Vanity Fair On the TSA and Security Theater

OverTheGeicoE writes "Perhaps it's now officially cool to criticize the TSA. Vanity Fair has a story questioning the true value of TSA security. The story features Bruce Schneier, inventor of the term 'security theater' and contender for the Most Interesting Man in the World title, it would seem. With Schneier's mentoring, the author allegedly doctors a boarding pass to breach security at Reagan National Airport to do an interview with Schneier. 'To walk through an airport with Bruce Schneier is to see how much change a trillion dollars can wreak. So much inconvenience for so little benefit at such a staggering cost.'"

Comments

Oh man..

[DC2088]

It's cool NOW? Then I've been cool for ages. (first)

Re:Oh man..

[Cosgrach]

Sad. So very sad.

Re:Oh man..

[hedwards]

Yeah, really, I've been badmouthing the TSA since before it was cool.

I also happen to be really into this band, but you wouldn't have heard of them.

Re:Oh man..

[DC2088]

Eh, I was into hearing before everybody heard of it.

Re:Oh man..

[tunapez]

You probably heard them when you were visiting your girlfriend in Canada.

Re:Oh man..

[Anonymous Coward]

It only took them an entire fucking DECADE.

Re:Oh man..

[unrtst]

I burn my tongue every time I eat pizza... I always eat it before it's cool.

Re:Oh man..

[boxxertrumps]

It isn't so impressive if he's Canadian.

It is impressive because he's on /.

Re:Oh man..

[jellomizer]

It is interesting on the power of words. By adding a term calling it "Security Theater" it basically puts an end to the argument because the phrase is so catchy that it must be true.

Or just by using a negative connotation to a concept is enough to get people to change their mind.

I have learned to turn on my BS alarm when people start using words that give an emotional response. And challenged them much further to prove their point. Sometimes they do have a point, but using wording in your argument to evoke an emotional response isn't a valid argument.

Re:Oh man..

[drkstr1]

The argument was that we (the US) spend a lot of money on a security force that is practically ineffective, and is therefore "just for show." TFA was able to support this argument, IMHO.

Re:Oh man..

[neyla]

You are right. Words have power. To be able to talk about something, you need words for it. You could try describing what you mean, but the problem is you'll always be side-tracked.

If you start describing the ban on bringing coke-bottles onto planes, you'll end up discussing if that particular ban (the ban on fluids) makes sense or not. While perhaps interesting, this is a different discussion from the one about security theatre. By using the phrase, you can talk about the general concept: security-measures that are very visible, and frequently annoying, while having questionable impact on actual security, without getting into specifics about precisely *which* policies you consider to be security-theatre.

Similarily, if you want to discuss the problems of excess political correctness, you cannot do so by using a single (or multiple) examples of silly statements that you consider to be PC-nonsense, because doing so would have a near-unity chance of derailing into a discussion of your particular example as opposed to the general tendency.

Other examples ? racist (1871), sexist (1965), prude (1704), apatheist (new, not found a definitice source for first appearance), shill (1916), fundamentalist (1920), neocon (1979 neo-conservative, a decade later shortened)

Each of these words are useful, because they let you talk of a phenomenon (or an ideology or idea) as a whole, without needing to resort to explaining-by-example, which has a huge risk of turning into a discussion about the example instead of discussion about the phenomenon.

Security theatre is well-defined, the meaning of the term is clear, and it describes a tendency that it's useful to be able to talk-about. As such, there's no reason to be skeptical of the word just because it evoked an emotion in you. (I bet "shill" and "racist" also evokes an emotion, they are still useful words though)

Get a clue Big Sis

[koan]

Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html

"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"

This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

And it scales well to all three of their international airports.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[magarity]

It's all very fine to go on about how great Israeli airport security is but it'll never happen in the USA. The Israeli method relies heavily on profiling and in the USA the ACLU (and CAIR and a slew of other organizations) will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who even suggests such a horrible, racist, islamophobic idea.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.

That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Mashiki]

Well considering CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in relation to the holy land foundation and front for the muslim brotherhood, and has worked hand in hand with the MAS, why anyone would listen to them is beyond me.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hedwards]

Citation desperately needed. All the cases I've seen of the ACLU stepping in involved racial, religious or other types of profiling that involved profiling for groups not for behavior.

I realize that the ACLU is this conservative bogeyman that's out to prevent the government from doing its job, but let's get serious shall we. There's absolutely no evidence that the sort of profiling that you're suggesting would do anything other than harass innocent civilians for not being white enough.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Hatta]

The risk of terrorism is simply not severe enough to warrant that level of investment in security. We will save more lives focusing on clean drinking water, renewable energy, and public health and welfare in general. It would be a lot cheaper too.

If the TSA is ineffective, don't be surprised. It's not intended to be effective. It's intended to be profitable for well connected individuals and corporations. It is quite plainly a fraud on the American people.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Overzeetop]

Yes, but they live directly adjacent to everybody who wants to kill them (and, in the immortal words of Tome Lehrer - "...and everybody hates the Jews"). We're separated from them by a ocean on each side.

Not that it matters; I haven't heard of security screenings preventing a bomb from getting aboard a US aircraft, and yet we've had several bombs on them since 2001. Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid. If a passenger gets rowdy, you take him down or you might die. And, so far, it's working pretty well.

A simple metal detector and carry-on x-ray is all that is necessary.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[bill_mcgonigle]

This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.

And now that they're unionized, good luck with that. When was the last time we saw government voluntarily reduce its size and scope?

The only way this is going to be fixed is by wiping out the whole department. There's a primary coming up a candidate who would do that.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[ColdWetDog]

I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.

That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.

Part of security is intimidation. If you don't think you can breach the defenses and don't try - that's a win. But trying to use Israel as an example of 'how to do' airport security will fail for the simple reason that the Israelis are trying to protect only one large airport (Ben Gurion) - not hundreds of large ones and thousands of smaller ones. Some things just don't scale.

Further, Israeli security is openly racist -if you look Arabic, you're chances of getting most carefully screened is much higher than if you're Caucasian appearing. That wouldn't (so to speak) fly in the US.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[rikkards]

let alone the fact that there is only one entry point into Israel via air. you want to see people bitch about delays during flights...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Yvanhoe]

And with such airport security Israel has really been safe from terrorists since the 70's. One of Schneier's point is that if you make airport even marginally harder to hit, terrorist will hit somewhere else.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html

"The agents, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"

Israel's border security methods are not compatible with the 5th and 14th amendments. Back-rooming a guy just because he looks or sounds too Palestinian would never fly in the US. Annoyed with TSA now? Imagine how fun it would be to let them shake you down for just about any reason they can think of. No thanks. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[TubeSteak]

Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's

You know what's wrong with Israeli airport security?
Besides the institutionalized racial/ethnic profiling, It doesn't scale up.

Ben Gurion airport handles ~12 million passengers per year
JFK International* in New York handles ~46.5 million passengers per year.

The number 1 airport in the world is Atlanta International and they handle ~89 million passengers per year.
There is no reasonable way to intensively screen 89 million passengers per year

*Adding Newark and LaGuardia gives you the biggest clusterfuck in the USA & #2 in the world.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people fly in and out of Israel vs. how many people fly in and out of the U.S. The method of interviewing every passenger simply does not scale.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[k6mfw]

>Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's

Or maybe they have but those very few times have not been reported. There was a discussion someplace (this forum or someplace else) that while their airport security is very good, it is not absolute. The myth goes on like Rolls Royce cars never break down (but spoke with a RR owner and he says his car needs maintenance all the time). Then your airports may be secure but everyplace else is not. So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[pz]

Funny. My father always thought of the ACLU as a liberal bogeyman out to prevent the government from doing its job. I was brought up to be objective and observant, and in the intervening years I've concluded that the ACLU is neither liberal nor conservative: they just want to cause trouble. At times the trouble makes sense, and at times it does not.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can't scale "intimidation"?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hawguy]

"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"

If I was talking to a hot female Israeli polygamous agent, I'd be pretty flustered and would always get selected for secondary screening - what could I do to be assured of having a body cavity search?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hawguy]

And it scales well to all three of their international airports.

TLV handles 12M visitors a year (11M of them are international).

If they can make it work at a large airport of that scale, surely a country with the resources of the USA could figure out how to scale it to all of our large airports. There's still plenty of opportunity for ex-TSA execs to get rich, it's just that they would run agent training companies instead of selling scanning machines of dubious effectiveness and safety.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

It's absolutely untrue that Israeli security is openly racist. It does strongly prejudice against people who are from and/or have traveled to particular countries, such as Yemen where terrorist training is a big problem. If you're an Arabic looking person who has, for example, lived in the United States, or Spain, or China your entire life you won't have much trouble there.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[RoknrolZombie]

So you can't scale "intimidation"?

We could, but we'd have to import it from the Mexican drug cartels...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AngryDeuce]

There's a big difference between profiling someone that's acting really weird at an airport and profiling someone by assuming that, for instance, they're Hispanic and therefore should have their immigration status checked anytime they come into contact with a police officer.

If there's reasonable suspicion I'm all for investigation. What I'm not all for, for instance, is assuming that every woman wearing a hijab is a potential terrorist and thus warrants investigation based on that fact alone.

Reasonable suspicion is a grey area, I admit, but that's what the courts are for. The courts have emphatically upheld that simply being of a certain minority is not a valid reason to suspect they are breaking the law. Despite what you may hear as of late, all Muslims are not terrorists.

Why do people never learn? Go read up on Manzanar and the Japanese Internment during World War II. That is the road profiling leads us down. They thought they were doing things in the best interests of the U.S. and its security, too...but it was still wrong, and we can all agree on that (I would hope).

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[meerling]

There have been lots of reports that the TSA also treats you inequitably if you look Arabic or have a Middle Eastern sounding name in their opinion.

So your point is?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about? Security had been breached multiple times. A simple google search would have show that article was total bs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/18/world/attempted-hijacking-foiled-aboard-an-israeli-airliner.html

The only reason Israel's planes are secure is because they have on board security on EACH flight of EL-AL which is only a few hundred. LAX alone has 1500+ and the US has about 35-40K.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[meerling]

Of course it doesn't fly in the USA, the Palestinian guy is probably in the back room getting a body cavity search by the TSA and missing his flight, that he may not even be able to get on since he hasn't even been informed yet that he was put on a no-fly list because he his last name is similar to someone that is under suspicion of having ties to terrorists. Oh, did I forget to mention that the "Palestinian" is a native born American who's parents were Palestinian immigrants?

It can and does happen. Haven't you been reading the new the past couple of years?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, and there is a reason Israel doesn't screen by race (at least, not anymore): when you screen by race the people you're trying to catch will simply hire people from races you don't screen for.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[paiute]

the USA could figure out how to scale it to all of our large airports.

Simple. We outsource airport security to Israel.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[countertrolling]

Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid. If a passenger gets rowdy, you take him down or you might die.

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[element-o.p.]

So then you have to secure everything then the country becomes a prison and basically a non-economy.

Have you been paying attention lately? Google "ViPR train station bus station Tennessee highway" and see what you find. Then, turn to the financial section of your local newspaper and read about how our economy has been doing. Can you honestly tell me that the U.S. isn't already there (or at the very least, quickly heading that direction)?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Canjo]

They may have prevented all terrorist attacks (the article only mentions one attempt), but you also have to consider their false positive rate. It says 2-5% of passengers receive secondary screening, which can involve hours of interrogation and privacy violations. This seems unacceptable, especially if your chances of getting the secondary screening (and probably missing your flight) are much higher than 5% when you're not white!

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[tylerni7]

Although 12 million is certainly a large number, the US has many more travelers than that. In 2009, Atlanta's airport had something like 90M travelers use the airport. That means that one airport has more traffic than all of the airports combined in Israel.

I agree that their airport security model is superior, and maybe it can scale to large airports in the USA, but if we have dozens of airports with more traffic than their busiest airport, scaling is very far from a simple task.

Source

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[mseeger]

First: Overall security seems better to me in Israel. But experience breeds progress. The U.S. has an abysmal terrorist rate. Should you increase that, the counter terrorists will become better as well. For various reasons i discourage walking that path.

Second: If you carry lot's of gadgets (like me), the check while leaving may take 1+ hours for doing the x-rays alone.

Third: The checks start a lot earlier than the airport.

Fourth: There are good security people and not so good, even in Israel. User experience may vary ;-). Security was more thorough 15 years ago. Seems more relaxed lately.

Fifth: Ask Israeli businessmen what they think about the security people. The don't like them more than their counterparts in the U.S. do.

Sixth: The terrorists already win, when flying becomes more of a burden. Life is a bitch :-(.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[CohibaVancouver]

It does strongly prejudice against people who are from and/or have traveled to particular countries

Exactly right. I'm as WASP as they come, and I was pulled aside at Ben Gurion when my passport showed entry visas for Egypt and Jordan. While the questions were very serious, at all times I felt like I was dealing with an intelligent, skilled professional whom I immediately respected. I have no such sense when I'm being barked at by some TSA goon.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hawguy]

Although 12 million is certainly a large number, the US has many more travelers than that. In 2009, Atlanta's airport had something like 90M travelers use the airport. That means that one airport has more traffic than all of the airports combined in Israel.

I agree that their airport security model is superior, and maybe it can scale to large airports in the USA, but if we have dozens of airports with more traffic than their busiest airport, scaling is very far from a simple task.

Source

It's not as though everyone comes through the same door or goes to the same gate - think horizontal versus vertical scalability.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

First: Overall security seems better to me in Israel.

Only if you live in an airport. Security might not be so good when you are worried about rockets raining down on your house from militants.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

And now that they're unionized

What does ionization have to do with it?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[pixelpusher220]

Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid.

This and the locked/reinforced cockpit doors are all that is necessary to prevent 9/11 from happening again.

9/11 wasn't a bomb plot so all this attempt to stop everything possible is simply ridiculous.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[jmauro]

Yes, there is. You have to remember that the incident you link to above was over in like 2 minutes before anyone could react, but the hijackings to Cuba were continual and on the TV over and over and over again, so the default "hijacking" scenario was the plane goes to Cuba and then everyone gets released.

It was common enough that it was considered a normal thing to put on the TV as a sketch comedy skit.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[dargaud]

"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"

I had heard about Israel's security reputation in terms of efficiency while not being too much of a pain in the ass (well, as long as you are not a palestinian I guess). I went there recently so I paid attention and that was certainly true. First of all there was nobody else going through security at that time, so that certainly helped. The guy was friendly but asked pointed questions like: "what's your wife's name?". And I noticed he was focused and paying close attention to my hands as I spoke.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[nospam007]

"...check in speak to a polyglot agent."

None of them understands my Luxembourgish, so I just stick to it and I'm quite fast through the check.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hypergreatthing]

So what you're telling me is that if you hire 5x the amount of personnel working at Ben Gurion you could not still match the amount of people at JFK? I thought that is exactly how you scale up operations?

Also what's the success failure rate of the screening/security at Ben Gurion vs JFK?

TSA is what, 0 out of X number of preventing/catching anything?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Hadlock]

How on earth did Atlanta beat out Newark, JFK, DFW etc? I've had plenty of connections through Miami and Newark (and once through Houston), but never, ever Atlanta.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

A Steve Dahl so succinctly put it: "If fat, middle-aged white guys in Hawaiian shirts were blowing up airplanes, I'd expect to receive more scrutiny at airports".

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[smooth wombat]

when you are worried about rockets raining down on your house from militants.

Or settlers coming into your town and torching your houses, cutting down your olive trees or crops, burning your places of worship, or putting up mobile homes on your crop land and claiming it is now part of some foreign country, and knowing that those who perpetrated these acts will never be punished in the same way as you would if you had done those acts.

This doesn't even include wondering if the military of a foreign government will come rolling in and tell you you have 10 minutes to get your stuff, that the area is be taken over by said foreign government.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[colinrichardday]

Perhaps the GP meant that it was a bogeymen to the conservatives, not a bogeyman that was conservative? Or is that how you took it?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Ly4]

You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?

Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

And there have been reports arabs actually suffer less hassle in US airports because the TSA goons fear being accused of racial discrimination.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[neurocutie]

How about the fact that Newark, JFK (and LGA) serve GREATLY overlapping populations... that's pretty much a divide by three right there...

then, the big US airlines: AA (hubs Chicago, which has Midway, and DFW, but that's east/west), United (also Chicago, and Denver east/west), and Delta (ATL). So its no surprise that Chicago is at least number two, but it has Midway. ATL is number one...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing traffic counts is not necessarily meaningful (are transit passengers screened?)

The Israeli approach is slow (It took hours(!) to go through security at Ben Gurion last winter with the airport almost empty). It relies on literally hordes of staff (there were 5(!) people manning the xray station we went through.. yes, 2 were trainees, but still), not to mention the small platoon of baggage searchers, people pat downers, etc.

Now, some of this might be in the form of a public works project to reduce unemployment (yes, there were a few skilled interviewer types, but the vast majority were no more/less skilled than the TSA folks.. After all, how much does skill it take to load stuff onto the conveyor into the X-ray, or to rummage through your bags)

Here's the big difference... in the US, the airlines bear most of the cost of security (except TSA). In Israel, the government, and taxes, pay for it all.

It would be prohibitively expensive both in time, floor space required, and staff to implement Israeli type screening.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[gstrickler]

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

rant
And it's not like there's no precedents on slashdot for misusing precedence. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word?
/rant

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hawguy]

You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?

Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).

You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?

Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).

You'll get no argument from me that it's not worth the effort, but if we are going to spend the money anyway, I'd rather that we spend it on something that works. I'd rather that we went back to the old days of metal detectors and random searches to help deter the casual criminal from doing something stupid. It's nearly impossible to deter a determined suicide terrorist, especially if he's willing to hide his explosives in a body cavity.

Even if passenger screening was 100% effective, there are still many many ways to sneak something past security. All you have to do a bribe one security employee at one small commercial airport anywhere in the country and you can bring in anything you want and transport it to any airport. And I'm sure you can find at least one employee willing to accept $10K to smuggle in some "drugs", especially if he's addicted to the drugs he thinks he's smuggling. He doens't need to know that the 2 kg of "cocaine" is really high explosives.

Or you hide it in a truckload of maintenance supplies. Or a caterer tucks it inside of a beverage cart. Or the bomber decides it's not worth the effort to smuggle his explosive on a plane and detonates his suitcased sized bomb in a crowded security checkpoint. Or, who knows how else they will do it - the problem with airport security is the same as computer security - the security is always reactionary and is only effective at stopping yesterday's attack there will always be new and novel ways to execute an attack. (and sometimes the security wastes time and effort to stop an attack that can't work anyway, like the ban on water to stop an improbable binary-explosive that would have to be cooked up in a lab on the airplane)

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[TubeSteak]

So what you're telling me is that if you hire 5x the amount of personnel working at Ben Gurion you could not still match the amount of people at JFK? I thought that is exactly how you scale up operations?

1. These things do not scale linearly, but even if they did,

2. You cannot assume that most airports have the physical space to scale up their screening operations to match the manpower required by such intensive methods.

These things go double for extremely busy airports like in New York & New Jersey,
where their delays cause ripples to spread across the entire country.

The next step in airport security is screening airport/airline workers.
Not more crap heaped upon the passengers.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AK Marc]

That was not a hijacking, and with a device the metal detectors are designed to catch. That doesn't appear to be relevant in any way.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AK Marc]

Or you hide it in a truckload of maintenance supplies. Or a caterer tucks it inside of a beverage cart. Or the bomber decides it's not worth the effort to smuggle his explosive on a plane and detonates his suitcased sized bomb in a crowded security checkpoint.

All it would take is 10 terrorists with cheap explosives to blow up their bomb as they are first in line at the security checkpoint in 10 different busy airports all next year on September 11, and the US reaction will be sufficient to bankrupt all airlines and the goverment, crushing the USA for the cost of 10 suicide bombers. And if that doesn't work, repeat next year on the same date at baggage check-in. And the year after with car bombs out front. That will collapse the US airlines and US government together (most of the flights are "elective" as in luxury travel between locations they could have driven). Everyone I know but me who was scheduled to fly between Sept 11 and Sept 21 who couldn't fly just drove instead, including cross country. But I couldn't figure out how to drive from Dallas to Singapore on September 12, as per my ticket. There really is a delicate balance, and it wouldn't take much to bring down the house of cards. The absurd thing was the number of people who asked if I was scared to fly 2 weeks after 9/11. Uh, no. Probably the safest time to fly, and long before the TSA started screwing with passengers.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Kazymyr]

The secondary screening is done by a 350lb guy named Ivan.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Also consider 3 airports, 12 million passengers. Not very many, San Francisco International is twice that. That makes me suspicious that statistics is in Israels favor, plus I'm sure they are a lot more careful with visa's and who's allowed to fly without getting a full butt scan. The US has vastly more airports, passengers and potentially sketchy people flying though.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AJH16]

I actually saw something like this being used the last time I flew out of a fairly small regional airport. I was actually quite pleased and quite impressed and don't even think the majority of people even realized they were being screened. The guy was in TSA uniform but was just acting like he was social and on break and just making conversation with each person as they went by. The only thing that really gave it away was the amount of effort he would put in to getting a response from someone who hesitated to answer simply because they weren't very social.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AJH16]

I would add chemical sniffer to that list. It's another fairly cheap, non-invasive test that detects most of what a metal detector wouldn't. Actually between the two, the chemical sniffer is probably more valuable than the metal detector since metal detectors primarily detect things you could use to take over a plane (as you pointed out, there is a fat chance in hell that will ever happen again), where as the sniffer will detect things that could destroy a plane.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you need at least some skill to talk to people like that, and they test their personnel often.

I believe that TSA/DHS got it wrong, but for good reason. Control over money and people.
Question is, do you really have to fly and put up with it?

What would, for example NASA do with all that money?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[bgat]

TLV handles 12M visitors a year.

DIA alone will handle more than that many passengers in a month.

Don't get me wrong, as a passenger through TLV I was definitely impressed with their security system. But it definitely won't scale to USA levels.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[amRadioHed]

What part of security screening doesn't scale linearly? Do screening interviews take longer when you have to do more of them? Do you need an increasing number of interviewers for each passenger as the volume increases? Neither of those sound plausible, so what is it?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[myowntrueself]

the USA could figure out how to scale it to all of our large airports.

Simple. We outsource airport security to Israel.

They are certainly a LOT better at fucking with Muslims than the USA. I mean, if that were ones goal...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[colinrichardday]

what could I do to be assured of having a body cavity search?

Say that she is polygamous instead of polyglot?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a big +1 to this - the biggest increase in the security from the inclusion of body scanners is the chemical sniffer they use on those who opt-out or otherwise get the full patdown - the body scanner doesn't do jack more than a metal detector (and often, demonstrably less).

The GE 'sniffer' machines didn't work (for reasons that most could figure out) but the wipe-down of a bag (especially the handles that the person was carrying, and their shoes that they just touched) would neatly eliminate the bomb threat.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue bud, unionization don't mean a thing when the repug congress gets around to anything. All it means is the agents for the big sis, those lowest of contractors, may actually have to do something. You know, like their job, instead of frisking grandma, learn what a terrorist is, or english, or how to be respectful of the 4 th admendment along with the other 9.
.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Using "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" in defense of the TSA. The fuck are you smoking?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been a victim of Israeli security, I sincerely hope we can stem the tide of fascism in this country and not turn into a fascist-theocracy* with a permanent underclass like Israel

Israel detained me and my companion for 24 hours with repeated interrogations. They held onto our luggage, so when we finally escaped that racist hell-hole called Israel, we had nothing. After several days of sleeping in the airport in Rome we finally got some of our things returned. No cameras etc. Of the valuables they withheld, only my camera (in pieces) was returned 8 months later. They pretty much stole everything else of value we were carrying.

Our crime? Checking our bags a couple hours before our flight.

So, you can have your 100% security, and move to the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany-- Israel. I would like to keep and expand the civil liberties here, and hopefully one day we can wrest our country back from those sowing fear while robbing the citizens of their rights.

*Theocracy: Israel has ~ 20 laws that provide privileges only to Jewish citizens, not citizens in general. Facism: both economic, the country is run by and for private interests- even to the detriment of Jews (witness recent unrest and demonstrations). And, social, the Israeli state murders 100 Palestinian children under the age of 13 within the lands it occupies per 1 Israeli killed in retaliation. The Israeli Jews have been engaged in a slow ethnic cleansing since the day the state of Israel was created.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[SpanglerIsAGod]

Hiring millions of people to screen at airports would defiantly fix our high unemployment.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Xyrus]

There is no reasonable way to intensively screen 89 million passengers per year

Of course there is. Just install screen doors at all security checkpoints.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[pete6677]

The ACLU's unstated but strongly-fought-for mission is to undermine civilized society at every turn. They fight against an orderly society in every way possible, especially anything law-enforcement related.

If it were up to the ACLU, terrorists could attack us anytime because there would be no security measures of any kind lest someone become offended. The ACLU types would then blame the government for not protecting us from the attack, as they did with Bush after 9/11.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[bky1701]

They cause trouble by protecting people, yes. How can we hope to keep functioning with all these trouble makers advocating human rights?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooooooooo. Polyglot females? I don't know what that means but it sounds hot.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[a_nonamiss]

Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz Al-Omari boarded at the Portland International Jetway in Maine. I wouldn't call that a "large airport." If you need to secure one of them, you need to secure them all equally. Either that, or make passengers go through security just before they board the plane, at every leg of every flight. It's a mesh network, so the cost doesn't scale linearly.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's wrong with Israeli airport security?
Besides the institutionalized racial/ethnic profiling, It doesn't scale up.

Can you please motivate why?
This seems like exactly the kind of problem that would scale linearly. Each plane have a fixed amount of passengers and each screening takes a fixed time regardless of number of planes. In fact, the number of planes does not even have enything to do with each screening process, this is not a sorting algorithm.
I can not think of a single reason to why airport security would not scale well. Are you sure that you aren't just saying so because you have been thaught to guess that things don't scale well because they usually don't?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Michelle Malkin has written a book defending the internments. Unfortunately, your hope has already lost.

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling-Terror/dp/0895260514/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324681283&sr=8-2

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[The Askylist]

Did you read TFA? Latex gloves and a quick alcohol rub? Thought not.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AngryDeuce]

Jesus wept...

What the fucking hell is wrong with people???????

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[The Askylist]

Years back, I used to fly from Manchester (UK) to Ireland regularly on business.

Every time I returned to Manchester, I would be taken aside by Special Branch for a quick chat.

Why? Because I looked very like a certain "person of interest" who was of the Fenian persuasion.

Didn't bother me - I just accepted it as part of not letting the IRA set off bombs in the UK. After a while, I could recognise the SB officers before they spotted me - they had a particular shifty look about them. Still, being pulled over because I had a full beard with lots of red in it was a bit silly...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[geezer nerd]

I think they have the same kind of security process at the departure points for El Al, no matter where they are. I have been to Israel 4 times, and each time experienced a much more effective-seeming security process than anywhere else I have travelled to/through. And 3 of my trips to Israel were before 9/11. Even flying British Air out of Heathrow one time was very rigorous -- they did not even post the gate for the flight, you had to ask an official. And you should have seen the ruckus in the gate area when an untended bag was discovered!

Going through Frankfurt one time was similar, and that was for a Lufthansa flight to Tel Aviv. The only way you could find the gate was to look for the uniformed soldier standing outside it with machine gun in hand. Then once inside, my luggage, both checked and carry-on were opened and searched by hand 3 times before getting on. And one had to point out your bag to the loaders as you walked through the tunnel to the plane. On arrival the plane was surrounded by a ring of armed soldiers with weapons and eyes pointed away from the plane. One felt protected getting off.

Another time I flew El Al out of JFK, and was grilled mercilessly by an Israeli security person before getting my boarding pass. They take it all very seriously, and they implement it well. Knowing the real danger their nation and planes are in, I could not complain.

The TFA says that TSA is doing positive bag matching. How is that done? I have experienced nothing in my travels in the US that I can identify as bag matching. Where in the process of disrobing and taking off my shoes does that happen?

And we won't talk about the ludicrous procedures that the US TSA imposes on foreign airport processes for US security theatre purposes.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[jmactacular]

What specifically wouldn't scale? Many of the strategies and defenses I saw and have read about that are used at Ben Gurion could be applied here just fine.

For what it's worth, I'm fully Caucasian, as white as it gets, and I was stopped outside before entering on my return flight, and interviewed for a good 15-20 minutes. I had some time to kill, so I checked my luggage at the airport storage, then caught a cab and explored Tel Aviv for a few hours. On my return, the taxi dropped me off, and all I had with me was my camera. The outer perimeter security guy thought that it was unusual I didn't have any luggage, so he had me explain my story several times.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Thing 1]

The only way this is going to be fixed is by wiping out the whole department. There's a primary coming up a candidate who would do that.

I and many of my friends have registered Republican this year, solely so we can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. (I believe that is what you meant, and wanted to inform those who were unaware.) I also heard on NPR on the way home tonight that Newt Gingrich is basically out of money, and both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have "super-PACs" that are not in their control, which are generating attack ads that Newt will not be able to afford to overcome, so he's effectively out of the running. The gist of that story was that it's a two-way race now, between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul! That is amazing, I always thought he was "fringe", but now he's about to attract some government lead. Too bad, I like his ideas.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Thing 1]

Okay, I am going OT; big deal. I remember hearing a news article on the radio many years ago, when I was a teenager. It said, "Should you strain on the toilet?" I had an image of a colander under someone's butt. And now you do too. :)

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Thing 1]

I agree that their airport security model is superior, and maybe it can scale to large airports in the USA, but if we have dozens of airports with more traffic than their busiest airport, scaling is very far from a simple task.

Yeah, but our tactic of just pouring feces all over everything doesn't seem to be very effective. It might scale, and perhaps that's why we're doing it, but it's not effective. Unless you're running a farm.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't agree more!
I'm half pakistani and was traveling to Israel with my adopted Grandfather, suspicious looking given our claimed relation. He's 6'4" and a white "all american as they come" and I'm a brownish guy that could easily be named Habib.

Serious questions. seemed to care about every detail of our story and History. At no point did any of it seem un professional. It was dignified and efficient.

Heading back home stateside was another story.

The TSA needs to end now. What a Joke.
-S

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually these things DO scale linearly. It's literally a shining example of a "Ridiculously Parallel Problem".
You have queue's with units to be parsed. You can just add more "lanes" and your parsed-per-hour capacity increases by that factor.

People and review stations don't take up much space, you could easily do it. I've been to Ben-Gurion and can tell you that for a fact. Totally scalable. Intensive screening Ben Gurion style didn't take any longer than -any- U.S. airport, or Amsterdam, Johannesburg, Heathrow, Dubai, or anywhere else I've traveled recently.

Intensive doesn't mean slow, It means thorough.

The difference is that in Isreal, security is a real concern. For the ol' US, It's not, so why spend the cash.
I think the real problem is that We'd rather hire the cheapest, and save some cash for the top. SInce it's a theatre anyway, what does it really matter if Hank just got out of prison, or didn't graduate high school.
-S

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Being openly racist wouldn't fly in the U.S.? What alternate dimension are you posting from?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[F.Ultra]

You may have a point with #2 but how in the world can you declare that security screening doesn't scale linearly? It's a classic case of linear scaling!! Open two lines and you get twice the throughput since everything involved in the screening can be performed in parallel.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

...yet they still blow up buses and coffee shops in Israel. Oh well, can't have it all. And they still have those pesky rockets to deal with, too.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

And Islamic society is openly racist, too. If you look Israeli/Jewish, well, good luck with that.

but, yes, Israel airport security won't scale here.

Funny thing about cops, at least with traffic enforcement. There is a need for human authority presence in the crowd, and with the authority figures to actually have some authority and a freaking pretty heavy iron fist under the velvet glove (e.g., like in...oh, most every other large airport in the world, with regular cops as well as soldiers carrying MP5's, walking around with German Sheppards, etc). What we have in the US is the total minimum-wage, Barney Fife/Homer Simpson version of that (not that the real uber security isn't there, it's just not really all that visible).

But despite our bombastic collective American egos, we really do get the security we ask for, as well, within the constraints we give it. It lets us reassure ourselves that we're doing "what needs to be done", and we're not also "wasting (Wasting, I say!!!) taxpayer dollars on rent-a-cops". Oh, and that we can just throw more video cameras and surveillance systems at it, as well. And, we have far too many people who still hold on to magic thinking like "If I just believe in it more, it'll become true" (I believe I'm secure, because Homeland Security says I am, so it must be true!).

Just like cop cars in traffic or on the highway (as opposed to traffic cameras), having the visual presence of the cops in the crowd tends to keep the honest people honest and playing nice, and raises the threshold for the assholes to actually try and do their thing. The drawback with that is, of course, when the assholes DO decide to act, they're playing for keeps.

At some point, someone is going to take a van or Suburban or two loaded with ANFO or similar explosive and blow a big hole in the departure deck (at most US airports, the roads into the airport are split into a deck to the departures level above the road for the arrivals level) at a major US airport on a busy holiday. Even better, the driver won't even know exactly what they're doing, so they won't be freaking out waiting in traffic, tipping off the driver. The operators will know where the vehicle is, and it will be detonated remotely. So then we will need another multi-billion dollar effort to push back the security perimeter even further to "prevent" this threat... Since that will affect cars and personal travel, that will not go over too well in the US, but eventually we'll all get accustomed to the new way of things. We always do...

I actually felt safer in US airports just after 9/11 than now.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, Israeli security is openly racist -if you look Arabic, you're chances of getting most carefully screened is much higher than if you're Caucasian appearing. That wouldn't (so to speak) fly in the US.

Why? US cops regularly abuse blacks & Hispanics and get away with it. I don't see why the Arabs are special.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[cheekyjohnson]

They fight against an orderly society in every way possible, especially anything law-enforcement related.

Huh? I thought they fought for our rights (or, at least, that is what they claim).

If they're going to have security, fine. Just make sure it doesn't violate anyone's rights.

lest someone become offended

That's why they're against them?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Samizdata]

Afraid to say, not so much. This coming from the guy who had to be pulled aside, questioned and physically searched because his CPAP machine allegedly registered positive for explosive residues... Once. Not on further tests. So, I get humiliated and searched by a giant mustachoed security guy named Clarance for NOTHING because the sniffer detected nothing that could destroy a plane. And after all my identification was checked and rechecked, I am quite sure I show up in a database somewhere as a potential person of interest at some time. Never had to take my Archos media player or laptop out of their cases and demonstrate their functionality though.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Samizdata]

Classic security thinking. The key to being secure is being hard to hurt/infiltrate/hack than the next guy...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, Israeli security is openly racist -if you look Arabic, you're chances of getting most carefully screened is much higher than if you're Caucasian appearing.

You can call it "racist", or you can admit that "race" is not a whole lot different than "country of origin" in most of the world.

And last time I checked, the vast majority of rockets which have killed Israeli civilians were launched by... people who are Arabic. You can call that racist, or admit that when you have most of the Arabic world wishing for their Destruction it's probably a good idea to pay a little more attention to them than the white guy with a British accent.

This is where what we desire the world to be like runs head-on into what the world really is like. It's nice to have the Ideal which states that you don't judge a person by physical traits they cannot change, but this thing called Reality gets in the way. It would be nice to live in a world where we do not get stereotyped in such a fashion. It would also be nice to live in a world where 90% of people who appear Arabic do not desire the destruction of Israel. We can't solve the first problem until the second one is resolved.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[EricScott]

And it wasn't long ago there was this guy running on a platform of hope and change that was actually going to do a lot of changing. Still hoping for that.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

> A Steve Dahl so succinctly put it: "If fat, middle-aged white guys in Hawaiian shirts were blowing up airplanes, I'd expect to receive more scrutiny at airports".

By the same logic, I'm going to assume that you, a fat, middle-aged white guy, are a member of the KKK. I hope you don't mind having to disprove that every time we meet.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AJH16]

This is the system working as intended. You don't show up in any database now, just like you don't show up in some DB for setting off the metal detector with a coin in your pocket. The entire point of security screening is to quickly determine reliable indicators that there MAY be a problem and do further screening when they say their might be an issue. If your CPAP machiene set it off, you likely had some chemical that could be a component of an explosive on it. There are many chemicals that can do this legitimately, but the majority of people and devices wouldn't have a detectable amount on them, but it would have a good chance of detecting someone who was actually handling the chemicals recently as well.

The process is the exact same if you set off the metal detector, though they normally do give you one chance to remove things from your pockets to see if it still reads. This doesn't apply to chemical sniffers as you can't take off whatever made it detect the chemical. What happened to you is the way security is supposed to work. Allow the bulk to pass nearly freely and only perform additional screening when a top level is failed. That is exactly what happened.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Thing 1]

True, but I prefer actionable ideas to nebulous ones. "Hope and change" is very vague; "eliminate unconstitutional bureaucracies" is not.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have a point if the white majority didn't police their extremists. The muslim majority is inwilling/unable to police their extremists themselves then they complain when we step up to fix their failure in policing their extremists.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the "logic" of racism? You are claiming that it's somehow okay to judge others based on their peripheral relationship to extremists, as long as it's your perception that the group is working a certain way.

This is pathetic on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with the fact that Richard Reid and Jared Loughner are white, so apparently this 'policing' is failing.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Samizdata]

Yeah, well, that's great. What it doesn't supply is the priceless experience of running across large concourses, due to the extra delay, and having people stare angrily/accusingly/suspiciously at you the whole time, as well as on the plane.

Oh wait. It DOES supply that.

So, that's good. Security is designed to make innocent people uncomfortable and inconvenienced then, right, after they did nothing wrong, right? (BTW, I am not a chemist nor did I work in any field involving any of the chemicals they were scanning for. And, I apparently didn't make it clear enough the first time - the second check was 100% negative.)

Oh wait. It DOES do that.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Samizdata]

And I have a hard time believing that, with all the documented total awareness projects the government and DHS have been involved in, that in some travel-related database that the name Samizdata doesn't have a little flag next to it saying something like "previously tripped explosive detector.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AJH16]

While I can see that you are clearly very upset about a situation that occurred to you personally, you are also being quite paranoid. Yes, sometime extra screening may be necessary at the airport, but that is why they say you should get there early. I too have been pulled aside for additional screening in the past (prior to the body scanners) and found the entire process to be quite acceptable. I'm not sure why people would look at you accusingly on the plane or in the concourse since they wouldn't have any idea about what happened at the checkpoint.

What I can agree with you on is that there have been a number of situations where the screeners did not behave as well as they could have for doing the screening. It should be made very clear to the individual why they are getting taken aside and every effort should be made to make the process go quickly and comfortably. Thankfully, my local airport has TSA agents that are very good about this, but some of the larger airports seem to have more issues with bad TSA agents.

The process shouldn't make people feel uncomfortable and good communication should allow it to not be uncomfortable. As for the inconvenience, that is part of life. The point of a filtered security process is actually to increase convenience rather than make things less convenient. If it wasn't for the chemical sniffers, to get the same level of real, meaningful security, they would have to put every single passenger through what you went through. This would be incredibly inconvenient. You were certainly unlucky to have failed the test and had to go through it, but that's what happened. You don't have to be a chemist to fail the test or come in to contact with the chemicals either. Working in the yard (ammonium nitrate in fertilizer, cleaning the house (bleach and ammonia) and any number of other mundane activities can result in trace amounts of the chemicals on your person.

Security is always going to be somewhat invasive if the non-invasive checks reveal that there may be a problem. There isn't any way around that. My entire point is that subjecting everyone to invasive checks doesn't give any measurable advantage over using the non-invasive checks and only screening further when the non-invasive process can't show there is no issue.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AJH16]

This is truly paranoid. A couple years back the document of TSA procedures was accidentally leaked on to the internet by the TSA themselves (some idiot thought that putting boxes in Acrobat over classified text would prevent someone from being able to read it). They only take note if they find you are actually doing something you shouldn't. As long as the more invasive screening doesn't find anything, there is no reason for them to take note, nor did they at the time of the leak. Now, if you were to have actually had say a knife in your bag that they had to have you check, then you might end up on some list of note, but I still wouldn't worry about it too much since it would just be to look if there was a pattern of things getting left in your bag.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Samizdata]

Well, I am pretty sure that if you see someone taken aside at a security checkpoint, asked for ID, personally frisked and carry on searched that one could easily assume that the recipient of all this attention must, at the very least, be a questionable character without much stretching of logic.

Thus the stares.

The biggest issue I have is that I was singled out for such attention (and the attendant PITA factor) for what apparently was nothing but a false positive. Said attention was nothing but a waste of time, energy, and dignity. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Samizdata]

No, I at least was prepared enough to Fedex my trusty Swisschamp XL ahead to pick up when I got to my destination.

Anyway, truly paranoid? Really?

I suppose I have hallucinated the stories about things like government funded mass data mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office) then? And we have seen the government's respect for things like wiretaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_wiretaps).

So, I am groundlessly paranoid?

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[kmoser]

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

rant And it's not like there's no precedents on slashdot for misusing precedence. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word? /rant

What did you expect? They were quoting Wikipedia, where proper spelling is optional.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mostly working. They're in jail after all, not celebrated as heroes. The policing of islamists by moderate muslims is almost nonexistant. Actually, in Islam, it's the extremist minority that police the peaceful majority. This is a systematic failure and that's why we have to do it ourselves even though it's common courtesy to let others deal with their own extremists.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

We should really do something about the discrimination copts face in Egypt.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[toddestan]

You know what's wrong with Israeli airport security?
Besides the institutionalized racial/ethnic profiling, It doesn't scale up.

Ben Gurion airport handles ~12 million passengers per year
JFK International* in New York handles ~46.5 million passengers per year.

People keep repeating this line, but never elaborate on why this it is true. So what is it about the Israeli security model that doesn't scale up? Sure, JFK has about four times as many travelers as Ben Gurion, so hire about four times as many security personnel and you should be covered, right? I don't see why the ratio of security personnel to travelers would depend on the number of travelers, so the system should scale linearly. Given the amount of money and resources the US is throwing at the current ineffective security model, this seems easily doable.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor that the air force of said foreign government is going to fire rockets into some region of your town or village from planes flying overhead...

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a racist. You've obviously spent a lot of time trying to rationalize your prejudices, but when your argument is built around terms like 'we', 'ourselves', 'others', 'their', you are off in full-blown stereotyping and discrimination.

But I doubt I'm going to convince you how screwed-up your perspective is in a few /. posts. Someday, maybe, you'll grow up and realize how sad this worldview is. Until that day, I'll just hope that you do not harm too many people.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[CtownNighrider]

The NYC Subway system handles like twice the number of passengers as the TSA daily and manages to do it much better, both in efficiency and safety. The TSA should learn from them.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have no argument since you resort to name calling and playing the "you're a racist" card and veiled insinuations I'm a violent person. Your social relativism obviously forces you to judge more severely critics of Islam than those who murder in the name of their god as long as they're not westerners.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

What 'criticism' of Islam? Lumping billions of people into a single group and demanding that 'they' do something is not a legitimate criticism, it's stereotyping.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

The continuous inability of islamic societies to control or punish their own extremists.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

> The continuous inability of islamic societies to control or punish their own extremists.

So, to counter my statement that you are lumping everyone into a single group and stereotyping them, you ... lump everyone into a single group and stereotype them.

You do understand that this is the very definition of racism, don't you? You are advocating that we should treat individuals based on your concept of how a group should behave.

And in this case, you are creating an insanely large group. 'islamic' societies'? That phrase covers literally billions of people. But, according to you, all of those are to blame for the actions of other Muslims.

Let's switch over to an example, my friend Roger. He is originally from Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, and his last name sounds like it. He gets extra screening at airports all the time - twice they've dumped out the contents of his carry-on bags.

What should I tell him? What justification exists for this?

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully more and more places will start to make a public mockery out of them and the country as a whole will finally agree just how much of a joke the TSA, its practices and its employees really are.

Re:Good.

[koan]

Nope this is America they will just increase the penalty for this sort of thing and/or legislate it away.

Re:Good.

[Jawnn]

"...but if we don't grope your junk and seize your nail clippers and mouthwash, 'the terrorists win'. Don't you see how important it is to make it look like you are safe from a terrorist threat? Never mind that the likelihood of it actually touching you is infinitesimal, or that you have given up, probably forever, precious civil rights. We need to make you feel safer. This is our job."

Re:Good.

[HBI]

The backscatter machines are just icing on the cake of suck associated with TSA.

Re:Good.

[Cosgrach]

The terrorists have already won. FTFY. They have caused a state of irrational fear. They have changed the lives of every single American alive. They have cost us in the lives of American soldiers in a pointless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have spent BILLIONS on these wars. They have caused us to spend BILLIONS of dollars in an largely ineffective program of trying to reassure people that they will be safe. While we may not be able to say that they have destroyed our economy, I think that it's a pretty safe bet that a good part of the reason for our current economic stress is either directly or indirectly related to this. One good example is the airline bailout following 9-11. Our Constitution has been gutted and people's rights have been trampled into the ground.

IMO, the real terrorists now are the war contractors, our elected officials and the fucking sheeple who put them there.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first statement is correct. The rest implies that we had no other choice in the matter.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have cost us in the lives of American soldiers in a pointless war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan, sure.

Iraq? That was all us. I can't believe I have to still point this out to people, but:

• - Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we got there. Saddam Hussein was a raging asshole, but he was a raging asshole who disliked punk ass cave bitches fucking with his dictatorship
• - Iraq had no WMDs

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have forgotten the NDAA. Now the President of the US can have anyone killed, US citizen or not, without due process. People can also be detained indefinitely without trial. Guantanamo finally reaches the mainland.

The Constitution is DOA.

Re:Good.

[SpanglerIsAGod]

It is interesting to me that we see more dislike of SOPA then of the most recent NDAA. SOPA deserves criticism but the NDAA is at least as bad as the Patriot Act.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have changed the lives of every single American alive.

No, they haven't.
Things are occasionally different for the tiny segment of the population that travels by plane.
There are a couple of changes to the voluminous paperwork you sign when you close on a house.
Soldiers and politicans are doing some different things than before.
That's about it.

Re:Good.

[Thing 1]

IMO, the real terrorists now are the war contractors, our elected officials and the fucking sheeple who put them there.

Eisenhower did warn us about this. Not that I was alive back then, but at least I can read history. (Not directed at you; directed at my brethren in this idiocracy nation...)

Re:Good.

[Cosgrach]

Amen, brother

Re:Good.

[Jawnn]

You don't get out much, do you. While "every single American" might be a stretch, in practice, the abridgement of our rights as citizens has the potential to affect any of us, at any time. Before Congress and the Bush administration went all bat-shit crazy about "protecting the American people" from "terrorists", no one would have dreamed of suggesting that it was OK to arrest and detain a U.S. citizen, without judicial review, indefinitely. That's just one example that you, like so many of our fellow citizens, blithely ignore. That ignorance, the lack of outrage over such fundamental changes to our rights, frankly terrifies me. Wake the hell up.

Dwight D. Eisenhower quote

[FudRucker]

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."

Didn't George Carlin say it before Bruce?

[Anonymous Coward]

ISTR George Carlin using the term "security theater" in a bit from the 90s...

How to befuddle the TSA:

[Entropius]

"I see your prohibition is against 'liquids'. Can I carry ice onboard?"

The agent didn't know. Asked his supervisor; she didn't know.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Bucky24]

That's genius. I imagine even now a high level TSA official is scratching his/her head as they try to decide if they should allow ice or not.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[SuperQ]

You think that's bad, try Peanut Butter.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Bucky24]

Eh, I think they would stop peanut butter. I had my toothpaste taken away from me by the TSA, and that, like peanut butter, is a soft-paste-like thing. Maybe peanut butter frozen solid?

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can I carry ice?"
"Ice?"
"Ice, baby."

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Anonymous Coward]

Try carrying medications requiring refrigeration but which should not be frozen. Use one of those sealed ice pack things to keep it cool during the drive to the airport and time spent in line. Chances are that the ice pack will start to melt, otherwise it would be too cold and maybe freeze the medication. Now, can that partially melted, medically necessary, ice and water mixture go through the checkpoint?

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Kenja]

Peanut butter is a "gel". Gels are only allowed in limited amounts (think those mini-bottles of shampoo).

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[hawguy]

Try carrying medications requiring refrigeration but which should not be frozen. Use one of those sealed ice pack things to keep it cool during the drive to the airport and time spent in line. Chances are that the ice pack will start to melt, otherwise it would be too cold and maybe freeze the medication. Now, can that partially melted, medically necessary, ice and water mixture go through the checkpoint?

Since the TSA already allows nearly unlimited liquids to be carried on board if they are "prescription" (I once saw a guy take two 32oz bottles of prescription dandruff shampoo on board), I don't see how a medically neccessary ice pack would be a problem.

Indeed, they do allow it:

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/special_needs_memo.pdf

We are continuing to permit prescription liquid medications and other liquids needed by
persons with disabilities and medical conditions. This includes:

...

gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by
persons with disabilities or medical condition

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[meerling]

Nice :) And water ice is pretty identifiable and totally unlike virtually all other 'ices' in the entire universe. (That's literally.) If you don't know, ask a chemist. Heck, almost any physical scientist will remember the oddities of water/ice from school even if they don't have to deal with it in their current field. It really is that weird of a substance.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[errhuman]

A paste apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[element-o.p.]

Yet, despite their rules, TSOs sometimes still prohibit passengers from bringing meds, despite the fact that TSA's regulations say that's okay (disclaimer: TSA officially claims that they allowed the insulin, but not the gel packs to keep it cool; the woman claims otherwise. You decide who is telling the truth).

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[The Grim Reefer]

Eh, I think they would stop peanut butter. I had my toothpaste taken away from me by the TSA, and that, like peanut butter, is a soft-paste-like thing. Maybe peanut butter frozen solid?

I'm guessing it depends on the container it's in. I've gone through TSA check points several times with peanut butter sandwich crackers. But I'd imagine they'd stop you for a jar of peanut butter.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Anonymous Coward]

TSA fails on their own liquid policies. I had to fly several times in the last 3 months and only one time was I stopped for the liquids/gels I was carrying. My first time through I managed to carry through an entire 20oz coffee from starbucks.(Hint Hint terrorists, disguise your explosives as tasty beverages). These containers were well over 3oz and I went through airport security a total of 8 times. Thus in my case TSA enforced their policy 1/8 of the time and when they did it was on a bottle of mostly used hair gel which they let pass since there was nothing much left in it. Oh but they did pat me down, check my shoes, and x-ray me. Also a few years ago I accidentally left my fishing knife on my carry-on bag yet they never confiscated it.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't always carry explosives onto airplanes, but when I do they are in the solid phase of matter.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wanted to ask them whether they'd allow me to bring dehydrated water onto the plane.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[j2.718ff]

I was once in line behind someone who had some ice. The TSA agent acted as if this was a common occurrence. He inspected the ice to make sure it was still solid (threw away any water that may have been there), and that was that.

I know nothing about potential liquid explosives, but I'm guessing their freezing point is not the same as water. Thus, allowing ice actually seems reasonable.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[oodaloop]

It's too cold.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Kazymyr]

Peanut butter is a slurry: tiny solid particles suspended in a fluid phase. So is toothpaste.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Sean0michael]

Anecdote:

My wife was allowed to take her yogurt through security in her carry-on, even though it was more then 3oz of yogurt. The reason was she had put it in the freezer before the trip. Since it was still frozen, it didn't count as a liquid, and therefore wasn't subject to the usual rules.

Your TSA experience may vary, since there's certainly inconsistency in how rules are applied.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Jonathan_S]

"I see your prohibition is against 'liquids'. Can I carry ice onboard?"

The agent didn't know. Asked his supervisor; she didn't know

That may have befuddled a particular agent, but it shouldn't have.
The TSA website lists a clear policy on frozen items

Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint as long as they are frozen solid when presented for screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted, slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements.

So those looking for surefire ways to befuddle TSA agents (for fun and amusement?) should probably look elsewhere.

Re:How to befuddle the TSA:

[Entropius]

That happened to me too, actually. I'm hypoglycemic, and had some peanut butter with me as emergency food.

They take it away from me. I (a physicist) politely ask "Sorry, I thought the stuff didn't count -- it will, after all, stay in the can if you hold it upside down. So that I can follow your rules in the future, what is the minimum viscosity at standard temperature and pressure that substances must have to be permitted aboard an aircraft?"

They, of course, have no idea. :)

Does Bruce Schneider always drink beer?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he does, does he prefer Dos Equis?

Re:Does Bruce Schneider always drink beer?

[mistiry]

I'm sorry, but this was pretty fucking funny.

Re:Does Bruce Schneider always drink beer?

[Spykk]

Tres Equis. Brewed specifically for the discerning pervert.

Re:Does Bruce Schneider always drink beer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree - very fucking funny!

Pity is, that "green shit" in the commercials is just a skunks beer - too bad Dos Equis Ambar isn't advertised. Back when I had money, that's all I ever drank.

Re:Does Bruce Schneider always drink beer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the part where he fucked up the joke...

And the reason why, for better or worse

[daveschroeder]

Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense.

After witnessing enough conversations about how TSA is worthless, or worse, yet another part of an effort to acclimate hapless Americans to living in a police state, I think it's valid to consider the reasons for even "appearances" of security, and I'm glad this article laid them out clearly. Even appearances can be a deterrent.

The other points in the article are also valid. I believe we need to ask ourselves the question that if at least some amount of "theater" is appropriate, what is that amount, and what would the damage been to the air transport sector if nothing (visible) had been done? Note I don't pretend to know the answer.

Some say that money might better have been spent "educating" people why such security measures don't work, so they won't be a afraid when they don't see it. That's a task far easier said than done. Alongside the constant drumbeat in some circles that the government is out to get them, it's important to understand there are actual legitimate reasons for things the TSA is doing, seen and unseen.

None of this means that our homeland security efforts should be exempt from criticism or thoughtful scrutiny, but it needs to be done against a backdrop of reason.

Interesting semi-related story:

Skies Are Now So Safe on U.S. Flights That Experts Turn Focus to 'Surface Threats'

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[bill_mcgonigle]

The skies aren't safe because of the TSA, it's because nobody really wants to blow up an airplane, jihadi style.

Think about it - the failure rate of the TSA is over 60% at some airports. If the so-called jihadis really want to blow up airplanes, they just need to send 10 people and they'll take out six airplanes, on average.

Or if you believe this liquid explosive nonsense, they can send 10 guys each with 3 oz shampoo bottles.

It may be because ordinary Americans solved the security problem over a field in Shanksville PA just an hour after the 9/11 plot became known.

Or maybe the secure cockpit doors had something to do with it.

Or maybe the 9/11 plot wasn't really carried out by jihadis.

Any of the above could be true, but what's clearly not true is that there currently exists a jihadi threat to airliners.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[SmurfButcher Bob]

> Alongside the constant drumbeat in some circles that the government is out to get them, it's important to understand there are actual legitimate reasons for things the TSA is doing, seen and unseen.

Name three.

Note that pumping billions into a crony corporation is not considered legitimate.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Dracos]

Or maybe the 9/11 plot wasn't really carried out by jihadis.

Ding ding ding ding ding!

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[characterZer0]

Name three.

1. Jobs!
2. Convince people not to fly and thus reduce CO2 emissions.
3. Distract people from the chemtrails.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[rikkards]

if jihadis really wanted to cause terror blow themselves up in security lines. Forget the planes, they could take out passengers and the TSA

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or maybe the 9/11 plot wasn't really carried out by jihadis."

Given all the evidence pointing in this direction, cheerfully ignored because it isn't "convenient", that seems like a good bet.

Ask yourself, "Who benefited from 9/11"? Answer that, and it'll lead you in the right direction.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Bob9113]

>> Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, âoeHave confidence in Uncle Sam,â when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense.

> After witnessing enough conversations about how TSA is worthless, or worse, yet another part of an effort to acclimate hapless Americans to living in a police state, I think it's valid to consider the reasons for even "appearances" of security, and I'm glad this article laid them out clearly. Even appearances can be a deterrent.

Isn't this an inherently short-term oriented approach? Once the public realizes that it is theater for theater's sake, they will become more distrusting of Uncle Sam than they were before. If the problem is that people don't trust Uncle Sam, hoodwinking them is a pretty deeply misguided solution. Totally aside from the fact that it is condescending as hell, it is creating a bigger problem tomorrow for a smoke and mirrors solution today. We already do that with the budget, do we really need to do it with security as well? Is this our new national credo?

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[the eric conspiracy]

Blowing up US planes has been tried four times since 9/11. Each time it has failed because of intelligence, in-flight security or passenger action.

The TSA however been hasn't shown to be worth jack shit let alone a trillion dollars. They haven't stopped or prevented anything.

Passengers who responded in these situation got the full-blown hero treatment in the media. Every now and then the Flight 93 movies and documentaries are rebroadcast which further drives home the message.

IMHO the reason you don't see it much is that it doesn't work any more, not that terrorists don't want to do it. All it does is make heroes of ordinary people, which is not the result terrorists want.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[10101001 10101001]

After witnessing enough conversations about how TSA is worthless, or worse, yet another part of an effort to acclimate hapless Americans to living in a police state, I think it's valid to consider the reasons for even "appearances" of security, and I'm glad this article laid them out clearly. Even appearances can be a deterrent.

That explains the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Well, yes, I guess it deterred some people. But, it seems the biggest thing that's protected planes so far is the incompetence of those who wish ill. I mean, sure, people have been brainwashed to inherently trust uniforms--I don't exclude myself from this--even if we know that uniform == Uncle Sam. And then there are those short lapses of confidence whenever there's yet another bomb that makes it through the TSA, and not just from some undercover journalist who'd never use it. But those are quickly forgotten because there's nothing visible to remember. If anything, it's that the WTC fell that did the trick really, since there wasn't the same paranoia from after the WTC bombing in the 90s.

The other points in the article are also valid. I believe we need to ask ourselves the question that if at least some amount of "theater" is appropriate, what is that amount, and what would the damage been to the air transport sector if nothing (visible) had been done? Note I don't pretend to know the answer.

So, we need "theater" to protect the air transport sector... Yep, that's America for you. It's all about tricking the public to keep a key component of the empire running. What was that about bread and circuses again...

Some say that money might better have been spent "educating" people why such security measures don't work, so they won't be a afraid when they don't see it. That's a task far easier said than done. Alongside the constant drumbeat in some circles that the government is out to get them, it's important to understand there are actual legitimate reasons for things the TSA is doing, seen and unseen.

Really? There is? You might make that argument about the DHS, but even that might be a stretch--it's really one of its subordinate departments that's doing the real work. But, everything about the TSA seems to be an eyesore. Waiting to the near last minute for someone to board a plane is a desperate last line of defense fraught with massive false positives given the massive number of travels versus the number of terrorists. It's so bad, I don't see how they could do anything but more harm than good. I mean, it's in the same line of logic of relying upon suspected murderers with a warrant for their arrest showing up at the police station and announcing their real name.

None of this means that our homeland security efforts should be exempt from criticism or thoughtful scrutiny, but it needs to be done against a backdrop of reason.

The reason is based clearly in the irrationality of deception because people are treated as "people". That may be justified for a very brief period after a situation where emotion overrides reason. But, that's a matter of days. It does not remote justify a backdrop that has lasted a decade.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[DavidTC]

No kidding. They'd functionally stop all flights, and possible cause enough of an overreaction that people who've already gone through security can't go anywhere.

And, of course, there's the other fun attack: taking out the dozen or so bridges that almost all port traffic uses. Car bombs would do it.

The only thing that hijacking airplanes let you do is blow up buildings, and, uh, there are other ways to do that that are easier.

Luckily, al Quaeda is apparently gone, otherwise, I'd fully expect this to start happening now that we've gotten out of Iraq. (Because the entire point of the attacks was to get us in wars in the Middle East, producing people who will give their lives to kill us. The amount of people who will give their lives for religious reasons is quite small. The amount of who will give their lives because a US bomb took out their family...well...)

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that I remember that there was not that much outcry from the general populace to "do something". There was a lot of "how did this happen?" The big outcry for security theater was from politicians. It would not have been very hard to sell the American people on the idea that the anti-terror measures that work were enough. Most people recognize, or can be easily shown, that the terrorists 9/11 plan would not work today. Any attempt to hijack an airplane today with weapons that only kill one at a time, and that not very efficiently (box cutters, the weapon of the 9/11 hijackers, are not very efficient weapons), would be met by all of the remaining passengers swamping the would be hijacker.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[FoolishOwl]

Any of us can think of many ways to kill a large number of people, if we're unconcerned with our own survival and unconcerned with which specific people we kill. It is noteworthy how rarely any such thing actually happens.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[CohibaVancouver]

Even appearances can be a deterrent.

Sure, but is that worth BILLIONS of dollars? That's what it comes down to - Is this money well spent?

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I dig your use of the term "jihadis."

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Shark]

I'll grant you the last two... But government jobs do nothing for the economy. They merely have different people spend the same money. Unless you figure out a sector where the government actually produces something that people are willing to pay for and generates a profit doing so (most candidates for that operate at a loss).

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[AK Marc]

Government jobs can help to soften boom/bust cycles. The problem is that the jobs aren't ended in the booms, and are in the busts because of budget pressure, thus making the problems worse, not better. But the jobs-as-busywork to just get people off the street still is a benefit to the economy.

They merely have different people spend the same money.

Nope. half of what they spend is money. The other half is spending debt. They are spending someone else's money, our children's money. Fix a problem today and leave the bigger problems for our children is how the government has operated for 50 years (worse in the last 30), and someday the problem will be big enough that it can't be left to our children. But it does actually help today because it isn't tax and waste, it's borrow and waste, which is a different thing entirely.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Solandri]

The skies aren't safe because of the TSA, it's because nobody really wants to blow up an airplane, jihadi style.

The purpose of security theater isn't to protect us from terrorists wanting to blow up airplanes. It's to protect airlines from people who are too scared to fly because terrorists could blow up airplanes.

People generally suck at making rational decisions about high risks with an infinitesimally small chance of occurring. They see a terrorist attack on TV, and even though terrorism is more than a million times less likely to kill them than their drive to the airport, they choose not to fly for that reason. So to counter this overreaction to illusory risk, you create illusory security - security theater.

The problem has never been that security theater is wrong or pointless - it serves a useful purpose. The problem is that some people in the government and TSA take their jobs way too seriously. They never got the memo that their job is just an act, and they're trying to restrict real rights and freedoms all in the name of maintaining an illusion.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[bill_mcgonigle]

What they've done instead is to create millions of people who won't fly because they now have to suffer indignities to do so.

Government's job is not to treat adults as children - at least not in a Natural-Rights Republic.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[TheOldFart]

You're not considering the emotional state of things. It brings stability, and with it, the rest of the market reacts accordingly.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly, the government was too busy faking moon landings and slipping mind control drugs into the water supply to plot 9/11. Clearly that was done by the crab people.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that the least reasonable people in our nation are also the ones most drawn to politics. The inverse is also true.

Re:And the reason why, for better or worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because if they need to travel but don't fly, they obviously will not cause *even more* CO2 to be generated via, say, driving a car for days to reach the same goal multiplied by tens if not hundreds of cars involved (let's assume everyone who wanted to board a specific flight decided to drive instead).
More seriously, airplanes are a type of public transport, and you green commies will certainly agree that public transport is better for everyone but those pesky rich.

Inefficient?

[naroom]

From the article:

between 2 percent and 5 percent of travelers get singled out for additional screening. The exact selection criteria aren't publicly available, but ethnicity is probably a consideration [...] Secondary screening can involve hours of questioning. Agents have been known to click through all of a traveler's digital photographs. Body searches are common, and agents usually take luggage apart one item at a time.

This does not sound better. Just racist, inefficient, and highly subjective.

Accident Waiting to Happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Security isn't very good at the White House either:

So off we went to Washington [to have dinner with President Bush]. The dinner was at the Hilton, where Ronald Reagan had been shot. It wasn't long after 9/11, so I was feeling really paranoid about the security situation. Then, when we got there, it was pandemonium. They had about five thousand TV cameras outside, and just one little metal detector with a couple of guys manning it. I had to cling on to Greta's jacket just to get through the crowd. Meanwhile, my assistant Tony -- who's only a little fella -- skipped over the rope and walked behind the metal detector without anyone even noticing. It was a joke, man. I could have smuggled a ballistic fucking missile into that place, and no one would have said a word.

Citation:
Ozzy Osbourne, from the biography "I Am Ozzy"

Re:Accident Waiting to Happen

[drainbramage]

He must have a very small missile.

Re:Accident Waiting to Happen

[brokeninside]

As a point of pedantry, that Ozzy was dismayed by security at ``the Hilton, where Ronald Reagan had been shot'' does not imply in any way that ``security isn't very good at the White House.''

I'd be willing to concede that the White House may have less than stellar security. But that security didn't appear air tight to Ozzy during a state dinner at a private establishment doesn't tell us anything about the White House.

40,000 Dead each year

[Anonymous Coward]

If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, imagine the REAL number of lives
that would have been saved.

It really is a nation of very docile sheep.

Re:40,000 Dead each year

[Culture20]

If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, imagine the REAL number of lives that would have been saved.

If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, then highway speeds would be a maximum of 35 mph, TSA employees would be touching the undercarriage of your car at every on-ramp, and people would want to fly everywhere, even for a downtown commute.

Re:40,000 Dead each year

[element-o.p.]

40,000 dead each year, and likely to get worse:

According to the results of a survey just released by the US Travel Association, two-out-of-five travelers this season are saying they’re trying to skip the plane and those pesky lines and checkpoints in lieu of other methods of transportation. It might not seem like a substantial number, but the association’s CEO, Roger Dow, tells US News & World Report, "Our research shows that reducing hassle without compromising security will encourage more Americans to fly — as many as two to three additional trips a year — leading to an additional $85 billion in spending that would support 900,000 American jobs."

Re:40,000 Dead each year

[Anonymous Coward]

...leading to an additional $85 billion in spending that would support 900,000 American jobs.

The key word there is "would." When you change it to "will" it's then followed by 30,000 American jobs and $60 billion in executive compensation.

Re:40,000 Dead each year

[Anonymous Coward]

If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, then highway speeds would be a maximum of 35 mph, TSA employees would be touching the undercarriage of your car at every on-ramp

I don't expect it would be good for my car but the thought of running over some TSA guys at each on-ramp does have its appeal...

Re:Firefox crash

[Krazy Kanuck]

Seems ok here, tried it on 6.0.2 and 9.0.1 with no issues, only using 1 addon, ABP.

I should have quit while I was ahead

[Minwee]

Good article, but then...

I read the comments after it.

What was I thinking?

provide conceal carry?

[k6mfw]

Regarding incidents of mass shootings, i.e. Columbine and Virginia Tech, a gun enthusiast said all these places are "gun free" zones. He said more and more states are removing gun bans on various places because places that allow conceal carry never had mass shootings. Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry, then whenever or whereever a madman shooter goes wild, other people (students and teachers) can pull out their handguns and waste the perpetrator. This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid these days. Like using logic that there were "no terrorist attacks" in the 1800s (there were but were called something else).

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand not liking guns, especially in public. However, responsible gun owners can prevent crimes before or during the act. In general, the police show up after the crime. If you could go back in time and give a gun to a teacher at Columbine, would you? I would. Obviously there is the potential for unintended consequences, but that applies to both sides - if everyone has a gun, it might cause more violence. If only criminals have guns, it might cause more crime. I don't think "ridiculous" is an apt description of this form of security.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

As crazy as it sounds I've actually seen this happen. I work at a pretty rough school, my best students are the ones wearing ankle bracelets. About two years ago we had a drive-by, I guess I should say attempted drive-by. A black Cadillac drove up to the front of the school, the windows rolled down and they started shooting at the crowd with 2 fully automatic guns (I know nothing about guns, to me everything is an AK-47 or an M-16) Students ducked behind cover and started firing back. The guys in the car didn't last long.

The best thing: This was after school (so didn't count as a "school shooting") in a neighborhood with enough shootings that this never showed up anywhere but the local newspaper.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Attila Dimedici]

Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry,...

No, the logic goes that people who are planning to shoot up a bunch of people are not going to be deterred by the fact that some place is a "gun-free" zone. As a matter of fact, that makes that place a better choice for shooting up a bunch of people because you know that no one else there will be armed. The argument is that these places should allow those who have been granted a concealed carry permit (a process that usually involves some evaluation of the mental state of the individual and whether or not they have a history of encounters with law enforcement) because then not everybody there would be solely a potential victim.
Of course, the big part of this argument comes from the stories very few people hear of where someone tried to shoot up a place where there were people carrying concealed weapons. Within six months of the first Virginia Tech shootings there were two or three similar attempts that did not make the news because the shooter only got off about six shots before someone with a concealed carry license pulled their weapon and shot him. The thing is, every time someone tries this in a "gun-free" zone, there are a lot of deaths, every time someone tries this where someone is legally concealed carrying there are at most three deaths (two victims and the perpetrator).

Re:provide conceal carry?

[element-o.p.]

This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid...

So, in other words, because the end results don't match your preconceived notions of how things *should* work, those who say, "This clearly isn't working; let's try something else." are "nutzoid"? As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away." I don't see what's so "nutzoid" about accepting the fact that the only person you can count on to "protect" you is you.

Think it through for a second. Murder is already illegal, so what makes you think that a potential murderer is going to care if it's illegal to bring a handgun to school or the courthouse or...? "Well, gee...I was going to shoot my teacher today, but, well...you're not allowed to bring guns to school, so I decided not to." All you've done by banning concealed weapons at certain places is disarm those who respect the law -- the very ones who might be inclined to intervene.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not silly logic at all! If you read up on the University of Texas at Austin shooter you will note that it was civilians with guns that were the first to return fire on the perp and thus prevent him from killing more unarmed innocents. Why anyone would want to prevent law-biding citizens from carrying is beyond me. If someone wants to use a gun for nefarious purposes then anti-carry laws will not deter him/her. Simply logic so long as you dont cloud it w/ irrational fear of firearms. The only firearms laws that could have any impact would be a total ban and thats only if you could somehow stem access to illegal firearms. Such is not the case in many countries where guns are illegal yet common among the criminal class.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Culture20]

Why anyone would want to prevent law-biding citizens from carrying is beyond me.

It's not beyond me. Tyrants love to make weaponry illegal for the general populace. Look at Feudal Japan or Medieval Europe.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[k6mfw]

thanks to all that replied to my "gripes" of my conceal carry post. I guess I can see the logic of letting students and teachers carry guns.... provided they're not nutzoid. However, I have read many public schools have metal detectors and security guards (a school "secured" like an airport!?!?!). Seems like a terrible tradeoff, I remember in the 20th century when I only had to watch out for bullies, not bullets at my school. And back then you can go to airports, hang out and watch airplanes instead of being labeled a potential terrorist like in that FAA poster.

Speaking of hand guns, someone said if someone pulls out a handgun, take off running as most likely they will miss. Unless the shooter is trained to handle handguns, the way an untrained person fires the weapon, they will inadvertantly mis-aim when pulling the trigger. I read someplace that significant number of people shot are friends and family either from "moments of rage" or "friendly fire" (mistaken identity).

Re:provide conceal carry?

[oodaloop]

I guess I can see the logic of letting students and teachers carry guns.... provided they're not nutzoid.

In most states, in order to get a concealed carry permit, one has to undergo a background check. Criminal backgrounds, diagnosis of psychosis, can all be reasons to deny a permit.

someone said if someone pulls out a handgun, take off running as most likely they will miss. Unless the shooter is trained to handle handguns, the way an untrained person fires the weapon, they will inadvertantly mis-aim when pulling the trigger

Many states also mandate firearms safety training, or proof of training such as military service.

I read someplace that significant number of people

What constitutes significant? Compared to automobile deaths?

shot are friends and family either from "moments of rage"

People also use knives and other weapons in "moments of rage." In fact, the most common implement used in stabbings is a screwdriver. If you are in a moment of rage to the point you are going to kill someone, the presence of a firearm will matter very little. You are going to use whatever is handy. And if you are the one about to be killed, a firearm may be the only thing that can save you. There are over 2,000,000 defensive uses of a firearm in the U.S. every year.

or "friendly fire" (mistaken identity).

Given how few people die from firearms each year, I can't imagine this being that many. Perhaps it is a significant proportion of accidental shootings.

The statistics are clear here: guns save lives. Arguments to the contrary are based on emotion, hearsay, conjecture, and fearmongering.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[oodaloop]

Agree on all points. Additionally, crimes that were averted with the mere flashing or drawing of a weapon do not get reported either. A woman getting raped and beaten is newsworthy and sensationalist. A woman pulling a gun defensively on someone trying to rape her wouldn't even get reported to the news let alone aired; too common and boring. I carry concealed, as do many of my friends. One of them was approached by several hoodlums. My friend pulled his vest to the side to show his pistol, and they walked away. How many times this kind of nonviolent preemptive defensive use of a firearm occurs is anyone's guess.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[mcsqueak]

I read someplace that significant number of people

What constitutes significant? Compared to automobile deaths?

shot are friends and family either from "moments of rage"

Given how few people die from firearms each year, I can't imagine this being that many. Perhaps it is a significant proportion of accidental shootings. The statistics are clear here: guns save lives. Arguments to the contrary are based on emotion, hearsay, conjecture, and fearmongering.

I'd call the 30,000 people killed in 2001 in the US by firearms fairly significant. Source: http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html

Lots of other interesting statistics in that article as well. I'm not going to point-by-point argue with you because I'll never convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but I feel that a lot of the reasons people want to own guns are based on "emotion, hearsay, conjecture, and fearmongering" just as anti-gun arguments are based on the same thing.

FWIW I have no problems with guns, I learned how to shoot while in Boy Scouts, would enjoy the chance to try hunting at some point, and I find target shooting fun, but I don't personally own a firearm as I don't feel I need one to be safe.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[oodaloop]

Then again, about half of those were due to suicide. I see your article and raise you a book, "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott. It's worth the read.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[oodaloop]

Wow, I just finished the article. Yeah, there were a few statistics in it. Very few. Almost the whole thing was anecdotal. Fucking terrible. The book I mentioned before has about 10,000 times the statistics to back up the claim of the title, no exaggeration.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Concealed Carry didn't do anything to stop the dude at the Univ of Washington just after the 1st VT incident, nor did it do anything to prevent the most recent incident at VT, either.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[TooMuchToDo]

I live in Illinois, and let me tell you sir! There is no need for guns in our fair state, what with our Chicago gun laws banning everyone from having guns. If no one can have guns, we're all safe.

Seriously though; an armed society is a polite society. It's about removing opportunity, because some people don't have a moral compass.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Terror attacks in the 1800s didn't exist because the terrorists of the day were tried and convicted as criminals, not as "enemy combatants" or whatever bullshit legal framework we've made up to justify jailing hundreds of criminals without giving them their due process rights. The attitude that our politicians have that these people are all guilty and deserving of special treatment because they are guilty of a crime "against a nation" belies a certain nationalistic belief that the nation is sacrosanct while its people are not. IE, if I killed a bunch of non-descript people but am a citizen of the US, I am not a terrorist but a mass murderer because of my citizenship. If I were to do the same thing but were a foreign national, suddenly I'm a terrorist.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooters would have been labeled terrorists if they had not originally been from the US. The point is that anyone who takes another person's life is a murderer, not a terrorist, regardless of who they are. Justice must remain blind, or cease to exist.

Re:provide conceal carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, crimes that were averted with the mere flashing or drawing of a weapon do not get reported either. A woman getting raped and beaten is newsworthy and sensationalist. A woman pulling a gun defensively on someone trying to rape her wouldn't even get reported to the news let alone aired; too common and boring.

Remember, a woman raped and strangled to death is morally superior to an unharmed woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet.

You can't even make an argument against it.

[cvtan]

You cannot make an argument against safety even if what you are doing is wasteful. What if there is an attack right after the TSA is disbanded? This is political suicide and no one will do it. If I want to make the TSA even larger, this is considered improving safety! It's like trying to argue that the speed limit should be raised or even eliminated. Remember: "If even one life is saved, it is all worthwhile!"

Re:You can't even make an argument against it.

[Culture20]

You cannot make an argument against safety even if what you are doing is wasteful.

Sure you can, otherwise every highway would be lined with nerf-covered guard rails twenty feet high. Actuaries assign dollar value to human life all the time.

Another critique

[Anonymous Coward]

http://warbler.posterous.com/us-government-declares-war-on-gooseberry-jam

Re:...but if we don't

[Anonymous Coward]

"Specially trained agents must thoroughly probe you with the their trained sensitive areas to prove you are free from dangerous materials. You will receive a receipt which will certify that you are not a terrorist. This receipt will be DNA-Scanned and approved at the final boarding."

Venezuela, then?

[oneiros27]

I've heard good things about the Venezuelean security screeners (I think it was Venezualean, I heard about it second-hand) ... maybe it was just a single case, and not the way it's all done, but rather than the 'standard 3' we used to get asked (did you pack your own bag, etc.), they'd ask questions like 'What's the color of the inside of your suitcase?'

They were presenting at a conference, and the screener (coming in at customs), asked them to give the presentation to them. If it's someone claiming to be visiting as a tourist, you ask them what hotel they're staying at (and you can check the reservation), and what sites they plan on seeing.

I admit, it's possible to be prepared for all of these questions ... but when they're less predictable (giving the screener the ability to improvise), and it's not just yes/no questions, it's harder to plan for.

Re:Venezuela, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way in hell I'd remember what colour the inside of my suitcase is. My response would be:

"Hell, I dunno. I don't fly every day, I didn't make a specific note of the colour. Black, I think (which I only assume because that's the colour of the outside). I can tell you what's in it, anyway"

Whether that gets me in trouble or not, I don't know... but that's what they'd get.

Re:Venezuela, then?

[Strider-]

That might work on a woman. Most guys would have no idea. We don't care avout the colour of the outside of our suitcases, much less the inside of them.

The trick here is that they don't actually care what your answer is, it's about *how* you answer. If you're a guy and go "hell if I know" that's fine. If you do that and start getting all panicky, then that tweaks them to probe further. My sister used to work the Canadian side of the Canada-US border. They would employ the same technique. Ask a series of random questions, and if they got a funny feeling about the way someone was answering, they'd wave you over for secondary inspection.

Paranoid

[doru]

I was feeling really paranoid [...] Ozzy Osbourne

Oh really ?!

Yes...

[bradley13]

Don't laugh - I read on a frequent flyer forum several months ago that ice is not a problem, because it is not a liquid. The person posting on the forum claimed to regularly take frozen bottles of water through security. Whether this is a general policy, or only at that person's particular airport, I have no idea.

Fight fire with fire

[colinrichardday]

Yeah, because the people who passed the PATRIOT Act weren't appealing to our emotions!

Re:Fight fire with fire

[jellomizer]

It isn't any one side. They all do it.
How did the Bush administrations get us involved in the war with Iraq.
When asked about WMD their response it is a "Slam Dunk". That really stopped all questions about WMD until the war went on and no major Weapons were found.

Re:Fight fire with fire

[colinrichardday]

OK, but if the only way to get Americans to turn against the TSA is to use such locutions as "security theater", then should we refrain from using them?

Re:Fight fire with fire

[Thing 1]

When asked about WMD their response it is a "Slam Dunk". That really stopped all questions about WMD until the war went on and no major Weapons were found.

Yeah, if the fourth estate wasn't already usurped by the moneyed elite, they'd have asked, "Hang on a second, this isn't basketball we're talking about; where's your evidence?"

Re:Does Bruce Schneier always drink beer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I would misspell his name when making a joke. Sorry about that.

Schneier routinely misses most stuff...

[sgt_doom]

....I mean, since when has anyone bothered to question that originally (I haven't checked in the last several years, so I'm unsure if they still do) Blackwater USA (then renamed to Xe, and then Academe) was responsible for the background security checks on TSA employees?????

Now, when people in Tacoma, WA applied for TSA positions circa 2004/2005, at least four convicted felons were hired, and later re-arrested for pilfering luggage at their TSA jobs.

And has Scheier ever questioned 9/11??? Gee whiz, how come those black boxes which survived that day indicate no hijackings??? Yeah, we know......reality is tough to deal with.....

Re:Schneier routinely misses most stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you have it figured all out! And all those question marks really drive home your point. All caps would make it more effective though. Don't forget to throw in Bilderburg in the mix too.

A non story

[DerekLyons]

"Vanity Fair has a story questioning the true value of TSA security."

Well, no, it doesn't question the value of TSA security. It's regurgitates Schneier's propaganda line without question, analysis, or critical thinking. It's great publicity for Schneier, without which he (as a consultant and pundit) cannot survive. Otherwise, it's pretty much useless.

It's funny, if Vanity Fair parroted Dvorak, or Cringely, or any of Slashdot's other whipping boys - they'd be taken to task for crappy journalism and reprinting press releases. But, once again, the double standard rears it's ugly head - parrot someone (undeservedly) regarded as an 'expert' and beloved of Slashdot, and they get a free pass.

Re:A non story

[Thing 1]

But, once again, the double standard rears it's ugly head - parrot someone (undeservedly) regarded as an 'expert' and beloved of Slashdot, and they get a free pass.

Yeah, exactly! I mean, parrot truth and freedom, and it gets a free pass. Talk about people subjugating others, and man we have it out for them. I mean, we're the ones being unfair here, right!??!!?1eleven!1

Cycles

[dadioflex]

That's what news moves in. Some hop on early, some late. They all hop on. Cycles.

Re:Firefox crash

[colinrichardday]

Mine didn't.

I need to subscribe to them

[Fencepost]

Is it just me or has Vanity Fair been coming out pretty consistently with worthwhile stuff for the past few months or more? I'm starting to feel like I should be subscribing to support them.

Re:I need to subscribe to them

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first article that I have read of Vanity Fair, and I thought it was a well written piece. I appreciate that they are addressing such an uncommon topic (at least to those who do not frequent /.) and identifying the issue to a broader audience. Hopefully, if more realize the implications of the "security theater," perhaps we may see a reasonable reduction of unnecessary costs, both financially and in terms of one's civil liberties.

no checks whatsoever if you fly a private plane

[darkeye]

and, the most bizarre thing of all: you fly a private plane, there are no security checks whatsoever. and you can take off from the *very same airport* too!

you don't have to own a plane to do this, just rent one.

it's more expensive than just buying a flight ticket, and private planes are smaller too - but if you're a person valuing comfort, it's not unreasonable.

or if you want to fly a plane full of explosives into a building, you can still cause a lot of damage... oh, and you don't have to hijack it, as you're already in the pilot seat to begin with...

Re:no checks whatsoever if you fly a private plane

[Megane]

But if you're a commercial pilot, you get to experience the security theater just like the rest of us.

And that's just one of his articles about actual security theater stupidity incidents.

Do you feel safer?

[Killer Instinct]

I wish I could find the pic, but a little while after 9/11 there was a full page add ran (NY Times?) that had one alarm bell on a brick wall in one pic, and then like 30 alarm bells on the same wall in the other pic with the caption "Do you feel any safer?" It was a great addvert. I do not think the TSA, Homeland security, etc has done anything to make americans safe.or at least any safer then we were pre 9/11. Its kinda like they say about jails/guards "The prisoners have all day to watch us and figure out how to do something, we have 8 hours of work to do while trying to stop them" If guards/inmates can get killed in an american prision, under the watchful eye of the guards...well...?

-KI

TSA job sucks in many ways

[WeeBit]

Until now the TSA did not have to conform to the USERRA. So if you were called to active duty your job was not guaranteed to be there when you got back. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/12/military-tsa-userra-hiring-protections-121411w/ That was a really bad thing for the TSA's to do. Next in line is the TSA itself. Their employees are called officers. I hate that they are called officers. it is an insult to real cops who went through years of college, and training to earn their badge. TSA employees go through a few weeks of training from what I understand. Most of their training I believe is on site training. No college degree necessary to have a badge. Their uniform looks like a cops, their badge looks like a cops, and they are addressed as officers. Read more here: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/198357-house-gop-looks-to-strip-tsa-screeners-of-officer-title?page=16 I am all for stripping them of this title, the badge, and the uniform stripe.

All the TSA did was create a new job to pay a bunch of people to look good and tough, and OMG "Don't we look, and act scary!" Now they are unionized. From what I gather about their employees the job is crap, and they don't stay too long.

So much money, so much waste

[Anonymous Coward]

At a time when the American Government needs every last dollar for social needs, they spend trillions on security. Most of it is security theater. Since 9/11, there have been thousands of companies peddling 'absolute must have' security solutions to the US government. Some of it is useful. Most is useless. Someone quite intelligent can usually break most of the security on the first go. Anyone who knows what to look for can defeat the grand majority of it (if not all of it). Its not new. America has been fighting the last war since 9/11. Most airport security is the 'air raid shelter'/'fall out shelter' of our era. Its like 'live in fear and vote for us' is the motto of most of the governments of the last half century. I studied cryptography in University using Dorothy Dennings book, but I have owned a copy of Schniers 'Applied Cryptography --the book the NSA never wanted to be published' for about 15 years. I don't know if Schnier is as good a cryptanalyst as Rivest or Adelman (in the evaluation of cryptographic encoding) but he does have a good handle on most of it, and is the most active cryptanalyst alive today.

TSA and DHS are Essential Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Stallinization of the USA.

Eventhough these programs cost $2.4 Billion (2001 annualized) they employ billions of otherwise un-employable refuse of USA culture. If we do not spend $2.4 Billion (2001 annualized) on these refuse as "Security" then we will still spend the money on legit law enforcement and social programs that will server these refuse human failure-beings.

It is simple arithmatic.

Re:Firefox crash

[XanC]

I'm running iceweasel 9.0.1 on Squeeze, tried it in safe mode too, and it segfaults upon loading any Vanity Fair page.

Bush Legacy

[dave87656]

So much inconvenience for so little benefit at such a staggering cost.'"

Like so much that Bush and his Oil cabinet did.