Slashdot Mirror
TSA Saw My Junk, Missed Razor Blades, Says Adam Savage
An anonymous reader writes "The TSA isn't the most respected of governmental agencies right now, but at least it comes by the poor reputation honestly. The lack of standards, inconsistent application of searches and policies, and occasional rude agent all combine to make flying an unpleasant experience. It's often derided as 'security theater,' which describes the experience of Mythbuster Adam Savage before a recent flight. Savage was put through the full-body scanner, and while he joked that it made his penis feel small, no one seemed to notice the items he was carrying on his person. The video tells the rest of the story."
Okay, first -- I'd like to roast the TSA in every way possible for this joke security scheme. That said, the problem is that you just turned a bunch of people loose looking at naked bodies full time when until now they've had very little exposure. It takes awhile to desensitize yourself to the constant nudity and and have it stop distracting you.
Ask any bouncer at a strip club: The first few weeks they couldn't stop looking, but after awhile, a naked woman can walk right past them and it barely registers because it's not new anymore. Happens all the time. And they are focused on the job now.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I watched this earlier today, I wonder what a razor blade on its thin side look like on x-ray. Do airport x-rays scan from multiple angles?
Anyway, TSA sucks and TSA gropes people.
Captcha: Stupid, how appropriate
Act 1: TSA agent keeps his old gloves on
Act 2: TSA agent fondles child
Act 3: Child contracts STD from TSA's old gloves
Act 4: Some time later, the child's pediatrician detects this STD.
Act 5: Child Protective Services saves the day!
Mod parent up.
Very true. The lines at the entrance to security checkpoints must be a terrorist's dream. A suicide bomber could rake up hundreds of casualties there.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
An illegal search is admissible as evidence when a 'private entity' has conducted it.
They are looking for drugs, because a cop can't without probable cause.
This is the same reason they wanted to set up a program to have postal employees peeking in your windows.
The fourth amendment is seen by LEO as a roadblock to 'unlimited' revenue based on property seizure.
Pistole, the other day, in bragging about the effectiveness of the scanners, couldn't help mentioning the drug seizures and heroin needle it had detected.
Cop makes his bust, LEO gets his seized house, car, boat, etc to auction. At the very worst, some minimum wage high school dropout nobody of a TSA agent takes any possible legal heat.
The TSA is NOT the "last line of defense". The last line of defense will be the other passengers on the flight.
Yeah... I know a few Air Marshals that might disagree with that statement. The training they put these guys through is ridiculous.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
"Winning the war of tourism" means keeps most of that valuable foreign exchange at home. No doubt the Feds consider expats to be traitors, even if enviously.
Yep, same happened to me. I had my leatherman in my backpack by accident. It's the one with several different long, sharp knives.
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
I agree that 9-11-style attempts (or even the more mundane "take me to Cuba" attempts from days gone by) would probably see a hijacker crushed to mush before they had much of a chance to do anything. However, using luggage and cargo in the cargo holds is still vulnerable (as the latest attempt out of Yemen demonstrated). Mind you, all the penis imaging machines in the world wouldn't stop that sort of an attack. What stops that sort of attack, as the Israelis know from long experience (and a rather extraordinary record) is intelligence work and smart people who know how to recognize suspicious packages and activities. That saved that cargo plane coming out of Yemen, good old fashioned detective and intelligence work, not some espresso-overdosed guy demanding to see your dink on an X-ray, with the threat that he'll have to feel it if you don't go along with the policy.
It's long been pointed out that low-wage security workers is not going to cut the onions, but there seems to be this belief that if we can image penises and breasts, we will all end being so much safer. I listened to an expert on Israeli counter-terrorism who suggests the TSA is wasting incredible amounts of time and money on a technological solution to what is fundamentally a psychological problem.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I can attest to this. I am a grad student in Japan and I get flack from the immigration officers every time I come home. It's a pain in the ass explaining why I am not studying in the US and what I plan to do in my own god damned country.
Monstar L
Just like the Nazis. first they were only sending political criminals, then capitalists, and when the guards were well trained (and up to their eyeballs in murder too) they rounded up the women and children like cattle. It may be Godwins law, but here we stand at the ENTIRE POINT of the matter, scanning all the way to our skin and STILL claiming it's not enough security.
Knowing ALL THAT the bozos in Congress allowed the TSA to be created anyway. Ironically Rush was complaining about the "new" extreme procedures... of course there was no problem when "Democrats" were being hassled. It's hilarious that the right-wingers are all over this like it has anything to do with Obama. They cheered while Cheney/Bush created a whole new Cabinet level position, accountable to essentially nobody with access to the NSA, CIA, and FBI and no strings attached. This is funny that it turns around now.. after all they have to look busy or Obama will scale them back.
Personally, I feel that this illusionment comes from the indoctrinated sense that being illegal == immoral. That it is NEVER justified to break the law. EG, that it is ALWAYS wrong to steal, or that it is ALWAYS wrong to refuse to 'help' a police officer with an investigation, etc. It is implied that by being so disobedient to the civil infrastructure, that you are an evil anarchist bent on destroying life as we know it, and that you are therefor "evil".
In reality, there ARE times when theft is the correct and appropriate action, or when refusing to assist police is the correct and proper thing to do. [due to risk of enacting Godwin's Law, I will avoid mentioning certain historical events, despite their obvious applicability.]
The reality of the situation is that the civil infrastructure is only useful and good up until a critical threshold, and after that it becomes officious and destructive to the quality of life of the civilians it is supposed to be servicing. Examples are things like the difference between a home owner's association, and a simple lawncare ordinance. The former is officious, the latter is to maintain property values of your neighbors.
Others would be things like enforcing sobriety while operating dangerous equipment (Including vehicles), VS enforcing "The war on drugs(tm)".
The subtle lie that the government\civil infrastructure is ALWAYS good is what allows the civil infrastructure to cross that critical threshold. It is motived to do so, because it is run by humans, and humans LIKE to enforce their wills upon others. (AKA, being addicted to/attracted to power and authority.)
This is further fascilitated by innate human laziness, and innate human weaknesses. Modern life would be impossible/highly impractical if there were no specialists; Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Politicians, Automotive mechanics, IT professionals, etc. This is imply because there are fundemental limits to what individual humans are capable of accomplishing themselves. The civil infrastructure provides the basic framework upon which specialists can employ their trades, and by which their customers can make reliable use of their services. In this respect, the social infrastructure of government is indeed absolutely vital to modern human existence, and pretty much everyone except sociopaths accepts this innately at some level. Part of the problem is that "Little people" have been so far abstracted from governance due to the increasing complexities of modern existence, that they realistically cannot engage in politics rationally, because that is becoming/has become a specialist discipline. As such, they are pressured naturally, more and more, to simply trust these specialists, since the natural demans of life make it more and more difficult to effectively engage in it. I strongly suspect that this is at least partially at fault for persons continually voting for an abstracted "Party line", VS actually researching issues, and engaging in government as intended.
Likewise, the specialists (Politicians) have their own agendas, and become more and more abstracted/estranged from other demographics in society, and so the government becomes wierder and wierder, and more and more authoritarian; As the ordinary citizen understands the minutae of modern government less and less, they become less and less willing to capitulate, requiring ever escallating levels of control to ensure the reliable function of government.
I personally consider this to be the euphamistically titled "Big Government" that Libertarians rail against. The government becomes bigger and bigger, as it takes on more and more responsibilities, as the average citizen delegates more and more duties to government, because they themselves become more and more specialized.
Without reducing the complexity of the social infrastructure, the requirements on specialist knowledge, or increasing the free time of the average citizen in some fundemental way so that they can cope with dealing with government appropriately, there is really
Who needs to smuggle on your own knife; buy a first class or business class ticket and get a nice, sharp, big knife given to you!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I've often found that rules can turn off common sense. Once you've got a set of rules in place then you've got a flow chart of what to do and don't have to think; if you do think you get cognitive dissonance if the rules are a little bit wrong, so you train yourself not to think...
Oh no, you see, the crowd killing each other is okay -- just like it's okay that the TSA's ridiculous, unnecessary measures cause more people to drive and therefore more traffic fatalities. Traffic fatalities are fine. It's only once someone outside of the group kills people in the group that it matters, at which point we panic. That's why we're perfect targets for terrorists, and why someone bombing Black Friday would cause all sorts of stupid reactions.
This means you are not required to produce government issued photo identification, or submit to any other "test," before being permitted to move about the country. Furthermore, there is no law that says you need identification papers at all to live your life.
Should you happen to have a driver's license, you should show it only to a cop, and only when you are driving a car -- that is all it is good for.
Now, Napolitano says body scans, and Your Papers Please will be required to ride a train, boat, or bus, what's next, walk on the sidewalk? Will we surrender our First Amendment righs completely?
Yeah I saw this working in Malaysia once. The first team inspected carry on luggage. They checked out a bag of toys we had for my son because it was full of little bits of metal. The second (larger) team stood in the gate lounge watching all the passengers. No big deal for the majority who were dealing with their kids or catching up on work. But very hard for anybody with nothing to do except follow a script and hope the Guys with the Eyes hadn't caught on.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I would suspect that it is both - if it is a very small group of rather incompetents then the intelligence agencies generally do not have a hard time finding them. Lets face it, for the most part if you are competent you are in a country that harbors you and you are sending incompetent minions out to martyr themselves (and, mostly by definition, they are incompetent). It took several tries before they got 9/11 and the large successful ones in other countries (even ones that have little to no intelligence agencies) are mostly duds - smart people rarely martyr themselves (and make no mistake - shooting into a crowd nowadays would most likely end that way) and when they do they do it in a big way.
Our intelligence agencies, while certainly not perfect and have room for improvement, are fairly competent, TSA isn't. Intelligence agencies live and die by what they stop (generally in secret), TSA lives and dies by its reputation and they fell to hard to the "sheople want us to look like we are doing something, their afraid and will take anything we do" meme. That's only true up to a point - people, as a whole, aren't that stupid no matter how much it makes some groups feel good tot think it. If you base your policies on it then this is what happens. The end of the Bush era was about when it started to slide and Obama seems to have thought it was all a great idea so extend more than Bush thought to do in his wildest dreams (which, sadly, seems to be the case in many areas plus adding that level of incompetence in so many others that made it through Bush).
Indeed, intelligence agencies know how to do an effective checkpoint - look to the Israelis to see how. It's not hard to do either and it is MUCH cheaper than this crap. Lots of theories as to why we do not do that and you can insert your own (this makes people money, they are training us, much of the profiling required for it is politically unpopular with certain classes, etc). I suspect that more than one is at cause too - for myself it would be a combination of knowing how much profiling gets bad press and how much money this gets flowing around to political donors. But that's me - you can fairly easily persuade me that others are reasonable too. Heck I'll even buy sheer incompetence and nothing more - having been research staff at a DoE lab I certainly know the good science produced by them is done *despite* the system (and the system produces a great deal of really bad science).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
That's nothing. They let me take a glass bottle of duty-free whisky onto the plane. One swing and that jagged glass is a lot scarier than your silly box-cutter or leatherman.
I asked one of the goons about this seeming paradox, and she said "If I had my way, you wouldn't be able to take that either.". I was tempted to ask her about all the terrorist glassing attacks, but I kinda wanted to get on the flight.
Oh, do you really think they haven't? Think the economic disasters of the bad lettuce, the bad peanuts, all the other recent disasters, were just unusual accidents?
Another good comparison: Schneier calculated, conservatively, in his recent summary of the situation, that the scanners are probably safe enough to only cause deadly cancer in 16 out of every billion passengers. An acceptable risk, perhaps--but *still* greater than the chances of being killed by a terrorist.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
The reason the idea of a water supply attack is so scary is precisely because there are so many disparate municipals systems. Terrorism is only a physical threat to a small percentage of the population, but it's a massive mind game for everyone that isn't. Imagine what would happen if a terrorist plot to poison a city water supply (to some, say 100,000 people) were discovered and foiled. The news media would have reports from the potential victims saying they had no idea it could happen here, and the security just wasn't in place, etc etc, and the government would act rashly and without thinking, creating some ungodly structure to protect every water supply... The terrorists won the mind game, and that's just for getting caught.
if 9/11 taught us anything it should be that occasionally terrorists are good at coordinating large plots. One store bombing in one city might not be that big a deal, but what about multiple store bombings across several states? We're talking about people who aren't afraid to kill themselves if it means blowing up 12 people on a bus - what about a few hundred people packed into the line in front of a walmart (or a few hundred thousand, in front of a few hundred walmarts)?
I don't think the guns and knives would do much, and would possibly lead to some incidents with "normal people" losing it on-flight (too much drink, or undiagnosed mental illness, &c.) It seems plausible that the probability of this is much higher than of terrorism. At the least, it should be taken into account. I am fairly pro-2nd amendment, but on a purely numbers level it just may not make sense to have a lot of guns on a plane (or at a school, &c.).
I agree with your spirit though. I think that the post-9/11 knowledge that hijacking=death is enough. A couple of terrorists armed only with knives would be easily taken down by the bum-rush of citizens armed with grim knowledge.
A terrorist with a decent, functional bomb would not be deterred by armed resistance. Assuming he has a real trigger and isn't trying to ignite his groin or shoes, it would all be over without anyone noticing.
Which leaves the possibility of terrorists with guns. However, I'm pretty sure that we achieve 100% gun control on planes anyway (feel free to present counterexample).
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Back before the 80's high school chemistry books often contained "fun kitchen chemistry" which would explain how to make explosives from items you could find in a kitchen or bathroom. Take a look sometime at the chemicals that are used to make perfumes and makeup. You'll find that you can make a large amount of low yield explosives quite easily using only what's found in duty free. A 2lb brick of low yield explosives is more than enough to breach the plane. But a detonator is still needed. That's no problem either, stop into the electronics store in duty free. You'll find everything you need right there.
If the security serves ANY purpose, that is to make the people who are likely to actually blow a plane up look nervous about it. The profiling kicks in. Of course, if the TSA is a big laughing joke, it'll be easier for these people to be calm and confident because unlike in the old days, when flight security was a little annoying but nothing really impeding, people didn't nitpick it on a global scale and make a joke of it.
What the TSA has done to their reputation has made it so that anyone who actually wants to bomb an airplane will simply walk through the scanners, head held high, buy what they need and bomb the plane they're targeting.
They are already doing unlawful arrests and detainment of American citizens. It's called the Patriot Act, and yes they have disappeared/arrested a number of American citizens over the years since.
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04221.html
http://www.rense.com/general61/feds.htm
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/
The one I can't find now that was pretty well known, was the programmer who worked for...I think Oracle, and the FBI came in one day and arrested him and then no one knew where he was, and they wouldn't even say why he was arrested or anything. No lawyer, no phone call, no nothing, just poof and he was gone. Finally his senator or congressmen had to get involved.
Not just duty free - but the economic well being of all airport stores. I once had a pair of tweezers confiscated from me for a domestic flight. Passed through security, walked into the airport newsagency, and was able to buy a new pair within 5 minutes.
A mate was flying back (to the UK) from Ireland (the Republic of) and had to buy those stupid plastic bags to put toiletries in. 1 euro for two. He said he only needed one, but the 'guard' insisted he had to buy two! The guy in front said he only needed one of the two he'd just bought and my mate could have the other one, but the guard said NO! He had to buy his own bags!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
i have an interesting story on those water bottles, back in 2007 i went to India, flying from Schiphol (Amsterdam airport, the netherlands). On the first flight i was not allowed any liquids over a certain capacity, the whole "liquid bomb" spiel. On my flight back, after passing through all security checks, it occured to me i still had a 1 litre bottle of water in my backpack. To make sure i asked the (dutch, was flying with KLM) stewardess about it, as i expected not to be allowed to take it with me, and that those indian security guys must have made a mistake.
As it turns out, while it is not allowed to blow up a plane flying from amsterdam to new dehli with your fancy liquid bomb, they have no problem what so ever with you smuggling the same liquid explosive device on board the same aircraft (with presumably the same sort of people on board) traveling in the opposite direction
People, what a bunch of bastards
You assume maximum death count is the terrorists goal.
I don't think it is. Maximum terror and discomfort is. And on that count, the TSA is on the terrorists side. If I were a terrorist, I'd make damn sure nobody even thinks about bombing the waiting lines, or doing anything else that could result in a re-thinking of the procedure. On the contrary, I would spend all my time coming up with other crazy shit to try (and fail, doesn't matter) so it gets added to the list of stuff you can't do or bring anymore.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The last of these two videos (maybe NSFW):
http://engrishfunny.failblog.org/2010/11/17/engrish-funny-nma-news-id-fly-that-airline/
Life is Reality
The thing is, while people have talked about the underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc., but has anybody established that punching a hole would take down the whole plane?
Didn't Mythbusters "refudiate" the notion that shooting a gun on a plane would crash it?
Or is all this just theater?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
It was before the current security craze (so long ago that when you went to pick someone up you could actually meet them at the gate), but I went through airport security wearing a long leather coat and tripped the metal detector. They were nice about it, ran the coat through the carry on/x-ray and had me walk through it again. I tripped it a few more times as each time I would remember another metal article to remove. They ended up using a wand on me and I was cleared to go.
When I left with the person I was picking up I happened to put my hand in the coat pocket and nearly froze. Stuffed in the pocket was one of my pistols -- not a real firearm, but a metal barrel and working metal action replica. I can't believe the metal barrel, trigger assembly, hammer, etc. wouldn't have showed on the x-ray and not *looked* like a working firearm -- they must not have been looking. Why bother putting the coat through if they weren't even going to look?
Security at airports has always been piss poor and the current theatre hasn't improved it one bit.