Slashdot Mirror


Poll Finds Americans Think the TSA Is 'Doing a Good Job'

OverTheGeicoE writes "Why is it that airport security never seems to change in the United States? Perhaps it's because most Americans think the TSA is doing a 'good job,' according to a surprise Gallup poll, allegedly commissioned by no one but the kind editors at Gallup. The poll found that 54% of Americans believe the TSA is doing a good or excellent job, and that 57% have a good or excellent opinion of the agency. So why all the criticism? According to the article, criticism of the TSA comes primarily from 'Internet sites, where reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges.' Furthermore, 'the TSA is put into a difficult situation when such charges are posted with little or no fact checking by reporters.' Other sources, of course, have different interpretations of Gallup's results, including questions about whether the poll was biased. If Americans secretly do love the TSA, that could explain why the recent whitehouse.gov petition failed to gather enough signatures for a 'response.' In fact, you'll find so little information about the petition remains on whitehouse.gov that you'll wonder if my link is correct. And these are not the droids you're looking for. Move along."

523 comments

  1. Real reason by gander666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of the people either don't travel by air, or travel very infrequently. Those of us who are road warriors are vastly more likely to hate the TSA with vehemence.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    1. Re:Real reason by kthreadd · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you're saying TSA don't do a good job?
      Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

    2. Re:Real reason by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pollsters always seem to be sampling or over sampling the wrong people.

      They evidently polled AMTrak passengers for this one.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Real reason by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..as a proportion of such incidents in countries without that kind of security theater?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:Real reason by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many terrorists has the TSA caught?

      If the number is large, then your question is relevant. Otherwise they are the magic rock that keeps the tigers away.

    5. Re:Real reason by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      I swore off air travel before the rape scans were ever considered. Being treated worse than cattle by the airlines was enough for me. There is absolutely nothing that could ever happen that would get me on an airplane again. The airlines can fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So you're saying TSA don't do a good job? Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!"

      The TSA is just stealing the credit. We're actually all safe because of the rock I started carrying in my pocket on September 12th! If only I had started carrying it just one day earlier...

    7. Re:Real reason by thelexx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlike you, for whom the threat of a jackboot on your neck for trying to go about your business as a free citizen has become comfortable.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    8. Re:Real reason by Sporkinum · · Score: 2

      That was my thought. 20% of Americans used air travel for business, and 48% have used air travel for leisure. That is for an entire year and doesn't say how many times. If you are like me, I only go for work maybe once a year. I am too cheap to fly for shits and grins. So in that once a year I go, I think the TSA bit has been different every time I went through. My general impression is it's a grossly bloated and mostly ineffective federal agency. Security theater so to speak. It plays well with the rubes and lines a lot of pockets with federal dollars though, so it will continue.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    9. Re:Real reason by alen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i've traveled on airplanes since the early 1990's and security is mostly the same. we still had metal detectors and wands back then too

      big differences now are more scrutiny of electronics that most people simply didn't have back then and taking off your shoes. otherwise i would get rid of all the metal before the metal detector back then too because i got the wand

    10. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I travel often as well and have not had any specific icidents where the TSA caused me any problem, but I do see them as a massive waste of time and money in that they add little real security. I'm not someone who was reared in a way that left my ashamed of digital representations of any of my appendages or of my general silhouette. Then, on the other hand, I don't expect there is any threat being addressed by one being made of me, apart from the threat of someone in the security industry not being able to make his mortgage payment.

      Though the few times I've flown internationally have raised my personal hassle level to High (high risk of my saying 'fuck' a lot). I expect if we make it that hard for an actual citizen to get back in the country, it must really be awful for those visiting.

    11. Re:Real reason by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think the creation of the TSA is the only thing that has changed? What about increased cockpit security or the willingness of citizens to fight back? You seem to be assuming that it's all because of the TSA, but the other things that have changed seem to be vastly more effective than simply molesting people airports.

      But even if they were effective, I believe they must be opposed. Violating people's privacy and freedoms for safety is not acceptable to me.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:Real reason by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying TSA don't do a good job? Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      Oh no the TSA has done an excellent job. Mind, their job has very little to do with terrorists or safety, and everything to do with making Americans feel safe (with a nice side order of funneling money to certain congress/senatorial districts), and they have done a quite good job at that. After all, very few people want a government that looks like it isn't doing anything (Democrat or Republican), no matter what it actually should be, or is, doing.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    13. Re:Real reason by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Israel? Zero. And they do not have the TSA, and find them quite laughable. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/November/Israeli-Security-Expert-TSA-Procedures-Hysterical/

    14. Re:Real reason by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You make a good point, in general being stuck in a plane for hours is more miserable than going through security. And also, being forced to stand in line is worse than actually going through security.

      My biggest complaint about TSA is the vast amount of money spent on worthless scanners, and other theater. It smells like corruption.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Real reason by mr1911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying TSA don't do a good job?

      No, he was saying the TSA doesn't do a good job.

      Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      Did you quit beating your wife today?

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    16. Re:Real reason by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Up though 99;
      1) The wands and metal detectors did not irradiate you.
      2) You did not have to undress at all.
      3) You were never grouped.
      4) Your "shaving kit" could include after shave.
      5) You could bring a beverage.
      6) You could arrive at the airport 15 minutes before departure and still make your flight.

    17. Re:Real reason by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the TSA's job is to make Americans think they should feel safe, while actually making them feel less safe (by making sure they are aware of the 'danger'), thereby justifying the government to spend more money on safety against terrorists.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    18. Re:Real reason by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've traveled a fair amount and have had no issues with the TSA.

      Well, certain individuals like to be used for sex in prison, but that doesn't mean raping everyone else is OK.

      The TSA does not increase security. They are so busy looking for "oversize" 4oz bottles of shampoo that commonly show up that they miss guns that rarely show up. They are so busy patting down grandmas and children there is no time to evaluate those that may pose a threat.

      It is OK to admit that the TSA makes you feel better because they are "doing something". However, it is completely false to believe they are doing anything useful.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    19. Re:Real reason by Amouth · · Score: 1

      So you're saying TSA don't do a good job?
      Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      1) Define what their "Job" is and then we might be able to tell if they are doing it well.
      2) Define "recently" because "terrorists" have been around longer than this country so on their time scale 9/11 still counts as "recent"

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    20. Re:Real reason by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the tsa needs to be abolished, but no one wants to copy the israelis where everyone has bomb shelters and it is considered normal.

    21. Re:Real reason by GigG · · Score: 1

      Hell, the vast majority of airlines security that flew on September 11, 2001 didn't get flown into buildings by terrorists and neither did all of the planes that flew in the US before 9/11. In fact the only other plane I know of that was intentionally flown into a building has happened since the TSA was up and running and it was the Cessna in Florida. Which I will agree wasn't a TSA issue.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    22. Re:Real reason by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      So you're saying TSA don't do a good job? Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      I got a tiger-repelling stone for you. 50% off! Interested?

    23. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it has more to do with the fact that airplane terrorism has already been done. There are cheaper and more effective methods of terrorizing the masses now. Heck if people weren't lemmings that flocked to whatever countermeasure the most recent terrorist attack inspired, then terrorists would never have a reason to attack in the first place. It may be counter intuitive, but the best countermeasure for terrorism is apathy. (Apathy does not denote idiocy, so don't run down the street with an American flag in a region where Americans are hated.)

    24. Re:Real reason by GigG · · Score: 2

      I have no idea why I put the word "security" between "airlines" and "that" in the first sentence of that post.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    25. Re:Real reason by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

      How many terrorists has the TSA caught?

      If the number is large, then your question is relevant. Otherwise they are the magic rock that keeps the tigers away.

      Act now and with every tiger repelling Magic Rock, get a Magic Sling that Slays Giants!

      But wait there's more!

      Sign up within the next election year, and We'll throw in a 2000 year old instruction manual that also contains the secret to Eternal* Life!

      *Additional restrictions apply, offer not valid in the states of New England, the West Coast, or Sanity.

    26. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Insightful at all; if you RTFA (or even just any of the criticism articles) you'd see they reportedly analyzed the frequent fliers separately and got similar results.

      Now there may be other problems with the poll, and maybe there is some breakdown like you claim. But your bald contradiction of the facts presented is unwarranted as is.

    27. Re:Real reason by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Actually, the poll finds the exact opposite.

    28. Re:Real reason by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the real reason is because people don't watch the news (except NBC, etc which pretends everything is just fine & dandy). People are often shocked when I show them video or stories about elderly persons being stripped, or tackled by TSA, or sexually groped.

      Of course there's also the opposite reaction: People who read a story about a cop killing a person while he's sitting at home watching TV and they say, "The cops were just doing their job." They probably have the same dumbass view of the TSA..... where basically the cops/security agents can do no wrong. Immunity.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    29. Re:Real reason by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      No, those of us who fly infrequently think the TSA is doing a shitty job, just like those of you who fly regularly.

      My wife was in a security line for an hour and a half a couple weeks ago and was only half way through the line when she finally had to go find someone and basically cut in line or she'd have missed her flight.

      It should not take 3 hours to get through security at MSP, but apparently 54% of Americans think that is acceptable.

    30. Re:Real reason by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Not according to the poll results at least. instead flier's opinions were roughly the same as non-fliers http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx "57% of the smaller group who have flown at least three times [in the past year] have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance"

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    31. Re:Real reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The one thing I wonder about with regard to those locked cockpit doors is: how do the pilots use the lavatory? While they probably try to get it all out before the flight, what if they need to go during the flight anyway, esp. during a long flight? Sometimes I have days where I seem to need to urinate at least every hour for some odd reason. And a lot of those pilots aren't young guys either.

    32. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it speaks more to brainwashing, propaganda and exposure bias. Having travelled extensively, I can honestly say travel in the US is the worst. I have been known to spend upwards of $500 more on my tickets to avoid layovers in that country(any more and I'll usually endure it).

    33. Re:Real reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, you got me on the funneling money bit; how exactly does that work? I know how it works with some big projects like NASA: they spread various parts of the projects to different districts (a launch site in this state, and mission control center in another state, a rocket engine testing facility in a different state, etc.). But with the TSA, there isn't anything to it, it's just a bunch of goons hired to act like security guards, and stationed in every single commercial airport around the country. The goons are going to be stationed wherever the airports are, and obviously more goons are needed at the bigger airports (Dallas, Atlanta, NYC, Chicago, LAX, etc.). The TSA (nor congresscritters) don't determine who gets more TSA presence, the size of the already-existing airport determines that.

      The only other thing I can think of is that the companies getting lots of federal money for bogus "scanners" may be located in key places.

    34. Re:Real reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the point is, the Israelis are (probably quite justifiably) rather paranoid, so they're an extreme case. So if they, of all people, think the TSA is a joke, then they really are a joke. If anyone is going to go to extremes for anti-terrorism security, it's the Israelis, so if you're doing something to avoid terrorism that the Israelis aren't doing, then you're going too far.

    35. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people either don't travel by air, or travel very infrequently. Those of us who are road warriors are vastly more likely to hate the TSA with vehemence.

      If you are a road warrior, you wouldn't be flying! :D

    36. Re:Real reason by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I'm 35 years old, recently separated, and I can't think of any time in my life that anyone has _asked_ to see me naked.

      I'm looking forward to my flight next week.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    37. Re:Real reason by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pay attention on the next long flight. At some point the pilots will need a stretch and a piss. The cabin crew will make some announcement that the forward lav is closed and to use the aft lav. A stewardess will block the aisles to the forward lav with a drink cart and essentially stand guard. Then you'll see the pilots come out for a tinkle one at a time.

    38. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Up though 99;

      4) Your "shaving kit" could include after shave.

      Heck, pre-9/11, your carry-on shaving kit could even include a straight razor. Knives with blades less than 3" were perfectly acceptable in carry-on; I regularly flew with one.

    39. Re:Real reason by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      It isnt the TSA stopping them, It is my pet rock. Ever since I got it, no more airplanes into buildings!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    40. Re:Real reason by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're one of the lucky ones that doesn't get detained for an hour plus every single time you fly in or near the US.

    41. Re:Real reason by kat_skan · · Score: 1

      I guess the definition of "wrong" depends on what answer the person who commissioned the poll was looking for.

    42. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #2b you could wear your damn shoes

    43. Re:Real reason by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've done a lot of traveling in the past year. Interestingly, one thing I've seen a lot is that I frequently don't have to go though the scanner; if they're "recalibrating" it or whatever it is they're doing, they just let everyone walk through the metal detector. At really busy times, they'll pick people randomly to go through the metal detector instead of the irradiators, to reduce the line.

      Also, being an engineer, I carry a LOT of electronics with me in my carry-on bags: laptop (sometimes 2), WiFi sniffer with dual detached antennae, routers, power supplies, ARM development boards, prototype PCBs, etc. They've never hassled me about all this, despite surely being able see many yards of wiring coiled up in my bad in the scanner. However, if I forget to take my toiletries bag out and scan that separately, they grab it and re-scan it or hand-search it.

    44. Re:Real reason by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone has bomb shelters in Israel because they have enemy forces who are a very short distance away willing and able to lob bombs at them. When you live in this situation, having access to a bomb shelter is a fact of life.

      We're not talking about copying everything the Israelis do in their day-to-day life, but looking at their airport security model should help us fashion a more effective TSA than the "What Lobbyist Has Paid A Congressman To Buy Machines For The TSA Now" method or the "Change Procedures To Look Like You Have Countered The Latest Terrorist Tactic" method (e.g. taking off shoes after the shoe bomber strikes).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    45. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention on the next long flight. At some point the pilots will need a stretch and a piss. The cabin crew will make some announcement that the forward lav is closed and to use the aft lav. A stewardess will block the aisles to the forward lav with a drink cart and essentially stand guard. Then you'll see the pilots come out for a tinkle one at a time.

      I've never heard them announce that the lavatory is closed, but I've had pilots come and rest on rotation in the seat beside me, eat, flirt with the flight attendants (flirting back), do their thing in the lav, etc.

    46. Re:Real reason by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Under 40, fresh on the market, and apparently gainfully employed enough to afford air fare. You shouldn't have any trouble.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    47. Re:Real reason by Kozz · · Score: 1

      In Israel? Zero. And they do not have the TSA, and find them quite laughable. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/November/Israeli-Security-Expert-TSA-Procedures-Hysterical/

      I understand that the most frequent rebuttal to the "look how Israel does it" argument is that their solution couldn't scale up to the magnitude of the USA air travel infrastructure. This seems like a plausible counter-argument, though I don't know much about such things. (for the record, TSA & Patriot Act suck)

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    48. Re:Real reason by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...We'll throw in a 2000 year old instruction manual...

      TL;DR I got the Cliff Notes

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    49. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure.
      I've always used Israel as an example of how to protect your airport. However, Israel's landmass, is at most, as large as one of the smaller New England states; they have less territory, a smaller number of airports to protect.

      The cost to retain aiport security personnel would be tremendous, and with no way to guarantee the quality of training.

      Here is a crazy idea: The TSA offers baseline support: (hopefully) no one is able to get a handgun or knife onto a plane where they can use it. Hopefully bombs are ferreted out by X-ray machines, etc. I don't feel they do a very good job.

      What is actually working is US intelligence agencies stopping the attacks before they occur, or the incompetence of the terrorists, e.g. the Shoe Bomber, the Underware Bomber, etc; people think the TSA is responsible for that. They aren't.

    50. Re:Real reason by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what you get for being brown. You really should go into Edit->Settings and look for the "Skin Color" option if you're going to complain so much. White male is S-tier and I don't know why anyone would choose to be anything else in this game.

    51. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planes only fly into buildings by "terrorists" when the US government allows it to happen for the benefit of the military industrial complex. Typical naive kid.

    52. Re:Real reason by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You're not kidding. Remember this? That was written before the TSA even existed, and it's only gotten worse since then.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    53. Re:Real reason by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      but no one wants to copy the israelis where everyone has bomb shelters and it is considered normal.

      How soon Americans forget, that in the '60's they were building bomb shelters in their basement because the soviets were planning to park nuclear missiles in Cuba. You can still find houses these days with shelters in them up and down the east coast. Heck, a buddy of mine up here in Canada has a house with a bomb and scramble shelter in it.

      But, you seem to forget that depending on where you live in Israel, 1/3 to 1/2 of the country is under attack on a near daily basis from rockets and mortars. Heck in some places like Sderot, all public buildings are fortified including schools because that's their favorite targets. Schools.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    54. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think the creation of the TSA is the only thing that has changed? What about increased cockpit security or the willingness of citizens to fight back? You seem to be assuming that it's all because of the TSA, but the other things that have changed seem to be vastly more effective than simply molesting people airports.

      Yes, the TSA is to thank for all of that. Now citizens are aware that the TSA molestation can only possibly increase, and this increase is more likely to happen if something goes wrong on the plane. Therefore, these citizens will make DAMN well sure nothing goes wrong on the plane. Meaning, the TSA's policies have made air travel safer!

    55. Re:Real reason by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      the tsa needs to be abolished, but no one wants to copy the israelis where everyone has bomb shelters and it is considered normal.

      Even if what you said was true, what that have to do with airport security generally and more specifically the effectiveness of the israelis method? Nothing. It is precisely your type of attitude which prevents any "real" progress in the US. I am guessing that you are democrat because it is typical of what is wrong with the democratic party in the US. They find fault or change the subject instead of dealing with the situation at hand. You seem to be prejudiced against israelis for some ideological reason but you should be able to put aside your anti-semitism and learn from them. How you feel about them should be irrelevant because their approach works whereas yours does not. If you can accept that then there is hope for progress.

      You see, your neighbours to the north have various political parties but we are able to sometimes put aside our ideological beliefs and "learn" for each other. That is something that you American could learn from us. Here in Canada, almost everyone supports the continued existence of our public health system regardless of their political stripe out of pure pragmatism. It actually saves us money both for total expenditures for healthcare alone and the reduced loss of productivity that would be incurred if workers were unable to get the help they needed.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    56. Re:Real reason by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've reached the point where you need to consent to being irradiated or molested in order to get onto an airplane. If you don't think we already live in a dystopian novel you simply have no clue.

      Quietly putting up with unecessary nonsense does make you a sheep. Although I suspect you don't have any actual experience regarding the subject at hand.

      It's easy to be dismissive when you aren't an aggrieved party.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    57. Re:Real reason by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...stuck in a plane for hours...

      The plane is used as a holding cell while background checks are being processed, one reason not to let it back to the gate and offload during the delay. If somebody's computer is down, expect a long one. Standing in long lines? Another form of detention. Very intentional.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    58. Re:Real reason by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Security is not mostly the same. You didn't have limits on liquids before 911. You didn't have to unpack half of your luggage before 911. You didn't have to take off shoes and belts before 911.

      If you flew during 2001, you would have seen an obvious visible increase in the amount of security screening wait times that still haven't really completely gone away.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    59. Re:Real reason by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Informative
      None. Not a single terrorist has been caught by the American TSA.

      There have been several that were known to be terrorists who, under a sting operation, the TSA were waiting for.

      But there has not been a SINGLE confirmed terrorist that the TSA did not know was a terrorist the day before they showed up, that the TSA caught.

      Of course, the TSA is a relatively new agency.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    60. Re:Real reason by sjames · · Score: 1

      The metal detectors were tuned such that they would sound for a gun, but a pocket knife wouldn't contain enough metal to alert.

      The security agents were anywhere from passably polite to quite pleasant.

    61. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " grossly bloated and mostly ineffective federal agency" Not to be one of those guvmint sucks people, but doesn't that pretty much define a government agency? Not to say they are populated by incompetents. I think there is just too much CYA.

    62. Re:Real reason by Xenkar · · Score: 0

      There are quite a few bomb shelters in Europe. People in the US would have them too if there was a hostile nation close enough to us to attack.

      But don't fear, Israel doesn't need bomb shelters because of their rather effective airport security. They need it because of where they decided to build their nation. They need it because some people don't like military occupations of their territory. They need it because Mossad is out and about assassinating nuclear scientists and generally causing trouble in the region.

      Last time I read, Israeli airport security is comprised of having body language experts looking for anything out of place, people calling to check out a passenger's sponsor (friend, family, business, hotel) to ensure that everything is legit, and then occasionally an interview with the passengers.

      Often people say that this can't be scaled up to America but damn it we're America, land of the Call Center. We can easily do it and probably for a cheaper price tag than a new batch of more-likely-to-give-you-cancer-than-stop-a-terrorist scanners.

    63. Re:Real reason by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      wtf are you talking about

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    64. Re:Real reason by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I remember when i was a kid, we would make fun of the Russians/Soviets because they had internal checkpoints, need for papers to travel, etc etc. It was a great source of pride for Americans to know they can travel freely, without the government watching over their shoulder. Im sorry you dont understand that.

      --
      Good-bye
    65. Re:Real reason by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh, I get it. Your life (understandably) is so boring, drab, and uneventful that you convince yourself that you're living in a dystopian novel. You then go on the internet trying to convince anyone who isn't needlessly indignant that they should be, and if they arent, then SHEEPLE, blah blah blah. You guys crack me up.

      No, but I do remember (not that long ago mind you), that going to the airport was simple, not a hassle and not unpleasant.

      I remember the whole family going to the gates to see someone off, or waiting there for them when they got off the plane.

      I remember not having to go through a potentially dangerous (with multiple exposures) irradiating device....and I remember even before the metal detectors, although I don't mind those, they're quite non-intrusive.

      But yes, I remember not that long ago back, when you didn't have potential to be groped by a stranger, not having to take your fucking shoes off....etc. And for what? Tests of these measure have shown they aren't really effective, things are snuck on all the time in those tests.

      Why not do something simple that is effective...and not really intrusive?

      Why not go for simple metal detectors...and bomb sniffing dogs you walk past....and then, you don't have to search everyone, you can keep your fucking shoes on....and only secondarily search anyone that beeps the detector or sets off a dog response.

      I remember (not that long ago), about the only time you worried about a kid crying, was on the plane when the pressure would make their ears pop...not from some rubber gloved TSA agent feeling them up on their way to the gate....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    66. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much the only think I can tell that they've done is amass the nation's largest collection of pocket knives and nail clippers. The actual anti-terrorism work is being in windowless SCIFs scattered around the DC Metro area. If a real terrorist gets as far as the security line in an airport, there's already been a massive intelligence failure.

    67. Re:Real reason by asylumx · · Score: 1

      the most frequent rebuttal to the "look how Israel does it" argument is that their solution couldn't scale up to the magnitude of the USA air travel infrastructure

      It's not "Israel is in a war zone and also in one of the areas of the world known for the most civil unrest and terrorist activity and needs a much more robust solution" then? This is the same argument as the people who post a picture of a teacher with a rifle in Israel and a comment saying "I wish Americans could understand this."

    68. Re:Real reason by alcourt · · Score: 2

      The TSA always gets nervous when they see me about to enter the scanner holding a permitted object in my hand? They have told me I should not feel safe in the security area.

      The object in question is an emergency asthma inhaler. The TSA panics completely when someone has an asthma attack in the security area.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
    69. Re:Real reason by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      Did you quit beating your wife today?

      Those two are not equivalent. The second question is a "trick question" while the first is not. A yes-or-no answer to the second question creates an implicit admission of spouse abuse regardless of the answer. The first quote, on the other hand, esentially asks a question with a known answer, zero, which undermines the asked persons stance. But, if there were a different truthful answer, the answer would not imply anything negative.

      Oh, and the proper answer to "Did you quit beating your wife today?" is "I do not now, nor have I ever beaten my wife, nor do I plan to do so in the future."

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    70. Re:Real reason by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The TSA does not increase security. They are so busy looking for "oversize" 4oz bottles of shampoo that commonly show up that they miss guns that rarely show up. They are so busy patting down grandmas and children there is no time to evaluate those that may pose a threat.

      Prove your assertions with valid evidence.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    71. Re:Real reason by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What, can't read? You are being held prisoner on the plane while they check up on you. That's why you're stuck for hours. HTH

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    72. Re:Real reason by FreshlyShornBalls · · Score: 1

      In Israel? Zero. And they do not have the TSA, and find them quite laughable. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/November/Israeli-Security-Expert-TSA-Procedures-Hysterical/

      Here's the saddest part of that article: "Opponents of profiling say such methods could lead to religious or ethnic discrimination."

      We, as Americans who love our rights and freedoms, will just not tolerate profiling or discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. And rightly so. But giving up other rights is just fine and dandy.

      Absolutely depressing.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    73. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're forgetting the most major, awesome one: you could go to the gate without a boarding pass! you could meet your friends/family right at the gate! that was so nice. i really miss that.

    74. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone has bomb shelters in Israel because they have enemy forces who are a very short distance away willing and able to lob bombs at them.

      I find that happens when you set up camp in the middle of someone else's land.

    75. Re:Real reason by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      They evidently polled AMTrak passengers for this one.

      Other way around. If my experience chatting with Amtrak passengers is any indication, about 80% of them are there because of the TSA, or at least agreed with me that they're a bunch of bozos on a power trip.

      No, in reality, the people who like the TSA tend to be the people who fly, but infrequently. The people who fly frequently are fed up with it and wouldn't give them a good score even if what they are doing were useful. The people who don't fly, or fly infrequently, have very little to go on, and so they make the best call based on their limited information coupled with their limited understanding of what actually makes people safe.

      That last part is key. You see, for people who do not actually understand security—your typical person, as opposed to those of us here on Slashdot, most of whom have to maintain at least some understanding of security principles as part of our jobs—anything you do under the guise of security makes them feel like you're doing a good job.

      That's why if you ask your average person what they think of a screen where a company is asking you security questions, they'll tell you that because the company wants more information about you, it must mean the company is serious about security. If you ask a security researcher what they think of the screen, they'll immediately tell you that the security questions almost always weaken security, not strengthen it.

      Public opinion is useless for this sort of thing. You want useful information about how good a job the TSA is doing, ask security researchers. You want information about how mad the public is, ask a random sampling of air travelers, and only air travelers. Asking the public as a whole is a worthless metric. It's like asking the public, "Does this guy look like a murderer?" without presenting any of the facts of the case. It's a great way of seeing how much the general public is paying attention and how much their confirmation bias gets in the way of them learning new information, but not much else apart from psychology research. Heck, all you really have to do is show them a picture, and you'll get answers that are heavily skewed towards yes.

      --

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

    76. Re:Real reason by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Very white dirty blonde with freckles actually. But apparently I have the same (extremely common) name as a black international badass and US border goons panic before they get far enough in the file to see the physical description. I don't think the TSA even gets the physical description, just the name.

      On the one hand it's nice to see that US security agencies don't profile entirely by race. On the other hand, it's a bit scary that they waste so much time and effort on such obvious false positives. On the gripping hand, if I'm travelling with people they're usually impressed when I sigh, roll my eyes, get dragged off, sometimes in handcuffs at gunpoint, only to reappear an hour later. It does tend to make travel more exciting.

    77. Re:Real reason by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      No way. I don't want to be attacked by half a tiger..

    78. Re:Real reason by ldobehardcore · · Score: 2

      It's mostly in scanner money.

      Remember the explosive residue puffer-sniffers? Their procurement cost tens of millions of dollars. They sat in warehouses for a couple of years, then when they were set up and sanity tested they didn't work very well. When field tested they turned out to give false positives for over 50% of clean subjects, and gave false negatives sometimes as well.

      In the end the TSA would have spent less money and had a more effective tool by just flipping a coin as people walked through the metal detectors.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    79. Re:Real reason by Imrik · · Score: 2

      The security issues of 9/11 were solved on 9/11 when passengers discovered that hijackers wouldn't always be taking them to the tropics and giving them an interesting story to tell.

    80. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA:

      >Not only that, but people who fly, and who are exposed to TSA screening, have an even more positive opinion than people who rarely or never fly.

      It was the second fucking paragraph.

    81. Re:Real reason by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      That's actually kind of hilarious. It might be worth it to be so blasé about it.

    82. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd argue that you can stop at your first point in rebuttal. The personal preferences of a particular individual(who in this case enjoys or at least sees no issue with the process of violently compelling peaceful people to fund an institution that orders people about and violently attacks any customer or flight service who does not comply) do not determine the moral nature of such behavior. As you point out as an intuitive counter example, enjoying prison sex does not show that the act of rape is ok.

      The rest of it(while true) is unnecessary and insufficient because it relies on the same argument from effect which then relies upon personal subjective preference just like the point you refute. Any reliance upon argument from effect begs the question of why one effect is objectively preferable. In the realm of subjective preference, this cannot be shown. Only universally preferable behavior(such as showing the contradiction in advocating or participating in the initiation of violence against innocent people) can meet this criteria.

    83. Re:Real reason by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Simple: They check nobody's standing outside the door with a box cutter before they open it.

      --
      No sig today...
    84. Re:Real reason by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Thing is, the Israelis actually fear, with good reason, terrorist attacks, and thus have built up a competent and well-executed system to deal with them. In some ways they go farther than the TSA, and in others less so, because the TSA is incompetent.

      It really has nothing to do with whether you're going too far or not enough, it's just that one is an actual security system while the other is a farce.

    85. Re:Real reason by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      their job has very little to do with terrorists or safety, and everything to do with making Americans feel safe.

      If they're supposed to make people feel safe then why do they keep stealing their laptops/phones/cameras/etc.

      --
      No sig today...
    86. Re:Real reason by sir_eccles · · Score: 2

      Now ask how many times TSA has had to change their procedures after someone tried to blow up their shoes/underwear/water bottles...

    87. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. The TSA will try to work their way into our highway system sooner or later. Can't help but wonder what percentage of the people polled work for the TSA. Hey, they're unionized with government benefits. And they're you know vital to our nation's security and all that.

    88. Re:Real reason by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Everyone has bomb shelters in Israel because they have enemy forces who are a very short distance away willing and able to lob bombs at them.

      I find that happens when you set up camp in the middle of someone else's land.

      I'll just leave these here for you.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9CauJP4Pg

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    89. Re:Real reason by GigG · · Score: 1

      Well, more along the line of there probably won't be a successful 9/11 style attack because the passengers now know the outcome. But the passengers of United Flight 93 who knew what the other planes had done and reacted as would today's passengers are still just as dead. If you took the money being spent on TSA security theater and simply put two well trained Air Marshals on every flight you might fix even the end up dead part and have lots of money left over for explosives detectors both at the airport and on the planes as well as R&D into better less detectors. Like ones that the would be hijacker doesn't know he is being detected or even checked.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    90. Re:Real reason by jasper160 · · Score: 1

      They must have polled government workers. The fat slobs form the T&A at the gates are still giving the eighty year old granny and the three year old the molestor pat down while middle aged Middle Eastern decent men are ignored.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    91. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hear hear! The problem is the young are by definition too young to remember and eventually the young will be the voting majority that never knew anything different. That is the scary future...

    92. Re:Real reason by Xenkar · · Score: 0

      Would you accept a two state solution requiring demilitarization right next to the world's 4th most powerful military? That's why the Palestinians walk away from these offers.

      After the Japanese lost in World War 2, they were limited to only have enough military force for defense, with an American military base right on Okinawa. The Palestinians won't even be allowed that level of military force.

      It really sucks how such attempts to frame Palestinians as unreasonable fall apart when someone mentions the whole context instead of just a small snippet of the whole context.

    93. Re:Real reason by Thuktun · · Score: 2

      There are cheaper and more effective methods of terrorizing the masses now.

      I object! The Department of Homeland Security is definitely NOT cheap.

    94. Re:Real reason by Thuktun · · Score: 4, Informative

      There have been several that were known to be terrorists who, under a sting operation, the TSA were waiting for.

      I think you're thinking of the FBI.

    95. Re:Real reason by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      The patdown is more invasive than it should be, but can we stop modding people +5 insightful for pretending it's molestation? After reading all the slashdot comments I was expecting to feel offended and violated when I opted for a patdown recently (I fly only very rarely), only to find I dislike it more on principle than it being a real problem.I can definitely say the hype is hurting the credibility of the anti-TSA crowd.

      As someone that would like to see the scanners removed and patdowns reserved as an escalation only, please stick with language along the lines of "invasive patdown".

    96. Re:Real reason by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In the airport I am. I put on a big grin as I hand them my passport, then they scan it, look at their screen, eyes get wide, usually there's some involuntary utterance like "oh SHIT" or "oh YES" and a very jumpy border guard marches me off, keeping his gun hand free, a little disconcerted because the international badass he just single handed apprehended doesn't seem very concerned about it.

      On the other hand, at land crossings when a dozen agents storm your car with guns drawn you just do exactly what they say (as far as you can understand when they're all yelling at the same time) and look as harmless as possible. That doesn't stop the old couple in the next lane from getting wide eyed though. Even more so when you meet them at the gas station down the road half an hour later....

    97. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have liked to have seen Montana.

    98. Re:Real reason by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" has an implied premise, which is that you are currently beating your wife

      Similarly, "So you're saying TSA doesn't do a good job? Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!" has an implied premise that the TSA is responsible for the number airplanes flown into buildings.

    99. Re:Real reason by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      If it didn't get you in actual trouble I'd suggest you subtly imply to the little old ladies that you're getting annoyed at having to kill all the security goons that get in your way.

    100. Re:Real reason by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      There was just one two years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_plane_crash

      I can't tell if you are advocating that TSA start screening private pilots in personal aircraft, or if you don't know that private pilots don't go through TSA checkpoints before going to their hangers.

      I'm not even sure if you understand that TSA doesn't screen pilots of commercial aircraft for suicidal/homicidal intentions, only for fingernail clippers and bottled water.

      In either case, blaming such an occurance on a TSA failure, when TSA wasn't involved, is a bit disengenuous. TSA couldn't have prevented this one, and they can't prevent any pilot from duplicating it. We've got too much disengenuity from TSA itself to need more from the justifiable critics.

    101. Re:Real reason by isorox · · Score: 1

      Pollsters always seem to be sampling or over sampling the wrong people.

      They evidently polled AMTrak passengers for this one.

      They evidently polled Amtracks owners

    102. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7) There was no "list" you could magically get on, but never off, that said you couldn't fly.

    103. Re:Real reason by crakbone · · Score: 1

      In the 87 years before the TSA was brought into service how many aircraft did terrorists run into buildings? In the years since the TSA has been brought into service how many times have people been able to sneak items past the TSA with all safe guards in place that could have caused the same danger as was present by the terrorists on 9/11? Including drug smuggling by TSA personnel. How many civil liberties, harassment charges, theft charges and out right breaking of laws have been committed by the TSA since it's inception not including basic Constitutional rights? If the laws and rules we had in place at the time could have prevented what happened on 9/11, if properly followed, how are more laws and rules going to stop it? Especially by a group that has a proven track record of not following and over reaching the basic rules it was originally allotted.

    104. Re:Real reason by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I think there is something to be said about a strange man rubbing the my son's nut sack. It's for the children, of course, and Terrorists.

    105. Re:Real reason by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Would you accept a two state solution...

      That's accepting that the people squatting in the West Bank & Gaza are actually anything other than random people (and now their descendants) that just happened to be squatting in the area in 1948.

      There are no "Palestinians" and there's never been a nation called "Palestine". These poor bastards are nothing but cat's paws being used by the Arab nations as another way to attack Israel. The Arab nations could have and could still offer them refuge, but they didn't and won't, as the "Palestinians" are far too useful a tool to attack Israel and the West with.

      Palestinians have been offered their own state on generous terms on multiple occasions and have flatly rejected it each time, as their true goal is not a state, but the total elimination of Israel and genocide for the Jews, completing what they and the Nazis embarked upon in the 1940s as allies.

      That same old ethnic/religious hatred that powered the Nazi concentration camps, from the same people, is what is causing the problems in the Middle East regarding Israel.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    106. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone, excluding Israeli Arabs, has bomb shelters in Israel

      That's because the rockets know to avoid Arabs and only hit Jewish people.

    107. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I agree with the overall sentiment of your post...
      There were no internal checkpoints in the USSR with the exception of the WWII or limited-access areas (like around secret installations). Nobody asked for your papers on the streets.
      People needed to show their passports to buy tickets because that was their ID.
      Have you ever been able to get on a plane without an ID in the US?

    108. Re:Real reason by cpm99352 · · Score: 1

      Let's also recall in the 80's & 90's you could walk up to the airport counter, pay cash and fly right then.

      Let's also recall during that same period you could use someone else's ticket (they couldn't make the trip, so sold it to you). That's the real reason the airlines were so happy to go along w/ the security theater - people can no longer sell their airplane tickets on the open market.

      Think about it - why that critical need to verify your identity 30 minutes before you board the airplane?

    109. Re:Real reason by wispoftow · · Score: 1

      This video is true: I am usually questioned three times (once on entry to the airport), once in line, and for some reason I get picked on again at some point.

      For the "wah the US govt and everything they do sux" crowd, there are soldiers nearby who will fill you full of bullets at the slightest hint of trouble--Jew or Goy.

      I think the US TSA does fine. They make people feel safer, and they make it even a bit harder for a lunatic to charge in with a vest full of dynamite. Kol Ha Kavod!

    110. Re:Real reason by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      No, but I do remember (not that long ago mind you), ...

      Today's XKCD seems appropriate here. By around 2036, the majority of Americans will be too young to remember these things. Probably sooner, honestly.

    111. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,I think the poster was making the point that TSA does not prevent airplanes from flying into buildings, hence contradicting the OPs flawed attempted point that the absence of a major terrorism incident by air means TSA does us good. Flawed because one person still managed to cause the better part of $40 million in damage and at least one death with an airplane, and flawed because absence of incidents is not evidence of competence. (While presenting much additional evidence of incompetence.)

      Mod 2 parent up.

    112. Re:Real reason by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      How many terrorists has the TSA caught?

      Well, obviously they are effective, because for years I could not fly without getting the "enhanced security pat-down" because my name was on the do-not-fly list. I got very used to the blue gloves and their attempts to be "polite" as they ran-snacked every last hope of privacy and decency when I traveled. Never mind that I have the luck of possessing perhaps the most common first AND last name in the western hemisphere, I got the interrogation. Every damned time I flew.

      I found out years later, when it took 4 hours to open up a bank account, that somebody used my (ridiculously common) name as an alias to commit international wire fraud through a bank in the Bahamas.

      Since the criminal who used the alias in the first place had long ago ditched the identity, why was I still being hassled? Like my mamma always used to say, Stupid is as stupid does...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    113. Re:Real reason by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      No,I think the poster was making the point that TSA does not prevent airplanes from flying into buildings,

      That's right, they don't. He was replying to a post that was talking about TSA preventing terrorists commandeering them and flying them into buildings, not the pilots, either deliberately or accidentally. This question was in the context of TSA succeeding in a task which TSA actually (pretends) to do, not one that it does not and cannot do.

      In other words, like I already said, blaming TSA for failing to stop a private pilot from flying his private aircraft into a building is wrong because they do not have the responsibility to stop that, and do not claim they can prevent that.

      By blaming them for this failure, you imply they DO have the responsibility for stopping it, or should have that job. You have enough stuff to blame them for without having to make stuff up, and they are pervasive enough without suggesting they control all airflight in the continental US.

      Flawed because one person still managed to cause the better part of $40 million in damage and at least one death with an airplane,

      Which was not the fault of TSA for failing to prevent, and is thus not reasonably part of any evaluation of their competence (or lack thereof). They also failed to stop the milk in my refridgerator from going sour and my cat from peeing on the carpet. Should we judge them on those failures, too? Answer yes to that and most people you want to convert to your opinion of the TSA will think you are a rabid nitwit and write you off as a loon. You'll preach to the choir, but the choir isn't enough to get the problem fixed.

    114. Re:Real reason by Xenkar · · Score: 0

      Nice job ignoring the whole "demilitarized" part of the angle. These poor bastards are currently being occupied by Israeli soldiers and will still be even after a two-state solution as some random freedom fighter/terrorist (depends on your point of view) will shoot off an ineffective rocket at Israel while Israel retaliates with missiles funded by US taxpayers and militarized bulldozers purchased from US companies. There are even laws on the books forbidding companies from withholding their wares from Israel when they decide that having their bulldozers push down people's houses isn't exactly good for public relations.

      Fortunately if you read some of my previous posts which got me labelled as an anti-semite (act of being someone who criticizes behavior of Jewish people and/or the state of Israel), there is a solution acceptable to Palestinians without a drop of Jewish blood hitting the ground. Build floating cities in the ocean. Has an area for some reason become too anti-semitic? Just draw up the anchors and send those floating cities to the next friendly port.

      One of the pro-Israel videos I watched mentioned that the pre-1967 borders aren't defensible, and to that I say with advances in military technology, is anything short of Israel consuming all of the arab/muslim lands for a thousand miles in each direction enough to ensure the safety of Israel? What about when some muslim country manages to get into outer space and builds some sort of asteroid coil gun satellite?

      I think it would be more prudent for Israel to stop screwing these people over. When you screw people over, you dehumanize yourself in their eyes. They become less likely to feel empathy for your plight.

      When you screw over your allies with layers of usury and usurp their political parties, people begin to ask:
      "Why should we go to war with Iran for the benefit of the World's Fourth Largest Military that our tax dollars pay for?"
      "Why should our tax dollars go towards paying for a military occupation where one side offers an insulting two state solution where the occupied sign away their right to be able to defend themselves?"
      "Why should my paycheck shrink even more to help those who attacked the USS Liberty in order to pull us into the Six Day War?"

      I don't want to see jews wiped off this planet. I just want you to stop making people want to wipe you off the planet. Calling me and those like me anti-semites does nothing to stop the resentment that you are building up in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. I don't want to see my fellow Americans die for the sake of Israel's trouble making.

      Those who want the jews out of their hair outnumber you. Your allies are growing sick of you. Holocaust guilt media is losing its effectiveness. It annoys me how you use that on us, those who have relatives who went to Europe and Asia to stop the Axis powers. It as if you lack the ability to show appreciation for those who have allowed there to be 13.2 million jews on this Earth instead of Hitler's supposed zero jews on this Earth.

      I'd give a more personalized story about it but apparently there is an anti-semite hunter out there trying to hunt me down and out me in real life.

    115. Re:Real reason by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm stuck on a plane for hours because that's how long it takes to get to my destination and I'd rather not step out when I am 30,000 feet in the air. I don't know what you're talking about.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    116. Re:Real reason by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well see, when most people say they're stuck on a plane, it usually means stuck on the ground. Sometimes up to six hours. I never heard any complaint about being stuck in the air (gee, if that last engine quits, we'll be up here all day), unless they're stuck in a holding pattern for weather or traffic congestion.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    117. Re:Real reason by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      Just in case you are no Poe:

      Tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into between the invention of the airplane and *just before* 9/11...
      All prevented by TSA? Wait, TSA wasn't there...

    118. Re:Real reason by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      "On the gripping hand..."

      It's nice to see Slashdot can still be Slashdot.

    119. Re:Real reason by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Yes. Once upon a time for domestic flights, showing a valid ticket was sufficient. No ID was required and if a passenger was asked for one, he'd be offended.

      I know, it sounds like fiction, these days. Which is immensely sad.

    120. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno how often do You fly? I'm on transatlantic flights pretty often and solely book on British Airways or Lufthansa, stay away from AA, United, Delta or US Air. All these airlines, representing the land of the free and freedom overall, have policy to remind passengers that "according to new security measures, the passengers may be detained or arrested if they do not remain in their seats during the last 2 hours of the flight to the United States."

      Ah ... last week I had another "adventure" in the Land of the Free - United Representative refused to check me in on the flight to Germany, because "I had no return ticket to the US." Jesus .... some ppl may never guess that a passenger has a return ticket, to Germany. Besides that, who gives a *uck where the passenger is flying? Maybe she's going to Germany, staying for a week and then flying to Norway with a low-cost airline .... but ... You know ... we have to protect our freedom and our citizens.

    121. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preface the word job with the word hand and you'll have what the TSA does.

    122. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The TSA does not increase security. They are so busy looking for "oversize" 4oz bottles of shampoo that commonly show up that they miss guns that rarely show up. They are so busy patting down grandmas and children there is no time to evaluate those that may pose a threat."

      I saw this actually happen once. During the flight the lady sitting next to me starting going through her carry on and I hear an, "oh shit!". I glance over and see a gun in her bag. She looks at me and says "I forgot to leave my gun at home and they didn't notice it at security!". I replied, "Wow... good thing it didn't cause you any trouble... Is it loaded?". "yes". "Ah, well, probably best just to keep it hidden".

    123. Re:Real reason by isorox · · Score: 1

      Most of the people either don't travel by air, or travel very infrequently. Those of us who are road warriors are vastly more likely to hate the TSA with vehemence.

      I don't travel much, I fly about 80 times a year, however the most annoying security I find isn't the U.S (although BWI won't be seeing me again, IAD are much more professional IME). It isn't Israel either. It's South Asia -- DEL, and to a lesser extent ISB to be specific.

    124. Re:Real reason by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So the place was empty before?
      While Israel has a lot of things going for it and is the about the only place in that part of the world that pays any attention to the idea of the rule of law, they are not perfect and not above criticism. At this point they unfortunately appear to be run by corrupt fascists intent on wiping out a minority, which is a horrible irony that must really upset the very people you are trying to use to justify your statements above. While I can see the wild west thing of moving natives onto reservations then taking over the reservations strikes a chord with some in the US that see a parallel with their own history, it's still disgusting to pretend that those people are worthless savages that must move aside.
      Don't try to turn this into an all or nothing argument and don't try to pretend I hate an entire country or an entire race of people.

    125. Re:Real reason by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Some of us still remember our roots.

    126. Re:Real reason by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      If one answers "yes" to the former, one is admitting to beating one's wife.
      If one answers "no" to the former, one is admitting to beating one's wife.

      If one answers "yes" to the former, one is stating the TSA isn't doing a good job, regardless of whether they are responsible for the number of airplanes flown into buildings.
      If one answers "no" to the former, one is stating the TSA is doing a good job, regardless of whether they are responsible for the number of airlanes flown into buildings.

      The answer "Yes, that is what I am saying" is a valid answer and doesn't imply that the TSA is responsible for airplanes flown into buildings. Rather, the asker is using one criteria for success and one can state there is other criteria for success e.g. "None, but in doing so, they have violated the privacy and personal rights of thousands of people, which is a failure."

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    127. Re:Real reason by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      OK, that is one instance out of how many? Or, is it required that they be 100% perfect, 100% of the time? What is the percentage of failure?

      That is called anecdotal evidence, btw, which is not valid evidence.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    128. Re:Real reason by b1scuit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the September 11th attacks were terrible, but they were a one trick pony. That won't happen again, at least not with that M.O.

    129. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree complete with you're astute comment. A Poll of frequent flyers would be the only meaningful method.

    130. Re:Real reason by margeman2k3 · · Score: 1

      All evidence is going to be anecdotal.
      The TSA isn't going to issue a press release stating that they missed a gun/bomb/knife/etc. In order to do that, they'd need to know that they missed it, which means that they "missed" it intentionally.

      And yes, they do need a 100% success rate.
      What if it was a bomb they missed?
      If they make a mistake, it could kill 200 people. The cost of failure is huge, so they need to be perfect.
      Remember the underwear bomber? They missed him, and the only reason the people on that flight survived was because of his own incompetence.

    131. Re:Real reason by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      If you want to get red flagged as someone carrying explosives all you need to do is give your shoes a shine before going through security

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    132. Re:Real reason by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      It's very hard to have a target when you use a glorified bottle rocket

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    133. Re:Real reason by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      The teacher with rifle idea wouldn't work in the US. I have seen US schoolkids and I suspect that there would be lots of dead ones at the hands of teachers the day this policy began.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    134. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying TSA don't do a good job?
      Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!

      Hmm. Well, this one comes to mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

    135. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine: How many times have you beaten your wife today?

    136. Re:Real reason by billd10 · · Score: 0

      For some people, the illusion of security is just as good as being secure. Polls can be quite misleading, as you don't know how they selected the interviewees. I am not a road warrior, but do travel a fair amount. I see little benefit to TSA and I sense that the traveling public is getting more irritated with them as time goes by and they think up new ways to harass the public. TSA doesn't really seem intelligent enough to stop a terrorist even if he were wearing an "Al Quaeda forever...Down with the American Pigs" T-shirt.

    137. Re:Real reason by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Fine trolling, been a while since I saw any so good.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  2. advertisement by nazsco · · Score: 4, Informative

    how do you prove to potential clients that you can skew every public opinion survey?

    release one saying TSA is loved!

    1. Re:advertisement by BigT · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sample question from the TSA survey:

      Do you think the TSA is:
      a) Doing an excellent job
      b) Doing a great job
      c) The best thing EVAR!
      d) The reason I hate America, children, and puppies.

      --
      Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
    2. Re:advertisement by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0, Troll

      how do you prove to potential clients that you can skew every public opinion survey

      Get George Bush elected?

      (Sorry, that wasn't fair.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:advertisement by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that in people's minds it was more like:
      a. they're doing a good job
      b. they're not doing a good job so when they see people vote for this option, they will step up their security to even more ridiculous levels

      Seriously, I don't think it's outrageous to say that people realistically thought if they voted no, security would get more intrusive

    4. Re:advertisement by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Given how the TSA staff are often portrayed in the media (which bizarrely doesn't seem to have affected the poll) maybe people really do think that enough criticism of the TSA is just going to result in a cavity search on every trip.

    5. Re:advertisement by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Too complicated:

      1.) Do you love the TSA, 'Merica, and her Purple Mountain Majesties?
      or
      2.) Are a terrorist?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:advertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and the both guys answering the poll seemed slightly confused.

      One sure fire way to tell when you're being bullshitted with polls is they don't say how many people were polled. Lies, damn lies and statistics...

      (And sucky submitters and lousy editors!)

    7. Re:advertisement by Roogna · · Score: 1

      This isn't far off is it, as I remember at least one article over the past few years saying that an easy way to end up on the no-fly list is to criticize the TSA. Sadly I'm too busy at the moment to find it, but it even got listed here on /. at one point.

    8. Re:advertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? This should be informative.

      That's how the polls work. Currently for example there are a bunch of people conducting political polls on voters, and the questions are like "If election was now, would you vote for Obama or Romney?"

      Excuse me? How arrogant can those people possible get?

  3. Proof the system works! by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Most Americans think the TSA is doing a 'good job,'

    Of course they do. That's the whole point of security theatre:

    Security theater: term that describes security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

    1. Re:Proof the system works! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and tsa thinks that somewhat is good when interpreting the results.

      and polled mostly people who hadn't flown and just miniscule amount of people who could compare with other countries..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Proof the system works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Most Americans think the TSA is doing a 'good job,'

      Of course they do. That's the whole point of security theatre:

      Security theater: term that describes security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

      Bruce? Is that you??

    3. Re:Proof the system works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I was thinking it was more of "54% of Americans aware that confidentiality promises aren't worth the shit generated when lawyers write them up — not when the government comes knocking — and would prefer to retain the ability to continue flying from US airports, while 46% of Americans will wake up tomorrow to find themselves on the super-mega-ultra secret 'do not fly but also harass endlessly' list".

  4. 54% is considered a good grade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF.

    1. Re:54% is considered a good grade? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      WTF.

      It's 'better than average' - It's the Lake Woebegon way.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:54% is considered a good grade? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      That's good or excellent job. It'd be like 54% of a class getting an A or B. Of course, if the other 46% gets an F, then it's bad. However, if the other 46% is C's, then it's pretty decent.

    3. Re:54% is considered a good grade? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I deposited a check recently. The next day, I was surveyed on my banking experience. They wanted to know how helpful the teller was at selling financial products not related to check depositing; whether she smiled, and so on. Each grade less than a 10 was followed up on-- as if her job depended on my unwillingness to cakk her stellar.
      It's like ebay--anything less than a five star rating results in financial penalties.

      Using that standard, 54% is a flunking grade.

    4. Re:54% is considered a good grade? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Any service agency that gets a ~50% approval should be looking to improve or disband. That level of satisfaction is poor! If you are a seller on eBay with a 97% rating, that is considered pretty bad. I think the IRS would not be pleased if I paid my taxes 54% of the time.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    5. Re:54% is considered a good grade? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Terrorist!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:54% is considered a good grade? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      I deposited a check recently. The next day, I was surveyed on my banking experience. They wanted to know how helpful the teller was at selling financial products not related to check depositing [...]

      I've identified your problem: You're using a profit-driven bank instead of a member-driven credit union.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  5. Biggest load of crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This survey has got to be the biggest load of crap I have heard in a long time.

    1. Re:Biggest load of crap... by Anrego · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that?

      I think that what a lot of the slashdot crowd forgets is that the reason all these things we hate go on is because the public in general is ok with them. We care about these issues and are baffled by the fact that others don't.. but they care about stuff we don't. If everyone _really_ hated the TSA, or was upset about the ongoing errosion of privacy, or patent insanity, or IP nonsense.. it would be stopped immediately. Truth is there is only a small group that care about these things.. we just perceive it as a huge thing because we hear about it constantly in our chosen circles.

      A lot of what the TSA does is not designed for security, but to provide the illusion of it. We get this. The illusion however is effective to those who either don't get it or don't care.

      This isn't just specific to us either. It happens in most areas. I'm sure there are groups who feel passionately about other things that we really should be paying attention to but could give a shit about. That's just the way this stuff works.

      At the very minimum, we have to accept that we represent a minority opinion on issues such as privacy and security.. and move from there. Assuming the public would be outraged and fall in behind us if we could only explain it to them correctly is not gonna get us anywhere.

    2. Re:Biggest load of crap... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that democracy is functioning for us. If we have no real choice on th e matter, then an option can be unpopular but still remain. Even them, there it's skewing for demographics with higher turnout.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Biggest load of crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point but often times only a small segment of a population if passionate and viral enough are quite capable of shaping the public arena. Precisely because they are speaking up in a unified voice that the other 90% either don't know they have or just don't care. So don't ever give up the fight because you are making a difference. Without being a madman don't ever give up an opportunity to help wake up you fellow man/citizen. The forces that be have been quite effective in lulling them to sleep.

  6. not that surprising to me by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think it requires assuming the poll was biased or that "internet sites" are posting un-vetted charges. A simpler explanation is that, even if the TSA does suck, most Americans either don't know or don't care. In particular, a significant percentage of Americans don't fly regularly, and they tend to support whatever air-security measures some official claims are necessary. To them, something that sounds like security is good, and who cares if someone's inconvenienced, because it's not them anyway. For example, a 2010 poll found that x-ray scanners and new pat-down procedures were more popular among non-fliers:

    Among Americans who fly at least once a year, 58 percent support the new x-ray scanners, versus 70 percent of Americans who fly less often than that. Support for the new pat-down procedures is at 44 percent among fliers, meanwhile, versus 52 percent among those who do not fly regularly.

    1. Re:not that surprising to me by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, people like it when bad things happen to other people but not themselves.

    2. Re:not that surprising to me by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, people like it when bad things happen to other people but not themselves.

      No, people are INDIFFERENT to bad things happening to strangers far away.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:not that surprising to me by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

      Non-fliers responding to this question are probably more concerned with planes falling out of the sky than the strictness of airport security. I don't think it's fair to suggest they "like it when bad things happen to other people"

    4. Re:not that surprising to me by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Job 2:4 "And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man has will he give for his life."

      That people will allow others to die or suffer if it brings them security.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re:not that surprising to me by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1
    6. Re:not that surprising to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think in the eyes of a non-flyer, it's more along the lines of "I don't care if they have to wait 3 days in the airport at security and be body cavity searched every hour, as long as that means there's no chance of the plane falling down around here and inconveniencing my day".

    7. Re:not that surprising to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, CrimsonAvenger. Personally, I quite like it when you are avenging the crimson out of strangers far away from me. Far away!

    8. Re:not that surprising to me by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. But it requires institutionalizing that way of thought, breaking a man's will from the day he is born, and treating as furniture to be thrown around one's house to achieve that result; and it must be continually reinforced from every angle, such that when a man voices that he prefers to try a different way, a thousand men will jump up to condemn him. Much as the religious are taught that they can never find happiness in this life, but must struggle every day thence, giving them a single day of happiness destroys those beliefs like a snowflake in a nuclear reactor.

      Show them that they can rebel against that way of thinking, that some despondent enemy is not in complete control of their lives, but in fear of it, and a man will lay down his life to protect all that he has.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    9. Re:not that surprising to me by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      One of the fundamental principles of comedy.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    10. Re:not that surprising to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between comedy and tragedy is distance

    11. Re:not that surprising to me by epp_b · · Score: 2

      To them, something that sounds like security is good, and who cares if someone's inconvenienced, because it's not them anyway.

      This is exactly the problem: too many people completely ignorant to "first they came..." situations.

      It reminds me of an unrelated, but applicable, quote I heard in a video from a National Geographic photographer...

      On our drive out, my assistant spotted this big stork, with an eight-foot wingspan, that looked like it was trying poke a hole in a great egret ... and we waited out there ... it was actually an anaconda that was crushing [the egret] in an attempt to eat it; you could hear little bones popping as it squeezed [...]

      As we drove away, I asked my assistant, "why is it that the big bird would be poking at the little bird?", she said, "he wasn't, he was trying to poke a hole in the snake," and I said, "well, why would he care about what happens to that other bird?"

      She responded, "That's an American attitude, Joel. That big bird knows that what happens to that little guy will eventually happen to him, so he tried to take the snake out."


      I have tried to explain to my parents, to others in my family, to friends ... that we are heading down a dark path with security theatre (I'm in Canada and CATSA is the same idea, same body scanners, etc.). They are chipping away at our liberties for a facade. Even if it was effective, it's still not worth giving up freedoms.

      The typical responses are simply stupefying: I'm too tired to think about it
      What about the people who have lost friends and family in terrorist attacks?
      Would you want to be in plane with a terrorist?

      It makes me wonder... do people just succumb to apathy after a certain age? Do they simply not care about the legacy they'll leave?

    12. Re:not that surprising to me by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I should have stuck a little (I disagree) after the quote. You're right that in general people may be that way but a certain percentage aren't.

      Anyhow, some religious types believe that paradise is on earth and death is not their friend but the enemy. (1 Co. 15:26) No need to escape this life to have happiness in the next, happiness is right here.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    13. Re:not that surprising to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you slip on a banana peel it's comedy. When I slip on a banana peel it's tragedy.

    14. Re:not that surprising to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit cynical really - it's more likely that since they don't fly they don't experience the problem element, and they appreciate the (apparently) lower chance of being hit by a plane when visiting sky scrapers...

      Apart from the astronomical costs of the damn thing, it's win-win for them.

    15. Re:not that surprising to me by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I always thought that they were saying that the happiness they were peddling was supposed to be superior to the happiness attained in this life, but then, I tend to just watch them violate their own rules, and quietly shuffle them into the category of hypocrites. Which is one of my quieter charms: in so far as I refuse to accept the validity of any law until it has been aggressively tested by myself or certain, trusted others, it's very hard to find myself being a hypocrite; being wrong doesn't carry any psychological weight (being wrong in of itself is no pain; however, the social requirements of being wrong are a chafing irritation; depending on what culture you come from, they tend to over-stress one part of the overall process, with many of them simply getting stuck in one part of it; endless loops of stupidity, as I twiddle my thumbs, waiting for others to gradually reach the conclusion I met hours, days, weeks, or months ago; I've since discovered that many of these individuals are actually mentally ill, as they ruminate on the memory of the implied mistake, constantly fixating on it, over and over again, until a molehill becomes a mountain), so updates are theoretically faster.

      You want to play {holy man}? Fine. But for the love of {deity}, don't lie and say the money you're collecting is for {gender of deity}; it's for your own ass, pure and simple. But no, you mock your own {deity} by playing light music while passing around plates or bowls during the service supposedly dedicated to their spiritual enrichment. Yes, yes, you quote from your book about how money is sinful, or how you are too wrapped up in your studies to take a common job, or how your {deity} will provide for you from his own mouth, but it's the hands of the people which are providing you with the money you are so keen on receiving.

      Sure, if your {deity} shows up with a magical {apparatus} that lets you get whatever you want without the need for fiscal transactions, by all means, accept my apologies; otherwise, realize the reality of the situation you are in.

      At the very least, use a bloody donation box outside the main hall instead of your plates / bowls. I know, I know, without the psychological duress or social shunning that goes with watching who does and does not donate during a service ("That's the third week that Mrs. Bennings hasn't put something on the tray, perhaps we should approach her as a group, and ask her if everything is alright?"), the donations might be a little light; if this is a problem for you, consider a new occupation. Or do the priestly thing part-time, like many of your founding members supposedly did. Yes, it sucks, I know you want a leisurely lifestyle in which you have a 1.5-hour work week, and more money that you can imagine, all for wearing some funny clothes once in a while, and reading some verses / sutras / passages / whatever; no, that's not how things are meant to work.

           

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    16. Re:not that surprising to me by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Jesus was poor, he said to give freely what you received free. Paul said that he stayed up half the night working so that the brothers wouldn't be paying him to preach.

      A minister who works for a wage has a conflict of interest. Instead of teaching to live simple lives and not become fixated on material things he ends up encouraging many kids, starting up a family business and... don't forget the 10%! Now send all those kids to college, get them good jobs and... don't forget the 10%!

      Worse, now it's no longer his aim to teach the truth or tell people what they need to hear. Instead he'll tell them whatever they want to hear or whatever will scare them enough to keep coming and dropping in the money.

      Many may not agree with excommunication but it's a scriptural teaching designed to help an unrepentant sinner see the seriousness of their actions. But we can't let them stop giving us money... keep those pews full!

      Do it all by private donation and put contribution boxes on the wall, if God doesn't want you to keep things running you'll find out soon enough. :-)
      [That's how mine does it]

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  7. 54% is LOW by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If 54% think it's doing a 'good job', that means that 46% of Americans DON'T think it's doing a good job.

    Fifty four percent is incredibly bad performance - it's a failure at a high school test.

    What if I were to tell you that 55% of Americans think the IRS is doing a good job? It's certainly something I could believe - as the IRS audits less than 1% of Americans each year. Give something to compare it to. Otherwise, this is a puff article designed to make the TSA look good without any evidence WHATSOEVER.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:54% is LOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at it from the perspective of having a 9/11 style attack. Then yes they are doing a good job.

    2. Re:54% is LOW by biometrizilla · · Score: 1

      Yet if current polls are to be believed, it only takes a 48% approval rating to get re-elected President of the US: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    3. Re:54% is LOW by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But is the TSA actively preventing a 9/11 style attack, or is a 9/11 style attack prevented by reinforced cockpit doors and general passenger awareness that following a hijacker's demands no longer leads to a safe landing? Seriously, what kind of terrorist post 9/11 is going to get on a plane with a box cutter and not be torn asunder by a mob of angry passengers?

      I traveled abroad for the first time recently to Japan. When I left for home, I didn't have to take off my shoes or my belt, didn't have to go through a full body scan, didn't have to be groped or fondled and generally humiliated. After we landed in LAX and I went through security again, I was standing around with a bunch of guys from my flight as we put on our belts and our shoes, generally redressing in the middle of a crowded airport terminal, and the one said to me "Welcome back to America." Indeed.

    4. Re:54% is LOW by Bigby · · Score: 1

      But democracy is the answer to everything. Only the majority matters.

    5. Re:54% is LOW by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      No, not really. We didn't really have a 9/11-scale attack before 9/11. But then 9/11 happened. So the fact that we haven't seen another one yet doesn't mean that we won't.

      The real increases to security have been secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back (among other things). The TSA is just an organization that violates people's freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:54% is LOW by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Why did you have to go through security again, after the flight? Unless you mean US Customs inspection, but they aren't looking for box cutters.

    7. Re:54% is LOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, not really. We didn't really have a 9/11-scale attack before 9/11

      Of course we did. All over the world. They just weren't as wildly successful.

    8. Re:54% is LOW by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      54% is LOW: If 54% think it's doing a 'good job', that means that 46% of Americans DON'T think it's doing a good job.

      And yet, Congress would love to even approach TSA approval ratings (it's around 17% now).

    9. Re:54% is LOW by bla · · Score: 1

      probably a connection... i just did the same thing and had an identical experience. japan -> SFO -> east coast u.s.

      in most airports international arrivals and domestic departures are in different areas. so you arrive internationally, go through u.s. customs and immigration, leave the "secure area," go to your connecting domestic flight, and welcome to security theatre.

      i opted out of the scanners (as i always have) which pissed off my husband, but we had enough time to make the connecting flight and i guess i'm just stubborn enough to point out when theatre is, in fact, theatre. the GP was right... at least in japan, there was no taking your shoes off, no irradiating scanners, no obsession with liquids. just the old-style luggage scanners and metal detectors. way faster, way more dignity. and as so many other posters have pointed out, just as secure. *sigh*

    10. Re:54% is LOW by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      bla has it right. It was all fucked up. My plane from Japan was late, and by the time I got through customs and got my back, they wouldn't let me re-check it to make my connection, since they said my bag wouldn't make it to the plane in time. They told me I had to leave, go through security again, and then take my bag to the plane and they would put it on board there. By the time I got to security they told me no way I could do that, and I'd have to wait in line to get by bag rechecked and go through security again. Luckily I explained my situation and they got me and my fellow passengers to the front of the ticket line and in the security short line.

    11. Re:54% is LOW by SlashDev · · Score: 1

      Exactly and since when are people able to determine if a agency able to do its job properly? Are we experts in security enforcement?

      --

      TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
    12. Re:54% is LOW by Beerdood · · Score: 1

      I think that people's opinions are largely irrelevant to the actual question or the point of the question. What exactly is a good job? Using magic rock logic, you could conclude that they're doing a good job because of no plane crashes by terrorists. Or maybe their "job" is security theater, which they're doing an excellent job at.

      If you polled Americans on whether they thought the IRS was doing a good job, I'd be surprised if they actually had 50% or more saying "yes" to that. Even if the bookkeeping and accounting is stellar, people will say no because they just hate paying taxes. Maybe 80% or more of that 54% that said good job don't even fly - making the question completely pointless.

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    13. Re:54% is LOW by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In today's polarized world of politics, 54% means something different. If a president won an election with 54% of the popular vote nowadays, it would be considered a landslide.

  8. I see nothing strange here by theRunicBard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most Americans think that evolution is controversial, that Algebra is too hard for them, that FOX is informative, and that the Earth revolves around Oprah. Indeed, nothing strange here. Move along.

    1. Re:I see nothing strange here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Evolution is controversial. That's a fact. There's a great deal of controversy over it.
      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    2. Re:I see nothing strange here by inode_buddha · · Score: 0

      "trickle-down" is also a theory, in the same way that evolution is.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:I see nothing strange here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, sherlock. That was his point. That evolution is controversial because Americans are willing to cling to the comforting believe in an invisible and immortal sky-daddy, and that evolution is inconsistent with the Christian belief that humans rode dinosaurs.

      Of course, you're just another American idiot, and living proof that elitist socially-retarded aspies with 3-digit I.Q.'s can be as equally as annoying and useless as inbred bible-thumping, FOX-watching, 2-digit IQ hicks.

      Dumbfuck.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    4. Re:I see nothing strange here by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not for any good reason.

      You knew what he meant.

    5. Re:I see nothing strange here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Trickle-down is a hypothesis. Reagan's experiment in the 80s demonstrated that it does not in fact work, and we can't really call it a theory without any experimental evidence in its favor.

    6. Re:I see nothing strange here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the gravity well around Oprah is truly impressive...

    7. Re:I see nothing strange here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not.

      Trickle down has never been verified by experimentation. Evolution has.

    8. Re:I see nothing strange here by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Actually, if you calculate the barycentre of the Earth-Oprah system....

  9. Just goes to show... by robnator · · Score: 1

    polls don't reflect, well, anything but the pollster's spin.

    --
    "If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
    1. Re:Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A poll walked into a bar....

    2. Re:Just goes to show... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A poll that spins is a bad poll. A good pollster will make the questions as neutral as possible. Like

      [ ] TSA is doing an excellent job
      [ ] TSA is doing a good job
      [ ] TSA is doing an OK job
      [ ] TSA is doing a mediocre job
      [ ] TSA is doing a terrible job
      [ ] TSA should be shut down and its employees jailed

      A good poll will also ask the same question more than once using different wording. If you see a poll from a political party, you can be pretty sure it's bullshit (I've had these polls sent to me, both major parties' polls are utter shit). OTOH a poll by a reputable pollster is designed to gain information for whoever commissioned the study. They have PhDs in statistics, psychology, and other disciplines to design the poll and do the statistical analysis on the results --I've worked with them and have done this sort of thing in the past. I was in charge of the designing and writing the database of the results for the statistitians to analyze. It was pretty interesting work. Of course, back then I was writing in NOMAD for mainframe size data and dBase for smaller datasets, not (ugh!) Access like I'm stuck with now. I'm glad I'm close to retiring, work isn't as fun as it used to be.

  10. Survey finds 54% of Americans are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprising, I would have thought the number would be a little higher.

  11. I wonder by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    I wonder who paid for this survey? Because I'm sure it'll come out someday.... I started driving everywhere since 9-11 anyway. Saw the writing on the wall, etc. Gonna have to keep up the pressure re TSA, because frankly the TSA makes me feel very unsafe, simply because they even exist in the first place. And guess what, I happen to *live* in NY...

    --
    C|N>K
  12. HAHAHA! by TorrentFox · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Internet sites, where reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges.'

    I haven't laughed so hard in months. Thank you, PR lackey, for brightening my day.

    1. Re:HAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 to this! "reporting standards" ???
      All you have to is look at your local newspaper/online news and you can find literally dozens of errors/omissions/etc.
      I once saw an internet article that claimed you were more likely to be hit by a meteor than to be selected for an IRS audit. (Wish I could find that link...)
      ...standards my ass

      ---------------

      The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
      - Thomas Jefferson

    2. Re:HAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, that the same gullible 54% of complete dronetards will believe this just as well.

      And the problem is, that we still see them as individuals with opinion, instead of as limbs of the body of their opinion makers. That has to stop.

      Hell, even calling them alive or humans, is highly questionable.

    3. Re:HAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. People who disagree with me shouldn't have full civil rights!
      Having opinions I look down on means you're not fully human.

    4. Re:HAHAHA! by platkat · · Score: 1

      "Internet sites, such as the one where you're reading this article..."

  13. Biased question no matter how you answer it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 100% of people had said not effective then it would be taken as a need to increase TSA funding. So what the poll questions really boil down to: "I think the TSA is doing great", and "I think the TSA needs to be even stronger".

  14. Bullshit by fnj · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's bullshit. The poll is an outright conniving intentional lie. All the well known polling organizations are corrupt and involved in multiple conspiracies.

    Anyone who believes this shit believes in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause, has bought the Brooklyn Bridge multiple times from the same scruffy guy in rags pushing a pram full of possessions down the street, denies that American elections are rigged, and really believes Hitler and the North Korean prick got 99% of the vote in their respective elections.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in the Santa Clause. Didn't you see the movie with Tim Allen?

  15. Let me tell you about my last encounter with TSA.. by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I accidentally left my sunglasses and jacket in one of those tubs that you put through the scanner last Christmas while rushing to a last minute flight after some genius wearing more chains than Mr. T snarled up the security queue for 30 minutes at a regional airport.

    Upon returning a week later and checking in with TSA agents, I found out they had itemized and bagged my stuff and got both back to me in less than 15 minutes.

    Not everywhere is Dulles.

  16. Lies, damn lies, statistics, opinion polls by cocotoni · · Score: 1

    And in related news billions of flies around the world prefer shit to honey, but I don't take their preference as a nutritional suggestion.

  17. I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    I do a fair bit of flying and while I don't particularly like the TSA, I don't hate them, either. They have a job I wouldn't care to have myself. They haven't made my life any worse than that of any other guy (or gal) in the line; I'd say I like them as much as I like the average cashier at WalMart.

    From my experiences with TSA at a lot of different airports in this country, I would say they are doing their jobs as said jobs are prescribed to them. That, in a lot of cases, qualifies as a "good job". Not outstandingly good or bad, just "good".

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by Hatta · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it a good thing to do a good job at violating people's privacy? The cashier at walmart at least provides a public service. A TSA agent has no legitimate reason to exist.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem to be more focused on the individuals who work for the TSA, as opposed to most of Slashdot who are concerned with the rule makers who run it. The who pretends to thoughfully compare your face to your ID prior to granting you access to the scanners, didn't invent that job for himself. Nor did the guy who stares at the backscatter monitor. The people who invented those jobs catch most of the grief because neither actually makes your flight safer.

      But if you want to focus on the ground level employees, every single one of them performs his job on an at will basis. If he found the work too ridiculous or too objected to its intrusiveness he could quit it at any time. So I have little concern for them as they choose to do pointless work that doesn't add any value to anything. While they may not be as guilty as those who organized the whole thing, they still share culpability. If a TSA memo instructed them to knock passengers in their heads with a hammer and stack them on the planes like cord wood, for safety's sake, I have no reason to believe they wouldn't all do it.

    3. Re:I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      I don't think that too many are complaining about how well the TSA agents are performing what they've been told to do, I think everyone is complaining about what they're being told to do. If the purpose of the TSA is to make air travel safer, do you feel it is accomplishing that? Do you think it is accomplishing that efficiently or effectively? Do you think it is being done at an irrevocable cost of our freedoms and human dignity?

    4. Re:I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that TSA is a job with WalMart calibre qualifications and rewards, but I've never had a cashier at WalMart grope me, steal from me, or yell at family members (some of whom speak English as a second language). Alternately, I've had each of these things happen on multiple occasions with TSA agents.

      Most of the security personnel I've had contact with have been pleasant or businesslike, but the badge and the blank cheque of "interests of national security" allows for a much higher level of douchebaggery with airport security than I've ever encountered in retail.

    5. Re:I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Interesting though though. Perhaps the survey was phrased with the focus on individual performance to place the TSA as a whole in a better light. Certainly when I have flown, I have been groped/assaulted in a professional and friendly manner.

    6. Re:I travel and I don't *hate* the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a rapist came to your house and did a "good job" of fucking your wife, would you approve? And of course, you'll think better of him if he doesn't rape you also. You're a closet fascist. Or maybe not so closeted.

  18. Long Lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm always amazed by the long lines to get through security at large airports. They know how many people bought tickets, so why do they rarely seem to be prepared for the volume of people coming through?

    1. Re:Long Lines by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The airport is being used as a detention center, gives more time to check up on everybody.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  19. Re:TSA does some good by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pre-911 security would detect hand grenades just fine. And 911 hijackers used freaking boxcutters, not guns or grenades.

    And I have a boxcutter, scissors and a screwdriver in my backpack right now. They are never detected by airport's scanners because my backpack has a nice carbon plastic compartment that reduces the contrast of items within it. I've been flying with them for several years through tens of TSA theater checkpoints by now. So I'm "better armed" than a 9/11 hijacker all without trying to do it specifically.

  20. Real reason is it depends on how you phrase it by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article has a significant bias that's expressed in the spin it puts on the result. Data showing 54% of Americans think the TSA does a "good or excellent job" is not "Americans secretly do love the TSA." It could just as accurately be summarized "Nearly half of Americans think TSA is not doing a good job."

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Real reason is it depends on how you phrase it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article IS crap. First off because what you just said, but it also compares apples with wallnuts. Websites that post news, journalists that report all TSA's "good job" state facts, if they weren't, then we'd see all kinds of trials in addition to all this. What THIS article states, is the "impression" the citizens have of TSA. You see, he's comparing reality with imagination.

      One other thing that irks me is that in the article (yes, I read it a little) is that approval from the younger segment is even higher at some 69%. Could it be, because they don't remember the times before 9/11? They don't really know what they've lost?

      But we probably shouldn't care about the article at all, I mean, just look at the writer's description, if that doesn't tell you who paid for the poll and it's answers, I don't know what will.
      " Ted Reed, Contributor Covering airlines from Miami and Charlotte since 1989. "

      Right ...

    2. Re:Real reason is it depends on how you phrase it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Real reason is it depends on how you phrase it by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the problem, as I see it, is that if less than half the population doesn't see something as a problem, it's simply not going to be addressed in this political climate, especially when we have two very bad, and and very similar (to each other) parties in power. The only way unpopular stuff gets changed in this country any more is if a very large majority is pissed off about it. A significant minority is mad about something? Too bad. They're not enough to count at the polls.

      Heck, let's look at this very issue. Are any candidates talking about it? The only one I've heard recently was Rand Paul, and he's just a senator from one (not terribly large) state, and doesn't really represent any party or group, and is kinda on the fringe. Romney isn't talking about it at all, and given the Republican party position (aside from Rand of course, who with his father basically disagree with the other Republicans on nearly everything), is likely to be a big proponent of TSA, despite his lame claims of being in favor of "small government". And Obama certainly isn't talking about it, since all the recent TSA abuses have been under his authority. So it's not like you're going to be able to elect someone who'll make a change. If you tell Obama you don't like how the TSA is operating, he'll just laugh in your face and say "what are you going to do, vote for Romney?"

    4. Re:Real reason is it depends on how you phrase it by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One other thing that irks me is that in the article (yes, I read it a little) is that approval from the younger segment is even higher at some 69%. Could it be, because they don't remember the times before 9/11? They don't really know what they've lost?

      What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  21. The Polled the Wrong People by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

    If they didn't screen for people who actually have flown commercially since 9/11, then they got a lot of ignorant people without any experience to base their opinion

    If they didn't screen for people who had flown commercially before 9/11 and then had flown after 9/11, they got a lot of people without the experience of what it used to be like vs what it is like now

  22. Where did they look? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    >> Poll Finds Americans Think the TSA Is 'Doing a Good Job'

    I suspect they mean pole.

  23. 51% of readers think this was a good article by sacdelta · · Score: 1

    Why is it, if a poll shows an approval of over 50%, the media takes that to be overwhelming support? Taking into account that many polls are biased to provide the answer they are looking for, a narrow margin is not really something that major decisions should hinge upon.

    --

    Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

  24. Petitions by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The petition failed to gain enough signatures because everyone knows that they won't get a real response from the administration. Case in point, there was a petition that got 75,000 signatures (3 times the threshold) where the President was asked to explain why Cannabis should not be regulated by alcohol. The response was written by the Drug Czar, and failed to mention alcohol once.

    This was the great hope for change we elected in 2008. This was what was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history. And he can't even answer a simple question about his policies honestly.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Petitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the President was asked to explain why Cannabis should not be regulated by alcohol. The response was written by the Drug Czar, and failed to mention alcohol once

      Perhaps because the petition was as addled as your /. post.

    2. Re:Petitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulated BY alcohol? How would one substance regulate another? What, you can only have a joint with an accompanying shot of whiskey?

    3. Re:Petitions by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      you can only have a joint with an accompanying shot of whiskey?

      Exactly. At some point you pass out from alcohol poisoning, which serves to regulate your cannabis intake.

    4. Re:Petitions by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have a comment on the substance of my post, or just the accidentally misused preposition?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Petitions by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is one of the reasons I don't even bother signing any of those whitehouse.gov petitions.

    6. Re:Petitions by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's a good reason why anyone who wants honesty from their politicians should not vote for Barack Obama. Any vote for either Democrats or Republicans hurts America.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Petitions by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot. People here have the kind of mind that can get hung up by one typo, one missed apostrophe, or one incorrect proposition. That kind of mind can be very useful when writing software, for example, where a missing semicolon can mean the difference between "completely broken" and "ready to ship."

    8. Re:Petitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good reason why anyone who wants honesty from their politicians should not vote for Barack Obama. Any vote for either Democrats or Republicans hurts America.

      Let me explain to you how math works. In a plurality-wins system, only one of the two major parties can win an election. By voting for a third party, you are effectively making it easier for whichever member of the two parties has greater support among the not-you group to win. If one of the two major-party candidates has a quality value of 0.1 (scale 0-1) for you, and the other has quality value 0.4, you maximize the benefit to yourself by swallowing your pride and voting for the quality 0.4 candidate. The existence of a third nonviable candidate with quality value 0.8 is irrelevant to the benefit-maximization logic. Math! Use it!

    9. Re:Petitions by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Let me explain to you how American electoral politics works. If you vote either Democrat or Republican, you're voting for the same party. They both have the same agenda, to make the rich richer.

      There is no two party system in America. There are two branches of the same party. There is no choice to make, except whether you wish to validate this system by your participation.

      If you're going to get fucked either way, you might as well register a protest vote. Vote third party or stay home. Voting for either D or R doesn't help anyone except the super rich.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Petitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you finally get around to making a post that has some substance, I am sure someone will be glad to address it.

    11. Re:Petitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me explain to you how American electoral politics works. If you vote either Democrat or Republican, you're voting for the same party. They both have the same agenda, to make the rich richer. There is no two party system in America. There are two branches of the same party. There is no choice to make, except whether you wish to validate this system by your participation.

      Unless you are gay and want to get married. Unless you are a women and want access to abortions and birth control. Unless you want unlimited access to guns and the ability to legally shoot your neighbor. Yes, there's no difference at all, for you. For lots of people there's a huge difference. Sure, when it comes to the economy the conservative laissez-faire side has won big time. It's open season on the poor and the consumer. That won't last forever. Having a kid you don't want will.

  25. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  26. Doesn't surprise me at all by ax_42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look at the comments below any newspaper article criticising the TSA. Filled with comments along the lines of "Stop whining about security, I don't care if I have to strip nekkid, as long as the evil ragheads don't blow up my airplane". No concept of relative cost vs risk, no realisation of the fact that this is all theatre, no understanding of the loss of liberties involved. Even the previous head of the TSA (Kip Hawley) by now says that most of the scanners etc are useless, but Joe Sixpack, he reckons the security will keep him alive.

  27. Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder who at the TSA asked Gallup to do the poll. It's completely biased. Adding the word "job" makes the question very personal. I would describe the person who checks me out of the grocery store as "doing a good job", but if I later found out that it added 50% to my food cost, I'd think that I'd be better off without them and that the self checkout lane was fine. The biggest argument isn't about how the indivduals do their job at the TSA, or if the agency is good or bad. It's whether or not the TSA is effective or worth the cost.

    Let's see the result of this poll.
    Do you think that the TSA has been worth the $60,000,000,000 we have spent on it?
    Or how about:
    Do you think that it is fair that in this economy, 4000 people at the TSA headquarters make an average salary of $103,000?

    1. Re:Wrong question by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      This, right here.

      Every time I fly (for business), most of the TSA drones are either friendly when things are slow, or harried/frazzled when things are busy. I've never had the displeasure of being groped/scanned/whatever - maybe I'm just lucky, I don't know.

      As for justifying the TSA's existence? No way to do so with a rational argument, so I won't. Personally, if I were Joe Terrorist, I'd be too busy trying to steal a private place (where the TSA doesn't bother) then targeting large sporting events or something.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Wrong question by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless Joe Terrorist steals a business jet somehow, he's not going to kill many people flying a typical Cessna 172 into a sporting event. Sure, it'll be world news and all, but the death toll really won't be very high; terrorists don't want to go to all that trouble just to kill a dozen or two people at the most. Just think about all the effort they have to put into it: they have to go to flight school and learn how to fly the thing in the first place (which is even worse if they try to steal a business jet, as those are much more complicated to fly), then they have to figure out where to steal one from and how, and time it so it happens when a major event is underway, and then avoid being shot down by F16s when the plane is reported stolen and the nearest airbase scrambles their fighters.

      It'd much easier for them to just get some assault rifles and go to a mall on black friday and shoot hundreds of people, much like they did in Mumbai, India several years ago. Americans would be terrified of just going to the mall. Honestly, after the enormous success they had in Mumbai, I'm surprised they haven't done this here yet.

    3. Re:Wrong question by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      To back that up just a bit, during the last Reno Air Races, a plane flew into the stands, killing 11 and injuring another 70 or so. Even loaded up with C4, I doubt that a small plane like a 172 could do terribly much more damage than that. One certainly couldn't take down a skyscraper with a Cessna. xander

    4. Re:Wrong question by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Some nut did fly a Cessna 172 into a building recently, an IRS building in Texas. I think one person was killed (besides the pilot), and the building received a small amount of damage. Sucks for that one person, but in the grand scheme of things, that isn't much of a bodycount; the guy could have done a lot more damage with a Glock, a fertilizer bomb, or even a simple car when the employees were leaving the building for lunch.

      You can easily kill 11 people just driving a car into a crowd, and you won't even be injured in the process, unlike crashing a plane.

    5. Re:Wrong question by twocows · · Score: 1

      Wasn't one of the 9/11 planes hijacked by the pilot himself? If not, it's still something that's possible, and then you're facing a worse problem when you've secured the cockpit.

    6. Re:Wrong question by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      No, on 911. Also, even if there were not other measures in place (e.g. background checks, multiple people in the cockpit, etc...), you could always keep the absurd security for the pilots only.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    7. Re:Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans would be terrified of just going to the mall. Honestly, after the enormous success they had in Mumbai, I'm surprised they haven't done this here yet.

      In truth, 9/11 qualifies as the best civilian assault ever. It was small and simple, had a high kill ratio but left most of the population untouched, and it required a massive clean-up. That every second year the USA has a lone-gunman shooting shows repeating the Mumbai assault would work well in the USA. Actually the Mumbai assault is just a bigger version of a 1970s European terrorist attack. Open spaces will always be vulnerable and the first choice of a militant dissident. A recent example is the Norway massacre.

      What any population needs to worry about is the 'Zombie apocalypse'. Well not zombies per se, but the idea that one-tenth of the population attacks the rest of the population using simple weapons. We've seen that in Rwanda.

    8. Re:Wrong question by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They had Mumbai-style attacks in Europe in the 1970s? (It's a little before my time, I was watching Sesame Street in those days, and we Americans are woefully ignorant about stuff on the other side of the pond, particularly if it's not recent news like the Greek crisis.)

      I don't think your "Zombie apocalypse" idea is much to worry about, except in certain countries. Rwanda was a weird case, because you had two fairly large ethnic groups (that the population was comprised of) that didn't like each other too much, and some hatemongers fanned the flames, causing the situation to erupt into all-out genocide. There aren't many countries with ethnic divisions like this. Iraq is the biggest example I can think of off the top of my head, where the population is divided into three roughly equal-size groups that all hate each other; a "Zombie apocalypse" could very well happen there, and in fact some atrocities like this have already happened there. The biggest thing that prevents it from getting out of hand is that the different ethnic groups are located in different sections of the country, so random civilians would have to find some way of transporting themselves en masse to a different region to conduct an apocalypse. In most other countries, the worst it gets is that there's a pretty small ethnic minority that gets beat up by the majority; we saw this in the USA with natives and then blacks, we saw it in Australia with natives, and we saw it in Germany of course with Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc., though these were mostly cases where the government had a hand in things. Sure, something like this could happen again, and probably will unfortunately, somewhere, but it's a pretty far cry from the Rwanda-style genocide you spoke of. I have a hard time seeing anything like this happening in any first-world country, though I dunno, maybe if things get really bad here in the USA in the next 10 years, the religious nuts will push all their followers to get out their guns and shoot all the homosexuals they can find, since they really seem to hate gays more than anything else at the moment.

    9. Re:Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, after the enormous success they had in Mumbai, I'm surprised they haven't done this here yet.

      Americans have guns. They shoot back.

      Unless they attempted this in Washington DC or Chicago, the bad guys wouldn't cause much damage.

    10. Re:Wrong question by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's why the Colorado shooter was shot dead as soon as he could get a round off, right?

    11. Re:Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell they'd still be better off packing a U-haul with explosives instead. Tim McVeigh killed 168 people that way and his goal was a government building not as many corpses as he could make.

    12. Re:Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just did. Twice in the past month, once in Colorado, again in Wisconsin. Except "they" were both pale-skinned, so the media didn't call them "terrorists".

    13. Re:Wrong question by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. "They" were also alone, and apparently not all that skilled (the moron in Colorado didn't use his rifle much, since it jammed up on him).

      The Mumbai massacre had a whole team of terrorists operating together. A group of people operating together (esp. when they've trained for their mission) is much, much more effective than a lone nutcase. They can cover each other from anyone who'd try to stop them, they can separate into different groups to cover exits and make sure people can't escape, etc. True terrorists aren't just nutcases acting out, they put some thought into their actions and design them for maximum effectiveness; the goal is to maximize the terror, and of course maximizing the bodycount is part of that.

    14. Re:Wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the Colorado shooter was shot dead as soon as he could get a round off, right?

      You mean in that theater where firearms weren't allowed by the owners/management, right?

      From your earlier post:

      Unless Joe Terrorist steals a business jet somehow, he's not going to kill many people flying a typical Cessna 172 into a sporting event.

      A well-funded Joe Terrorist wouldn't need to steal one. However, he'd have better luck identifying large, open-topped stadiums in predominantly agricultural areas of the country, selecting one of those when it's at or near capacity, then buzzing it in a crop duster loaded with something "interesting".

      I've been saying since shortly after 9/11 that AQ immediately set the bar too high for themselves - even OBL was completely surprised at the buildings collapsing. The kind of events they'd have to pull off now must result in either staggeringly large casualties, or many (at least a dozen, not just a handful) simultaneous attacks each with casualties in the hundreds. Shooting up a few malls isn't going to terrify most of us, just anger us enough to allow the government to abuse the T-word even more. Pulling off 2 or 3 simultaneous attacks, as they often can, still wouldn't be enough. The problem they have now is that a large number of coordinated attacks or one hugely effective one are too likely to be discovered before they can be implemented.

      - T

  28. Re:TSA does some good by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or the shoe/underwear/toner cartridge bombers could be what they were before 9/11 - crackpots; and the TSA could be using them for the "See? We told you so, terrists - but we're keeping you safe!" publicity value.

    "Slippery slope" is a pretty lame argument in the face of grannies in wheelchairs having their colostomy bags searched, and toddlers having their sippy cups taken away, and a thousand other stupid anecdotes we've all heard. The REAL problem with TSA isn't necessarily the screening itself, which could be done pretty inconspicuously, but the sheer ostentation of going through a glacially slow-moving "security" checkpoint run by thugs and bullies.

  29. Ugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And FEMA is doing a spectacular job preventing earthquakes and hurricanes this year...

  30. A view from a non-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I actually hadn't been to the US in the last couple of years, and reading about the whole new set of scanners, privacy violations, draconian attitude by the TSA, and some scandals, I actually was concerned about what the experience would be for myself and my family.

    I have to admit, it was not a big deal. Flying from Toronto was painless and we went through the usual metal detectors there. The staff (usually grumpy Canadians working on behalf of the US) was okay. I found the Americans at Pearson airport tend to be quite friendly and professional. They represent the US well.

    Flying out of the US (a SW Florida airport) was a breeze and fairly pleasant. I had to submit to one of the scanners, and my family went through the metal detector only as we have young children. The TSA staff was very friendly and quite accomodating. We even had one incident where my wife had left a water bottle full of liquid in her purse. They were nice about it, chatted with us and then ran it through the X-Ray again.

    So it sounds that many of the complaints and scandals have forced the TSA to make changes. There's still a lot of security theatre in place and I think 9/11 will leave us with that forever unfortunately.

    All in all, I'd say that the American airport security and customs staff were friendlier and more competent than their Canadian counterparts.

    Of course I'm generalizing and being Caucasian, I'm sure my experience may differ from other folks.

    1. Re:A view from a non-American by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      When carrying the thing essential to the continued existence of all known life constitutes an "incident", something is definitely wrong.

  31. TSA by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

    I would like to see some evidence that the TSA is doing a horrible job and that the people who think otherwise are obviously deluded fools as the summary suggests.

    Not saying that it's not, but I'm just a little bit suspicious that such hostility towards the TSA comes from the anecdotal evidence of few unnecessary searches of grannies and such and personal experiences of relatively minor inconvenience and not from a thorough and impartial analysis of the security procedures based on deep knowledge of what it takes to secure airports.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:TSA by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would like to see some evidence that the TSA is doing a horrible job

      Easily done.

      According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:TSA by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I would like to see some evidence that the TSA is doing a horrible job

      I'd personally say that there is no way for them to do a good job because I believe their job is evil to begin with. With increased cockpit security and the willingness of citizens to fight back, I honestly don't see why anyone would credit the TSA with stopping anything. Not that their performance matters, though.

      personal experiences of relatively minor inconvenience

      I don't think that things such as freedom or privacy are minor issues.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:TSA by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Some folks have observed that it isn't necessary for the TSA to find a gun all of the time or even most of the time. All they have to do is make it too risky to try it. Since there is an extremely limited supply of fanatical hijackers, they can't afford to send them through checkpoints where they *might* be detected. Instead they will be saved for less risky attempts.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:TSA by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But they haven't made it too risky to try. Guess what happens if you get caught walking through a TSA checkpoint with a box cutter. Worst case scenario, you miss your flight and you can try again later.

      Besides, even if the TSA were 100% effective, terrorism is so rare that it would still be a cost ineffective way to save lives.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:TSA by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, those are the (I think valid) responses to that point. If the TSA was really about serious "terrorism" deterrent it would have a better reaction to this sort of contraband incident. And government doesn't do effective, let alone cost effective.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  32. Blame the internet by tatman · · Score: 1

    I always love how its the "internet's" fault when there is criticism. The complaints aren't valid or worth consideration because the internet is just a wild uncontrolled forum where anything can be said. Unless it comes from the god of a journalist it doesn't count. Right.

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  33. Seriously?!? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

    I don't know a single person out of my entire family, friends or co-workers who think the TSA does a good job. There is something seriously wrong with this poll.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Seriously?!? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      I don't know a single person out of my entire family, friends or co-workers who think the TSA does a good job. There is something seriously wrong with this poll.

      This poll indicates that that there is something seriously wrong with your entire family, friends, and co-workers.

      I kid, I kid.

      --

      -Turkey

    2. Re:Seriously?!? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, it shows there's something wrong with him and his associates: they're very out-of-step with the attitudes of most Americans.

    3. Re:Seriously?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, until the SS Division Totenkopf^W^W^W^W Homeland Security comes for him.

  34. Duh! Obviously the font by Coisiche · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yesterday's article showed how it's done: Poll printed in Baskerville font!

    1. Re:Duh! Obviously the font by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a picture.

  35. Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can you contact us at TSA?

    We would like to discuss the possible acquisition of your rock.

    We'd also like to know about possibility of mass production of aforementioned terrorist-repellent devices to secure all transport terminals once and for all.

    1. Re:Hello! by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Don't let them have it. They'll just put it in the ware house with the Ark of the Covenant and the Stargate.

    2. Re:Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Top...

      Men...

  36. Uhwut? by Sta7ic · · Score: 1
    Of the three times I've flown, my shoes were dismantled because of a gel sole once, and my sack lunch had to be re-scanned to be certain it was safe.

    Roast beef sandwiches: the NEW national security threat!

    1. Re:Uhwut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "where's the beef?"

    2. Re:Uhwut? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      "where's the beef?"

      Smuggled onto the plane in your ass.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Uhwut? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      TSA -> "But why would anyone not want eat airplane food? We eat it everyday, and think it's awesome!"

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  37. This poll shows one thing... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    ...how clueless most americans are.

  38. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by zero.kalvin · · Score: 0

    No, I am Spartacus! Wait, I think I am in the wrong movie!

  39. Difficult to know, barring a catastrophic event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have this rock which repels tigers...

  40. Not Applicable to all. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Some of us would like to see friends on other continents from time to time.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take a boat.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Not Applicable to all. by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then drive to Mexico or Canada. You will be amazed how easy it is to fly when the US is not involved.

    3. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us don't have an extra day or two that we can afford to spend driving at each end of the trip.

    4. Re:Not Applicable to all. by NatasRevol · · Score: 2
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Not Applicable to all. by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Then drive to Mexico or Canada. You will be amazed how easy it is to fly when the US is not involved.

      Are you serious? In my experience, security in Canadian airports is even worse than in American airports, if the comparison metric is the time spent waiting in line to get screened. My carry-on was scanned four times, and then subject to a detailed manual search to identify an electric toothbrush. This all explained the 90 minute wait to get through Vancouver security.

      --

      -Turkey

    6. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      My company tends to frown on being two weeks offline each way whilst riding a ship to/from a client (assuming I could find ships that regularly crosses the Pacific in both directions, and takes on passengers). :(

      Personal life? I can avoid air travel with the greatest of ease.
      At work? I'm not so lucky about that.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:Not Applicable to all. by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A days drive is almost worth it. Unfortunately...

    8. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

      Personally, I'd refuse to take a job that required air travel. No salary is worth that. I will flip burgers for a living before I step foot on a plane ever again. Not one penny of mine will ever go to the scum who run the airlines. I hope they all die in some sort of fiery explosion.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you had bad luck or something. I was flying earlier this year. Scanners and patdowns? More like a metal detector and a scan of the luggage. The 'liquids' thing is retarded as hell, as is the inability to take various things with you on the plane (because y'know, my tiny swiss army knife on my keys can SURELY take out a crowd of people).

      But security is a cakewalk. As long as you're not carrying anything stupid, you're golden. Hell, since I'm all about geocaching and the like, I had a GPS, palm pilot, and a slew of other electronic gadgetry... flying from Canada to a vacation in Mexico. Canada security didn't bat an eye. We were called for a random search in Mexico, which took like... 10 seconds of the girl quickly looking amongst the clothes in the bag and at the electronics. Hell, neither of the countries even asked me to turn any of the electronic items on to prove they weren't hollow and filled with something else or whatever.

      As mildly annoying as it is, it's really a cakewalk any time I've gone through. But driving (not even flying) from Canada to the USA... oh, now THAT'S typically a half hour wait while they scour the car and ask idiotic questions. Holy god, you'd think I had a trunk full of assault rifles the way they act.

    10. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I've never had security at Vancouver take longer than 15 minutes; by comparison, Chicago takes me about 35 minutes, Heathrow takes 45 minutes, Denver takes 20 minutes, and Toronto takes 40 minutes. Cancun takes me around 10.

      Seems to me the amount of time has more to do with the number of people being processed than with the country, with the exception of Mexico, where they appear to have saner screening than the US, UK and Canada.

    11. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find a new job

    12. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are trans-atlantic cruise ships still. But they're fairly slow, and quite expensive. Basically, to live up to Hatta's ideals, you have to be quite wealthy and independently so, with no job.

    13. Re:Not Applicable to all. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      As mildly annoying as it is, it's really a cakewalk any time I've gone through. But driving (not even flying) from Canada to the USA... oh, now THAT'S typically a half hour wait while they scour the car and ask idiotic questions. Holy god, you'd think I had a trunk full of assault rifles the way they act.

      You should cross the border with me. Guns, swarms of agents, handcuffs, nervous Michael Jackson jokes, the whole bit.

    14. Re:Not Applicable to all. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Not one penny of mine will ever go to the scum who run the airlines.

      Until, of course, they require another bailout because of declining sales figures and increasing oil costs.

    15. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. I am not independently wealthy, and I live up to my ideals just fine. You can live a thoroughly fulfilled life without boarding a plane.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    16. Re:Not Applicable to all. by spire3661 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Boo fucking hoo. The price of freedom isnt cheap.

      --
      Good-bye
    17. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, and how do you get to Europe, unless you don't have a job, unless maybe you have one of those rare jobs that gives you 6 weeks/year?

      And no, "I don't travel to Europe" (or insert Hawaii, Australia, or anyplace besides Canada and Mexico if Europe isn't your cup of tea) isn't a valid answer, because never leaving your local area and crossing an ocean to see someplace different doesn't qualify as a "thoroughly fulfilled life" to me.

    18. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So no Native American ever had a thoroughly fulfilled life before Columbus arrived?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take that job as long as they provide fuel and buy my ride. Who knows, I may even work for minimum wage.

    20. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Things change over time. Back then, it was perfectly normal for people not to move around that much (though that said, the Native Americans were nomads, and for the time, tended to cover a lot of ground compared to the average European who probably never moved out of his village his whole life). Modern life is different, especially if you're a first-worlder. I'm sorry, but if I never left my state, and only read about far-away places or saw photos of them, I would feel rather confined. Apparently, even hundreds of years ago, lots of Europeans felt the same way, because many were happy to sign up for what back then were extremely dangerous voyages across the ocean. It's normal for people to want to go places and see new things. And you're never going to see anything new if you never leave America, since it's filled with mostly the same people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture, and all the same crappy national corporate chain stores. I've traveled between LA and NYC and many points between in the past 6 months alone, and while the differences are apparent to me as an American (just like a flock of chickens can tell themselves apart even though they all look the same to us humans), there really wasn't that much difference between most of those places. Things (people, culture, etc.) are really, really different when you cross oceans. Even in Hawaii things were pretty different from the mainland even though they're nominally Americans, though I guess that's something you'll probably never see since you can't drive to Hawaii, and unless you have one of those rare 6-week vacation plans (which you only get with government jobs), if you do find a boat to take you, you'l have just enough time there to take a couple of photos before you need to get back on the cruise ship.

    21. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be easy to fly, but watch out if your paperwork has a problem when you're going through customs into the US. My sister had a professional supposed prepare their paperwork for a return to the US and the authorities nearly seized their vehicle. The federal government is out of control.

    22. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      I haven't had that experience at Vancouver, but Montreal is like the eighth circle of Hell. I'm polite, I speak French, I don't tell hoser jokes in the airport, and I get treated like shit every time. At first I thought it was my blue passport, but I've figured out that they hate everybody, including Canadians and Québécoise. OTOH, Edmonton is a piece of cake.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    23. Re:Not Applicable to all. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that you travel from North America to North America in order to visit friends on other continents?

    24. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You enjoy your minimum wage job; I'll stick with six figures. While I'm no fan of the TSA, their methods are not enough to end my career. Last I checked, my dick hasn't fallen off from an errant hand passing across it.

    25. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if you fly from the US to Mexico, your processing time takes about twice as long as if you fly from Mexico to the US.

    26. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Hatta · · Score: 0

      Greedy, unprincipled fucks like you are what's wrong with the world. I hope you too die in the aforementioned fiery explosion.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    27. Re:Not Applicable to all. by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      I haven't had that experience at Vancouver, but Montreal is like the eighth circle of Hell. I'm polite, I speak French, I don't tell hoser jokes in the airport, and I get treated like shit every time. At first I thought it was my blue passport, but I've figured out that they hate everybody, including Canadians and Québécoise. OTOH, Edmonton is a piece of cake.

      They were very polite in Vancouver, and even apologetic. They were just backed up, and horribly slow. I remember watching the officer x-ray my bag and scratch her head. She got someone else to come over and look at the screen as it was x-rayed again. Then, her supervisor came over (x-ray again). Finally, their shift manager (x-ray again), all were scratching their heads while looking at it. Each time, I suggested that they manually examine the bag. After the forth x-ray, they apologized again and suggested that they manually search the bag. To their credit, each piece of clothing that was removed was carefully folded better than I had originally done so.

      I do quite a bit of domestic air travel in the US, and the TSA is usually impolite in large airports. I don't care much for the people who complain in line, and/or in front of TSA officers. It's not their policy. However, when they are impolite or unprofessional, it bothers me. I do not like having commands repeatedly yelled in my direction. One time, I actually did forget to remove my belt. A TSA officer gave me a stern look and said "remove the belt, now." It was a weak moment for me, I must have been having a really bad day. I returned his stern look with a similar dominance and suggested "I believe that you meant to add the words 'sir' and 'please' to that". He straightened up, apologized, and added the suggested words.

      --

      -Turkey

    28. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I am not independently wealthy, and I live up to my ideals just fine. You can live a thoroughly fulfilled life without boarding a plane.

      How did this get modded up? There are numerous reasons to travel by air that aren't centered around self-fulfillment. The fact that you can't see past your own set of circumstances is hardly insightful.

    29. Re:Not Applicable to all. by isorox · · Score: 1

      Things change over time. Back then, it was perfectly normal for people not to move around that much (though that said, the Native Americans were nomads, and for the time, tended to cover a lot of ground compared to the average European who probably never moved out of his village his whole life). Modern life is different, especially if you're a first-worlder. I'm sorry, but if I never left my state, and only read about far-away places or saw photos of them, I would feel rather confined

      I did read that the majority of Americans don't even own a passport.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Europeans have never travelled outside of Europe, which is the equivalent of a Yank confining themselves to the US/Canada/Mexico

    30. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The responses here to your philosophy are laughable...and yet sad. It's funny and sad that people think you have to be "independently wealthy" in order to choose how to live your life.

    31. Re:Not Applicable to all. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the issue is that America decided to force the screening requirements they use onto everyone else if they wanted to be able to fly in and out of America.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  41. hmm... by fullback · · Score: 1

    It's ironic that almost the exact same percentage of Americans sponge off, uh, work for the government or are paid as a contractor or supplier to the government.

  42. Re:TSA does some good by ibwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why have would-be terrorists resorted to increasingly bizarre and ineffective weapons - the shoe bomb, underwear bomb, and chemical cocktail? If they thought they could, obviously they'd just bring some hand grenades, and you can be darn sure those would work every time.

    A lot of TSA criticism comes from people who want stringent security for "those people" but not for "us" - meaning white people, grannies, etc. But if you think about it for a few seconds you know where that leads.

    Personally I would scale back the TSA and the nekkid scans, but as a value tradeoff, knowing it would come at some cost to security.

    And planes were routinely hijacked with "hand grenades" prior to 9/11??? The simple truth is that pre 9/11 security measures were more than adequate to prevent a hijacker from bringing guns or powerful, easy to use explosives on board a plane. What they could do (and did) was bring smallish cutting implements (e.g. box cutters).

    The problem with 9/11 wasn't in what the hijackers brought on board, but that they changed the rules of airplane hijacking. Prior to 9/11, if your plane was hijacked, you cooperated. That was the best way to ensure that you would survive.

    The 9/11 hijackers changed the rules, but the passengers couldn't know that. On one of the four flight the passengers did learn this, sadly too late to prevent the takeover of the plane, but they did prevent the hijackers from killing more people on the ground.

    An attack like 9/11 could only ever work once. Now we have reinforced cockpit doors and passengers will not cooperate with hijackers. Any attempt to hijack a plane, without using firearms at a minimum, will be stopped by the passengers who will assume that the hijackers mean to crash the plane.

    All this means that the myriad of additional security nonsense on the ground is almost entirely security theater. Initially, this was mostly a case of ass covering (something needs to be done, this is something, ergo this must be done) but lately (as with the 'porno' scanners) this seems driven by a desire to line the pockets of private enterprise with taxpayer money.

    tl;dr It is possible to scale back the TSA without sacrificing actual security.

  43. WTF TSA by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    If they are doing such a good job, then how did a man named Adam Savage manage to board the plane with a 12in blade...Accidentally - not even trying to hide it!

  44. TSA more frustrating than anything.... by Kit+Cosper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The inconsistency of their agents has to be the most annoying thing. In Dallas a few weeks ago they were uniformly polite and efficient. In Oklahoma City they tend to be pretty good as well. In Charlotte they like to pretend they are Gestapo agents and in In Fort Lauderdale they are crass and unobservant (had a new bottle of gel toothpaste in my carry-on that went unnoticed because they were too busy bitching about the phone charger and camera clumped together) in smaller airports they tend to fumble around a lot. I flew out of Washington National a few years ago with my 8 inch dive knife in my carry-on (by accident.)

    I think TSA satisfaction would increase if the airlines hadn't turned the security checkpoint into a baggage checkpoint. The volume of luggage going through the system slows everything down and creates more hassle, which is communicated to the passengers. Flying is no longer a luxury in most cases, it's a necessity. As such the airlines really don't care about providing customer service, they only try to avoid liability. This touches everyone who participates in the system.

    --
    Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
    1. Re:TSA more frustrating than anything.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the flight attendants I spoke with, passengers flying to/from FLL have a reputation for being jerks.

  45. uhh....no... BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck are these people? And what the hell is wrong with them?!?!!?
    No... i know we're morons in this country... but i still don't believe anyone supports the TSA.

    This is some made up bullshit.

  46. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO!

    I am Alexander Peter Kowalski and I claim my $ 100 00 .

  47. How Many Terrorists Have They Caught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You think that they are doing a good job? Many people beg to differ:

    Adam Savage from Mythbusters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoiifBZD4E
    Chidren in Wheelchairs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNO-AzPxS4U
    Molested Women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwvcpS5iLjI
    Lactating Mothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwvcpS5iLjI
    Drug Dealers: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/news/la-trb-tsa-drugs-20120426
    TSA Agents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgZZeBpZAnM
    The TSA Itself: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-28/us/tsa.bombtest_1_airport-screeners-airport-security-fake-bombs?_s=PM:US

    Exactly how many "Shoe Bombers", "Underwear Bombers","Chemical Terrorists", and "TSA Screeners" have they caught?

    1. Re:How Many Terrorists Have They Caught? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Spotlighting and misleading vividness are fallacies.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  48. within margin of error, survey says... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    half of americans do NOT think the TSA is doing a good job

  49. Wrong question by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not that they're not doing a "good job"--most interactions with them are fine. It's that they're doing the wrong job.

    There are enough horror stories that they get a bad rap, sure. But the bigger point is that they are doing a job that it is stupid for us to be paying for. It inconveniences every traveller in the US and it does not make us significantly safer. Secure the cockpit doors and stop worrying about bombs--if you secure the cockpit doors, all they can do is blow up the plane, and they can blow up a bus so it's a ridiculous waste of money and time to be providing absurd security.

    9/11 was (1) an attack that could only work once and (2) about flying the planes. Take away the ability to fly the planes, and the plane is no longer a particularly useful terror target, it's just a target.

    Don't get me wrong--I'm happy that there are people working to make terrorist attacks on the US harder. I just don't believe that the TSA is a useful way to spend those resources.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  50. You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With a popularity poll. A significant portion of that 54% of Americans, when read the Bill of Rights, believe you are describing an antithetical, Socialist manifesto.

    How can you judge if the TSA is "doing a good job", if you are among the 44% of Americans who are unable to define the Bill of Rights?

    I for one DO believe the TSA does a good job. That job is one of eroding fundamental protections of basic rights while enriching cronies.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting
      • Many more Americans remember that Michael Jackson sang "Beat It" than know that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
      • 60 percent of Americans can correctly identify the number of children in reality-TV show couple Jon and Kate Gosselin's household (eight), but more than one-third do not know the century in which the American Revolution took place (18th). Half of those surveyed believe the Civil War (1861-1865), Emancipation Proclamation (1863), or War of 1812 occurred before the American Revolution (1775-1783).
      • More than 50 percent of Americans surveyed wrongly attributed the quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to George Washington, Thomas Paine, or President Barack Obama, when it is in fact a quote from Karl Marx, author of "The Communist Manifesto."

      -- "83 Percent of U.S. Adults Fail Test on Nation's Founding"
      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/83-percent-of-us-adults-fail-test-on-nations-founding-783

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by GigG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder what percentage of that 54% have ever flown on an airline and more specifically since the TSA took over security?

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    3. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wonder what portion of that 54% of Americans, who thinks the TSA is doing a great job, has never even traveled by air in the last 10 years?

    4. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Holy crap this is pretty scary. Also interesting, while I certainly knew about Michael Jackson's "Beat It" (I'm old enough to remember when it came out and young enough that I cared at the time, as I was a kid then), I have absolutely no idea who Jon and Kate Gosselin are.

    5. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      FTFY
      Just because he didn't say it first doesn't mean it's not a valid quote.

      Just what does the word "quote" mean to you right wingers? If he didn't say it then it isn't a valid quote. Nevermind the "first" nonsense I can't even find something where he even repeated it - unless you count ideologically similar comments. Those who have repeated the quote: right wing AM radio loudmouths. Why not attribute the quote to them? At least they have actually SAID it. A cursory search led to comments he has made that may be similar but you might want to cite something that is, well, those exact words.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    6. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by bitingduck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder what percentage of that 54% have ever flown on an airline and more specifically since the TSA took over security?

      Hard to decide whether to mod or post...

      That's been my impression for quite a while now. If you fly with any regularity, the TSA looks like nothing more than security theater that just applies patch after patch every time someone is noticed to be trying to do something nefarious through one of their gaping security holes. I flew a lot both before and after sept 11, and have been either mid-trip or within a few days of a trip during a lot of the policy changes (e.g. only passengers past the security checkpoints, the 3 oz of fluid thing, underpants man, and more). They slap a patch on in reaction to an event, and while it looks like they're doing something, it really has no effect other than to increase cost and time involved, with no improvement in safety or security.

      A while ago I came to the conclusion that all of this stuff is some sort of weird proxy for people's fear of flying. If we were really concerned about terrorists then public places would look a whole lot different than they do. The reason we don't have more terrorist attacks has nothing to do with all the TSA stuff and everything to do with there just not being very many terrorists.

    7. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      In your fervor to attack politically you failed to grasp the point of what he was saying. When people where asked a question they responded incorrectly.
      Q: Who said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
      Many answered: George Washington, Thomas Paine, or President Barack Obama.

      This isn't an attack against Obama any more than it is an attack against Washington or Paine, which can hardly be considered "left wing". He never said "Obama said this" but it's interesting that you found an instance of him paraphrasing Marx.

    8. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War.

      In all fairness to those 73%, I'd be a lot more concerned about the 27% who seem to think we actually had a reason to fight the Cold War.

    9. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 0

      The capacity to earn money is generally tied to the capacity of that person's brain (or at least that of those earning it for them). Given that airline travel would be priced out of reach of "low capacity" individuals you have the perfect conditions for survey results that reflect ignorant perceptions rather than the reality on the ground.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    10. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by torkus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given that 48% of those surveyed *had not flown in the preceeding 12 months* and they only got a 54% positive response rate...

      Therefore 6% of air travelers actually approve of the TSA. Personally I still think this is high so I arbitrarily apply a +/- 5% rule to lower that to 1%...and then can claim "as much as 99% of people think the TSA is the the root of all evil"

      Ok? Ok! Wait...Crap why am I some list that says I can't fly ever again? >.>

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    11. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by blackest_k · · Score: 2

      I'm not American so there is little reason for me to know much American History, much that I do know is gleaned from old Cowboy movies. I would hazard a guess most Americans probably have an idea who General Custer was and largely for the same reasons but maybe not, as there is far more choice of TV to watch on a Sunday afternoon these days.

      I admit I had no love of "History" at school and neither do most people. Really all you are really saying is that most people have an Interest in contemporary culture, more so than relatively ancient history.

      While you have presented is that people are guessing wrongly at dates, It probably wasn't phrased as did the American Civil War take place before America gained its Independence. Logically it couldn't have occurred in that order.

      So the only reasonable inference is that most people are ignorant of things that have no interest to them. Maybe the survey asked people who don't even hold a passport, for people who have not really travelled the TSA do an excellent job. There is also the fact that almost everybody takes some pride in their country and as part of it the TSA must do a grand job of things surely. :)

    12. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      With a popularity poll. A significant portion of that 54% of Americans, when read the Bill of Rights, believe you are describing an antithetical, Socialist manifesto.

      I very much doubt that. Now, I'm pretty sure that you could shape your questions in a manner that would twist the bill of rights into something like a Marxist screed... polling organizations are rather infamous for "shaping" questions... but if you just read the bill straight out to people, there's no way they're going to see an "antithetical, Socialist manifesto" unless they themselves are deluded. The ten amendments have clear statements about very un-socialist things... religious rights, rights to have weapons, and property rights. So you're either exaggerating or seeing things skewed through your own lens. Considering that your sig line is "The invisible hand of the Market is a pickpocket", I'd bet you're among the later that tends to see things from a red perspective anyway (red in the traditional political sense, not in the recent American red-state, blue state sense).

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    13. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I'm actually curious: if I started a party to 'roll back the Bill of Rights,' how many followers do you think I'd get?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    14. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      A fair criticism, but you made it on a website instead of in a newspaper. As the summary points out, criticisms that come from the internet aren't worth considering. You know, because "reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges."

      (smirk)

    15. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the survey asked people who don't even hold a passport, for people who have not really travelled the TSA do an excellent job

      Not directly related to your comments but...
      Very few people in the US have a passport compared to the percentages in other countries. Up until about 5 years ago, you did not a passport to go to and from the most popular destinations of Canada, Mexico, and some Caribbean islands. The numbers are going up but only because of that change.

    16. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by zlives · · Score: 1

      that was the qualifying question... if you traveled by pan-am please click continue.

    17. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The percentage of Americans having a passport was in the teens until a few years ago, now it is only about 30% since the recent changes.
      Not many Americans leave the US and most of their travel is done internally or if outside the country, mainly Canada and Mexico.

      http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.domestically_1_western-hemisphere-travel-initiative-passports-tourism-industries?_s=PM:TRAVEL

    18. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Digicaf · · Score: 1

      I'm actually curious: if I started a party to 'roll back the Bill of Rights,' how many followers do you think I'd get?

      Answer: Probably not enough to do serious damage, but definitely more than enough to make most intelligent people need antidepressants.

    19. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      I dunno. What do you propose calling this "Tea Party" thing of yours, anyway?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    20. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the thread. He "fixed" (the "FTFY") the quote from prnewswire.com so that it said: (note the bolded, incorrectly-spelled word)

      More than 50 percent of Americans surveyed corectly attributed the quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to President Barack Obama"

      It's a partisan troll, one that should be ignored.

    21. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even AS an American you have to take some history / information with a grain of salt.

      History / information is typically provided to reflect what the dominant party in power at the time wants you to believe.

    22. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      My point was merely that his attempted humor had gone awry. I listen to as much right wing AM radio as I can stomach, and I have heard them say those words. I have not heard Obama say those words. So even in the joke context of a quote said by Obama I have never heard or read of Obama saying that Marx quote. (I would like to think I have no bias in this matter as I try to take in information from as many sources as possible, am sick of both parties, and also due to not at all wanting to vote for either Obama or Romney.)

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    23. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I can see why. It's keeping damned foreigners like myself out of the country because we don't want our balls squeezed and irradiated like good TSA fearing Americans.

    24. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well generally first is implied.

      Otherwise the answer would always be "You, just then".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by lightknight · · Score: 1

      The original, or the new one? The original was supposedly started by RP followers (and almost immediately, all libertarians of any intelligence were attaching sticks of dynamite to any perceived ties between it and libertarians in general, because of...) while the new one was the old one, taken over about 5 minutes (politically speaking) after the Republicans needed something, anything, to re-energize their base, and thought this might be it. Which again, is why I, like most libertarians, held the Tea Party at sword's edge within a day or two of having heard about it, realizing that it wasn't something new, but something old -> a plank, that the Republicans were planning to walk over, and board our ship. Hence the dynamite, and the run to the Qwik-E-Mart for a box of storm proof matches.

      But you have to hand it to the RP-libertarians...they are a tenacious bunch, filled with idealism, who steadfastly believe that the Republican Party could be 'saved.' However, after that Louisiana party convention, I think any stragglers in the Republican party have received the message: you're welcome as a second-class citizen, here to serve and bow, and never offer a word of disagreement, as we don't give a f*ck what you think. Even in my own household, I am receiving the scare treatment about Obama, and how Romney is 'our only hope'; it's fascinating watching the scare-game, especially when you have nothing to lose (something like that). The Republicans have had 8 years, in recent memory, to get their sh*t together; and on the way out, their commander-in-chief, tells us that 'I had to betray the free market, in order to save it' -> no, you ass, you didn't! You turned out like every other president, throughout history, who became captain of the ship, but having conspired to the position, had no plan for dealing with the true power-brokers once you achieved it. You became too indebted, listened too much to your friends, who saw you only as a fool they could make king, a puppet they could control. And the absolute saddest, the most tragic, part of it all, is that you showed us that you were weak. You were in a position of power, and you reminded us that even though you had climbed to high (politically speaking), you still had to bow and serve your silent masters. Since you call yourself a Christian, praying with people in robes, or so they've told us, you will be reminded that your Deity has written in his book something to the tune of "Woe be to the nation whose king is a servant." And yes, we are not a monarchy, so perhaps it does not apply, but I believe the idea behind it does hold some quiet wisdom -> you cannot truthfully pilot a nation to grandeur, pleasing the mortals or the gods, and be beholden to the powers operating behind the throne. If this were Britain, and you ascended to the throne with the help of the East India Trading Company, you know as well as I do, that their interests would find a seemingly irritating way of injecting themselves into otherwise straightforward legislation. If you've found yourself in debt to these interests, assume not the position until you are free of them. Self-sabotage if necessary.

      But there I go again, tilting at windmills...

       

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    26. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I wonder what percentage of that 54% have ever flown on an airline and more specifically since the TSA took over security?

      Hard to decide whether to mod or post...

      That's been my impression for quite a while now. If you fly with any regularity, the TSA looks like nothing more than security theater that just applies patch after patch every time someone is noticed to be trying to do something nefarious through one of their gaping security holes. I flew a lot both before and after sept 11, and have been either mid-trip or within a few days of a trip during a lot of the policy changes (e.g. only passengers past the security checkpoints, the 3 oz of fluid thing, underpants man, and more). They slap a patch on in reaction to an event, and while it looks like they're doing something, it really has no effect other than to increase cost and time involved, with no improvement in safety or security.

      A while ago I came to the conclusion that all of this stuff is some sort of weird proxy for people's fear of flying. If we were really concerned about terrorists then public places would look a whole lot different than they do. The reason we don't have more terrorist attacks has nothing to do with all the TSA stuff and everything to do with there just not being very many terrorists.

      I believe you are absolutely right. TSA is window dressing and nothing more. The true security work is done by other security groups via their means such as monitoring, undercover agents, stoolies (informants), security exchanges with other countries, agent infiltration, email and telephone (unauthorized ) surveillance and other means.

      The Israelis rely on body language and surveillance before the person enters the airport.

      A bomb exploding inside an airport will do tremendous human and material damage. If the terrorist (if there is one) is captured outside before she/he enters the building, the damage would be very restricted. If an inspector knew he could be killed by a patdown, would he actually do it?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    27. Re:You Don't Invalidate Basic Rights by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well. So I actually looked at the article to see if it had data on that. It does.

      Just over half of Americans report having flown at least once in the past year. These fliers have a slightly better opinion of the job TSA is doing than those who haven't flown. Fifty-seven percent of those who have flown at least once and 57% of the smaller group who have flown at least three times have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance. That compares with 52% of those who have not flown in the past year.

      Looking at the aggregated data itself, fewer non-fliers gave it "excellent", but not by much. The thing that does stand out (to me), though, is that only 6% of non-fliers didn't know (or didn't have) a perception of the TSA. Meaning that 94% of non-fliers (or just under half of the sample) are basing their choice on either old data, or second-hand data.

      [Opinions on the TSA's effectiveness don't seem to vary between fliers and non-fliers.]

      The data on ages is also quite interesting; the older the respondent, the less likely they were to give an "Excellent" score (for both perception and effectiveness). I wonder if that is due to them having more experience of pre-TSA nonsense?

      Of course, fundamentally, this poll is complete nonsense. All it tells us is people's perceptions of the TSA and its effectiveness; that's just marketing. There is no data on the actual effectiveness, and surely that is the important thing? Sadly we seem to live in a world that cares far more about perceptions than about substance...

  51. TSA Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Average Joe: Why are you scattering around this yellow powder?
    TSA: To repel the elephants...
    Average Joe: But there's no elephants here!
    TSA: Aha, you see, good powder!
    Average Joe: Good job!

  52. Breakdown by age? by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd be very interested to see a breakdown in these poll results by age. I would not be at all surprised to see younger, more Internet-connected respondents have a more negative view of the TSA, while the Fox News generation (average viewer age 65, average age for Bill O'Reilly viewers 71) tends toward a more positive view. We see the same thing with numerous other issues where pretty much everyone on sites like Slashdot agrees, but the actual politics seem to be lagging behind. For instance, 50% of Americans now favor legalizing marijuana according to recent Gallup Polls, but while 62% of people in the 18-29 age bracket are in favor, only 31% of senior citizens do. And those seniors vote at a MUCH higher rate than young people. This is why issues relevant to old people are discussed endlessly, while issues important to the young are simply ignored. It's why college funding keeps getting cut every year while Medicare and Social Security remain untouchable.

    Get out there and vote this November! Even if it's just for the lesser of two evils, vote anyway. The only way this imbalance will be fixed is if young people start voting at the same rate as older Americans.

    1. Re:Breakdown by age? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I'd be very interested to see a breakdown in these poll results by age. I would not be at all surprised to see younger, more Internet-connected respondents have a more negative view of the TSA, while the Fox News generation (average viewer age 65 [hollywoodreporter.com], average age for Bill O'Reilly viewers 71 [huffingtonpost.com]) tends toward a more positive view.

      It's interesting that you question these poll results, but accept your referenced poll results unquestioningly....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Breakdown by age? by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that you question these poll results, but accept your referenced poll results unquestioningly....

      Please re-read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that the TSA poll results were wrong or fake. I said that I would like to see a breakdown by age, and that it was quite possible that the discrepancy between the poll and what "everyone on the Internet" knows might be due to generation gaps.

    3. Re:Breakdown by age? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      He's not questioning the results, he just wants the breakdown by age, which the other poll results provided.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Breakdown by age? by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      I would not be at all surprised to see younger, more Internet-connected respondents have a more negative view of the TSA, while the Fox News generation

      Hardly. More likely the opposite
      Younger generation (early to mid 20s) barely remembers life without TSA.
      I at least remember not having to take off my shoes/throw away liquids (not to mention the choice between x-ray-like machines and groping).
      Older generations remember being able to go through security in minutes and being able to use someone else's flight ticket without a problem.

    5. Re:Breakdown by age? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Conversely, it may be that younger, more internet-connected respondents are less adverse to invasions of privacy and, given modern schooling, having their rights trampled on. Older people may also be less inclined to be happy with being bossed around by whipper snappers.

      So breakdown by age would, indeed be interesting.

    6. Re:Breakdown by age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be surprised if younger respondents had a more positive view of the TSA? If so, be surprised!

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx

      The relevant data is in the table titled 'Perceptions of TSA Screening Effectiveness, by Age Group'.

    7. Re:Breakdown by age? by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      Just a friendly reminder that one day soon, you, too, will be one of those dreadful "old people". So be careful what you wish for. You may actually get it!

    8. Re:Breakdown by age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out there and vote this November! Even if it's just for the lesser of two evils, vote anyway.

      What?

      The only way this imbalance will be fixed is if young people start voting at the same rate as older Americans.

      For the "lesser of two evils"? How will that possibly fix anything?

      How about voting for someone who will actually ....you know....fix things? His name is Ron Paul.

  53. Re:TSA does some good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dat meens ur a tururist!

  54. Wut? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism

    Bah ha ha ha ha ha! Good one!

  55. Good Job by jamesl · · Score: 1

    The TSA is doing such a good job that they've also prevented hijackings and bombings in South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica.

  56. get your dictionary by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    there are many competing models of evolution, there is much controversy about it among real scientists about mechanisms, species relationships, rate, etc.

    In science, evolution is a controversial topic. so is the Standard Model, in physics. Even the real composition of water, in Chemistry (very interesting ion configurations of the hydrogen and oxygen are still be discovered and evidence for some debated.)

  57. Re:TSA does some good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > I've been flying with them for several years through tens of TSA theater checkpoints by now.

    What the flying fuck. I'm gonna need one of those for my bottled water then.

  58. Call Center Locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a reason Gallup's call centers are in Omaha, Lincoln, and Houston, and it's not just for the midwesterners' relative lack of accent.

  59. Intimidation by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 4, Informative

    In a recent Schneier article titled Court Orders TSA to Answer EPIC a menacing comment was left by what claimed to be 'Blogger Bob' from the TSA's blog. It may be and likely enough is a dupe, but seemed terribly appropriate for the TSA. I have pasted it below for your reading pleasure:

    "I've been asked to respond to this post in order to clarify misunderstandings that some people may have.

    The TSA properly exempted itself from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Sunshine Act. The TSA granted itself the exemption for valid reasons that must remain classified for National Security reasons, so you'll have to trust us on that.

    The TSA also had a valid grounds for respectfully refusing to comply with both court orders. The reasons are also classified for National Security reasons, so again you'll have to trust us the refusal was appropriate and necessary. But I can tell you that the decision was based on thorough analysis of the latest robust intelligence pertaining to the current threat environment.

    In both cases, TSA Counsel determined that any form of notice and comment rulemaking regarding the deployment of AIT would be detrimental to National Security, based on the classified determinations I referenced above. TSA Counsel prepared a classified memorandum exempting the agency from notice and comment requirements. TSA Counsel believes that the National Security determinations set forth in the classified memorandum give the TSA full authority to disregard any court orders requiring notice and comment rulemaking.

    You are, of course, free to sign the petition. But it will have no more effect than the lawsuit or the court order. And do be aware that pursuant to classified TSA procedures, any names on the petition will be forwarded to the Terrorist Screening Center for possible inclusion on appropriate watch lists.

    Thank you for allowing me to address your concerns about this matter."

    Posted by: Blogger Bob at August 2, 2012 6:39 PM


    Perhaps the poll was conducted with a stick. But then again, we are a libidinous culture.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    1. Re:Intimidation by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      The TSA granted itself the exemption for valid reasons that must remain classified for National Security reasons, so you'll have to trust us on that.

      Sounds totally legit guys. Nothing to see here, no sir. I'll just pick up that can.

      TSA Counsel believes that the National Security determinations set forth in the classified memorandum give the TSA full authority to disregard any court orders requiring notice and comment rulemaking.

      If an agency can ignore court orders unilaterally, exactly what is stopping them from doing any illegal thing that they want to do? Surely we can at least have a set of independent judges with security clearances who can preside over cases where "national security" comes up.

  60. TSA to sell rocks shortly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think what you meant to say was:

    Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
    Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
    Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: I see.
    Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
    Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

    1. Re:TSA to sell rocks shortly by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they take them away again unless you put them in your checked baggage.

    2. Re:TSA to sell rocks shortly by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Is there ever a case where a Simpson quote isn't apt?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  61. Editors at Gallup by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

    The Editors at Gallup are pretty obvious in their authoritarian leanings when you listen to interviews. Their polls are likely good science, but their interpretations should almost always be ignored (unless you're authoritarian yourself). You can easily read the bias out of the comments here:

    According to the article, criticism of the TSA comes primarily from 'Internet sites, where reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges.' Furthermore, 'the TSA is put into a difficult situation when such charges are posted with little or no fact checking by reporters"

    I admit that I can't tell who said that from the writeup, but I'm assuming it was gallup. Does anyone think that reporters actually do any fact checking anymore? Like at all? On the other hand, if you hit Bruce Schneier's site (or many others), you'll find actual experts telling you that the TSA is pretty much worthless and a giant waste of money.

    It's ok, I figured it out though: The TSA is actually a jobs program. In a world where socialism is a curse word, the TSA is a surprisingly effective jobs program for a segment of society with no critical thinking skills or meaningful education. Neeners.

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    1. Re:Editors at Gallup by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The problem, of course, is that most Americans (at least 54%) also have authoritarian leanings. The whole idea about Americans being pro-freedom is a complete and total lie.

      As for a jobs program, maybe we should just emulate the former Soviet countries in that regard. One guy I knew from Hungary told me about a box factory they had there during the communist regime: the factory had two sides. On one side, the workers would assemble these wooden boxes (the big kind used for shipping). Then, they'd ship these completed boxes to the other side of the factory, where a different team of workers would disassemble them, and send the pieces back to the other side. Highly productive place there...

    2. Re:Editors at Gallup by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As for a jobs program, maybe we should just emulate the former Soviet countries in that regard. One guy I knew from Hungary told me about a box factory they had there during the communist regime: the factory had two sides. On one side, the workers would assemble these wooden boxes (the big kind used for shipping). Then, they'd ship these completed boxes to the other side of the factory, where a different team of workers would disassemble them, and send the pieces back to the other side. Highly productive place there.

      I think your Hungarian friend told you a joke. It sounds like a pretty stereotypical joke someone living in a commie country would come up with, but, no, they didn't actually do things like that.

      What did happen was that some factory could try to "do the 5-year plan in 3 years" or somesuch by increasing their output, and then that output would be useless because other factories that make different components that go together with the output of that first factory wouldn't have enough to match - and that extra output would be effectively let to rot (after proudly announcing the record in newspapers, of course). IIRC there was a specific well-documented example of that when a factory was making tractor wheels, and there weren't enough tractors to put the wheels onto, nor a decent storage space to keep them for when they might be needed later - and so they just threw them out to rust.

    3. Re:Editors at Gallup by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, he sure sounded serious at the time. He wasn't even a friend, he was my boss.

  62. Polls aare useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too much ambiguity introduced through wording of questions, and target audience.

  63. Re:TSA does some good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I have a boxcutter, scissors and a screwdriver in my backpack right now. They are never detected by airport's scanners because my backpack has a nice carbon plastic compartment that reduces the contrast of items within it.

    For fucks sake, dipshit, don't say that out loud on the internet! What, do you want them adjusting the machines to scan through THOSE now? Geez, THINK before you post!

  64. EARLY-LIFE MIND CONTROL WORKS! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interestingly, younger Americans âoehave significantly more positive opinions of the TSA than those who are older,â Gallup said, noting that 67% of people between 18 and 29 rate the agency as excellent or good.

    "And that," put in the Director sententiously, "that is the secret of happiness and virtue - liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny."
    -- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 1

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:EARLY-LIFE MIND CONTROL WORKS! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      And yet, there are hints the Director himself is looking for a way out.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:EARLY-LIFE MIND CONTROL WORKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. That's awesome. Depressing, but awesome. I have to read that. I had a chance to when my brother had a copy when I was like 12 or 13, but I'm glad I didn't because I don't think the most important parts and meanings would have properly sunk in.

    3. Re:EARLY-LIFE MIND CONTROL WORKS! by crypticedge · · Score: 1

      Don't forget profit is theft.

      It is impossible to make a profit without screwing over someone in the deal. That is flat out a fact of economics. All profit is theft. That being said, taxes, inflation and the rest are a balancing of the theft of business from the working population.

  65. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And my axe?

  66. Re:TSA does some good by acoustix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why have would-be terrorists resorted to increasingly bizarre and ineffective weapons - the shoe bomb, underwear bomb, and chemical cocktail?>

    And none of those were caught by the TSA. They were caught by civilians.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  67. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Or vagina

  68. I've just done my own poll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently 54-57% of the American popluation is incredibly dumb and/or doesn't fly frequently

  69. Polls are useless by koan · · Score: 1

    Too much ambiguity introduced by the target audience and types of questions asked.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  70. Did they ask ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the survey questions while a TSA agent had their hand wrapped firmly around each subjects junk?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  71. where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where was this poll even taken? Chances are the people who took it aren't the ones being molested in airports.

  72. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by Denogh · · Score: 0

    No, I am Spartacus! Wait, I think I am in the wrong movie!

    I'm Brian and so is my wife!

  73. Why I didn't sign the petitiong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect that the main reason the petition did not gain enough traction is that it required you to register on the site and hand over quite a bit of information on yourself. Let's see, you wish to criticize your overbearing government for intrusive procedures and all you need to do is tell them all about who and where you are? That won't scare away all of the people already concerned enough about their privacy to be worried about the TSA...

  74. Re:TSA does some good by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    You are so right. The 9/11 hijackers did change the rules, and now the flying public knows: don't co-operate. Of course meanwhile, the cop-types started using "Hey, it's a different world" as their excuse for whatever curtailment of rights or legal corner-cutting they had in mind. And while it is technically possible to scale back the TSA without sacrificing actual security, the fact is anybody who even suggests it will be crucified by the Right as being "Soft on Communism^WTerrorism".

  75. Re:TSA does some good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    welcome to the no-fly-list

  76. wrong sample group by loshwomp · · Score: 1

    I do not belive "54% of Americans" have any significant experience with airline travel and are thus in no position to evaluate the TSA. Also, most people are stupid, but that doesn't make them correct.

    1. Re:wrong sample group by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      The poll got similar results from people who flew 3+ times in the last year. Or, at least, that's what the Gallup site says the results were.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  77. Who the fuck are they polling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Employees of the TSA?

  78. Re:TSA does some good by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    In addition, once on board an aircraft, a reasonably creative terrorist could fairly easily improvise deadly weapons from materials readily available on the plane - any flat and thin piece of metal, even some varieties of plastic, any large blunt object such as a hard-shell suitcase, or of course well-trained hands and feet. There are 2 things that actually have made a difference: First is that they can't get into the cockpit through the reinforced door, and the second is that the doctrine for hijackings has changed to recommend that passengers and crew fight hijackers.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  79. Actual Poll by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Do you think the TSA is:
    a) Doing an excellent job
    b) I wish to be put on a "no fly" list
    c) I request to be strip "searched" by Manny.
    d) I invite the FBI visit my house.
    e) b, c, and d.

  80. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And im his friend Jesus!

  81. Terrorist-Repellent Rock For Sale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since I got this rock, no terrorist has taken over a U.S. domestic flight.

  82. Re:TSA does some good by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    The job of the TSA is to acclimate you to your future in a police state.

  83. Wow, approval poll + conspiracy tagging, all in 1 by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    What's so fascinating about this, is that it not only attempts to inculcate into people's minds that TSA = good job (with a D- mark of 54%), but also any critique of TSA come only from internet websites with questionable reputation, mostly driven by conspiracy nuts is the logical conclusion.

  84. Twisted truth/stats by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    The TSA does a good job AT WHAT?
    Pollseter: "Do you think the TSA does a good job raping people's rights?"
    Gomer Pyle: "Why yes ah do!"
    Pollseter: "TSA does a good job...."

    Seriously, does anyone believe these polls? I haven't talked to a SINGLE person who thinks the TSA is anything but bloated and useless.

    I think they made this poll up, personally, and it's also statistics. I suspect either the poll is rigged or they're lying/twisting the truth....

    --
    -
  85. Did someone show them a picture of the TSA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/10/1537218/how-pictures-skew-our-judgment

  86. Gullible fuck listening to Pat Robertson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would read that as Israel approves of TSA methods; because I tend to believe exactly the opposite of anything any organization associated with Pat Robertson says. Until disputed by facts to the contrary.

  87. So this is how liberty dies... by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    with thunderous applause. Wait, did I just quote one of the three prequels? I am ashamed...but slightly less ashamed than the people who think the TSA is doing an excellent job should be.

  88. Public opinion polls aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about what others think... They're about what you think.

  89. I don't like the TSA. Only good experiences, tho by eepok · · Score: 1

    I only JUST started flying in August of last year. Flying was never an option growing up, but I'm a career where I'm sent to various places of the country a few times a year.

    I've been through SNA, LAX, DFW, SAV, ORD, SFO, OAK, and DCA. I've had a pocket patted once and had the full search because I forgot a flash drive in a leg pocket in my cargo shorts. In both circumstances, I made light of the situation joked profusely with the investigating TSA agent, and went on my way with a smile.

    Does that mean I like it? No. Would I prefer not being approached by two men with the assumption that I'm a criminal or terrorist? Yes. (But I do have experience growing up brown in Southern California.)

    However, I understand that those "TSA Agents" are literally just local people with no particularly strong commitment to the TSA beyond doing their job sufficiently well so that they keep their jobs. The vast majority of them are just normal people doing the same tedious task over and over, not the jack-booted thugs many make them out to be.

    Summary: The workers are just fine. The process seems unnecessary.

  90. +/- 4%, 41% don't really care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The margin for error in the poll is +/- 4%. So it could be indicating that half think the TSA is basically adequate or better, and the other half think the TSA is less than adequate.
    Also, polls like that have a strong central tendency; if people don't have an opinion, they randomly choose something around the middle. 'Good' got 41% and 'fair' got 30%. Add in the 4% who admit they don't know, and 75% don't really care or haven't thought about it much.
    That leaves 13% who ranked it 'excellent' and 12% who ranked it 'poor'. Plus or minus 4%, so it could be 17% 'like', 8% 'don't like' or 9% 'like' and 16% 'don't like'. But now you have such a small sample size that the margin for error is probably much, much larger.
    In other words, this poll contains no information whatsoever, so you can continue to believe whatever you did before.

  91. a strange anomaly by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    apparently 54% of Americans are below average intelligence.
    fascinating...


    OK, so if we parse this correctly, it more likely means 54% of Americans are dumber than a box of rocks.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  92. In related news... by Nalez · · Score: 1

    And in related news, a Gallop poll found 54% of people have never been in an airport before.

    1. Re:In related news... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      And in a surprise followup, a Gallup poll found 54% of people do not know where China is. Or Washington D.C., with some responses indicating that they believe it is a suburb north of Seattle.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  93. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by r1348 · · Score: 1

    WTF did I just read?

  94. No.. there's just a good chance ... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    ...that you and your close friends and family are far more enlightened about reality than the average sheep (oh, sorry... I mean citizen).

    I'm making that assumption partially based on your tagline. After all, Ron Paul is *so* darn popular, his own political party won't give him any speaking time at their convention in Tampa, FL! (Oh, they're letting his son, Rand, talk a little bit as a concession, mind you. But as most of us know who follow politics in any serious way, Rand's politics does NOT line up too neatly with Ron's.)

    1. Re:No.. there's just a good chance ... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Many of my friends and most of my co-workers are not Ron Paul supporters, so that makes me something of a black sheep politically. But even the ones I know that are liberal do not like the TSA. I'm not sure why Rand is getting a speaking slot, I don't think they're grooming him for 2016, he's still too far outside the mainstream even if he doesn't quite line up perfectly with Ron.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  95. Whats the difference between by Ian+McBeth · · Score: 0

    The TSA, AFLCIO, and the Sturmabteilung (SA)...... Ding, Ding, Ding, Their native language.....

  96. Re:I am Alexander Peter Kowalski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or vagina

    No that's an axe wound.

  97. Failling grade by chelip · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked a 54 grade is a failed one and means almost half of the users dont like the job they are doing. Most americans don't travel, the ones who do use cars or buses mostly so when they do use an airplane they dont have a comparision point.

  98. Re:I don't like the TSA. Only good experiences, th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, I understand that those "TSA Agents" are literally just local people with no particularly strong commitment to the TSA beyond doing their job sufficiently well so that they keep their jobs.

    No. "I was just doing my job!" isn't an excuse. It's never an excuse. I don't care if you were 'just doing your job' when you murdered that innocent family; that's unacceptable.

  99. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Dharlome08 · · Score: 1

    Can I have some of what you're on?

  100. Re:I don't like the TSA. Only good experiences, th by DuBois · · Score: 0

    "I was just following orders." -- Adolph Eichmann

    --
    The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
  101. Gallup sinks to the level of Rasmussen? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Who are famous for framing their questions so as to get the answers that please the faux news crowd. Well, the day just got more depressing.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  102. this rock by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

    is doing a good job of keeping tigers away. you don't see any tigers around do you?

  103. Typical Christian Semantic Weaseling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How uninterested and afraid to question one must be to see controversy in everything where a lot of people discuss something and naturally not completely agree. How dogmatic to the bone and how desperate is ones intellect that instead of contemplating the ideas one holds, one focusses only on semantics of words to kill the depth of any argument one actually cares about. All to reconcile ones believes with ever increasing scientific knowledge. It used to be that simple Faith was good enough, but it is not good enough for --I quote your parent commenter abbreviatedly-- elitist 3-digit I.Q.'s.

  104. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    54% of Americans don't fly.

    That's how I read it.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  105. The propaganda works by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Is there a problem? I mean, hey, if nobody's gonna resist, fuck it. Off to the tropics for me.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  106. Welcome! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    Welcome, Comrades!, Welcome to the Glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!

  107. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is when laws that allow the news to lie really start to pay off.

    Who owns Gallup again?

    captcha: theories...lol indeed.

  108. Not this American by BlueBat · · Score: 1

    No way, I refuse to fly because of the crap they pull. If they go to train stations, bus stations and even ships then I guess I wont be traveling anywhere except once. And that is away from america.

  109. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by hirschma · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's pretty much it. The poll is polluted by non-traveling mouth-breathers.

    Consider that only 1/3 of Americans hold valid passports. I'd guess that the percentage that flies more at least once a year is around the same, perhaps less.

    Which means that the non-travelers are just fine with whatever tactics that the TSA uses.

  110. Re:Let me tell you about my last encounter with TS by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    That's great, I guess we should re-purpose them as LFA (Lost and Found Administration) agents. They could reduce passenger losses by billions and actually serve a purpose to the taxpayer!

  111. Survey is flawed by splitsevin · · Score: 1

    A better indicator would be weighted for the frequency a respondent has been subjected to TSA procedures:

    I have traveled by airline X times since 2009:

    0 times = score 1.00
    1 time = score 1.25
    2 times = score 1.50
    3 times = score 2.00
    4 times = score 2.50
    5 times = score 3.25

    ...and so on. Mind you, I am no statistician and I'm sure someone could devise a better spread with a better understanding of the demands of this kind of survey.

    As someone who travels via airline +/- 10 times per year I can say that I have had the unpleasant experience of having to be patted down because I refuse to be subjected to as-of-yet questionable and unnecessary amounts of radiation. If the jury's still out on the scanner, I'll be opting out.

    I do fully understand that this wasn't the intention of the study and wouldn't you know, it's an outcome that reinforces the status quo and besmirches dissent. I can see this being a headline in USA Today or some other brain-dead rag.

    If someone has no frame of reference on a particular matter, why should their opinion be validated? For instance, would my opinion about legislation involved in animal husbandry regulations be considered worth anything? As someone who's never been involved in the insemination of livestock I can say, without hesitation, the answer is a resounding "No."

    --
    The enemy of my enemy is quite possibly also my enemy. I've made a lot of enemies.
  112. Propaganda, supporting the unsupportable.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Propaganda, supporting the unsupportable, an editor orders one of his copywriters to create news that casts the government is a "good" light!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  113. Disappointed with Slashdot pawning this Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is clearly a propaganda piece and Slashdot should be ashamed for running it.(Unless their intention was to highlight it's absurdity) Like the guy said earlier, seal the cockpit doors and only the plane can be taken out(common sense that should have been implemented from jump.) The TSA needs to go. It is designed to make us comfortable with federal goons in all aspects of our lives, including the fondling of our youth. It is frakkin criminal and being rolled out in train/bus stations and soon to come to big events(sports, concerts, etc.) BTW sheeple 9/11 and most of the so called terrorist events taking place over here are inside jobs with the soul purpose of legitimizing our growing police state which is run by the same international bankers that run our government and are ruining our country. Their goal which has been stated for quite some time is not our safety(in fact quite the opposite) and they are making great strides to its fulfillment. People you have absolutely got to pull the blinders off and start getting active about this shit. It's no damn joke. I don't agree with every single point of Alex Jones at WWW.INFOWARS.COM but he's probably 90-99% accurate in reporting what is actually going on in this country which you will never hear about because the "powers that be" run the corporate media and are quite careful in controlling the American/World dialogue and hiding/perpetuating their insidious agenda. Please arm yourself with knowledge. I suggest www.infowars.com as a starting point and dig into their claims to verify it for yourself. You will be shocked. Wake up friends and please help others wake up so we can win back our country and our freedoms.

    Hosea 4:6 -- My people perish for a lack of knowledge. / -- John 8:32 The truth will set you free. Pursue the truth people and save who you can.

    BTW I am a huge fan of Slashdot, just wasn't sure why they were running this piece. Turned out to be an opportunity and I suggest you'll do the same when able. God Bless!

    P3NDRA60N

  114. The real real reason is youre all stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason is they are doing a good job. In real everyday life no one bitches about them and they deal with them with little to no problems ever. I mean sure on rare occasion people have a problem but thats the way it is everywhere. Even really great and upstanding institutions like childrens hospital have patients that occasionally have a horrible experince because the fact of the matter is this is real life and nothing no matter the intentions or desire ever goes perfectly and sometimes negative things happen. THere is none and never will be a business that has 100% satisfaction rate, its stupid to think otherwise.

    See the thing is the internet has made you all bitchy, whiney, complaining, assholes that can hide behind the safety of your pc and bitch about anything and everything. Blowing stuff out of proportion, complaining about things you have no idea of and just the fact you all get caught up in the fad of popular opininon which is usually just a mob mentality and not based off how things are in reality. Its just a bunch of virtual misconceptions and half truths sandwhiched together into some idiotic general consensus.

    See you idiots only care about bad news. "OH no they searched the crippled little girl they are a naughty naught bad poopy headed doodoo faced meany people! I hate the TSA they took away that girls rights and they fuck babies and sacrifice kittens to satan and they took our jobs!" But you guys do realize that for every crippled girl they searched 10 million people went through the TSA that year without a single solitary problem? You guys hear one or two bad things a year and suddenly youre all up in arms about them when infact all the negative stuff you hear about them is like .01% of everything they do. But you dont care, you just want an excuse to get on the internet and bitch and whine to a bunch of strangers who dont give a shit because you have no lives, your pathetic and youre immature children just wanting to yell about something to anyone.

  115. Re:TSA does some good by Richy_T · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've got news for you, while you're busy pointing at the evil, evil right wing, the usual suspects you vote for are busy implementing the same or worse.

    Time to get over this red-team/blue-team bullshit or you are part of the problem.

  116. Bullocks by kimvette · · Score: 1

    According to the article, criticism of the TSA comes primarily from 'Internet sites, where reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges.'

    Bullocks. Newspapers by and large are either liberal moonbat (Boston Globe, NYT, etc) or Neocon (Boston Herald) propaganda, with little regard shown to the truth of the matter. There are a few exceptions here and there which remain mostly objective (Wall Street Journal) without turning every story into op-eds or taking quotes out of context but the objective newspapers are few and far between.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  117. Re:Let me tell you about my last encounter with TS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean at least they gave you a reach-around.

  118. BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not know a single person who feels the TSA is doing a good job.

  119. Re:TSA does some good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before 9/11 - crackpots

    And after 9/11 they're crackpots with American officials helping them board the flights.

  120. Well now, by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    If a corporate-controlled 'news' group is telling us that being sexually groped by our own government is both effective *and* welcome, who are we to question?

  121. Who did they ask? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    My guess most of the people they asked are people too fat to get out of their trailer let alone fly so why ask them?

  122. You will like it cause..well I...ah.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite amusing to hear this article wailing accusations against people and reporters for being lazy and not fact checking without themselves offering evidence of the same unless they belive cherry picking specific incidents favorable to a narrative constitutes not being lazy.

    In the end don't grope my penis, steal my shit (happened twice to me personally) or x-ray me and I might actually fly again someday.

    Also please don't act like a bunch of jerks. I was actually embarassed for my country after coming back from overseas and listening to the idiot with a badge shout and belittle guests.

      Till then the airlines and every politician who supports them will not be seeing a single dollar or vote from me. No poll is going to change that.

  123. Poll finds 54% of Americans are blatant idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poll finds that 54% of Americans are blatant idiots. Shame on the 46% for not ensuring their brothers are properly informed.

  124. I do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to copy Israel's aviation security. It is clearly superior, and less invasive.

  125. Re:TSA does some good by houghi · · Score: 1

    An attack like 9/11 could only ever work once. Now we have reinforced cockpit doors and passengers will not cooperate with hijackers. Any attempt to hijack a plane, without using firearms at a minimum, will be stopped by the passengers who will assume that the hijackers mean to crash the plane.

    Perhaps they don't want to GPL security

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  126. Re:TSA does some good by asylumx · · Score: 1

    If shoe bombs are ineffective, why do I have to specifically take my shoes off and put them through the scanners at the airport before I'm allowed in the terminal? Sounds like somebody thinks a shoe bomb would be effective enough to cause a problem...

  127. Die Hard by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The TSA is *exactly* like the FBI was characterised in the first Die Hard movie: brain-dead, by the book reactionaries that do exactly what the bad guys need done. In the case of the TSA, they have been crucial in conducting bin Laden's long-term goal of turning the US into a police state. Based on his early life exposure and his Soviet-era collusions with the CIA, he understood that the most likely US reaction to a terrorist threat would be justification of dictatorial powers for the gain of personal power and profits by those in both public and private sectors (if there is still a difference).

    Mission Accomplished, indeed.

  128. That's a big stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is another one of those carefully crafted polls Gallup is famous for, designed to support whatever pasteurized, homogenized official narrative is desired. IE, benevolent, protective goverment is good, wicked Internet rabble-rousers needing to be regulated are evil and suspect. If you look at the actual poll,though, as opposed to the headline conclusion, you can see that most people have plenty of reservations. Substitute "bad" for good and I'm certain you'd come out a heavier-weighted result for a diametrically opposed finding.

    There's a hell of a lot of equivocation going on with this poll. Disambiguate and contextualize "good" or "bad" here accurately, anyway. The poll certainly doesn't

  129. 57%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the 57% who said the TSA. is doing a good job don't travel by plane nor do they read the newspapers. Why do we read all the time they are either involved with passenger property theft or 'copping a feel' off of a child, the elderly or a handicapped person? If Obama wants to lower federal spending this is one agency that could disappear and I doubt he would hear nary a whimper of protest.

  130. your probably just an asshole to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I travel a lot, never had a problem

    My guess is that you're just an asshole to them.

    You probably aren't even smart enough to realize that the police, if they pull you over for something bogus like failure to signal a lane change or driving too fast for conditions--even if you aren't speeding, can take you to jail strip search you multiple times, make you wait to see a judge to post bail and generally fuck you over, And its all perfectly legal.

  131. Completely unbiased by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

    The poll found that 54% of Americans believe the TSA is doing a good or excellent job, and that 57% have a good or excellent opinion of the agency.

    To ensure the poll contained a representative and informed sample group, it was conducted at airport security checkpoints. This also allowed for an additional efficiency and cost-saving measure - using the actual TSA employees as the pollsters. And to ensure answers were unbiased, participants were assured that under no circumstance would a negative response result in an "enhanced screening session" with Bubba, the large grinning man over there wearing the rubber gloves and holding a tube of KY Jelly.

    --
    A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
  132. The other 43% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " The poll found that 54% of Americans believe the TSA is doing a good or excellent job, and that 57% have a good or excellent opinion of the agency. So why all the criticism? "
            Why all the criticism? Because of the other 43%.

  133. Sign and publicise this meta-petition by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    The article poster laments that the petition he referred to had vanished off the petition site.

    So... do something about that, why don't you?

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/improve-transparency-online-petition-system/VmVB9XC2

    Yes, I realize the irony in even hoping a petition to change the petition system would receive any attention at all. But as I don't have the ear of the website developer, this is what I can do from my armchair.

    Sure, it is almost certain to fail. But it has a measurably - if still small - better chance of success than whinging at the screen where nobody can hear me.

  134. Re:TSA does some good by timeOday · · Score: 1

    They weren't caught by anybody; they actually tried to trigger their devices, which were not effective. But if the defense is good enough to prevent an effective attack, that is the goal.

  135. Poll finds Americans who don't fly by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

    approve of torturing those that do. Only about 1/3 of Americans fly each year. Many of the people who "approve" of the TSA don't deal with them.

  136. The bias is in the question by Meeni · · Score: 1

    Do I think the TSA is doing a good job of performing the duties it has been mandated to ? Yes. Overall, agents have been polite and professional, when refusing to enter the irradiator, I have been treated with courtesy, and groped according to established procedures.

    Do I think the TSA mandate and procedure make any sense ? Hell no. The security circus serve little to no purpose, and being groped to be able to travel should not happen in a democratic country. This is not the fault of TSA employees, this is the fault of the political body that invented that bloated, expensive and useless administrative behemoth.

  137. FTFY by Shompol · · Score: 1

    ...criticism of the TSA comes primarily from 'Internet sites, where reporting standards are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are bought to publish what is told to them...

  138. Thinking and Doing are different things by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    People may think they're doing a good job.

    But anyone with actual counter-terrorism and combat demolitions experience knows that TSA screening is a farce and not just a waste of time but an anti-competitive non-productive nuisance.

    People also thought the world was flat. Some still do, sadly. Some people think Jesus rode dinosaurs.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  139. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    You friend Ivan Jackenoff needs a word with you. He says that's his money and he wants it. Come up with something different, paleeese

  140. Re:TSA does some good by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    The problem with 9/11 wasn't in what the hijackers brought on board, but that they changed the rules of airplane hijacking. Prior to 9/11, if your plane was hijacked, you cooperated. That was the best way to ensure that you would survive.

    Correction, the best way that you individually survived, and also guaranteed that further hijackings would continue. The list is impressive, notably that Israel seems to get attention about once per decade. The last successful attempt was in 1958, but the 'terrorists' keep trying. I parenthesized terrorists because the one in 2000, for instance, was a rather disturbed individual that needed psychiatric help, and not someone working towards an agenda or terror. As has been said before, Israel has a model that is worth emulating, and is very different from the US's.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  141. wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice they didn't ask, "Should the TSA exist?"

  142. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it appears the TSA is doing a 'Good Job' because we haven't had a terrorist attack via air since 2011. But you can bet your biddies the moment we have a confirmed attack or hijacking that the TSA's popularity rating will go completely into the toilet...

    1. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant 9/11. I don't know why I wrote 2011. Anyway, the point stands.

  143. Good Job? by ai4px · · Score: 1

    The TSA is doing a good job of keeping me from flying. Why would I want to subject myself to such searches? Amazingly, people still get things on aircraft. Enough with the TSA already... trust me, the passengers will take care of business if there is a problem. Just like they did with the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber.

  144. The vocal minority turns out to be just that by compucomp2 · · Score: 1

    Funny how the Slashdot hivemind is on the wrong side of the discussion yet again, although as usual they were so entirely convinced of their correctness.

    1. Re:The vocal minority turns out to be just that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how the Slashdot hivemind is on the wrong side of the discussion yet again, although as usual they were so entirely convinced of their correctness.

      Funny how authoritarian personality types are infinitely capable of suspending their critical thinking skills, (if indeed they have any to start with), and take every word from on high as though it were automatically true.

      Do you even know what 'propaganda' is?

      Sheesh.

  145. they ARE doing a good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their job is to create the illusion of security, so that people take planes. If many people feel that the TSA is doing a good job (per the poll results), then the illusion is working, and therefore the TSA is doing a good job.
    Q.E.D.

  146. Polls by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    On a totally unrelated note, although related to the mass population: Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe we are defending our country by being thousands of miles away in Afghanistan Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe the hijackers were from Iraq / Afghanistan Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe they actually vote for the president of the US Of course these numbers are made up, but you get the point...

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  147. Re:Let me tell you about my last encounter with TS by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 1

    Well, I also hardly ever get porno groped anymore. But that's probably because I lack confidence and look too needy when I go through Security, it's just like the bars in college...

  148. Re:TSA does some good by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

    If terrorists wanted to do some real damage, they'd park on Hawthorn Street and use a shoulder fired missile to dump a 767 into downtown San Diego. The reason the don't is that there is some very real and very good security that works to prevent that. TSA on the other hand, is neither very real nor very good.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  149. The Real QUESTION to ask!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who paid for this poll? Polls cost a lot of money so really ask who paid for this market research?? You will not find any mention of who asked Gallup to perform this poll so in all likelihood we can assume it is the federal government itself. The very idea that most Americans are in any way on board with TSA and thei breast and balls security is ludicrous.

    We also want to ask how much Geeknet, the owners of Slashdot got for the placement of this article.

    This is the most pathetic and an insult!

  150. This was only the first part..... by Ogre332 · · Score: 1

    The second part of the poll indicates that at least 50% of my fellow countrymen surveyed in the first poll are brain dead morons (with a margin of error of +4%).

    --
    Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
  151. Pointless Survey by loafing_oaf · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter if people feel good about the TSA; what matters is whether the agency if effective. Even the statistic about the TSA's perceived effectiveness doesn't help either way. The only reason to present the result of the survey is to imply that the TSA is doing a good job, which is a false conclusion. It's like implying that my magic pencil prevents tiger attacks because I haven't been attacked by a tiger lately.

    --
    Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
  152. Does this change the definition of a Conservitive? by MYakus · · Score: 1

    The definition of a Conservative used to be "a Liberal who's been mugged". Now is it "a Liberal who's been groped"?

  153. Wtf @ Forbes .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for randomly slashing out against online media ...

  154. So like, just barely over half? by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

    Since when was a 54% approval rating in an industry considered "good"?

  155. So insultingly stipid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Far as I'm concerned this propaganda piece is an insult. Fire Holdren and hire me.

  156. Heh. But force those same folks to wear seatbelts by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...and you're a communist taking their FREEDOM! And try regulating pollutants in the air they breath....

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  157. Polling Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Polls would also show that most American's think the moon is made of cheese and that werewolves are real ... There are entire counties where people rarely ever fly and thus never experience the TSA regime.

  158. Useful Idiot or Paid Stooge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who 'thinks' like you is either a paid disruptor or cognitively damaged. I'm betting on the latter since it 'smells' more deranged than it does impersonal cut & paste. But I'm only guessing.

    In any case, the fact of the matter is that no amount of wishful thinking and egocentric bravado is going to save you. In fact, this very force is the prime cause of your rapid slide into darkness. I guess the nice thing, from your perspective, is that you will only have the dimmest awareness of it even happening. That's the thing about cognitive disintegration. You lose the ability to measure just how degraded you appear to those around you who don't happen to have their eyes glued shut, (which is part of the reason people in your situation are so hell-bent on shutting down everybody else's thinking as well as your own.). Doesn't work very well, though.

    The rest of us are getting stronger and wiser as we dig into the work of psychological growth. Luckily, your disintegration is instructive to others.

    So, thanks for that, I guess.

  159. who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just want to know who they interviewed. I can't remember the last time I spoke with anyone about the TSA, and heard a positive message.

  160. TSA Propganda or Biased Reporting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Gallup poll results show that most Americans think TSA is useless in protecting them. The poll says that 58% found TSA less than effective. Since security effectiveness is their only responsibility how can this be construed as favorable for TSA? Why does the media focus on the “job” data?

    Gallup said that 54% of Americans “think” TSA does a decent job while 44% don’t think they do a good job, hardly a ringing endorsement. The poll has a 4% margin indicating that Americans are largely divided on whether the screeners are doing a good job or not. It also shows TSA’s PR campaign has been more successful than their workers.

    Why was it necessary to add the adjective only to the fair performance category when fair would have been sufficient? This creates a bias by implying “only” is bad in the question and contaminates the result.

    So if a plane explodes because of TSA incompetence but America thinks the screeners “do a good job” that makes it okay?

    Gallup’s data shows that 48% of respondents have not flown in a year or more and are not familiar with the agency or its procedures and 75% seldom if ever fly.

    Another interpretation of Gallup’s data is that 75% of Americans are non-fliers or rarely use airlines and are unaware of TSA’s poor performance record or just don’t care since it doesn’t affect them.

    Maybe Gallup will comment on why TSA’s poor effectiveness wasn’t the headline in the press and why the media favorably reported the performance results.

    And how does anyone explain how only 122 people who flew more than five times in the past year suffice for anyone to conclude that millions of frequent fliers view TSA favorably?

    It’s funny that the pool came out he same day this comes on the day when two more TSA screeners in Atlanta were indicted for smuggling drugs through security in a FBI sting. Twelve TSA workers have been charged with smuggling contraband in twenty months

    Media pandering to an incompetent agency that can’t rid itself of criminals is jeopardizing airline safety, not helping it.

  161. I thought their job was to reduce global warming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way they make air travel so tedious, I though their job was to ensure that nobody wants to fly, thus reducing global warming, won't somebody please think of the children, and other nonsequiturs as well...

  162. Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    54% approval rating may be good enough for presidency. But if it's used as a measure of performance for a company, then it's tanking heavily. Who in their right mind would go out and say "overall we're doing good, only slightly less than half our customers think we suck".

  163. Most Americans will never travel by y86 · · Score: 1

    To have an opinion of the TSA one must actually travel. As Walmart pays 7.75 an hour and the average American wage is 35k, MANY people seldom travel and may never travel. People with 0 TSA experience have no reason to not like the TSA.

    Not liking the TSA is more of an "elite" issue.

  164. More TSA agents convicted than they've caught. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More TSA agents have been convicted than they've caught.

    In fact, nobody the TSA arrested has ever been convicted of terrorism or attempted terrorism.

    Every attempted terrorist that was foiled in the act was foiled by private citizens *after* they got past the TSA.

  165. Job Performance Question Biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Gallup question on TSA job performance was severely flawed and biased. There were two options that gave TSA a clearly favorable rating, Excellent and Good but only one that gave them a clearly unfavorable rating, Poor. The Only Fair category was somewhat neutral and offered a more neutral substitute for an unfavorable rating.

    Essentially the Only Fair rating served as a C minus giving TSA the opportunity to spin the results to their advantage and depriving the respondents of a legitimate fifth, not served by the No Opinion response.

    This creates the appearance of bias in the polling and leads to questions of motive in structuring this in such imbalanced manner.

  166. Chocolate rations by Infestedkudzu · · Score: 1

    There is no way Chocolate rations are That up. Call me a skeptic or optimist, or Ishmal, but americans are not that stu.... nevermind.

  167. Basic Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 54% think they are doing a good to excellent job, means 46% are annoyed to downright pissed off.

    Oh, what's that?, almost half the country being pissed off at the TSA, and they make it seem like it's a few malcontents on the internet.

  168. 54% of Americans believe the TSA doing a good job by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    In other news, only 46% of Americans ever fly.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  169. Keeping elephants away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was once told that continual stick banging is a highly effective method of keeping the neighborhood free from elephant invasion. So I took it up and guess what? I have not seen a single elephant on my street!

  170. I have the answer... by Footsienabackyard · · Score: 1

    The TSA requires little or no background check on new hires. It is an idea job for gropers, pedophiles, thugs & thieves. Several FBI drug busts have jailed TSA agents that were bought-off. Many of the FBI tests on TSA security have failed! The TSA has no record of ever detecting a terrorist. ABOLISH THE TSA NOW BEFORE THEY UNIONIZE...!

    --
    Don't you think...? Or don't you?
  171. Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

    Actually, no. If you read the article (I know, this is /. but this is something that will almost certainly be in the poll data...), there isn't much of a difference in perception between frequent fliers and non-fliers. Of course, this is all just perception, nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the TSA...

  172. Re:I don't like the TSA. Only good experiences, th by eepok · · Score: 1

    "I was just doing my job." -- Some guy who bagged onions in the same bag as bananas to the customer's dismay.

    That's right... that's an un-Godwin. Your move, Captain hyperbole.