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?
In other news, TSA is looking in to claims that some inspectors were unfamiliar soap, shampoo and other personal hygiene products...
No.
What reasonable suggestions come by, TSA will implement it.
Unless TSA wants to be scrapped completely(being a creation of Bush), they will continue to work with passengers.
TSA does not know everything that goes on in each airport. Its management by exception. they set broad guidelines for safety and leave it at that.
Airport TSA contractors then try to fulfill those outlines, and use whatever means necessary to achieve it.
If it involves strip-searching lindsay each time, so be it is the attitude of contractors. And TSA itself pays them based on the non-incidents they have. So if a contractor was pretty lax and allowed Reid to blow up something, then TSA would not only cut them out of the gracy train, but also blacklist them, thus making sure the contractor stays in line.
Pretty much every government office works that way.
The good point is TSA is taking suggestions seriously enough to warrant direct interruption in contractor jobs to make sure passengers are not complaining.
To what extent this direct intervention would go on, is the question. It will stop when someone gets through security and then TSA comes down hard on even clothes (So the nudist flight company has a field day), or berefit of any incidents, we may even go back to the 1999 era slowly.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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
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.
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.
I regularly wear two almost identical fleeces -- one has a zipper, one does not; also, I fly rather frequently. I've noticed that security *always* asks me to remove my zippered fleece, and never requires me to remove the one without the zipper. Every time, I think that I should wear a trench coat, and nothing more. They ask me to remove my coat, and I calmly comply, and proceed to the metal detector... but something tells me I'd get in *much* worse trouble than indecent exposure...
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
:O the reason is that George Bush believes in man-made Global Warming, and is trying to cut down on pollution by removing unnecessary weight from planes!! *gets dragged away by men in dark suits and shades*
which is totally what she said
Surprisngly no. I'm a Brit and my first wife was an American. When her parents wanted to visit my mother in law wasn't keen on the transatlantic flight and, as I'd made the trip in the QE2 back in 1959, I suggested looking at going by boat. To my surprise there was nothing that suited. Air travel has completely killed the transatlantic pasenger trade. Ok, so I know that someone will reply to this with a link to 'EasyBoat' or whatever with regular sailings bu when my father in law looked back in 1989 he couldn't find anything.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
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
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.
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 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.
You need to rent Around The World In 80 Days - not the fictional movie(s), the A&E documentary with Michael Palin.
/.: How about allowing <s> tags? It would bring the ^W joke somewhat closer to the 21st century.
While regularly scheduled passenger service is not available, there are places you can go to seek passenger accommodations aboard cargo vessels. It's not The Love Boat, but it didn't look nearly as uncomfortable as steerage^Wcoach on a passenger plane.
Note to
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.
He'll just build his own plane from the scraps he finds in the dumpster behind the terminal, and get there before his scheduled flight even takes off.
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".