Slashdot Mirror
TSA Changes Screening Based on Blog Suggestion
hhavensteincw writes "Less than a week after it launched a new blog aimed at gathering suggestions from air travelers to improve airport security processes, the Transportation Security Administration changed a practice where some screeners were requiring passengers to remove all electronics, including Blackberries, iPods, and cords from carry-on luggage. Seems the TSA didn't know this was going on, and after the question was raised on its blog, it clamped down on the practice. The TSA also provided a detailed description of their reasoning behind the liquids policy. We discussed the opening of the blog last week."
""Less than a week after it launched a new blog aimed at gathering suggestions from air travelers to improve airport security processes, the Transportation Security Administration changed a practice where some screeners were requiring passengers to remove all electronics, including Blackberries, iPods, and cords from carry-on luggage. "
What!? We're suppose to believe the government can change? And for the better? Preposterous!
Like it hasn't been all over the news. If they don't know something as simple as this, how are we supposed to trust that they'll know when a terrorist is lugging explosives on board.
The blog will close (or be neglected) in a month or so after the flood of complaints become too much for them. They might blame the abundance of unreasonable or irrational people on the internet for having a blog up not being practical. (Actually I think it is true a blog is a terrible medium for handling complaints - use a ticketing system instead.) I hope not though, this looks really great on the surface. What's the catch?
In other news, TSA is looking in to claims that some inspectors were unfamiliar soap, shampoo and other personal hygiene products...
What always gets me is the fact I cannot take 100ml of a liquid from outside the airport but I can buy a few Molotov cocktails worth of alcohol in duty free before I get on the plane. Fair enough I might not be able to take the plane down but I could certainly do a lot of damage to the plane and passengers.
Maybe the screeners were right to make people remove electronic goods? Surely I could string together several iPod/laptop batteries to make an effective Taser? Look at all the reports of exploding/igniting batteries in the news, yet it's normally ok to walk onboard with those.
Somehow I don't see this catching on. If they implement the suggestions, they just open themselves to criticism. My first thought was, how come they didn't know about this practice earlier. Everybody who flies know about it (except for the cords, I never had to do that). How many other silly practices have been inconveniencing passengers for years for no good reason? On the other hand, if they don't implement the suggestions, then what's the point of having the blog.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
One thing I hate is that they sometimes open my peacefully sleeping laptop for 2 seconds, so it will start to wake up, then close the lid, causing half of it to continue waking up and half of it to try to sleep again, wreaking havoc with my poor processes.
I just can't understand why they do this at all.
c++;
but as a oversight board run by the very people subject to it.
In other words, the passengers can alert the TSA to practices that don't seem right and its up to the TSA to find out why. Like the part about removing electronics and such from bags. It simply wasn't policy. Yet the TSA as a whole cannot know what every airport out of the ordinary unless there is some easy to access place to get that information. Its even better that it comes from someone other than their own people. I bet the local screeners who were requiring these items removed didn't know they were in the wrong, it probably started with some supervisor or such and spread within the airport because it seemed like a good idea.
I fully expect most suggestions to be ignored because many should be. Some will just be impossible to implement and others would be physicaly impossible (GFY for one). Who knows, someone might suggest to the TSA something they are overlooking. Still I hope the complaints come in as some TSA setups are just damn stupid, having moved beyond abusive. Heaven knows my little old mother and her Shih Tzu are a threat; she hasn't made it through TSA once without them going over the dog and her luggage EVERY SINGLE TIME.
The TSA is yet another bloated and overbearing government organization that will never go away. The employees are unionized which furthers the impossibility of removing this mess. Considering its size I am amazed anyone ever thought we could get rid of it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You eat a ham sandwich and drink a glass of beer (or wine) or you ain't getting on.
It's right there in the summary.
No policies were changed as a result of blog comments.
What *did* happen was that a few bloggers indicated that TSA employees were searching bags in a manner that is prohibited by the TSA's own rules.
Given just how much organizations like the TSA love rules and procedures, the fact that they clamped down isn't a surprise at all. Although it's a big step for the TSA to actually be accountable to its own rules, we still have a long way to come.
If I walk into Safeway/Kroger/Food Lion, and tell the manager that one of their cashiers is stealing money out of the register, there's no doubt that he'll respond immediately. If I walk in and tell the manager that his store is dirty, and that prices are too high, I doubt I'll receive any sympathy.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I have discovered a way of making a bomb that I can hide up my ass, it's the size of watch battery, and sends out telepathic waves which turn all pilots into priapic lunatics who will instantly wrestle with the controls, slavering with depraved lust while they turn the nearest convent school into a hideous fireball. My method is simple. I am going to wait until such technology is made available on the Internet. You cant stop me John Law, you hear me! I'm a coming for ya! The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers....
You may not agree with what I say, but you should fight to the death to allow me to say it, by modding me up.
regular drinking alcohol (i.e. 40-45% by volume) will not ignite if you put a match to it. It requires pre-heating an strong flame source to get it to burn. (Try making a molotov cocktail with room temp vodka, a rag and a match and you won't get very far).
/. analogy of cars is required here - you *cannot* prevent a car being stolen (or aeroplane being blown up), the more you secure you make it , the more tempting a target it becomes to high-end thieves(committed, organised terrorists). But that doesn't mean that locking the doors and setting the alarm (x-rays and searches) is a bad idea......
Of course, stronger alcohols (80-90%) will ignite. And for that reason you'll have a tough job taking them on board a plane (and this goes back way before 9/11). You could possibly try and use aftershave / perfume, but the overpowering smell would probably alert people before you get a chance to make a molotov cocktail.
There simply is no way of covering every single eventuality and still ensuring an economically viable transport system. The whole point in airline security is to prevent some of the obvious risks.
The
echo $SIGNATURE
Unfortunately this practice of having all the electronics out has now spread to the rest of the world, as I posted a month or so ago (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400884&cid=21845314). Even if the TSA changes its practices, it won't make much difference for anyone travelling outside the US, unless those authorities choose to copy the TSA in this.
Ahaaa, the flaw in my plan. Damn that weak booze!
Wow, where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?
But that doesn't mean that locking the doors and setting the alarm (x-rays and searches) is a bad idea......
Unless you spend over 15 minutes in front of the door fumbling with the multiple locks and alarms, you call in locksmith twice a month to let you in, and you got arrested twice for attempt to get inside your own car.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The "binary explosive" plot involved TATP, triacetone triperoxide. Synthesis of AP requires time, ventilation, and an ice bath. The precipitate is NOT a liquid, it is a crystaline organic peroxide.
See: http://roguesci.org/chemlab/energetics/acetone_peroxide.html
www.isoHunt.com
The true threat with aircraft security is hijacking. A hijacker can take over an aircraft and use the plane as a missile. As someone pointed out earlier, if the goal was to just kill people, terrorists could just blow up prior to reaching the security check point or suicide bomb a crowd somewhere else. There are plenty of places to just blow up that would kill more people that can fit on a plane.
If hijacking is the real threat, then the cockpit is what needs to be secured. Have it lock automatically prior to boarding, and have it unlock automatically after the plane is emptied. If terrorists can't get to the cockpit, then they cannot take over a craft.
These cultists are ardent students of the Book of Genesis in the bible who consider that all evil stems from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden who were tempted to pluck a fruit from God's tree by the Devil in the form of a serpent.
The emblem of this fruit is carried openly upon the mind control boxes possessed by these cultists, who frequently gather in Starbucks and Internet cafes, openly displaying this emblem in order to attract other cultist colleagues into terrorist quangos to plan their revenge upon the rest of us.
Therefore, please keep an eye open for smartly dressed people carrying little white boxes bearing an apple emblem on them - they are not to be trusted. Remove their boxes from them and stamp on them, find out where they live, break into their houses and smach up their huge designer coffee tables and African dance memorabilia.
They MUST be stopped!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I'm a frequent flyer, and fly around the world. By far, and I really mean by a far far way, the U.S. has the WORST experience you can ever have in an airport, and it's not just the security. I've been stuck in Dhaka Bangladesh without being told what was going on, and didn't feel as screwed as I sometimes feel in the U.S. (Full disclosure, I'm an American living in Japan, I might think twice about pulling off the same thing in the U.S. I did this in Japan.)
Long story short, I got really fed up with the way they handled my carry on, and insist on going through my personal belongings. I fly out of a local airport, and I KNOW that they know me (they see me once a week) and I know them. One day when I had time to spare, I went to the airport early on, and had sweet revenge. I had a laptop in my carry on... along with 3 rather vigorous vibrators, rigged to turn on at full speed when they opened the bag. Inside the bag I also had a homosexual porno magazine, along with a few tubes of personal lubricant, condoms, and latex gloves. Apparently dildo vibrators do not show up in that exact shape on the X-Ray machine, but the motors, wires and controllers, along with the batteries, sure do.
Security: "Can we open your bag?"
Me: "As if I have an option?"
Security: "Sir, this is security. We must open your bag for security purposes."
Me: "Like I said, I don't have a choice now do I. Just make sure you put it all back in place."
The following expression of the officer, along with his mixed reactions as to what to do next, were pure Kodak moments. I really, really would have paid good money to get a copy of the surveillance camera video!! He first tried to close it and just return it to me, then he realized that he better check it out since he was the one that said it had to be done. I think he took about 0.8 seconds of a "thorough" inspection, then closed the bag. However, that wouldn't turn the dildos off, and they were still buzzing away, quite audibly. I gave him the "turn them off. All of them." look, and he fumbled again attempting to get all 3 turned off. Next Monday I fly out again. I can't wait to see what they'll do this time.
So if we have explosive detection devices that can detect any liquid explosives why can't I bring bottle of water? Does having MORE explosive in a bottle make it harder to detect, fuck no. So why can't I bring larger bottles on a plane?
If the detectors don't work as well as he claims then it still can't stop someone from mixing explosive beforehand and putting it in multiple containers or using multiple people.
He closes by saying the TSA folks are the best in the world, which if you've been to the airport you know this is patently false, all you need is a GED and you too can harass foreigners and your fellow citizens today!
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
So rather then a firebomb you have a nice broken bottle type knife to bring on the plane? Or are they shipping everything in Plastic these days?
Clearly, you're quite knowledgeable regarding the complexity of making a bomb. But that complexity, from what I can gather, is precisely the point (according to the TSA blog post) of restricting the liquids in secure areas of airport terminals.
From the post in question:
It's quite plain to see that the lab researchers and the TSA officials are quite aware that making a TATP bomb requires a precipitate. According to the TSA's logic, which from my lay perspective seems pretty right on, by making it difficult to bring substantial amounts of the liquids required to make the precipitate, a layer of complexity is added to bomb plots involving the mixing of liquids. Complexifying an already complex procedure makes chances of success all the more unlikely.
Now, before my fellow /.'ers charge me with being a TSA cheerleader, I am not a fan of the liquids ban. I like my joe made my own espresso machine and in a sealed thermos. I used to enjoy bringing good-tasting water on board. I wear contacts and because I refuse to check baggage in, I have to find a drugstore within a day or two of landing. The liquids ban inconveniences me, but that's all it does. From the point of view of the government, that inconvenience is offset by the reduced threat of explosives on commercial aircraft.
This overlooks the very real possibility that all of this, however, is governmental hand-waving to distract us from the fact that we may be no more secure in commercialized domestic airspace than in 1970. But my best guess is that some people working for the government and the TSA actually believe what their doing has some measure of effectiveness.
blog
Shouldn't you get new locks (or, better yet, a new car?). Or was that still part of the analogy?
which is totally what she said
The same taxfree shops (at least in airports i've been) sell also stronger alcohols - for example, I tend to by cheaper Stroh (Austrian brand of rum) there, and it comes in 40%, 60% and 80% alcohol varieties, and the 80% one definitely will ignite.
So, what's the point of banning me from bringing a bottle of mineral water? Currently it seems that the point is to improve profits for the in-zone shops by ensuring a form of monopoly there, and that's it.
Terrorist also won't be killing people one by one with bombs, let alone liquid bombs they've constructed out of something they smuggled in their Starbucks coffee cup.
If the new policy is enforced, it will be publicized, and can even be announced prior to take-off. Knowing what is possible and not possible will change any plans the terrorists have, and hopefully deter them from including airplanes in any of their plans. And they do plan. They aren't stupid. old-fashioned "take me to Syria/Iran/Cuba" kind Why not? Take them to Syria. It doesn't mean they will gain control of the aircraft.
So rather then a firebomb you have a nice broken bottle type knife to bring on the plane? Or are they shipping everything in Plastic these days?
Those represent two very differnt types of dangers - someone armed with a knife would be a lot easier for passengers and flight crews to subdue, even with makeshift weapons such as pens, laptops, and fire extinguishers etc. Given today's climate I doubt passengers would be passive anymore in the face of such a threat - witness what happened to the guy who tried to get in a cockpit a while back.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Huh? Have you actually tried it? I've seen 30-40% alcohol drinks burn at room temperature without any problems. I call bullshit. I have personally tried to ignite whiskey and vodka (both 80 proof = 40% by volume). They will burn with a pathetic blue flame that will go out if you walk past it. If you've seen a flaming alcohol drink, it involved something a bit stronger than normal booze (something like bacardi 151 (75.5% by volume) burns great).
Knowledge != Intelligence
yes. have tried it. am a chemist. you can get 40% alcohol to burn but it takes a little heating and a good ignition flame. It's not a great candidate for a molotov cocktail.
echo $SIGNATURE
Drambuie certainly does, and I've no reason to suspect it's any stronger than other liqueurs or spirits.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As the other poster noted, you have to preheat the alcohol. I make "cafe brule" for special occasions, which is basically coffee mixed with brandy, orange extract, and sugar. In order to ignite the brandy, which is standard 80 proof (40%), you heat it in a saucepan for a few minutes. After that, taking a match to it creates a nice blue (and extremely hot) flame, that's actually quite difficult to put out (it takes more than walking by). It's quite impressive when done in the dark, especially when you stir it, and remove a still-flaming spoon from the mixture!
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Was this a real threat? Yes, there was a very serious plot to blow up planes using liquid explosives in bombs that would have worked to bring down aircraft.
And this is utter horseshit. If someone walked onto a plane with a water bottle filled with nitroglycerin, it would blow up when they tossed it through the XRay machine. So, they would have to make the explosives on the plane, and one of my best friends is a professional chemist and she said "Bullshit". You'd have to hole yourself up in the bathroom for a very long time with a magnetic stirring plate, a very precise dropper, dry ice, and a number of other bottles cups and things, and then in a very programmatic manner make the stuff, all while heaving and bucking on a jet liner and being exposed to some very nasty orders and chemicals. In short: it won't happen and isn't gong to happen and the threats about it are pure bullshit.
The TSA is just there to make people think the gov't is doing something about terrorism, and to keep people afraid. In fact, it's all bullshit, and a way to funnel huge sums of money into the military/industrial complex and keep the nightmare train rolling down the rails to an oblivion as it is headed directly off a cliff.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Wow. What a waste of good booze. What's with you people? Drink it - don't burn it!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well I guess MacGyver is banned from flying now.
You wouldn't have to worry about the 3-1-1 liquid limit though since he doesn't have enough brain matter to be an issue.
Except the argument went something along the lines of:
Q: Why can't we take more than 100ml of liquid on board?
A: Because its possible you might mix up a binary liquid explosive on the plane!
Q: So why can't several people work together and each bring 100ml of binary explosive makin's?
A: Because you need the other people to carry the ice bath, liquid nitrogen, bunsen burner, pipette, magnetic stirrer, thermostatically controlled heater, fume cupboard and all the other lab gear you need to successfully mix up a binary liquid explosive; so making them carry the ingredients in several 100ml bottles is going to be the last straw that makes them abandon their dastardly plan!
Q: But they could all bring on small quantities pre-mixed explosives?
A: No, because liquid explosives are too unstable to carry pre-mixed.
Q: So you're confirming that its nigh-on impossible to blow up a plane with liquid explosive?
A: (mumbles) - we've found several bad 'uns manufacturing TATP.
Q: Correction - you found pieces of several people who attempted to make TATP in the comfort of their own homes - oh, PS, TATP isn't a liquid.
A: Oh look - butterfly!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Apparently, one guy in Germany followed your advice and almost ended up with a Darwin Award after downing a 1 liter bottle of vodka.
You know, I'm not the biggest fan of the TSA, but I'm pretty impressed with them getting government approval and hosting a blog where they discuss this type of material. As someone who's been working for government agencies for years, this is definitely something that I haven't seen before nor would of gotten approved through multiple government agencies/directorates.
Kudos to the TSA to spend the time and resources to do something like this. It blows my mind that, in my opinion, a government agency did something practical for once.
It has $12/hr fatassed shitheads telling you what's what.
So how many liquid explosives has the TSA confiscated since they began the liquid ban back in Aug 06??
Brandy on Christmas puddings burns quite nicely. Granted, that may be pre heated.
How about Sambuca - often served and lit at the table (with coffee beans in). No pre-heating, and really good for burning your lips on the hot glass if you've left it burning too long before drinking it.
Both of the above are 40% abv.
Who cares about lighting the alcohol. On our last flight to Britain my wife forgot to leave behind a pen knife she carries in her purse. Of course, they found that and she had to leave it behind at the screening station. I, carrying two bottles of alcohol in my bag had no problem getting through since you were allowed to bring such things in your carry-on at the time (post-9/11 but pre-"waterbomb" bs). I found it funny that I could easily do much more damage to people by breaking off the bottles and wielding them movie-barfight style than she ever could with that tiny knife.
Bacardi 151. Or anything else that actually has a flame arrestor on the bottle. You need little more than to take off the flame arrestor and/or pour it into something with more surface area than the next of the bottle and the vapors will ignite with matches or a standard lighter.
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Funny. The comment I posted on the TSA's blog that mentioned various scenarios not addressed by passenger screening never made it past moderation. For example, garroting a passenger or crew member with your shoelaces, or carrying on ammonia and high concentration chlorine in your allowed 3oz containers to create mustard gas. My point was of course that, considering the fraudulent nature of the the Justice Dept's claims regarding the so-called liquid bomber plot, there's absolutely no reason to ban liquids. If we want to cover every potential for violence, we'd have to take away everyone's belts, shoelaces, all liquids, all sharp or pointy objects, trim their fingernails, and bind all passengers' hands and feet.
"...the more you secure you make it , the more tempting a target it becomes to high-end thieves(committed, organised terrorists)..." Only in the movies.
Typos... that's just how I role.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of a terrorist taking down a plane with a Christmas pudding somewhat amusing?
Perhaps I'm just a sick, sick man.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Although next time I go through Lambert-St Louis or LAX I'll remember why I hate TSA.
--- these days, what with business and stuff, you gotta get your emails...
After the most recent MythBusters episode, the TSA needs to ban pens and any other small objects that can hold powder. After all, we saw what a plain pen holding 3 cc of explosives can do to a styrofoam dummy.
i'm with you on this. I had a jeep Cherokee that insisted on locking the doors when it got over 15 mph. some way to keep car jacking down i suppose. i got so tired of being locked out of my car and not being able to find the spare key that i ended up putting one underneath the car with a magnet holder. i lock the doors on purpose when i leave a laptop or other valuable in the car and go to the grocery.
airport security is a total joke. its a facade to give the wall marts shopin' (i resemble that sometimes), suv wheeling country a warm fuzzy that the govt is doing their job of protecting the borders. i can't take a 20 oz bottle of water past the security checkpoint, but can get a metal knife when seated in first class. i'm sure there's countless examples of folks who take small razor or personal knives in their bathroom bag past security all the time... detonate a bomb on a plane? light speed is too slow. prepare for ludacris speed. i don't have numbers, but my gut tells me that 5 planes could go down per year and it'd still be safer than driving on the public highway system. would less people fly? some initially perhaps. every day on the freeway someone falls asleep and causes fatal accidents all over the country and we're not leaving our cars in the garage. still we get on the freeway and take the risk. schools all over the country are having people killed each year. i just read today one where a teacher's estranged spouse came in and attacked the teacher. the school went into lock down, the attacker ended up getting home and committing suicide in the garage later. we should all go under ground where it's REALLY save and secure.
When the threat of liquid explosives was first perceived, slashdot covered it, with specifics on what the real threat was (triacetone triperoxide) and some real chemistry behind it. It is interesting that now the TSA basically confirms what the original coverage stated, basically "But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy".
I mean, I know they're pretty dangerous - especially when they're in the Senate - but geez, at least let 'em fly!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The blog post (or was it a response to a blog posting) by the official suggests that the TSA bases its policies on the important assumption that terrorists are more intelligent than passengers.
You need to write a book. Just a short one but it should read the same way your comment does and you'll be a best seller among the outsider artist circles in days.... nice prose.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
You need to work on the part where you talk about *how* you rigged the vibrators to turn on when the bag is opened. This is a geek site, so without that crucial information it's very obvious that you made the whole thing up. Inquiring minds want to know (and analyze the plausibility of) the technical aspects of your prank!
oh, you keep getting new locks and adding them besides the old ones. :P
Getting a new car would in this context would mean moving to a different country.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
which is totally what she said
"They are the best in the world and are on your side; "
No0, they are not. They are a bunch of low educated nobodies who are enjoying there new found authority.
As someone who has handed a package across the 'line' to my wife on the boarding side of security, I have to say either:
A) They are not even good, much less the best in the world.
B) or; the world is screwed.
But hey, keep on searching old women, children and following a predictable screening process, because this sort of activity sure has stopped terrorism everywhere else in the world~
Put a secure door, and easy Autopilot lock system, and an armed security officer at the front of each plane and we will be fine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
(Finding myself in the odd position of justifying that side...)
The difference is that the FBA/TSA/BATFE/etc. lab researchers tried doing it without terminating themselves.
If you're not particularly concerned about surviving the mixture part, and know that things can go sufficiently wrong to achieve your dastardly plan anyway, and don't realize that the funds spent would get better results at the Bunny Ranch, what is utterly unacceptable to most becomes entirely desirable. Notice that in the same page where the lab researchers had trouble getting it to work, they also note that some other folks did get it to work, and the results would have been satisfactory for them if only they were in a plane and not a scraggy apartment.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I call B.S. on that. Have you ever heard of a vapor lock? You take regular 80-proof alcohol (I forget what kind, offhand, but 80 proof is ~40%), pour it into a tall glass, light it with a match, then cup your hand over the opening to smother the flame. Then you quickly remove your hand and take a deep breath. The flame vaporizes the alcohol, and when you inhale the vapors, you get the alcohol into your bloodstream very, very quickly./.'ers forgetting to make sure the flame is out before trying a vapor lock>
I've never seen anyone make a Molotov cocktail, so I won't claim to know that 80-proof alcohol is strong enough for that, but I *have* seen someone light a vapor lock, so I know that 80-proof alcohol will burn easily enough to be lit with a single match -- no preheating required.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
What if there is a hostage situation? The hijacker(s) is/are going to kill people if he/she/they doesn't/don't get in the cockpit as demanded.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I like these changes, they should make life easier and faster.
I personally have never had a problem, but it is time consuming to unpack your laptop each time.
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
It's rather hilarious how their own blog admits that your chemist friend (and every other independent expert) was right and the whole idea of bringing components of a liquid explosive onto the plane is ludicrous.
So there's the question you quoted, where they insist that yes there was a real threat and that's why they have the liquid ban. Then they have this question, the one every sane person in America asked moments after hearing about the new policy:
"Why can't multiple people bring on explosives in three-ounce containers and mix them post security? "
And then here's a snippet of part 4 of their answer:
"The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet."
Hear that? An entire group of top scientists in a laboratory setting had a hard time making a working explosive. Obviously this applies to a single person making a binary explosive as well as it does a group. If they had made this the answer to the first question, it would look like they were saying there wasn't a serious threat and the whole policy is stupid. But by moving it down a couple questions, it looks like they're only saying that multiple people cooperating to do this isn't a serious threat, so don't worry about the obvious hole in their procedures...
Personally I think they are just playing word games anyway. When they say "real threat" and "serious plot", they are using alternate meanings of the words to confuse. If I say "I'm going to fucking kill you!" is that a threat? Sure, I'm threatening you, and maybe I'm serious about it. But is it a threat in the sense of risk analysis? No, not really, since I have no idea who you are and I don't work for any ISP much less yours so I have no way to carry out my threat.
The blog is just like TSA itself -- theater designed to mollify the complacent, stir up the fearful, and above all, demonstrate that Your Government Knows What It's Doing And Has Everything Under Control.
The enemies of Democracy are
The TSA is a multi billion dollar joke! Its sole function is to make the flying public feel good about flying-that something is being done about security. Do you really think that having two people located ten feet apart, both checking the same picture ID makes flying safer? My 3 year old daughter wanted some food on a layover at the Portland (OR) airport, so her mother took her for some. The food court is out of the "sterile" area, and when they tried to get back through security, the refused to let ma daughter back in because the MORON TSA ID screener at the earlier airport had marked her ticket in the wrong place. They actually held my daughter! My wife called me on the cell phone crying. I had to take our 1 year old and all our luggage to the TSA security counter. They still wouldn't let her in and actually threatened me-until I walked over to a nearby pay phone and loudly asked directory assistance for the phone number of the Portland CBS TV station's news room. Then, they finally relented.
I agree with the above and also noticed how the TSA contradicted themselves concerning liquids. Complete BS, do they get a kick back from the airport vendors on the other side of security? Also, its amazing that one poorly built non-functioning shoe bomb is now the reason we take off our shoes.
;)
Regardless of that past non-sense, I have heard of a more serious threat - the bra bomb. I heard that they could be wiring women's bras and now I am rally concerned for my safety. I propose that the TSA now have all women remove their bras and place them on the x-ray machine for a proper inspection. Because who really knows what kind of 'wired' bra they might have on.
Also it will make my waiting in line much more enjoyable
I hate the TSA. I think they're a bloated waste of my tax money, and they don't improve security one darn bit.
However, the fact that they, a bloated government agency who normally could not give a crap about what we terroris^H^H^Citizens think, have a blog and respond to, and hear us on the internet is a huge deal. That's big.
It sounds to me that the complaints all come down to a few things:
* The TSA's employees generally don't know and don't understand the TSA's published rules and guidelines. In addition (in consequence?) rules and procedures are applied haphazardly and inconsistently, and are misrepresented by TSA employees -- sometimes resulting in Federal employees misrepresenting Federal law.
* There is a perception among passengers that the security procedures are arbitrary and/or ineffective.
* There is no recourse for passengers who either feel wronged or identify misapplications of the rules. Almost by definition, everyone in the line is in a rush. Passengers are routinely presented with the decision to either give up their rights or property, or miss their flight (or worse).
* No effort is being made to secure passengers in the security line itself, which is an increasingly attractive target: lots of people in close quarters, many shuffling belongings around to prepare for the security screening, and not well-monitored by security personnel.
Have I missed any of the basic complaints here?
one-upped...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
their accounts of their bumbling antics on their blog reminded me why I hate them.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
TSA screening was made so that people keep flying (so that airlines don't go bankrupt). It's a delicate balance. Screen too little and people are scared and don't fly. Screen too much and people get frustrated and don't fly. They can't ban all liquids because of the latter, that have to do something to prevent the former. Someone came up with this 3-1-1 thing and since it sounds like 9-1-1, it's catchy so that people think the TSA is doing something, but it's not so inconvenient that people put up with it.
Think about this sometime when you sign your name on a charge card slip at a restaurant. Basically the signature is something to make you feel good and continue to use charge cards. If you didn't have to sign a charge slip people get worried about how secure it was and stop using cards, if you have to put down a fingerprint people would find it very inconvenient. A signature on a charge slip is just about right, not so inconvenient that people stop using charge cards, but just enough to make people feel safe enough so they continue to use them. Notice how there's no signature required for on-line transactions, or the machine-swipe in the gas station or some grocery stores for small amount. Also if you forget to sign the charge slip at a resturant or hotel, the charge still shows up on your bill anyways. Nobody really gives a crap about the signature on the charge slip, it's all for show, but nobody seems in an upcry about it on this forum.
Move along, nothing to see here...
How this got +1 insightful for being deliberately offensive is beyond me.
I mean come on, be more of a bigot.
PS Ham sucks, make it beef.
The comments section on the TSA blog is moderated (CENSORED.)
Let's just say that Ron Paul supporters are not welcome to quote the Bill or Rights!
Andy
I wouldn't be targeting airplanes after let's say September 12th 2001. The whole point was that someone found a weak spot and exploited it. One that has now been closed or at least monitored a lot more. I'm fairly sure their focus isn't on hijacking airplanes anymore, but looking for the next weak spot. If they aren't it makes me doubt their intelligence and ability to mastermind September 11th to begin with.
I'm not suggesting abandoning _all_ the new security. But the whole procedures on liquid explosives is pretty pointless, when airplanes are unlikely to be the next target anyway.
Too bad they won't be able to fix existing planes, but I would seriously consider this for all new designs if I were genuinely worried about security. The next generation of mamoth planes would definitely benefit from this. It would have a bathroom too obviously.
No, there wasn't. Ridiculous claims about validity of your idiotic policy don't make you any less of pwn3d losers.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
A bag of mine was once routinely checked and the officer said there was a "suspicious object" in it and asked me to wait. He put his hand inside and pulled out a large cylindrical object which was full of tiny pointy nail-like objects. When he saw it in reality holding it in his own hands he paused for a full minute while looking at it with a facial expression which I will never forgot, then he put it back on and let me go saying absolutely nothing. The suspicious object was nothing more than a plastic box full of wooden toothpicks enclosed in paper! :)
On a similar occasion, another suspicious object in my bag turned out to be nothing more than a small pack of pistachio nuts.
Stupid annoyances like these and and the resulting loss of time is why I try to not subject myself to such pointless searches by traveling by train or ferry! On the plus side, most times my 3G laptop gets Internet signal on ground or sea, while on air all I have is a book!
Are the hostage takers standing? Push the nose down hard for a half-dozen seconds of negative Gs then back up for 2 or 3 positive Gs. The pilot could first announce a codeword so that appropriate cabin crew could get strapped in. The armed attackers would certainly be put at a disadvantage and a trained crew might be able disarm them. Better than everyone crash and burn. I used to fly light planes, which makes me think that if I was in the cockpit, I would shake the shit out of those motherfuckers.
That would be hard. Going through airport security is extremely easy and takes about one minute unless you're absolutely stupid. So i don't think it's really analogous.
You sometimes have to wait in line to get up to the security checkpoint. Of course, you have to wait in line in every other part of society where more than about 5 people are doing something.
What liquid explosive is there other than nitroglycerin? You are not going to make nitroglycerin in a plane no matter how bad you might want to. The guy completely evaded explaining the liquids policy and suggested one visit the TSA Web site which only states, "There is a such thing as liquid explosives, trust us."
I had this happen to me this year. They made me take out everything, multiple batteries, external hard drive, multiple ipods, iphone, power cords, usb and ethernet cables, bluetooth ear piece etc. Immediately after passing through and getting dirty looks from the people behind me, there was a table with suggestions/complaint forms. I stopped and filled it out explaining my entire experience. A pilot came through after me, and had gone through the same treatment, and he said he fills one out every time he passes through (this was the atlanta airport). Saying they were unaware this was going on is crap unless they weren't reading their "fan" mail up until the blog made it public.
You've just figured out a way to smuggle anything you want - embarrass the crap out of customers officers.
In all seriousness, I'd consider this a form of social engineering attack - you're picking something that will probably have a fairly high success rate of causing embarrassment to officers searching property (well, maybe - some officers might use it as an excuse to humiliate you, I guess), causing them to ignore anything else you have in your bag with a view to Getting You Gone as fast as possible.
New TSA rule - no objects shaped like wangs.
Are the hostage takers standing? Push the nose down hard for a half-dozen seconds of negative Gs then back up for 2 or 3 positive Gs.
Also apply maximum right roll followed by maximum left roll. Pilots generally fly planes for passenger comfort, which is nowhere near what the plane can handle. Freight versions of the same planes can often be flown differently because cargo dosn't tend to get airsick or complain.
This is also what the first officer of FedEx 705 did when faced with a hijack attempt.
he pilot could first announce a codeword so that appropriate cabin crew could get strapped in.
"We are about to encounter some severe turbulence" would mean "The other pilot is about to do some fancy flying..."
Also note that any politician who would support weakening security measures faces the small but very considerable political risk of being blamed for an attack after restrictions might be loosened - on top of whatever "weak-on-terror" mud-slinging the politician would have to face anyway. Since the measures have strong airline support and it's difficult to find someone principled enough to take the passenger's side, we all face a painful travel experience.
I'm equally resentful about the ID-checking requirement since all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID and it still wouldn't be hard to get a fake ID past the TSA. That requirement has a similar history of having nothing to do with security and a lot with not being able to sell your ticket to someone else and reducing the pricing power of airlines.