Slashdot Mirror
TSA Opens Blog — You Can Finally Complain
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The TSA has opened their own blog. According to Ars Technica, it's beginning to attract complaints from people who are sick of removing their shoes and having to forfeit their drinks. 'The blog's first post has 131 comments so far, almost all of which fall into one of two categories: TSA employees who got the internal memo about the blog launch and dropped by to post positive things, and citizens who are really mad about the liquids screening policy.'"
I haven't flown since before 9/11. Unless the TSA cleans up its act, I will never fly again.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I can imagine that the comments feature will soon be disabled.
There are some serious problems with how the TSA is doing things, and this is a great step towards communicating some of them. ...if we, as the public, can keep our act together long enough to avoid dropping shrill, screeching, hate bombs of ranting incoherence on this website that'll convince the TSA that there's nothing of value to be gained from this conduit. Each "YOU GUYS ARE FASCIST NAZI LICKING THUGS!" message cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing this restraint won't be evident.
Blown up? Maybe. Hijacked? NO! Why? Because we know the rules have changed. In the pre-9/11 days, people were told to cooperate with hijackers, because if they did, there was a good chance they'd get out of it alive. Now, we know that the hijackers are willing to kill us all as they use the plane as a weapon, and thus, we have nothing to lose by fighting back. Once the passengers of United 93 learned what had happened to the other plans, they realized this, and they fought back. There will never be another attack in the style of 9/11, and it's not because of the TSA or Homeland Security. It's because we know better.
How much liberty does the TSA have with the screening that takes place? Surely it was either mandated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or is a reaction to perceived threats since, real or otherwise?
In the same way that a local police chief can't decide what the state speed limit is (although he might decide how anally to enforce it), I can't believe that the head of the TSA has a lot of freedom when it comes to screening:
Richard Reid? Off come the shoes.
Alleged binary liquid plot? No bottled water onboard for you.
It seems (from a perspective from across the sea) entirely reactive, and a result of the current political climate. That's not to say that US airport security wasn't atrociously lax pre-2001, it was; but things aren't going to become any easier until something rather more dramatic occurs than an official in a government agency starting a blog.
The first time I flew after 9/11, I wondered if the National Guardsmen with M16's were really planning on shooting anything. I was checked for explosive residue once, and my bag was searched, but I didn't think they did a very good job. The M16's were intimidating, in an off putting way. The other stuff seemed crazy.
The second time I flew after 9/11, I was somewhat amused that I had to take my shoes off but didn't even really notice the TSA people. Sure, they were there putting on their serious act, but they had it down, and things moved along smoothly.
Maybe comparing 1 US airport to 1 French airport does not a survey make.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The government has no business performing security checks on passengers.
If passengers wish secure flights, the airlines will provide security checks, different airlines might even offer different security levels to cater from the person in a rush to the paranoid.
What if someday, I went to the doorstep of a DHS officer and start requiring every one entering, including his friends and family to strip naked, out of security concern for him. What if, even worst, I decided to charge the service to him, by threatening to put him in jail if he doesn't pay for the service or comply with the security checks. Hey I'd be arrested.
The government is doing the exact same thing and guess what : they're just a bunch of people. They are not different from other people. Just because they're elected by a majority and have a nice nametag saying "Hi, I'm from the government" doesn't really give them super-moral powers. If a normal person is not allowed to do something, there's no reason people from the government should.
With a monopoly on law enforcement, it is natural that the quality of enforcement lowers and the price rises. I mean... if everyone is forced to buy your security services, you're going to charge for anything. Hey why not protect people from nail clippers in airplanes ! Good !
\u262D = \u5350
If you actually read the intros and responses written by the TSA blog maintainers, it does seem (to their credit) fairly sensible and honest so far; so it has a decent shot at being effective. Yes, it's moderated, but not in a draconian way: they're trying to keep things as written, throwing away only the obvious personal attacks or things rife with ads, etc.
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
That is ridiculous. Think about what you are saying. Each flush costs a few mWh's of electricity and a pint of disinfectant.
If the airlines didn't want you to flush, then why on earth do they serve free beverages?
For crying out loud, every flight I've taken must have cost the airlines the price of my ticket plus a few hundred dollars.
How did this get modded informative?
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
100% correct.
I'll go on record as saying that in the United States there will never, ever, be another successful hijacking. I don't know about you, but if I saw someone stand up and begin the hijacking "process", I'd start the "process" of eliminating the threat.
And I suspect I'd have many passengers coming over my back to assist in the effort.
Even the old ladies and 10 yr olds.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
In the end, we'll end up with an agency that can best be described as being filled primarily by the sort of people that routinely get rejected by local police agencies, affirmative action hires, etc. And somehow government run universal healthcare will sidestep this and be a marvel of efficiency and customer service.
Well, I can't stand the liquid thing, though its never affected me directly.
If I want to take several litres of water on board a plane, then I should be able to. Its not like restricting the volume of liquids and gels each person can take will make much of a difference. I mean, several people could pool their liquids and blow up the plane. Done. I digress.
I read about a man was making a weekend holiday flight abroad, who took with him two bottles of Penfold's Grange 1986 (fetching about AU$2,000 per bottle). Of course, security wouldn't let him take it on board, in case it was an explosive. They gave him two options: put it in his checked luggage (of which he had none), or surrender it to security. In the end, he opened them both there with his corkscrew (which for some reason they allowed him to keep), and poured them out into the nearest bin. What a waste.
Clearly, this fellow should have known that the wine would be confiscated, but still...its not right by my reckoning.
Disclaimer: I read this headline a few months ago, and heard about from word-of-mouth, and have done no fact-checking.
Someone should inform the TSA of proper bomb disposal procedures.
They prevent you taking a bottle of liquid with you onto the plane, due to the idea that it might be an explosive. And then dump it in a bag next to their checkpoint.
What they SHOULD be doing is call in the bomb squad, set up a big safety area around the bottle and toss whomever brought that bottle to the checkpoint in jail for a few days for disrupting public security.
After all, if you really suspect that it's an explosive, isn't that what YOU would do? Imagine that it was a stick of dynamite instead - would you just toss it in a plastic bag next to your workstation?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
While the safety of the baby may be important to the parents, I doubt the other 200 people onboard would care about it enough to just sit there while they are flown into a building.