Slashdot Mirror


TSA To Allow Laptops In Approved Bags

mnovotny writes "TIME is reporting that TSA will be allowing laptops in approved bags through security checkpoints. 'The new rules, announced Tuesday and set to take effect Aug. 16, are intended to help streamline the X-ray inspection lines. To qualify as "checkpoint friendly," a bag must have a designated laptop-only section that unfolds to lie flat on the X-ray machine belt and contains no metal snaps, zippers or buckles and no pockets.'" Don't you feel safer? I wish an independent 3rd-party group could get together and see what they could get through security without being arrested for the experiment. So little of what the TSA is doing is any more than illusion.

37 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. I don't think that sneaking stuff through is smart by Ferzerp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would make a point, but I fear that the reaction would be the opposite of what many of us would like. If we showed holes in the security theater that has been built, stricter measures would be put in place and all travellers would be inconvenienced even more.

    I'm actually really surprised that the summary suggests that.

  2. Security theatre by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, much of this is security theatre, but allowing me to carry my laptop on and attempting to stream-line the current cluster fuck is an improvement none the less.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Security theatre by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its more than that. Its about making money. For private corporations.

      Why else would the TSA allow you to get special ID for a few hundred dollars to bypass security.. designed and maintained by a private company? Specially designed TSA approved bags.. designed by private companies. Not to mention the billions of dollars filtered through to private corporations for those expensive x-ray and other fancy security devices.

      And they do shit all. I've flown twice in the last two years with a swiss army knife in my pocket without realizing it.

      --
      .
    2. Re:Security theatre by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes... and NO.

      Once you are trained to buy new 'stuff' to put your other 'stuff' inside for traveling, you will have been trained for the next measures. None of what the TSA does is about real security. It's all about getting citizens to do as they are told and with no more reason than that it is required for security according to some obtuse DHS ruling.

      At the rate that this is going, the next plane based terrorism will probably be a bomb planted by TSA in a traveler's luggage while being screened routinely. This will allow for further restrictions and meticulous searches.

      Yesterday we hear of a company whose business model is based on TSA bs security and they lost a laptop... then found it again in the same room? I bet the NSA borrowed it but forgot where to put it back? Now this little trick to sell you more American Tourister luggage. You know the model? The one with a DHS approved RFID tag built right into the handle of it. It starts with laptops, but will move on to any carry on luggage only being permitted in the 'new' DHS approved TSA sponsored RFID luggage/bag.

      Soon, you won't even have to go to the airport to be blamed for causing bomb scares. Oh, sorry, just an RFID mixup. Still, we need you to come down to the station with us.

      Land of the Free.... to be searched.

    3. Re:Security theatre by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but given the dress code marshals are required to adhere to, you simply make them your first target, get their gun, then jack the plane.

      Not to mention the rather lousy number of flights with a marshal on them in the first place.

      Note: I approve of none of this, merely a bit sarcastic about the stupidity of various administrations.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  3. Re:So little? by Nos. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You may want to read that again. It basically says, "little of what they are doing is more than illusion", which is roughly translated to "little of what they do is useful".

  4. Re:I don't think that sneaking stuff through is sm by Kamots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm failing to see the downside?

    But then I see the general populace being greatly inconvenienced as a good thing... as it might wake them from their current stupor.

  5. Worthless security lightened by Inglix+the+Mad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes I said worthless.

    I have 22 screws, couple of plates, and pins. I should light up a metal detector like a christmas tree. Yet when I fly, I often get waved right through without any apparent reaction. This has happened at multiple busy airports in larger cities. Yet when I go through my local airport (where, oddly enough, they know me) I get the beep and separate pat down.

    People meekly accept this BS (along with the liquids ban, et al) as "security" when it's really BS.

    Poor, false security is worse than none at all. The only explanation is that when it is busy, they turn down the sensitivity to a ridiculously low level.

    --
    People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
  6. Qualifications by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To qualify as "checkpoint friendly," a bag must have a designated laptop-only section that unfolds to lie flat on the X-ray machine belt and contains no metal snaps, zippers or buckles and no pockets.

    So... the only thing keeping my laptop from falling out of my bag as I carry it (or someone bump-and-grabbing it) is going to be a strip of lint-encrusted velcro?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  7. Not only that. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But anyone who showed that it could be done would be arrested and spend serious jail time.

    This is all theatre. It's so the TSA can justify their budget. It's all a joke. If a terrorist wanted to make a point now, he'd drive a car bomb into an airport terminal during a major holiday rush.

    We could go back to the "pre-9/11" screenings IF we made sure that every plane had a flight deck door that was secured against anyone in the passenger section getting through it for long enough for the pilot to make an emergency landing.

    Instead we live in fear of 4 oz of toothpaste.

  8. Point of inflection by pokeyburro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's getting closer and closer to the point where I'll say a two-day drive is preferable to eight hours of dealing with the airport.

    --
    Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
  9. Re:I don't think that sneaking stuff through is sm by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would make a point, but I fear that the reaction would be the opposite of what many of us would like. If we showed holes in the security theater that has been built, stricter measures would be put in place and all travellers would be inconvenienced even more.

    I'm actually really surprised that the summary suggests that.

    The result would be that most travellers would realize how ineffective and useless the current TSA security is, then things might change for the better.
    Right now, you can't test them without commiting a crime, and if you do see that they have a weak spot, and speak about it, you have also probably commited a crime. If you photograph them, you have commited a crime.
    Basically, criticizing the TSA - except for in the vauges of terms - or investigating it has become a crime.

  10. Targus lobbyist by xzvf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look for the Targus lobbyist that pretty much eliminated every existing laptop bag requiring new bags to be purchased for everyone that wants to take advantage of this rule. Right after Xmas he may be looking for a new revenue stream and TSA approved goth might be hot.

    1. Re:Targus lobbyist by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      THESE SEARCHES are why I drive everywhere. I haven't flown a plane since the year 1999. When you drive, you have everything you need in your trunk.... and really, driving is not that much longer than flying. Last time I went from Oklahoma to Minneapolis:

      - my coworkers left their homes at 5 a.m. and did not get into their hotel until 3 p.m.
      - I drove from 5 a.m. to 4 p.m.

      So yeah it took me an hour longer, but I didn't have to deal with nosy security, rude passengers, squeezing all my stuff into a tiny suitcase, et cetera, et cetera. I had a nice scenic drive across the prairie, through beautiful Kansas City, and with pleasing music/sports/comedy routines coming out of my XM radio. (And I got paid for it! 50 cents a mile plus my regular salary.)

      I'd rather drive.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    2. Re:Targus lobbyist by JerkBoB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good luck driving to Germany (from the US). Or New England to California (or Colorado). Maybe you can go across the ocean by tramp steamer... Very romantic.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    3. Re:Targus lobbyist by RickRussellTX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And as we well know, the terrorists would never think of driving.

      Threat averted! It's Miller Time, people!

    4. Re:Targus lobbyist by Aqualung812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you say is completely true. However, the TSA can prevent you from boarding a plane, and that is all the authority they need.
      Few people are willing to go home with their rights intact and just cancel their trip. Oh, and don't expect the TSA to pay for the ticket you just wasted.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    5. Re:Targus lobbyist by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. As far as aircraft travelers are concerned, the TSA needs exactly one right. The right to cause yo to miss your flight. Even if they can't actually prevent you boarding (and I think they can, though IANAL), as long as they delay you long enough to cause you to miss your scheduled flight it's as good as the same thing. Delays caused at security are not sufficient to get a refund or rescheduled flight. Since the whole reason I (theoretically) went through the process in the first place was to get on an airplane, why would I do something to jeopardize that?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    6. Re:Targus lobbyist by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember your rights, refuse to answer questions, the only answer you should EVER give a police officer, or federal agent is "I want a lawyer."

      That lawyer is an idiot, and you're an idiot if you follow his advice. I agree for many situations, such as when a police officer comes to my house, I step outside and close the door behind me. I do not invite the officer in.

      But here's a scene based on actual events. First, how it happened:

      [Late model SUV traveling 80 MPH down NJ Turnpike. Flashing red and blue lights from police car. SUV slows and stops on the road shoulder.]

      State Cop: I've been trailing you for a while. You're passing a lot of cars. Do you know how fast you were going?
      Me: About 80.
      Cop: Why so fast?
      Me: Just trying to get where I'm going.
      Cop: And where is that?
      Me: Visting friends in Mays Landing.
      Cop: Wait here.
      [State Cop walks back to his car. Cut to scene of cop returning.]

      Cop: I'm giving you a ticket for failure to obey a posted sign--the speed limit sign. No points on your license. Call the number on the back of the summons for the amount of the fine. Here's the summons number you'll need when you call. Keep it under 70, and have a good evening.

      How do you think that exchange would be different if the first words out of my mouth were, "I want a lawyer"? You think the cop would have said, "Oh, a citizen who knows his rights. Please sir, be on your way. Sorry for any inconvinience"?

      I doubt it. Even if the cop couldn't come up with a reason to search my car, he could come back with, "Fine, let's go back to the station and wait for your lawyer." Of course, it being 11 PM Friday night, and me being from out of state and not knowing any lawyers in the area, it might have been a bit of a wait.

      I've been in situations which had the potential for long stretches of PMITA prison, that I drove away from with a traffic summons or less. I'm guessing it doesn't hurt that I answer questions directly, give no indication I'd have any reason to say anything other than the truth, and leave the foil headgear out of sight.

      Of course in the scene above, if the next question was, 'can I see what you have in back,' the conversation would have ended much differently. But he didn't go there, so there's no reason I needed to respond as if he had gone there.

    7. Re:Targus lobbyist by lpevey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kate Winslet too chunky? Seriously? And some of you males of the geek species wonder why you don't get laid regularly.

  11. Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes. by crovira · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The TSA's mainly bull shit and bluster by little tin-pot tyrants.

    If I was so inclined (and not crippled,) I'd high jack a FedEx or a UPS plane.

    Why mess with security if you don't have to.

    A fully fueled and loaded plane will go into a large federally owned building regardless of whether there are a hundred passengers plotting a coup on your ass, or a crew lying quietly dead in the back of the plane.

    Private aviation is a lot more vulnerable than the cash strapped public carriers.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  12. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by lukas84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A fully fueled and loaded plane will go into a large federally owned building regardless of whether there are a hundred passengers plotting a coup on your ass, or a crew lying quietly dead in the back of the plane.

    Which could easily be shot down.

    When you hijack a plane with enough people on board, shooting the plane down can still give a huge image hit on the ones that did the shooting, even if it was the right thing to do.

    On a plane with only terrorists onboard, it would be very easy to give order to have it shot down.

  13. Re:I don't think that sneaking stuff through is sm by lukas84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can tell that it's worse to fly when you're obese than sitting next to someone who is obese.

  14. Nobody is forcing you to buy a new laptop bag by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anybody who (like me) is feeling cynical about the whole idea of buying a new $100 laptop bag with the special TSA-approved laptop zone, the solution is pretty straightforward - just continue to put your laptop in the plastic bin.

    The laptop, keys, and pocket change thing take up maybe 10 seconds of my time - 5 seconds to take out and 5 seconds to put back where they belong (but that's because I have my shit together unlike the guy in front of me who inevitably manages to spend the better part of 5 minutes putting his stuff on the conveyor belt). Laptop is no big deal, really ... it's the shoes thing that pisses me off and makes me feel like every last vestige of my dignity has been removed ...

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  15. Frankly... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMO, the existence of the TSA is one of those "the terrorists have already won" things. Most of the changes that have taken place in the U.S. are not that bad singularly, but when taken as a whole and the magnitude of the number of people affected, it's had a serious negative impact on our society and I'd argue our productiveness as well.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful, but it's quite obvious to anyone here that none of these measures, the ones that merely inconvenience us at best, are disguised forms of monitoring for things besides potential acts of terrorism. How easy it is to violate the fourth amendment by just indefinitely taking away someone's laptop without cause.

    The last time I traveled out of country with my wife and kids, we got the "random star" on our boarding passes... which singled us out for special scrutiny. Right. Because a family of four, including a two year old and a five year old are prime suspects. I don't think they do this anymore, but the absurdity of all the restrictions is just incredible.

    And how about the recent "clear pass" article? What kind of extortion is that? We'll make you wait on line for hours unless you pay us $100/year! That's effectively how I see it, since the security measures are a joke.

    Ok, rant off.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:Frankly... by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I have even posted on the TSA blog occasionally in the comments about this: We absolutely need to consider that in the economics of airplane safety, it is not the decrease in supply of soft targets that has been thwarting terrorism, its actually the utter lack of demand for blowing up planes, airport terminals, etc.

      There just are not that many people out there with the real desire (you know, as in enough motivation to build bombs and do test runs, not just say "hey what if we....") and real ability to pull it off. In fact, when you look at the number of deaths "pre-post 9/11" (so including all of the deaths on 9/11), the chances of death in a terrorist attack on an airplane, even when reduced to just the risk to fairly frequent air travellers, is so small, that you couldn't justify a single cent of the new "security" spending on it.

      Which is why they never talk of the real risk, only the "worst case scenarios" which are so astronomically unlikely, that I would bet dollars to donuts that the money would be better spent, and help more people, if it were spent on preventing deaths from heart attack on flights.

      The type of attack used on 9/11 is not the move of a power, its the move of the weak. Its a move of desperation by a small group looking to make big headlines the only way they can. It was in their power to plan 1 of these attacks and execute it.

      The simple fact is, on 9/11 an ant happened to find himself in the right place and gave us a bite on the face. Maybe its just me, but I think forgetting about your day job to go around trying to eradicate the world of ants is an overreaction.

      In the words of coaches all over the world, your not the first person to take a hit, go take a lap and stop whining about it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  16. Knifes in lounge restaurants by Timo_UK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why exactly are we not allowed to carry screwdrivers etc on board and then (I did this last week at DTW, Detroit) you receive a sharp metal knife and fork in the restaurant after security?

    --
    Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
  17. Re:Oh yay by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You haven't flown since 1999? What value could you possibly bring to the discussion then?

  18. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by digitizit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the whole notion that terrorists will even try to hijack a plane again is absurd. Even if they get on board and were strapped with explosives, I think people on board would still act. They might blow up, or they might get to kick the shit out of a terrorist. Either way, I don't think we will have a repeat of 9/11. No, the next act of terror would be a car bomb or something similar. If the terrorists really want to strike fear into the heart of Americans, they would send a dozen of their people with machine guns into a shopping mall and cut loose. It's low tech and a lot easier to do than hijacking a plane.

  19. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were president.....

    given the choice between saving several thousand people in a skyscraper,
    and saving a hundred-or-so in an airplane,
    I'd save the skyscraper filled with people... ...the airplane would be shot-down. It's one of those situations where people WILL die no matter what happens, and it's better that a hundred die than several thousand. If the american people are too pussy to deal with death, well then, they can fire me as president and elect a different guy who would do nothing & let the skyscraper be destroyed.

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  20. Re:I don't think that sneaking stuff through is sm by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not the guy you're responding to, but I have to say that me losing weight would have no effect on my airplane seating problem.

    My ass fitting between the armrests is not the problem, and I don't have fat overflowing into the next seat... I am so broad that my arms go straight down to the armrests on both sides. Losing weight isn't going to make my shoulder width any smaller. I know I'm not alone, and I've had the displeasure of sitting three across with people who were just about my size. I had the aisle seat, and was leaning to my right the entire trip - not particularly comfortable.

    But the sad fact is people wanted cheap, and they got cheap. In order to meet the financial demands of customers, they had to reduce space to increase seating capacity; I don't blame the airlines, I blame us. Same thing with WalMart... complain all you want, but if people continue to shop there, they will continue to take over and close out smaller businesses. People prefer cheapness over quality.

    On my last Air-Tran flight, even though it was a business trip, I paid out of my own pocket to be upgraded. But then Air Tran has reasonable upgrades, whereas most airlines charge a ridiculous amount. Regardless, I actually DID put my money where my mouth was and paid more for a better seat.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  21. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually the choice is "save several thousand people in a skyscraper" and "save nobody". The people in the airplane can't be saved.

  22. That's actually not true... by rtilghman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking down a large jet aircraft... say a 747, or even a 737, 727, etc., is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.

    1) You wouldn't know it was rogue until it was already WELL on the way to it's target (if you knew at all before it got there).

    2) Even when you identified it, you would still need to actually CATCH it. Scrambling planes takes time, airfields aren't everywhere and, unlike BSG, I'm afraid we don't have an "Air Cap" to guard our sorry asses ($$$$$).

    3) Now you have to shoot it down. You may not realize this, but a passenger jet is FREAKING HUGE. One missile isn't going to take out a jet with 2, 3, or 4 engines. You're going to have to really go to work on that bad boy... and now it's just an out of control ball of metal and fire... braaaavoooo.

    Give whatever order you want, but until you can vaporize the stupid thing in mid-flight it's all a pipe dream. Me, I'm not big on confrontation and dying. If I wanted to send a message I'd just get an old stinger, head to an international third level airport (St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc), drive to the end of the runway, and blow the wing off a plane as it took off.

    The point here is that the entire concept of airline security is a joke on an American public too pathetic to face the truth by a government too ready to cede to their fears. Freedom isn't free, it's expensive, and the cost is blood and tears. If you don't like it then call Kim Jong and ask how much condo's in downtown PyongYang are going for. You can be sure you won't have to worry about terrorists in North Korea.

    -rt

    1. Re:That's actually not true... by loraksus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3) Now you have to shoot it down. You may not realize this, but a passenger jet is FREAKING HUGE. One missile isn't going to take out a jet with 2, 3, or 4 engines. You're going to have to really go to work on that bad boy... and now it's just an out of control ball of metal and fire... braaaavoooo.

      Right, and it's a good thing that the engines that get hit by missiles w/ 10 kilograms of HE (sidewinder) or 23 kilos of HE (amraam) aren't anywhere near the giant fuel tanks in the wings. Explosive decompression shouldn't be a big deal - 10 PSI isn't a huge difference.
      And "drag" created by gunshot / explosive impacts shouldn't be a worry, as the plane is only traveling at ~900km/h.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  23. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by ghoti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that's assuming you know what will happen, which you don't. All you know is that radio contact has been lost with a plane and it's veering off course. It could be some failure on board and the crew is trying to do find a suitable spot for an emergency landing.

    Are you going to give the order to kill several hundred people? Do you still think it's such an easy decision? You know what they say about hindsight?

    --
    EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
  24. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which could easily be shot down.

    Yeah, if you knew it had been hijacked. Didn't we discover the hijackings on 9/11 because the passengers alerted authorities on the ground?

    Reagan National Airport is under 7 kilometers (as the crow flies) from the White House and Capitol. That works out to just about two minutes of flying time at landing speed (approx 200km/h for a 747). Do you really think our esteemed Government could react that fast if the hijacking was successfully kept a secret up until the plane was actually scheduled to land? The same Government that couldn't even manage to locate (let alone shoot-down) Flight 93 before it crashed or defend the headquarters of our entire military from attack on that fateful day?

    You have much more faith in the Government than I do.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  25. Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes by c · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > If I were president.....
    > given the choice between saving several thousand people in a skyscraper,
    > and saving a hundred-or-so in an airplane,

    Politicians don't think like us. For example, what if they see it as a choice between killing a planeload of people and not getting re-elected, or gaining unprecedented political power after the terrorists kill several thousand people in a skyscaper?

    c.

    --
    Log in or piss off.