrorism" is way out of proportion to the things we really should be afraid of - global warming, peak oil, motor vehicle injuries, and even non-terrorist gun related crime. I suspect that even meteor strikes would be as big a risk as terrorism.

Worse still, the responses to these things are far more damaging than the original problem. The cost to society from the responses are worse than the problem. We now have locked up hundreds of people for years in places like Guantanamo Bay, without charges. (*Note, I'm not saying that these people should not face justice, where applicable - just that they were not getting any there*). Many other countries have followed suit. In Australia, the population has finally seen the power of the legisation passed, with a doctor being locked up without charges for weeks, before all charges dropped (*Again, not commenting on whether or not he may be a terrorist*). These laws have been passed by democratic first world governments everywhere, and nobody really understands just how powerful they are.

Or look at Iraq & Afganistan. More soldiers have died in those wars than were killed by the atrocity that prompted it. In the USA some people are now talking about the need to have conscription to keep up the servicemen numbers to maintain the troops.

So there you have it:

a) Terrorism is still a small fry cause of human death and suffering.

b) The response to the terrorism often produces more damage than the act itself.

We should concentrate on the really important stuff - global warming, peak oil, cars and so on. If you want to find the criminal masterminds that plan out terrorism, the army is not the right instrument to do this, even though it feels good to strike back. And changing the way we live to being a culture of fear with removal of all our rights is a far bigger victory for the terrorists than a one off killing of the same number of people that die every day on the roads.

Michael

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[MacGyver2210]

"Or, it's just to get people used to random and crazy searches by the authorities as a normal part of daily life, without a peep of protest." Call me lucky, but I don't fly on a daily basis so I'm sure as hell not used to it. A cop tried to stop me walking my bike home after I left the club I was working at and asked me for my ID. I asked her why she needed my ID and she said that I was near a reported assault on some guy outside a bar that I hadn't heard of, so I showed her my ID and when she gave it back she got out of the car and asked if she could search me. Of course I said "No thanks, there is no reason for that." I had nothing to hide, but that's just not cool, and in the end she just let me go with nothing further. I'm sure if I were in some urban center like Chicago or NY they would find some way to make me let them search me or use some bullshit like 'Oh, I smell drugs, it must be from you...' Even if it was an unjust search, my complaints about it would have fallen on deaf ears or been lost in a mountain of other paperwork. Welcome to America. Line up at the counter for your Nat'l ID Card and your Barcode Tattoo.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[MarsDefenseMinister]

One of the problems with generalizations like that is that another key hallmark of both Nazi German and the USSR is a populace which was also almost completely literate.

See the problem? Isolated criteria such as random searches aren't a good way to define any kind of political or economic system. Another problem is that your linkage of the single common criterion is made to two regiemes which were almost 180 degrees completely the opposite of each other in almost every way.

I'm not saying that random searches and seizures are a good thing, just that your analogy isn't very good because it's too broad.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[ErikZ]

Pretty much. If they take a plane these days, they'll have to kill all the passengers before they can take it anywhere. As far as anyone is concerned, letting the plane get hijacked means you're going to die anyway.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[ErikZ]

[i]Terrorism is still a small fry cause of human death and suffering.[/i]

Yeeees. Yes, give into the dark side. influencing large populations through pain, suffering, and death isn't that big of a deal. It's like the Mafia. The amount of resources we spend on that is far out of proportion to the actual damages.

After all, it's not like they kill *that* many people.

Also, rape shouldn't be a crime anymore. It's just sex. Get over it.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[mgv]

Yeeees. Yes, give into the dark side. influencing large populations through pain, suffering, and death isn't that big of a deal. It's like the Mafia. The amount of resources we spend on that is far out of proportion to the actual damages.

After all, it's not like they kill *that* many people.

Also, rape shouldn't be a crime anymore. It's just sex. Get over it.

I'm not suggesting that we give in to the dark side.

However, I don't see any point punishing the 19 suicide terrorists that flew the planes into things. They are kind of dead now.

So sure, go after the masterminds, if you want. But we haven't really done this. You cant catch them with an army, at least not easily.

Sure, we did get Saddam with an army. Two problems there, however. Firstly he isn't a terrorist. That made him much easier to catch. Secondly, we now have much more terrorist activity because of what we did. Fortunately most of it is still in Iraq. Fortunate for us, less fortunate for the Iraqi's. Sadly, there are more deaths now from this than was ever the case from the death squads that Saddam had. Lets just hope is stays confined to Iraq, because if even 1% of them get to the first world, the amount of terrorist attacks we are experiencing are going to rocket up.

I'm not advocating that we ignore the terrorists. Just that our current responses are mis-directed. Even the governments of the world are starting to see this.

We would have saved alot more lives if we had focussed on dealing with what we can deal with. The solution to terrorism isn't obvious, and it takes time. But it has been done - look at Northern Ireland. It wasn't the army that solved that problem, and increasing firepower there would have been the wrong thing to do. If we had done that, we would still have people driving trucks with fertiliser into the centre of London. Its not as if NY is the only big city that's had a building taken out by terrorists.

Just a little food for thought.

Armies fight other armies. This works in conventional war. Worked in the two world wars. Was the right thing to do. Fails miserably against terrorism.

And none of this applies to safety on planes. All that planes need is a door that locks properly between the pilots cabin and the passengers, and you could probably let terrorists take hand grenades on board without another september 11 happening - sure, planes would crash, they do even without terrorists. But the terrorists wouldn't be able to take control of planes again, and this would largely stop them bothering.

Much better than all the rubbish that we put up with every time we catch a plane now. Cheaper than invading other countries. It doesn't get revenge, of course, but as I have pointed out - the people who did this are dead already. Our biggest priority is to make it impossible to happen again, and that solution only requires a door with a good lock.

Michael

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Rudisaurus]

True story: My grandfather used to take a walk [...] Later that day, his daughter (my aunt) was flying out to England, and from there to India. He took her to the airport, and went through the security checkpoint to walk her to the gate.

Wait -- you had me going right up to this point. What airport was that, exactly, where they let you get through the security gate without a valid boarding pass in hand?

I've travelled a fair bit by air in the last couple of years (mostly across North America but a couple of times clear around the world -- Europe, Middle East, South Asia) and I've never EVER been able to get through the security checkpoint ANYWHERE without showing and having my boarding pass scrutinized by a security staffer -- and neither has anyone else I've seen (and I've seen a few people try it).

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Torvaun]

I believe that the airport was Minneapolis. I do not recall all of the details, but the core of the story is accurate, that he did take a live bullet, one that was easily capable of punching a hole through the skin of an aircraft, through a set of metal detectors at the airport, by way of the buckles on his suspenders also triggering the wand.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Lord_Breetai]

OTOH, one of the ways drugs were smuggled was inside a bag, inside a liquid. It makes it harder for the drug dogs to smell it, as the scent is masked by the liquid. This is why you are limited to 100ml, in a clear plastic bag.

I suppose that's plausible, however, given no upper limit for the amount of liquids allowed on checked luggage these precautions seem pointless. Besides, smuggling drugs is a point A to point B deal, no need to have them within immediate reach. If you could clarify though...

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to the new regulations after 9/11, one could go through the security checkpoints without a boarding pass. Travelers could actually be with their family and friends (who weren't flying) in the waiting area right before boarding.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[KDR_11k]

I'm not sure about that, most hijackers do release their passengers and many people would just hope they got that kind of hijacker.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[KDR_11k]

I'm not advocating that we ignore the terrorists.

Actually that may be the best course of action. Terrorists don't have the means to cause much actual damage, they are doing attacks to get attention and to spread terror among the people they target. Ignoring them would defeat their main strength which is the feeling of insecurity and fear they create and leave them as random murderers. They don't possess the means to kill their enemies faster than those regrow (the US population grows fast enough that the 3000 dead in the WTC were "replaced" on pretty much the same day) and without any secondary effects to their attacks their "battle" is a sisyphean task.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Jafafa Hots]

Well of course you're right... but my task was not to come up with a idea for committing a terrorist act. It was simply to come up with a solution to prove that being made to take your shoes off in airports is utter bullshit. Which I successfully did. In fact, YOUR argument, which I agree with, ALSO proves that taking off your shoes in airports is bullshit.

FIVE guys with knives would have about the same effect as five guys with guns. They would kill some passengers before being overtaken. The only difference is that guys with guns might kill a few more. But nobody is going to be flying planes into buildings. Not again.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Torvaun]

I agree. The only thing that can easily be done to interfere with an airplane is a bomb. If you care about nothing other than making planes drop out of the sky, that's really easy to do. Why not airmail a bomb rigged to a pressure sensor? Cargo bays are generally not kept pressurized unless there's live cargo. Label it as a laptop, and the mess of electronics on an x-ray will pass.

Here's the only scenario I can think of where hijacking a plane might work: The hijackers send a note forward with a stewardess stating that there are armed men on board who would like to go to a different destination. They never display weapons to the passengers, and they never try to replace any members of the crew. The plane stays in the direct control of the pilot at all times. Clearly, the plane is not going to be running into anything, and I'd put better than 50% odds on this sort of hijacking actually being successful.

As far as taking off your shoes go, I'm reminded of an act a comedian whom I can't remember had. "Some guy tried to hide a bomb in his shoes when he got on a plane, so now everyone has to take off their shoes at the airport. I ask you, where are the bra bombers?"

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Headcase88]

Well passenger screening is still needed if you want to try to avoid the violence altogether. But since anyone can pull out a knife or gun essentially anywhere outside of an airport, I'm still inclined to agree with your sentiments.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[1u3hr]

The knife is because he read Snow Crash. On the other hand, it wouldn't be a difficult task to turn a cheap Airsoft handgun (made of plastic, shoots little plastic BBs) into a cheap plastic .22 handgun. Don't think for a second that it's impossible to get bullets past checkpoints.

No practical difference. No plane load of passengers will meekly sit while an armed hijacker takes over a plane now. There will be enough "nothing to lose, let's roll" types who'll rush him regardless of him shooting some of them.

Only an assault rifle might hold them back, and I rather doubt you could sneak that through. Otherwise, perhaps some kind of poison gas, but even that wouldn't get them into the cockpit if it has a serious lock and the crew are on oxygen masks; again after 9/11 "Let me in or I'll kill her" has no credibility; passengers and crew believe they will die regardless if they allow the plane to be hijacked.

So basically, lock the cockpits and don't allow machine guns in carry-on is sufficient.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Headcase88]

I have to agree with that. Even better, establish better world trade policies and whatnot so more people live in tolerable conditions. Less people would want to be terrorists in the first place if first-world countries (and particularly the U.S.) were a little more benevolent. I'm not even talking about drastic "bleeding-heart" stuff, just something a little more reasonable than the current system.

Right now, the economy basically exploits people in poor countries. That can't be changed overnight, we rely on the cheap labour, but this can be gradually improved over time in exactly the way that it hasn't. For example, the money currently being spent on blowing up random civilians might be spent on some sort of subsidy to encourage tolerable work conditions at home and abroad? There's probably better examples than that, but you get the idea. Less money on bombs and more on necessities would probably discourage a few young men from deciding that terrorism is the way to go.

So between not paying attention to terrorists and making the world a better place, terrorism will slowly die without a single bullet being fired. That said, I'm not against torturing any terrorists they do come across, after they get they fair trial of course. Because if they didn't then more people would be encouraged to take up terrorism.

My $0.02.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[symbolic]

I'd like to think you're serious, but if you look at the way that citizens in general have responded to the constant attacks on our constitutional status from within our own borders, I dare say that most of the time, they'd be just as complacent as those on the three flights that were alleged to have been hijacked by terrorists on 9/11. It's all about fear- it's the great disabler.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[jofny]

Completely agree here...and I think it's actually more specific than that. The "terrorists" want to provoke a large, over-the-top US reaction in the middle east and provide a unifying enemy for their own people so that they can topple the secular/corrupt governments there...resulting in states with power vacuums...and allowing them to create virtual states of their own (though not bound by borders or holding down land). And, since theyre not really interested in holding the territory, the US can't effectively combat them with an army anyway. The best and only response is to de-escalate the situation and make friends with the people theyre trying to unite against us

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Paracelcus]

I'm waiting for the next little weasel-fuck in the white house to think it's a good idea for American solders to "goose-step" on parade!

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[ErikZ]

An attack on the constitution won't kill you. The reason people don't respond to that stuff is because subtle changes in law tend to not effect them in an obvious way.

Doing something that will threaten a person's life *will* get them to react. Every time.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[ralphdaugherty]

      meanwhile, an entry screening system goes down at LAX and 8,000 passengers are stranded for hours upon end. The one reason given so far is an optical fiber line going down. Personally, I don't trust anything this government administration says.

  rd

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[karmatic]

I suppose that's plausible, however, given no upper limit for the amount of liquids allowed on checked luggage these precautions seem pointless.

With you separated from your bags, they are free to take as much (or as little) time to search as possible. Luggage delays get blamed on the airline (been there, done that). As for the carry-ons, you have people in line, and a (relatively) fixed amount of time to process them in. By having people remove their liquids beforehand (and put them in a nice clear bag), it makes it really easy to find them.

If they hand-inspect every checked bag, people feel safe. If they hand-inspect every carry-on, people get ticked.

On a side note, I can't remember the last time my checked bags _weren't_ hand-inspected. I tend to carry a fair amount of electronics, so that may have something to do with it.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[symbolic]

Is that why three of the four planes that were allegedly hijacked made it to their intended targets?

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[yaphadam097]

I'm detecting sarcasm, but I'll bite anyway ;-)

Guns on a plane are a problem, because they can breach the pressure hull. Marshall's have them, but it is assumed that they know what they are doing.

My point is this: It takes a lot of balls to hijack a plane with box cutters. If the passengers felt empowered to defend themselves it would be impossible. Asking people to look out for their own security is always more effective than imposing it upon them. History is full of examples of when the former has succeeded and the latter failed.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[Torvaun]

This was the first hijacking in our nations history that resulted in the deaths of everyone aboard. In the past, hijackings involved the plane being diverted. Instead of going to Houston, we're going to Mexico. Instead of going to Florida, we're visiting the Bahamas. There was never any risk to letting the hijackers have their way, as opposed to being possibly stabbed or shot for trying to interfere.

Now, everything has changed. Airplane passengers see every hijacker as a potential suicide bomber. It is now considered more dangerous to allow a hijacking to occur than it is to fight back. One of those four planes learned about the paradigm shift, and changed their thinking in mid-flight. That's why it didn't make it. It will take no less than 50 years before enough people have forgotten the lessons of the past to allow anyone to hijack a plane in the U.S. ever again.

Re:I'm still not understanding that.

[ultranova]

Meanwhile, none of these measures would find a glass or obsidian (sharper than a razor) knife strapped to your leg.

Um, so ? It's not like you can overcome 100+ people with a knife no matter how sharp, not when the people in question expect you to be a lunatic who'll kill them all if you're not stopped.

no longer no longer assigning risk scores

[frovingslosh]

no longer no longer assigning risk scores

Does that mean they are doing it again?

Re:no longer no longer assigning risk scores

[stonedcat]

Redundancy methods such as this ensure that they can make it say whatever the hell they want if it ever comes into question. :p

Re:no longer no longer assigning risk scores

[raxhonp]

No no comment.

De Ja Vu

[Chikenistheman]

with the agency no longer no longer assigning risk scores to passengers or using predictive behavior technology.

 
This can only mean they changed something in the Matrix

Re:Contradiction

[neirboj]

The problems with the watch list are still valid and are not going away

Nevermind, I get it now. It's that the problems are valid, not the lists.

*searches for coffee*

Centralisation.

[Al Young]

Ah, the great centralisation of monitoring of those who are flying into a government organisation. Anyone else think this to be a bit 1984?

It's really this simple

[Monoliath]

I no longer fly into the United States because of this kind of dog shit.

Your American airlines are losing my potential travel dollars because of your stupid government.

I hope the industry tanks.

Re:It's really this simple

[dmclap]

Nah, that isn't going to happen. The government will just prop up the airlines at all costs, even if they continue to go against customer's wishes. I refer you here for a more scholarly reference on the subject ;) (South Park is consistently more accurate about most political issues than almost anything else I've ever seen).

Re:It's really this simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that is dumb, I disagree entirely with the scans but to preclude travelling into an entire country because of a few stupid policies? I disagree with french labor but I still visit when i can!

Re:It's really this simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of the US no-fly list? You may despise French labour laws, but you will not get hours of interrogations because of those.

Re:It's really this simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an American, who is proud to be one and believes in American Spirit of Freedom, who now hates flying because I am treated like a criminal. I hate that the freedom we want to spread to others and democracy gets curbed under hysteria of terrorism. Yes, terrorism is real, as it was 50, 40, 20 years ago. I know 9/11 is a tragedy, and we should learn a lot from it. In turn, we didn't and becoming fascist state, where security tramps on all peoples rights. When I landed, I was told "It doesnt matter if you are an American or not, and you have no rights. America is 20 feet behind me, and I make the choice if you can enter or not. Oh, and if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about it. [Later] Oh, the terrorist, were also Americans, didnt you know?"

  Very sad. I am treated worst by my own country than by any other third rate country in the world.

Carnival Booth Attach

[slashqwerty]

The Carnival Booth Attack can turn any passenger screening system against itself making it do the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. The one requirement for the Carnival Booth Attack is that the system remain unchanged between the time it is tested and the time it is exploited. By routinely changing the system (this is at least the third time in six years) they can throw a wrench into any prep work that has been carried out to circumvent the system.

Re:Carnival Booth Attach

[mrand]

By routinely changing the system (this is at least the third time in six years) they can throw a wrench into any prep work that has been carried out to circumvent the system. Because heaven knows that someone can't probe the system and then take advantage of it the following week, or month... or six months... or year?

In order for what you're proposing to even have a hint of a chance of working, it would need to change randomly on a near daily basis, not a bi-yearly basis. If we're relying on this for security, we're in trouble. Thankfully it's all for show anyway.

      Marc

Psychological discomfort

[lheal]

You're right: either let them fly or arrest them. Suspected terrorists should either be shot on sight or ignored completely until they blow something up.

Wait, something's not right. These false dilemmas seem not to work very well.

The problems you're grappling with are an unstated assumption of a right to air travel and the expectation that a person's status is either clearly "good citizen" or "criminal scum". While we would like that to be the case, with a presumption that a person is a "good citizen" unless proven otherwise, the practicality of keeping the "criminal scum" from blowing up the "good citizens" may not allow it. So there is a gray area, which makes us uncomfortable.

Re:Psychological discomfort

[Chowderbags]

a presumption that a person is a "good citizen" unless proven otherwise
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "innocent until proven guilty", which is a cornerstone of many modern legal systems. Or, to quote from the decision of Coffin v. United States:

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law....
While it may not be convenient for law enforcement and security to follow this, ignoring basic rights chips away at the very democracy that the law enforcement is sworn to protect.

Re:Psychological discomfort

[lheal]

No, I was not looking for a phrase. Whether a person is allowed to fly is like a consumer credit score. It's not that you've been convicted of a crime, but that your circumstances make you an unacceptable risk. I do think it's silly not to have a simple procedure to clear the six-year-olds who happen to be named the same as terrorists, though.

Re:Psychological discomfort

[Chowderbags]

There are several important differences between your credit score and the no fly list. Credit scores are generated by private companies and you can check them once a year and dispute anything you find that's in error. The no fly list is generated by the government and you have no way of knowing why you are on the list and no way to get off the list. Much of the problem could be alleviated by keeping records like age, height, a picture, and other ways that an airport could easily say that a given person isn't the person., but that still leaves the issue of not being able to determine why a given person is on the list. Heck, look at the case of Walter Murphy. The only plausible explanation for why he was hassled is that he gave a talk against Bush. If you trust the government to deliver a fair, impartial, and accurate list that only targets people that they suspect as terrorists, you're in for a sore let down.

The wrong targets

[conorlime]

The fact that the TSA/DHS still believe that the primary threat are passengers depresses me. Surely the terrorist attempts in Britain, particularly the one in Scotland, show that passengers are most likely terrorist TARGETS, not threats? All that they TSA/DHS has done to people traveling within the US is either : a) frighten them (in the case of people who do a relatively small amount of travel and aren't used to being in airports and who certainly aren't used to having incomprehensible orders barked at them in the name of security) or b) frustrate them - in the case of people who travel regularly, and who experience first hand the arbitrary rule changes and their heavy handed application. As for people from outside the US, the more this sort of nonsense goes on, the lower their opinion of the US will be, and, given the overwhelming goodwill the rest of the world had towards America immediately after 9/11, this is a tragedy. The people who suffer the most from this, of course, are Americans traveling abroad, who often find themselves trying to explain that the vast majority of clear thinking Americans are appalled at the state of affairs.

Re:The wrong targets

[BoiseAlf]

"The people who suffer the most from this, of course, are Americans traveling abroad, who often find themselves trying to explain that the vast majority of clear thinking Americans are appalled at the state of affairs."

No, rather the people who suffer the most are the Americans traveling abroad who often find themselves trying to explain that they are in fact Canadian. ;)

Air travel security is worthless

[jskiff]

I'm actually in the process of writing my senators and congressman a hand written, registered letter to tell them how ashamed I am of DHS and TSA. Yesterday, flying home from Orlando, I witnessed:

*The security line ID checker occasionally checking people's IDs, then turning around to talk to his co-worker and letting people pass, then randomly checking IDs.
*A second TSA staff member knocking on the glass trying to get the attention of a friend of hers, then making faces like you'd see kids do in high school
*A sporadic "take out all of your electronics" followed by "only laptops" followed by "only electronics bigger than your hand need to be removed from your bag."

Anyone who travels on a regular basis (I fly about 100,000 miles a year) knows that behavior like this is unsurprising, but I'm just getting to the point where I've had enough. If we're going to enforce security, how about actual enforcing effective security protocols rather than making sure that my shaving creams fits in a ziploc bag?

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[mr_matticus]

I certainly agree with your point, and that the TSA is a farce (they've busted a laptop and ruined a $600 suit by dumping a $30 bottle of shampoo over the contents of a garment bag), but the second one is a bit tight-assed to complain about.

Yes, it's unprofessional, and that's a point well taken. But it's one of the few instances I've heard of where TSA employees actually demonstrate that they might be, you know, human. It's a tough job, having to enforce stupid rules and pretending that you have any effect at all on making air travel safer, all the while dealing with angry, stressed out people who hate you (not that the hatred is unjustified). A bit of harmless fun is hardly a problem and society needs to loosen up about it.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[Octorian]

The way the US metal detectors are calibrated these days, I'm worried that I'll set them off if my blood iron content is too high. I almost feel like frequent travelers (which I've been in the past) could use a boot-camp course on rapid "remove the laptop, take off the shoes, remove the belt, wallet, keys... walk through the detector, reverse the process and continue onward".

A few days ago I was flying out of Tel Aviv on El Al. Yeah, that's right, the airline that cares more about *real* security and is a far more tempting target than any of these US airlines. And I didn't have to present my plastic bag, or remove my shoes or belt! (of course they do scan the baggage, and question each passenger a bit more thoroughly than they ever do in the US, but it was still a far more pleasant experience than checking back in with Continental in Newark on my way back.)

The TSA is all about making it look like they're doing something, instead of actually doing something. I once heard it said that you simply cannot apply logic to security policy, since then it will never make sense to you. I'm curious what the next hairbrained terrorist scheme will be, and what sort of totally senseless travel restrictions will be added as a result. Any ideas?

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[JimBobJoe]

*The security line ID checker occasionally checking people's IDs, then turning around to talk to his co-worker and letting people pass, then randomly checking IDs.

The ID checker is not employed by the TSA and ID checking is not considered a responsibility of the TSA. The ID checker is either employed by the airlines or the local airport authority or some combination thereof (you can verify this by the fact that they wear a different uniform from TSA agents. I left from San Antonio airport a few days back and the ID checkers wore a shirt with the San Antonio airport logo.)

If you look at the TSA website, you will find nothing about IDs--it's considered the responsibility of the carrier. I don't believe TSA cares whether the IDs are checked or not, and they have not made any statement one way or another regarding that. (The John Gillmore "ID to fly case" didn't reveal anything because the government said that the regulations regarding ID to fly are a "secret" and could not be revealed in court. After much soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that DHS' policy regarding ID to fly is that there is no policy and the airlines have made it up on their own to satisfy their own purposes--which is preventing the resale of advanced purchase airline tickets.)

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I hate this too. It's a shame, that I actually remember when the MP's (Military Police) took over airport security in 2001; they were much more professional than the bozos that they get for the TSA.

>The security line ID checker occasionally checking people's IDs, then turning
>round to talk to his co-worker and letting people pass, then randomly checking
>IDs.

Were you sure this was for the main security clearance? I think that they use random ID checks after security, which is ok, but everybody should be cleared for the first.

Regarding the laptops though, random enforcement of more extensive searches is something that they want to do. If it is truly random, the "carnival booth 'algorithm'" is nullified...

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[FLEB]

I get the feeling it's something like this. TSA's minding their business, doing their jobs, keeping things relatively secure. Then, boom, 9/11 happens and everyone's looking at them. They go nuts, run around screaming, "AIEEE!!! Our pants are down! We've got to do something about this! We've got to do anything about this! Make a list of things... something, anything, about this... and DO THEM!" While they're running around fumbling and screaming, lightning strikes, the polarity of the earth changes, and their face is stuck that way forever... and sadly, the sanity still hasn't drained back in.

That, and the promos for the 11:00 news need simple, gripping, decisive solutions, or someone's ass cleanly on a platter if something goes wrong.

I'm curious what the next hairbrained terrorist scheme will be, and what sort of totally senseless travel restrictions will be added as a result. Any ideas?

The British Underground thing was an effective departure, as was the Spanish train bombing, but the whole crashing-cars-into-the-terminal thing was... an odd choice to say the least. I'm just surprised there haven't been completely, wildly different vectors of attack, given especially that anything involved in transportation, air travel especially, is too eagle-eyed and bothersome to be easily effective.

Then again, life often shows that most hackers are script-kiddies, most burglars are morons, terrorists rarely come at it imaginatively, and those who could design the perfect crime (or even "better") often have more fulfilling jobs designing something else.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[hughk]

The way the US metal detectors are calibrated these days, I'm worried that I'll set them off if my blood iron content is too high.

Some detectors have a random number generator so they will bleep every nth passenger irrespective of any metal that you have. I once commented passing through Frankfurt that I knew that apart from the zipper in my pants, all metal was out of my pockets and I was still 'beeped' for a hand search. The person who searched me commented that they had a hand search frequency dictated from above and the machine would beep on this if insufficient people were being pulled out for carrying metal.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[Phroggy]

I'm curious what the next hairbrained terrorist scheme will be, and what sort of totally senseless travel restrictions will be added as a result. Any ideas? Liquid bombs that explode in the garbage can at an airport security checkpoint after having been dumped there by a terrorist with a fake boarding pass.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[Phroggy]

That's actually a fairly sensible thing to do. Scanning every passenger is too time-consuming; profiling to guess which passengers look dangerous yields poor results; random scanning is the most likely strategy to find something.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[Octorian]

The TSA didn't exist pre-9/11. When 9/11 happened, everyone screamed "the airport security people are dolts, so federalize them!". Overnight, all the Mexicans were gone, and replaced by twice as many random clueless people who were plucked off the street and put into uniforms an hour beforehand. Hence, the TSA was born.

Re:Air travel security is worthless

[FLEB]

Hmm... so it seems. Well, let me be the first to say "Mod parent informative."

So?

[swokm]

I, for one, think it's great that I get taken into a back room, strip searched and probed with a cattle prod in sensitive areas just because I have a goatee. What the heck is the wrong with that, it hasn't done me any har--

Wait, what was I talking about? Who are you? Where are my pants?!

Great

[SonicSpike]

I'll be sure to pack extra vaseline in my carry-on next time I fly!

Re:Great

[sasdrtx]

No more than 3 oz.! Hope that's enough.

Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

Yeah - that's why I'm voting for Ron Paul. Bush and Clinton are a joke (all 4 of them).

Check out Ron Paul's voting record if you haven't already. He is the most popular canididate on the Net.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[lawpoop]

I'm totally with you. I'm planning on joining the republican party in my state so I can vote for him in the primary. Once a couple of primaries pass I will donate to his candidacy, as long as he is still in the running. My greatest hope is that he can become president. My practical wish is that we can get him in the final debates, like Ross Perot in the '92 election.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Ron Paul's voting record if you haven't already. He is the most popular canididate on the Net.

No, Ron Paul's supporters are the loudest and most annoying on the net. Sort of like AOlusers.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[cheezedawg]

Why do all Ron Paul supporters (you know, the ones that crapflood any discussion board they can find) always come across as being completely nuts?

That was a rhetorical question.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

I'll answer it anyway.

Because the mainstream has moved so far away from the ideals that this country was founded on, and so far away from the Constitution, and so far away from liberty, that to speak the words the Founding Fathers of the US once did, sounds a bit nuts these days.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[swokm]

My practical wish is that we can get him in the final debates, like Ross Perot in the '92 election. "Sir, I campaigned for Ross Perot. I knew of Ross Perot. Ross Perot was a candidate of mine. Sir, Ron Paul is no Ross Perot!" :P

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[Paracelcus]

If he's in any danger of becoming president they'll book him on a "Paul Wellstone Express Flight" and make sure that Jeb Bush is a successful if unannounced write-in candidate.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[ralphdaugherty]

Because the mainstream has moved so far away from the ideals that this country was founded on, and so far away from the Constitution, and so far away from liberty, that to speak the words the Founding Fathers of the US once did, sounds a bit nuts these days.

      If by mainstream you mean Republican neocons, that would make your statement right, but they are not mainstream.

  rd

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

It's both mainstream "neo-liberals" and mainstream "neo-cons". Centrists are included too.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[cheezedawg]

Because the mainstream has moved so far away from the ideals that this country was founded on, and so far away from the Constitution, and so far away from liberty, that to speak the words the Founding Fathers of the US once did, sounds a bit nuts these days.

Thats a cop-out. The "everybody changed but me" line sounds quite hollow and cliche'.

I am a conservative voter. I don't agree 100% with any candidate, and I have some serious fundamental disagreements with some of them (like Sen. Clinton), but I must say that Ron Paul is the only candidate that I am truly scared of. I am terrified of the effects that his policies would have on our country. It seems like he just has not thought them through all of the way, or if he has, it was under some alternate reality with a different set of rules than real life. Some examples:

• He wants to return to the gold standard. Needless to say, there are reasons why every single country on the planet has abandoned the gold standard.
  
• He wants to eliminate all deficit spending. The obvious follow-up question to this is, how does he plan to grow the money supply to accomodate a growing economy? The previous bullet indicates, like I said above, that he hasn't completely thought through this question. You see, the only way the economy can grow if the money supply doesn't grow is if the currency undergoes some serious deflation. That alone discourages continued investment and retards further economic growth. Healthy deficit spending is a way to safely increase the money supply while simultaneously increasing the net worth of the private sector. It is win-win. If you arbirarily take this off of the table, like Congressman Paul has proposed, that leaves only two options to increase the money supply: either just create a bunch of new money at the central bank and live with the inflation (which, again, given the first bullet above is not an option to Mr. Paul), or have the government continually buying up private sector resources (the inevitable result of which is socialism, which I assume is also not attractive to Mr. Paul). Once again- not fully thought through.
  
• Ron Paul wants to pick up and leave Iraq immediately. Regardless of whether you supported the start of a war or not, it is always harder to end a war than to start it. It took the better part of a year to build up our military equipment and personel in the region. Withdrawing will take at least that long, leaving the remaining troops there more and more vulnerable as other resources leave the country. If you think that the ~60 casualties per month now are bad, wait until the opposition is moving around unchecked with one third of the coalition resources to combat it. The only way to safely remove yourself from a war is to win it. Again, this has nothing to do with whether you supported the invasion or not. It's the reality of the situation we are in.
  

If I have misstated his positions, by all means correct me. But as it stands right now, I feel relief that Congressman Paul is the longshot candidate that he is.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

I think he has thought things through a bit more than you give him credit for.

Check this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[cheezedawg]

Thanks for the link. I actually looked for something like this when I sat down to respond to you.

Re:Sick? Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's only the nuts who post on the internet? I went to the rally in Pittsburgh, and other than the creepy kid streaming the rally over the internet from a camera on his baseball cap, it was mostly old fiscal conservatives who want the gold standard back and truly believe in small government instead of using as code for "lower taxes for the rich".

Black-listed

[PoopDaddy]

"the Transportation Security Administration, part of DHS, will have direct control of checking domestic passenger lists against terrorist watch lists, instead of the airlines"

Wonderful, so now it won't just be United that marks me as "unauthorized to board" for absolutely no reason, but all the airlines.

Fun with watchlists

[spikedvodka]

I just hope you never have to fly last-minute, for say... A funeral.

Just this past month, My grandfather passed away, and we (My wife, My 20 month old son, and I) flew to Florida for the funeral. Of course, being that we couldn't really plan this trip ahead, we flew with tickets that we had purchased the day before. We get to the airport, only to be told that we would have to go through extra security because my wife is on the "Watch List"

Here's the kicker, Both my wife and I hold valid Maine State CHRC Certificates, meaning that we have passed state background checks, and that our fingerprints are on file. Both with the Maine State Police and the FBI, and that the state trusts us to work with children in public schools.

Go figure.

Re:Fun with watchlists

[DragonWriter]

We get to the airport, only to be told that we would have to go through extra security because my wife is on the "Watch List" Here's the kicker, Both my wife and I hold valid Maine State CHRC Certificates, meaning that we have passed state background checks, and that our fingerprints are on file. Both with the Maine State Police and the FBI, and that the state trusts us to work with children in public schools.

The extra security for being "on the watch list" is, as I understand it—and certainly my wife not getting the extra screening after she took my name despite getting it consistently before that lends credence to this—extra verification to make sure you aren't, in fact, the person with a similar name on the watch list. The matching is some kind of similarity matching on a list of names of people who are suspected of posing a threat. If you are actually on the list, you aren't going to get to fly at all. If you just get additional screening and are let on the plane, you've provided documentation that adequately demonstrates that you are, despite the similarity, not the person whose name or known alias showed up on the list as similar to the name you are travelling under. So, its not that your wife is on the watch list, its that your wife's name is similar to someone's name/alias that is one the watch list.

Re:Fun with watchlists

[PainKilleR-CE]

I changed a flight (several times, actually) before I could finally get everything taken care of at an FAA site in Washington state, only to find that I had to go through extra screening at Sea-Tac before getting on the flight from Seattle to New Jersey.

Never mind that the FAA, Air Force, and Department of Homeland Security were all in the chain of people involved in what I was doing in Washington in the first place, as apparently the TSA doesn't really care enough to see if someone's had a federal background check before they screen them.

On the other hand, I got through the security line much faster, but short 1 cigarette lighter (and they read me the riot act over that one, I assure you). Bonus points: security searching my checked luggage a few days ago handed over my spare lighters saying I could take them with me on the plane. Guess the TSA decided they were better off not worrying about what someone's going to do with a lighter or book of matches compared with what the TSA's going to do to dispose of the millions of lighters they've taken from airline customers over the last 6 years.

Again, meh

[JW.Axelsen.Sr.]

I haven't been able to board airplanes since 2005. I was born in Denver, lived here all my life except for two years when I lived in Seattle, '00-'02. I'm of Swedish, Irish and German descent. I've flown to Europe a couple of times, but only to places like England, Italy and France. I used to fly a LOT for work, now I drive or take trains. Being put on some shitty little list has been one of the best things that's happened to me. I get to see things I'd never see while flying and I get to experience different local flavors that I surely would've missed out on in the past. I've never been told exactly why I can't get on a plane, but it can't be my appearance, I'm 6'4" with blue eyes and blonde hair. I look as Aryan as anyone can. I've never been a member of any political organization that would like to see the current government overthrown (not counting being a member of the general populace) and I've never been convicted of a felony. If the airlines are happy with participating in keeping away the tens of thousands of dollars I used to spend on flying every year, that's ok with me, fuck them and the tax money they generate. I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. Let's get some fuckin' bullet-trains built. France has one.

Re:Again, meh

[noidentity]

If the airlines are happy with participating in keeping away the tens of thousands of dollars I used to spend on flying every year, that's ok with me, fuck them and the tax money they generate. I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. Let's get some fuckin' bullet-trains built. France has one.

See, they're smarter than you think! They knew you were going to post this awful opinion of them on Slashdot today, so they put you on that list years ago.

Re:Again, meh

[TubeSteak]

I've never been told exactly why I can't get on a plane, but it can't be my appearance, I'm 6'4" with blue eyes and blonde hair. I look as Aryan as anyone can. So what?
Good for you that you're white.

What makes you think only non-white people are on the terrorist watch list?
Did you buy the party line that terrorists = brown people

I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand the point of a terrorist watch list.
The goal is to keep terrorists out.
Not just to keep out Islamic extremists.

Re:Again, meh

[JW.Axelsen.Sr.]

appearance is part of the profile

Re:Again, meh

[Gallech]

I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand the point of a terrorist watch list.

I feel that you, Mr. Tubesteak, fundamentally failed to read the post to which you are responding. The poster also indicated that they have not been members of any "suspect" political organizations nor have they committed any crimes. All of these things go into the decisions pertaining to who goes on the watch list.

The worst thing about the watch list is that, in many cases, there is not any explanation necessary regarding how a name got there. By accident? Perhaps someone with the same name and a similar description? Who knows.

The Soviet Union had similar lists. And in the same way, there was no mechanism to permit someone presumably wrongly placed on the list to have it reviewed. Those lists may have had political "enemies of the state" on them: people who identified the misbehavior of the government, or who protested against injustice. Certainly there was no way to confirm or deny such a possibility. If you were on the list you were, by definition, a criminal. You had no right to question the list, and in fact the very act of raising a ruckus about your name being on the list proved that you were an enemy of the state.

How, exactly, does the current U.S. watch list differ? One might hope that it is fair, accurate, and entirely just. But I'd personally suggest that such hope is rather thin.

Re:Again, meh

[sjdude]

I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. Once rapid travel dies, timely face to face communications dies. All communication is then forced into conduits that are easily monitored, filtered, screened and, generally, snooped upon. This may be exactly what a fascist government would find "convenient".

Re:Again, meh

[swokm]

If the airlines are happy with participating in keeping away the tens of thousands of dollars I used to spend on flying every year, that's ok with me... Right. You say that now. What is the difference between hijacking a plane and killing the passengers, or hijack a bullet train and killing the passengers? Other than it is currently easier?

If we have high volume passenger trains, there will be an 'accidentally inaccurate' watch list ("think of London", they will say). If people stop flying, or taking trains, there will be checkpoints. Actually there already are checkpoints ("Oh noes! Mexicans!" they say) expanding all throughout the southwest.

I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that I hope the flight industry dies. I think you are trying to be reasonable and rational, expecting the same of the current powers that be. I think you are wrong. Fascism is here to stay.

Have a nice day!

Re:Again, meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been told exactly why I can't get on a plane, but it can't be my appearance, I'm 6'4" with blue eyes and blonde hair. I look as Aryan as anyone can.

Baader-Meinhof, obviously!

Re:Again, meh

[JW.Axelsen.Sr.]

What is the difference between hijacking a plane and killing the passengers, or hijack a bullet train and killing the passengers?

shock value/level of media coverage

I think you are trying to be reasonable and rational, expecting the same of the current powers that be.

nah, merely trying to stifle myself before i lose my mind

Re:Again, meh

[ralphdaugherty]

I'm of Swedish, Irish and German descent.

      Is meh Swedish, Irish or German?

Re:Again, meh

[StikyPad]

The problem is that the US is considerably bigger than France. It's 200 miles from London to Paris -- minimum 1 hour on the 186MPH Eurostar. The average width of France is also ~400 miles. It's over 2400 miles from NY to LA -- 13 hours minimum at a similar speed, assuming a perfect path.

Sure, time probably wouldn't be a factor if it was cheaper, but the round trip from London to Paris costs ~$100 to $150. For the same price, you can fly pretty much anywhere in the US. There's a reason long haul rail travel in the US exists only as a quasi-governmental, heavily subsidized industry. Rail travel is great for intracity mass transit, but the economics and convenience change quickly with distance.

Unfortunate choice

[cdrguru]

The problem is that we now have a government agency tasked with "protection" and pre-emptive action. This in itself isn't necessarily bad, but it is very difficult to protect against a determined enemy that clearly is willing to die to achieve their objective.

Couple this with (in the media's view) a clear choice: either "do something" or take the risk that there will be another aircraft involved in everyone on board dying intentionally. And maybe a bunch of people on the ground as well. It simply isn't something anyone in the US would find acceptable to come out at a press conference and say "We've decided to disband the TSA because it isn't worth the hassle and expense. As of today no more screening. Of course this may result in everyone on one or two airplanes dying, but we feel that is preferrable to the hassle and expense of all this screening."

There is no way that anyone in any government could decide that this was an acceptable risk. It would be clearly putting dollars ahead of human lives, wouldn't it?

Re:Unfortunate choice

[sasdrtx]

You've outlined the "politician's fallacy":

a) Something must be done!
b) This is something.
c) Therefore, it must be done!

The first problem is that the government's "solution" is not a solution, it is demonstrably completely ineffective.

Second, there is indeed a trade-off between wasting enormous amounts of time and resources and saving lives. Most likely, if all motor vehicles were governed to be unable to exceed 15 MPH, there would be almost no deaths due to motor vehicle accidents. But would it be worth it?

Third, there's this little concept called liberty that no one seems to be able to grasp anymore. Does it ever occur to anyone but me and Archie Bunker that if the TSA wasn't so committed to disarming all the good people, that any hijacker would have a lot more to worry about than he does now?

Just because they say they won't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean that they won't.

I have a friend who had his house raided many years ago because of the chemicals he was keeping for making fireworks (not you're crappy little fireworks, but cluster shells and the whole shebang). Due to his age, if he didn't reoffend (which he did, but never got caught or charged) it was to be permanently wiped from his record once he turned 18.

He is now in his 20s (and has a second job in the pyrotechnics industry), yet every time he steps on a plane he gets the full bomb treatment, they even do mouth swabs.

So as I said, just because they say they won't doesn't mean it. And this is in Australia.

Re:Just because they say they won't...

[lachlan76]

Eh? Not sure about back then, but there's no record-wiping now (at least according to the police).

Toothpastarian rights advocates

[Anonymous Coward]

They must be wearing me down; I don't care about the privacy any more, I just want to bring my damn toothpaste! (Yeah yeah, check it, or sub 3.5 ounce containers or whatever....)

Did Digg just change its interface?

[smitingpurpleemu]

Seriously, what's with the ridiculous digg-style "The Government is coming after you, run!!!!" posts here lately?

Sounds like something I've seen before

[deniea]

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

The Gestapo Lives ...

[Jeremy_Bee]

Maybe someone has already said this, but if Homeland Security is now doing the checking of the passenger lists doesn't this give the Homeland Security officers not only complete access, but complete control over airport security systems?

The only way to do this "gently" at all is to give Homeland Security complete access to airline records (which is illegal no matter how you slice it). A more realistic method and seemingly part of this plan, is to either have armed Homeland Security officers in every airport checking the passengers, or to have the Homeland Security officer be effectively "in charge" of the security guys at the airport doing the checking.

How is this essentially different from having a Gestapo officer in every train station in Europe during WWII?

There is an absolutely huge difference between a private company doing due diligence to protect it's passengers, and having government officials essentially in control of every major transport point in the country. This is tantamount to having armed men in every airport that only answer to the executive branch of the federal government. Men with all the powers of police officers and yet absolutely none of the constitutional constraints. Has the US gone completely insane?

What happens when later on down the road, the Homeland Security guy at the airport (who is now effectively the head security officer), gets an order from the White House to simply "lock down the airport" so that the coup d'etat can proceed? Does anyone think all those rent-a-cops are going to buck Homeland Security?

Re:The Gestapo Lives ...

[ErikZ]

Are you kidding? At the *airport*? Ok, lets go with your scenario. The evil White House shuts down all the airports in the country. How does this help them do a "Coup d'etat"? I'm sure all those businessmen traveling to Arkansas would have saved the day. But are now stuck in Atlanta, powerless to fight the federalists! Grandmas who could have grabbed their shotguns and shell out 800$ for a last minute ticket to DC, are now denied!

Welcome to the US. Where public transportation is only really used in NYC. Everywhere else it's just to cart around people who can barely make rent.

And if the Federal Government wanted to shut down all air flights for a day it would be easy. They did it after 9/11 without security guards.

Re:The Gestapo Lives ...

[Jeremy_Bee]

1) The control of transportation terminus's in the way described is often one of the first steps in a typical coup. Among other things it ensures that no large groups/militias can mobilise against the government, but there are many other benefits if you stop and think about it for a second. The monitoring of the movements of a country's citizens is also a well-known hallmark of a fascist or totalitarian governments as I noted.

2) I'm not sure what the stuff you say in the middle has to do with the topic or my post (public transit?)

3) I wasn't talking about a single day. If that stoppage had gone on longer than a day, more force/control would likely have been needed.

4) Perhaps I was a tad emotional myself in my original post, but please don't bother to respond to me again, as you read like a "difficult" person and I have no wish to get into a heated argument.

I continue to maintain that having a secret organisation that is effectively outside of the reach of the law, and answerable to no one but the executive office, that is in effective control of all transportation and communication within the United States, and that spends the majority of it's time monitoring the movements and communications of it's own citizens is not just *close* to the famous Gestapo, it is virtually indistinguishable from that organisation.

Re:The Gestapo Lives ...

[ErikZ]

I'll just get to the point then also. A Gestapo with no real effective power is not something I worry about. All the US Gestapo can do is prevent you from flying.

Re:The Gestapo Lives ...

[wikinerd]

shuts down all the airports in the country. How does this help them do a "Coup d'etat"?

Perhaps you should read about some coup d'etats in history. Controlling the transport hubs, including airports, as well as mass media such as TV stations, is typically a major objective.

You can't control a people if you can't direct where they go (transport) and what they believe (TV).

Federal Documents disallow Watchlist

[Philosopher-Geek]

I hold in my hand a federally issued document that permits the "citizen of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance". It's kinda nifty that you can get one of these new fangled papers called a passport that makes such a bold claim.

So, what I'm saying is, if your passport guarantees this, and is lawfully binding, how can such a watchlist or screening be legal? Or is it a double standard to say that other countries cannot cause delay or hindrance to a US citizen, but the US can?

Re:Federal Documents disallow Watchlist

[Anonymous Coward]

"[allow to] pass without delay or hindrance" is a legal term, meaning 'please don't kill him'

Don't Tell Us

[camperdave]

Your American airlines are losing my potential travel dollars because of your stupid government.

Don't tell us. Write a letter to the airlines. Write a letter to the US board of tourism (or whatever it's called). If enough people do that it might start the pendulum swinging back towards sanity.

Re:Don't Tell Us

[hughk]

Write a letter to the US board of tourism (or whatever it's called).

I live outside the US. A friend worked for the US Consulate here working for Commerce & Tourism. They are fully aware of the downside of the additional security. Many international business meetings now take place in the Caribbean rather than the US because of easier immigration and security. Yes, wroite those letters and at least it might give some comeback against the idiots in the DHS.

Lessons from the anti-virus world

[John Jorsett]

Operating from a 'list' means that someone has to have discovered, logged, and issued notification of the virus (or terrorist) before, while detecting virus- (or terrorist-) like behavior will catch the problem when it first appears. While the list approach has its place, I know I want behavior-based screening used as well.

Airport security?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, I went rabbit hunting, and 3 .22 bullets slipped down a pocket into the lining. I took that same jacket on flights to Houston -> Chicago -> London -> Chicago and Houston -> Cincinnati -> Rome before the bullets were noticed in Rome when returning to the U.S. All this was after 9/11 (first set of flights was in 02, second in 04. Of course, once in Rome, I was reading the 9/11 Commission report...this made for a very interesting talk with the Italian police/Army. Strangely enough, my bags were not searched in the U.S. The other passengers with me were all subject to 'random searches'.

2009 can't come soon enough.

TSA vs INS

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if they put you on the list when you are in the US?
Does that mean you can never go home?
What happens when immigration tries to make you leave?

Looks like a great way for illegals to stay in the country...

Sure!

[semilogic]

Yeah! Let's have the towelheads know why they're on the search list! That'll work.

Alternative Transport System

[KudyardRipling]

Speaking of driving, has anyone noticed the ethnic composition of post-midnight driving lately? Not long ago I found myself in northern New Jersey. I have been seeing a whole lot of minivans, full-size vans and cargo vans going about with tags from all over the USA, especially from Ohio and Michigan. The unifying factor is that the drivers were visibly Muslim. These were not Sikhs for I know the difference in headdress.

Consider the following: In light of security checks on airlines and other forms of long distance transporation, an alternate form of transportation would need to be developed. One that uses members of each community that drive loops to and from the nearest community. Map out all the cities that have a viable Islamic community. Every night, a driver would go from each community to the closest ones to that commununity, taking passengers from one point to another. These would rest for a day. The next night they would drive back with passengers going the same way. If I were to go from say Jersey City, NJ to Dearborn, MI, my trip would be from JC to say State College, PA. I would lodge at someone's home there until the next night. From there I would go to Youngstown, OH and lodge there until the next night. From there I would go to Toledo, OH and rest for the next night. From there I would go to Dearborn, MI and the trip would be complete. It would take four days, but since it would be within the community using no commercial vehicles or commercial entities, no reporting or checklists would be involved.

Consider the establishment of 'ethnic bus lines'. There are a number of ethnic Chinese bus lines that loop from New York City to Boston. Has the TSA been keeping eyes on them? I say doubtful for the explanation may be considered 'bigoted'. What is to say that some (petro)money would be channeled into setting up a similar ethnic bus system? Perhaps one of the reasons that such has not happened is that it would be one huge magnet for homeland security attention. So the informal 'long distance taxi' system would remain in place and the only evidence thereof is: It's after midnight and the roads seem pretty 'starry and sandy'.

They DID come after me

[Anonymous Coward]

I was "profiled" as a possible person involved in the meth trade after my wife used the police to beat me up for asking for a divorce -- she called 911 and told some lies. They came on the call, found out she was lying, but also looked into all the windows, walked around the house and all that. A few days later here comes the DEA, machine guns and all, and my employees and I find ourselves handcuffed in the mud and rain outside (think 50yr old plus computer geeks). No, I'm not involved in the meth trade, but I'm skinny, wired, and have a terrible wife I'd like to have gone, and that's all it takes. Yes, I did have chemistry stuff (see post just above) but all legit, for pyro and other uses. One of the cops on the inital call thought a bottle of GoldShlager on the floor was a bong, and so on. And there were SPOONS in the kitchen "indicative of drug use" -- that line is right on the search warrant they didn't bother to get until 45 minutes after the raid began.

The one funny part (discounting how unfunny it was that I had to hire a lawyer) was when we found out who they were - they refused to ID themselves at first but a local cop friend told us, we said "send the BATF, that's who we might have a problem with. They did. A couple days later some nice men knocked politely on our door and shared bag lunches with us while we discussed the implications of the big chemistry set. The opposite of Ruby Ridge, let me tell you. When they found out what I was doing (basic research on microwelding) they had no problems at all.

This didn't stop me from being charged for a couple of joints the DEA found -- who knows where they came from. So I was a few k$ out of lawyer fees to get that tossed, and lost a good employee because the cops made it -- TOO DANGEROUS -- to work here.

Who earns money from post-911 security?

[wikinerd]

Am I the only one suspecting that all this paranoia about security and terrorism may in fact be driven partly by the security corporations? Surely, this paranoia is being pushed by the governments for practical reasons (there ARE hostile terrorists out there, unfortunately), as well as for political reasons (1984), but there must be an economic factor as well. Some people who have influence over the governments must earn lots of money by selling various security-related products and services, just like defence-related corporations do by supplying the military. As no defence contractor would ever want world peace, no security company would ever desire the 'war on terrorism' to come at an end.

Financial cost of security

[wikinerd]

I am afraid that with the billions we spend in ineffective and often unneeded security, we run ourselves out of money while the terrorists laugh behind our back. We essentially blow ourselves up by destroying our economy and our civilisation, effectivelly doing exactly what the terrorists want.