Slashdot Mirror


TSA Bans Toner and Ink Cartridges On Planes

Grond writes "The US has banned toner and ink cartridges from passenger aircraft in the wake of last month's bomb plot. 'The printer cartridge ban affects cartridges over 16 ounces.' No word yet on whether that's a weight or volume measurement or whether it's a per-cartridge or per-passenger limit." The ban comes alongside a prohibition on air cargo originating from Yemen and Somalia. Bruce Schneier's blog points out another potential consequence from the recent bomb plot: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi.

633 comments

  1. Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice. Its disturbing to see that the TSA is still behind the curve. Honestly, I am surprised that TSA did not ban underpants after the last idiot that tried to smuggle a bomb in his shorts and if they ban Wi-Fi., that is the only thing that makes cross country flights tolerable these days, especially in coach.

    What is it going to take for us to realize that the TSA is simply not effective? All this reactionary effort is not helping us to be competitive in the business space and the costs are not insubstantial. My last flight on Thursday to San Jose got me a grope by the TSA agents who now apparently are permitted to do full on frisk-downs. What's next, squat and cough?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      My solution is to drive. :-)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by jmauro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're not going to ban WiFi. The airlines make too much money from it and will raise a storm if it goes away. The airlines only have a certian level of tolerance for these things, especially if it costs them money and inconviences business travellers.

      The TSA is however quite effective. It's one of the more creative, pervasive, improve theatre groups that ever put to the non-traditional stage.

    3. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My last flight on Thursday to San Jose got me a grope by the TSA agents who now apparently are permitted to do full on frisk-downs

      They weren't allowed to do that until the full body scanners came into the scene. Now they are doing that to the people who opt-out, presumably on the theory that by making the opt-out extremely unpleasant they can discourage people from exercising it.

      Personally, if I'm ever forced to fly again (+1 on the suggestion to just drive) I plan on raising my voice a few octaves, adding a lisp and doing my best Mr. Slave impression. "Oh, Jesus, Jesus Christ!"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next? Read the MIAC report. None of these laws were for terrorists, they were for veterans, gun owners, and people who hold the constitution sacred.

    6. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      Disturbing? I actually expect it!

    7. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by BWJones · · Score: 1

      Actually, they can frisk you even when there is no body scanner present. I went through a standard metal detector after having removed my jacket, but the vest I was wearing got me a complete frisk.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    8. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They simply want foreigners to stay out of the USA and you to stay in your own country to spend your cash.

    9. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by BWJones · · Score: 1

      Hard to drive over the Pacific or Atlantic oceans...

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    10. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by TelavianX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The TSA is a joke. If I was a terrorist I would find a way to sneak a bomb into every "normal" item that passengers bring with them. That way the TSA would end up banning everything. I would just sit back and laugh when all the passenger complain about sitting in an airplane, naked, and with absolutly nothing to do.

    11. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look at the positive end result, though: Eventually flights will be so expensive and unpleasant that only terrorists will fly on them, and then we can simply reroute all flights to go to a federal prison or internment camp.

    12. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I was a terrorist I would find a way to sneak a bomb into every "normal" item that passengers bring with them

      Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by qoncept · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure what is different "these days," but I've never used wifi on a plane, and I've been able to tolerate my flights.

      More importantly, in what way is it so painfully obvious to you that the TSA isn't effective? Which recent bombing or hijacking is the evidence?

      What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?

      --
      Whale
    14. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This week it is toners, last week it was underwear, before that it was shoes and liguid bottles, every one of these is a knee jerk reaction to a specific threat that was attempted. Whatever. This trend will continue until no personal belongings are allowed in the air craft including luggage and all passengers will be xray'd, swiped, and scanned, and then strapped naked to a flat surface for the length of the flight. Anything short of that can and will be a security risk. The terrorists have already won.

      Our nations "homeland security" still thinks all bombs have blinking lights, and alert beep, and a digital timer that counts down and everyone sits down their suspicious package in the bus terminal four hours before it is supposed to go off. Anything that looks like that is a threat. Meanwhile during the ruckass that was so easy to create and the human nature of all security people standing around and wanting, needing, and striving to be involved in some way fall into a single user crisis mode with their blinders on and some dude slips right by with chemicals inside the hollow metal support tube of his carry on bag and a weapon disguised as an RF shield in his cordless mouse. Oh, btw.. now computer mice and carry on bags with metal handles will be banded from air travel.

      Homeland security is a joke, at least at the level we see as citizens. I really hope, the stuff going on behind the scenes is actually useful.

    15. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Crazycatlady · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Just walk across the unguarded border with it. Homo Land Security is for US citizens not terrorists. Same with TSA they are there to get you use to being treated like a convict. TSA Toadies (Ass Kissers) Standing Around.

      --
      It's only a matter of time now.
    16. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And, by the meaning of "terrorist" (someone who uses fear and terror as a means of coercion), then that means that you have won even if not a single one of your bombs actually goes off.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    17. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Let's play a game. What can we make the TSA ban next and how ?

    18. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Take a car ferry. It only takes about a week.

    19. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Drive to Canada, and fly from there? I don't know much about Canadian airports since I live in Europe, but I presume it's got slightly more brains than US ones?

      My reaction to this announcement was to smirk. How predictable, this is like dealing with a goldfish's thoughts process!

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    20. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Drug the passengers to unconsciousness and transport them in small containers.

      But that doesn't help against someone that has made a bomb out of themself and with a timing device inside the body.

      And what about the measurements - if this is going to work internationally they need to specify in metric measurements.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    21. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?

      What is it about entering a plane that makes you think we should have to give up any of our personal freedoms?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      less people flying makes it much more pleasant to fly...

      indeed, it does go on and on.

      What?!? All the airlines do is mothball more planes and pack more of us on. Since they hit the skids, flying has gotten worse: older, smaller and noisier planes; hardly ever any empty seats; more padding in the schedule; less flights; etc..

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    23. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.

      And yet, with all those unpleasantnesses, it's still more pleasant than a flight which explodes.

    24. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More importantly, in what way is it so painfully obvious to you that the TSA isn't effective? Which recent bombing or hijacking is the evidence?

      Clearly there have been none since I bought my terrorist-repellent rock.

    25. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny
    26. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      They used to be, but not anymore.

    27. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, a lot of the chatter on terrorism in the last 5 years or so has been of the domestic nature. The thinking has been that disgruntled former military and LEO's possess training, probably equipment, and have already secured entry into the country. Add in a dash of motivation and you've got a recipe for a very credible threat.

      OTOH credible threats from outside the US are few and far between. The one guy in recent memory that actually succeeded in smuggling equipment onto an airplane only really succeeded in setting his own giblets on fire. Threats from domestic organizations (read: militant militias) have really blown up recently (see what I did there?).

      Also, the MIAC report contained no laws to speak of. Mainly it contained suggested methods that LEO's could use to identify probably members of militant militias. Granted, the implication that Ron Paul or Bob Barr were figureheads of violent revolutionary groups was a little offensive. But the concept of identifying common symbols of these organizations does make a some sense.

    28. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kaizendojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know about you, but if I'm sitting naked on a plane I am sure I'll find something to do.

    29. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by tophermeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?

      Or when the US Military has provided a number of juicy infidelious targets already conveniently located in the middle east.

      Really now that actually taking control of a commercial aircraft is all but impossible, those aircraft are no longer the really high value targets.

    30. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And even with all the unpleasantness, one will still explode, and then the TSA will do it's knee jerk monkeydance and we'll all feel safer again, RIGHT?

    31. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by emocomputerjock · · Score: 1

      If they were to wake up in transit though, the trip would end up taking LONGER THAN YOU THINK DAD!!! LONGER THAN YOU THINK

    32. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. Its disturbing to see that the TSA is still behind the curve. Honestly, I am surprised that TSA did not ban underpants after the last idiot that tried to smuggle a bomb in his shorts

      And ban shoes.

      They already ban bombs, so I suspect that this new ban on toner cartridges will be just as effective.

    33. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      I would like to buy your rock...

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    34. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which recent bombing or hijacking is the evidence?

      Even ignoring the fact that you are just begging for a "correlation is not causation" lecture, when was the last time you heard about a successfully thwarted attempt? You offer lack of evidence to the contrary as proof, which is utterly absurd.

      What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?

      I've never had someone do a full body X-ray when entering a concert or sporting event, nor have I been frisked. What is it about entering a plane (which, due to changes in cockpit door construction, can no longer feasibly be used to do great harm unless the terrorist has a pilot's license) that you think requires so much less personal freedom than any other location with a comparable number of people?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    35. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1
      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    36. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting blown to smithereens is just part of the cost of doing business...

    37. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The approach comes dangerously close to a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're talking about profiling people who are already on edge and classing them as enemies-of-the-state to be harassed, obstructed, and potentially arrested based on hearsay or potential. If somebody expects that they are now going to be harassed or even arrested for merely holding an opinion, that may be all the catalyst they need to go over the edge since it's essentially the same either way. If you're going to be treated like a second class citizen or even a criminal whether you act or not, why not act? It decreases the psycho-social barriers and actually encourages rather the discourages the profiled behavior.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    38. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Which domestic terrorist organization has engaged in a mass casualty attack? Most of the ones I can think of (OKC and Fort Hood come to mind) were the actions of a lone wolf or a small ad-hoc conspiracy.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    39. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by AJWM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just my thought the other day while standing in a TSA security line. A much bigger (at some airports) and softer target.

      The "obvious" answer is to hire even more TSA screeners, buy more equipment, and set up a larger security perimeter with lots of small lines.

      Sigh. I remember flying in and out of Heathrow when IRA bombings were at a peak. No security lineups, lots of crowds, and any package left unattended for more than few seconds was quietly disappeared.

      --
      -- Alastair
    40. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Its disturbing to see that the TSA is still behind the curve. Honestly, I am surprised that TSA did not ban underpants after the last idiot that tried to smuggle a bomb in his shorts

      People can smuggle things internally as well, so they had better ban assholes too. Er wait, if they did that, TSA agents would be allowed in the airport.

    41. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      That part where I have to sit inside a sealed tube with you and whoever else comes on board with no easy way to escape the dangers you or whoever else bring about.. Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along. Your right to be loud and obnoxious, again to which I cannot reasonably escape from is terminated too. This is in line just as your right to stick your nose into my business ends about where my fists are swinging and my right to swing my fists ends at the point they make contact with you.

    42. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by drcheap · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well according to Google's driving directions, you just need to put your car on a kayak, or even a jetski.

    43. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along

      If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened. Food for thought. We surrendered our 2nd amendment rights and 3,000 people died. Now you think that surrendering our 4th amendment rights are the answer?

      Your nickname is telling. How'd you wind up on my friends list anyway if you are that much of a sheep?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    44. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?"

      Not in an aircraft = doesn't make flying scary. Crowd bomb theater is short (BOOM!) and cleaned up quickly.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    45. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

      if they ban Wi-Fi., that is the only thing that makes cross country flights tolerable these days, especially in coach.

      Really? You need wifi to make a flight tolerable?

      I've taken plenty of transcons, on widebody and narrowbody jets. Some had movies on overhead screens or TVs hanging from the ceiling, some had personal in-seat live TVs, and on some the only form of airline provided in-flight entertainment was the in-flight magazine and the view out the window. I've used in-flight wifi exactly once, and that was when the airline was giving it away for free as part of a promotion, the flight was less than an hour long, and the main thing I did with it was post the obligatory "I'm on plane!" Facebook post and Tweet.

      --
      End of Line.
    46. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Great story, I always wanted to see a filmed version of it.

      ~Philly

    47. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The approach comes dangerously close to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Exactly. You think that's not intentional? This is 100% identical to the Westboro people inciting violence against gays and claiming that they are justified in doing so because "gays are violent". They then picket funerals and say the most hateful things in the hope they will be attacked and thus get everything they want.

      The TSA is just hoping someone will put the smackdown on one of their expendable minimum-wage immune-to-prosecution "law enforcement officials" as an excuse to create internal passports a la Apartheid-era South Africa. You just know they're drooling over that prospect.

      My own answer is to fly myself. It's a bit more expensive and slower, but no TSA jackboot can tell me I can't do it. The FAA issued my pilot's license, and ONLY the FAA can revoke it. The TSA can go pound sand; I'll just walk to the other side of the airport and go general aviation. Yeah, this isn't a solution open to everyone, but there's no single solution short of the disbandment of the TSA that will be universal. Fly yourself, drive, take a train (until the TSA claims they own trains too), don't travel, sue, vote Libertarian, do SOMETHING to lawfully resist. And let the airlines know. Airlines have more ability to resist the conversion of the TSA into the KGB than an individual, but individuals have power over the airline's most precious resource: income.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    48. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next, squat and cough?

      You joke, but there was a guy a while back that tried to blow up one of the Saudi royals by hiding an explosive device in his ass. They've got to work up to it, though.

      For bonus points, a substantial fraction of the TSA screeners here at CMH *are* Somalis, many hired during the big expansion just after 9/11. In other words, people from a country that's so "dangerous" that they can no longer ship stuff via air ARE IN CHARGE OF CHECKING BAGS. If there was a real threat from this sort of thing, we'd be totally fucked.

    49. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Just make sure to keep your windows closed.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    50. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by BWJones · · Score: 1

      I like to get work done on the plane. Much of my work requires access online and the thought of 5 hours of non-productive time is frustrating... Sure I could read a book or go back to reading journals etc..., but even those are increasingly going online.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    51. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      I would like to buy your rock. How much?

    52. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      In follow up news: TSA announces it's intentions to ban passengers from flights. "We need to make sure that we're 100% certain that air travel is safe" said one TSA Chief decision-maker, "People shouldn't feel targeted, we're currently reviewing whether it's absolutely necessary to have a flight crew on board"

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    53. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Paracelcus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I really HATE flying these days, my lady friend badgered and bullied me into taking a trip with her to Hawaii (I REALLY HATE HAWAII) I was taken by wheelchair to the security area where I was frisked, wiped with swabs (they even wiped the airports own wheelchair) before being pushed the rest of the way to the gate. On my return flight it was the same, they even opened my suitcase and left a card inside saying they had done so!

      OK, a 68 year old white American disabled Vietnam Vet, with a 50 year old Hawaiian wife, traveling on a domestic flight has to go through all this BULLSHIT, while everybody knows that TERRORISTS aren't elderly white cripples!

      Kinda makes you think that they really don't want people to travel by air, don't it?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    54. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Full Body Cavity searches are next. As the agent snaps his rubber glove, "Say hello to my little friend ......"

    55. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not in an aircraft = doesn't make flying scary.

      Blowing up the security line that EVERYBODY has to pass through in order to fly doesn't make flying scary?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    56. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Hey bigger retard. Less people can still be more packed when there are even fewer planes. He addressed that... they are mothballing planes and using junkier ones.

    57. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      Jokes on them, we're all broke!

    58. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the TSA agent female and cute?

      Banning underpants could have been a blessing and a curse at the same time.

    59. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I guess I do not see the logic in your statement.
      Isn't it logical to prevent repeat attacks using the same method.
      What you saying is that it is like closing the barn door aft the horses have bolted. Well if their are still horses in the barn isn't it dumb to keep leaving the door open?
      Plus how often do you take a toner cartage with you on a plane?
      It is easy to and popular to complain about the TSA regs and they are a huge pain but let's be honest. People did try to use printer cartages for a terrorist attack.
      Do you have a better solution to prevent a repeat attack?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    60. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >OK, a 68 year old white American disabled Vietnam Vet,

      Yeah, right, we all know you're a 20-year old Asian guy with a Mission Impossible mask.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    61. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Transkaren · · Score: 0

      You might not be a terrorist. Your wife might not be a terrorist. But you might be befuddled or confused and accepted something from someone else. You might be a home-grown terrorist. You could be a convert - yes, white muslims do exist - hell, Iranians are Caucasian. You might also have a completely different complaint - say, against taxes - and blow up a plane as a protest.

      --
      -If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
    62. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by qoncept · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the fact that you are just begging for a "correlation is not causation" lecture, when was the last time you heard about a successfully thwarted attempt? You offer lack of evidence to the contrary as proof, which is utterly absurd.

      I didn't offer ANYTHING as proof; in fact, I didn't even argue the OP's point. What I DID do was question how anyone could possibly come up with his conclusion. He DIDN'T say "the end doesn't justify the means," he said "I don't like the means, and I claim the end is a failure even though nothing has happened."

      I've never had someone do a full body X-ray when entering a concert or sporting event, nor have I been frisked.

      Wonderful. I've never had someone do a full body X-ray at an airport, and you apparently don't go to any sporting events or concerts.

      (which, due to changes in cockpit door construction, can no longer feasibly be used to do great harm unless the terrorist has a pilot's license)

      http://www.secure-skies.org/fortifieddoors.php

      that you think requires so much less personal freedom than any other location

      What do you do when there is increased risk? You mitigate it.

      comparable number of people

      I'm not sure how you're figuring "comparable number of people." Unless someone is sneaking a nuclear fission weapon in to a football game, they aren't going to hurt nearly as many people as, say.. oh, you remember... that airplane thing with the World Trade Center. Whatever.

      The TSA is likely made up of your standard government agency moron just like all the rest of them. But complaining that you can't bring your printer cartridges, and acting like no more wifi on planes is the end of the world is just plain stupid. In review: a guy made a bomb out of a printer cartridge. What would YOU do?

      --
      Whale
    63. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Something or someone?

      Or both?

    64. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lieutenant Dan, is that you?

    65. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can easily make up for it by selling "approved" toner and ink cartridges after chekin, possibly with even bigger margins than water bottles.

    66. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      If that moron was literate, he wouldn't keep forgetting his username and having to make a new one with an incremented N.

    67. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened.

      Yes it would have. The terrorists would simply load up one or two aircraft with several firearms, overwhelming the one or two carrying civilians. If 'we' could carry, so could they.

    68. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      I bet you have a rock you carry around to keep tigers away.

    69. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long before the "terrorists" simply start blowing up airports? Why go through the trouble of sneaking something onto a plane. You will yield much larger kill numbers blowing up entire terminals. After all, the objective isn't blowing up planes, it's killing people. Planes just make it more spectacular.

    70. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      That was interesting, but I think the map of how the US would divide is a bit messed up. Colorado will go with Californica, and there is no way that South Carolina is going to join the Northeast. (Heck, I even have my doubts about Virginia!)

      FWIW, the more I hear about flying, the less I want to do it. I can fit all my toys into or onto my car, and if it's farther away than a two-day drive, I can probably get along without going there. Maybe I'll eventually move to Europe, just for variety.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    71. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing surprising here. The $8.1 billion TSA was behind banning all box cutters but allowing metal pointy scissors, as long as the blades are shorter than 4 inches and tools such as screw drivers up to 7-inches in length. Because, as we all know, you can't sharpen scissors and a seven-inch deep puncture wound can't hit vital organs -- right? They're responsible for banning all clear deoderants but not solids. Because, as we all know, the most common explosives, such as C4 and Comp B, are clear, right? ... oh, wait. These are the morons who are going to require all passengers to be virtually strip searched by x-ray machines, unless said passengers prefer to be felt up by some $12-per-hour pervert. So, actually, I think the banning of all toner cartridges is not surprising at all. In fact, it's right in line with this organization's motus operandi.

    72. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Plus it's retarded. You don't need WiFi to do wireless communications. I know - that's crazy talk but you can buy a $4 chip that will let you easily do wireless communications, or even easier a $17 Xbee chip that has a huge range and is trivial to get working for easy wireless communication.

    73. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened.

      This is wishful thinking but seriously not true. 9/11 was so successful simply because the common line of thought at the time was that hijackings were simply political ploys to gain bargaining strength in which the hostages staying alive was a necessary part of the organizational plan. Before 9/11, if a plane was hijacked, it went to some airport, most likely foreign, and demands were made with the threat of killing the civilians on board being the bargaining strength. Even if you had a gun or a knife on board, you would have been directed by flight crew to not use it as the hijacking was seen more of an inconvenience then a real life threatening situation.

      This actually change post 9/11 where they now treat all hijackings as a death sentence.

      Food for thought. We surrendered our 2nd amendment rights and 3,000 people died. Now you think that surrendering our 4th amendment rights are the answer?

      When I don't have the option of protecting myself and my family by either using a weapon in self defense or removing myself and family from the danger, then yes, violating the 4th amendment in order to ensure we are on an even footing is recommended.

      And remember, this isn't because I think the 4th amendment should be violated, it's because the 2nd amendment was nullified. Also, it should be noted that I only endorse this specifically where other options like escape is impossible. So it's not like I'm advocating search lines to cross the street or anything because some city instituted a gun ban. But when boarding a sealed tube that is going to be 35000 feet from anything I can walk on, I want to know that a reasonable effort was made to weed out the nutcases that would want to kill me for something I have absolutely no connection with outside of being born in a geographical location.

    74. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The TSA will never be the KGB. The KGB was competent at what they did, and what they did 'needed' to be done.

      The TSA is incompetent at what they do, and what they do is completely superfluous. They are the diametric opposite of the KGB and any organization like the KGB.

    75. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "....if they ban Wi-Fi., that is the only thing that makes cross country flights tolerable these days, especially in coach."

      Jeebus Christ, read a book! They have been flying cross-country trips for decades without WiFi and it was tolerable.

    76. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Unless someone is sneaking a nuclear fission weapon in to a football game, they aren't going to hurt nearly as many people as, say.. oh, you remember... that airplane thing with the World Trade Center. Whatever.

      And unless someone builds a tower that has as many people in it as the World Trade Center, they aren't going to hurt nearly as many people by crashing a plane into it, either.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    77. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      ... my lady friend ...

      ... with a 50 year old Hawaiian wife ...

      I think the real question is: why were you traveling to your wife's home state with your mistress? :-)

    78. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by whois · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK, a 68 year old white American disabled Vietnam Vet, with a 50 year old Hawaiian wife, traveling on a domestic flight has to go through all this BULLSHIT, while everybody knows that TERRORISTS aren't elderly white cripples!

      Kinda makes you think that they really don't want people to travel by air, don't it?

      It's not about profiling or random screening, it's about protection and once you realize that you'll realize a little of their bullshit isn't bullshit. I see pilots with the signature of "Trusted in the air, not on the ground." but what they're overlooking is that it only takes one person who has "a pass" through the line and is willing to sell that access because they're disgruntled and don't care anymore.

      You're crippled and you love this country so you should be safe right? But did you pack your bags yourself and always have them in sight? Even if you said yes to all those questions the TSA has no clue if it's really true. Even if it's true for you, what about someone else with your same conditions?

      I wouldn't normally defend the TSA because they're awful at the job they do. Prudes in a nanny bible state who want to see you naked but don't want you to take your clothes off. There are tons of things they could be doing better and there are even more ways we could fight terrorism if we were even more facist than we already are. Intelligence gathering requires almost no effort if the burden of proof of innocence is on the flyer. I wouldn't be suprised if they start data mining peoples facebook entries to determine flight status soon.

      I don't really care what their excuse is. I think we've given up too much freedom for a little safety. I'd rather see 3000 people die a year than this country eaten up from within by facism under the guise of protecting us from terrorism. I would accept the roll of the dice that I would be one of those people.

      So what is my solution to this mess? I would like to see more travel options. More long distance fast train lines (which would take at least 20 years to be effective)

      I would accept prison like conditions for transport as long as everyone was subjected to the same rules. Changing into jumpers at the airport, permitted into a controlled area with nothing but your wallet/boarding pass, all your gear flys on a separate cargo jet.

      Sure it's even more facism, but if you know what to expect it's less invasive than their current shit and makes it more of a novalty. I would expect airlines to compensate with better amenities (no more baggage means more room).

    79. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I plan on raising my voice a few octaves, adding a lisp and doing my best Mr. Slave impression. "Oh, Jesus, Jesus Christ!"

      That sounds like fun. You could even make some new friends. :) Thanks for the best laugh I have had all day.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    80. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      This actually change post 9/11 where they now treat all hijackings as a death sentence.

      Which means that if "dangerous weapons" were allowed to be carried by law-abiding citizens, it would dramatically decrease the odds of another 9/11, making the current security measures counterproductive. It might not have prevented the first attack, but you can be darn sure it would prevent a second.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    81. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This is wishful thinking but seriously not true. 9/11 was so successful simply because the common line of thought at the time was that hijackings were simply political ploys to gain bargaining strength in which the hostages staying alive was a necessary part of the organizational plan.

      Passengers on all the planes (not just Flight 93) were in communications with the ground, so it stands to reason that they all knew what was happening. Perhaps the people on the first plane were clueless but certainly the people on the other three knew damn well what was going to happen.

      And remember, this isn't because I think the 4th amendment should be violated, it's because the 2nd amendment was nullified.

      So why not put some teeth back in the 2nd amendment and allow law-abiding American citizens to carry guns? It works on the ground, why not in the air?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    82. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The terrorists would simply load up one or two aircraft with several firearms, overwhelming the one or two carrying civilians. If 'we' could carry, so could they.

      Most states won't issue concealed carry licenses to non-residents and no state will issue them to someone who is in the country illegally, so this argument is moot.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    83. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We should have allowed it back in the 1970s and 1980s when hijacking first came onto the scene. Kidnapping someone is a huge violation of their human rights and most (all?) American jurisdictions permit the use of deadly force in response to a kidnapping attempt.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    84. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Paracelcus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit, the bad guys can always find ways to do bad things, and to make a (supposedly) free people go through the shit just shows me that the TERRORISTS have already won!

      (And yeah I some times do call her my "wife")

      Gimme a break, huh!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    85. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by mirix · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately, american stupidity seems to smear uphill. So we end up with warnings on pop bottles that say "warning: contents under pressure" and the like, along with stupid airport searches.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    86. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a higher security clearance than the guards who are checking me out. Come on guys, [agency] was checking me out for [x] months. They talked to my neighbours and landlords and every employer I've had for the last [x] years. You're looking at my laundry.

      If brains were explosives, they couldn't blow their nose.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    87. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try better organisation. Seriously, if you can't get 5 hours of work together before you leave the house, you're either being rather pathetic or just making sure you can procrastinate and whine about not being "able" to work afterwards.

    88. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't offer ANYTHING as proof; in fact, I didn't even argue the OP's point.

      Your statement implied that evidence is required to show that the TSA is not improving things. I would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and in the absence of evidence that they are actually improving things, the default assumption should be that they are not.

      Wonderful. I've never had someone do a full body X-ray at an airport...

      You haven't flown in the past six months, have you? Merry Christmas.

      What do you do when there is increased risk? You mitigate it.

      So why haven't we done so? Bomb sniffing dogs at every airport? Solid cockpit doors with a proper airlock design (two sets of doors that aren't open at once)? Background checks on passengers? Interviews for non-regular travelers a la Israeli airlines? Instead of mitigating the risk, we've invested billions of dollars in high tech toys that don't work.

      The TSA is likely made up of your standard government agency moron just like all the rest of them. But complaining that you can't bring your printer cartridges, and acting like no more wifi on planes is the end of the world is just plain stupid. In review: a guy made a bomb out of a printer cartridge. What would YOU do?

      Absolutely nothing. Sometimes the correct response is to not respond, and a prima facie absurd response is always worse than none at all because it just makes you look incompetent. These things were not in carry-on bags, but rather in air cargo (mail or package delivery, I forget which). Odds are good that someone would get a lot of scrutiny if someone had carried a laser printer on board an airplane, making it a very unlikely vector of attack. Not to mention that you'd get close scrutiny if you attempted to take a laser printer down from the overhead compartment during the flight, since there's no feasible way to use one in flight. Also, printer bits were likely chosen because they were large enough to hide enough explosives; anything of similar size could be used just as easily, making the particular object of little consequence. All these factors point towards a single conclusion: that the right answer is to not do anything.

      That said, if you really want to do something, then require that printer cartridges be taken out and swabbed appropriately. If the powder is harmful, then it doesn't fly, but if it's just a printer cartridge as one would expect 99.999% of the time, it isn't doing any harm.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    89. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      While I personally believe the threat from former military personel to be nearly non-existant, assuming it has any truth in it at all, if a bunch of ex-Marines are going to blow something up it won't be an airplane full of civillians, likewise militias - they hate the guberment, not the citizens (except the black ones and the gay ones).

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    90. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      I see pilots with the signature of "Trusted in the air, not on the ground." but what they're overlooking is that it only takes one person who has "a pass" through the line and is willing to sell that access because they're disgruntled and don't care anymore.

      I'm not sure if you realise this or not, but the pilot doesn't need any weapon to hijack the plane.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    91. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're going somewhere Amtrak goes, it is quicker than driving, takes you to city centers instead of airports, and still has wifi and no virtual strip searches.

    92. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by blackest_k · · Score: 0, Redundant

      try google maps and get directions from japan to china check instruction 43

    93. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kiwix · · Score: 1

      The next terrorist should really smuggle a part of his bomb in his ass.

      It doesn't matter whether he blows up the plane or not, but everybody will be afraid of flying after they add the next security measure to take care of this attempt...

    94. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kiwix · · Score: 1

      What is it going to take for us to realize that the TSA is simply not effective?

      Actually they are rather efficient: it's been quite a long time since someone blew up a plane. Most of the visible part of what they do is utterly useless (and I don't know about the non-visible part), but somehow, they have a pretty good track record.

    95. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      It works on the ground

      [citation needed]

      Here is my counter.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    96. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Nethead · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack

      "The 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was the food poisoning of more than 750 individuals in The Dalles, Oregon, United States, through the deliberate contamination of salad bars at ten local restaurants with salmonella. A leading group of followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now known as Osho) had hoped to incapacitate the voting population of the city so that their own candidates would win the 1984 Wasco County elections.[2] The incident was the first, and single largest bioterrorist attack in United States history."

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    97. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      That really doesn't prove much because if they were a real threat, we'd still leave them in charge of checking bags. Firing them for being Somali would be racial profiling at a minimum, and probably illegal.

    98. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ship 'device' by Fedex, activate it by remote control or timer, or altimeter on approach to the target airport.

      By some crap in Airport gift shop, make 'device' out of it. Go back to the store and return the item. Or simply put it back on the shelf yourself. Somebody buys will buy it...

      TFSA is a menace to society. Every time some wack-job is trying something new, they ban one more thing from flying. There it is going?

    99. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The approach comes dangerously close to a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're talking about profiling people who are already on edge and classing them as enemies-of-the-state to be harassed, obstructed, and potentially arrested based on hearsay or potential. If somebody expects that they are now going to be harassed or even arrested for merely holding an opinion, that may be all the catalyst they need to go over the edge since it's essentially the same either way. If you're going to be treated like a second class citizen or even a criminal whether you act or not, why not act? It decreases the psycho-social barriers and actually encourages rather the discourages the profiled behavior.

      Those people - the domestic, American citizens who target the IRS or whatever - are going to do what they are going to do whether provoked or not. This is the flaw in your thinking. My view, push them over the edge...All of them. Filter them out of society and we have a better, more rational, more secure society.

    100. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      While you do have a point, to be fair your argument only works because no successful terrorist attack in 9 years doesn't (assumedly) establish statistical significance. With each day, the argument that the TSA may actually be doing something gains credibility. Now, there is no reliable way to establish how effective each of their dumb policies are, but to discredit them as a whole is overdoing it.

    101. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full Body Cavity searches are next. As the agent snaps his rubber glove, "Say hello to my little friend ......"

      No, that's what Jon Katz says to the agent once his pants are down.

    102. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you realise this or not, but the pilot doesn't need any weapon to hijack the plane.

      Wouldn't depend on whether the co-pilot is feeling co-operative, or not?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    103. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I would love to have a job working for the TSA with the sole task of sneaking stuff on airplanes, just to show how easy it is, with the hope that eventually they would just give up trying. Even if they didn't, sounds like a cool job anyway.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    104. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not really. All they would have to do is come from a country that would allow them to carry weapons onto the plane too. Once in US soil, they simply kill the passengers, overwhelm the cockpit and do the same.

      I'm all for an armed and prepared population capable of defending itself. But this is just one of those situations where you only want certain people carrying weapons and the hint of someone else having a weapon would mean an indication or wrong intent. One or two air marshals hidden within the passengers and perhaps one of the pilots would likely be good enough. But if we remember 9/11, one or two of the pilots were in on the plan from the start so the pilot could just use the gun to further the terrorist plot. And something that you might not be noticing or recognizing is that the plane is in a pressurized environment once at cruising altitude. While this might not automagically cause the cabin walls to explode sucking passengers out if you shoot through them (it could), it very well can deplete the oxygen levels and air pressure rapidly creating a life threatening situation for the passengers should you miss your target while trying to be a hero.

    105. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by denobug · · Score: 1

      No because the "dangerous weapons" would blow holes to the body of the airplane, starting the decompression process. If done fast enough it can bring the airplane down by tearing the plane apart. Nice try to make me more nervous flying domestic flights by suggesting firearms on-board.

    106. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      except for the violent nightstick and taser sodomy when cletus didn't get, or was too illiterate to READ the memo.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    107. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      domestic terrorist organizations are rare because they are superfluous, a citizen who is not on probation or parole, or diagnosed as dangerous, is not going to have the sort of barriers to access of potential terrorism materials and weapons that a foreigner needing to smuggle in self and materials to carry out a plot.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    108. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by FlightTest · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't depend on whether the co-pilot is feeling co-operative, or not?

      Not at all.

      Pilots in the U.S. at least are allowed to carry guns with them after undergoing a background check (getting past this would probably be the only mildly difficult part). Contrary to popular movies, a bullet hole or two in the fuselage isn't going to cause rapid decompression, it will just make the outflow valve close down a bit.

      Also, there is generally somewhere in the cockpit a crash axe which can be easily reached by the crew. Quite effective in caving in the other crew member's head

      Finally, there are opportunities near take-off and landing where the pilot flying could sufficiently upset the aircraft and cause a crash in such a short period of time the pilot not flying would not have a chance to recover it, even if he were physically much stronger.

      No protection from having a second pilot, even if they are not co-operative.

      --
      Merde, il pleut encore!
    109. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      ... and the price for a blanket skyrockets!

    110. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Passengers on all the planes (not just Flight 93) were in communications with the ground, so it stands to reason that they all knew what was happening. Perhaps the people on the first plane were clueless but certainly the people on the other three knew damn well what was going to happen.

      Well, not really. You are assuming something that you only know out of hindsight. If you were on a plane that deviated from it's normal flight path, after you realized that, you might be in a position to know the plan was to crash the plane. The problem here is knowing with enough time to do something. There was only 17 minutes between the fist crash and the second. And the recorded communications with both ended mid stream- moments before the crash or because of the crash. Known communications in both of those situations stated that the pilots were killed. So if you had a gun, knew the pilots were dead, how long would it take to figure out if anyone still alive could fly the plane, then kill the terrorists without getting that person killed in the process, then take control of the plane?

      Perhaps flight 77 and 93 may have been a bit different, with flight 93, they told them they were all going to die and it appears that the passengers chose to do something about it before others were taken with them. But they heard the flight cabin being taken over back at the tower and heard the terrorist claim there was a bomb on board that they would detonate instructing them that they was going back to the airport to land and give demands. Flight 77 on the other hand was 30 some minutes after the first two flights and there is no record of any communications with the ground at all.

      So why not put some teeth back in the 2nd amendment and allow law-abiding American citizens to carry guns? It works on the ground, why not in the air?

      Because unlike on the ground, a stray bullet can kill the only people capable of flying/landing the plane. It's not like you can get up and walk home or to your car right after the gun fight. You are at the mercy of the law of gravity. And this is not even touching the problems with a pressurized cabin environment where a puncture in the side could possible cause a blowout sucking other passengers, air pressure and oxygen with it. It's not like if you miss, the bullet will hit a brick wall or a car and stop or something. It's not like the bullet would likely only kill one innocent bystander if it went through the person or missed them entirely. It could kill every single person on board.

      Using a gun in a passenger airplane when shooter isn't trained for the unique circumstances or using special ammunition is a lot like using a Grenade as a tactical weapon in rowboat. Except in this case, knowing how to swim is absolutely useless.

    111. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Drive to Canada, and fly from there? I don't know much about Canadian airports since I live in Europe, but I presume it's got slightly more brains than US ones?

      Hard to find an airport worse than Montreal, but Vancouver is nice.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    112. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Judging by how many bullets I've had fly by my head, not to mention how many targets I've seen with nothing behind them to stop bullets, I'd imagine allowing personal weapons on planes would result in a lot more deaths then the terrorists can dream off.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    113. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Stop. You're all wrong. It's "FEWER" people flying, not "less" people.

      Ye gods! Sometimes I think everybody here flunked grammar!!

      Oh, and literate really means "well-read", not just "can read". By that standard most of you ARE illiterate. :p

    114. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists would cheerfully recruit a disgruntled 50-year old white American vet if they knew it was a safe way to smuggle contraband aboard. They have shown no reluctance to employ girls as suicide bombers (for the Fox News crowd, that's what we call "homicide" bombers, since homicide is a crime that can be committed over and over again). In any event, we tend to forget that not ALL terrorists are Muslims with a grudge. Some are environmentalists with a grudge. Some are ex-Army guys with a grudge.

      Trying to profile all those people with grudges and then come up with an infinity of countermeasures for the infinity of ways that modern-day people can commit highly-leveraged mayhem not only makes travel miserable for everyone, it costs a lot, and it's not always going to succeed. Which in turn is going to spiral up even more demands for degrading freedom-reducing "safety" measures.

      I realize it goes against the grain for a lot of people to not trade revenges (preferably before the fact), but we might actually consider the fact that the places on this planet with the most terror incidents are exactly those places where an eye for an eye is the rule. Maybe "turning the other cheek" isn't such a pie-in-the-sky idea after all. Northern Ireland seems to have decided so, anyway.

    115. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by pspahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can't seem to find the article, but I recall an elderly lady in a wheelchair in Cheyenne that was searched by TSA and she had copius amounts of ganja (or maybe something else, don't recall) stuffed inside her chair.

      Thank you for your service to our country, but I'm sorry, don't expect any sympathy or exemptions just because you were uncomfortable with the screening process. We're all in the same boat.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    116. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      With any luck, they'll ban children.

    117. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by MichaelKristopeit140 · · Score: 0

      literate
      Noun: A literate person.
      Adjective: (of a person) Able to read and write.

      see you in summer school, retard.

      i was responding to darkness404 who made reference to "less people" and was obviously wrong while those empowered with judging correctness scored the post AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INSIGHTFULNESS.

      slashdot = stagnated

    118. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by suso · · Score: 1

      Great, by the time I'm there, half my vacation will be used up. I'll spend an hour in Tokyo, then get on the ferry back.

    119. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by marknmel · · Score: 1

      Reactionary - what an understatement. On a recent flight the TSA fella at PHL on duty noticed a cavity in my running shoe. OMG! This is a factory built-in cavity to support the Nike + iPod module. At first - I thought it was pretty cool that he noticed that, but he said that he had never seen that before. Upon reflection, I wonder how many shoes per week that this security official lets through. Gaaah!

    120. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Wocka_Wocka · · Score: 0

      Dear Lieutenant Dan,

      We're sorry for the inconvenience, and we'll try to make it better in the future.

      Yours,
      The TSA

    121. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but where was the GP claiming that the TSA was effective?

      How come one post pointing out an unfounded assertion is modded 0 Troll, and another making up an unfounded assertion to burn as a strawman is modded 5 Insightful? Seriously, have we really sunk this low?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    122. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened.

      Absolutely it would have. There just would have been more dead people before the planes hit.

    123. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      All they would have to do is come from a country that would allow them to carry weapons onto the plane too.

      International flights would probably operate under different rules if for no other reason than the lack of very many countries that permit their citizens to carry firearms. The 9/11 flights were domestic, so let's confine our discussion to that arena.

      One or two air marshals hidden within the passenger

      Sure, and where does the budget for that come from? There are over 25,000 domestic flights in the United States each day. Accounting for three shifts and building in some overhead for sick days/vacation/training/etc you'd probably need to hire ~150,000-200,000 LEOs to put two air marshals on each flight. If they are classified GS-10 (that's where the FBI starts their special agents) they'll be making ~65K a year. Toss in their benefits, training, etc and the cost per employee is close to 100k.

      And something that you might not be noticing or recognizing is that the plane is in a pressurized environment once at cruising altitude. While this might not automagically cause the cabin walls to explode sucking passengers out if you shoot through them (it could)

      That's FUD. A .45" hole is going to cause depressurization. It's not going to "explode" the cabin walls.

      it very well can deplete the oxygen levels and air pressure rapidly creating a life threatening situation for the passengers should you miss your target while trying to be a hero.

      That's what the oxygen masks are for. And it has nothing to do with "being a hero". It has everything to do with saving your life. Self-defense is an inalienable human right. It does not cease to exist at cruising altitude.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    124. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      So issue tasers. You could put them under the seats with the flotation devices.

      "In case of a hijacking, retrieve your taser and incapacitate the motherfuckers."

    125. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      while everybody knows that TERRORISTS aren't elderly white cripples!

      Of course, terrorists are always trying to do the unexpected...

    126. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Says the guy bragging about his TS clearance to a largely foreign audience on the internet.

    127. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Show me a way to connect to a remote SQL Server database whilst flying in an airplane with no WiFi and I will show you a way to get some work done on such an airplane.

    128. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not every regulation.

      Ban water? Ooo, sales of bottled water in the terminal and on board the aircraft go up.
      Ban any liquids? Ooo, booze sales just went up.
      Require ID for everything? Ooo, there went the secondary ticket market. Happy airline.

      Et cetera.

      AC.

    129. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I think your blowing things out of proportion, I've flown several times in the last week and I haven't gotten a full body scan. I did set off the sniffer by the metal detector once so they did quick swab of my hands, put in in a machine and sent me on my way in like 30 seconds.

    130. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      less people flying makes it much more pleasant to fly...

      Fewer, not less.

      You are NOTHING.

    131. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because last I heard some Irish guys did a pretty good number on Canary Warf despite not being terrorists.

    132. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      International flights would probably operate under different rules if for no other reason than the lack of very many countries that permit their citizens to carry firearms. The 9/11 flights were domestic, so let's confine our discussion to that arena.

      Fair enough. Let's say I'm a Yemenite raised in the US. I have two brothers in the same situation and we all have stolen the identity of our neighbors and forged the Gun Permits as well as other Identification documents. We are now back at the same situation.

      Sure, and where does the budget for that come from? There are over 25,000 domestic flights in the United States each day. Accounting for three shifts and building in some overhead for sick days/vacation/training/etc you'd probably need to hire ~150,000-200,000 LEOs to put two air marshals on each flight. If they are classified GS-10 (that's where the FBI starts their special agents [fbijobs.gov]) they'll be making ~65K a year. Toss in their benefits, training, etc and the cost per employee is close to 100k.

      Well, some of those flights are the same flights just doing stops here and there. But your right, it would get expensive. This is probably why the air marshals are not in uniform and it's not announced to the public which flights they will or won't be on. This random appearance of anyone being LEO or equivalent is the same deterrent noted with concealed carry so I'm not sure where it's much different. I mean unless you are going to somehow guarantee that a concealed carry passenger will be on every flight. But then we are running into the same logistics and fiscal problems you already brought about- except we don't know the CC passenger isn't a terrorist in disguise.

      That's FUD. A .45" hole is going to cause depressurization. It's not going to "explode" the cabin walls.

      Read what I said again. I said it might not automagically cause it. But you cannot guarantee that it won't cause it. In fact, there is a special ammo required to be used by air marshals and pilots because the risk is there.

      That's what the oxygen masks are for. And it has nothing to do with "being a hero". It has everything to do with saving your life. Self-defense is an inalienable human right. It does not cease to exist at cruising altitude.

      And now we are back to the swinging fists and nose rights again. You inalienable right to self defense stops when it endangers my life. You cannot shoot me because someone else is trying to kill you. You cannot kill my family or anyone else because someone else is threatening your life or family. That is in essence what you will be doing if you kill or otherwise incapacitate the only people capable of safely flying the plane or recklessly do so before someone capable is able to take control of it. That's what you would essentially be doing if your shot caused the windows to burst out sucking the air out and causing those people to go unconscious before they can take control of the plane.

      And you cannot guarantee that your actions won't be mistaken by another CC passenger as a terrorist act and them doing the same. And yes, shooting a gun on a plane is a little more serious then you are making it out to be.

    133. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      That's like arguing airplanes would be safer if we installed anti-personal mines in each person's seat so if at any point during the flight they tried to stand up to take control of the cockpit they'd explode. I'm all for the 2nd amendment but when one bullet has the possibility to take down 300 people w/o a fight the risk far outweighs any reward.

    134. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by MichaelKristopeit124 · · Score: 0, Troll
      tell the person i was quoting, coward.

      -1 redundant.

      you're completely pathetic.

    135. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      that TSA did not ban underpants after the last idiot that tried to smuggle a bomb in his shorts and if they ban Wi-Fi.

      In a few years instead of having 'full body scanners' we will have sally ports.

      To board a plane... doors open, enter sally port chamber 1, doors close, entrance and exits locked.

      Security guard instructions: (1) Remove ALL clothing, deposit anything you were carrying. All items will be checked, no carry on items. Shirt, Shorts, Shoes, Socks, Bra, Panties, jewelry, etc. Place in "quarantine tray". Close and lock tray. Tray exits the room through a small slot, goes through a scanner, all items are searched thoroughly for any liquids, containers, chemicals, etc. Instruction (2) second door opens, person proceeds to chamber 2.

      Person enters chamber 2, chamber 2 entrance 1 closes, doors locked. Security guard instructions: (1) step in decontamination chamber, (2) passenger's temperature, blood pressure are taken, blood is drawn and tested for communicable diseases, a sample is kept on file for mandatory DNA testing. (3) passenger is hosed down with soap and water, high-pressure spray, rinsed, and dried , then sprayed with disinfectants. (4) passenger's hands are scanned, Iris is scanned, fingerprints, weight, voice samples, facial patterns are taken and stored, biometric samples for future identification. (5) background check is performed.

      (5) passenger is presented with their passenger uniform for this journey. clothing is just an orange jumpsuit or something embossed with their "passenger ID number" for this trip, and a big diaper. Passengers are required to wear diapers, in case they need to use the bathroom during trip, because noone will be allowed to leave their seat a second decontamination will occur at the end of their voyage. Photo ID is attached to the clothing, as well as background check result code; for example, if they are in any watch lists, their clothing will contain a number that identifies this, to ensure staff are well aware of the concern.

      Every passenger's suit should also be equipped with a parachute. If something should go wrong, they'll need it.

      (6) Passenger is handed a pair of handcuffs and directed to place hands behind back and cuff themselves. Security guard watches to ensure this is done correctly; the cuffs contain a wireless transmitter and a green light, and ding sound that will activate once the passenger is properly cuffed. If at any time, the cuff lock is defeated, or detached from a living wrist, outside the disembarkment room, an alarm will sound; they can only be unlocked at the end of the trip, or by the cockpit with biometric authorization provided by the pilot, in an emergency.

      (7) One final inspection of cuffed passenger, and a side door on the port will be opened. An assistant will walk in, strap the passenger in a straight jacket, lock the jacket with a padlock, exit the chamber, and close the door. In case a handcuff should fail, these can be removed only with a flight attendant's key.

      (8) The guard will unlock the second door, and the passenger leaves the boarding sally port.

      (9) As the passenger exits the second door, the doorman hooks the passenger to a rig which will carry them up into the plane efficiently. The passenger will be unlocked and have their clothing and other items returned, only when the flight is over.

      (10) During the trip, passengers will be strapped in their seat by a flight-attendant. The seat belts are modified, so a flight attendant's key, security code + BIO thumb scan, or a cockpit command is required to unlock.

    136. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Simple Fix - Faraday cage

      Every storage bin and cargo hold encased in copper mesh.

      Problem solved.

    137. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because the only way to take lives on a plane and on the ground is to take control of the aircraft. It could never be exploding a bomb on a plane above a populous, which has been attempted not once but three times, that would be attempted.

    138. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I doubt your mother named you Michael either.

      I'll give 2:1 odds that you're trolling some poor bastard whose name you're trashing, waiting for some lurking /b/ reject to hunt down and post "your" personal information on the net for all the other dickwads to abuse, which is why you go out of your way to be obnoxious, irrelevant, and a general douche.

      That, or you're so emotionally pathological that you actually think that the antipathy of strangers on the other side of the world is better than your lack of relevance in meatspace.

      Either way, get drunk, get laid, or get therapy. Any of them are more productive.

    139. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped flying years ago when all this TSA BS started. The TSA cannot predict what the next exploit against their "security" will be. They choose to act like the ineffective imbeciles that they are.

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin

    140. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by PaganRitual · · Score: 2, Funny

      warnings on pop bottles that say "warning: contents under pressure"

      Here, have mine. I shook it up to dissipate all that dangerous pressure. You're safe now.

    141. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by the_womble · · Score: 1

      while everybody knows that TERRORISTS aren't elderly white cripples

      How do we know that, exactly? What was the ethnicity of the perpetrator of the largest terrorist attack in the US prior to 9/11? There are plenty of examples from Europe two. Quite a lot of Islamic fundamentalists are white.

      I never heard that a terrorist could not be disabled or elderly either.

      If you give any group of people a free pass from security , terrorists will recruit that group.

    142. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by MichaelKristopeit119 · · Score: 0
      you're a liar and a coward, and most notably, completely wrong.

      you're an idiot.

      you're completely pathetic.

    143. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Phil06 · · Score: 0

      When they stop searching elderly white cripples, this will be the new attack vector.

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    144. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    145. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      *chuckles*

      Do you actually think that TSA procedures are classified at anything higher than Confidential//NOFORN?

    146. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Are you using a phone or an iPad for that cross-country Wi-Fi? Given today's slim row spacing in coach, the use of laptops seems to be somewhere between inadvisable and impossible. Last time I tried, the carnie in front of me reclined without asking or even warning, catching my open display in the recess for my tray. Damn near broke the thing, and I won't try again. The limited availability of seat power is also a problem. (FWIW, I took a 2 hour flight today with my 2 year old. Kept him occupied with my wife's iPad playing toddler vids - didn't need wifi or much space.)

    147. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didn't tell us, did they find anything bad?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    148. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by netsharc · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Strangely I hate the idea of domestic wiretapping, but if it's happening here and I don't know about it, I don't feel it as an invasion of my privacy.

      But if it means there are no stupid "show/let some fat dude grope your penis to get to the plane" procedures, I'm all for it. Better real security than security theatre!

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    149. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Well, google maps once told me to kayak over the Pacific...

    150. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Drive to Canada, and fly from there?

      Airport security in Canada is relatively consistent and extremely polite. However your plan still involves crossing the US border so expect large delays when entering the US by car only now with the added fun that they have a car to search. In addition there is an entry fee for the US if you are not US or Canadian so you will have to get out of your car and have your fingerprints and photo taken after which you'll get charged for the privilege. Sadly travel to the US via any means has become so unpleasant that I now avoid it if it is in any way possible.

    151. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your blowing things out of proportion

      I think you need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're".

      sent me on my way in like 30 seconds

      Dude, that's, like, awesome!

    152. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Not in an aircraft = doesn't make flying scary. Crowd bomb theater is short (BOOM!) and cleaned up quickly.

      I'm too tired to find the article, but its what the Hamas suicide bombers did to Israeli soldiers after they setup security checkpoints.

      As they couldn't sneak bombs into Israel anymore (that easy), they decided to just target the soldiers directly at the gates.

      Of course the jokes on them as many checkpoints involve soldiers sitting in a blast proof bunker who do the checkpoint screenings via CCTV and a loudspeaker.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    153. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transport chocolate coin for kids in your wallets, but with the chocolate replaced by C4. Watch as coins are banned from flight.

    154. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's not the point. If you allow dangerous items past security, even if they are in the hands of trusted employees (pilots), they can still wind up in the hands of the bad guys. A disgruntled pilot is not the most pressing issue, but a disgruntled pilot bringing something through security for a bad guy is. Or a pilot bringing a gun, only to be robbed of it in the bathroom. That's the whole point.

    155. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Jokes on them"? Cunt.

    156. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting, using your theory, since i'm being harrassed, obstructed and potentially arrested based on hearsay and potential, even though i'm a white athiest, with no desire for a hoard of virgins, in another life, if the offer was for this life then all praise be to allah. i should just start blowing stuff up. its the same either way.

    157. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. Remind me who all had validly-issued IDs on 9/11? Oh yeah, all the terrorists.

      Also, you really think some airline drone employee can detect a faked ID? Give me a break.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    158. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and any package left unattended for more than few seconds was quietly disappeared.

      We've got damn good thieves at our airports!

    159. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      how kind of them to inform you that both of them have tolls too.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    160. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      normally i don't link to snopes but there is a good write up. better than all the random news that posted it

      http://www.snopes.com/military/medal.asp

      a retired General - Ex-Governor - War hero.. suspect because of his metal of honor..

      really?? if there was any person who wouldn't try to blow up a plane - i think it would be this guy.. and if this guy DID feel the need to try to i think we all might want to listen to why he would.

      as far as i'm concerned i'll Drive where i need to go unless it isn't really possible.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    161. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Amouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ahh yes weed - i'm sure mythbusters can figure out how to take blow a plane up with that.. question is .. could the old lady?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    162. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Let's say I'm a Yemenite raised in the US. I have two brothers in the same situation and we all have stolen the identity of our neighbors and forged the Gun Permits as well as other Identification documents. We are now back at the same situation.

      You can play the "what if" game until the cows come home, you haven't proven anything.

      You inalienable right to self defense stops when it endangers my life.

      You have yet to convince me that carrying a firearm on an airplane "endangers" your life. You have no problem with Federal LEOs carrying them but do have a problem with civilians carrying them? Your logic escapes me. I guess bullets are only dangerous when they come out of a civilians gun and those that come out of a LEOs gun never miss their target and can't "blow up" the airplane?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    163. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by qoncept · · Score: 1

      didn't offer ANYTHING as proof; in fact, I didn't even argue the OP's point.

      Your statement implied that evidence is required to show that the TSA is not improving things. I would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and in the absence of evidence that they are actually improving things, the default assumption should be that they are not.

      Huh uh. Read it again. As I said, I didn't claim the TSA had improved. Let me phrase it as simply as possible.

      Without any incidents, you can't say the TSA is being ineffective.

      --
      Whale
    164. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Poor little internet troll. Did you actually expect to hurt my feelings?

      You are actually self-deluded enough to think that anyone cares about your opinions.

    165. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      How long before the "terrorists" simply start blowing up airports? Why go through the trouble of sneaking something onto a plane. You will yield much larger kill numbers blowing up entire terminals. After all, the objective isn't blowing up planes, it's killing people. Planes just make it more spectacular.

      The objective isn't killing people either, it's instilling fear ("terror", if you will) in the survivors. And, IMHO, security lines are the perfect place for that. Everyone's queued up outside the secure zone; the queuing area is by definition insecure. Ka-Blammo! One well-placed bomb would shut down air traffic for days. Two or three coordinated in different airports would bring air traffic to a standstill for weeks, and bog it down for years as the TSA tries to come up with a solution to that threat vector. It would be hugely disruptive to the entire nation's economy, even with a minimal body count.

      I'm really surprised that it hasn't been done already. The only conclusion that I can draw is that maybe the country isn't really crawling with jihadist ne'er-do-wells like our fine leaders would have us believe.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    166. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by ChocNut · · Score: 0

      If travelling like the jaunt actually existed some clever person would probably come up with a drug you could sneak into someone's food (who you didn't like) so that the knockout gas wouldn't work properly...

    167. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I would accept the roll of the dice that I would be one of those people.

      Your mom probably disagrees vehemently and, if rumors are to be believed, so does mine. :/

    168. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      "Honestly, I am surprised that TSA did not ban underpants after the last idiot that tried to smuggle a bomb in his shorts..."

      If I had been drinking coffee, it would have just come out my nose...

    169. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      What do you do when there is increased risk? You mitigate it.

      The trouble is we aren't mitigating anything.

      About two years ago a former coworker of mine accidentally carried a box cutter that had a blade almost an inch thick that could extend out to 4" (it was a serious box cutter) in his carry-on luggage about six times. Eventually, when looking through his bag, he realized the box cutter was in there and removed it. This was through different screeners just about every time, so it wasn't one person fucking up. None of the TSA's "highly trained screeners" could see the box cutter.

      This was seven years after 9/11 and TSA missed the weapon used in the 9/11 hijackings six times from one person. Think about that. You also have all those dateline specials and whatnot where they were able to sneak shit on pretty much whenever they pleased. What good are all the insane security measures if they can't even manage to catch the original weapon? Fuck they guy with the box cutter, the guy with the fingernail clippers is by far the greatest threat on the plane, obviously! It must be so, since it is the only thing these screeners seem to be able to catch.

      That is why every time some new measure from the TSA comes out I just roll my eyes and say "fuck me". I have to fly regularly for my job, and it's a real pain in the ass for a demonstrable lack of improvement in security. If my buddy could do it six times accidentally, you can bet your ass terrorists can do it intentionally whenever they want.

      What else do you suppose they could manage to sneak on board a plane?

      Really, this reactive crap is useless. Instead of banning everything after it is snuck through security, how about we figure out how to spot the potential problems in the first place? Just because someone managed to sneak a bomb in through a printer cartridge doesn't mean you should ban printer cartridges. It means you should figure out how to spot bombs no matter what form they take.

      I mean, seriously, are they going to ban books on planes as soon as a terrorist sneaks a pound of C-4 in the shape of a book on a plane? With our reactionary security measures, it could certainly happen.

      How about instead we cut half the security personnel and hire a drug-sniffing dog? I bet it would be 100x more effective than the TSA is now. Save us some damn money and inconvenience too.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    170. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by cusco · · Score: 1

      I would make a bomb out of laptop next time. Or a television. Or an oscilloscope. Or a bucket of medical supplies. Or a first aid kit. Or a battery powered drill. Or, or, or, or, . . .

      Oh, you mean what would I do were I stupid enough to be hired by the TSA. Well, obviously we need to ban anything large enough to be a bomb now, so that essentially means everything the size of an 8 1/2 x 11 envelope or larger has to go by surface transportation.

      Whew! I feel so much safer now.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    171. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Absolutely it would have. There just would have been more dead people before the planes hit.

      How dare the flight 93 passengers resist! Their actions only caused more deaths! That is a job for the proper authorities like the select/organized militia, err, national guard!

    172. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      That part where I have to sit inside a sealed tube with you and whoever else comes on board with no easy way to escape the dangers you or whoever else bring about.. Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along. Your right to be loud and obnoxious, again to which I cannot reasonably escape from is terminated too. This is in line just as your right to stick your nose into my business ends about where my fists are swinging and my right to swing my fists ends at the point they make contact with you.

      Ah, the old "Your right to swing your fist stops at my face!!!" argument. This is a classic liberal bullshit defense.

      My RIGHT to carry weapons NEVER stops. It is my RIGHT. The same goes for my right to say whatever the fuck I want. These rights are INALIENABLE, and it is the government's DUTY to ensure that NO PARTY attempts to trespass on my rights.

      I could fucking run nuclearlaunchcodes.com and post our nuclear launch codes and I'd be well within my RIGHTS to do so.

      People should be punished for the consequences of their actions, NOT for their desire to exercise their rights.

      I'd rather fly on a plane where people had guns and explosives and ferrets than fly on a plane where I'm treated like a criminal, forced to strip down, scanned/groped, told I can't bring food or water with me, etc.

      If you live in fear, then that's YOUR fucking problem. Move to a place where people don't have rights. Given the current trends, the US will probably be on that list for most considerations.

      It's people like you who actually LIKE being treated like a fucking slave, because it (falsely) makes you feel safe. So here's a personal FUCK YOU.

    173. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That's like arguing airplanes would be safer if we installed anti-personal mines in each person's seat so if at any point during the flight they tried to stand up to take control of the cockpit they'd explode. I'm all for the 2nd amendment but when one bullet has the possibility to take down 300 people w/o a fight the risk far outweighs any reward.

      There is a big difference between explosive weapons and small arms.

      If we are to believe the FAA, transmitters have the possibility to take down 300 people. How does the risk to reward work for that?

    174. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Was the TSA agent female and cute?

      Have you ever seen a TSA agent?
      Protip: These are the people who use Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, etc.

    175. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      No because the "dangerous weapons" would blow holes to the body of the airplane, starting the decompression process. If done fast enough it can bring the airplane down by tearing the plane apart. Nice try to make me more nervous flying domestic flights by suggesting firearms on-board.

      Mythbusters tested this and had to go to extremes to duplicate Hollywood physics. Because of the way high altitude passenger planes work, you would have to shoot one hell of a lot of holes through the fuselage to even cause the air cabin pressure to start dropping never mind structural failure leading to explosive decompression.

      Excluding the shared peril of an airplane, are you also nervous in States which have shall issue CCW laws?

    176. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're so emotionally pathological that you actually think that the antipathy of strangers on the other side of the world is better than your lack of relevance in meatspace.

      Good guess (better than your other guess).

    177. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by JustABlitheringIdiot · · Score: 1

      Really now that actually taking control of a commercial aircraft is all but impossible, those aircraft are no longer the really high value targets.

      It's not so much that it is a high value target anymore. Hell these people really aren't after high value targets, if they can get one in the process that is gravy, but otherwise they are only in it to sew the seeds of fear. Their only discernible goal is to cause as many people as possible to be inconvenienced or waste as much money as possible. The whole goal is to degrade the value of western society as we know it. The fact that the US and the world for that matter has reacted they way it has means they have been successful. The leaders have even publicly stated they consider these "failures" to be successes because people are scared and more money is being wasted on "security measures".

      It may sound callous but I think that the only way to defeat these idiots is to not change anything and to just go about our lives. Yeah they blew up a plane and a lot of people died. OK we mourn the dead, get over it, and move on. No costly changes to procedure no fear of what will be next. Eventually services to the areas they infect will diminish, i.e. no air travel or cargo in or out, etc. They can go back to living in the stone age and the locals will suffer and eventually rise up and better themselves or continue to live blissful and ignorant.

      I do believe in equality for ALL people all over the world and I work towards a peaceful secular society in my actions daily but until that happens what else do we have but life, liberty, and happiness?

    178. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could blow up a plane over a populated area. You might get lucky and take out two or three homes, one of which would be occupied at the time, and you'd kill an average of three or four people. The people on the plane are at a statistically far greater risk than people on the ground no matter where a plane is when it explodes, mainly because an airframe that no longer has proper lift has a tendency to fall almost straight down, and if the airplane does still have lift, the pilot is going to try to control it as much as possible and drop it somewhere without a lot of people.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    179. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not really. All they would have to do is come from a country that would allow them to carry weapons onto the plane too. Once in US soil, they simply kill the passengers, overwhelm the cockpit and do the same.

      Two questions:

      • How does that problem in any way disagree with my suggestion that people should be allowed to carry firearms on aircraft, and that doing so would prevent someone from pulling off a 9/11?
      • You do realize that people coming in from international flights have to go through a full security screening to enter the non-international section of an airport, right?
      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    180. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      How does that problem in any way disagree with my suggestion that people should be allowed to carry firearms on aircraft, and that doing so would prevent someone from pulling off a 9/11?

      The problem is that coming from another country or countries, only a certain few will have them. Those few are the people who come from, or pretend to come from countries that allow the possession of a firearm.

      And yes, it doesn't really matter how quick of a draw or straight of a shot you are. If they kill you first, there is nothing you can do to them. It's not like you will respawn and be able to continue fighting. Basically, all the terrorist would need to do is camp on you so when their time comes, they simply sneak up behind and kill everyone not in their band who comes from a gun toting country.

      you do realize that people coming in from international flights have to go through a full security screening to enter the non-international section of an airport, right?

      Them not getting into the US is not the problem. Them taking control of a plane and using it as a missile is. You getting into a close quarter shoot out with crap loads of innocent civilians around in a confined area, highly flammable fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulic lines as well as instruments necessary to keep the 300 plus ton vehicle floating gracefully in the air that could all be taken out with a stray bullet from you or the terrorist who won't be making sure they do little damage, is the problem.

    181. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can play the "what if" game until the cows come home, you haven't proven anything.

      And neither have you. Except perhaps how one sided and irrational you are. In fact, if you think either of us was going to prove something, perhaps you are a bit stupid to boot. This is because we aren't arguing facts, we are arguing opinions which very much isn't facts.

      If anyone should be playing the what if game, it should be you anyways. You are the one trying to argue that something should be a way it isn't today and you have failed. The closest you came was stating that I have proved nothing and attempting to walk away from debate.

      You have yet to convince me that carrying a firearm on an airplane "endangers" your life. You have no problem with Federal LEOs carrying them but do have a problem with civilians carrying them? Your logic escapes me. I guess bullets are only dangerous when they come out of a civilians gun and those that come out of a LEOs gun never miss their target and can't "blow up" the airplane?

      Convince me that it doesn't. convince me that there is no way for you to shoot through the fuel tanks, shoot through instrument panels or wiring connecting them, convince me that there is no way for you to miss your target and hit me or my family or the only people remaining who could fly the damn thing. You can't prove any of that to be impossible unless you do not fire your weapon. In that case, what's the use of it anyways?

      And yes, I do have a problem with untrained civilians carrying a firearm on airplanes when they don't know where the fuel tanks are, where the electrical subsystems or hydraulic lines that control the flight of the plane are. Yes I have a problem with any tom dick or harry carrying a firearm on a plane with the intent of using it when innocent people are in a confined space that has paper thin walls compared to any other wall structure that you would find on the street or in a ground based building. And no, I don't have a problem with LEOs carrying a firearm with the intent of using it if necessary on a plane because they would have been trained on all that shit. And yes, if you want to go through all that training and show that you are qualified to take all the necessary consideration into play if and when you need to use the weapon, I don't have a problem with it. However, I doubt anyone would be willing to go through all that just to CC on a plane once or twice a year- especially when it may be illegal for them to CC at their destination.

    182. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Why don't you provide a citation for your implicit claim that American security is "brainless", and the implication that Canada and Europe are superior?

      Strangely I hate the idea of domestic wiretapping, but if it's happening here and I don't know about it, I don't feel it as an invasion of my privacy.

      Well, I'm sorry, but open up a newspaper sometime. Furthermore, you'll simply not know about most successful invasions of privacy by governments, but you will still suffer their effects.

      But if it means there are no stupid "show/let some fat dude grope your penis to get to the plane" procedures, I'm all for it. Better real security than security theatre!

      Which only goes to show that Europeans like you have apparently learned nothing from the past few centuries. As Franklin said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    183. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by MichaelKristopeit160 · · Score: 1
      you want to talk about your hurt feelings?

      you're completely pathetic... yet you believe anyone cares about your opinions... you're an ignorant hypocrite.

      keep telling people you're genimidomino... that isn't lame at all, moron.

    184. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      What, you've never heard of a "Joe Job?"

      It's SFW, I promise. :)

    185. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject of
      "Slashdot trolls":

      ** Entry Begins **

      Slashdot Trolls (Homo Sapiens Asshatus) are an offshoot species that came
      into existence seemingly for the sole purpose of serving as proof of
      concept of "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory." The
      Conspiracy Sciences Agency of Omicron Perseii 8 has speculated that John
      Gabriel himself is responsible for the formation of these pests. This is
      generally disregarded, as other researches discount this theory outright
      with the scientific argument: "duh."

      Slashdot trolls are formed when a human of sub-normal intelligence and
      insufficient parental supervision is given access to a large audience
      and the cover of anonymity. The atavism is generally immediate, and
      brings with it a number of physiological changes: thickening of the
      cranium, increased adrenal output, a 90% decrease in cerebral activity,
      and Tourette's syndrome in 99% of cases. The most common and clear
      marking of the slashdot troll, however, is the marked molecular change in
      the victim's pheromones. This results in an ever-present, overpowering
      stench, often described as smelling like bovine excrement.

      Most baffling, however, is the inexplicable aura of anti-Cluons the
      Slashdot troll emits. This field renders the victim completely resistant
      to all known cures for stupidity in the galaxy, save for death by blunt
      force trauma. It has the added function of attracting weak-minded and
      gullible individuals into entering debates on various subjects with the
      troll. Since these "discussions" are incapable of being rational or
      intelligent, due to the Universal Conceptual Value Metric ("The value of
      any discussion can be found by multiplying the IQs of the
      participants") they simply provide the troll the negative attention it
      requires to survive.

      These individuals are referred to as "Troll-feeders," though they are
      known to be called much worse when they actively engage the troll in
      conversation. "Troll Feeding" is currently a 3rd degree misdemeanor on 7
      planets, a second-degree felony on 21 planets, non-actionable on 3
      planets, and a capital offense on every civilized planet, save for Vega
      2. On Vega 2, troll feeders are locked up along with the trolls for life
      without parole.

      As of this writing, the Civil Rights movement on Vega 2 is currently
      protesting, seeking a death sentence in the name of mercy.

      ** Entry Ends **

    186. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by MichaelKristopeit160 · · Score: 1
      can't speak for yourself, coward?

      you're completely pathetic.

    187. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I have no idea where that came from, but I'm pretty sure you missed my point.

    188. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Bwahahahahaa....

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    189. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, typical European attitude: keep laughing until the continent erupts in war and chaos again, as it typically does about once a century.

      Given Europe's history of two millennia genocide, religious wars, colonialism, fascism, communism, and totalitarianism, you'd think Europeans would start exercising a bit of humility. But arrogance seems to be part of the European package.

    190. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by netsharc · · Score: 1

      > But arrogance seems to be part of the European package.

      Jawohl mein Herr!

      I'd tell you to go look in the mirror (for this post and the one before that), but I have a feeling the charge of arrogance can go both way, and you'd say, "Don't tell me to look in the mirror you fucking scumbag European! USA! USA! Roarrr!".

      BTW, any other -isms you care to throw out there?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    191. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And this is different from what they could do by getting a pilot's license and becoming a pilot for a third-world airliner how?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    192. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Or, for that matter, recruiting one?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    193. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They let you take your rock on the airplane?

    194. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's not outside of the FAA setting requirements that are supposed to be followed to enter our airspace which the FAA/TSA has authority to verify.

      So you see, there are checks in place in that scenario- however small they might be.

    195. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      You are a moron!
      You are an aimless drifting advertisement as to why the USofA is no longer "land of the free" you and people like you let these talking pieces of shit in Washington convince you that by taking (incrementally) all your freedoms away that your cowardly ass can be "safer"

      God help us from the NEW Americans!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    196. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      It's not arrogance to point out the historical fact that Europe has been incapable of keeping its own political house in order: fascism, communism, two world wars, colonialism, massive religious and ethnic conflicts, genocide, to name just a few. And the trouble is that Europeans just don't learn and are heading for totalitarianism again, all the while believing themselves to be superior to everybody else in the world.

      I am not comparing Europe to the US specifically; you simply expressed European arrogance towards the US on this instance. But Europeans, in general, are arrogant towards, and ignorant of, the entire rest of the world, not just the US.

      I would never call you a "fucking scumbag", but I will call you an ignorant, uneducated lout.

    197. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by netsharc · · Score: 1

      historical fact that Europe has been incapable of keeping its own political house in order:

      USA has not been able to keep its politics in order. No healthcare yet? (God bless Canada, the UK, hell I'll throw in Western Europe in there as well). Choosing war-mongering presidents (how do you like that he turned the surplus to a big hole and killed, what is it 6000 of your boys in 2 wars now? Abu Ghraib, torture, things that everyone else knows are war-crimes...

      And the trouble is that Europeans just don't learn and are heading for totalitarianism again

      The trouble is the US citizens are now putting the people who ruined their country back into power again.

      all the while believing themselves to be superior to everybody else in the world.

      "God bless the USA, the best country in the world!". What does that statement convey?

      But Europeans, in general, are arrogant towards, and ignorant of, the entire rest of the world, not just the US.

      And a majority of Americans say "Saddam was involved in 9/11!" (hint: there is yet no evidence that he was).

      I would never call you a "fucking scumbag", but I will call you an ignorant, uneducated lout.

      You are an ignorant, uneducated lout.

      Ha ha, you are so fucking ridiculous, you can't see that all you say about Europe and Europeans (even though I think they're bullshit) can be reflected back to be said about USA and the majority of Americans, especially you. Or are you too blind/dumb to see so you make excuses: "but that's not the same thing, what Europe did was stupid, and Europeans are dumb, but America is good, and Americans are superior, because God blesses us and whatever shit we do, roarr, roarr!"

      Fucking moron...

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    198. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they found dirty Kleenex, an incontinence undergarment and a pus fouled Telfa pad inside my special (diabetic) shoe!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    199. Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terrorists are laughing at us....won't be long before passengers will be banned. The TSA are idiots. Look, I understand that because we leave our borders open and have no idea who is in this country that terrorists may end up on aircraft. However, stop the political correctness and start "fondling" foreigners and suspects and leave the frequent flyers, old ladies and infants alone. It is "intelligence" that will stop terrorists. The current tactics used by the TSA is evidence that the terrorists are winning.

  2. Security Theater at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    /popcorn

    1. Re:Security Theater at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pass that popcorn, home slice.

      I do loves me some Mystery Security Theater 3000.

    2. Re:Security Theater at its finest by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Totally agreed. The "device" that was found was a empty inkjet cartridge with a piece of cell phone attached and some wires. It looked like something a kid would build. They freaked out about it getting through security, but of course it got through, it had no explosive material contained. And what is a cell phone circuit board going to do without power and with nothing attached to it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. The illusion of security by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The illusion of security by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're solution involves people growing a spine and/or recognizing reality. Which judging from the fact that the voters decided to promote bipartisanship by giving the GOP a majority in the house is pretty clearly out of the question.

    2. Re:The illusion of security by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      Please, see my sig. It explains everything.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:The illusion of security by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      The people decided to try and prevent the loss of their country to dumb policies like this one from the TSA. Do you honestly think the USA is heading in a good direction?

    4. Re:The illusion of security by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which judging from the fact that the voters decided to promote bipartisanship by giving the GOP a majority in the house is pretty clearly out of the question.

      Which exit poll did you read that said the voters wanted to promote bipartisanship? The main issue is the economy. The Democrats are perceived to be neglecting it and/or pushing policies that are ineffective.

      BTW, since you made an offtopic snipe at the GOP, may I presume that you are a Democrat or lean in that direction? If that's the case are you really happy with the way that President Obama is handling this issue? His Administration hasn't done jack-shit to halt the growth of the security theater industry.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:The illusion of security by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      See my sig, yours is wrong

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:The illusion of security by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.

      I think most (not all, just most) people accept that. I think even most government officials accept that. What nobody accepts is the blame they would get if something goes wrong and they didn't do as much as they possibly could to appear to have tried to prevent that. That's what's driving all this: people in positions of responsibility have an extremely high incentive to propose anything they can think of to reduce their exposure to risk, even if what they're proposing is unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional, because it's what stands between their current lives and being on the front page when the next nogoodnik blows something up. They, individually, see an extremely small cost to reducing our civil liberties compared to the benefit they get from doing so, and as such it is an entirely rational behavior for them to try to pass laws and regulations against everything. So how do we, as a culture, try to fix this?

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    7. Re:The illusion of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop sue-happy culture.

    8. Re:The illusion of security by BonquiquiShiquavius · · Score: 1

      So how do we, as a culture, try to fix this?

      I think the solution is easy. What's the one common denominator with all airplane related terrorist acts? An airplane of course! So ban all airplanes! Problem solved.

      What? Are you telling me the life of the thousands of innocent children that will inevitably die in the airplane related terrorist attacks if we don't ban airplanes are worth the luxury of a few less hours/days of travel?

    9. Re:The illusion of security by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.

      While I generally agree with this, I would like to reflect about how difficult is to find the middle ground... From the Wi-Fi article (emphasis mine):

      These systems would mean that passengers would no longer need to illicitly use their cellphones when they come into range of ground masts at low altitudes near airports – a potentially dangerous activity that could interfere with the aircraft's avionics

      I mean, WTF? WHO IN THE HELL NEEDS TO USE A CELL PHONE IN A PLANE? Anyone who breaches air security rules because he can't stand a few hours without phone or internet is sick or a moron, or both. Ok, if you can have it, you may enjoy it more than reading, watching a film, sleeping or just thinking. If it is safely available and you don't disturb me, enjoy it. But let's get real, there is neither "need" nor "right" to it, so if you can't have it follow the rules instead of being a danger (*).

      So, while I am not clear that banning the WiFi will provide any security measure, the most disturbing thing that I found in the article was the assumption that the flier can do as s/he pleases while in a plane because s/he "needs" to do something... looks like that, together with those that criticise the restrictions of the nanny-state, there's also some group that things that all the restrictions are just theater and they can be "smart" and break them at will... surprise, some of them aren't, and surprise, when things go wrong that same people will be the first to ask for an explanation about what went wrong.

      Finally, I want to insist that this post is not so much about one specific measure but I wanted to reflect about the feeling that some people looks only interested in complaining (really... how many of us usually fly ink cartridges/toners?) about everything, and not interested at all in a reasoned argument.

      (*) I was in a plane that couldn't take off because someone had left his cell phone on without realising (he was not talking, it was stored) and was interfering with the plane systems. The steward came near his place and began asking passengers to check their phones, once it was found and shut down all worked ok.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    10. Re:The illusion of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do we, as a culture, try to fix this?

      Stop being such insufferable pussies.
      Stop expecting the troops to be the only brave ones in the face of adversity.
      Stop supporting Israel so the Arab world won't have the REAL reason they want our blood. (They DIDN'T attack us because they hate our way of life...)

      Basically, all the options to fix it are shit that will never happen.

    11. Re:The illusion of security by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      We put term limits in place for the legislative branch, and we stop electing career politicians.

    12. Re:The illusion of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comments like this make me wish that /. scoring went higher than 5.

      Well spoken, sir.

    13. Re:The illusion of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do we, as a culture, try to fix this?

      It's pretty simple. We amend our Constitution so that restricting people's ability to travel is not allowed, and that some type of specific, reasonable suspicion has to exist before we allow searches of people and their possessions.

      Oh, wait....

    14. Re:The illusion of security by juhaz · · Score: 1

      So how do we, as a culture, try to fix this?

      The same way cultures so far out of whack with reality always do. It won't be pretty.

  4. Home Security Theater by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh good! I was wondering when the season premier for Homeland Security Theater was going to be broadcast. This is yet!

    In this episode, the knee-jerk reaction is to ban toner and ink cartridges, because like bottled water and cola, some Macgyver type will be able to whip together a fusion bomb in those few hours of flying, without anyone noticing!

    Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

      You must have missed the first episode, where the purpose of all this was covered, and are assuming it's to catch terrorists.

    2. Re:Home Security Theater by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers?

      Because it's obviously racism if security focuses on the nervous looking young Middle Eastern man instead of the 85 year old Caucasian woman in a wheelchair.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Home Security Theater by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

      Stuff like this is why racial profiling won't work.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Home Security Theater by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

      This would work up until the point terrorists realize they should recruit suicide bombers who don't fit the profile of a terrorist. Actually, indications are that they've already started to do so.

      Of course, the TSA can make airplanes more secure by simply expanding the profile to all humans in general. Then you'll have absolute security - sure it's useless, but it'll be secure.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    5. Re:Home Security Theater by crath · · Score: 1

      Forensic science isn't necessary; plain old ordinary science will do. Too bad that requires more than simply a desire to abuse people.

    6. Re:Home Security Theater by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
      I'm just waiting for the day when a TSA agent becomes a terrorist.

      If I wanted to really do some damage to America, that's where I'd recruit if I were Bin Laden. Just look at the paranoia that happened when that Army officer went berserk.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    7. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      This would work up until the point terrorists realize they should recruit suicide bombers who don't fit the profile of a terrorist.

      Not only that, when the terrorists manage to recruit a caucasian terrorist, they can then guarantee that he (or she) will get through security by sending a group of young Middle Eastern men through the security checkpoint just before the actual terrorist goes in so that all officers are busy frisking them. The others have tickets to a completely different flight, of course.

    8. Re:Home Security Theater by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      Racial profilling might not be perfect, but it is much more effective than attempting to ban everything. If a high percentage of negative actions are performed by one group of people should you not focus more so on that one group?

    9. Re:Home Security Theater by Rix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it is, and frankly, young Middle Eastern men have damned good reason to be nervous at a security checkpoint.

    10. Re:Home Security Theater by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      They do profile passengers. Anyone with brown skin is liable to be refused entry, even if they are a hindu or a sikh who hate muslims.

    11. Re:Home Security Theater by GizmoToy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used? Israel has had great success with passenger profiling, and there's a whole lot more to it than skin color.

      Unfortunately you need trained and intelligent security agents to make it work, something we're never likely to be able to commit to. Cheap, poorly-trained TSA agents frisking people down looks more impressive to travelers than a couple relatively-expensive guys highly trained in interrogation techniques and reading facial expressions.

    12. Re:Home Security Theater by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

      So we should be stopping middle aged white guys? Or did you forget about Oklahoma city and such?

    13. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because profiling separates the security line into an "easy" line and a "hard" line, and so the terrorists will just use the "easy" line (by, e.g. hiding the bombs in some white grandmother's wheelchair because you decided not to check them as much as that group of Sikhs that you thought were "teh muslin terrorists!")

    14. Re:Home Security Theater by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      By the time we are done with this "everybody is a terrorist, including Grandma" bullshit everybody will have a damned good reason to be nervous at the security checkpoint. Hooray for equality, now we treat everybody like a criminal.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    15. Re:Home Security Theater by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Israel also had locked cockpit doors back in the 1980s and armed members of law enforcement and/or the military on every flight. Amazingly enough they have managed to secure their airlines without banning bottled water and groping genitalia....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Home Security Theater by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers?

      How about, gee, I dunno, accepting that terrorists are going to do shitty things, like blow up planes, blow up cars, etc? Then terrorists' main weapon, terror (and its cousin, irrational fear), will be gone. Sure, that'll just mean terrorists will try to come up with different things to terrorize people.

      But, it's the same thing with shock jocks, blathering political pundits, more "extreme" violent films and sexualized porn, etc: if you stop reacting, you'll start to recognize just how irrelevant they are and how much people overreact. Perhaps that's one reason moderates want either a sane bipartisan legislature or a gridlocked insane legislature. Nothing about the laws to stop violence, porn, terrorism, etc have had much effect because they're either the symptoms of a bigger problem or their prevalence have been overmagnified and broad laws that effect few people are unlikely to actually run into many people committing the crime.

      It's no different to the common cold. Yes, doing absolute nothing ever is a bad thing and one should react as appropriate, but overreaction just turns into a situation where the overreaction is the major symptom of the common cold; the cold virus itself does marginal damage at best. It might be hard to actual do, but changing attitudes instead of merely enacting more rules and regulation is sometimes the best course of action.

      The key thing is figuring out what is actually a justifiable and appropriate reaction, and that first starts with actually investigating the scope, scale, etc of the problem and a discussion about it. Have we even done that yet? Or has it all been conjecture with a solution trying to find a problem to solve?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    17. Re:Home Security Theater by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used?

      When the words "politically incorrect" were used.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:Home Security Theater by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

      Profiling passengers doesn't work, either: most of the passengers who fit broad profiles (like race) are perfectly innocent, and focusing on those passengers means focusing less on the rest, creating potential holes in your security.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    19. Re:Home Security Theater by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If a high percentage of negative actions are performed by one group of people should you not focus more so on that one group?

      No. If all you care about is effectiveness then what matters is if a high percentage of that group perform negative actions. Getting 1,000,000 false positives for every true positive is effectively no better than than getting 10,000,000 false positives for every true positive.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Home Security Theater by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hooray for equality, now we treat everybody like a criminal.

      That's ridiculous. We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals. </sarcasm>

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    21. Re:Home Security Theater by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see what the profile of a non terrorist terrorist is. Surely there's a set of behaviors and markers associated with terrorists, perhaps even enough to form a profile that can be looked for.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    22. Re:Home Security Theater by pz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh good! I was wondering when the season premier for Homeland Security Theater was going to be broadcast. This is yet!

      In this episode, the knee-jerk reaction is to ban toner and ink cartridges, because like bottled water and cola, some Macgyver type will be able to whip together a fusion bomb in those few hours of flying, without anyone noticing!

      Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?

      Israel security is serious security, and not theatre, because it concentrates on the passenger, and not their belongings. When a simple pen can be wielded as a weapon in the right hands (or part of a set of eyeglasses, for that matter, or a screwdriver, or a knife from first class sharpened with a completely inconspicuous sharpening stone) it becomes clear that the belongings carried with a person do not matter nearly as much as the person and their intent. Reading intent can be done. The Israelis do it very, very well. Exceedingly well, actually, as anyone who has flown out of Tel Aviv can relate, especially if they were paying attention.

      I am a scientist, one of the very few professions accorded a kind of informal diplomatic special status (when two states are leaning toward establishing diplomatic ties, they typically start with artistic and scientific exchanges). I was given what felt like the third degree when leaving Tel Aviv:

          "Why were you in Israel?"
              "I am a scientist, and I was invited to give a lecture."
          (looking me up and down:) "You were invited to give a lecture?"
              "Yes."
          (icy tone) "Why would they invite *you*?"
              "Because there was an international seminar in my field, and I do good work."
          (continued icily) "Oh, really. Do you have a letter of invitation?"
              "Yes, here it is."
          "Do you have the program from the seminar?"
              "Yes, here."
          (getting accusitive) "Why can't I find your name?"
              "Um, it's ... just a mintute ... here it is."
          "What was the topic of your lecture?"
              "Computational Neuroscience."
          (pointedly) "Please give us the lecture."
              "I'm sorry, what?"
          (same inflection) "Please give us the lecture."
              "OK... " (I start the lecture and am allowed to get quite a few sentences in to it before I'm stopped; they were in fact paying attention to what I was saying, although not distinctly interested in the content.)
          "Where did you pack your bags?"

      and so on for ten minutes. They wanted to know where I stayed, how I knew about that particular hotel, where I went during my free time, etc. When speaking with other travellers, I've since learned that's pretty standard. Did you notice above when I wrote about paying attention? There were two interrogators performing the interview for each passenger. One doing the talking, and one observing. The one talking said that she was a trainee, and that's why there were two. I've since learned that's standard operating procedure: it works to make the interviewee think of the interviewer in sympathetic light. Damned skilled.

      That, my friends, is security. Banning containers of liquid or gel larger than 125 mL isn't. Hiding one's thoughts from skilled interrogation is much, much harder to do than hiding physical contraband.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    23. Re:Home Security Theater by Triv · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, it is, and frankly, young Middle Eastern men have damned good reason to be nervous at a security checkpoint.

      Or, as happened to my friend Kamal a few years ago, merely being of Middle-Eastern complexion was enough to get him hassled every day on the way into the subway station to get to work. Never mind that he was a typical middle-class American kid with Indian parents, born and raised in New Jersey and putting himself through college in a used bookstore.

      Profiling is abhorrent. Let's not go (any farther) there; hell, a couple steps back to sensibility would be nice.

    24. Re:Home Security Theater by boristdog · · Score: 1

      "Go ahead and board the plane Mr. McVeigh! You are too white and blond for us to search!"

    25. Re:Home Security Theater by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Crap if that happened in the US, from then on TSA would cut your skin to make sure it was real.

    26. Re:Home Security Theater by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Really we will win at that point because 90% of their non-profile-compliant candidates will be FBI and CIA operatives. (They could vet them by seeing if they'll saw off a journalist's head, but journalists are hard to find...and most of the CIA guys would be down for it anyway)

    27. Re:Home Security Theater by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      Also this

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    28. Re:Home Security Theater by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is, and frankly, young Middle Eastern men have damned good reason to be nervous at a security checkpoint.

      I'm a white guy, and last time I flew I was frisked by a young middle eastern man in a TSA uniform.

      Also, my little-old-lady mother gets hassled every time. I think she ended up on some kind of list and gets singled out for all the searches.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    29. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used? Israel has had great success with passenger profiling, and there's a whole lot more to it than skin color.

      I wouldn't hold up an apartheid state as an example of how to do non-racial profiling.

    30. Re:Home Security Theater by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals

      Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I also pointed out the age of the people in question. Whom do you think is more likely to be a threat, the young male or the near-deaths-door wheelchair bound female?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    31. Re:Home Security Theater by rwven · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I love seeing a mid-70's couple being patted down and wanded in the airport. Because, yaknow, my geriatric gramma is definitely the terrorist type.

      The TSA is completely ineffective as a security force. How many times has the TSA actually found something that prevented an in-air attack? How many times have their "security protocols" been embarrassed? I'd wager there's a LOT more in the latter department.

      If terrorists attacked passenger trains on a regular basis the casualties would be orders of magnitude higher....yet there's almost no security at train stations.

      The problem with organizations like the TSA is that they turn into "V for Vendetta." All in the names of "Safety" and "Security." BS, I call it. The last thing the TSA is concerned with is your safety.

      I'll take a little more risk over a loss of freedom and a trashed constitution any day.

    32. Re:Home Security Theater by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      "Go ahead and board the plane Mr. McVeigh! You are too white and blond for us to search!"

      Yeah, because a guy reading the Turner Diaries in the gatehouse wouldn't rouse suspicion.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    33. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically, trying to fly out of Israel is akin of getting arrested and interrogated? Wow. That's some security. Certainly something I would not want to experience! And what if you didn't have the proof that you were invited for that lecture???

      Somehow it makes the Soviet "papers please" sound very mild!!

    34. Re:Home Security Theater by miserere+nobis · · Score: 1

      No. Profiling goes in the wrong direction, and for reasons having nothing to do with race, color, or political correctness. The more we rely on profiling-- which is guaranteed to miss some people, and therefore have to be ratcheted up again and again in its level of intrusiveness, the more we need to root around in the private lives of every person who ever would like to fly. Do you want to get on an airplane? Okay, we will search your credit records, your recent purchases, and why not your email while we're at it? And then what we arrive at in the end is citizens being denied the right to long-distance travel because they fit a prediction model, regardless of whether they are guilty of anything or have any malicious intent at all. That is not equal rights and protections for every citizen, and probably runs afoul of the Constitutional right to petition your government for a redress of grievances, if you live in Hawaii or somewhere else remote.

      What we really should be doing is moving completely the opposite direction. We should have the right to fly completely anonymously-- why should the government be allowed to track the movements of citizens without cause? It matters not a whit who is on board, if they have no means of doing anything bad when they get there. I would rather submit to an extra thorough screening, body scanners, luggage searches, whatever, than submit to my personal, private life being scrutinized by a federal agency when I have done nothing to legitimately instigate the initiation of government tracking of my activities. If I have no weapons capable of damaging the flightworthiness of an airplane or taking control of it, then I am not a real threat no matter what crazy religious tenets I may adhere to. (Sure, I could stab someone with my pen or overpower and strangle someone, but what will that accomplish? I could do as much standing in line at the ticket counter, and it would not be qualitatively different.)

      Airlines, by the way, don't back passengers being positively identified because it improves security. They back it because it disallows resale of tickets, thereby allowing them to sell more tickets than there are seats on the plane.

    35. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not defending the lack of training on the TSA's part, but Israel also probably has 1% the amount of airports and traffic as the US (just throwing out a number). It's great that they're able to afford two interrogators per passenger but that solution simply isn't scalable to the numbers the TSA has to deal with daily.

    36. Re:Home Security Theater by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      But the Israelis don't tolerate groping children like the USA does.

      It is actually so HLS can recruit more TSA 'agents' from the talent pool of candidates that aren't suitable for jobs like priests, halfway house workers, hockey coaches, and fugly homosexuals*.

      *) Not suggesting homosexuals are any more likely to abuse than the general population. Problem is, there are too many people from the general population that are already willing to abuse minors, of both sexes, and I doubt the TSA is going to successfully screen them out before they are let loose upon the public with near perfect federal and state immunity.

    37. Re:Home Security Theater by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      BT;DT;

      Hindawi affair back in April 1986.

    38. Re:Home Security Theater by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Whom (sic) do you think is more likely to be a threat, the young male or the near-deaths-door wheelchair bound female?

      Well, one of them has less to live for, has a large heavy difficult-to-scan metal device that could easily be concealing weapons, and is more likely to get away with pleading ignorance if caught ...

    39. Re:Home Security Theater by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hooray for equality, now we treat everybody like a criminal.

      That's ridiculous. We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals. </sarcasm>

      The quickest path towards resolving this is genuinely for all non-criminal young Middle Easterners to start ejecting the radical element from within their ranks. The next time one of your peers tells you how evil all those white infidels are, tell him to shut the hell up, to grow up, and step away from the radical idiot who cares less for their life than for his own ego. End the war from within, and see those who fear you turn into your supporters.

      Solutions to this sort of thing start at home.

      Consequentially, this is likewise why I believe we need a full evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Until the jihadis themselves are ready to reject this idiocy for what it is, we need to reject them. We can try other things, but they're just not going to be effective at the costs we'd find reasonable to pay.

    40. Re:Home Security Theater by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

      At any larger airport the terrorist might instead consider blowing up the 5,000 people standing in line for these little chats

    41. Re:Home Security Theater by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      This would work up until the point terrorists realize they should recruit suicide bombers who don't fit the profile of a terrorist. Actually, indications are that they've already started to do so.

      Being a suicide bomber is idiotic, plain and simple. The only thing working in their favor is radical religious propaganda. Finding people outside the profile should prove to be enormously difficult, because they're not raised in that culture, and won't be wooed by the promise of 'forty virgins' upon death, etc.

    42. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting summary! Another thing having the experienced person sit and watch does is avoid him getting caught up by what the passenger says. Often people talk in ways to exert control over the listener, in a variety of situations. They do this by saying things that exert control, and then observing feedback in order to adjust their approach. What you described keeps the observer outside that control, so he can form conclusions without interference.

    43. Re:Home Security Theater by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Profiling passengers doesn't work, either: most of the passengers who fit broad profiles (like race) are perfectly innocent, and focusing on those passengers means focusing less on the rest, creating potential holes in your security.

      That's irrelevant. Fewer than one percent of one percent of all passengers are perfectly, completely innocent. In fact, by the time you factor everyone who's ever been screened against the number of actual attackers, you're going to need scientific notation to express your percentage.

      Innocence is irrelevant when you're looking for something as improbable as this.

    44. Re:Home Security Theater by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is this why they shot holes in that one girl's laptop?

    45. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My mother worked for Customs at LAX. Customs agents get very good at identifying the intent of people, most just call it a hunch but it develops with experience and they can't describe it.

      Her favorite and most interesting story was a flight coming in from Mexico (previously routed through Columbia), she checked a caucasian 75 year old grandmother in a wheelchair, US Citizen, the whole bit. Everything seemed to check right but she had a "hunch". She pulled her into secondary, turns out her sweater was lined with bags of coke.

      You're right young Middle Eastern men have something to worry about, which is why the terrorists are actively recruiting non MIddle Eastern Muslims. The TSA knows this and is looking at everyone, and decades of Customs experience like the story above is exactly why.

    46. Re:Home Security Theater by Rix · · Score: 1

      Whichever you screen less thoroughly.

    47. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I suppose the good news is, the next time you're in a hotel, you don't have to worry about Mossad being in the suite across the hall. But why did they grill you on your flight out, after any potential terrorist activity, and not on your flight in? They're obviously serious about what they're doing, so I can't imagine this being a bureaucratic oversight. Simple logistics?

    48. Re:Home Security Theater by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Your implication that focusing on Middle Eastern men is more productive than searching 85 year old Caucasian women is probably correct.

      However, you're looking at a 0% effective rate for the Caucasian woman, and a 0.00000001% effective rate for young Middle Eastern men. You'd probably find a roughly similar rate in young Caucasian men.

      In my opinion, that makes the money spent on in-depth screening a waste for both of them.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    49. Re:Home Security Theater by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      Fewer than one percent of one percent of all passengers are perfectly, completely innocent.

      The vast majority of passengers are completely innocent with respect to being terrorists, which is the issue at hand. Your statement above is just misdirection.

      In fact, by the time you factor everyone who's ever been screened against the number of actual attackers, you're going to need scientific notation to express your percentage.

      This is true whether you engage in racial profiling or not. Random screening is a far better choice as it doesn't create holes in your security from focusing too much on a bunch of people who are significantly no more guilty of being terrorists than the rest of the world's population.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    50. Re:Home Security Theater by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The quickest path towards resolving this is genuinely for all non-criminal young Middle Easterners to start ejecting the radical element from within their ranks.

      Non-criminal young Middle Easterners should eject those they have nothing to do with in order to not be lumped together with those they have nothing to do with? Wow, man. That's fucking brilliant!

      Consequentially, this is likewise why I believe we need a full evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

      You're a practical bloke, aren't ya?

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    51. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually arguing the US interrogate *everyone* getting on a plane with the same depth, deception (they lied about the "trainee" status, who knows what else) and time investment? If you think the security line is a problem now, wait until every single person needs to be interrogated for 10 minutes, or longer if someone is guilty of flying with an anxiety disorder and appears guilty enough.

      The last few times I've flown (I fly for business) I encountered 30 people in line before me to get through security. I was through in 10 minutes. With your proposed process, that would now take 300 minutes - 5 hours. That's just to get through security. I've been in lines where there were easily 50 people ahead of me at more crowded airports...

      So imagine you need to arrive 5 hours before the flight (not including the airline's time if you have baggage, finding your way to the gate, etc). Knowing after staying in line for several hours (consider the logistics of bathroom breaks), you will face a grueling interview - who the hell would still fly?

    52. Re:Home Security Theater by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Because all "young middle easterners" are buddies and know each other in person, they all have everyones phone number and once a week they all meet up to do those middle eastern things together.
      And they STILL let those terrorists hang out with them in their middle eastern clubroom. They should totally kick those guys out already.

    53. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but you can't hire an 8 dollar and hour thug with a 2 digit IQ to do it in 30 seconds or less for every passenger. And Israel has the same enemies sitting on their doorstep instead of an ocean away, with far less legitimate traffic in and out each day.

      Granted, what you're talking about sounds far more effective than our stupid little bans, but I wouldn't stand for it on domestic flights either.

    54. Re:Home Security Theater by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      And yet this method often makes mistakes too. Like that journalist whose laptop was *shot* by Israeli airport security because they thought it was a bomb.

      All systems have their problems. Profiling has too many false positives to be useful.

    55. Re:Home Security Theater by edgr · · Score: 1

      The quickest path towards resolving this is genuinely for all non-criminal young Middle Easterners to start ejecting the radical element from within their ranks.

      Just like when the IRA was having their campaigns, I should have told them to shut the hell up so I could go about my business? I'm an Australian, although I look Irish due to my ancestors around 4 generations ago emigrating from there. Racism is not the answer.

    56. Re:Home Security Theater by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I once tried to argue to Mom that profiling made sense considering that most of the America-hating terrorists are Middle Easterners (even if most Middle Easterners are not America-hating terrorists)

      Her response was long the lines that Osama or whoever would then find operatives who didn't look Middle Eastern. [Richard Reid II?]

      [Not to mention non-Islamic terrorists a la McVeigh]

      Another way to find a false sense of security, eh?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    57. Re:Home Security Theater by khchung · · Score: 1

      That, my friends, is security. Banning containers of liquid or gel larger than 125 mL isn't. Hiding one's thoughts from skilled interrogation is much, much harder to do than hiding physical contraband.

      Totally agree. However, that also means

      1. Real training for real interrogators, which takes time and cost money.

      2. Fools will question how talking to people can discover bombs in water bottles or ink cartridges. $deity knows there are enough ignorant loud mouths in $your_country.

      3. Most importantly, it won't give billions of pork spending for politicians to repay their corporate sponsors.

      So, if you believe this really about security, you have been fooled.

      --
      Oliver.
    58. Re:Home Security Theater by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      This would work up until the point terrorists realize they should recruit suicide bombers who don't fit the profile of a terrorist.

      Nothing is foolproof. However surely it is harder for them to recruit from the non-traditional terrorist population which would reduce their ability to carry out such attacks and isn't that a worthwhile result as part of a more comprehensive approach?

    59. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a practical bloke, aren't ya?

      Could have been worse, you know. I was half-expecting him to exhort all of those nice non-criminal young Middle Easterners [sic] to break into a chorus of "We Shall Overcome"... in four-part harmony, with feeling.

    60. Re:Home Security Theater by Jyms · · Score: 1

      The quickest path towards resolving this is genuinely for all non-criminal young Middle Easterners to start ejecting the radical element from within their ranks.

      That is right. "They" must change first. "They" can not possibly justify "their" viewpoint in terms we find acceptable. We can justify the way we feel in terms we find acceptable. "They" are just to stupid to get it. In fact, "they" are not even allowed to dislike us because we are free and "they" are not. Opinions are reserved for the free and even then you are only entitled to one if you are right.
      "They" just don't seem to get it. We are waging a "War on Terrorism". If one of "their" cowardly children kills one of our brave soldiers during "their" armed conflict, that is murder. If our brave soldiers happen to kill a couple of unarmed civilians/reporters/children, that is unfortunately a consequence our war. While we don't like it, we accept it as the harsh reality of our war to liberate them from themselves.
      "They" should look at our society and learn from it. The average westerner who has a family member that becomes a victim of violence does not behave like these savages. No, being educated civilized people, we go through a period of introspection. We try and find out what we could possibly have done to not entice this violence. We change our lifestyle and society so as not to provoke these perpetrators of violence. We reach out to the perpetrators and see how we can rehabilitate them, even at our personal expense. We personally go into the perpetrators' communities and we eradicate the factors that could have contributed to their lives of criminality. "They", would probably demand that such perpetrators of violence be removed from society, imprisoned or even sentenced to death. And if the perpetrator had money, they would probably sue them for some cash.
      If our civilized society determines that the perpetrators of violence are supported by organizations, possibly abroad, we do not launch clandestine operations on sovereign soil to rid the world of "evil drug-lords" or coerce foreign governments to do it for us. No, we accept that everybody has a right to their way of life and we should focus on how we can adapt our society to fit in with everybody else.
      When we help people in their neighborhood by supplying weapons, money and other support to selected groups, "they" seem to believe that they somehow have the right to be upset with us and take matters into "their" own hands. And "they" have the audacity to not build up a uniformed army, navy and air force. before attacking us. If, and this is a big if, the need ever arose for us to enter another country to say take down an "evil warlord/drug-lord", we would do it by the book. We would seek permission from the country we are about to enter, make sure our soldiers have up to date visas, declare our weapons at customs, etc. We would not just lob a bomb at a country like Libya or coerce the world to impose sanctions on a country like Cuba because we don't agree with the way they think.
      These savages. Just because "they" can't appreciate all the good things we are doing for them "they" deserve it if a couple of bystanders get killed. It is time "they" adopted our open-minded approach and see things our way.

      Being truly open minded is a very difficult (if not impossible) thing to do. Being an outsider helps. I can follow at least some of the logic of both sides, but that does not make one side right and the other side wrong.

    61. Re:Home Security Theater by zyzko · · Score: 1

      Israel security is serious security, and not theatre, because it concentrates on the passenger, and not their belongings.

      I'd take the ink-cartridge ban any day over the Israeli security. The reason they have to do it is because they are practically constantly at war.

      And USA is going that way fast, I (as a white, young male from Northern Europe) have to supply my personal information in advance to US government if I want to come there and so I'm already profiled - not just the way they do in Israel because they don't (yet) have the money to do so (because of the number of passengers coming to USA).

      The day we have the "Israeli security" across the globe the terrorists have won. Big time. Maybe that day someone will think what the frack went wrong - or, there just will be TSA^2 that says "bend over" without saying "please" and people will obey.

    62. Re:Home Security Theater by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      The next time one of your peers tells you how evil all those white infidels are, tell him to shut the hell up, to grow up, and step away from the radical idiot who cares less for their life than for his own ego.

      And what happens when that radical idiot is actually right; when the US and its allies are actually the cause of misery, oppression and sufferring throughout the middle east. What do you do then? Must you walk away from confronting injustice for the sake of a peaceful flight?

      And the answer is: of course you must. You must sit down, shut up and never, ever question the status quo of the inherent righteousness of the USA. Disobey, and you will be cavity searched. This is the true function of the TSA.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    63. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically, trying to fly out of Israel is akin of getting arrested and interrogated?

      Interviewed. There are important differences in the methods employed.

      Wow. That's some security.

      Yes. Real, actual, security. Not theatre. Something with actual effect.

      Certainly something I would not want to experience!

      Why not? Do you have something to hide? Do you prefer being groped? Seen naked? Ridiculed? Why?

      And what if you didn't have the proof that you were invited for that lecture???

      Why wouldn't you? I suppose that if you have never been invited to give a lecture, you wouldn't know. I have, and I do, as I expect most lecturers do as well.

      Somehow it makes the Soviet "papers please" sound very mild!!

      And yet it's miles and miles better than the US bullshit. Fancy that.

    64. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't mind white, middle aged men being profiled as terrorists as well then? You know, considering that McVeigh and the majority of IRA bombers were exactly that? And there have been female terrorists, both white and 'other' - and children etc.

      So maybe they are indeed profiling - it's just that apparently terrorism is trait not bound by race or religion?

    65. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay more for my ticket to pass through the genitalia groping line repeatedly.

    66. Re:Home Security Theater by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      That, my friends, is security.

      That is also why only Jews (who are not subject to the same harassment after their religious credentials are established), those who have no other choice whatsoever and non-Jewish masochists fly to Israel.

      There is also that wee problem that this procedure reeks of the worst days of the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany, but then again those of us who remember this quaint concept of individual liberties and how wars were fought over what is now being given away on a mere remote possibility of harm, seem to be going extinct.

    67. Re:Home Security Theater by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      4. Loss of the last remaining personal liberties while traveling so that the piss-covered cowards can feel "safe"

      5. Conditioning of the sheeple so that when this process is expanded to all travel and maybe even taking residence, they will be ready for it.

      6. Very uncomfortable times for the teachers when the kiddies ask about what this whole WWII thing was all about if the Nazis won in the end ...

    68. Re:Home Security Theater by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was 72 Virgins. Don't short change me! Or is this a bait and switch. And, don't forget the voluptuous eyes.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    69. Re:Home Security Theater by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      That, my friends, is security.

      That is also why only Jews (who are not subject to the same harassment after their religious credentials are established), those who have no other choice whatsoever and non-Jewish masochists fly to Israel.

      There is also that wee problem that this procedure reeks of the worst days of the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany, but then again those of us who remember this quaint concept of individual liberties and how wars were fought over what is now being given away on a mere remote possibility of harm, seem to be going extinct.

      You just had to go and bring Godwin into this, didn't you..

      In fact, establishing your religious credentials does NOT give you a free pass! I'm Jewish, and have flown to Israel. They do ask you some religion related questions, but those would be easy for anyone with an internet connection to fake. They always go further in depth. But thanks for spreading the rumor that Jews get special treatment. I'm not going to accuse you of antisemitism, but do try to take your head out of your ass.

    70. Re:Home Security Theater by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      I got pretty much the exact same interview when I was leaving Tel Aviv. I was there on business in the early 1990s. Surprisingly, they didn't go apeshit when I told them that yes, someone had given me a package to put in my luggage. A local that I was working with gave me a gift-wrapped item for another co-worker in the States. I told the interviewer about it because I didn't trust this guy -- This was a time when there were fresh piles of rubble that used to be buildings, thanks to Saddam Hussein flinging missiles into Tel Aviv, and a good number of people still carried gas masks. This guy had gone off on a long, vicious political rant the night he gave me that package, and I wanted it checked out. Airport security simply took the package into another room while I was being interviewed, and returned it (still wrapped) afterward. All in a day's work, I guess.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    71. Re:Home Security Theater by speroni · · Score: 1

      And when the terrorists start recruiting outside of their profile, it makes it easier for the intelligence agents to penetrate their ranks.

      Those same intelligence agents who actually thwarted all the attacks so far.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    72. Re:Home Security Theater by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you know this, but people of like backgrounds and upbringing tend to group together.

      Black people have mostly black friends, white people have mostly white friends, yellow people have mostly yellow friends, christians have mostly christian friends, atheists have mostly atheist friends, and muslims have mostly muslim friends.

      It is far, far more likely that a muslim of middle-eastern descent is going to know a muslim jihadist of middle eastern descent than any other group in the world.

      So yeah, "young middle easterners" tend to be buddies and tend to know the other young middle easterners who live around them. Just like white christians tend to be buddies and tend to know the other white christians who live around them. It is within these groups that extreme positions are found, like "kill all infidels" or "gays are evil".

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    73. Re:Home Security Theater by cusco · · Score: 1

      I take it you've never met anyone who used hair dye, skin whitener, or makeup? I used to work in the theatre for a living, I could make up a 25 year old man to look like an 85 year old woman in under an hour. (Actually old women would be easy, since they generally don't know how to do their own make adequately.) Racial profiling will only alert on people who aren't trying to avoid being noticed. Anyone putting any real effort into it will blow right through.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    74. Re:Home Security Theater by cusco · · Score: 1

      Actually no, it's not that difficult. The FARC in Colombia has been known to recruit people with terminal cancer for suicide missions, providing their survivors with a decent income after their death. In addition, how many idiots volunteer to be drug mules in exchange for a little cash every year? They put a sealed package under their shirt in Cabo San Lucas and hand it over unopened to someone in Milwaukee. If that package is a bomb rather than cocaine they have no way of knowing.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    75. Re:Home Security Theater by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      You just had to go and bring Godwin into this, didn't you..

      Godwin was a naive optimist and a product of bygone happier times, who when he crafted his well-intentioned attempt at taming Usenet trolls did not even dream of 9/11 and the way the supposed "defenders of freedom" would react to it by running towards the very thing he thought buried forever and worth of ridicule. Hence TSA and Homeland Security[1] are quite real and Godwin's "law" is merely whimsy, although a whimsy which some are desperately trying to convert - in a fit of Machiavellian, bitter irony - into a weapon to aid the newly-fashionable-again fascist ideas.

      Comparisons to Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are valid when the nations so compared begin to acquire signature elements of the ideology of those old villains and abandon the supposed commitment to other ideas once held - or at least vigorously pretended to be held - very dear, such as personal liberties.

      This of course does not mean that the USA is going to follow the exact same path as the Nazis or the Soviets did as history never performs the same composition twice, only the same theme. The Nazis and the Soviets both followed some paths established by tyrannies previous and that is how all those thinkers and visionaries[2] knew well ahead where all of this was heading and tried to sound the warning. No one listened. Perhaps some 1910s or 1930s "Godwin's law" got their warnings dismissed in a smug, "this could never happen to the oh-so-civilized-us!", offhanded way. Apparently it could. And apparently it is happening again.

      In fact, establishing your religious credentials does NOT give you a free pass! I'm Jewish, and have flown to Israel. They do ask you some religion related questions, but those would be easy for anyone with an internet connection to fake. They always go further in depth. But thanks for spreading the rumor that Jews get special treatment. I'm not going to accuse you of antisemitism, but do try to take your head out of your ass.

      Well, given that 100% of these "interviewers" are Jewish and given that Israel bills itself as a "Jewish state", while at the same time maintaining that it is the "only" democracy in the Middle East[3] and where the Arabs - being somewhat non-Jewish - have a rather precarious "democratic" status compete with specially colored license plates[4] and where "oaths of Jewishness" were just recently introduced for them, a casual observer can only assume that "Jewishness" is the main criterion of pass/fail of such a pre-flight procedure. And it is also quite patently obvious that this "bad optics" is of Israel's own doing, I am afraid.

      And so despite of all the hand-waving and tap-dancing, I find it hard to believe that a bearded, Hasidic-fundamentalist would-be-settler with a "traditionally dressed wife" with 10 children in tow, heading straight for some recently "abandoned" house in Gaza or West Bank is going to be looked upon less kindly than, say, a young Arab engineering student holding an Israeli passport.

      So my point stands, although some might find the mirror being held up to their cozy little racial/religious[5] Supremacist Apartheid none too pleasant. Well, too bad. Truth sometimes bites.

      And before someone launches into some diatribes of antisemitism[6] I would like to point out that this state of affairs in Israel is a cause of heart-ache of many Jewish thinkers, dreamers and idealists who once looked upon Israel with great hope and now do so with dread.

      ***

      1. "Fatherland" was already taken and had some unexplainable, unpleasant odor of death and decay about it - but thanks to the marketing consultancy's focus groups this was avoided
      2. many of whom were Jewish, which is specially poignant in case of Germany
      3. amusingly as recently as last month when Mr. Netanyahu insisted so, with the vaunted and trumpeted at ear-s

    76. Re:Home Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? In case you haven't noticed, these days only Americans, those who have work-related reasons, and masochists fly to the US.

    77. Re:Home Security Theater by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      Because it is possible to circumvent something then we shouldn't use it at all? How about walls. I can jump right over them which makes them completely useless so why use them? The fact is the majority of people don't want to jump over them so they are quite effective.

    78. Re:Home Security Theater by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      Your logic is fundamentally wrong in that it is quite unlikely for an entire group of people to perform similar negative actions. What if there was a serial killer loose and you were to find him. Is it not smarter to use known facts such such as likelyhood of race, religion, and so one than stopping old grandmas? Profiling is not about effectiveness, it is about trimming the search space.

    79. Re:Home Security Theater by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Profiling is not about effectiveness, it is about trimming the search space.

      You really think the later is not a subset of the former?

      Ignoring all of the social costs of racial profiling, how does "trimming the search space" from 5 billion down to 1 billion do any good?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    80. Re:Home Security Theater by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      It gives you 4 billion less things to worry about.

    81. Re:Home Security Theater by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It gives you 4 billion less things to worry about.

      A needle in a haystack of 1 billion straws of hay is practically no easier to find than a needle in 5 billions straws of hay.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    82. Re:Home Security Theater by cusco · · Score: 1

      The majority of people don't want to blow up an airplane either. So far Fatherland Security Theatre is doing a fine job of keeping them from changing their minds, but there isn't any way that their current foolishness is going to stop any attacker with half a brain. Today it's toner cartridges, tomorrow they'll mold them into the form of loaves of bread, or ceramic sculptures, or childrens' toys or radios.

      In reality I'm a lot less worried about attacks like this than a bioweapon. If instead of giving their suicide attacker a bomb they shoot him full of ebola, put him on a plane, and tell him to spend the rest of his miserable life riding the New York or Moscow subway system the effects would be several orders of magnitude worse.

      This stuff ain't rocket surgery.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    83. Re:Home Security Theater by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      You may be right, but it is in fact 80% easier to find.

    84. Re:Home Security Theater by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You may be right, but it is in fact 80% easier to find.

      What part of "practical" do you fail to understand?
      When you don't have the resources to search even 10 million straws, it doesn't make a difference whether the haystack has 1 billion or 5 billion straws of hay.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. Can you imagine the profit markup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    From all those novelty travel-sized toner cartridges they are going to start selling at the airport.

    1. Re:Can you imagine the profit markup? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Have you bought an inkjet printer cartridge lately? They're already novelty sized.

    2. Re:Can you imagine the profit markup? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Informative!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Can you imagine the profit markup? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Inkjets don't have toner cartridges, dumbass.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:Can you imagine the profit markup? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Article says "Toner AND Ink." Doesn't really matter if the parent post said toner, does it? Why am I feeding the troll?

  6. Don't go after the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...cover it up with a band-aid!

  7. We've Lost by svendsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The terrorists really did win...

    1. Re:We've Lost by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      The terrorists really did win...

      Yes. Occasionally, you still see folks parroting that old line of "just live normally and the terrorists won't win."

      Uh, excuse me, but having to take my shoes off and be strip searched by a radioactive machine (there is NO safe dosage of x-rays!) or have my dick grabbed by a TSA grunt is NOT living normally. After checking current procedures on the TSA's website only to have some TSA grunt pull a new rule out of his ass and lie to me that "it's a new procedure" (it never appears on the TSA's website) just shows me that they are just doing all of this for show.

      Every time I hear someone say that they feel safer with all this security I just want to puke. They can't seem to understand that searching them or any of us who are not a threat is a waste of time.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:We've Lost by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Funny

      It can get worse or better, depending on you view...

      Step 1: Ban all cargo/luggage
      Step 2: Forced clothing; wanna fly? here is your prison suit.
      Step 3: Ban all people from flying
      Step 4: Climate wins!

    3. Re:We've Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just now figuring this out? He's been laughing in his cave at our airport comedy lines for years now.

    4. Re:We've Lost by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

      Step 3: Ban all people from flying

      You do know that UPS ended their passenger airline service in 2001, right? Or did you mean that we should also ban the pilots (the only people on board the aircraft in this latest incident) from flying?

      --
      End of Line.
    5. Re:We've Lost by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      I believe you missed the point and reversed it- what he's saying is that having to take your shoes off, being strip searched, irradiated, all that crap- is not living normally. Those types of procedures and security and that we accept it as normal are what tell you that the terrorists really did win.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    6. Re:We've Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they haven't won, but they're ahead on points, and are just running the clock out...

    7. Re:We've Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Step 4: Climate wins!

      Hooray for Earth! Goodbye Global Warming!

    8. Re:We've Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone drives home for Christmas in different cars, climate loses.

    9. Re:We've Lost by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      It's not just flying - there have already been attacks on trains and mass-transit systems. How long before large, but not necessarily high-profile, sporting events are targets? There are hundreds of different ways that terrorists can attack us - the only way have any chance of beating them is with better intelligence to capture and stop them regardless of however they try to do it.

    10. Re:We've Lost by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Or did you mean that we should also ban the pilots (the only people on board the aircraft in this latest incident) from flying?

      Are pilots not people? What part of "all people" do you not understand?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  8. Just in time. by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Just in time. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      "If you haven’t tried Chrome yet, remember to download the browser before you take to the skies, or try it when you’re back on the ground."

      Three words: local airborne cache

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  9. There goes my Xmas tradition... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I fly all over the country bringing toner cartridges and Ink refills to needy executives all over the world...

    See terrorists... you make baby Muhammed Cry!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  10. Bottles vs cartridges... by arose · · Score: 1

    So, if you want a pint of water it has to go into a toner cartridge, do I understand this correctly?

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    1. Re:Bottles vs cartridges... by LanMan04 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nope, you have to fill your empty water bottles with toner powder and the toner carts with water. But the water MUST be purchased after the security line, so only empty, water-tight toner carts are allowed through security.

      Duh!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    2. Re:Bottles vs cartridges... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That whole part of the system is complete bullshit. Sort of like how for years after 9/11 they'd allow folks to have lighters with them on planes. The ban on liquids would be reasonable if it were much more extreme. None of those items ought to be allowed on planes if you're that concerned with them

      The threat they pose is significant and it's always been suspicious that the TSA was willing to allow any of that on, while going to ever more extreme measures against other lesser threats.

    3. Re:Bottles vs cartridges... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole system is complete bullshit. You want to know why we haven't had any successful terrorist attacks on planes since 9/11? It hasn't been because of these systems it is because people feel threatened and are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a terrorist or hijacker from carrying out their plots. Before 9/11 you complied with the hijacker, wound up in Cuba and so long as you didn't piss off the hijacker or were really unlucky you made it off alive. Today, people think that they will either go down with the plane exploding or have the plane run into a building.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Bottles vs cartridges... by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      To be fair it's not just hijacking the plane that's a concern. Sometime their goal is to just blow up the plane. Don't think we had any hijacks attempts but there has been attempts to light explosives.

    5. Re:Bottles vs cartridges... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      To be fair it's not just hijacking the plane that's a concern. Sometime their goal is to just blow up the plane.

      Except that if a few hundred people is all they want they can nail a bus at rush hour, a subway, the lineup at airport security, a childrens school christmas concert...

    6. Re:Bottles vs cartridges... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      "People willing to do whatever it takes" include law enforcement and intel pros who have stopped multiple such attacks before they were completed. People being willing to do what they must did not prevent poorly executed bombs from taking down multiple aircraft in the last few months.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Clearly.. by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly the answer is to ban the thing the bomb came in and search those things because we all know that everything is going to be the exact same and its going to make us be safer! Whats next? Someone tries to put some explosives in gum therefore we ban gum while ignoring everything else?

    Its becoming increasingly obvious that the TSA is designed to cripple airlines, make comfortable travel nearly impossible, violate privacy all the while doing nothing to stop a real terrorist plot.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Clearly.. by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2, Funny

      TSA bans gum on international flights!!!

      Recently the TSA intercepted a plot to put high explosives capable of bringing down an aircraft into a package of chewing gum. The posting on an international terrorist site known only as /. brought the matter to the attention of authorities today.

      The evil culprit known only by the pseudonym DARKNESS404 is being sought by authorities for further questioning.

      A spokesman for the TSA stated today that "They will use every means at their disposal to bring this evil terrorist to justice."

      ----

      Can of worms-opened. Now see what you've done!!!!!!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    2. Re:Clearly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Clearly the answer is to ban the thing the bomb came in and search those things..." Wow... what if somebody tries to hide a bomb in their anus?

    3. Re:Clearly.. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It's becoming increasingly obvious that the TSA is designed to cripple airlines, make comfortable travel nearly impossible, violate privacy all the while doing nothing to stop a real terrorist plot.

      You're joking, right? You mean that wasn't obvious to you way back in 2001 when they banned knives and box cutters, required removing your laptops because you might have hidden a knife in them, and required removing your jackets because the metal detector might not work and you might be carrying a knife in it? Really? It was to me....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Clearly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wow... what if somebody tries to hide a bomb in their anus?"

      YOU couldn't fly? :-)

    5. Re:Clearly.. by magarity · · Score: 1

      "Clearly the answer is to ban the thing the bomb came in and search those things..." Wow... what if somebody tries to hide a bomb in their anus?

      On many a flight I've wished there was a ban on assholes and the idea of allowing cell phones just makes me hope that ban gets put in place first.

    6. Re:Clearly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the TSA is a scumbag hiring program. We have way too many unemployed perverts, control freaks, thugs and the like. TSA is their to employee them so that they may harass, demean, grope and molest, with union benefits too.

    7. Re:Clearly.. by zelbinion · · Score: 1

      The terrorists need to put their next bomb in a laptop so that the TSA will ban all laptops. This will cause business travelers to stop flying, which will force all of the airlines to go bankrupt. (A high percentage of airline revenue comes from First/Business class seats, which are filled primarily with laptop-toting business travelers.)

      Terrorists: 1
      Sanity: 0

      IIRC the Pan Am Lockerbie bomb was inside a radio in the cargo hold. Why haven't the TSA banned radios yet? At least that bomb WORKED.
      I'm still amazed we can wear shoes and underwear on flights...

    8. Re:Clearly.. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Banning printer cartridges because someone used one as a bomb is like saying "the guy that robbed this bank was driving a pickup truck as the getaway car therefore we should ban pickup trucks"

      There is nothing specific about printer cartridges that would make them any better as bombs than 1000s of other things (all of which are still legal to take on an airplane)

      They should take the money away from this "security theater" (liquids bans, body scanners etc) and give it to whichever agency or agencies got the info that lead to the printer cartridge bombs being uncovered. That way the intel guys have an even greater chance of finding the next bomb, no matter what the bad guys decide to conceal it in.
      Good intellegence allows you to detect potential threats BEFORE they become a problem (including threats you dont know about yet)

      The real problem is that good intellegence doesnt look good on the nightly news in the way that "bad guys try to blow up airplane with printer cartridges so the government is banning printer cartridges on airplanes" does.

    9. Re:Clearly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the airlines go bankrupt, how will the terrorists down plane in the future? They must find a balance in order to acheive, green, Sustainable terrorism.

  12. In related news by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

    1. Google Sponsoring In-Flight WiFi This Holiday Season. Easy to offer something that's getting banned. Next: free bottles of water from the fountain of youth (in convenient 3oz sizes)?

    2. Pilots protest of TSA's pat-down rules. But only as concerns pilots. Everyone else should still be treated like cattle.

    1. Re:In related news by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      It's hilarious that they insist on screening the pilots. They might be carrying a knife that they could use to hijack the plane from themselves and force themselves to fly... recursion error....

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:In related news by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Clearly some TSA higher-up saw the Blazing Saddles self-hostage scene for the first time and was scared shitless.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  13. Full Monty by losttoy · · Score: 1

    How long before everyone is required to fly stark naked and without luggage on passenger planes? I know I have nothing to hide, do you?

    1. Re:Full Monty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think that would be helpful. But I can tell you from experience if you try to go through and airport naked they will not appreciate it!

    2. Re:Full Monty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speedos and flip-flops

    3. Re:Full Monty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are close; current plans call for retrofitting planes with passenger "tubes". These will hold a normal sized passenger; plus-sized passengers will be requested to book two tubes. The tube system will both make naked flying and flying while under anesthesia possible as seat belts won't really be needed. Luggage and anything you wanted to carry on goes on a second plane. If it blows up, no big deal. The only real problem right now is how to deal with any kind of emergency. Even once we figure out how to immediately reverse the anesthesia, getting 400 groggy, naked people to evacuate a plane might be a little rough.

    4. Re:Full Monty by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      I might have to buy two seats just be sure I don't have a naked lard ass flowing over onto my seat.

    5. Re:Full Monty by Cwix · · Score: 1

      What if they put a parachute on the tube and shoot it out of the airplane. If the tubes can float its even better.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  14. Details of the ban make little sense by Grond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The official announcement is still light on details, but the ban will apply to both carry-on and checked luggage and will affect "domestic and international flights in-bound to the United States." Apparently ink and toner will still be allowed on flights out-bound from the United States.

    The distinction between domestic flights and out-bound international flights makes no sense to me. If someone can target a domestic flight by assembling the toner-bomb in the US, why couldn't the same person target an international flight out-bound from the US?

    Furthermore, is there any evidence that a toner cartridge and printer were selected for any particular reason? Is there any reason toner cartridges make for a particularly attractive bomb container? If not, this seems worse than useless, since an attacker would simply select a different container while the screeners are busy looking for toner cartridges.

    1. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is, you're thinking logically about this. Stop that.

    2. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't care if people leaving the country get blown up, the traitors.

    3. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      A toner cartridge is an effective screen for an explosives container because it has electronics built-in.

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    4. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Furthermore, is there any evidence that a toner cartridge and printer were selected for any particular reason?"

      They used HP cartridges because they were pissed about the ink prices.

    5. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want something with powder and some electronic circuits that looks "normal" to the airport security guy, then a toner cartridge is a perfect choice.

    6. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Just wait for somebody to put a bomb in a laptop, a diaper bag, a baby doll, a hollowed out book, a Kleenex box, or another pair of shoes. Just watch. We'll be flying shoeless and pantless before long, blowing our noses on our sleeves, with no entertainment, and with screaming babies who have soiled themselves all around us. Or, rather, the masses will be. I've already decided that unless a lot of things change soon, next year I'm traveling by Amtrak. I've had enough of this bullshit. Sure, it will add an extra two days to my travel time, but it's safer and doesn't require choosing between being either electronically strip searched or manhandled.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Since when do A. bombers use black powder, or alternatively B. toner cartridges contain greyish-white powder?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Airport scanners don't pick up the colour of the powder. Anyway, gunpowder is black.

    9. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      but it's safer and doesn't require choosing between being either electronically strip searched or manhandled.

      Yet.

      NYPD is subjecting subway passengers to random searches. If you refuse they will kick you out of the subway system. Apparently you have no right to travel on the transit system that was built and maintained with public money unless you surrender your 4th amendment rights.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Black powder is another name for gunpowder. And as I said, since when do terrorists use such a low grade explosive?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently ink and toner will still be allowed on flights out-bound from the United States. The distinction between domestic flights and out-bound international flights makes no sense to me. If someone can target a domestic flight by assembling the toner-bomb in the US, why couldn't the same person target an international flight out-bound from the US?

      Good point; I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways if you explain that at the airport.

    12. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by GigG · · Score: 1

      By that measure we should ban everything that has electronics built in. Phones, iPods, laptops.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    13. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Anyway, gunpowder is black.

      Modern smokeless powder is not necessarily black.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      but the ban will apply to both carry-on and checked luggage

      Funny that one can check a firearm and boxes of ammunition. But no toner.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    15. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by blincoln · · Score: 1

      If you want something with powder and some electronic circuits that looks "normal" to the airport security guy, then a toner cartridge is a perfect choice.

      So next time, put the powder into a case that hides the fact that it's powder. A battery, for example, with enough cells to function, but enough removed to have space for the explosive. Or mix it with something that turns it into a more solid block, and disguise it as charcoal/pastels, and keep it separate from the electronics until the last minute. Etc., etc.. It's an unwinnable game for the people playing the reactionary side.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    16. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Maybe the NYPD are worried about some bad guys trying a repeat of the London Tube bombings.
      Or maybe they are worried about someone attempting to recreate "The Taking of Pelham 123".

    17. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should clarify: A toner cartridge has electronics and a large mass of something that looks like it could be an explosive (toner).

      Laptops and cell-phones contain electronics, but don't generally have a large quantity of anything that could be a potential explosive.

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    18. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by GigG · · Score: 1

      Except the batteries, of course.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    19. Re:Details of the ban make little sense by surrenderMonkey · · Score: 1

      Apparently the plastic explosive used in the recent devices looks very similar to the contents of certain toner cartridges when viewed by current screening devices.

  15. Cargo? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Good thing nobody would put a bomb on a cargo flight...

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  16. Oh great now I'm going to have to use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A ribbon printer!

    How else will I be safe??

    1. Re:Oh great now I'm going to have to use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delta is proud to offer in flight access to a typewriter to our business class patrons.

  17. Hang on... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Is there something specific to printer cartridges that make it easier to hide bombs in them than any other object of approximately the same size? Or is this just another mindless reaction?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Hang on... by Enuratique · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I read, is that the PETN explosive put inside the toner cartridge looks just like toner powder through an X-Ray machine. At least one of these packages was screened through normal processes and was not detected. Another article I read said that the authorities in England couldn't find anything wrong with the printer they were told was a bomb until instructed by authorities in Dubai on what to look for. It sounds like this was an incredibly well-made bomb, and I think it is in part to the fact that visually it raised no red flags.

      --
      A black hole is where God divided by 0
    2. Re:Hang on... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That's really scary.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thing to keep in mind is that if terrorist bomb makers are currently trying to perfect/refine toner cartridge bombs, then one easy way to throw a monkey wrench in their plans is to simply ban toner cartridges from planes for the time being. Then they've got to go back to the drawing board and see what else they might be able to make into a bomb that will A) withstand scrutiny and pass undetected, and B) work.

      These guys are patient and if something does not work then they'll try the same again if it seems feasible and there is no other obstacle preventing them from doing so. In this case banning toner cartridges is an obstacle that forces them to move on to something else. Something else that might not pass scrutiny or might not work (if we're lucky.)

      It buys us some time. Time in which we might find clues as to who they are. Time in which they might make a mistake that leads to their being captured. Time in which they might screw up and have a work accident.

      They've only got to get it right one. To stop them we've got to get it right every single time.

    4. Re:Hang on... by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      From what I read, is that the PETN explosive put inside the toner cartridge looks just like toner powder through an X-Ray machine. At least one of these packages was screened through normal processes and was not detected.

      Wasn't there a story a while back about how it was "too expensive" to equip airports with bomb-sniffing hardware?

      Since it's not too expensive to equip airports with devices that violate the privacy of the passengers and obviously don't stop explosives from getting on board, it's clearly about passenger abuse, not passenger safety.

    5. Re:Hang on... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Is there something specific to printer cartridges that make it easier to hide bombs in them than any other object of approximately the same size?

      To an X-Ray machine, a toner cartridge and a bomb both look like powder filled containers with small pieces of electronics attached.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Hang on... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what's up with that? It's as if the naked scanner contractor won the bid over the bomb sniffing contractor. Or some senator had stock in naked scanning. Or in Dutch publishing companies.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  18. The next ban... by tshadburn · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't wait until they ban passengers!

    1. Re:The next ban... by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      Actually, passengers are the second-worst thing about flying. Think about how quiet the plane would be! No screaming babies, no smelly people, etc...

  19. old school by Deadstar_lll · · Score: 1

    Thank god I have my portable dot matrix printer thats almost bigger then the damn plane....

    1. Re:old school by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      You have one of those also? I thought I was the only one.

  20. Diminishing returns... by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The terrorists keep winning. I'm pretty sure we've done just about all we can do to protect ourselves without severely impeding our basic rights. Locking the cockpit with a bullet-resistant door and only allowing passengers to the gate (after screening) ensures we'll never have a 9/11-type attack again. Everything else is just really making flying annoying and more and more cost/time prohibitive. Basically, they keep winning despite not killing anyone.

    1. Re:Diminishing returns... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not diminishing returns for TSA though. Every time a terrorist plot is uncovered they need to do -something- to make it look like they're doing something real. The reality is that if someone is determined enough and not a goddamn idiot, they are going to be able to bring down a plane. Fortunately, the terrorists are idiots for now, but if most people realized how ineffective TSA was, we'd cut their funding dramatically and fire most of them.

      Security theater actually works quite well for the actors and a gullible audience, though it does very little towards actually security.

    2. Re:Diminishing returns... by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      This /. so hopefully no one here is either an actor or gullible. That includes you, CleverNickName! Sorry?

    3. Re:Diminishing returns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, why (how) does only allowing passengers to the gate ensure we'll never have a 9/11-type attack again? I agree fully with the first part of your statement, but the second doesn't seem to make sense as the 9/11 attackers were, you know, passengers?

    4. Re:Diminishing returns... by sconeu · · Score: 4, Informative

      only allowing passengers to the gate (after screening) ensures we'll never have a 9/11-type attack again

      Why does this enhance security? All the 9/11 guys had valid tickets and boarding passes.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Diminishing returns... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure we've done just about all we can do to protect ourselves while severely impeding our basic rights.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Diminishing returns... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you think what they've done to airflight has any effectiveness what so ever you are severely confused.

      There are enough chemicals on most aircraft for the stewards use that you could surely come up with a way to get in the cockpit or blow the plane out of the air.

      I was on a flight a couple of weeks ago, sitting on the tarmac due to weather and I came up with at least 4 different ways I could destroy the aircraft with things I could pick up WHILE ON THE AIRCRAFT. Excluding the bag full of explosives I had (Certain battery types can be rather effective with nothing more than a screw driver and the battery and they go RIGHT through screening.) and the various things I could come up with from seeing things other passengers had.

      All it takes is a half way determined, well educated engineer and the plane is coming down, period. It take some more effort to take the plane and fly it to your own destination at this stage, I'll admit that, but its because the passengers aren't going to give anyone an opportunity to take over the plane, and has nothing to do with the 'security improvements' jokes the TSA makes up.

      I'm beginning to wonder if the TSA isn't made up of the real terrorists considering how fucking uncomfortable they've turned the airport experience into.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Diminishing returns... by boristdog · · Score: 1

      I came up with at least 4 different ways I could destroy the aircraft with things I could pick up WHILE ON THE AIRCRAFT.

      I hope you included the CO2 cartridges and batteries for the strobe light. Located under every seat on the life vest. Not to mention the groovy stuff to quickly inflate the life rafts built into the doors. Oh, and those emergency oxygen cylinders kept in the most forward and aft overhead bins.

      These planes practically bomb themselves!

    8. Re:Diminishing returns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The major issue that is preventing future hijackings is a change in the behavior of the hijackers.

      Specifically, prior to 9/11 the prevailing wisdom was that the hijackers wanted something (money, political asylum, prisoner release) that required they be alive to benefit. The standard-operating-procedure (SOP) for crew was to meet hijacker demands. SOP for the passengers was to keep your mouth shut and your head down, you go for a ride and eventually get let go. The hijackers on 9/11 knew this, and took advantage of that fact.

      In a post-9/11 world (I can't believe I just typed that, but in this case it is valid), SOP for crew is to deny access to the cockpit (hence stronger doors). SOP for passengers is to beat the crap out of anyone who tries to take the plane.

      Everything else is just security theater and will lead to me flying less often... Airlines and my extended family lose.

    9. Re:Diminishing returns... by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Informative

      And box cutters...
      And flight training where they were only interested in flying the plane and navigation, not takeoff and landing....

      and...

      Look, your chances of having a Trent 900 engine blowing up on you are greater than experiencing a Terrorist event... ;-)

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    10. Re:Diminishing returns... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Those are irrelevant to my question.

      I agree with OP that the reinforced and barred cockpit doors are good for preventing a 9/11 style attack.
      I'm disagreeing with his assertion that allowing only passengers past security does the same.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:Diminishing returns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently, you can still be on the no-fly list and get on without making a fake ID. Borrow/steal a credit card. Make the reservation in that name. Print the real boarding passes, and use photoshop to print fake ones with your real name on them. Go in using the fake boarding passes and your real name. Take out the fake ones past security, draw the appropriate squiggle on your real pass bought with the credit card. Board the plane. Bonus points if you bring on steel dust and small containers of epoxy and make yourself a large blade in the restroom.

    12. Re:Diminishing returns... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      They were allowed past security even with implements that could kill people (the box cutters). They were trained in flying aircraft without wanting to learn how to take off and land, but wanted to focus on just flying the aircraft.

      http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

      "A pilot they consulted at one school, the Sorbi Flying Club in San Diego, spoke Arabic. He explained to them that their flight instruction would begin with small planes. Hazmi and Mihdhar emphasized their interest in learning to fly jets, Boeing aircraft in particular, and asked where they might enroll to train on jets right away. Convinced that the two were either joking or dreaming, the pilot responded that no such school existed. Other instructors who worked with Hazmi and Mihdhar remember them as poor students who focused on learning to control the aircraft in flight but took no interest in takeoffs or landings. By the end of May 2000, Hazmi and Mihdhar had given up on learning how to fly.37"

      Maybe they just told the screeners at the airport that day that they were temp workers for a cardboard box factory and needed the cutters for their job? I guess if I were a lawn care professional I could have taken a lawnmower and put it in the overhead bin?

      There were numerous things that should have set off alarms, at least somebody dropping a dime to the FBI or CIA. Oh wait,

      http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

      "1998: An Oklahoma City FBI agent sends a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" are getting flight training and could be planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] A separate CIA intelligence report asserts that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC (World Trade Center). [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02"

      Yeah, I sure feel safe with a 60 year old Flight Attendant guarding a drink cart to make me feel safe when the pilot takes a whizz..

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    13. Re:Diminishing returns... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing that. Yes, they were allowed past security with stuff they should not have had.

      My question is this:

      Given that the 9/11 guys had valid tickets and boarding passes, exactly how does barring non-passengers from the gate area prevent the occurrence of a 9/11 type event?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    14. Re:Diminishing returns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the 9/11 guys had valid tickets and boarding passes, exactly how does barring non-passengers from the gate area prevent the occurrence of a 9/11 type event?

      It doesn't, of course, but some people just don't want to listen/think/understand.

      These days, easy targets to blow up are the massive lines of people amassing at the security check-points. Bring a bag with a (suitably large) bomb, leave it in the general area, then leave. A few minutes later: Boom. Effect of security theatre: Greatly increased loss of lives. Good job, fear-mongers. Or, should I say, idiot sheep.

    15. Re:Diminishing returns... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      That's been answered a long time ago. Basically to keep the lines as short as possible for everyone else. It doesn't prevent a 9/11 type event by just allowing ticketed passengers but it does mean the lines aren't 20 miles long (instead of 10 for those BWI fans) for friends and families. Besides you can also go to the ticket counter and most airlines will give you a gate pass, which lets you past the security checkpoints without a ticket. Cripes go to your favorite editor and create a "dummy" boarding pass because honestly, the TSA guys don't know what a real or a fake boarding pass looks like. They even alow a "mobile" device with an N code at some airports. At least that validates a PNR with a back - end system, otherwise it's just a tactic to intimidate you.

      Yes, it's all FUD and the "random enforcement tactic" that the TSA throws up does nothing. My suggestion has and will always be: Bomb Sniffing, Drug Sniffing, Sniffing Sniffing Doberman Pincers as well as Rottweilers with spiked collars being fed only red meat handled by handlers that look like something out of one of the Halo video games. Have them walk the lines, walk the terminals. Trust me, a Rottweiler in the crotch and any would be terrorist will be caught.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    16. Re:Diminishing returns... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Regarding the box cutters, my buddy accidentally smuggled one through security at least a half-dozen times before he realized it was in the bottom of his carry-on luggage. This was a couple years ago, after all the heightened security.

      Way to go TSA! Can't even get the fucking weapon that started this whole mess, but by golly do I feel secure now!

      Assholes.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    17. Re:Diminishing returns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban tickets and boarding passes!

  21. No problem. by eclectro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Install plug-in ethernet ports (alongside laptop power outlets).

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:No problem. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Lol what about everyone with an ipad?

      Id laugh if they banned wi-fi and installed ethernet ports.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:No problem. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      And how is my smartphone supposed to connect to that?

    3. Re:No problem. by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      You bring along your Linksys router! Duh! :)

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    4. Re:No problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hissss...
      Used the forbidden text language this young one has.
      Destroy him we will.

    5. Re:No problem. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else read this comment and instantly think Etherkiller?

    6. Re:No problem. by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Install plug-in ethernet ports (alongside laptop power outlets).

      No good.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  22. Look on the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be thankful the terrists didn't try to bring aboard a seat cushion filled with explosives.

  23. Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought the bombs were on cargo/commercial (FedEx or UPS) planes, not passenger aircraft. If so, why are we (again) punishing the passengers for no apparent reason? Haven't we annoyed and inconvenienced the flying public enough already?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were cargo on passenger planes. While they were addressed to Jewish places and some in the media picked up on that as though those sites were the targets, they were fitted with cell phone receivers and the final leg of their journey was on a passenger flight into the US. The presumption is that they were designed to be detonated either by an operative on board with his phone or by an operative on the ground when the plane was landing and in cell phone range.

      Decent analysis, sorry for the long link but I'm not web savvy:

      http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101101_al_qaeda_unlucky_again_cargo_bombing_attempt?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101102&utm_content=readmore&elq=16e84d87f84e4c73acc8bed5a1e3908c

    2. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      One of them was on a Quatar Airlines passenger flight. The passenger airlines regularly carry mail freight and depend on it as a significant source of revenue. That's why there will never be an outright ban on the practice.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by NoOneSpecific · · Score: 1

      I guess it's GROUND shipping only now! =P

    4. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by index0 · · Score: 1

      You should complain to the Air Line companies. Take your most recent car rental/train ticket receipt and mail a copy to the air line saying you didn't fly with them because of the treatment you receive at the airports.

    5. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of cargo on passenger flights...

    6. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      If you read TFA, you would know the group claiming responsibility for the plot says they intend to try again with passenger flights. There's a good chance they're just bluffing to create more fear, but if we don't make sure we can catch any further bombs like this, they have every reason to try again.

    7. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Outside of aircraft, Greyhound also makes a point of offering a package service.
      The couple times I've taken Greyhound, there's been plenty of space in the under-bus baggage compartments, so makes sense, since passenger baggage logically won't fill it all, all-the-time.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    8. Re:Weren't the bombs on cargo planes? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      That won't do shit, the airlines have no say in what TSA does.

      Those are your tax dollars at work, bending you over and shoving TSA security up your ass every time you fly. The airlines have been in worse shape than ever since TSA ramped up their security theater, yet they haven't managed to do anything to stop it.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  24. the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This ban on electronics while in-flight is bullshit. I've "forgotten" to turn off my cell phone, and numerous other electronics and nothing has happened. I'm real sure an $300 electronic device is somehow goig to "magically" disable a $30,000,000 plane ... right... like the airplane engineers have never heard of a faraday cage for the cockpit ...

    1. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      like the airplane engineers have never heard of a faraday cage for the cockpit

      If you think all of the important electronics are located in the cockpit, you clearly have never seen an airplane before.

    2. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting people to turn off electronics is really a means of getting people to put large items away during take off and landing, the times when they could become dangerous is there's any problem.

    3. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      User Friendly has the answer.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little difficult for the pilots to communicate with air traffic control if they're inside a faraday cage.

    5. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ban on electronics while in-flight is bullshit. I've "forgotten" to turn off my cell phone, and numerous other electronics and nothing has happened.

      Then you're a fucking asshole who thinks that passenger safety is too inconvenient for you.

      There are literally hundreds of models of commercial aircraft, some with literally dozens of configurations. Some of these planes (eg 747s) have been in service since before cell phones existed.

      Owing to the fact that it's impossible to test all combinations of devices and planes, under all circumstances and actually know what might/could happen -- they've chosen to ban the whole thing.

      For the same reason that you might be able to drive 100mph in a school zone once and not run anybody over, but it's still illegal. Assholes like you who think that the security/safety rules don't apply to them should be handcuffed during the flight. Because, clearly you should be able to carry a knife or a gun or anything else you find too inconvenient to have banned from a plane.

      Aren't you a fucking special kind of cum stain. I hope you get some extra special handling from the TSA next time you fly.

    6. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The best explanation of this I've ever heard was the one given in an older Mythbusters episode.

      Basically, there's no way that the FAA could fully test each mobile device in every possible operating mode with every possible configuration of flight electronics under every conceivable condition. The technology changes so quickly that even if all current cell phone tech is safe, there is no way to know if some near future piece of gear might interfere.

      So they play the safe route. No unnecessary wireless transmissions or EM interference around the flight electronics. I'm not an engineer, but the cost/benefit ratio on this seems favorable to me.

    7. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Owing to the fact that it's impossible to test all combinations of devices and planes, under all circumstances and actually know what might/could happen -- they've chosen to ban the whole thing.

      Why would they need to? Surely interference at mobile phone frequencies is interference whether it's an iPhone, an ancient 3310, or just a noise generator operating at those frequencies.

      What could/might happen? People forget to turn their equipment off all the time. It hasn't happened yet.

    8. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      This ban on electronics while in-flight is bullshit. I've "forgotten" to turn off my cell phone, and numerous other electronics and nothing has happened.

      Yeah. If somebody's iPod can bring down an airliner, I don't think I want to be on it anyways.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    9. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      DFTT - Don't Feed The Trolls
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

      > Owing to the fact that it's impossible to test all combinations of devices and planes, under all circumstances and actually know what might/could happen -- they've chosen to ban the whole thing.

      LOL. So basically the engineers, government, airline manufactors, and control towers DON'T KNOW how the airplane will handle when devices in a certain frequency operate -- great to know that they just ignore the problem. Way to go! Increased vote of confidence for all the passengers. Yah, right.

      That's a fucking cop-out if I ever heard one. I can just see the engineeers going ...

      "OOPS! We didn't know that a cell phone would generate that much signal interference in the ##-## GHz band and our control system uses the same GHz range!"

      Part of an engineer's _job_ is to _verify_ and _confirm_ the safety of the devices they build. Ignorance is no excuse FOR SAFETY. It is their job to know what will cause system (and device) instability. If they don't know, it is there job TO KNOW.

      Maybe you're an idiot electronics engineer who doesn't understand the noise and what part of the spectrum that consumer devices operate or generate in. Do you even understand what UL certification is? Here's a big word for you: spectrum analyzer.

      Buddy, get a fucking clue stick... here are two ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX#WiMAX_and_the_IEEE_802.16_Standard
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum

    10. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Some of these planes (eg 747s) have been in service since before cell phones existed.

      So what? A cell phone is nothing more than a fancy radio transmitter. Radio transmitters have been around longer than airplanes. You really don't think the designers of the 747 took RF emissions into account when they designed the thing?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with the planes. If it did, they would be dropping out the sky like flies. The reason is it wreaks havoc on the cells on the ground - handing over from cell to cell incurs an overhead and several hundred phones hitting a new cell every ten seconds causes the networks serious problems.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    12. Re: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi ? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Owing to the fact that it's impossible to test all combinations of devices and planes, under all circumstances and actually know what might/could happen -- they've chosen to ban the whole thing.

      That's the dumbest line of reasoning I have ever heard of, but I don't doubt that it's true.

      A much saner approach would be to require better shielding on the airplane's components.

      Honestly, I don't know the make and model of every car on the market, but that doesn't stop me from crossing the street.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  25. It gets worse by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm far more concerned about TSA's new pat-down procedure than I am about not being allowed to bring toner with me on a plane. Not that the ink/toner cartridge ban makes much sense, but how often do you bring printer supplies with you on a plane?

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:It gets worse by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      People in Europe quite often go to New York or Boston for shopping trips because things are cheaper there, and ink cartridges are exactly the sort of high value, low weight item they might bring home.

    2. Re:It gets worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as long as they're on departing international flights, they still can (for now) bring home their precious little ink cartridges. Or they could use Amazon.

    3. Re:It gets worse by antdude · · Score: 1

      I know people who travel a lot have portable printers as well. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:It gets worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm far more concerned about TSA's new pat-down procedure than I am about not being allowed to bring toner with me on a plane. Not that the ink/toner cartridge ban makes much sense, but how often do you bring printer supplies with you on a plane?

      As a large-format graphic printer tech, I used to regularly travel with 1-litre ink cartridges in my baggage for emergency repairs. Were I working in the US, I would now not be able to do my job...

    5. Re:It gets worse by antdude · · Score: 1

      Portable printers. They are useful for those who travel a lot. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:It gets worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a printing company you insensitive clod!

  26. They should ban humans by microbee · · Score: 1

    Only synthetics should be allowed on flight. That's easier to scan anyway and will drive the cost down.

    Oops, I think I played too much Mass Effect.

  27. TSA are terrorists by Sean · · Score: 1

    Take your shoes off, let them strip search your wife, let them fondle your children. As if any of this is really about your safety.

  28. Is ANYONE surprised at this development? by yossie · · Score: 1

    Yawn, this is so not surprising. TSA's entire security theater policy can be summed as 'close the barn door after the cows got out.' A well funded, basically useless, organization, whose role is to annoy travelers.. On a recent trip I forgot to take my toiletries bag out of my carryon luggage on the way out and wasn't challenged. On the way back I took it out and lost my shampoo bottle since it was 4oz (limit is 3) though it had barely a dab of shampoo left in it. Sheesh. Venting is such fun, sigh.

    1. Re:Is ANYONE surprised at this development? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Close the door? More like close one of the semi-infinite series of doors, leaving the rest wide open.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  29. TSA Security Theater by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone who has worked in the world's busiest airport during the world's busiest travel times over the past 5 years, every time I see the TSA ban stuff like this or add a new level of security it just makes me shake my head. You know the old saying about locking the barn door after the horse escapes? That doesn't fully capture it. This is more like locking the barn door after the horse escapes through the giant fucking hole in the middle of the barn wall. It does nothing to help what already happened and isn't going to solve the original problem at all.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:TSA Security Theater by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      That's right.
      They are still worried about those that opt out of the back scatter machine rather than screening cargo properly.

    2. Re:TSA Security Theater by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      You say it won't solve anything, so you are implying they won't be making any more ink cartridge bombs, so you are implying the only problem here is people's fear of ink cartridge bombs, which screening for ink cartridges solves. Sounds to me like they are fixing the problem just fine.

    3. Re:TSA Security Theater by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      The problem is they'll just make a book bomb next.

      We need to catch explosives, not whatever container they may be in.

      I'm amazed they didn't ban underwear after the underwear bomber incident. Seriously, his only failure there was the malfunction of his bomb, his execution was perfect (even though he was on a dozen international watch-lists already, but hey! who cares about that right?).

      This reactionary approach does absolutely nothing for our security. Not one thing.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  30. Let's cut to the chase by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's just cut to the chase and ban people from airplanes. Every single terrorist plot involving hijacking or detonating an explosive aboard an airplane involved at least one person. By completely banning people from flights, it will make air travel completely safe. This has the added benefit of allowing the TSA enough time to give everyone a full-cavity search since they no longer have to worry about being able to depart on time. After all, you never know where those terrorists might hide their explosives. Of course to do all of this in a timely manner, we'll need to double the number of TSA security personnel, but it's probably worth the extra hundred dollars just to know that the flight you can't take is completely safe from terrorists. Can't put a price on piece of mind after all.

    1. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it won't.
      The latest plot was about mailing stuff on a cargo plane, no humans aside from the pilot on board.

    2. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brillant! Except that the most recent bombs were in cargo planes, so your ban doesn't go far enough. Clearly we need to just ban airplanes since they are clearly just weapons in waiting. Take that, terrorists - let's see you attack us without any planes!

    3. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They *did* ban people from the flight. It was a cargo plane.

    4. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      The anti-nuclear activists have been quite successful with such an argument.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    5. Re:Let's cut to the chase by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      But will that go far enough? The turrists tried to bomb cargo planes, after all. I agree that we should ban people from planes, but I say we also need to make sure cargo isn't allowed on planes either.

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    6. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Travel will *really* suck if they ever start using...I don't know, say...horses, cars, bicycles, trucks, remote control models, motorcycles, taxis, limos, . If they're getting on the planes then they can wait to blow themselves up on this side of the ocean just as easily. I really doubt they'll keep trying with the planes for much longer.

    7. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

      A tale about improving security:

      After waiting in line patiently for what seemed hours, Professor Mufunzalo, Nobel laureate in Mathematics, is being molested by TSA minions while his carry-on is x-rayed.

      As it goes through, the conveyor stops: red lights flash, sirens blare and the bomb squad and hazmat roll in, as well as several heavily armed SWAT teams that pin the Professor down.

      "Professor Mufunzalo," a captain screams, "you have a bomb in your suitcase! Are you insane?"

      "No sir, it's for security purposes" replies the good professor, in the patient tone he uses for the slow.

      "Whaaat????"

      "Yes sir, let's do the numbers: The probability of having one bomb in the airplane is 1 in 100 Million, accordingly the probability of two bombs is 1 in 10^16, therefore my bomb guarantees our complete safety."

      "I see... lock him up!"

    8. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, since all terrorist actions anywhere are caused by humans, we need to ban all humans from doing anything, anywhere. Its not that hard, look at the matrix. just make sure keanu reaves is kept permanently unconscious.

    9. Re:Let's cut to the chase by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Cargo planes still have people on them. Ban those guys too and it won't be a problem

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  31. Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surface by gilgongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I don't understand about the screaming to ban deadly packages flying by air mail is that for literally 100 YEARS letter bombs have been on the scene. I myself was in Washington DC in about 1975 when a letter bomb posted by the IRA was delivered to the British Embassy. It blew the hand off a secretary who opened it up. Yes, there was an investigation, the police were called, the IRA condemned etc. etc. but nobody suggested banning packages in the mail or removing the rights of anyone who went into a post office. Heck, these devices from Yemen didn't even explode and we're falling apart with fear!

    What the hell is going on? Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  32. O.M.G. by Thyamine · · Score: 1

    What? What?! Really? Again? Someone tried something, so NOW we will make it illegal. Yes, that makes so much sense. So by this logic, if someone tries to smuggle a bomb on themselves, the TSA will then begin banning passengers. You know, because someone may try again ! I'm not saying these is an easy solution to this, but really the solution is not banning random items that have been used in the past. How about spending money on good training and good employees? How about having a dozen lines for screening so that there's less need for urgency because there are plenty of screeners who can take their time to be effective?

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
  33. I see this as a good thing by microbee · · Score: 1

    We need new technology that could take a person anywhere in the world without having to spend 2 hours in the airport waiting to get onboard.

    With the help of TSA and terrorists, this could well be achieved in our current generation, because airflight will soon be too inconvenient, if not cost prohibitive, to be economically viable.

    We need to step ahead of the terrorists and eliminate the threat model entirely.

    1. Re:I see this as a good thing by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Um, and what would that be exactly? Teleporters?

      If it flies, it will be a threat to others, and subjected to the same security as commercial air.

      If it's ground-based, it will be slower and more expensive than air travel, because it will not take a direct route and will require dedicated rights-of-way.

      The only even remotely feasible technology that could meet your requirements would be a human-sized cruise missile. Good luck building that without attracting the ire of about a dozen gov't agencies.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  34. Issue with the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had heard on the news early on that the SIM cards were removed from the phones, and they were just being used as a timer. If that's the case, then what the hell does their bombs have to do with cell service?

  35. Did they think of the price of ink? by acnicklas · · Score: 1

    For the cost of 16 ounces I could probably charter my own BBJ.

  36. I want to know... by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

    how they did it. I work with diesel fuel systems. If I need to send a failed fuel pump back to the factory in Germany, it has to go by boat. The tiny amount of fuel still left in the pump after it is cleaned will get detected, and I will get a friendly visit from law enforcement if I try to send it by plane.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:I want to know... by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 3, Informative

      They used one of the component explosive (PETN) in SEMTEX.

      Developed in the USSR, SEMTEX was seen as highly dangerous (and liked by terrorists) because it nearly impossible to detect. So hard to detect, that nowadays SEMTEX actually has stuff added to it so it can be detected more easily and it's export and use is highly restricted (presumably why these guys decided not to actually use modern SEMTEX).

      Fuel gives off a very strong smell, making it trivial to detect :P

    2. Re:I want to know... by acohen1 · · Score: 1

      They used an advanced plastic explosive that gives off so few vapors at room temperature that machines nor dogs could detect it, even when that package was re examined when they were notified of the threat. Diesel is like the polar opposite, readily emitted smelly vapors.

    3. Re:I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETN#Terrorist_use

      The thing is, what will happen if terrorists use implantable bombs? Then what? Full body x-rays? Oh wait.... apparently that's what's going to be coming (or cumming?) next? Class action lawsuit is badly needed. This is out of control.

    4. Re:I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe TSA should start looking for methods to detect that stuff, instead of putting in these naked scanners. What's next?? Full X-rays for possible implanted bombs?? Give me a break!

      As to the assholes that want to blow stuff up, they should be caught and administered the same punishment as in the Roman Empire times - crucified and left to rot in the hot sun. Or strap them down to an anthill.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome

    5. Re:I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the wikipedia article...

      On May 25, 1997, Bohumil ole, a scientist often said to have been involved with inventing Semtex, strapped the explosive to his body and committed suicide in the Priessnitz spa of Jeseník.[8] ole, 63, was being treated there for depression. Twenty other people were hurt in the explosion, while six were seriously injured. According to the manufacturer, Explosia, he was not a member of the team that developed the explosive.

  37. Can always make your own in-flight wi-fi by Karger · · Score: 1

    So what if they don't offer in-flight wi-fi service. My laptop and bomb can always form an ad-hoc network. Guess they'll just have to ban laptops (or bombs).

    1. Re:Can always make your own in-flight wi-fi by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Even easier, just use a pair of walkie-talkies or something.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  38. good thing by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing they did not hide the bomb in coffee.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  39. Randomly generated password per flight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... generated after the door closes... that way, the cat setting off the bomb has to actually be on the plane. And now we're back to baseline.

    Problem (mostly) averted. $1M consulting fee please.

    (Yeah, there would be an escalation from brute force, and then blocking based on failed attempts from a given MAC address to MAC address spoofing... whatever. Triangulate the position of the transmitter on-board via multiple wifi nodes, and you can eliminate spoofing by checking the position.)

    1. Re:Randomly generated password per flight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if the bomber has to be on the plane? There are plenty of terrorists willing to die for their plots.

  40. Oh fuck you by Rix · · Score: 1

    This is profiling. They're picking on people who, for whatever reason, need or want to carry toner/water/shoes or whatever on a flight. Changing the parameters of the profiling to skin colour or some such so that you, personally, aren't inconvenienced would not make it better.

  41. TSA saving the planet item by item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a printer cartridge keep it as they are going rocket up in price as they can't be flown in from anywhere. Also with no printer inks no paper is going to be used and less forest cut down.

  42. So let me get this straight... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... if I fly, I can't take my printer with me *AT ALL* because the cartridges aren't even allowed to be in the checked in luggage?

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      ... if I fly, I can't take my printer with me *AT ALL* because the cartridges aren't even allowed to be in the checked in luggage?

      Since you can check a firearm, just hide the ink cartridge in the ammo box.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  43. Explosive Toner Cartridges are not on eBay! by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    Bet those would really be a hit at the office xmas party! Fool your friends!

    "DUUUUDE, I was photocopying my ass and ran out of toner, I totally thought that was an awesome real toner cart, then it BLEW UP!!@! This the best xmas party EVAR!!Q! Shit I'm drunk..."

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  44. I'm confused by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    So is this a ban on the cargo hold carrying Cartridges? If so, I can't imagine a HP or Xerox repair guy carrying cartridges to do an emergency service someplace. Let's see Shoes, now we have to X-Ray the Shoes, Underwear, now we have backscatter devices... Printer Cartridges, humm, I guess will just ban those and force everyone to use pencils? Wait, Pencils can be used to poke people's eye's out, so we'll have to ban those.. Wait, paper too can deliver a nasty cut, that's as dangerous as a knife! Let's ban that too!

    This does however highlight the problem with the TSA not even looking at cargo carried on aircraft. Forget the UPS, Fed-Ex and DHL crowd, we're talking air cargo services offered by the carriers. Why is it that the TSA never scans that stuff or even looks at it?

    Once again, our security is in the hands of a bunch of people who couldn't make it as McDonalds entry-level employees...

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  45. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because people are fundamentally unforgivable cowards, and much worse, so goddamned gullible that they actually believe the government can keep them safe in the absolute or near-absolute sense of the word. We in the West all talk the Big Talk about how liberty is worth the risks (and indeed, even at this time of year in many places recount how hundreds of thousands of soldiers went off to fight a couple of world wars to stop totalitarian regimes from making us all Very Safe), but no one really means it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  46. Not that big a deal really by Silver+Surfer+1 · · Score: 1

    The article states that only cartriges 16 onces and above are banned. Most cartridges are closer to 8 ounces (Epson 98XX 78XX) of toner and I am not aware of any that you would be traveling with that would be 16 ounces.

      Seems like a non issue to me.

  47. Toner on a Plane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    G-D'it, I'm tired of these M'ther-F'ckin' Toner Cartridges on this M'ther'F'ckin' Plane!

  48. Luckily by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Funny

    out of the millions of objects and packages people make and use, printer cartidges are the only ones of the right shape and size to hold explosives.

    1. Re:Luckily by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      They do have the right size and innards to contain enough explosive material and ignition mechanism and still be innocuous and portable. Given the fact that all toner cartridges contain 50g to 500g of some fine powder, electronics, copper wiring, maybe some servos, packed in a light-tight shell it sure is able to camouflage a bomb to visual inspection and even x-ray imaging.

    2. Re:Luckily by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      out of the millions of objects and packages people make and use, printer cartidges are the only ones of the right shape and size to hold explosives.

      Nope, there are other dangerous things that are currently prohibited.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Luckily by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      You've totally missed the point.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:Luckily by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Laptop batteries pack the same amount of energy as a grenade, and require no pre-flight modification to make them explosive.

      Are we going to ban them, or not?

      Further to that, there are plenty of components in a modern laptop that can be used to hold explosives which can easily fool visual and X-ray inspection. Hell a fucking portable hard drive practically looks like a bomb under X-ray, yet they go through just fine.

      It's all completely useless, and is the wrong way to go about security.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    5. Re:Luckily by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      OK, now what is the right way to go about security?

  49. Yeah! Go Captain Hindsight by Keys1337 · · Score: 1

    As long as we have Captain Hindsight around we will always be safe!!!!

  50. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel - It takes a lot less effort to severely damage an airplane at altitude (thanks to the stresses of a pressurized cabin) to the point where it will not fly than it does to damage a ship or train to the point where it causes massive loss of life. (Although due to derailment, a train is probably easier.)

    So a small bomb can take down a plane, but can't necessarily take out a ship or train, especially if in a cargo area.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  51. Next: Eunuch Requirement by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    I think they should skip all the in-between steps and do a proper analysis.

    Muslim extremists are willing to give their lives because of the 72 virgins thing. They wear extra pairs of trousers / underpants to protect their genitals. So, the only sure solution is to require all male passengers to be eunuchs. Knowing you have no equipment is the only way the TSA can be sure you aren't going to kill yourself to get laid.

    Unfortunately, this would cause a problem for the "feeling resistance" alternative to backscatter.

  52. Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean I shouldn't buy ink cartridges because it might be a bomb? Whose checking those ink cartridges at Best Buy to make sure it doesn't blow up a store full of people? Are Office Depot inspecting ink cartridges before delivering them to government entities?

    Seriously....blowing up a plane is a blip on the radar. If 9-11 can't be replicated, meaning they can't take over the plane and fly it into something or cause it to detonate and crash into a target......then I think you've done your job as well as can be expected and at some point in time another incident will occur. If the precautions were taken to prevent plane takeover and targeting, then it's about equivalent to a catastrophic plane malfunction. People seem to be OK with with their chances flying in a plane that could fall out of the sky on a catastrophic failure, so I think they need to come to terms with there being a chance the plane might explode.....due to a bomb or...a fuel leak......or hitting another plane....or whatever.

    The rest of this crap is just job security and budget inflation for TSA. Someone with ties to TSA is making a shitload of money on all the tech whether it helps or not. And making money on the "travel friendly bags" and other things the TSA has implemented. The TSA will of course not be held accountable if any of the measures they've inflicted fail to prevent terrorist attacks, it will just be an example as to why they need MORE budget and MORE expensive tech and MORE specifications for bags/clothing/shoes/wallets/belts/glasses/underwear/etc.

  53. It can't be done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the TSA want's real passenger flight safety I have the following recommendations:

    1. conduct a strip search including orifices
    2. restrain all passengers
    3. sedate all passengers for the duration of the transit time
    3. put passengers on trains or trucks (who said anything about flying? I said transit time.)
    4. deliver passenger to destination airport, which may require intermediate ship loading/unloading
    5. unload passengers at destination

    There, problem solved. That is the best I can do until I get the trans-continental transporters online.

    You are quite welcomed.

    1. Re:It can't be done... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm surprised that they haven't done this yet. All they're proving is that terrorism works. It makes life hell for the entire country. Mission accomplished!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  54. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by JamesVI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?

    People are making a lot of money off the fear industry. Chertoff, the former head of Homland Security, is a consultant for one or more of the companies that make the bomb detection and body scanning equipment that the TSA is mandating be used

  55. To Terrorists, please do laptops next by RichMan · · Score: 1

    Can we please have the terrorists try laptops next. There have even been instances of spontaneous laptop suicide yet they are still allowed on planes.
    If we can separate people form their cherished toys perhaps we can convince people of how stupid the whole security theatre thing is.

    1. Re:To Terrorists, please do laptops next by lioc · · Score: 0

      But then the customs agents wouldn't be able to search them all for porn, or confiscate them to play Tetris when they are bored.

      Seriously though, I agree with your idea, there has to be some point where people come to their senses and decide that enough is enough. Unfortunatly that point is probably just after 'all passengers must fly naked' and just before 'full cavity searches for everyone'

    2. Re:To Terrorists, please do laptops next by forkfail · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they ban laptops, then how can I check while I'm waiting in the security line what has been banned in the hour since I entered said line?

      --
      Check your premises.
  56. Gentleman's wager by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    This week it is toners, last week it was underwear, before that it was shoes and liguid bottles

    If I were to place a bet, I would guess the next one would be iPhones or the even more ubiquitous iPods.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:Gentleman's wager by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it wrong that part of me is hoping some would-be terrorist puts a bomb inside a screaming baby?

    2. Re:Gentleman's wager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it wrong that part of me is hoping some would-be terrorist puts a bomb inside a screaming baby?

      No more wrong than the part of me desperately hoping some would-be terrorist is discovered trying to board a plane with a bomb up his ass. Prepare to bend over for freedom.

    3. Re:Gentleman's wager by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the song lyric "if loving you is wrong then I don't want to be right" LOL

      Maybe they could start with movie theatres first though. I go to theatres (or used to) more often than I fly.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    4. Re:Gentleman's wager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the fat dude that always manages to spill onto my seat.

    5. Re:Gentleman's wager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong that part of me is hoping some would-be terrorist puts a bomb inside a screaming baby?

      Yes, it is wrong.

    6. Re:Gentleman's wager by marknmel · · Score: 1

      No need for a bomb. I just have an acute "allergic reaction" to baby powder. You'll find that airlines are awfully accommodating for allergies, since allergies like nut allergies are so prevalent these days - nobody really wants to be sued.....

    7. Re:Gentleman's wager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in a clear, resealable, 1 litre plastic bag.

      This will then require that you put all of your clear resealable 1 litre plastic bags inside clear resealable 1 litre plastic bags and infinite recursion...

    8. Re:Gentleman's wager by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong that part of me is hoping some would-be terrorist puts a bomb inside a screaming baby?

      no it isn't

    9. Re:Gentleman's wager by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Yes it's wrong; so deliciously, deliciously wrong.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  57. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by lioc · · Score: 0

    It's all about Hazard vs. risk.

    The amount of explosives required to kill a secretary on the ground will kill everyone on board a plane at high altitude. So in fairness it's probably acceptable to have a slightly different response or attitude to the same hazard with different associated risks.

    On the other hand, the TSA is the RIAA of travel. They will do anything to protect their business model. A single moments sanity by the security services could slash their budgets and put hundreds of thousands of security workers out of work. A risk they will not accept.

    They will therefore ensure that the Hazard is broadcast as loud as possible, and use peoples poor understanding of risk to overstate the real threat.

    What is truly surprising in this situation is that they managed to control their glee when they found a live one. Even with the almost hysterical media backing to their every pronouncement of doom they probably need a certain number of 'incidents' a year to keep the frenzy going, and this year was otherwise pretty quiet.

  58. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    We're becoming just like Europe. .... I KID!!!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  59. Logic. by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Terrorist: "Well, I had this fancy bomb all put together and I was ready to blow myself and 200 other people out of the sky, but then the damned TSA went and made it illegal to do that. Since I have an instinctive need to obey the laws of the infidels, I suppose my plan is right out the window. Oh well. I guess I'll just walk down to the donut shop and gorge myself. Maybe I'll take up farming. Fava beans, anyone?"

  60. Stupid rules by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    You can't take a screwdriver on board as it could be used for stabbing.
    So how about a "normal" pen?

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  61. Screw it by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Just ban everything. It's pointless not to at this point. Anything and everything can be used as a weapon, so why not? Just strip away all of our privacy and rights to 'keep away' those evil 'terrorists'!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  62. After the first colon bomb: by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Please come eight hours early to lounge in the evacuation suite while served ex-lax brownies. Failure to evacuate is grounds for being barred from the flight.

  63. Nope by tivoKlr · · Score: 1

    Sadly, TelavianX, the answer is a resounding "NO" and cannot be yelled loudly enough at our stupid elected officials, who seem to think everything's roses (or at the ass clowns that elected them, me included).

    I'd expat right the fuck now if I could.

    --
    Ocean is land, covered with water.
  64. I am waiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the day when TSA bans decidedly obvious and most lethal objects on planes: passengers.

  65. Doesn't go far enough. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously, these toner cartridges were packed in some sort of suitcase. Imagine that, a closed case on a plane that a terrorist could use to put any kind of horrible device. The only logical reaction is to ban all suitcases. This should also apply to duffle bags, backpacks and other forms of closed containers. Travellers will be encouraged to carry their clothes in big piles to the check in area where they will be looked through (and any funny underwear will be lifted up high for everyone to laugh at). Then, the whole pile will be shovelled onto the airplane. Luggage pickup areas will now have a dump truck back up to them and dump the cargo bin's contents onto the ground for traveller's to fight through. Make sure you write your name and address in big letters all over every piece of clothing in permanent ink. And remember, it might be a minor inconvinience but this and other measures like the upcoming "automatic strip searching for hot passengers" rule help keep the skies safe from terrorists.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Doesn't go far enough. by Mysteray · · Score: 1

      Obviously, these toner cartridges were packed in some sort of suitcase.

      From the media reports and pictures, it looked like they were in whole printers.

      Perhaps they missed the real threat. They should really have banned all office paper-handling equipment of 10 pages-per-minute or higher capacity. Imagine the damage that a barometrically-triggered paper shredder could cause, particularly on a plane with working WiFi.

  66. Dildos by northernfrights · · Score: 1

    Some day some terrorist is going to try to smuggle a bomb in a dildo, and the TSA will respond by declaring that all dildos are banned from air travel and are to be confiscated at the gate by security officers.

    1. Re:Dildos by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Narrator: Was it ticking?
      Airport Security Officer: Actually throwers don't worry about ticking 'cause modern bombs don't tick.
      Narrator: Sorry, throwers?
      Airport Security Officer: Baggage handlers. But, when a suitcase vibrates, then the throwers gotta call the police.
      Narrator: My suitcase was vibrating?
      Airport Security Officer: Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor, but every once in a while...
      [whispering]
      Airport Security Officer: ...it's a dildo. Of course, it's company policy never to imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article 'a' dildo, never 'your' dildo.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    2. Re:Dildos by northernfrights · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, did I see that somewhere? I forgot where it was from.

      At any rate, if I ever were to decide to take down a plane with a suitcase in a bomb, I guess I'd make sure it was ticking lol.

    3. Re:Dildos by northernfrights · · Score: 1

      Err, bomb in a suitecase... ahem.

    4. Re:Dildos by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first rule of Fight Club is do not talk about Fight Club!

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  67. Yep by tivoKlr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...are you really happy with the way that President Obama is handling this issue? His Administration hasn't done jack-shit to halt the growth of the security theater industry.

    As a leftie, I have to say that I am dismayed at the rapid disintegration of our individual liberties and freedoms since President Obama came to office, and at the utter lack of discipline of the rest of the party, causing the recent realignment of the House.

    The checks seem to keep getting written to the TSA and the companies that supply them with their toys (Smiths, etc.) and there is no end in sight. The Democrats have not made any positive moves in this regard, and seem to rank individual liberties (such as being able to carry my fucking Starbucks through security) below pandering to the fear filled right and left. It all sucks.

    The reality, as it has already been stated above, is that passengers now know that their own security is in their hands, and given the proclivity of the average American to "throw down" for very little reason, I feel pretty damn safe on an aircraft, and not an iota of that feeling comes from the TSA.

    --
    Ocean is land, covered with water.
    1. Re:Yep by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, this is why I love the Tea Party approach. Given sufficient cuts in funding, all of this nonsense would dry up and blow away. The only reason we're saddled with all this security theater is because there are contractors who want our tax dollars. If there weren't anyone trying to sell us body scanners, remodel our airports, and otherwise siphon off our cash, we'd wouldn't be bothering with it.

      Cut the funding, and let apathy do the rest.

    2. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a leftie, I have to say that I am dismayed at the rapid disintegration of our individual liberties and freedoms since President Obama came to office, and at the utter lack of discipline of the rest of the party, causing the recent realignment of the House.

      The checks seem to keep getting written to the TSA and the companies that supply them with their toys (Smiths, etc.) and there is no end in sight. The Democrats have not made any positive moves in this regard, and seem to rank individual liberties (such as being able to carry my fucking Starbucks through security) below pandering to the fear filled right and left. It all sucks.

      You're shocked? Slick Barry is a politician. Nothing more, nothing less.

      The reality, as it has already been stated above, is that passengers now know that their own security is in their hands, and given the proclivity of the average American to "throw down" for very little reason, I feel pretty damn safe on an aircraft, and not an iota of that feeling comes from the TSA.

      No, they don't. If that were the case, we'd have had several bloody revolutions by now. Passengers know that the shining TSA, defenders of Good, will protect them from underpants-wielding, toner-cartridge-chucking scary brown people. At least until something actually happens, gods forbid.

    3. Re:Yep by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But tea partiers don't want the TSA to go away. They fear those horrible mooslims. They want social security and universal healthcare, and state sponsored education to meet the chopping block first, because they're convinced that's the problem. Cutting funding for the TSA or DOD would be sacrilege.

    4. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a leftie, I have to say that I am dismayed [...]since President Obama came to office

      What, did his tax policies cause Ned Flanders's Leftporium to go under?

    5. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What makes you think that the Tea Party wants to cut funding for security or defense? When Conservatives talk about cutting spending, they refer solely to social programs (even though defense significantly shadows any of the other spending categories).

    6. Re:Yep by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The state should PROTECT the citizens from criminals (which terrorists are) and little else. So the TSA is legitimate for them.

    7. Re:Yep by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Given sufficient cuts in funding

      I'll believe it when I see it.

      As far as I am aware, the federal budget has never been cut in the entire history of the US of A. G.W. Bush caught hell for just trying to reduce the increase in the budget.

      Historically, whenever someone gains political office things change. They may have every intention of following through, but it never seems to happen unless there is a huge price tag that can be attached to it.

      I'd really like to see a few people with balls in there hold the line and force the issue of cutting the budget. It is so full of useless pork it's ridiculous and completely unnecessary. If a community cannot afford some big spending project and cannot otherwise raise the money for it, then they certainly do not need it and can do without. This goes for all levels of community. The government should be working within its means (which is us), it should not be borrowing from itself, and it should not be borrowing from other countries.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    8. Re:Yep by tirefire · · Score: 1

      As a leftie, I have to say that I am dismayed at the rapid disintegration of our individual liberties and freedoms since President Obama came to office, and at the utter lack of discipline of the rest of the party, causing the recent realignment of the House.

      (emphasis mine)

      This isn't a liberal-conservative issue. This is an authoritarian-libertarian issue. I consider myself a "conservative" but I am by no means supportive of any of the crap Obama and Bush 43 have done w.r.t. airport "security".

      If you frame a discussion within vague liberal-conservative parameters, you're opening the floor up to kindergarten-style name calling and tribalism, regardless of your intent.

    9. Re:Yep by tivoKlr · · Score: 1

      You're right, righty :-p

      As I get older, I feel myself being pulled into the ranks of the Libertarian realm, I really don't need my gov't hassling me, and honestly, there isn't anything I'm doing that should warrant any excessive supervision, or certainly not at the levels we experience today. I do think there is a role for government, but it seems to have transformed from "take care of your people" to "hook up your biggest contributor with whatever they want."

      It dismays me that an institution I was raised to revere as "the best in the world" sucks so hard now. Honestly, how have we gotten to this point?

      --
      Ocean is land, covered with water.
    10. Re:Yep by tirefire · · Score: 1

      It dismays me that an institution I was raised to revere as "the best in the world" sucks so hard now. Honestly, how have we gotten to this point?

      There's your answer, imo. Public schooling especially takes children from their parents and raises them in authoritarian factory schools with messages like, "USA IZ NUMBA ONE!!1" instead of messages like, "A republic, if you can keep it."

      I don't mean to jab you or your childhood personally. This is just an overall trend I've noticed.

  68. well.. by eXFeLoN · · Score: 0

    seems pretty legit to me, have you ever tried to get that shit out of carpet?

    --
    My other sig is a knife wound.
  69. There's stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then there's TSA stupid

  70. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?

    Yes. It's a consequence of the way we've been brought up, protected from everything bad and even bad thoughts, so once something does actually enter our consciousness it consumes everything. Like someone who's lived in a bubble away from all germs all of a sudden meeting the common cold.

  71. Because ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... we all know just how important Yemen is as a supplier to the global toner cartridge market.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  72. Totally ridiculous, over bogus "toner bomb" plot. by moxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is so stupid.

    More security theatre. I think the real terrorists work in DC.

  73. Guncotton clothing... by knarf · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know some t'rrrrrist decides to knit his bombe-de-jour from guncotton [1], TSA gets wind of it and *boom* - no not that bomb, that would never work - there go your clothes when you want to fly. Only TSA-approved one-time-use Tyvex straightjackets from now on.

      [1] guncotton is possibly better known as nitrocellulose and has been used as eg. smokeless powder in ammunitions.

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
  74. BAN FAT PEOPLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw some documentary on teevee where the Joker sewed a bomb into some fat guy's gut and set it off with a cellphone. What's to keep der terrists from drugging people, kidnappking them, sewing bombs into them and then dropping them off in some other city with a plane ticket to get them "home"?!!! Gotham city is not safe if we let fat peoples fly!!!1

    1. Re:BAN FAT PEOPLE! by pjwhite · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the answer is to force everyone to vomit before boarding a plane.

    2. Re:BAN FAT PEOPLE! by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Cavity searches wooo! (not)

    3. Re:BAN FAT PEOPLE! by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the answer is to force everyone to vomit before boarding a plane.

      So you're suggesting bringing back the in-flight meal as a pre-flight meal?

    4. Re:BAN FAT PEOPLE! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because when I vomit I evacuate my bowels and spill my innards all over the place...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  75. send bomb in shoe box from China by SirLanse · · Score: 1

    Lets see them ban all shoes from China. Maybe cell phones from Japan too.

  76. What next? by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Soon we'll see headlines, TSA Bans All Passengers From Flying.

  77. What took them so long? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Isn't toner/ink some sort of - LIQUID?! It's common knowledge that liquids are very dangerous! If we let any liquid on a plane the terrorists win!!!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:What took them so long? by yurtinus · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is terrifying! I think I just wet myself...

      --
      +1 Disagree
  78. Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting as AC to avoid any friendly "visits" but FFS, if a terrorist wanted to really devestate a town/city/community, you've hit the right target on the head, and that target is a train.

    See all those dirty, black, cylindrical train cars at the end of the train (and keep in mind they're usually at the end, no engineer wants to be near them), those are your target. Blow one up, and you've got a catastrophe on your hands. If that one burns, and it probably will, and it then bleve's nearby tanker cars, you've got armageddon that will burn until it's burned itself out, as nobody will be able to stop it. Trackside IED. Remote detonation. I'm thinking near a school...I don't see the TSA stopping this.

    Really people. Airplanes? Toner? Try tens of thousands of gallons of flammable/explosive/caustic/carcinogenic (take your pick, it really gets fun when they all mix together!) in one container that is probably working just as hard to contain the chemical as the flimsy little airplane is trying to stay together. Sheesh. There is risk all around.

  79. Friday night frisking by SirLanse · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going to have a few drinks and go throught the TSA lines a few times. The only problem is the airport has a no smoking policy. I would need a cigarette after the frisking. :)

  80. Use Reinforced shipping containers, rf shielding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just pack all luggage in large reinforced shipping containers (and rf shielded). It would also make loading and unloading luggage from the aircraft faster.

  81. What else can you put explosives into? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because, obviously, all of those are eventually going to be banned on planes as the terrorists move on to the next item to try.

    The culmination being explosives inside humans, of course, at which point we can just shut down the aircraft industry entirely.

    And then the terrorists will move on to cargo carried on boats, trains, or trucks.

  82. In a baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, al-Qaeda, smuggle a bomb on a plane in a screaming baby. Maybe the TSA will ban those too.

  83. Show up Naked is the Only Way by DreamArcher · · Score: 1

    Jesus!!! TSA is so knee-jerk (or just jerks but that's a different rant). Every time a bomber uses something they either ban it or you have to remove it (shoes). I hope they never add the explosives to the fabric of underwear. That's going to be fun.

  84. Least Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA will eventually realize that it is people who are causing all these security issues and will ban them from all flights in the USA. It will be at that point in time all US citizens will be completely safe from terrorism. Thank you TSA.

  85. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw TSA, screw all those working for the federal reserve system and don't even want to be responsible for what it's caused and needs to work with the people for the govenrment and the killing it causes is 'ok' to come with their job because theyre government aka huge power card (if getting paid by the tax of these notes which us people use for our lives/needs/things)

  86. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    To be fair, Al-Qaeda are even crazier than the Irish. And they are trying to blow us up, not just the British.

  87. And the USA might get decent trains! by fantomas · · Score: 1

    ... and with plane services so terrible, the USA might finally get a decent intercity and interstate passenger train network!

    1. Re:And the USA might get decent trains! by swb · · Score: 1

      Either that, or the highway departments can pull their heads out of their asses and let us drive 100 MPH.

    2. Re:And the USA might get decent trains! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They'd have to go through and bring all the highways up to par, as they are not designed for cars to consistently do 100MPH on them. They'd also have to make the regulations more stringent, as I'm sure you're a great driver, but lots of people who think they can drive 100MPH all over the place actually can't, by virtue of their skill or their vehicle. There's a lot more to increasing the speed limit than changing signs ;)

    3. Re:And the USA might get decent trains! by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Either that, or the highway departments can pull their heads out of their asses and let us drive 100 MPH.

      Most drivers are incapable of handling their vehicles at half that speed. Raising the speed limit to 100 mph would result in carnage on the highways.

      (Some chick in an X-Terra ran me off the road this morning. She needed to get into the right lane, for no reason, and was yapping on the phone and didn't bother to look, she just turned into my lane. She ignored the horn and the yelling. I called on Our Lady Of Blessed Acceleration by downshifting from 6th to 3rd, pulled in front of her, then made sure she couldn't pass me. THIS is why I oppose higher speed limits.)

    4. Re:And the USA might get decent trains! by swb · · Score: 1

      A sensible person would have followed her to work, cut her tires and ruined her paint.

  88. After reading this; by ameline · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

    I am not going to go through one of those machines.

    VERY scary stuff here.....

    --
    Ian Ameline
  89. Does not bother me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am fine reading a book on the plane.

    What pisses me off is the requirement that I pose before a scanner that produces an electronic 3D model of my nude body, accurate to the pores of my skin.

    For those not in the know, despite the promises we have been made, these images can be saved, and have been printed and distributed. I read about it in news articles that I am to lazy to link for you.

    Fuck that. I haven't flown since they started using those scanners, and I will not until they are stopped.

    If I am not soverign over my own body then I am a slave.

    1. Re:Does not bother me by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Christ. Who the fuck cares? Why are you so arrogant that you think your body is of any importance to anyone else? Scared they might end up on saggy-white-naked-middle-class-nobodies.com?

  90. Obligatory Founding Fathers Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

  91. Hahaha! Predictable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here's another prediction that's 100% guaranteed to come to pass: Someone will be discovered trying to smuggle explosives aboard an aircraft concealed in their rectum. I don't need to tell you what part of the TSA's anatomy will jerk in response.

  92. Total Stupid Associates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolute stupidity. So, terrorists can now disrupt modern western society by simply doing one category of item after another until everything is banned. Nude airplaning anyone?

  93. And the second after the rail network is attacked, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you don't expect train travel to become like air travel, why exactly?

  94. Re:Totally ridiculous, over bogus "toner bomb" plo by zero0ne · · Score: 1

    Thank you for an awesome sig.

  95. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What the hell is going on? Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?"

    It isn't the US citizens. It is the US government. Two totally different classes of people. We are oppressed by our government.

    And in news of the weird: my security anti-spam word is "Demolish"

  96. Right, because it's just unthinkable by apparently · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That a pilot who is sympathetic to the cause, couldn't bring weapons through security and pass them off to his co-conspirators so that they could use said weapons on a different plane. It's just unthinkable, and you're a super-genius.

    1. Re:Right, because it's just unthinkable by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would a pilot need co-conspirators to hijack a plane when he sits in a locked room and has complete control of the aircraft?

      What a pilot can do with a knife or a bomb is absolutely meaningless compared to what he can do without one. The idea of physically screening pilots when they are in such a position of trust is stupid. Just stupid. Just verify his ID and badge and send him on through. He can already kill everyone on board and thousands of other people if he wants to without a damn box cutter, so why the hell would he bring one?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  97. It's Aer Lingus by swb · · Score: 1

    Not cunnilingus, you insensitive clod!

  98. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with most of your sentiment, but let's not forget that these bombs were defused minutes before going off, only thanks to a tip-off by a repentant Al-Qaida operative. And each of these devices had enough explosive to significantly damage the fuselage of the aircraft. This one was a close, scary shave.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  99. This sounds like a knee jerk reaction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is practically anything can be used to house a WMD. You either have to install screening at all shipping points, or ban trade with countries that have weak anti-terror policies. It would be more cost effective simply to stop trading with some of these countries and simply let them live in the stone age.

  100. Of course the TSA banned toner cartridges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just skip ahead to the inevitable conclusion: we all fly naked with no carry-on luggage, food, or beverages permitted.

  101. Longing for the good old days by kindbud · · Score: 1

    Remember before the TSA was created, when airline security was required to be provided by the airlines themselves, and was therefore a cost center?

    I used to work in that job in those good old days. 30 minutes' training and out to the X-ray machines you go, earning a little more than minimum wage.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  102. News: Passenger with ass are now forbidden on plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Following attempts by terrorist to bring explosive on board a plane in his ass - Passenger with ass are now forbidden on planes.

  103. Why yes they were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they were planted by Al-CIA-duh

  104. TSA Bans humans on planes. by Chas · · Score: 1

    In other news, the TSA has banned the presence of all humans from airplanes.

    "Them buggers are just too damn unpredictable for us to worry about the threat anymore. This move should make flights MUCH safer!" quotes a source at the TSA who commented on condition of anonymity.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  105. Being that by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

    I worked at and voluntary left the TSA I can say: the TSA has a boner for toner.

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  106. Capitalism 101 by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

    The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.

    Don't they teach Economy where you live? In a capitalist system, airlines (and all companies) will cut costs always; let it be to avoid losses or to get yet more profits. The only limit they have is that they can't cut costs so much that they can no longer offer a commercial product (they have to buy fuel for the aircrafts if they want me to buy their tickets). If increasing costs (due to security concerns, or whatever) make it impossible to offer the product at rates that the public can afford, then they simply stop producing that (and do something else or disolve or go bankrupt).

    As a reductio ad absurdo exercise, let me ask you: do you think that if tomorrow one company has some of their costs go down (for example, fuel gets a 99% discount) they would stop cutting costs? Giving raises to employees? Lowering their tickets rates to "compensate" the customers for this change? Not a chance in hell.

    The lesson is finished, just let me one opinion more: before posting a sign like yours, maybe you should know a little more how the world works so you know what are you talking about...

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  107. the Cold War is over by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 0

    Sorry but reaching Cuba has not been the goal of any hijacker since before Ronald Reagan took office.

  108. Maybe I should try smuggling... by fpp · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...some explosives inside an annoying crying baby, then they'd ban them.

  109. "goodbye, Mr. Bond" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure hope that no one at the TSA ever gets around to watching a James Bond Film, otherwise they will have to ban wristwatches, pens, eyeglasses, lapel pins, rings, cigarette cases. You know, a Bindi on a hindu womans forehead could hold a small electronic trigger...and how about genetically engineered dust mites designed to eat through doors to the pilots cabin? oh, the pain, the pain.

    1. Re:"goodbye, Mr. Bond" by mysidia · · Score: 1

      dust mites designed to eat through doors to the pilots cabin?

      Dust mites? Couldn't someone just use a lock pick disguised as a palm pilot stylus or some crud like that?

      The big WTF here is someone thinks WiFi is a risk. However, there's nothing really stopping the bad guys from using it right now, now is there?

      The article says A cellphone connected to a detonation circuit could have allowed a terrorist to trigger an explosion by calling or texting the phone.

      No shit. The earth is round... tell us something we didn't know.

      It most assuredly was not the ban on use of cell phones on a plane that stopped them from doing this, you know. Bad guys aren't particularly exacting in terms of following the rules, you know, right?

      There are plenty of ways bad guys could communicate a trigger to their device if they needed that. In reality, they are probably more likely to use timers.

      Just a reminder.... timers have a unique characteristic.. they don't suffer from issues like random communication failures or black outs so much. A 5 minute timer is 5 minutes, regardless of availability of a cell signal.

      And a person who can rig a cell phone to an explosive can probably rig some other type of small common reliable radio just as easily.

      It's not like the bad guys are working with off the shelf parts or care two shits worth about no-WiFi or no-Cellphone rules.

  110. Hence non-brainwashed in childhood jehadi==idiot by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The others are just brainwashed fanatics and will include the occasional non-idiot.

    Note the incompetence of the shoe and underwear bombers as well as that moron from Seattle who was caught in Afghanistan.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  111. The reality of terrorism on an airplaine by twistofsin · · Score: 1

    In order to reduce terrorism on airline flights the only measure necessary is securing the cockpit. Without access to the cockpit the potential to hijack a giant missile is gone and you just have a few hundred people gathered in one place, something you can find in any other city. Any thing else is just for show.

  112. 10 minutes? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    You would be sitting in security for 6 hours+ at pretty much any major airport in the US if they spent 10 minutes per passenger screening people.

    1. Re:10 minutes? by pz · · Score: 1

      And yet, delays as you suggest do not happen in Tel Aviv because there are many, many interview stations, as many stations as there are ticket counter stations. It can be done.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:10 minutes? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      It is to laugh. All Israel's airports combined handle less traffic than one of the smaller US state capitals. The whole country has less then 8 million people in it. That about the size of San Francisco. They are also able to spread the "interview" process across the globe making the overhead look smaller while all the other airlines do not follow suit.

      If you were to implement their paranoid (not to mention utterly supremacist) scheme, the TSA would have to grow 100-fold and there would be whole apartment-block like structures all around the US (and many overseas) airports full of "interview cells".

    3. Re:10 minutes? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Tel-aviv isn't even in the top 30 busiest airports. Comparing them to a US hub and claiming their method will scale is idiotic. Not to mention, when Israel as a country manages to start functioning without billions of dollars in aid from the US, we can talk about whether their policies are financially viable.

    4. Re:10 minutes? by pz · · Score: 1

      Tel-aviv isn't even in the top 30 busiest airports. Comparing them to a US hub and claiming their method will scale is idiotic.

      And yet, other passenger services like ticketing, check-in, passport control, and so on, scale just fine. Are you claiming that there's something special about security that it cannot scale? That it cannot be parallelized in exactly the same way? That would seem short-sighted or intentionally argumentative.

      I've lost track of how many airports I've been through all over the world. Some have models of efficiency for security (like Zurich) where despite hardly any delays the smallest of potential physical threats are located and examined, some are maddening (like Athens) where the lengthy and unnecessary delays are caused by blatant incompetence, and some are just long and slow due to a combination of understaffing and poorly designed passenger control (like Nassau). The US airports I've been through usually fall somewhere near the middle on this scale, and given the level of scrutiny at Tel Aviv, I'd put it close to the top.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    5. Re:10 minutes? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      No actually, none of the above scale just fine. There are almost constantly hour-long lines for all of the above.

      I find it humorous the only airports you can come up with as exemplary are ones that do a fraction of the traffic of any major international hub.

      Zurich: again, nowhere near the traffic of even a moderate US hub.

  113. People will need to drive everywhere more often. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather drive to Hawaii because I get more room in my chair and deckspace for living araingments and necessities rather than tolerate the possibility of contracting Hepetitis or AIDS and a fungal infection from sitting on the same chair that thousands of others will fart into.

  114. Captain Hinsdight saves the day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, thank you, Captain Hindsight!

    Sad how many truths can be found in an episode of South Park.

  115. Amtrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, if only Amtrak didn't take so much longer, it would be an even better idea
    For a trip I took this summer, Rochester to Chicago was ~12 hours Amtrak, Chicago to Rochester ~2 hours in the air. Even security hassle and flight delays didn't eat up the whole ~10.
    Amtrak being cheaper was cool though. :P
    The train ran overnight; that did help with regards to timing, especially if you can actually get to sleep.

  116. Ma'am, we're the TSA... by Builder · · Score: 1

    We are always prepared for the LAST threat!

  117. Not all suicide bombers are religiously motivated by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    The technique was pioneered by the Tamil tigers, which had political, not religious motivations.

  118. Define "Effective" by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...when was the last time you heard about a successfully thwarted attempt? You offer lack of evidence to the contrary as proof, which is utterly absurd.

    While I agree with your points I think the real issue here is the definition of "effective". In this context it does not simply mean stopping terrorist acts it means stopping them with minimal impact to air travel. After all you could stop all terrorist attacks on planes by banning all commercial air travel - but this is hardly an effective solution. The reason that TSA are ineffective is that they cause a massive inconvenience for travellers and, of all the terrorist plots caught, none (to my knowledge) have been caught by their security measures and all have been caught by better intelligence. This is clear evidence that intelligence is the most effective way to solve the problem since it has close to zero impact on the traveller and has been shown to work.

  119. Ostracise all christians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Christians should fight the nutcase fringe element of their own faith and until they do, all professed Christians should be treated as criminals.

    The quickest path towards resolving this is genuinely for all non-criminal young Christians to start ejecting the radical element from within their ranks. The next time one of your peers tells you how evil all those gays or abortion doctors are, tell him to shut the hell up, to grow up, and step away from the radical idiot who cares less for their life than for his own ego. End the war from within, and see those who fear you turn into your supporters.

    And don't give me all that "they aren't REAL Christians", they say they believe in Christ just the same as you do and just like the muslim terrorists proclaim the same faith in Mohammed as the mainstream muslims.

    Treat all Christians as the murdering terrorists the fringe of Christianity are until they learn to stand up against their own noxious element.

  120. Wait, whut ? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    The ounce is weight as well as volume ? Ye gods, why do people keep sticking to imperial.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  121. Stupid sand n1ggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say we just nuke the stuipd sand n!ggers. Take out the whole wortless lot of the middle east. Start by nuking Mecca.

  122. Solving the problem at its root by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    It's evident that terrorists will alway find some mean to blow up a plane ; and banning all objects and making people wear flight suits is too inconvenient.

    But there is another way to keep terrorists from blowing up passenger planes: ban the planes.

    Problem solved.

  123. Cause and effect... by dniq · · Score: 1

    Can't wait till someone sticks a bomb up their arse. TSA would then make everyone pass a colonoscopy in order to get on a plane.

  124. Article misleading by Veretax · · Score: 1

    8 Fluid Ounces = cup
    16 Fluid Ounces = pint

    and as I've always understood it, a Pint's a Pound the world Around..... in other words Pint = Pound.... interesting that a Pound is also 16 Ounces. Article is a bit misleading on that. I mean a Pound of ink? That's a pretty huge amount if you ask me.

  125. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    agree with most of your sentiment, but let's not forget that these bombs were defused minutes before going off

    But they were defused on the ground, right? So if they were only *minutes* from going off, wouldn't they have gone off on the ground?

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  126. Ban Planes! by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Listen, the one common element has since 9/11 has been aircraft. So, ban aircraft. That'll finally make us "safe". But just because that may be too big a leap right away, ban international flights. Or just stop flying to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Ireland.

    At what point are enough materials banned from flights that planes now go into the air mostly empty because so much has been banned that very little of anything gets onto planes?

    I see a bright future in the shipping industry -- and by shipping, I mean boats. Fedex and UPS are going to have to stop flying as every fedex box could be a potential bomb.

    There's one final solution for the USA that might make you safe. Isolationism. Close the borders, no flights in or out, put up walls on every border, make the economy domestic only (might be good to put your own people back to work), stop exports, stop imports, and ignore the rest of the world. I mean, you do that anyway, or perhaps you treat the rest of the world as if it *is* the USA.

    Surprisingly, I suspect that if the USA were to follow that plan, there would be a worldwide drop in terrorism, mostly due to the fact that the USA would have pulled their troops out of all those other countries that they have troops in, and they'd stop sticking their noses in other people's business.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  127. TSA Bingo by sugarmatic · · Score: 1

    Soooo....

    Some friends and I started a TSA Bingo game a couple years ago. a 4x4 grid of banned items. The winner gets an open tab for a year at the neighborhood brewpub (very dangerous). In any case, I now have three in a row with the toner thing. My card has "inkjet ink", which was close enough.

    I cannot bring my mini inkjet with me anymore when I travel for work. in fact, I have no way other than to waste my time using Kinko's et al.

    None of this makes us any safer. We were practically incontinent due to laughing when we made these ridiculous bingo cards. How absurd!

    Yet as soon as some "official" decides to commit the absurd, it becomes acceptable, and we all feel so googly safe, and say, "geez, I have nothing to hide, therefore...."

  128. Typical Government Response by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Targeting everyone else and making their lives miserable rather than targeting the problem.

    I have found that usually rather than fix a problem, or punish an individual, they would rather make more onerous rules that not only do not help, but actively make it harder for anyone else to get anything done.

    Likely rules already exist that were not followed, or they lack the resources to effectively follow their own rules. Doing something like this is just a show to make it seem like they are being effective. Its all just a PR campaign and has nothing to do with reality or actually being effective. Sad but true 9 times out of 10 it seems.

    To their credit, many times they simply don't have the resources or the will to enable effective change, so this is the best they can do with what they got.

  129. I still don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still think the best bomb material concealer are batteries. I remember a long time ago way before the famous US hijacks I'd have to turn my laptop on to prove it functional to airport security. Battery packs for larger machines (laptops) are perfect concealers for an explosive - hollow out a few cells, maybe leave one functional to turn on a faux power light and backlight. Hell, even lithium cells themselves are bombs, all you have to to is damage then. smash your phone on a hard edge, puncture the battery or short it out. Puff! Fire and toxic smoke!
    aaa batteries in that gamegenie? hollow them out along with the "spares" for when it sucks through them after an hour.

    Let's not forget to ban assholes, they can be uncomfortably convenient carry ways.

    Xray bag scanners for carryon? Then only look vertically. Have yourself a nice big butcher-knife and orient it vertically, maybe just remove the handle? It will just look like a nondescript line to the screener. Though I hear horizontal scanners are in the works...

  130. Banning Wi-Fi by psydeshow · · Score: 1

    So they want to ban in-flight wi-fi to keep bombs from being triggered remotely over teh interweb?

    There are other wireless communications that could trigger a detonation... like cell phones, radio, or GPS signals.
    In a pinch they could trigger detonation using an altimeter or a clock, like in the old days.

    So what's the point of banning wi-fi? The internet is just too scary for planes, I guess.

  131. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

    The problem I have with those situations, is how easily it could just be a bombing of the Reichstag. There is really no way to ever know with any real certainty without just trusting the government.

    --
    a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  132. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel

    There's a very old saying:

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    TSA has been the source of more fear and harassment in this country than any terrorist ever has been able to accomplish.

    Now all the terrorists have to do is come up with some new plot and try to pull it off. They don't even have to be successful, just as long as they are caught they can crank up the level of harassment to Americans everywhere.

    I don't give the assholes trying to protect air travel credit for shit. Allow guns on airplanes and you can bet your ass there won't be any more hijacking attempts. Of course, it's not a perfect solution, since you still have the occasional suicidal maniac who wants to go down in a blaze of glory, but some sacrifices must be made for our security. ;)

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  133. Re:And the second after the rail network is attack by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Because Amtrak's idea of a train station in many parts of the Chicago to New Orleans line is a double-wide that sits a hundred feet off the tracks, because unlike aircraft, trains do not leave the station up in the sky, so one could get around almost any security scheme you could come up with by merely walking down the tracks, and because one could just as easily sabotage a train by planting explosives anywhere along the tracks without ever setting foot on the train. There's a certain degree of infeasibility and absurdity involved in adding that sort of security to trains, and by infeasible and absurd, I mean essentially impossible and utterly laughable.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  134. In-flight wifi probably makes us more safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who has ever used in-flight wifi can tell you, it's LESS reliable than using a timer or altimeter to trigger something. Also, Hulu is so fucking slow sometimes it makes me wish there were a bomb on the plane!

  135. The response that MichaelKristopeit deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cower because of niggers.

    Do you like niggers? I like niggers. If you don't like niggers then you are a racist. I am so afraid, so very afraid. Of niggers.

    Anyone with multiple accounts is a nigger, so of course you like niggers. Can't hate your own kind and all of that. Nigger.

    Naturally, hiding your name behind "Anonymous Coward" is totally different from hiding your karma score behind a bunch of sockpuppet accounts. That last sentence was sarcasm, you hypocritical jigaboo.

    1. Re:The response that MichaelKristopeit deserves. by MichaelKristopeit160 · · Score: 1
      is that you gem? i didn't know you were also an ignorant hypocrite.

      who says you can't hate your own kind? you're an idiot.

      why do you cower? i have never cowered and no one including those you fear have ever done anything to me... probably because i have a history of defending myself with the greatest force available to me.

      if any account can be considered a sockpuppet, then ALL accounts are sockpuppets. i am a singular person and have never represented myself as anything but. you're a moron.

      you're completely pathetic.

    2. Re:The response that MichaelKristopeit deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that you, mike? why do you cower behind dozens of sock-puppet accounts, which anyone could register, and then expect anyone to hold any credibility to your claims that you’re really you?

      also, you’re a niggerfaggit. rage harder, niggerfaggit.

  136. Try reading entire sentences by apparently · · Score: 1

    What a pilot can do with a knife or a bomb is absolutely meaningless compared to what he can do without one.

    No crap, brainiac. That's precisely the scenario I didn't describe.

    He can already kill everyone on board and thousands of other people if he wants to without a damn box cutter, so why the hell would he bring one?

    Again, that's precisely the scenario I didn't describe.
    So let's break down what I actually did say. I know comprehension of 1 sentence is a lot to ask:

    "a pilot who is sympathetic to the cause,"
    Meaning, a pilot who isn't going to crash a plane that he's piloting, but is willing to assist co-conspirators in crashing a different plane.

    "couldn't bring weapons through security and pass them off to his co-conspirators so that they could use said weapons on a different plane"
    Also meaning, a pilot who isn't going to crash a plane that's he's piloting, but is willing to assist co-conspirators in crashing a different plane.

    This really isn't all that complicated of a scenario, and is precisely why pilots are scanned for weapons.

  137. Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac by gilgongo · · Score: 1

    So a small bomb can take down a plane, but can't necessarily take out a ship or train, especially if in a cargo area.

    My point is there is nothing NEW in that. At any time since the invention of air freight, it has been possible to put a bomb in a box and see that box ride a plane, just as letter bombs are literally 100 years old. Sure, timed or remotely detonated bombs are relatively new (like maybe 80 years), but that makes little difference.

    What has changed in the last few years that we now see a 100 year old threat as being something to freak out about?

    You may say, as the TSA do, that the fact a threat is old does not mean that we should not defend against it. But the issue here is freedom and perspective. What if the Yemen bombs had gone off? Planes might have crashed, people might have been killed. It would have been awful. However, I myself think that there is nothing wrong with doing what we have ALWAYS HISTORICALLY DONE in the face of such incredibly rare and isolated acts of lunatics: shrug and let life carry on.

    That is what the British did with the IRA (give or take a few public waste bin removals).

    That was what Germany did with Baader-Meinhoff.

    That is what Spain has been doing with ETA for the last half century.

    The pitiful reaction in the US to Middle East terrorists almost makes me what to become a terrorist myself!

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  138. geminidomino is a coward by MichaelKristopeit121 · · Score: 0
    i'm not hiding, cowering, or raging.... while you are partaking in them all.

    you're a presumptuous, ignorant hypocrite.

    you're completely pathetic.