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."
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?
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.
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
If you are European and don't want to visit the States occasionally, or if you're American and don't want to visit Europe, then I would suggest that you need to expand your world view.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
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 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.
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.
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.
You missed the point. The whole idea is to limit the amount of liquids that could potentially be explosive or mixed together to be explosives because they CANNOT or DO NOT actually test for actual explosives. What other reason could there be?
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.
So how many liquid explosives has the TSA confiscated since they began the liquid ban back in Aug 06??
Nitro Glycerine is not the only liquid explosive. Further, it has not been conclusively shown that an explosive is required to bring down an airplane. One thing that could be causal is combustion, and that said, a bottle of any inflammable liquid and a match would probably be sufficient to cause a mid-air catastrophe. Nobody said the plane had to be destroyed mid-air. It just has to be put in a condition that it will suffer uncontrolled descent terminated by sudden inelastic collision with another object (usually the Earth).
That's a Chicago thing, not a US thing.
Which is one of the reasons I left Illinois.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I've experienced the same abuse in Los Angeles, Portland, and Atlanta. It's a TSA thing, IMO.
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.
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".
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!
Funny, I've gone through TSA screening in Dallas, Las Vegas, and Orlando over the past couple of years and have never had a bad experience. Even when I (stupidly) went through security at DFW with an expired drivers license, they were friendly and quick to get me through the extra security.
Maybe in a lot of cases is has as much to do with the attitude of the person being screened as the screener.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.-Ecclesiastes 1:9
Well excuse the shit outta me. It's not my fault you're too lazy to hold your hand UP in the universal sign for stop. Why she was moving her fingers, I'll never know. But there was no reason to be rude or condescending.
TSA folks know they can act like jerks without repercussion, so many of them do. They're not accountable like the police, and they're paid well for a mindless, numbing job, so there's less incentive for them to act responsibly or with respect.
Try wearing a kilt and going commando, security screening turns into a whole different experience ...