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.
...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.
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 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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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 |