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.
that this is just a clever move to find people that disagree with them and put them on the no-fly list.
(Anonymous for obvious reasons, I like flying)
Why chase them? Let them come to you...
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Wonder if they see who complains and put them on the list
...and they will listen.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
This is what they'll do, at the most. They'll read the comments, take a few minor suggestions that are about as a substantive of a reform as a changing the paint on the wall from beige to white, and call it even. Then everyone in power will trumpet how the system works, the people were heard, and how America is still the greatest country on the face of the Earth.
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.
I'll never forget the one time I've flown since 9-11. I was going to Italy from Dulles Airport in Virginia in 2005. The TSA personnel I saw were mostly obese people you know that got hired to fill a quota. The people they hired were clearly by and large not their on their ability to screen and secure the choke points in the airport. What I'll never forget was going to De Gaulle Airport and feeling like the French actually knew how to run security.
For the love of all that is holy. When French security is more intimidating and professional looking than your own, you know that you've made a mistake along the way that doesn't bode well.
more like, the web form outputs to.... /dev/null
Seriously, this is like a big wall you can pound your head against all you want, with no realistic chance of any of your feedback having any effect.
They are part of the current 'terrorists are everywhere, and if you let your guard down, you and everyone you know will immediately be killed in a slow and painful way' mindset of the US gov't. If you want to change this, you'll need to elect a gov't with a different mindset, as this is driven top down, not bottom up.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Why maintain the blog? Well, it occurs to me that this is an easy way to discount complaints from the populace. Eventually, someone or something is going to fly off the handle (possibly the Anonymous Legion), and they'll have an excuse to shut down public commenting. Then they'll make up some PR bull about how they tried to take suggestions from the people but the people weren't willing to discuss it civilly. And then go merrily on their way. Of course, this is all worst case scenario, but the TSA has proven time and again that they're really good at worst case scenarios. So good that they're completely blind to everything else.
instead of repeating the instructions over and over again, put up a sign.
Why do they keep saying "please have your boarding pass in your hand when you go through the metal detector" over and over again? Just put a sign on the metal detector.
Of course, when I see how incompetent they are at passing on a simple instruction like that I know they are there to do nothing but make idiots "feel safe".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Maybe they will explain on there why they murdered that mentally ill guy aboard the plane.
People posted tons of obvious changes for the TSA to "consider"... but I'd assume that if these silly and obvious issues haven't been changed yet while most at the TSA must have already been aware, then hearing that it pisses off a few hundred other people probably isn't going to cause any extra pressure to change.
stuff |
Poll: Which airline do you feel safest flying with?
( ) American
( ) United
( ) Delta
( ) Southwest
( ) KipThorne Royal Airways
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.
My suggestion is quit making me throw out my drink, and allow everybody else the same freedom. It's a risk I'm prepared to take.
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
I'm seeing a lot of "Anonymous says" in the comments... is Anonymous going to war with the DHS as well?
Actually when this first showed up in the news the blog was just one post with a place to put comments/complaints. It wasn't until after seeing all the complaints that the blogger created the sections that seemed make up the most complaints.
The burden of airline security should rest on the airlines/airports themselves. Private entities are going to be much more accountable, as well as efficient. One of the first pieces I've done in my blogging career actually concerned the abolishment of TSA. As a former employee for Air Wisconsin, I've had to deal with this people on a daily basis. I can tell you that although a good amount of the employees are decent people, there are some who get their rocks off on the fact they're federal employees. Believe me, I have a few stories over the relatively short time I worked there. It's kind of ridiculous.
Random Rants from an Airline Employee
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.
Bravo- but don't be disillusioned into thinking that *anyone* in the federal government cares about *your* safety.
All they care about is a protecting their own asses. George W. Bush doesn't care about a plane getting hijacked unless someone's trying to ram it into the White House. *That* is why they're so fucking frightened: airliners are the trump card to any presidential security measure. The president would probably survive such an attack and the White House itself would be in a rubble- but the damage to the President's power, both at home and abroad, would be devastated.
Please help metamoderate.
And it's a risk you're happy to impose on everyone.
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
I'd say the fair thing to do is put it to a vote.
I hate to play the tinfoil hat card here, but it's never been explicitly proven that these guys really did try and mount an offense. Seems a lot of the material pertaining to that situation was not released in it's entirety.
I could be wrong, if so, please link me some uncensored material that shows this wasn't merely patriotic hoopla.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
The categories are actually:
1) 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 and
2) people about to added to the no-fly list.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
I for one would glad impose that "risk" on anyone willing to fly. You wouldn't? If not I hope you don't drive since that imposes much greater risks on the public than liquids on a plane ever will.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Then why do they have vending machines behind the checkpoints, surly money from those don't cover the flush costs?
I don't preview or spellcheck.
If that were true, I doubt the U.S. airlines would still be giving away free drinks (unless they think that it provides enough of an incentive for people to fly that it outweighs the cost of a toilet flush). And why should the TSA care whether it costs the airlines money?
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.
And so shampoo is banned because they don't want you taking showers on the flight?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Nope only half right you can only say what you want but they wont listen.
From your post:
During the State of the Union, Bush did not once say if we were winning or loosing the War on Terror. When does the frisking of seniors end?
Simply put - the war on terror can not by definition ever end. The reason for this is quite simple: how exactly do you determine they you have won this so-called war? An end of attacks? Sure, this could mean that we "won", but it could just as likely mean that the terrorists are giving a 6 month hiatus so we think they are all gone.
Since these terrorists have no flag, no uniform, no government, we have no place to go to negotiate a surrender or anything else. We have no way to identify a terrorist without relying on essentially "he said she said". We literally have no way to know if the terrorists are defeated, or just out on holiday for a spell.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
>Nope only half right you can only say what you want but they wont listen.
Both of the complaints I made to TSA where acted on promptly, and in a satisfying manner:
1. The conveyor belt damaged my property. I was given a form on the spot, and the person in charged recognized the fact that I was in a hurry to catch my plane and made sure I had what I needed to make my claim. The claim took a couple of weeks to process, but I was fully reimbursed for my property without question.
2. I made a complaint about the way one of the screeners handled the contents of my camera bag, and about a comment the screener made about my huge amount of batteries. (I'm a semi-pro photographer and on this trip I was going directly to a field assignment). Anyway my complaint was taken very seriously, the person responsible was immediately taken off the line, the person in charge asked me to stay long enough to show them where my complaint began on the tape, and I was allowed to go catch my plane.
I realize the TSA screener job, for most people in it, is the first job out of high school, GED more likely, or vocational rehab. But in any situation where you ask for a supervisor, you find you there *is* one, because *not* having a supervisor around, supervising, represents a bigger problem than any complaint a passenger could have. You'll also find they are well trained, career people. At least, I have found this, to my surprise.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
LOL that's BS, not sure why it's modded interesting. If toilets cost that much to flush I do believe there would be money raining down on my house all day long from all the planes going over.
"Anonymous said...
In retrospect, I'm just glad Richard Reid didn't try to hide a bomb in his undershorts."
Ain't that the truth!!
Security should have some more intelligent design, not just evolving.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Does it matter? Whether or not the passengers on United 93 fought back, any future hijacking attempt will meet with passenger resistance. That's the point the OP was trying to make, with United 93 being just a perhaps less-than-successful example.
As a general rule, it's probably safe to assume that we are losing any war on an abstract noun, and that it will never truly be won—just ended.
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
If you are walking a crown on the rocks to the gate - I think you should throw it out as well.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
Don't fall for this crap. They are just luring people to reveal themselves so they can go and round them all up.
Then they'll make up some PR bull about how they tried to take suggestions from the people but the people weren't willing to discuss it civilly.
Seems to me that by itself is a good indication that the current policy is not approved of by the people and changes should be made, but that's predicated on the false assumption that the government actually gives a damn what the people want.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Bullshit.
Maybe 50$. Maybe.
I took a 12 hour flight from Seattle to Japan. In 12 hours, everyone aboard the plane will piss at least once, probably more than twice. My ticket was 1200$. Given that, they would be losing _significant_ amounts of money (probably costing them 2-4 times what people pay for tickets) if one flush cost 500$.
-DrkShadow
As opposed to the continued violations of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments (and occasionally the Sixth when the courts get involved) that the federal government continues to impose on everyone on the name of continuing this charade of ensuring safety?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Actually, there have been hijacking's since 9/11 where the passengers did not fight back. I know there was one in Turkey, for example.
God knows why.
expandfairuse.org
I thought "TSA" mean "thousands standing around"
Libertas in infinitum
Those screeners sound like real arseholes!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I would almost say there will never be a hijacking of an airliner ever again (at least in this country). Now passengers will assume the worst regardless of the intentions of the hijackers and take back the plane at any cost.
Libertas in infinitum
I was going to say the same thing. Doh! *redundancy!*
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
So who is going to post a goatse ASCII post on the TSA site? It's just demonstrating the proper screening procedure ;-)
Libertas in infinitum
What risk does my soda pose to you, anyway?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Both of the complaints I made to TSA where acted on promptly, and in a satisfying manner:
My experience has been different. On one trip the TSA screener didn't know how to open a laptop computer with a latch on the screen, and just forced it, breaking the latch. I complained and asked for the Supervisor (and no doubt earned a special note in my "file"). I was told it was my problem, TSA had no responsibility for damage they caused. This was just 2 years ago, long after the 9/11 hysterical reaction.
I was left with a new laptop with a broken latch, and a $200 repair bill to fix it.
On many other trips, I have been fortunate enough to win an extra personal screening of my carryon bag filled with computer cables, batteries, and papers. Every single time, the screener has completely ignored the cables, wires, batteries, and electronic equipment. They have focused on the business papers in my carryon, looking at each page and each book. I happened to have some money in my carryon, so that it was not in my pocket to fall out or be picked. The screener held it up in plain view of everyone at the gate, and asked in a loud voice why I had money in my carryon bag. Needless to say, this greatly enhanced my personal security on that flight...
There is no justification for this kind of nonsense relating to security of the flight, since there is no relationship to security.
In any other context, this kind of search (of personal papers and reading material) would be expected to cause an enormous outcry, and would not be tolerated. Unfortunately, the climate of hysteria and "we don't know what we're doing, let's at least look busy" procedures is at its heart an effort to make the public comfortable with the idea of carrying ID at all times ("Your travel documents please!") and putting up with being stopped, questioned, and even detained at any time for any cause real or imagined, all in the name of "Security".
It's been done before. (approximately 70 years ago) Itty-bitty steps down a slippery slope; by the time anyone notices, it's too late.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
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.
What I fail to understand is why TSA is giving good ole regular Americans all of this grief. When its not us that want to hijack planes and blow ourselves up,its the guy with the bath towel on his head and while not all of them are bad it would better to shake down a few of them than all American born people that fly.And I fly a lot and like someone posted not all airport security is equal,when you couldn't carry lighters on the plane I would carry 4 or 5 disposable ones and if I got caught I would give up 1 and I came back from Mexico with some bud in my front pocket and it was still there when I got home.I personally don't have any worries about terrorism if it happens it will,I won't give up any rights because I am afraid.Everyone dies sometime,I'll deal with it when I do.
>I was left with a new laptop with a broken latch, and a $200 repair bill to fix it.
>It's been done before. (approximately 70 years ago) Itty-bitty steps down a slippery slope; by the time >anyone notices, it's too late.
You didn't submit the claim form, and you're comparing that to... what exactly are you saying here?
There's a process where you swear that the damage was done, and it's routinely compensated. They can't do it at the airport, but the washington ppl do it. It's pretty much automatic.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The TSA is a giant joke played on the middle class.
Seriously, have you ever taken a whiff of Everclear? You can easily smell that several feet away from an open bottle.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Those products are extremely reactive. They've gotta be ... they're fucking explosives! Well, guess what, that means that they're disgusting, extremely toxic, induce vomiting, or all of the above. In fact, IIRC the supposed binary agents that were supposed to be used for the bomb that started the whole liquid ban bullshit are so reactive that they can't be kept in plastic, they have to be shipped in thick glass bottles, with thick glass caps.
In other words, even the most autistic TSA agent should be able to tell the drinker is not sipping Evian.
Actually I find it incredibly funny that Oral Roberts damned all Australians for all eternity after being subjected to an airport inspection that would be considered very mild today. In the case of the TSA it is far more annoying due to the fact that it is mostly for show so little effort has been made to choose and train staff to actually be effective at more than just theatre.
I wrote this up, with the intention of putting it on the TSA blog comments. Then I realized that it was a Blogger based site, and could almost certainly be traced back to me even if I used the Anonymous option. Not wanting on the no-fly list, I chickened out and put it here:
Here's the reality: TSA security will have nothing to do with the next terrorist attack. The terrorists will either not attack airplanes, or they will take non-prohibited items through and turn them into weapons, or they will secrete them in body locations TSA will not search, or they will have them placed on the planes for them by ground crew.
No TSA employee will ever stop a terrorist attack. No TSA security measures will ever save a single life. You are small people, doing a small, unimportant job, and inside you are well aware that if your job was anywhere near as important as you pretend it is, you would never be considered qualified to do it.
So spare me the hystrionics, don't waste my time asking if I want my loved ones to be the first ones to die, quit pretending this is about anything but the pretense of security and the excercise of authority for its own sake.
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.
This doesn't mean the passengers stopped them. They could have been shot down by a fighter plane.
Which is what many suspect but cannot prove either way.
I heard this from an ex-military guy.
"The only thing you need to hijack a plane is a heart of stone and a baby (which almost every plane seems to have). You pick up the baby, and break a finger on the baby, and say either we're going where i want or I break another one. Guaranteed reroute of plane because no one likes hurt/screaming babies, and no baby screams more than one with a broken finger. No one can tackle and hogtie you because then you drop the baby."
How does bag screening, no liquids, shoe checks, etc. prevent that from happening?
stuff |
If you support a response like that, then would you support Pakistan or Russia nuking us in retaliation for Iraq?
By that logic, it's in their right.
Pre ban, passengers were most likely carrying 10lbs or more of liquids in their carryons
I call BS.
"A pint's a pound, the world around". Are you seriously saying each airline passenger was carrying 10 pints (a gallon and a quarter!) of water onto the plane?
Another thought: the WTC attacks deserved a nuclear response. I personally don't really give a shit whether it was 20-odd random lunatics from some Arab country. I would have selected a suitable location in each participant nation for a demonstration and detonated, somewhere where we'd get casualties, but within measure of 9/11. Make clear that attacks from residents of said nation are considered acts of war, and that the next attack upon the US would result in a significant deployment of our strategic arsenal onto the offending country. The colloquial parking lot effect.
What exactly do you consider the difference between flying planes into buildings and killing a shit load of civilians and dropping bombs to kill a shit load of civilians? Both sound like acts of terrorism to me.
Problem solved.
Well that's one way to solve the problem - ensure that the US gets wiped off the face of the planet by legitimising *everyone* with a grudge against the US and adding a few more to the number of people the US pisses off.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I did submit the claim, and it was denied. At the moment it happened, I *politely* requested to speak to the supervisor. He came over and gave me a phone number to call to make a claim.
I called that number, they took my address and mailed a form. I completed the form, included a copy of my boarding pass as instructed, and mailed it to the address specified.
The claim was denied.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
Again, I did file a complaint about the laptop, following the specified procedure by mail, and my claim was denied.
Regarding the guy holding up my money, this was long past the x-ray. This was not a matter of some shadow on the x-ray being possibly similar to a bomb. The x-ray screener had no problem telling exactly what it was, and they did not need to open the case for visual inspection. They didn't even have to run it through the x-ray a second time. No problem.
This was at the gate, while they were still doing those "random" searches of people in line to board at the gate. The random search was conducted at a table just to the side of the door, and there was no privacy screen, so everyone at the gate could see everything. Specifically, everyone getting onto the same flight could see the money, could see what bag it was in, and could see what I looked like. Not good if I have to leave my seat to use the toilet and leave my bag behind.
I *did* immediately in a very low but firm voice demand to see the supervisor *now*. While everyone else was boarding, we waited for a supervisor to be called to the gate, which took quite a while. The gate agents were trying to close the door without me on the plane. The supervisor finally showed up, and I explained how the screener had utterly failed to enhance my security and how.
The screener *did* get in trouble, and for all I know lost his job. I did write down names and employee numbers, but there was no means for me to do anything in writing at the time, just a phone number to call. The ultimate outcome is unknown to me. I had a flight to catch. And was just barely allowed to get on the plane at all.
And funny thing, for the next dozen flights or so, I was usually pulled aside for another "random" search of my carry-on bag. At least I didn't get put on the No-Fly List for speaking out.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
I was in the LAX Thursday and had a nice, 10-minute conversation with the "big-kahuna" TSA person behind the desk and she confirmed, (only on being pressed) that photo id is NOT REQUIRED to fly in the US.
At first she said it was, "You gotta show your id", "ID is required"... she said it several times. But I pressed. I said, "what if I don't have one, I lost it, or left it at home? What if I'm a foreigner from a place without government IDs?" At first I left out the obvious privacy and search issues. She says, "Well, then we do a full search of you and your bags and let you fly." Bingo! (It took me almost 5 minutes before she would admit this existed) So I continue: "What if I show up and say, 'I don't want to show ID. I don't think I need permission from the government to fly.' " She says, "Well, then we turn you away". This went on for a while, and it became clear (to me) that their mission is to "lie" to my face and get me voluntarily show ID even though I'm not legally REQUIRED to at the checkpoint. The conversation was witnessed by at first 2 then about 4 other people from TSA. She did not agree with my assessment that "ID is required" is effectively a lie, but she did agree that people could fly without it, and pretty soon she said, "You gotta go talk to your government representative" not realizing that with a big TSA badge on, she WAS representing the government.
So, from now on, I have lost my ID. Really, I'm not sure where it is I will take the extra hour at the airport. It sucks to spend the hour and make them follow their inane search circus policy.... but the alternative is much worse. I've been asked for photo ID at best buy, hotels, grocery stores, bars, on and on -- all just to do the my daily life activities I want to do. Once that becomes the norm, we'll need government permission to do anything. Unless people realize the problem and start telling people "no, I'd rather not" when asked for ID, this problem will continue to get worse.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Well that's one way to solve the problem - ensure that the US gets wiped off the face of the planet by legitimising *everyone* with a grudge against the US and adding a few more to the number of people the US pisses off.
You keep saying the US but are you aware there are American's living IN the US who don't want to be in a war? It's a great majority of us if you listen to the news and hear the poll numbers coming in.
Sure, there are times where you need to kick ass and fight. Most of American's don't believe this is one of them. And sure 9/11 did demand a response. But switching from a representative democracy to stepping on the road to a fasict state? The implications are frightening.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this. Don't confused the Government we have with the people. Most of us aren't being represented.
I know. I've been working with our crazy politicians to get something going with a broadband policy and now I'm hearing we have one and it's working great!!
You decide who's being represented. It sure as hell isn't the American majority.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
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.
You can also go through security twice.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Who cares if you have to take off your shoes before you get on a plane? I'd rather bear with such minor inconveniences in favor of better security. What shocks me is that people don't complain about the obvious problem with flying: the lack of leg room! Leg room has been shrinking for years and for anyone 6 foot or higher it's downright impossible to come out of a plane without back problems.
Airline and airport "fees", on the other hand, have been increasing over the past couple years.
Why don't people stick to *those* important issues and get things done instead of complaining about more controversial issues they might well be wrong about? There is no chance you of you being wrong about wanting more leg-room.
The hope is that constructive criticism would drive improvement.
The truth is that the TSA is a bureaucracy, where bureaucracy is a three-way-cross of kudzu, humans, and sloths.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Various pieces of real events could be combined to make a new kind of event. Drug mules, bomb makers, and apparently from the last UK bombings - Al Q terrorists can be medical professionals. So that says to me all you need to blow up a plane is an implanted bomb. Airport screenings don't do anything for that. Hostile passengers don't do anything for that. In this case, you get on the plane, you die. What fixes this is the designed killing field of Iraq.
You keep saying the US but are you aware there are American's living IN the US who don't want to be in a war? It's a great majority of us if you listen to the news and hear the poll numbers coming in.
I am fully aware that a lot of Americans don't want war. However, I was replying to someone who was advocating a nuclear response to 9/11 who seemed to think it would "solve the problem". And indeed it would probably "solve the problem" by wiping the US from the face of the map so that the US *government* would no longer be in a position to piss everyone else off. The fact that a large number of US citizens who are anti-war get caught in the cross fire makes very little difference.
Don't confused the Government we have with the people.
I wasn't - the people really play no part in the aforementioned scenario since the people don't control the nuclear weapons.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I wasn't - the people really play no part in the aforementioned scenario since the people don't control the nuclear weapons.
Agreed. And it seems we don't control our Politicians these days either. Time for another revolution?
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
The requirement of the boarding pass makes it sound like you took your complaint against some airport authority, as opposed to process that's handled by the Coast Guard.
In order to deny your claim, some individual had to sign an affadavit which was literally a sworn oath that the damage you claimed was not done. This, you can take to court.
They bought me a new laptop, and a new belt. It took longer to get the belt.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It could have been something like formula or liquor.
The whole screening for liquids thing is ludicrous. And if taking down an airplane with liquids, even a binary liquid, it would be TRIVIAL for a terrorist to accomplish.
To wit, that big-bosomed woman who just waltzed past security might be carrying the explosive liquid in her BOOBS. Those 44DD's could be filled with explosive liquid and detonated on the plane. They more than exceed the 3-1-1 designation (by a large margin).
Are you forcing women with large mammeries to choose one or the other to toss out before getting on the plane? Are you checking to make sure those implants are still filled with saline? Just what ARE the TSA procedures for inspecting women with large gazoombas anyway?
Considering that terrorists are employing women more and more as suicide bombers, the case I'm proposing is not as jocular as might at first be presupposed.
My suggestion to the TSA regarding "Security Theater" -- remember that the first job of the actor is to convince the audience to "suspend their disbelief."
I doubt however that you will actually post this letter though since it actually makes sense and points out the absurdities that have been foisted upon the American people in the name of "fighting terrorism".