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 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.
I haven't flown since before 9/11. Unless the TSA cleans up its act, I will never fly again.
Unfortunately that probably fine with them, the more people they can keep from traveling the easier their job gets.
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.
Please tell us all how you would make air travel safe and convenient.
It WAS safe and convenient. Now it's no safer, and something less than convenient. You think selling $3 bottles of water on the other side of security is preventing terrorism?
Haida Manga
Please tell us all how you would make air travel safe and convenient.
I wouldn't do anything.
Air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation, and that was BEFORE all the new inconveniences. Nothing has changed. 9/11 didn't change that. And the new procedures and inconveniences won't stop it from happening again. The biggest and really only real improvement they've made is improving the security of the cockpit. (And -that- didn't inconvenience anybody.)
All this bullshit about terrorists sneaking a liquid onto a plane and blowing it up is bullshit. The 'terrorists' could just as easily detonate bombs and kill large amounts of people by setting of their bombs -at- the security checkpoints in the airport or getting into a ballgame, or anywhere else. Sir, liquids are banned...please remove your shoes. Sir? KA-BOOM!
And what are they going to do to stop that? Put security checkpoints before the security checkpoints??
What would I do to make america safer? I'd stop fixating on paranoid fear reactions, and spend my time improving relations with muslims, resolving our differences, helping their countries become prosperous, healing the rifts between us.
There will always be extremists. And people will always die. But I don't want to live in an isolated padded prison cell and forfeit all liberty for absolute safety.
In a way, 911 actually validated existing airport security. The hijackers were unarmed! No bombs, no machine guns. (And no, I don't count boxcutters).
Box cutters (we call the exacto knives - after September 11th all the news reports had to explain what box cutters were) fell well within the limits for carry on knives. Rather than do the SANE thing and ban knives in carry on baggage, someone decided it would be much more fun to ban nail clippers and water.
Well, clearly *you're* not a politician. You're trying to calm people down, start a dialogue with disaffected muslims and assert reason in the face of panic.
Madness! You'll never get anywhere with clear thinking!
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
Uh, no. The SANE thing was to either:
1. Do nothing. Now that the rules of hijacking have changed just enjoying watching Americans tear the limbs off of any would-be hijackers.
2. Seal the cockpit.
Indeed. I have been rather saddened by all the rhetoric about "taking the tough decisions" thrown around casually by the likes of Bush and Blair post-9/11. The really tough decision would have been not to commit vast resources to fighting something that is a genuine but ultimately small threat, but to reserve them for other, realistically greater needs, and to stand up before the people the day after the attacks and give a single, simple speech saying that while the losses should be mourned we will never give in to terrorism by changing our way of life out of fear.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And how many planes have been hijacked since? Is this:
a. Because of all of the new security measures.
or
b. Because passengers know the rules have changed and are likely to dismember anyone attempting a hijack.
It's not crazy, just retarded.. (yes I'm a brit). I read an article on the Register by an ex bomb disposal officer who explained that there is no such thing as the fabled hollywood binary liquid explosive. I think there are ternary ones but they would require a lot of preparation on the plane, and probably a gas mask, etc. How they can be so paranoid so as to go to such extreme measures banning all liquids.. meh.. sad. Though I admit that some liquids could be used as fairly effective weapons, chloroform, acid, etc..
which is totally what she said
They are not doing it to improve safety, they are doing it to provide the perception of safety.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Please tell us all how you would make air travel safe and convenient.
Stop going out of your way to piss off a large portion of the world's fanatics with your foreign policy.
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
You might be surprised how valuable the perception of safety can be.
Today, while waiting at a busy bus stop on my way home from work, a deranged looking black Muslim man wearing a large back pack came up, kneeled on the corner, and prayed. It made me realize two things: 1) being a Muslim in the US must be tough, because 2) everybody (including me, unfortunately) went OH SHIT when they saw this.
In retrospect, I was in no danger the entire time. But my perception of safety was ruined momentarily.
After all, I am strangely colored.
1. Do nothing. Now that the rules of hijacking have changed just enjoying watching Americans tear the limbs off of any would-be hijackers.
2. Seal the cockpit. Indeed, this is what infuriates me the most. The only reason the 3 successful 9/11 hijackings worked was because the passengers were unaware that the "rules" had changed. It wasn't 15 minutes from the time the news of WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon got to them that the passengers of United 93 decided that they weren't going to play by the rules anymore either and counterattacked the lightly armed chickenshit bastards, forcing them to nose into the ground because they were about to lose control of the plane. Likewise, "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid was forcibly hogtied and sedated within minutes of someone smelling him light a match. Hijacking planes is just plain fucking over. Hijacking was always a very tenuous balance between the hostages desire to avoid injury and the hijackers' desire to have their pals let out of prison, or get away with the money, or not die, or whatever. All that quaint old "take me to Cuba" shit is history. If it isn't something that's big enough to take out the whole plane, and do it essentially instantly, the second any dumbass makes the threat with a swiss army knife, he's hogtied and sedated by passengers who know the stakes have been elevated. There's simply no reason for the TSA to bother screening for small personal weapons or potentially dangerous pocket objects. Like Bruce Schneier says, it's all just wasteful, distracting security theater. Fine, screen for bombs and guns, maybe check for poison gas cannisters, but leave our fucking toothpaste alone, you morons!
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
Deaths in autos? Part of your ho-hum morning traffic report.
You don't have to have anything in common to talk to someone. You can even go to war afterwards.
You confuse dialogue with appeasement.
I didn't talk about appeasing Bin Laden. More critically (because Bin Laden is a small part of a larger problem, and has clearly been forgotten by the US) why do so many Muslims think he's a great guy? What can we do to stem the flow of new recruits? Maybe taking away their reasons for joining would help. If they have legitimate grievances, we should hear them and respond. It's not appeasement, it's smart strategy.
Al Qaeda only exist because people keep joining them. Stop the new recruits (and kill the current bozos) and the group will no longer exist. It's not about giving people whatever they want, but engaging in some diplomacy, the first step of which is a conversation.
Hence my comment on 'starting a dialogue.'
This isn't hard, but it requires standing up to the people who prefer to pick up a gun than pick up a telephone. Given the success in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it's time we evaluated other options as well as the current "kill them all" one.
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.