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.
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.
I am absolutely amazed and impressed that the TSA has opened their own blog to finally try and explain and educate their 'angry customers'.
In fact it is such a good thing, I can't believe they thought of it themselves.
Has this got anything to do with Bruce Schneier's interview with the TSA head, Kip Hawley?
Regardless of what people think about the TSA, this move is to be applauded. I hope it expands even further into other areas of government.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
...and they will listen.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
It's only to be applauded if they DO something. Until then it's a publicity stunt, or a lame outlet for the rage directed against them.
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
It'd be nice to think that there was a golden age of air travel when nobody wanted to use aircraft as political weapons, but that only existed prior to the 1960s when air travel became affordable for the masses. There is NO period in time when airline travel was not subject to some kind of danger. Planes have always been targeted by hijackers and bombers because it's a strong political symbol that is guaranteed to generate news coverage.
For the record, metal detectors and security screening at airports started long before 9/11, and dangers to air travel started long before then as well.
In 1976, Cubana 455, with 73 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.
In 1985, Air India Flight 182, with 329 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.
In 1988, Pam-Am Flight 103, with 259 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.
In 2000, Ahmed Ressam pleaded guilty to trying to bomb Los Angeles International airport.
May I also remind you that, just in the year 1970, there were at least 13 attempted hijackings JUST TO CUBA:
And, even after 9/11, idiots have tried to bring down commercial aircraft with bombs. They just happen to have been royally incompetent.
In July, 2001, I flew from Canada, through a connecting flight in Houston or Dallas, on the way to the Belize rainforest. I (and my fellow students) all had razor-sharp machetes either checked, or (in my case) in my carry-on. No joke. No one seemed to give a shit.
In 1997 I travelled back from Japan, and brought with me a boxed Samurai sword (not sharpened). People wondered how i'd get it home. It rode in the overhead bin.
Last time I travelled through the US, I had to throw out 50ml of cough syrup.
Jeremy
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.
There are already plenty of high-level, high-profile, already-accepted-as-smart people saying how completely fucked up TSA is, and TSA isn't listening to them, so why would they listen to us no matter how polite we are? Maybe it would be a good thing for them to hear how much every man-in-the-street hates them too. A lot of things come down to popularity, and an unpopular agency might have some serious problems staying around. And what will gain more press: a blog with a few well-reasoned comments or one packed with vitriol? Remember, there has never been a story on the news that said "3 million people in enjoyed a nice quiet night at home yesterday." I would love to see a story on the 11:00 news that say "Agency posts blog; 99% of comments all say what assholes they are." That would just make more people aware of how fucked up TSA is and maybe eventually lead to some change.
So yeah, go ahead and post some choice Bruce Schneier quotes if you want. But if you don't want to do that, FLAME ON!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
I wish your flight would have been on 9/11. Imagine how airport security would be different today if the story had been "4 terrorists, armed with box-cutters, attempted to hijack an airliner, only to have their limbs removed by a gang of Canadian college students armed with machetes".
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.
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?
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.
The man who has flown three or four times a year mocks the man who's flown once in a few years. Nice.
I fly regularly - and when I mean regularly, I mean twice a week. I'm a consultant and I fly out every Monday and fly back every Thursday. Sometimes, I fly more.
And let me tell you that TSA is a bloody joke. The people who handle things look like the kind of people who wouldn't be able to get a minimum wage job at the local Walmart.
You don't mind having to take off your shoes or carrying liquids because - oh wait - you fly 3 or 4 times a year. When you have to fly every other day, it gets old. And oh yeah, the luggage handling is just wonderful. So, every damn time, I have to check in my luggage so that I can take my toiletries with me and risk losing my luggage to who-knows-where.
And oh, just today, I flew out of O'Hare. The idiots there wanted to know why I had two laptops. Because it's my damn job, and it's none of their business. But no, good luck explaining to them.
Take off my shoes? Wonderful. When you get an athlete's foot infection every two months, let me know how it goes.
And I am of east-Indian descent - good luck being a brown man and flying out twice or four times a week. Your probability of meeting those jerks (the "rude" and "intimidating" ones that you spoke of) just shot up. And guess what? I can tell you right now that at least half of TSA is full of arrogant, racist losers who shouldn't be allowed a job, let alone one handling security.
We've a system where you can't even transport a bottle of wine safely. The one time I tried checking in some wine, the wonderful TSA opened my bags, checked out the bottles of wine, didn't repack them the way they were packed and left a note saying that they were snooping around. And oh, I opened my luggage to find brilliant red wine all over my clothes. It's a wonderful feeling, let me tell you. What is this, stone age?
And guess what? Most of the people who travel regularly do so on business. And they do it often. After some time, it just gets old, annoying and plain ridiculous. That's because Israel faces *real* terrorist threats on a daily basis - not a once in a blue moon thing that's used as an excuse to have people do stupid things, and make a mockery of security in the name of safety.
Maybe you should try traveling a little more often and see what that does to your wonderful feeling of "make the best of it, it's not that bad."
(An irritated frequent flyer)
Red Fuming nitric acid and [cotton balls | Glycerin | coal tar ] qualifies, but because you eliminated the H2SO4 so it's be "binary" you'll have to do a bit of drying first. Cool thing is, *assuming* I could both procure and get through security with Red Nitric, then 3 x 1 Oz containers is vastly more than adequate, especially if I'm using a solid as my secondary so I can use all three bottles for nitric and sulphuric...
That said, if you want to bring down a plane, it is vastly more effective to simply smuggle some mercury on board (doesn't take much). Make a fake battery (AA) and use a 3 volt lithium AA in place of the other battery, thus two AAs gives you three volts and proper operation of the device (cheap digicam, flashlight, vibrator, whatever). Once in flight, open the fake battery and hold the plane hostage.
Even more effective: grab a fire extinguisher while in flight. hit people with it, bash in the cockpit door with it.
Or decompress the plane by bashing out windows.
Or take Krav Maga (sp?) or some other suitable "hostile" martial art.
Or claim to have a bomb even though you don't (still will terrify the plane).
Or smuggle a gun in.
Or Smuggle a knife in.
Or use some JB weld, a magazine, and a metal spoon (need a handle after all) and make a knife.
Or rupture all those butane lighters you bought after security in the concourse and make a fuel air bomb in the lav.
Etc.
Etc.
Point is that there are a million ways to take down a plane, or terrorize a plane, what have you. Almost all of them are simpler than a binary explosive.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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 |