Slashdot Mirror


TSA Log Shows Passengers Say the Darndest Things

coondoggie writes "There is no humor in an airport. It's a fact. And while most travelers business or otherwise know that, there are a few out there who haven't gotten the message or perhaps the choose to ignore it. Either way the 'People Say the Darndest Things' or 'What Not to Say at an Airport' section has become one of the more popular destinations on the TSA Blog site." The collected wit and wisdom of airline passengers linked unfortunately does not distinguish between stupidity (claiming that you have a bomb to get through security faster) and seemingly sensible questions that get at the heart of the problems with the current and long-running engagement of Homeland Security Theater. (It's also hard to know whether some passengers might have innocently thought their tone, facial expression, body language or context would have served as notice that they weren't actually threatening murder.)

427 comments

  1. Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Repeats the same three anecdotes 11 times. Stupid people will say the word "bomb" sarcastically. Headline news.

    1. Re:Cool story bro. by daern · · Score: 5, Informative

      Repeats the same three anecdotes 11 times. Stupid people will say the word "bomb" sarcastically. Headline news.

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

    2. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I got this really cool hot sauce, it's Da Bomb! I'm carrying my 6oz bottle of it right now cuz airline food sucks without (say it with me) Da Bomb!

      (captcha apropos - ingest)

    3. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen Peyton Manning throw a ball? Man that guy has got a GUN!

    4. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were a terrorist, I probably would say "bomb" sarcastically. I mean, why wouldn't you? Just because you are hell bent on blowing stuff up, doesn't mean you can't have a little sense of humor.

    5. Re:Cool story bro. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

      They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.

    6. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Detaining the person whose bag you just searched because s/he asked if you're looking for "a bomb or something" is not "being thorough"; it is "being a thug." That the person in question is joking is not a suspicion; it is a confirmed fact -- acting on it imparts precisely zero additional security / protection because, having just completed a search, you know that there is no bomb. Inference by way of tone and body language is not necessary, and there is precisely zero risk to simply ignoring the comment.

      Acting on this does nothing but hold up one or more plane(s) of innocent, paying customers, and subject at least one of those passengers to a level of scrutiny largely reserved for murder suspects, all to satisfy a petty personal vendetta against a single individual.

      Period. End of fucking discussion. Anything further is apologist bullshit likely typed out by some jackass in a TSA uniform.

    7. Re:Cool story bro. by timothy · · Score: 1

      "That the person in question is joking is not a suspicion; it is a confirmed fact -"

      Joking, or a plain curious question. Like asking the police swarming one's neighborhood what they're looking for.

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    8. Re:Cool story bro. by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

      They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.

      Absolutely. A lot of burglars brag at barrooms where anyone can overhear. Most criminals and insanely angry people are dumb. Unaware.

    9. Re:Cool story bro. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And a number of those were caused by what I've been told by officials is a federal crime (having checked baggage travel without the owner on the plane).

      If I were Emperor of the Universe, I'd declare that anyone whose luggage goes "missing" be given a free ticket to wherever it landed. Going to HI and your luggage ends up in Cairo? Free trip to Cairo.

    10. Re:Cool story bro. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anyone EVER been caught with a bomb after saying the word "bomb"? People have attempted to carry bombs on board (both successfully and unsuccessfully), but I've never heard of single terrorist plot that was deterred because of a Freudian slip.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    11. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anything further is apologist bullshit likely typed out by some jackass in a TSA uniform.

      Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill for the group you disagree with. Please stop saying things like this: you're making anyone who tries tries to have a discussion like an adult look bad.

    12. Re:Cool story bro. by sedmonds · · Score: 2

      6oz of liquid? That's even worse than having a bomb!

    13. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA are becoming fcking nazi agents.

    14. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That the person in question is joking is not a suspicion; it is a confirmed fact -"

      Joking, or a plain curious question. Like asking the police swarming one's neighborhood what they're looking for.

      No, not like that at all. It's like asking the cop searching your car "Are you looking for drugs or guns".

    15. Re:Cool story bro. by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Funny
      "I've heard that our in-flight movie is a real bomb!"

      - - -

      "Hey! Let go of me!"

    16. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't see how a fact that a person is speaking or not speaking anything has anything to do with those agents finding bombs or whatever.

      You should be able to say anything. In fact they should put deaf people on those jobs.

      Those no joking rules are simply there to protect their egos, and agents themselves are probably aware that the chances they find anything are so low, and they do feel their job is indeed useless.

    17. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well what if I were a bombardier?

    18. Re:Cool story bro. by Minwee · · Score: 2

      They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      You know what else? You also cannot rule out that someone crazy or stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would _not_ say anything about it. So you'd better close down the airport and call in a SWAT team every time a passenger doesn't say anything about bombs.

    19. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The alternative position is untenable absent personal bias or other, similar motivation. Disagreement over this point is simply not honest, as any objective person with an IQ above room temperature could tell you. As such, I am not insulting "everyone who disagrees with [me]"; I am insulting apologist, bullshit, jackasses, and rightfully so.

      That some other Anon may have an issue with that will, I assure you, cause no lack of sleep for this Anon. You're welcome to ignore these posts if you find the prose offensive.

    20. Re:Cool story bro. by sycodon · · Score: 0

      This is what a jackass in a TSA uniform posts.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    21. Re:Cool story bro. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      And a number of those were caused by what I've been told by officials is a federal crime (having checked baggage travel without the owner on the plane).

      Of course, compaines ship other people's packages on commercial flights all the time w/o the owner on board, and many of those packages undergo less-rigorous screening than passengers and their checked luggage. From: How safe is the cargo on passenger flights?

      While much airport security is concentrated on screening passengers and their checked bags, about half the hold on a typical passenger flight is filled with cargo. In fact, over a third of cargo by volume that entered the United States in 2010 was shipped on passenger jets, according to the Department of Transportation. That is 3.7 billion tons. Another 7.2 billion tons of air cargo came in on all-cargo aircraft, according to the DOT.

      And the screening requirements for such cargo are not as strict as they are for passengers and their checked bags.

      Most of the cases described in the article involve in-bound international flights, and there is a US law requiring 100% screening of all cargo, even US officials admit that the screenings would have caught some of the items discussed in the article.

      Under TSA guidelines, cargo screening can involve a variety of methods including physical inspection, dogs, a variety of single-view or multiview X-ray machines, and "explosive trace detection" ... (but) Physical inspection of every package is impractical given the volume of cargo...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    22. Re:Cool story bro. by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Has anyone been caught with a bomb period?

      All I hear about is test fake bombs that get through.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    23. Re:Cool story bro. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Distinct lack of imagination.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    24. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats already been done. except instead of swat, its called TSA. Everyone is suspect. and the airport is shutdown to those who have not submitted to being checked out.

    25. Re:Cool story bro. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

      They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.

      Absolutely. A lot of burglars brag at barrooms where anyone can overhear.

      But do they brag in the checkout line of the store they plan on robbing?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    26. Re:Cool story bro. by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Repeats the same three anecdotes 11 times. Stupid people will say the word "bomb" sarcastically. Headline news.

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

      If you had your hands in your pocket and a cop pulls a gun on you and tells you to take your hands out of your pockets, are you going to say, sarcastically, "But I have a gun in my pocket?" or "my gun will fall out" or something about having a fucking gun?

      Sarcastically or not, joking about bombs when you are trying to board an airplane is stupid, i mean, really fucking stupid.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    27. Re:Cool story bro. by RougeFemme · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it has happened, revealing it would justify the TSA's actions, but it would scare the hell out of the public, especially the flying public, and put a real dent in airline traffic and profits - at least for a while. Fear of great economic harm would be a reason to keep it quiet. The government AND airlines would have a reason to keep it quiet.

    28. Re:Cool story bro. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      I don't know why people here seem to be defending what I believe is mere paranoid nonsense. The chance of an actual terrorist attack is comically small, and I'd rather disband the TSA completely (they're useless anyway) and allow such jokes than cower from an unlikely threat.

      And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable.

      They have no right to not be offended/made uncomfortable by a joke.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    29. Re:Cool story bro. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      And what if you were a musician in a band called "The Terrorists"... and you were on tour with a bag full of CDs of your first album titled "Bombs"?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    30. Re:Cool story bro. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you might as well search everyone, everywhere constantly. What if that person walking down the sidewalk has a bomb? Search everyone! Forget the constitution; I want to feel safe, and my ability to do so is clearly more important than any silly 'freedom'!

      If the destruction of a few buildings can do this, I wonder what would happen if something even worse happened...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    31. Re:Cool story bro. by alexo · · Score: 1

      Period. End of fucking discussion. Anything further is apologist bullshit likely typed out by some jackass in a TSA uniform.

      Even if your point is valid, there are ways of making it without trying to break the record for most fallacies in a single line.

    32. Re:Cool story bro. by cygnwolf · · Score: 2

      The impression I get from your previous post is that you feel you are always right and your word is law, and anyone disagreeing with you about anything at all is not just wrong, they're lying. Now, I at least partially agree with your previous comments about being a Thug for detaining a person for asking what you were looking for, but most of the incidents in TFA were not someone asking 'Were you looking for a bomb or something?" they were people saying "hey, there's a bomb in my bag", something completely different. And yes, I looked through them. Ony 3 out of the 30 seemed to have worded the question 'what if there was a bomb' or 'there could have been a bomb'. The remaining 30 examples in TFA were all someone claiming to have a bomb, gun, or similiar item, or to be a terrorist, or to have knowledge of someone else's bomb on the plane. NONE of these qualify for your What are you looking for, a Bomb or something example. In all of those 30 situations, even if you have already searched, the person who said that just confessed to having contraband that you missed, and more complete search is called for . This is undeniable. For all you know, when they later claim 'it was a joke' they could be trying to cover up an inadvertant slip of the tounge. Sure, Zero Tolerance Policies like this don't leave any room for the agent to intrepret what the person meant. That is kind of the point of a Zero Tolerance Policy. There is no risk of a judgement call being the wrong decision.

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    33. Re:Cool story bro. by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or what if I had a DVD of the movie "Ishtar"? Could I legitimately say I had a bomb in my bag?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    34. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes its far better to use lies, bullshit and propaganda to scare the public.

    35. Re:Cool story bro. by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Detaining the person whose bag you just searched because s/he asked if you're looking for "a bomb or something" is not "being thorough"; it is "being a thug."

      I suspect the agents have very little say in the matter. It's probably TSA policy that any statement about a bomb, even if perceived to be in jest, is supposed to be treated as if serious. The point isn't really to single out people who make jokes about a bomb. It's to single out people who aren't behaving normally. And joking about a bomb in your bag simply isn't normal behavior (as witnessed by how few cases have been recorded). It wouldn't be the first time a terrorist used social engineering to get a bomb aboard. And TSA policy is probably to detain anyone who might be using social engineering.

      Disclaimer: I think airport security is security theater which provides no benefit aside from keeping the masses calm, and the TSA is led by people who don't realize this and take their jobs way too seriously. But if you accept that they're going to take their jobs seriously, then treating jokes about bombs as a potential threat is consistent behavior.

    36. Re:Cool story bro. by crakbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with zero tolerance is the world is not black and white. true the large number of people saying they have a bomb as a joke should get the full treatment. But just asking if your searching for a bomb, or do you think I have a bomb is not a threat or should even be treated as one. The comment "I hope the residue doesn't show up on the test." is just as innocent. The could be a miner, a farmer, special effects expert, fireworks technician, or just gone shooting. That is not a threat. Asking questions or non-threatening statements should not cause an airport to be shutdown or criminal prosecution.

    37. Re:Cool story bro. by isorox · · Score: 1

      Repeats the same three anecdotes 11 times. Stupid people will say the word "bomb" sarcastically. Headline news.

      It would be good to have a fake posterier in your hand luggage. "Should I remove my bum?". "Careful it might explode -- there's a vindaloo inside", etc.

    38. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People are not actually so stupid. They're under stress, caused by a complete non-sense. Which makes them want/need to joke. American people restrain this natural reaction because they know you can't joke about that. Other "naive" people may not have the same reaction.

      Same thing applies to the good old form where you are asked whether you want to kill the US president... I personally see that as insulting (are you so dumb that you would say that yes, you will kill the president). My natural reaction is to say "yes, of course".

    39. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please pull over to secondary sir.

    40. Re:Cool story bro. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Bug my luggage inded up in Guantanamo!

    41. Re:Cool story bro. by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Well, don't bring it with you if it's not allowed.

    42. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to make a litmus test of "if you say the word bomb, we won't check you"?

    43. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? Have twitter somehow prevented 'journalists' from copy-pasting tweets into their articles?

    44. Re:Cool story bro. by onyxruby · · Score: 2

      When I first got out of high school I worked as a security guard in a bank skyscraper. We had a form for people calling in bomb threats as this was one of the tallest buildings in a large metropolitan area and it attracted it's share of nutcases.

      One of the very first questions that we would ask callers is what their name is. People instinctively answer certain questions with Freudian slips all the time and the bank knew this. You would be surprised how many people got arrested after answering that question.

      We never had a real threat of course, just the crazies who should have been in the loony bin.

    45. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also (insert pretty much absolutely anything in the world here) either.

      What you have failed to do is to show connection.

      The second point would be valid if it wouldn't be one of the most obvious ways of dealing with said discomfort. (which is needed because it's further amplified by ridiculous and ineffective security measures all over the place)

    46. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bomb period sounds like a particularly nasty case of female trouble.

    47. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my colleagues in a previous job was a rep for a company, and travelled around Europe demoing software back in the 70s and 80s. And he carried it on 80 MB removable disk packs.

      The disk packs had the storage capacity written in large letters on the outside: 80MB.

        Apparently, once a disk pack has been dismantled by airport security to make sure there's no 80mb inside, it doesn't work properly!

    48. Re:Cool story bro. by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I think airport security is security theater which provides no benefit aside from keeping the masses calm

      It doesn't even provide that benefit. It keeps the masses afraid and feeling dependent. That's only benefit to the people who want to leverage that for their own power, not to the people such measures are purported to benefit.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    49. Re:Cool story bro. by Githaron · · Score: 1

      If it has happened, which I highly doubt, the public deserves to know.

    50. Re:Cool story bro. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      You know what else induces stress? Actually being on a mission to bomb the plane. I would be extremely unsurprised at bombers who joke about having bombs. It's stupid for someone who actually has a bomb to joke about it, of course, but getting on a plane with a bomb is more stressful than even an ordinary TSA-laden airplane flight.

    51. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone been caught with a bomb period?

      Yes, but the woman carrying the bomb didn't know that she was carrying it.

      Wikipedia has an article about Nezar Hindawi, who hid a bomb in the carry-on bag of his fiancee. From the article, "Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancée, Anne Mary Murphy. The bomb was found by El Al security. The incident became known as the Hindawi Affair."

    52. Re:Cool story bro. by anubi · · Score: 1

      My observation is the people who work for the TSA are from a class of people that have been picked on their whole lives.

      Our government has empowered these folks to give someone else hell for a while if they want to.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    53. Re:Cool story bro. by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      how about "are looking for donuts or hookers"?

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    54. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, i'm one of the seven people world wide that liked that movie.

    55. Re:Cool story bro. by bug1 · · Score: 1

      they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      If people with guns are not allowed to use their comon sense then the world if f*cked. (talking about TSA incase your stupid)

    56. Re:Cool story bro. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      They caught the shoe bomber and didn't seem to mind bragging about it. They had a notion that there was a plot that involved mixing liquids and, despite the fact that it's completely impossible, they still don't let travellers carry a large tube of toothpaste and they don't mind harrassing mothers with pumped breast milk. Given all the hassle that they put travellers through, I won't believe for a second that they care at all about the comfort of airline travellers. The more scared we are, the more easily they can bend us over.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    57. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good point. I'd thought TSA agents would have some experience or training as to what various forms of bombs look like, but apparently not. At least the one who thought an atomic bomb could fit in a carry-on bag didn't. They apparently also don't have the common sense that nobody who has access to a suitcase nuke is going to take it through the TSA checkpoint.

    58. Re:Cool story bro. by drrilll · · Score: 1

      Spot on. Worst list ever.

    59. Re:Cool story bro. by antdude · · Score: 1

      How about saying "Hi Jack!"? :O

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    60. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wonder why old people and kids get searched?

      People hide knives in walkers and guns in stuffed animals.

    61. Re:Cool story bro. by cusco · · Score: 1

      I've had my hot sauce taken by Fatherland Security three times now. The first time because it was a three ounce bottle, even though there was only half an ounce at most in the bottle. The agent recommended that next time I transfer it to a smaller bottle. The second time I did put it in a smaller bottle, and they took it because they said they couldn't identify what liquid it was. The third time I finally found a two ounce bottle of Cholula (not my favorite, but still better than Tabasco), and they took it because it was a 'weapon'. She said that I could throw it in someone's eyes. Sigh . . .

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    62. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it has happened, revealing it would justify the TSA's actions, but it would scare the hell out of the public, especially the flying public

      Bull. If it happened, revealing it would be a quick and easy way to shut up the critics of the TSA, and further consolidate their power base.

      Oh, AND scare the public. Yes, that's right- they WANT you scared. because then you'll bleat away your rights like sheeple.

    63. Re:Cool story bro. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      TSA did not catch 'the shoe bomber.'

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

    64. Re:Cool story bro. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      My question is, how many of them where saying "I have a *bong* in my bag" and the squirrel minded TSA agent just heard "bomb".

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    65. Re:Cool story bro. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      True. I meant the shoe bomber only as an example of (1) a bomb that got on board (without the bomber accidentally saying the word "bomb"), and (2) that the TSA doesn't mind frightening the travelling public.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    66. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One morning in the day room some of us were in a buzz because a stack of donated board games had arrived. Eventually one of the COs got around to opening them, inspecting them and setting them on the counter to be put on the book rack and used.

      When he got to "Clue" and found the plastic pouch with the weapons used to murder Col. Mustard, he opened it and threw the little soft plastic knife and the little soft plastic gun into the waste basket because they were "weapons" and no weapons were allowed in the pod.

      Security in practice is largely in the hands of the most literal of the brain-dead - and that's just how the highers prefer it. They don't want thinking, they want reflex. There are even some good arguments to be made for this stance. In the main, tho, it's sheer bullshit. The end result is eventually an entire populace of abject submissives.

    67. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're totally right. That is why whenever I'm in a crowded theater I always yell "Fire!", because jokes are harmless and no one should ever act upon them, else they be considered a thug.

    68. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be the first time a terrorist used social engineering to get a bomb aboard.

      In this example, a terrorist used social engineering to get special treatment (getting their bag transferred onto an aircraft for which they didn't have a confirmed booking). The correct way to respond to someone who might be trying social engineering is to make sure that you treat them exactly as normal. That doesn't mean bundling them off into a cell because they made a joke about a bomb.

    69. Re:Cool story bro. by mhotchin · · Score: 1
    70. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "then treating jokes about bombs as a potential threat is consistent behavior."

      No, it's not. Taking their jobs seriously and trying to do them professionally would mean treating everyone the same - courteously, politely - while being suspicious of *everyone*. Ignoring pretty much everything that is said, and looking more at demeanour (until you're actually asking specific questions designed to elicit specific responses) would make far more sense. If they appeared to be acting professionally, maybe they'd get a bit more respect and people might take them a little more seriously.

      "Oh, you've got a bomb in there have you sir, well we'd better have a look at that then hadn't we sir..." while examining the bag in exactly the same manner they would any other bag would be the appropriate response. Unless the passenger was also acting in the manner they would expect someone who really did have a bomb in their bag to act - I dunno, too nervous? Cold but sweaty? Not nervous enough? Whatever it is that experience says people with bombs act like.

    71. Re:Cool story bro. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's the one. :D

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    72. Re:Cool story bro. by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. A person with an IQ anywhere near normal can understand sarcasm as a way to negate a statement. When someone says sarcastically, I have an atomic bomb in my bag, only a moron actually believes that the person has just indicated the actual presence of an atomic bomb in the bag. Here's a test:

      Your writing looks like you have cancer, but don't worry, you can cure it by eating your own poop right now.

      Now, you can't ACTUALLY rule out that I am a super genius telling you the complete truth, and cancer would be really bad, so you HAVE to do it!

      Nevertheless, I suspect you are not currently chowing down on poop.

    73. Re:Cool story bro. by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

      They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.

      And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.

      Absolutely. A lot of burglars brag at barrooms where anyone can overhear.

      But do they brag in the checkout line of the store they plan on robbing?

      Probably not but passengers saying they have a bomb may be mentally unstable and warrants further investigation to determine if they pose a threat to the airline or other passengers. Simply dismissing "I have a bomb threat" made by passengers would be grossly irresponsible and may even be criminal negligent if the passenger hurts other passengers.

    74. Re:Cool story bro. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      If anything, the percentage of people attempting to get a bomb on a plane, but without mentioning it to airport security is significantly higher than the percentage of people attempting to get a bomb on a plane and did mention it to airport security.

      Fact!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    75. Re:Cool story bro. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      ...and stupid people take them seriously.

      If they're stupid or crazy enough to joke about having a bomb in an airport, I'd prefer not to have them on the plane with me even if they don't have one.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    76. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (talking about TSA incase your stupid)

      "incase"

      "your stupid"

      Sigh.

    77. Re:Cool story bro. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you won't find someone who actually has a bomb in their suitcase, claim they have a bomb in their suitcase.... BUT then again, if they decide that is true and they stop checking... then the terrorist would then say they have a bomb, when they actually do.

    78. Re:Cool story bro. by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      And what if you were a musician in a band called "The Terrorists"... and you were on tour with a bag full of CDs of your first album titled "Bombs"?

      That sounds like a publicity stunt, if ever I heard one.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    79. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually many terrorist attacks have been preceded by the terrorists phoning in a bomb threat. Look at the IRA in the UK in the 90s. The fuss of having to close off an area, search for, and deal with a bomb causes almost as much hassle and fear as an actual bomb going off.

    80. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

    81. Re:Cool story bro. by martijn+hoekstra · · Score: 1

      6oz of liquid? That's even worse than having a bomb!

      5oz of liquid is ok. But only in a terrorist-proof plastic bag. 2 gallons of liquid is also OK. But only if you drink it. I don't know much about toxicity and explosives, but I'm pretty sure there must be at least some liquid explosives that will not kill you until airborne.

    82. Re:Cool story bro. by jewens · · Score: 1

      "How about a bomb anecdote? You know, no punchline, just a really cute story. Or suppose you intended to remark, not as a joke, but as an ironic musing. Are they prepared to make that distinction? Why, I think NOT." George Carlin

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
    83. Re:Cool story bro. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      You are not being bayesian enough.

      You need the probability someone is telling the truth given the evidence of being dumb enough to say "I've got a bomb".

      If the Hypothesis is 'got a bomb' and the Evidence is 'said bomb', here are my estimates:

      p(E) = 10**-7 proportion of travellers who are dumb enough to say bomb (one in ten million)
      p(H) = 10**-13 proportion of travellers who have had a bomb so far (one in ten million million)
      p(E|H) = well, ZERO so far, but let's say 10**-3 bombers who mention the word bomb (one in a thousand)

      Then p(H|E) = proportion of people who say bomb who have a bomb = P(H) * P(E|H) / P(E) = 10**(-13-3+7) = 10**-9

      One in one billion people who mention the word bomb will have a bomb.

      So if we close the airport each time for two hours, our losses for an actual bomb need to exceed the damages for closing an airport for two billion hours before it is worth it. That's over 200,000 lifetimes of waiting in the departure lounge.

      Just.

      Any comments on my maths / approach happily received.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    84. Re:Cool story bro. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      Calling in a bomb threat isn't exactly the same thing as a frustrated traveller saying "I don't have a bomb."

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    85. Re:Cool story bro. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. "

      Actually, that is exactly what it means. Do you really think they would finally stop a bomb without trying to leverage it as justification for their absurd procedures and meaningless existence?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    86. Re:Cool story bro. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I do remember someone being arrested for saying "it's not like I have a bomb or anything" when being prodded by security about something small. The TSA doesn't "take their jobs seriously"--they just hear what they want to hear.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    87. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was coming home from a business trip in Sao Paulo and I had a couple of six packs of that Brazilian soda Guarana in my luggage. I asked a customer service rep at the airport if there was any possibility that the cans could explode in my luggage. When I saw the expression on her face, I realized what I had said. I blurted, "Leak. Leak. I meant leak. Can the cans leak, you know, because of the air pressure. Leak."

    88. Re:Cool story bro. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      And realistically the cop should have due cause and can either ignore the comment or reply "anything I can get you on sweetums"

    89. Re:Cool story bro. by camg188 · · Score: 1
      FTFA:

      After a gate agent at Orlando (MCO) informed a passenger she could not get her checked luggage out of the plane, the passenger stated: "Well what if I had put a bomb in it? Can I get it back then?"
      After being denied boarding due to intoxication, a Columbus passenger told the gate agent that she had a bomb in her bag.
      ...He thought his statement would get him through security faster.
      ... "If you don't want another terrorist attack, I better make this flight."
      A passenger at Charlotte (CLT) who was informed she couldn't take an item on the plane stated: "I hope someone comes in here and blows you all up."

      I don't know if they were under stress, but they were definitely being assholes.

    90. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative position is untenable absent personal bias or other, similar motivation.

      No, it isn't. And you don't really believe that it is. You tell yourself that because you're not really confident in your position.

      The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people who disagree with your position on this are NOT in any way affiliated with the TSA or any other government agency. And that's coming from someone who completely agrees with your position.

    91. Re:Cool story bro. by timothy · · Score: 1

      And I always used to say that George Carlin stopped being funny sometime in the '80s ;) You've proved me wrong.

      Note: I just got back from the Texas state surplus store; among the items they carry are all sorts of things seized by airport security. Good place to get a leatherman or a nice Gerber knife, cheap ;) (Or a snow globe with a miniature Alamo inside, tiny baseball bats, etc.)

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    92. Re:Cool story bro. by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1
      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    93. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you live in the Civil Liberties Caucus' echo chamber that is the internet.

    94. Re:Cool story bro. by Jyms · · Score: 1

      Good point! I have a very nice very expensive flash-light. I often mount it on a rifle when I hunt vermin. Being very expensive, I only have one. I got pulled over by airport security because they wanted to check for explosive residue on my flash-light. Luckily, I had two flash-lights in my bag. My nice expensive one and a brand new Maglight I bought as a gift. They picked the Maglight. I asked what would happen if they found residue on it and they refused to answer. I quickly realised that shutting up and walking away was the way to go.
      Upon sharing this with friends I heard what happened to one that got a hug from a mutual friend that works in the explosives industry. You are guilty until proven innocent and even then you are stuffed around because you embarrassed the system.

    95. Re:Cool story bro. by Jyms · · Score: 1

      Joking about bombs, especially at airports is perfectly normal. Almost every single person I know that has ever flown has joked about it. Almost all of them mentally try and focus not to joke about it when they go to the airport because they are aware of the potential for trouble. Not joking about bombs at airports is abnormal behaviour.

    96. Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Anubi, I saw your older comment here while reearching something:
      hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3392771&cid=42632413

      This is what you want for broken plastic do-hickeys: http://www.amazon.com/InstaMorph-Moldable-Plastic-12-oz/dp/B003QKLJKQ/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1365740826&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=instamorph

      Enjoy, not a referral link, just search for instamorph

  2. Agents do have some latitude by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going through security one time and had to be patted down. The guy behind me in line decided to be a joker and made a comment along the lines of "they could at least give you a drink for this!". I was really expecting them to unleash the dogs on him for that, but they let him through with just the usual scan. I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport.

    So I would say the TSA agents do have some latitude on what they do - but I wouldn't recommend testing it if you want to make it on time to your flight.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Agents do have some latitude by operagost · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport.

      Why? Are we supposed to show obeisance to the stormtroopers of our overlords?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that supposed to be an example of them exercising restraint? Have we become so jaded that it is actually expected that the authorities will abuse their power on a whim? That's pretty damned screwed up, if you ask me.

    3. Re:Agents do have some latitude by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was really expecting them to unleash the dogs on him for that

      Well, there's little room to interpret buying you a drink as anything threatening.

      But the people who make jokes about having bombs or firearms? Well, that's just stupidity on their behalf, because it won't be taken well. You might as well go to a women's crisis center and make rape jokes -- they're just not going to work.

      I've long since learned that at an airport, it's best to just play it cool, and be seen to be non-threatening or angry with them. Untie the shoes before you even get called, make sure you know what's in your pockets so you can remove it (a shocking amount of people don't seem to know what they're carrying), smile at them -- they may be idiots with no real training in some cases, but they respond to polite a whole lot better.

      Some people seem to think it's a good time to make a political statement or otherwise act like an ass. It's your choice to do that, but certain kinds of jokes with these kinds of people are never going to be taken nicely. Hell, even "Airplane" in 1980 was making the "Hi, Jack!" jokes, and that was long before people got ramped up to the current state.

      On the other hand, I once had a TSA agent become very interested in the my GPS for golf after he'd examined it. A friendly chat and a quick product endorsement, and I was on my way.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You really expected them to react to that line?

      My last experience involved a pat-down with a TSA agent at MIA. He asked me, "May I ask what your objections are to the scanner?" I said, "No, you may not."

      Didn't go over well. Got a 20 minute lecture on why I should just trust the scanner. I didn't really react which made him angry.

      He was a Cuban guy and he was starting to make me angry. I caught myself about to make some potentially racist remark along the lines of "This may be acceptable where you came from, but it's not here." Instead I took a deep breath and asked him if I was free to go.

      The guy was going full jerk by now and yelling at me to remove my items from the area. I had them in my hands and was stepping away before he could even finish the sentence.

      Flying again in a week. Joy joy.

    5. Re:Agents do have some latitude by niado · · Score: 1

      The guy behind me in line decided to be a joker and made a comment along the lines of "they could at least give you a drink for this!".

      While a dig at the TSA agents, this comment cannot be construed as a threat to kill hundreds of people, which is probably why it was ignored. It would be impossible to justify detaining someone because of a verbal jab. You could probably say "i hate this, you guys suck" and they wouldn't do anything about it.

    6. Re:Agents do have some latitude by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I've long since learned that at an airport, it's best to just play it cool, and be seen to be non-threatening or angry with them

      Solid advice. That works well with US customs as well in most cases. When I deal with either I always try to present myself as the least interesting person they've seen all day. (granted a lot of people find me boring so that isn't too much of a stretch for me) Have all the papers ready and approach them as if they had their sense of humor surgically removed but are otherwise just like any other person you've ever met.

      Some people seem to think it's a good time to make a political statement or otherwise act like an ass

      There is a time and place for such things, but I would generally say the airport is not one.

      Well, there's little room to interpret buying you a drink as anything threatening.

      While such a line is not inherently threatening, it is within the political bit that is incorporated into the grudge many hold against the TSA. Why belittle someone on the job when they have the ability to select you for "additional screening"?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:Agents do have some latitude by preaction · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, though they prefer to be called "Our Benefactors". Now pick up that can.

    8. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, pseudo-authorities can, will, and have abused their limited power over and over as can be easily observed by any one going to an airport.

    9. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      And equally as big a question is why does the TSA have this information? Who are they to record what people talk about? You'd think the TSA now owns the airports they operate in or something.

    10. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... yeah. Where have you been the past decade?

      You have exactly two options:
      1. Kowtow and show obeisance to them
      2. Speak your mind, and have the rest of your life be made a living nightmare from which you cannot wake up.

      You seem to be of the attitude that when put in that position, you're going to go with option 2. Let me know how that works out for you. Also, I hope you're a really good swimmer, since you'll never board another plane in your life.

    11. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, I gotta say that as somebody who travels all over the country for work, the people who get the hassle from the TSA are the people like you who think they're being cute, funny, or "proving a point" by being a smart-ass to the TSA agent, and cracking jokes about weapons, or sexual assault.

      I regularly opt out of the scans, because I travel frequently, and I don't trust that the amount of radiation I'll be subjected to (esp. as a frequent traveler) is safe. So when I reach the checkpoint, I say, "I'd like to opt out of the scanner, please." About 75% of the time, they nod and say, "Okay, we'll have to do an inspection over here, sir." The (small) number of times that they've questioned my decision, I simply say, "I fly frequently, and I'm not convinced of the safety or dosing of the radiation from these machines, so I prefer the old school pat-down."

      I've yet to be hassled, and I fly 3-4 times a month, year round, and have been doing so for years. I see tough guys and funny guys get hassled frequently enough because they make jokes about weapons and bombs, or opt out by being abusive and rude. Opt out politely, and you'll be waved over to the side and patted down and sent on your way. Opt out like a douche-mouth, and you'll hold up the line for 20 minutes.

      People who travel frequently hate the guys like you because you disrupt the line, distract security, and waste our time - we wish you'd get ball cancer and die.

    12. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An acquaintance brags about how she never uses the scanner and prefers the pat down. I asked (in essence) why she would prefer a human groping her to a machine taking a picture. No response.

    13. Re:Agents do have some latitude by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again. I absolutely refuse to enter the TSA point-of-no-return. I rarely enter anywhere i cant leave easily and at my own discretion.

      --
      Good-bye
    14. Re:Agents do have some latitude by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      These are ones they escallated to criminal reports. The witness statements were written down.

    15. Re:Agents do have some latitude by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've long since learned that at an airport, it's best to just play it cool, and be seen to be non-threatening or angry with them.

      That's hard for some people when you find out that your conecting flight has your luggage, but you are 30 seconds late to board, so all your belongings are headed on, but not you. They won't return your property, nor honor their ticket to put you on the plane. "We'll get you on the next flight, Tuesday." is the best you get. For many, it's hard to remain calm and polite when faced with that.

    16. Re:Agents do have some latitude by guanxi · · Score: 1

      I get patted down regularly, and the TSA agents have been professional and polite. Occasionally one will talk to me about using the scanner, but it's always a brief, polite discussion and they haven't tried to push me.

      I'll say that TSA staff, years ago, were much more aggressive and liked to throw their authority around. Maybe they received customer service training because that isn't a problem any more.

    17. Re:Agents do have some latitude by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again.

      Well, you're definitely free to make that choice.

      For many of us, air travel is a reality that comes with our jobs. Not flying isn't really an option.

      Which means your next best solution is to make the process involve as little hassle for yourself as possible.

      Do I think the TSA is stupid, wasteful, and draconian? Absolutely. Do I think going through airport security is the time to make a beef about it? Not bloody likely.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, I once had a TSA agent become very interested in the my GPS for golf after he'd examined it. A friendly chat and a quick product endorsement, and I was on my way.

      I had a similar discussion with the guy running the residue test on my bowling ball. You've just got to treat TSA agents like people and generally you're going to end up OK. Unfortunately there are people on both sides of the x-ray machine who treat others like they're inferior to them, and that's where problems arise.

    19. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't answer for your friend but here are my reasons:
      1) I don't trust the radiation from the machine. At least I know that the pat down won't harm me.
      2) I believe the patdowns/scanning are an unnecessary violation of my privacy. Since I can't opt out entirely and still fly, I prefer to make the level of the violation plain to both the officer conducting the search and any onlookers. Allowing myself to be scanned makes it too easy for the gov't to engage in what I consider to be an unwarranted level of intrusion.

    20. Re:Agents do have some latitude by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      The reality you chose. You CHOOSE to do that, do not make it out to be involuntary, unless you are a slave. Are you a slave?

      --
      Good-bye
    21. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I've long since learned that at an airport, it's best to just play it cool, and be seen to be non-threatening or angry with them

      Yes, that is true. Unfortunately it is ridiculous that we have got to that point. That's why we should support anyone who does not respect their authoritae. It almost certainly means they are going to get hassled as a result.

      So while it might be seem stupid for someone to invite the TSA to shit on them, at least they are willing to give a little bit of that shit back to the TSA. We should cheer those who stand up and act like free men. In any social revolution thousands, if not millions, get smacked down before change eventually happens. It doesn't matter if they are just doing it to be a jackass or as a genuine political protest or somewhere in between - they deserve the benefit of the doubt from the rest of us who aren't brave enough or foolhardy enough to do it ourselves.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    22. Re:Agents do have some latitude by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's hard for some people when you find out that your conecting flight has your luggage, but you are 30 seconds late to board, so all your belongings are headed on, but not you.

      That's odd, because for the last 10 years, when they're calling the flight and if you don't come to the desk, they say they'll pull your luggage. They're not supposed to let your luggage fly without you. If they're putting your luggage on and not you, I think they're in violation of FAA policy.

      And, the people you need to be angry with are the agents of the airlines NOT the security folks. The customer dis-service reps deserve a little ire now and then. But getting into it with security is just asking for trouble.

      I've been flying long enough that I allocate *lots* of time to make connecting flights -- like 1.5-2 hours minimum to absorb any delays, more if it's winter or an international flight. Mostly because I've learned you need to account for delays and other things which work against you.

      Any time I see someone who allocated 20 minutes to catch a connecting flight, I just shake my head, because it was never realistic for you to make that connection in the first place. In some airports it can take more than that to get to your next gate if it's in a different concourse.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    23. Re:Agents do have some latitude by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Are you an idiot? Nice false dilemma there skippy.

      Yes, I voluntarily work in a field which occasionally requires air travel, because it pays better than McDonald's.

      I could choose to be a wage slave and work for shit money because it wouldn't involve air travel, but that wouldn't get me anywhere. You could choose to not be so thick.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    24. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I rarely enter anywhere i cant leave easily and at my own discretion.

      Like on board a plane, in the air?

      Even without the TSA that's not something you can leave easily and at your own discretion unless your name is D. B. Cooper.

    25. Re:Agents do have some latitude by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I request the manual pat down every time I fly (very rarely these days, under once per year).

      If 5% of people flying did this the system would be crushed under it's own weight.

      The people have the latitude to choose to be searched, take advantage of it as often as possible.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    26. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! You! Stop choosing to earn a comfortable living and make a quickly-forgotten political statement already!

    27. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport.

      Why? Are we supposed to show obeisance to the stormtroopers of our overlords?

      Oh, heavens no. Laws are meant for stupid people, after all. If you disagree with a law, it's clearly a faulty law that not only CAN be ignored, but MUST be ignored, else you're one of the sheeple.

    28. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's hard for some people when you find out that your conecting flight has your luggage, but you are 30 seconds late to board, so all your belongings are headed on, but not you. They won't return your property, nor honor their ticket to put you on the plane. "We'll get you on the next flight, Tuesday." is the best you get. For many, it's hard to remain calm and polite when faced with that.

      I think part of the problem is because I've had agents refuse to let me on a plane, because my luggage didn't make the flight. They said they can't do it, because my bag might have a bomb. I even had my bags arrive before me on an earlier flight (I had a very long layover) and the airline refused to look for them, because that "wasn't possible." When I said, "I can see one of them behind you," they finally went to look in the back room.

      Given this experience, if I was told my bags were on a flight that I missed and they were about to take off without me and I might never see them again, it wouldn't be unreasonable to wonder "But what if they contain a bomb?" When fact with complete and totally stupidity, it's hard to always think straight.

    29. Re:Agents do have some latitude by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I've long since learned that at an airport, it's best to just play it cool, and be seen to be non-threatening or angry with them

      Solid advice. That works well with US customs as well in most cases. When I deal with either I always try to present myself as the least interesting person they've seen all day. ... Have all the papers ready and approach them as if they had their sense of humor surgically removed but are otherwise just like any other person you've ever met.

      Sure, but wouldn't all that advise be covered in the Terrorist 101 handbook on how to behave at the airport?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    30. Re:Agents do have some latitude by xevioso · · Score: 1

      There's a third option: You don't have to fly.

    31. Re:Agents do have some latitude by jittles · · Score: 1

      I was going through security one time and had to be patted down. The guy behind me in line decided to be a joker and made a comment along the lines of "they could at least give you a drink for this!". I was really expecting them to unleash the dogs on him for that, but they let him through with just the usual scan. I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport. So I would say the TSA agents do have some latitude on what they do - but I wouldn't recommend testing it if you want to make it on time to your flight.

      They're usually pretty tolerant of that. Sometimes I ask the guy if he's going to call me the next day. Believe it or not, most of those people would rather not be doing pat downs!

    32. Re:Agents do have some latitude by xevioso · · Score: 1

      If you want to fly, yes. Pretty simple.

    33. Re:Agents do have some latitude by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I see no false dilemma.You choose to be fondled and groped under tenuous authority in exchange for your definition of livelihood. Are you saying your ONLY marketable skill involves air travel?

      --
      Good-bye
    34. Re:Agents do have some latitude by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, I gotta say that as somebody who travels all over the country for work, the people who get the hassle from the TSA are the people like you who think they're being cute, funny, or "proving a point" by being a smart-ass to the TSA agent, and cracking jokes about weapons, or sexual assault.

      This is very likely true. Given my temperament, I try to be polite and get on my way in situations like this and I am rarely if ever hassled. Even so, we've a real problem if being a smart-ass is grounds for suspicion. Talk of bombs and weapons aside, if TSA agents are groping someone and he chooses to crack wise about being molested, that is no excuse for getting hassled by said agents. To be detained or delayed for such is an attempt on the part of the agent or the agency to chill free speech.

      You might get aggravated by such smart-ass grandstanding--I probably would a bit myself were I waiting in line--but the real people responsible for the delay aren't the smart-asses but the policy-makers and those they choose to execute their policies. Nothing is so clear a sign of the loss of civil liberty and the rule of law as people in authority who can treat heckling as suspect.

    35. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, what law, precisely, is being violated by a patron standing in line, who makes a snarky comment about government-endorsed sexual assault s/he is witnessing? Is there some stipulation in the TSA's authority to operate that legally shields them from being subject to non-offensive, unobtrusive snark, or does this simply fall under Homeland Security's general operational goals of shredding the Bill of Rights?

    36. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would have been productive if you had aimed your hatred where it is deserved. Those voted the TSA and the American people. While annoying as hell it doesn't do anybody any good to dislike those standing up for our liberties at an airpot or making it easy for people in power to go through line quickly or easily. What it does is ensure people get disgusted by the TSA.

    37. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all well and good, but it doesn't go both ways. I can think of two separate occasions where TSA staff has "joked" with me in a manner that I didn't appreciate, but if I were to joke around the same way or respond in any way other than smiling and silence I'm sure it would have only lead to issues for me.

      Example: I flying with a cast on my arm as I broke it about a week earlier and a TSA agent though it would be cute to pump fake hitting my cast. If I did something like that in security to them I would be thrown in Guantanamo bay.

      If they want people to take security seriously maybe they should higher some professional staff. That wouldn't solve the problem with the TSA, but it couldn't hurt.

    38. Re:Agents do have some latitude by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      My last experience involved a pat-down with a TSA agent at MIA. He asked me, "May I ask what your objections are to the scanner?" I said, "No, you may not."

      That's actually not true; they can always ask. You're under no obligation to give them an answer, though.

    39. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      >Are you a slave?
      >What good is a police state
      etc...

      I would think you would assume he is a slave, based on your language and previous lines of thinking. I find your tone/question curious.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    40. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, but wouldn't all that advise be covered in the Terrorist 101 handbook on how to behave at the airport?

      Which might be why TSA hasn't actually caught anyone seeking to cause damage. Regardless, people with any level of enforcement authority are still people. As always, they respond better to other people being polite, and if you can't manage that, just play bored (odds are they're bored, and not playing). Even if you get one having a bad day, they'll still be less unpleasant if you aren't actively adding to their grumbles.

      Just because their job is somewhere between "not helping" and "REALLY not helping here!" doesn't mean everyone involved needs to be reminded every time that you know how meaningless their job is. The guy behind the scanner might even be having a bad day because he was just taking some statistics courses and realized how completely useless his job is.

    41. Re:Agents do have some latitude by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      And, the people you need to be angry with are the agents of the airlines NOT the security folks

      Well that's the catch22 isn't it? It's an amazing coincidence that when it comes to the security that your anger or problem should always be directed at the group other than the one you are currently talking to.

      It's like a disfunctional marriage where somehow the household work gets done, but neither person has uttered a word to the other in 5 years.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    42. Re:Agents do have some latitude by matrim99 · · Score: 2

      "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
      - George W. Bush

      I believe that this quote sums up the frame of mind that justifies making casual comments about any national security issues potential threats themselves (the comments).

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    43. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      There's a third option: You don't have to fly.

      Actually, a fourth as well: Only fly domestically, in private planes, to/from private airports.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    44. Re:Agents do have some latitude by seepho · · Score: 2

      It's ridiculous that it's gotten to the point where you should act non-threatening and nice to people? While there is a degree of absurdity in the fact that a dude with a paper badge has authority over you, if all you have to do to avoid the wrath of that authority is not be a dick I'd say it's not a big deal. Why not save your protest for someone who can the policy you disagree with, rather than manifesting your civil disobedience as sarcastic remarks to the guy who is power tripping on his menial job?

    45. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse; this isn't Yahoo or Huffpo.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    46. Re:Agents do have some latitude by seepho · · Score: 1

      *someone who can change the policy Words are hard.

    47. Re:Agents do have some latitude by RougeFemme · · Score: 2

      And the smart terrorists would know this. But I'm sure there are dumb ones out there, especially domestic ones. Or dumb wanna-be terrorists, whether domestic or not. Just because we don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist and don't get caught. And no, I'm not a fan of the TSA.

    48. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably don't believe this, but I gave up my job at Google because I wouldn't fly to the US.

    49. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      So when I reach the checkpoint, I say, "I'd like to opt out of the scanner, please." About 75% of the time, they nod and say, "Okay, we'll have to do an inspection over here, sir." The (small) number of times that they've questioned my decision, I simply say, "I fly frequently, and I'm not convinced of the safety or dosing of the radiation from these machines, so I prefer the old school pat-down."

      I've yet to be hassled, and I fly 3-4 times a month, year round, and have been doing so for years. I see tough guys and funny guys get hassled frequently enough because they make jokes about weapons and bombs, or opt out by being abusive and rude. Opt out politely, and you'll be waved over to the side and patted down and sent on your way. Opt out like a douche-mouth, and you'll hold up the line for 20 minutes.

      People who travel frequently hate the guys like you because you disrupt the line, distract security, and waste our time - we wish you'd get ball cancer and die.

      Oh, who's a good boy? You are! That's right! Does the good boy wanna biscuit? Such a good, good doggy...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    50. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When eCigs were a "new" thing I got stopped plenty at the xray counter. A quick demo and sharing that I've not smoked a real Joe in over 6 months softened every ones tones and I made it through security with my nicotine. Be nice and the world opens up...

    51. Re:Agents do have some latitude by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      When you're so terrified of the government that you can't even make a joke without fear of being punished by it, I think something is very, very wrong. And to think that all this is because people are afraid of a nearly nonexistent threat...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    52. Re:Agents do have some latitude by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It's an amazing coincidence that when it comes to the security that your anger or problem should always be directed at the group other than the one you are currently talking to.

      Only because everything I responded to was in relation to airlines, connecting flights, and boarding; not security.

      Security has nothing whatsoever to do with boarding of planes and making connecting flights except it's one of the things which can contribute to delays you should be factoring in. Yet an amazing amount of people still think they can show up at the airport 20 minutes before the flight and still make it.

      Making sure you make your connecting flight isn't what TSA does.

      It's like a disfunctional marriage where somehow the household work gets done, but neither person has uttered a word to the other in 5 years.

      No, actually that's a lousy analogy to what the post I replied to said since he was talking about making connecting flights and how shitty airlines handle that.

      In this case, it's more like you were supposed to meet your wife for coffee, but got a speeding ticket on the way, she gave up on waiting for you and left, and then saying that it's the cop fault for giving you a speeding ticket.

      The TSA sucks in a lot of ways, and has a lot of problems. Missing a connecting flight but having your baggage travel on ... well, that's between you and your airline and has nothing to do with the TSA.

      Airline travel sucks, for several independent reasons. There is no Catch 22 involved when it was your airline who screwed you in terms of being angry at the TSA.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    53. Re:Agents do have some latitude by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      But I'm sure there are dumb ones out there, especially domestic ones. ... Just because we don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist and don't get caught.

      Oh, they exist; we hear about them, and they get caught. From 1993 WTC Bombing (and other sites):

      In the rubble investigators uncovered a vehicle identification number on a piece of wreckage that seemed suspiciously obliterated. A search of our crime records returned a match: the number belonged to a rented van reported stolen the day before the attack. An Islamic fundamentalist named Mohammad Salameh had rented the vehicle, we learned, and on March 4, an FBI SWAT team arrested him as he tried in vain to get his $400 deposit back.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    54. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no Bush fan, but I don't think he ever said that.

    55. Re:Agents do have some latitude by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      You know, I gotta say that as somebody who travels all over the country for work, the people who get the hassle from the TSA are the people like you who think they're being cute, funny, or "proving a point" by being a smart-ass to the TSA agent, and cracking jokes about weapons, or sexual assault.

      I saw nothing that was "cute" or "proving a point" or even "being a smart-ass" in anon's narrative. It was none of the TSA agent's business why anon declined to be scanned.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    56. Re:Agents do have some latitude by patchmaster · · Score: 1

      smile at them -- they may be idiots with no real training in some cases, but they respond to polite a whole lot better.

      Be polite? Sure. Smile? What have you got to smile about? You're in a hurry. You've just been made to wait in a long line, empty your pockets, remove your shoes, unpack half your carry-on luggage, and risk having your valuables stolen while they sit unattended at the end of the conveyor while some clown in blue is checking your package for heaven knows what. What you have to look forward to is putting your shoes back on without benefit of any chairs in the area, repacking your carry-on while passengers behind you are impatiently waiting for you to get out of the way, and being sure you've actually collected all your personal effects before rushing out of this island of traveler terror. Unless you're really into having strangers of the same gender fondle your privates, smiling would seem to be one of the least natural responses to the situation. Downright suspicious.

      I always do my best to look bored and mildly annoyed. Since that's how I usually feel, it's not much of a stretch. Acting natural is the best approach and I can't see smiling as a natural reaction to this major annoyance.

      Overall, I think your advice is pretty good, but I'd keep the smiling to an absolute minimum. At best they'll think you're weird for apparently enjoying this circus of inconvenience and annoyance. At worst they'll think you're trying to act non-threatening and pull you aside for even more security fun.

    57. Re:Agents do have some latitude by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      They probably shouldn't have accepted a job that requires that they violate others' freedoms, then.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    58. Re:Agents do have some latitude by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      My pregnant wife wanted a manual pat-down, and this TSA drone proceeded to give me a lecture about how we shouldn't be afraid of "radiation" and how it's very safe. Then I told him that the government never released any health test data from these machines, et cetera. Thinking back, he could have given me a lot of trouble for that talkback, but didn't.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    59. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      TSA agents are basically the cheapest they could find, and they saved even more money by not training them. This is why each airport seems to have slightly different rules. The attitude that some agents give off is unprofessional and a sign of not having proper supervision.

    60. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again..

      This whole line is the new "Oh, I don't even OWN a television... let alone watch one!"

      Although I don't know how new it is. This sort of smug-troll thing is always annoying.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    61. Re:Agents do have some latitude by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      People who travel frequently hate the guys like you because you disrupt the line, distract security, and waste our time - we wish you'd get ball cancer and die.

      Actually, it's the TSA who is disrupting the line with their nonsense. Who's violating people's rights? The TSA, of course. Who is holding the line up? The TSA, of course.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    62. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun on Greyhound, then. No need for you to participate in this conversation - go back to your weed, man.

    63. Re:Agents do have some latitude by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I'm no Bush fan, but I don't think he ever said that."

      There's a wikipedia page about that sentence from him.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us

    64. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't come to McDonald's and hassle you at work, you don't need to hassle them.

    65. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The policy makers aren't at fault because they policies aren't being followed. There is no policy that says to hassle passengers who aren't properly subservient, but the employees do that because they're given a position of power with no supervision or adequate training. You think you hate standing in line, they do that all day long and are bored enough that they'll make a scene just to have something to do.

    66. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      That's actually not true...

      Neither was the rest of that fairytale.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    67. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome. I think I'll be extra uppity next time I'm on a flight. I hope you're right behind me in line.

    68. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many times have you opted out of the body scanners, champ? I've done so dozens of times, at dozens of airports around the US. I guarantee that my calm & principled refusal will have more effect on the TSA's policies than your incoherent ranting on slashdot ever will.

      I bet the one time your mom took you on vacation, you went through the scanner, fuming the whole time, and planning how you were gonna tell all the other teenage tards on /. how tough you would've been if that TSA agent had tried to start shit with YOU.

      Real brave behind a keyboard, but ultimately worthless in the real world. Big shocker.

    69. Re:Agents do have some latitude by xevioso · · Score: 1

      yes, or even walk. But, the point is, there are other options.

    70. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I think the TSA is stupid, wasteful, and draconian? Absolutely. Do I think going through airport security is the time to make a beef about it? Not bloody likely.

      As a European, I have to point out that in addition to the waste of money that the TSA is for you, it also hurts your economy because it reduces tourism revenue in the US. I visited the US as a kid in the 90s and enjoyed it and if it wasn't for all the horror stories about the TSA, the US would be near the top on my list of holiday destinations now as an adult. I'm sure I'm not the only one that chooses not to travel to the US until you manage to change that.

    71. Re:Agents do have some latitude by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      The sad thing is that you are exactly the kind of person the government wants. The poster child of the hopefully voting population. You simply roll over and accept anything that happens to you because you can't be bothered to question anything.

    72. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw nothing that was "cute" or "proving a point" or even "being a smart-ass" in anon's narrative.

      Of course not, you're probably a dimwit aspie-fuck like he is. You don't understand that getting shit done in a society sometimes necessitates you being polite to someone who happens to be wearing a uniform.

      It doesn't mean you're "sucking the man's dick," to not cause a scene. If you want to challenge the law, then go ahead and cause a scene, and take your case all the way to the supreme court. But don't profess the slightest bit of surprise that an agent of the executive branch, whose job it is to enforce and apply the law, applies the law by tackling you to the ground and beating the shit out of you. I'd cheer him on, but I gotta catch a flight.

      Given his story, I can absolutely guarantee you that he was acting like a shithead, and so the TSA agent took a dislike to him. Which shouldn't be a big surprise - I don't even know him, and I hope he gets ball cancer and dies.

    73. Re:Agents do have some latitude by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So when I reach the checkpoint, I say, "I'd like to opt out of the scanner, please." About 75% of the time, they nod and say, "Okay, we'll have to do an inspection over here, sir." The (small) number of times that they've questioned my decision, I simply say, "I fly frequently, and I'm not convinced of the safety or dosing of the radiation from these machines, so I prefer the old school pat-down."

      I've yet to be hassled, and I fly 3-4 times a month, year round, and have been doing so for years. I see tough guys and funny guys get hassled frequently enough because they make jokes about weapons and bombs, or opt out by being abusive and rude. Opt out politely, and you'll be waved over to the side and patted down and sent on your way. Opt out like a douche-mouth, and you'll hold up the line for 20 minutes.

      People who travel frequently hate the guys like you because you disrupt the line, distract security, and waste our time - we wish you'd get ball cancer and die.

      Oh, who's a good boy? You are! That's right! Does the good boy wanna biscuit? Such a good, good doggy...

      We don't know the tone or body language but it sounds like the original poster was being mildly rude, basically trying to stir up shit. If you're a person who likes to stir up shit and you meet another person who also likes to stir up shit, then you're probably going to make things shitty for everyone around you.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    74. Re:Agents do have some latitude by deadboy2000 · · Score: 1

      Instead of "No, you may not," next time try, "I just don't like it". That should end the conversation instead of starting an argument. The problem is that you're trying to prove that you're smarter than they are. There's nothing to gain in that endeavor.

    75. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But just being rowdy in the airport isn't going to accomplish anything.
      Only Congress can fix this mess.

    76. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >impulse 101
      >god

      "I win, ya bloody, backstabbing fraud!"

    77. Re:Agents do have some latitude by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Did you read TFA? Many of the quotes were from people talking to non-TSA personnel (gate agents, ticketing agents, other passengers). This isn't necessarily about people saying stupid things *only* to TSA, but also things where the TSA was called to after.

      I've been flying long enough that I allocate *lots* of time to make connecting flights -- like 1.5-2 hours minimum to absorb any delays, more if it's winter or an international flight. Mostly because I've learned you need to account for delays and other things which work against you.

      I've missed a connecting flight with 2+ hours gap (screw you Delta). It would have been conceivable that my luggage could have made it when I didn't. I've made connections where the luggage didn't make it, but I did, the luggage coming on the next flight. People don't like being separated from their luggage, and we get told that it's illegal to let luggage fly without the person, when it's used against us, but that it can happen when *that* can be used against us.

    78. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OBEY

    79. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      never underestimate making a job miserable to get a policy changed.

    80. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      not sure the logic in that the tsa takes a lot of time, but you saying they don't cause people to miss their flights? Would more people make their flight if they did not have to deal with the tsa? Yes, they would.

    81. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to provide evidence of parent poster having been cute, funny, "proving a point", cracking weapon and sex jokes, disrupting the line, distracting the security or wasting your time any more than you wasted everyone elses when refusing the scan yourself?

    82. Re:Agents do have some latitude by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Some of the TSA arrests were made from comments to gate or ticket agents in response to delays and luggage issues. It's a TSA issue when the TSA arrests irate customers at the ticketing counter or boarding gate.

      There is no Catch 22 involved when it was your airline who screwed you in terms of being angry at the TSA.

      The catch-22 is that whatever your problem, the person you are speaking to has no power or control over it. You aren't angry *at* the TSA, you are angry *at* the gate agent, the TSA agent doesn't care and is harder on you (usually) when you are visibly distressed. Being late causes you to be distressed. Being distressed causes you more scrutiny at security. Being late causes you to be even later. That's part of the catch-22.

    83. Re:Agents do have some latitude by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      There is no policy that says to hassle passengers who aren't properly subservient, the employees do that because they're given a position of power with no supervision or adequate training.

      Yes, people (in this case employees) will do what they can get away with. I agree with this and everything you say thereafter. But part of crafting good policy is ensuring accountability as part of that policy. A policy which puts people in power without adequate supervision and training--as well as regular means of ensuring these are implemented--is a faulty policy. Any curative would require policy changes (in oversight,guidelines, management procedures, hiring requirements, transparency, redundancies, etc.). The responsibility for making such changes and therefore the responsibility for continued delay until changes are made rests with the policy-makers.

    84. Re:Agents do have some latitude by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is "travel" a right? You seem to imply it is, but any specific form of travel is not. Is that a correct evaluation of your position?

    85. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It's ridiculous that it's gotten to the point where you should act non-threatening and nice to people?

      Actually, its ridiculous that you would understate the situation like that.

      Why not save your protest for someone who can the policy you disagree with, rather than manifesting your civil disobedience as sarcastic remarks to the guy who is power tripping on his menial job?

      There is always somebody willing to tell other people that their form of protest isn't good enough. Until you yourself have done better, that's just hypocrisy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    86. Re:Agents do have some latitude by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I saw nothing that was "cute" or "proving a point" or even "being a smart-ass" in anon's narrative. It was none of the TSA agent's business why anon declined to be scanned.

      Even if you are correct, do you think arguing with someone in a position of authority over something so trivial is a good idea? If so, more power to you as long as it isn't my flight!

    87. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      And how many times have you opted out of the body scanners, champ? I've done so dozens of times, at dozens of airports around the US. I guarantee that my calm & principled refusal will have more effect on the TSA's policies than your incoherent ranting on slashdot ever will.

      I bet the one time your mom took you on vacation, you went through the scanner, fuming the whole time, and planning how you were gonna tell all the other teenage tards on /. how tough you would've been if that TSA agent had tried to start shit with YOU.

      Real brave behind a keyboard, but ultimately worthless in the real world. Big shocker.

      I've never opted out of shit, because I refuse to fly, Internet Tough Guy. But please, don't let reality rip you away from your ego-maniacal fantasy world, where you're the Perfect Specimen, and the rest of us are whinging teenagers.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    88. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm is a bit difficult to infer from online text, but I'm hard pressed to believe that was his intent, evidenced no less by the last two sentences I quoted.

      If you're a person who likes to stir up shit and you meet another person who also likes to stir up shit, then you're probably going to make things shitty for everyone around you.

      Huh, that reminds me of the "Dicks, Pussies, and Assholes" speech from Team America.

      Hilarious.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    89. Re:Agents do have some latitude by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I meant the original poster who had the exchange "May I ask what your objections are to the scanner?" I said, "No, you may not.". It's not an offensive response but it is a bit of a power play. "No thank you" or "I'd rather not go into it" asserts that you're equals and you respect them but don't want to give the info and he probably moves through.

      "No, you may not" asserts they don't have the right to have that information and implies you have higher authority than them, it escalates the situation. If someone responded "No, you may not" to me I'd probably be a bit annoyed and think they were a bit rude. If it's done to someone with authority they might feel the urge to establish or re-establish their authority and then you get a minor incident.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    90. Re:Agents do have some latitude by alcourt · · Score: 1

      I often would crack a friendly non-political joke. For example, asking if I got a piece of cheese for running the rat maze (the line was empty when I approached security). Treat them as a human, and they tend to treat you as one.

      Of course, once I scared a TSA agent by accident (not in a way that resulted in police). Have an asthma attack shortly before going through security. The agent was clearly more scared than the other passengers.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
    91. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Have we become so jaded that it is actually expected that the authorities will abuse their power on a whim?

      Our country is founded on that very principle. That's why we're supposed to limit growth of governmental powers at every turn.

    92. Re:Agents do have some latitude by znanue · · Score: 1

      And yet, it is a job to be TSA agent where you are supposed to be professional. Picking on the "funny" guys or even the guys who say something like "no, you may not." is not polite, its not professional, and I think it violates the spirit of what it means to be an American. Toe the line or get harassed/punished... what? It is sort of understandable to give it a bit more to someone who is being rude, but as a person who served tables, you still have to maintain some professionalism even in that situation. Also, your last comment is just horrible

    93. Re:Agents do have some latitude by cusco · · Score: 1

      And we have it on excellent authority that we should believe him!

      " Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." - Britney Spears

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    94. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privilege? It's a contracted service. Having a pilot's license is, arguably, a privilege.

      You state-apologists are just as bad at using that word as the feminists are.

    95. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had their sense of humor surgically removed

      it's called working for the government.

    96. Re:Agents do have some latitude by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

      is one place to start. That some modes of transport have restrictions is understood, i.e., one is supposed to have a license to operate a motor vehicle.

    97. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the drink would have to be less than 3 oz.

    98. Re:Agents do have some latitude by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      I was going through security one time and had to be patted down. The guy behind me in line decided to be a joker and made a comment along the lines of "they could at least give you a drink for this!". I was really expecting them to unleash the dogs on him for that, but they let him through with just the usual scan. I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport. So I would say the TSA agents do have some latitude on what they do - but I wouldn't recommend testing it if you want to make it on time to your flight.

      Aw, do your patriotic duty and screw with the TSA. Us regular people have lots of latitudes! Two years ago, when the TSA guy at a major airport told me he was going to pat me down, and I said "Hell no", nothing much happened to me. I guess this doesn't happen a lot—his initial reaction was one of complete surprise: "You're...what?" (Well, I was surprised too...the sudden expiration of my bullshit tolerance kinda hit me without warning.) He then proceeded to make his most dreadful threat: if you refuse, we will call the police! Now I was in my element. "Yes I know, you don't have police powers and can't arrest me (I was guessing, but I think I'm right). "Go ahead", I said, "call the real police. I respect them. After a few minutes, one cop arrived. I offered to let him search me, because of my great respect for real sworn law enforcement officers. He said he couldn't do that, but would "supervise to make sure everything is done correctly". By this time, flight time was getting closer, and my daughter (who was traveling with me to Germany) was giving me her "Oh Dad!" look. So reluctantly, I ended the comedy by letting them search me after all. Well, I knew I had to or my 80 something year old aunt wouldn't see her beloved nephew on her birthday...but one of these days, I'm going to book a flight to a place I really don't want to go to...

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    99. Re:Agents do have some latitude by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Well, there's little room to interpret buying you a drink as anything threatening.

      But the people who make jokes about having bombs or firearms? Well, that's just stupidity on their behalf, because it won't be taken well. You might as well go to a women's crisis center and make rape jokes -- they're just not going to work.

      Hey, you're right! Most of my airport jokes bomb.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    100. Re:Agents do have some latitude by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again. I absolutely refuse to enter the TSA point-of-no-return. I rarely enter anywhere i cant leave easily and at my own discretion.

      I wish I had this option. I have an elderly aunt who lives overseas. The reason I fly is because I can't walk on water.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    101. Re:Agents do have some latitude by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No one cares what you think.

    102. Re:Agents do have some latitude by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Do I think the TSA is stupid, wasteful, and draconian? Absolutely. Do I think going through airport security is the time to make a beef about it? Not bloody likely.

      When is the time? What is a better occasion?

      If only about 10 to 20 people declined to cooperate with the TSA at a few major airports every day, the system would be become inoperable. Why? Because the local police would have to make the arrests, and local D.A.s would have to prosecute them (or decide not to), and local officials would get their faces on national television. After a couple of weeks of this, the governments of the cities in which these airports are located would be under strong constituent pressure to exercise the option of kicking the TSA out of their airports, and letting private contractors do the security screening.

      Why do the people of this country no longer understand the power of direct action? Does no one remember the civil rights struggle, or the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations? I participated in the latter during my years at U.C. Berkeley (1966 - 1970)—and got to find out for myself that there is a literal meaning to the phrase "having the shit beaten out of me". The path to change in this country does not go primarily through the ballot box—that becomes an option only when favorable conditions have been created, when people have been made aware of the issue, and when enough minds have been changed. The way to make a difference is through nonviolent direct action. And yes, I would do my part.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    103. Re:Agents do have some latitude by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      I get patted down regularly, and the TSA agents have been professional and polite. Occasionally one will talk to me about using the scanner, but it's always a brief, polite discussion and they haven't tried to push me.

      I'll say that TSA staff, years ago, were much more aggressive and liked to throw their authority around. Maybe they received customer service training because that isn't a problem any more.

      I think there have been definite changes in TSA procedures within the last year or so. My perception is that they have been instructed in how to better give orders—"Step forward, put your feet on the yellow foot prints, no sir, the yellow footprints on the floor there. Assume the French Position. Hold still. Move forward, sir". It was scary how well it worked—I wasn't even tempted to make any insulting remarks. Everything went so fast. I am becoming an ever more subservient subject, as my government desires me to be.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    104. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're too poor to afford a plane ticket. I see now. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel bad.

    105. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But just being rowdy in the airport isn't going to accomplish anything.

      Says you. Rights don't mean anything if we don't exercise them. What the TSA is doing is fundamentally unfair - pressuring people to give up their rights. Most people can't afford to go against that pressure. Those who choose to risk it simply by exercising their right to behave like free men deserve our support just for the act itself because we should support everybody's right to exercise their rights.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    106. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's such an abuse of power to want people to contribute taxes before you'll spend money defending them with your army.

    107. Re:Agents do have some latitude by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, the policy makers are at fault. Their supervision policy is inadequate and their policy on consequences for creating an unnecessary incident are too lax.

    108. Re:Agents do have some latitude by sjames · · Score: 1

      Clearly wild claims like "I have an atomic bomb in my bag" cannot be taken as a threat either, especially when the person is otherwise cooperating with the security procedure and they can clearly see that there is no bomb in the bag.

    109. Re:Agents do have some latitude by mianne · · Score: 1

      The folks who enforce the policy are far removed from the folks who make the policy. So the TSA agent's job is miserable enough already, between passengers who are asshats in general, especially to the "peons who serve and/or inconvenience them" They get the constant DHS brainwash: "You are the last line of defense against the terrorists, blah, blah, blah...", have to work crappy split shifts without a consistent schedule, and know they'll be reprimanded or fired if they let one of those fake guns or explosives go past.So deliberately giving them additional grief in hopes of changing the policies, is not only piling on to what's probably one of the most stressful, and unsatisfying jobs in the country, but will have absolutely no effect on those policies is probably one of the most despicable ideas I've heard in a while.

      I'm no fan of the TSA in general, and defunding it would be a good first step in solving the sequestered fiscal ceiling or whatever the current self-inflicted economic crisis is being called today. But please direct your loathing of the Security Theater boondoggle to those who can actually do something about it. John Pistole, Ray LaHood, Barack Obama, and your own congress critters. Write them, call them, encourage your family, friends, fellow forum members, etc. to do likewise--and do it often. Don't make threats or resort to name calling, rather provide a concise argument why you think the policy(ies) need to be changed or eliminated.

      Hassling the TSA screener is most definitely not a productive conduit for change, and will only increase the turnover--Maybe the TSA will start hiring people straight out of prison when they exhaust the current labor pool.

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
    110. Re:Agents do have some latitude by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Right because "they could at least give you a drink for this" can be mistaken for "I have a bomb" a lot! You can pretty much say anything you want, as long as you don't threaten the agents, or claim you have a bomb (or similar) even in a joking matter. There are signs that say that even.

    111. Re:Agents do have some latitude by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      That's odd, because for the last 10 years, when they're calling the flight and if you don't come to the desk, they say they'll pull your luggage.

      And they do, even delaying the flight to pull the bags. BUT apparently it is ok for the bags to flight on another flight without you, if it is behind you.

    112. Re:Agents do have some latitude by martijn+hoekstra · · Score: 1

      "I'm no Bush fan, but I don't think he ever said that."

      There's a wikipedia page about that sentence from him.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us

      Oh, it must be true then.

    113. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting opinion. It's a shame that Gandhi isn't around anymore so you could express it to him. Or Martin Luther King?

    114. Re:Agents do have some latitude by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      is not only piling on to what's probably one of the most stressful, and unsatisfying jobs in the country

      And this here is precisely why people should continue to give the TSA agents as much shit as they can. Stressful, sucky job? Hey, guess what, there are other places you could have gone for a better work environment.

      Keep making their lives hard and they'll leave. Keep making enough of them leave and word will get around that it's the worst possible job you can take, which will (in theory) lead to fewer people taking such jobs. Keep it up long enough and there just won't be enough people to fill those agents' shoes, and they'll have no choice but to dissolve.

      The politicians aren't going to listen to us willingly, so we have to force them to listen. The ballot box is useless here, so we have to rely on the only other avenue we have that could have some impact, and that's the TSA agents who are making peoples' lives miserable by way of humiliation.

    115. Re:Agents do have some latitude by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Oh, it must be true then.

      Well, they provided a citation for it. Bush said it during a televised address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20th, 2001:

      Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

      Of course, if you'd looked at the reference provided you'd already know this.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    116. Re:Agents do have some latitude by martijn+hoekstra · · Score: 1

      Oh, it must be true then.

      Well, they provided a citation for it. Bush said it during a televised address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20th, 2001:

      Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

      Of course, if you'd looked at the reference provided you'd already know this.

      Of course, if you'd referenced the citation directly instead of referencing Wikipedia which references the citation, it would have been clear from the outset where the information came from

    117. Re:Agents do have some latitude by aug24 · · Score: 2

      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate"

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    118. Re:Agents do have some latitude by seepho · · Score: 1

      Actually, its ridiculous that you would understate the situation like that.

      You should have picked a different quote to reply to, then, because that's exactly what your comment is saying we should be "standing up and acting like free men" in the face of.

    119. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Like when a cop tries to play the "refusing a search is tantamount to probable cause" routine - a bullshit, illegal power-play by some douchebag functionary with more foot odor than brains.

      Besides, "no you may not" is probably considered a far more reasonable response than that question would get from me: "Sure, you may ask whatever you want. Just know that I am under no legal obligation to answer you, and therefore, will not."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    120. Re:Agents do have some latitude by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Personally, I have never flown commercially, and do not suffer one iota for it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    121. Re:Agents do have some latitude by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I didn't write the original message. I was just confirming that the reference was valid, if not optimal.

      Of course, a policy at looking at the evidence rather than deciding it's false based on the source would leave you better informed and less embarrassed.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    122. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I merely commented on the lack of sense in using a link to Wikipedia to indicate something is really true rather than wanting to say it isn't true. Wikipedia is right in the vast majority of cases, but it is inheritantly unreliable by itself. The correct way of using Wikipedia is to look it up there, and use the source as your proof. Such an amazing tool as Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be mistreated as an authoritative source on anything.

    123. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again. I absolutely refuse to enter the TSA point-of-no-return. I rarely enter anywhere i cant leave easily and at my own discretion.

      bus, subway, train, marriage, space ship?

    124. Re:Agents do have some latitude by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Keep making their lives hard and they'll leave.

      Or the decent ones will leave, and we'll be left with the ones with a little Hitler complex and can't get/keep a job anywhere else. Enjoy.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    125. Re:Agents do have some latitude by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Be polite? Sure. Smile? What have you got to smile about?

      Well, in general, I've found smiling at people gets a better response, so I usually try to make it my default position.

      At the end of the day, I don't think the process would go any smoother for me if I'm cranky with them. If I treat them decently, they don't feel the need to demonstrate who is in charge.

      Then again, I also make a point of not flying through the really major airports, because those ones are going to suck no matter what you do. My one experience with customs at Newark taught me that it isn't an airport I'd ever fly through again, since the default position of the agents is "cranky asshole". Chicago just plain sucks and is to be avoided. In some of the less major airports, there's a chance of the people actually having a little latitude and a better attitude.

      What you have to look forward to is putting your shoes back on without benefit of any chairs in the area, repacking your carry-on while passengers behind you are impatiently waiting for you to get out of the way, and being sure you've actually collected all your personal effects before rushing out of this island of traveler terror.

      You know, having been through airports for almost 20 years now ... if you know what you've packed and minimize the crap you have on your person, that's not actually even that tough.

      And since my luggage has been packed to telegraph the fact that I don't have anything suspicious (because I don't), and because I know what's in my pockets and can shed it quickly, I haven't had them check a bag or make the metal detector go 'beep' in well over a decade. It's usually under 2 minutes from starting to put stuff in the bin to picking stuff up at the end.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    126. Re:Agents do have some latitude by niado · · Score: 1

      I would tend to agree, though any sort of bomb threat, however silly, probably justifies some kind of response. I don't think the type of bomb, however ridiculous, is as much of a factor as the word bomb itself, as this is a somewhat touchy subject in these situations, which is why we have the ludicrous security in the first place. It's really not okay to joke about bombs at an airport security checkpoint.

      In this example, though there is obviously not an atomic bomb in the bag, it's probably not a good idea for security personnel to assume that the person even knows the difference between a nuclear or conventional bomb. Security agents also might not have a grasp on these differences themselves. To many people, "atomic bomb" just means "powerful bomb". And many people (including, I'm sure, some TSA agents, who don't usually have a strong background in nuclear engineering) certainly believe that you could hide an atomic bomb in your luggage.

    127. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You should have picked a different quote to reply to, then, because that's exactly what your comment is saying we should be "standing up and acting like free men" in the face of.

      I was replying to the "play it cool" part. Selectively misquoting yourself is also kind of hypocritical.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    128. Re:Agents do have some latitude by Occams · · Score: 1

      But on 911 some passengers really needed guns!

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    129. Re:Agents do have some latitude by sjames · · Score: 1

      What if I claim I am going to blow up the Earth with my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator? (it obstructs my view of Venus!)

      Sorry about the funny smell, I set off a bug bomb in there last week

      I just had to take some of that hot sauce back with me, it's THE BOMB!"

      No, I said "La Bamba", not "die bombe"

      Or, going by statistics, 0% of passengers who claimed to have a bomb actually had a bomb making it even less likely than the tiny percentage of people who have represented that they had no bomb who actually did.

      Simple addendum to the rules, unless they actually threaten to set it off right then, ignore any claim of having a bomb and screen the passenger and bags as usual.

    130. Re:Agents do have some latitude by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      Then you step up the efforts until the hitlers leave. Sooner or later, no one's left who's willing to work for the TSA. What are they gonna do then? Hire fairies and unicorns?

    131. Re:Agents do have some latitude by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      Or the decent ones will leave, and we'll be left with the ones with a little Hitler complex and can't get/keep a job anywhere else. Enjoy.

      It is very likely that we already have these, and the decent ones were never there to begin with.

    132. Re:Agents do have some latitude by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't travel by air much, so I don't have a lot of personal data to go on. Awhile back, I forgot and left a cheap, small pocket knife in my shaving kit. The TSA agent politely told me that I could check my bag. My response was that they could toss the knife. End of issue. OTOH, I have a sibling who travels frequently, and got into a 'situation' with one agent. As the story goes, the other agents nearby seems to be on edge/nervous, as apparently this agent had anger management issues and had had run-ins with other travelers. I'll bet that as with any government agency, getting rid of bad apples could be difficult.

      Based upon some of the other responses here, I get the impression that most passenger interactions with TSA agents are uneventful.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    133. Re:Agents do have some latitude by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      You don't understand that getting shit done in a society sometimes necessitates you being polite to someone who happens to be wearing a uniform.

      I wore a uniform for 12 years. So yeah, I think I do understand that. But I also expect people in uniform to be polite and professional -- and for a TSA agent to ask a question that wasn't really his business is neither.

      If you want to challenge the law, then go ahead and cause a scene, and take your case all the way to the supreme court. But don't profess the slightest bit of surprise that an agent of the executive branch, whose job it is to enforce and apply the law, applies the law by tackling you to the ground and beating the shit out of you.

      That's what it took in Selma.

      Given his story, I can absolutely guarantee you that he was acting like a shithead ...

      No, you can't. You weren't there. Dimwit.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    134. Re:Agents do have some latitude by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Even if you are correct, do you think arguing with someone in a position of authority over something so trivial is a good idea?

      We're talking Bill of Rights stuff here. "What's your objection to the scanner?" is a question that violates privacy and could lead to self-incrimination. The agent had no business asking the question.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  3. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you say the wrong thing you go to jail but if you try to smuggle on a suspected bottle of liquid explosive they just toss it in the trash and let you get on the plane.

  4. The TSA needs to lighten up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously-- the TSA needs to lighten up. The lines at the airports are frustrating and the agents should understand that people say these sorts of things as jokes ALL THE TIME. Besides, it's not as if someone who really plans on doing something to a plane would actually outright state, in a joking manner no less, that they have a bomb.

    1. Re:The TSA needs to lighten up. by timothy · · Score: 0

      That's just what they *want* you to think!

      (I have not yet printed, but keep contemplating, some nice TSA shirts that say, for instance "ASK HOW YOU CAN GET *YOUR* FREE MASSAGE!")

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    2. Re:The TSA needs to lighten up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously: I make jokes to complete strangers about how I'm going to kill hundreds of people all the time. If they get upset it's their fault for not having a dark sense of humor just like I do.

  5. Print version by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The layout of this article was awful. Here's the print version so you can see them all on one page.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Print version by Kadagan+AU · · Score: 1

      Most of the comments are stupid, and it's understandable that the TSA wouldn't like them. There's one however that I don't fully understand the problem with:

      An Atlanta passenger approached a flight attendant and asked her if she had ever been hijacked before.

      Seems like a normal curious inquiry to me..

      --
      This space for rent, inquire within.
  6. Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't go near the TSA blog. You might be exposed to illusion shattering reality like the 27 loaded firearms the TSA discovered among passenger carry-on last week.

    1. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      How is that illusion shattering?
      Were any of those folks planning on committing a crime on the plane?

    2. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

      My thinking behind this is that the TSA hired someone to put the guns there, intentionally get caught by the scanners, and make headlines about the find to make it seem like the TSA is doing some good.

    3. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do forget they have firearms in their bags, believe it or not.

      I don't believe it. We're talking about a gun, not a pair of socks. They were just hoping to get by.
      You pack your luggage knowing you're going to the airport, with the TSA goons.

    4. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good that the TSA found the guns, and one would hope that the TSA would between the x-ray and the metal detectors.

      So we can set aside the "security theater" mantra now?

    5. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do forget they have firearms in their bags, believe it or not.

      Sometimes they forget their fucking live grenades as well.

    6. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by owski · · Score: 1

      How many loaded guns got through security before the TSA?

      I guess since a broken clock is right 2 times a day we can all drop the "it doesn't work" mantra.

    7. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      My father (a lawyer) defended a woman once who did just that. She had a permit for it and traveled on bus to go from Detroit to Dallas, and when flying back, forgot to take it out of her handbag. Given the things I've found in my wife's handbag, I can believe it. She traveled for a family emergency and initially didn't pack for a flight at all.

    8. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      The X-ray machine for the bags, and the metal detector for the people are all you need to find guns. All the rest of it is just theatre.

    9. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some of us, a firearm is as much a part of our daily outerwear as shoes and socks; packing one to go on a trip is simply second-nature. I could easily envision being in a situation where I decide to carry my bag rather than check it, and forget that it contains a pistol until I'm in the security line

      Then you're an idiot who shouldn't own a firearm, let alone carry one around with you. It's a weapon, not an item of clothing, you ought to be aware of where it is at all times when you're carrying it.
      If you're going to travel with a firearm then get a lockbox for it so you can check it in properly with airport security.

      I'm a gun owner myself, and don't favor gun control at all. But part of carrying a weapon like that is treating it with respect, you shouldn't just toss it someplace willy-nilly... it needs to be properly secured.

    10. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People do forget they have firearms in their bags, believe it or not.

      Sometimes they forget their fucking live grenades as well.

      I don't care what your stance on the TSA or gun ownership is, those are dangerous weapons and they ought to be treated with care. If you're forgetting that you have a gun, or a live fucking grenade, then frankly speaking you deserve whatever hassle you get as a result of your carelessness.

    11. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't be surprising - Hoover used to do that with drugs during the early days of the FBI.

      Buy a shitload of heroin, take a picture of you and your buddies looking all gangbusters in front of it, and slap that bitch on the front page - instant public support!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

      It was a smoke grenade. It might have started a fire, but it wouldn't have brought down the plane.

    13. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downmod a rational and truthful response. Typical /. bullshit.

    14. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      People do forget they have firearms in their bags, believe it or not.

      I don't believe it. We're talking about a gun, not a pair of socks. They were just hoping to get by. You pack your luggage knowing you're going to the airport, with the TSA goons.

      I tend to believe it because I once almost did it. My wife had dropped me off at the airport, and I had to run after the receding car waving like mad to get her attention. Damned if I hadn't forgotten I still had my 9 mm pistol in my pocket.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    15. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my gosh! Doing simple math, assuming 27 firearms a week, 52 weeks a year, 150 passengers per plane, and 12 years since 9/11, that means that the TSA has saved the lives of OVER 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE!

    16. Re:Don't go to the TSA blog!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'd have felt less offended if, two hundred years ago, he'd been dragged into the street and stabbed as a traiter. Less scary.

  7. Butthurt? by operagost · · Score: 1

    One was merely insensitive: the passenger asked a flight attendant if she'd ever been hijacked. Is causing butthurt a federal crime now?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Butthurt? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      One was merely insensitive: the passenger asked a flight attendant if she'd ever been hijacked.

      Modern reality is that there's probably a list of words that if you simply don't say in the context of air travel you'll be better off. I should think any mention of 'bomb', 'hijack', 'gun', 'crash' isn't going to go well in most cases.

      You can always choose to exercise your right to say something more inflammatory (it is your right after all), but there is likely to be some consequences from it ... so using your judgement can't hurt since your 'right' doesn't occur in a vacuum.

      Me, I just go for the meek, somewhat tired, and maybe slightly tipsy traveler who doesn't want to give them a hard time and whose bags x-ray as utterly boring and doesn't set off the metal detector.

      I don't like the TSA and the security theater, but I have little interest in pissing them off either.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Butthurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not defending this in any way but I think the operative word of that sentence in this context is "before".

  8. In all these cases by Murdoch5 · · Score: 0

    The TSA should just say back "I have a gun" and fire at the persons head, the sooner we can weed out the mentally dysfunctional ( that WEREN'T born that way ) the sooner we can start regaining intelligence.

    1. Re:In all these cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA should just say back "I have a gun" and fire at the persons head, the sooner we can weed out the mentally dysfunctional ( that WEREN'T born that way ) the sooner we can start regaining intelligence.

      There's a reason why TSA agents aren't armed. Even ICE passport stampers are armed, but TSA employees aren't. That should tell you something about the general quality of the employees at TSA.

    2. Re:In all these cases by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      You obviously are not human and never had said silly things while stressed. For some people, the TSA security checkpoint is a giant source of anxiety. Couple that with the fact that what they are doing is not strictly Constitutional, you can understand why people are going to be silly sometimes.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:In all these cases by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Saying silly things is one thing but saying "I have a bomb" or "I'm going to blow this airport up" is another. Saying "Fucking asshole, you stupid idiot" is more of a normal response to getting stressed and mad. In the later case you haven't threatened the life of everyone in the airport and the surrounding area so you'll get lip back and off you go. In the first case your going to get hit with policemen, charges and if all that happens is you get removed from the airport count yourself lucky.

      There is no difference between what you can say when your thinking straight and when your stressed, it's not a flip switch where the law will just consider a stressed out message as "Oh he / she didn't mean that, it's all good", people who are stressed have done things ranging from blowing up building, shooting up schools, committing murder and etc.... So if your stressed and want to make a pronounced threat then deal with the fact your going to get backlash.

    4. Re:In all these cases by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      People should be killed for making bad jokes?

    5. Re:In all these cases by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      3/10

    6. Re:In all these cases by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I wasnt excusing it, i was merely pointing out that a bullet to the head might be a bit extreme considering the stress level of the checkpoints. When going through a checkpoint, its obvious they are looking for bombs. In moments of stress, its not unreasonable for that word to pop up in a very nervous persons thought stream/utterances. Some people literally do this


      Friend A: So what did you do last night?

      Friend B, in his head: "dont say 'your mom', dont say 'your mom', dont say 'your mom'"

      Friend A: well??????????

      Friend B: Your mom........ah shit.....

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:In all these cases by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Lets be clear that a joke is not "I want to kill everyone and everything" which is the same as saying "I have a bomb". If your want to threaten everyone's life even by a joke then why can't someone threaten and carry out an attack on your life? After all it just started as a joke.

    8. Re:In all these cases by Lithdren · · Score: 2

      So....is it safe to say their joke bombed?

      No? Hey, let me go!

    9. Re:In all these cases by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You are aware that making a joke about a bomb won't make a bomb appear in my luggage. I could in fact make jokes about killing you all day with no ill effects other than you getting pissed off at me (maybe some hearing damage if I make the jokes exceptionally loud.)

    10. Re:In all these cases by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      I think it's unreasonable, I would never say it, my girl friend would never say it, my family would never say it. I'm sorry but if your willing to say things that outrageous before thinking then you need to deal with the conscience.

    11. Re:In all these cases by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      No, but if your going to make the joke then it has to be taken seriously. You made a really bad taste joke and now you have people who have to think you have a bomb on you, which sets a number of actions in motion. So how about before you make that joke you just stop and think about it, then instead make a knock knock joke about oranges and banana's. Extreme lack of judgement is a huge issue and if you lacked to the point you made a joke about a bomb I don't think any reaction is to much.

    12. Re:In all these cases by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever experienced a panic attack or other anxiety induced mental state? Its not a wholly rational state of mind. IM not saying there should be no consequence, what I am saying is summary execution as detailed by the OP is WAY over the top considering not all humans are completely rational actors and they can and do say incredibly stupid things under stress. If you dont understand that you are either a robot, or have never been exposed to high levels of anxiety.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:In all these cases by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      a) If I do indeed have a bomb then unless I'm incredibly stupid it's either going to go off when I die (something akin to a deadman switch), or it's not going to matter whether I'm alive or dead (sms from my boss setting it off).
      b) The point of security is to find bombs, if people who had bombs told you about them, we could skip the security checkpoint entirely. If you have a bomb, they'll find it. If you don't have a bomb they won't find one.
      c) Overreacting is never a good idea.

    14. Re:In all these cases by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

      I totally know what you are talking about here. In times of great stress the thinking part of the brain shuts off (adrenaline) and as you speak your mind can blurt out what you are thinking about - which is usually about bombs or "oh crap did I pack these bags? do I know what's in them - how can I? someone could have slipped drugs in there" -becomes- "drugs"

      Similar to the young hopeless guy who says totally the wrong thing with tits in his face.

    15. Re:In all these cases by lgw · · Score: 1

      The TSA should just say back "I have a gun" and fire at the persons head, the sooner we can weed out the mentally dysfunctional ( that WEREN'T born that way ) the sooner we can start regaining intelligence.

      Absolutely! If every TSA agent would say "I have a gun" and shoot themselves in the head, the mentally dysfunctional population of the US would immediately decrease by a large amount. Still, seems a bit harsh. Plus a few of them would miss, and might hit a passenger or something.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  9. That article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...was the bomb.

    1. Re:That article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      such a bad pun you have to laugh

  10. An article full of DERP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every comment is about a bomb or explosives. This is a no-brainer. People are just upset about the TSA delay and lashing out.

  11. Seriously? by Thyamine · · Score: 1

    I have a very similar sense of humor, and could see saying something like this. But not at airport. And not at the TSA. I don't know if people just lack the common sense or the social skills to realize this is not the right place or time. And it sounds like in most cases they get checked 'just in case' but nothing too over the top. If someone was charged for making a bad joke, then I'd be complaining that the TSA was over the top as well.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:Seriously? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I don't know if people just lack the common sense or the social skills to realize this is not the right place or time.

      How do common sense and social skills help you realize this? One would think that common sense will either tell you that an *actual* airplane bomber *won't* say anything like that, OR that what the person says shouldn't be relevant at all to your attempts. How do social skills relate to objective detection of dangerous materials is beyond me. If I make a curtsy towards the X-ray machine, will it be more decent towards my genitals, or what?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspberger's isn't a valid diagnosis anymore.

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

      Common sense because you are in a place with heightened security.
      If you say you have a bomb they have to take it seriously, even if you then say your joking.
      They don't know you, they don't know if you're a crazy or just a joker.
      You don't go to the bank and yell this is a bank robbery either.

    4. Re:Seriously? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "If you say you have a bomb they have to take it seriously, even if you then say your joking."

      That's called paranoia. If there actually *is* heightened security, then *everyone* is suspicious *by definition* and *nothing* you say should have any bearing on the check process (save for the "i choose to be patted down instead of scanned for reason of X" stuff, but that is a given), otherwise you're basically allowing potentially suspicious people to affect the process by what they say.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Seriously? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And worse, you're playing into the hands of the real terrorists. While everyone is distracted by the fake bomb, the bad guys can probably walk through with a real one. The bigger the distraction, the less likely anyone is to notice.

      --

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

    6. Re:Seriously? by Thyamine · · Score: 1

      I understand the point you are making. And everyone is already under suspicion, that's why there is a security check point to begin with. And a real terrorist won't be saying 'Haha, I have a bomb' to try and blend in. They will stay quiet. However it's possible a mentally deranged person could. The real problem is how our society reacts to all of it. If someone said it, and everyone laughed because they thought it was a joke, and then turned out not to be a joke, society would be calling for TSA agents' heads. We are fine with it until it bites us in the ass, and then suddenly we need to blame someone because OMG they didn't do their job and _who_ would be joking about something so serious.

      It's just like getting pulled over for a traffic violation, you don't tell the officer 'Haha, I have a gun and shoot cops.. no wait I'm joking!'

      --
      I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    7. Re:Seriously? by martijn+hoekstra · · Score: 1

      I have a very similar sense of humor, and could see saying something like this. But not at airport. And not at the TSA. I don't know if people just lack the common sense or the social skills to realize this is not the right place or time. And it sounds like in most cases they get checked 'just in case' but nothing too over the top. If someone was charged for making a bad joke, then I'd be complaining that the TSA was over the top as well.

      Don't you recognise that it is a problem you can't make these kind of jokes at an airport or at the TSA? Yes, it's probably a bad idea to do this. But it is ridiculous that it is a bad idea.

  12. Security Theatre by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

    The best part is this: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/hockey-sticks-pocket-knives-and-billiard-cues-among-carry-items-tsa-will-soon-let-onboard-planes

    So, the TSA is still going to judge us for potential thoughtcrime, grope us, and detain people for making (albeit stupid) jokes, but they're going to let POCKETKNIVES back onto planes? Really?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of a pocketknife. I'm just amused (horrified) that they're letting the thing that caused this whole mess back on the plane, but not abolishing the TSA or their fascist policies.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    1. Re:Security Theatre by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of a pocketknife. I'm just amused (horrified) that they're letting the thing that caused this whole mess back on the plane, but not abolishing the TSA or their fascist policies.

      Personally, I think they should give every passenger a knife when they get on board.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Security Theatre by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Something to be said for making it public knowledge to potential hijackers that every passenger on board the plane has (at minimum) a knife on them.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    3. Re:Security Theatre by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      So, the TSA is still going to judge us for potential thoughtcrime, grope us, and detain people for making (albeit stupid) jokes, but they're going to let POCKETKNIVES back onto planes? Really?

      What's the harm? I mean, who ever heard of someone hijacking a plane with a knife? That'd just be ...

      Oh, wait.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    4. Re:Security Theatre by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      they're going to let POCKETKNIVES back onto planes?

      I never carried a knife with me on the few times I flew (pre 9/11). I just carried my stainless steel pen. Which they still let you take on board.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Security Theatre by LandGator · · Score: 1

      Better yet, a one-shot derringer with a frangible bullet (won't penetrate the metal skin of the aircraft).

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
    6. Re:Security Theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of a pocketknife. I'm just amused (horrified) that they're letting the thing that caused this whole mess back on the plane, but not abolishing the TSA or their fascist policies.

      Personally, I think they should give every passenger a knife when they get on board.

      Yeah.. or a gun - more guns should certainly prevent any one guy from creating problems.

    7. Re:Security Theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seat cushions are a great shield against box cutters and the length of knives being allowed back onto planes.

    8. Re:Security Theatre by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      How badly would those ricochet? I'd almost be more concerned with bouncing shrapnel over a bullet hole in the plane's body. By my understanding the bullet hole isn't enough to de-pressurize a plane.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    9. Re:Security Theatre by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      After allowing "small pocketknives" again, the TSA recently announced that it is now allowing "very small terrorists". - (Courtesy of TheOnion)

    10. Re:Security Theatre by LandGator · · Score: 1

      Frangibles don't ricochet.They disintegrate when they hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug , leaving a very painful but shallow wound which would surely ruin a hijacker's day. Here's a good four shot derringer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COP_357_Derringer

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  13. "Yes, there's a shell bomb in my laptop..." by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    "...invisible to your imaging scanners."

    Then, watch them sorting it out.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:"Yes, there's a shell bomb in my laptop..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. They will just call the bomb squad, who will blow up your laptop in a bomb proof container. You will get the bill of the operation, probably some jail time and lose a laptop...

    2. Re:"Yes, there's a shell bomb in my laptop..." by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure. They will just call the bomb squad, who will blow up your laptop in a bomb proof container. You will get the bill of the operation, probably some jail time and lose a laptop...

      Damn. And I almost contemplated telling them that I'm bringing Occam's razor on board in my head as well. *That* would have been really messy!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  14. Nothing new, really by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first time I flew was in the 70's and I can remember seeing signs at the security checkpoints warning against joking about guns or bombs. It's not something distinctive to the TSA.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Nothing new, really by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They've never taken kindly to joking at the airport, but it wasn't until relatively recently that you'd be dragged off, finger fucked, and arrested for doing so. That's really the difference.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    2. Re:Nothing new, really by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The first time I flew was in the 70's and I can remember seeing signs at the security checkpoints warning against joking about guns or bombs. It's not something distinctive to the TSA.

      I was not around in the 70s, but I am guessing that the worst you were looking at was a stern talking by a security agent

      TSA could probably have you put away for 10-20 years. Or, at the very least, put you on a no-fly list as a lesson for joking (no review or appeal against being on no-fly list)

    3. Re:Nothing new, really by alexo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Proverbs 21:19

      Yes, I know that it is completely off-topic, and I don't usually comment on people's signatures, but yours got me intrigued.
      Can you at least tell me who they were playing against?

    4. Re:Nothing new, really by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand your question. I just like Proverbs 21:19 because I think it's about the funniest verse in the Bible. Things haven't changed much in 2500 years.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    5. Re:Nothing new, really by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I can't disagree with that. But that humorless attitude is pervasive throughout our society today. I think I recall an elementary student somewhere recently getting suspended from school merely for pointing his finger like a gun.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    6. Re:Nothing new, really by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      You keep on believing it is just a finger they are fucking you with.
      Personally I am pretty sure it is the whole fist.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    7. Re:Nothing new, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first time I flew was in the 70's and I can remember seeing signs at the security checkpoints warning against joking about guns or bombs. It's not something distinctive to the TSA.

      Sssh, hush, we're a generation raised to believe that impulsiveness is next to godliness, we've got a convenient boogeyman to be mad at, and our long-term memory has been destroyed by years of non-stop pop culture references, trendwhoring, and shiny flashy things. So please, we know what we're talking about: This problem never existed before, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly lying, because nobody from our generation can confirm it.

    8. Re:Nothing new, really by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Things haven't changed much in 2500 years.

      We happen to think alike!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Nothing new, really by MurukeshM · · Score: 1

      It's like a scoreline. I'm not sure which sport though (baskeball, maybe?). Proverbs 21:19 Revelations. :P

    10. Re:Nothing new, really by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      *Whooosh*

      It's GOOD!

    11. Re:Nothing new, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, the Antiverbs.

    12. Re:Nothing new, really by alexo · · Score: 1

      Don't mind me, I was just making fun of the format.

      And speaking of funny verses, having the Hebrew Bible as a mandatory subject during my school years, provided me with many opportunities for finding funny stuff in the scriptures. Granted, my interpretation of the text was somewhat unorthodox...

    13. Re:Nothing new, really by kipsate · · Score: 1

      Proverbs 21:19

      Yes, I know that it is completely off-topic, and I don't usually comment on people's signatures, but yours got me intrigued. Can you at least tell me who they were playing against?

      Against the .

      --
      My karma ran over your dogma
  15. Here's the deal by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK. Here's the deal. If they take it seriously and believe me when I say "I have a bomb," then why would they distrust me when I say "I don't have a bomb or gun or knife or anything dangerous" and let me skip the screening. Really, WTF? They're gonna search everyone, right? Then why the fuck do they care what they say? Because catching smartasses is easier than catching terrorists?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Here's the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A terrorist out to kill would just target the security screening lines on a holiday. It's not in their best interests to group a lot of people together. Something like a restaurant pager would be optimal. Passengers on planes boarding soonest would get priority.

    2. Re:Here's the deal by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      What's funny is that initially, the threat was prosecuted as a threat. But for a threat to be illegal, it must be credible. So they made new laws to make jokes illegal. Don't worry, it's just a free speech zone. No free speech in airports.

    3. Re:Here's the deal by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Then why the fuck do they care what they say? Because catching smartasses is easier than catching terrorists?

      Well, considering that there's a non-zero chance of encountering one, but not the other...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Here's the deal by Jiro · · Score: 1

      If they take it seriously and believe me when I say "I have a bomb," then why would they distrust me when I say "I don't have a bomb or gun or knife or anything dangerous" and let me skip the screening.

      Because they don't necessarily believe you 100% Suppose they think your statement has a 25% chance of being true. A 25% chance of having a bomb is enough that they ought to search you, but a 25% chance of not having a bomb isn't enough to let you through.

    5. Re:Here's the deal by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      A joke is something that a nervous person often does to relieve tension. I'm okay with them varying standard routine and giving a little extra professional and polite attention to someone who seems unusually nervous. (I'm not okay with the standard routine, but that's a different topic.)

      What you want to do is seem bored. That's pretty easy if you can just picture spending your own day as a checkpoint security guard. It's likely harder to do if you're actually trying to conceal something since you probably can't control your own adrenaline that well, so someone able to pull it off is genuinely less suspicious.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:Here's the deal by lgw · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard the word Bayesian? You should really read up on that. The statistical chance that you have a bomb is basically 0 regardless of what you say - the whole thing is a farce, a sham, and training ground to get people accustomed to totalitarianism.

      An old-school metal detector and X-ray is enough to deter the only real threat: the passenger who gets drunk and attacks his neighbor. We're all better off if he doesn't have a weapon.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Here's the deal by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Totally off-topic, but that comic completely misses the point of the frequentist vs. Bayesian kerfuffle. I do mostly Bayesian stats, so I don't have a problem with it, but christ, Randall really missed the ball on that one.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    8. Re:Here's the deal by lgw · · Score: 1

      How so? Sure, the details are glossed over a bit being a comic and all, but the point as I saw it is that the Bayesian understands that the very low likelihood of a supernova is just as relevant as the die roll, while the frequentist is only looking at the odds of the die roll.

      What point is that missing? You've really got me wondering now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Here's the deal by retchdog · · Score: 1

      The Bayesian is not even shown being Bayesian. Bayesianism is assigning prior probabilities to outcomes and then updating them based on the data, which he isn't shown doing in the comic. You can read between the lines and assume he's assigning a very low prior probability to the event that the sun has actually gone nova, but it's not shown. The problem is, a frequentist can just as easily translate probabilities into odds ratios, and thus come up with good betting strategies. The Bayesian is not doing anything that a good frequentist can't. Which brings us to the next point.

      The frequentist is, yes, being a frequentist, but he's also being a fucking idiot (i.e. a strawman). The really stupid part is that he uses the 5% criterion, which even in social sciences is usually only enough to conclude "hey, there might be something there, let's do a better study." Frequentists are allowed to (and do) require ``extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims." For such an amazingly unlikely event as the sun going nova, a non-strawman frequentist would require something like 0.0000001% significance level, which the machine obviously cannot provide. The non-strawman frequentist wouldn't bother using the machine at all, since it obviously cannot satisfy his criteria (the best significance it can give is 1/36, which isn't good enough).

      The significance level here is "the probability of observing the evidence we observed, if the null is true," in this case the null hypothesis being that the sun has not exploded. A frequentist is allowed to use "prior information" to set the significance level. He just isn't allowed to say something like "Before I look at the machine, I think there is a p% chance that the sun has exploded, and a (1-p)% chance that it has not." (This is a Bayesian approach which, as I mentioned, the Bayesian doesn't actually do in the comic.) A frequentist is only allowed to judge how likely it is that the evidence is a false positive, and this likelihood is the significance level.

      I hope this is clear; it's hard to explain this stuff sometimes.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    10. Re:Here's the deal by retchdog · · Score: 1

      To elaborate a bit, the problem frequentists have with Bayesians is that they claim a statement like "Before I take a measurement, I believe that there is a 0.0001% chance that the sun has exploded, and a 99.9999% chance that it has not" is total nonsense. Strictly speaking, they are correct. The sun has either exploded, or not. The probability is 100% for one or the other, you just don't know which.

      But, the Bayesian replies, the frequentist is also using a fudge factor to set the significance level required (this is where Randall uses the strawman). After all, the frequentist has to decide how strong of evidence he requires to reject the null and accept the positive claim. If you claim that you can tell Coke and Pepsi apart in a blind taste test, I'll probably just believe you, or if I were really anal-retentive, I'd require 5% significance. That is, I would want an experiment such that if you actually can't tell them apart, there is only a 5% chance that you'll get lucky and convince me wrongly. But with the sun going nova, clearly I'll want stronger evidence. How much stronger? Eh, I dunno, maybe 1-in-a-million would be good enough. So, the Bayesian says, we're both making an ad-hoc assumption somewhere, and I'm actually giving more thought to it.

      There aren't that many Bayesians who really believe in the Bayesian "subjective probability." Almost all Bayesians would want to be frequentists in an ideal world; it's just that Bayesianism is amazingly powerful, and usually the prior probability (though strictly speaking a lie) has an intuitive interpretation.

      The thing is Randall didn't get into any of this, at least not convincingly.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  16. It's all just CYA. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, yeah, it's really dumb to suggest you have a bomb at the airport. But, in reality, if a terrorist was trying to detonate a bomb at the airport or on a plane, they wouldn't tell anyone. The whole reason for the overreaction from the TSA is because they think if there really was a bomb they would look extra dumb if it turned out the terrorist told them about the bomb and they still didn't find it.

    If some guy says he has a bomb, but he clearly doesn't, he's either an idiot or trying to create a distraction. By closing down the airport, you either allow his idiocy to cause real damage to the economy and inconvenience people. If he was trying to create a distraction, you allowed him to succeed.

    Obviously if someone might actually be a real threat, you do what needs to be done to keep people safe. But in every single one of these cases, it seems that it could be ascertained fairly quickly that they pose no real threat even if they suggested they might. I don't mind questioning these idiots in the back for a few hours, but let everything else continue normally.

    1. Re:It's all just CYA. by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Maybe you have heard, the Japanese told us they were coming to Pearl Harbor. The USA ignored the warning and "got surprised."

    2. Re:It's all just CYA. by mindcandy · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but we saw them coming .. that newfangled RADAR thing just couldn't be trusted.

    3. Re:It's all just CYA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really quite simple.

      Bomb threats happen. Sometimes there are actual bombs involved. You have to investigate them to enough extent to ensure that people are safe. This can be very disruptive and costly.

      On top of that, if it was known that "I have a bomb!" would be ignored, then people with malicious intent could use that to help conceal themselves and anything they wanted to take through. This is related to why airport staff are subject to the same rules - if they were not, people with malicious intent would be able to know this, and would be able to blackmail/threaten/bribe airport workers into taking items into an airport.

      As someone who works in an airport, I am very firmly in favour of airport workers being searched thoroughly, as it protects me quite considerably from threats and blackmail of that kind.

    4. Re:It's all just CYA. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, I'm walking through security, and I've got a plastic 500ml bottle of CocaCola about 75% empty.

      Security person watches me take another sip, then confiscates it, and tosses it in a basket at her feet.

      I was annoyed, and she provoked me with something like "You didn't think you were bringing that on the plane did you?"

      I replied almost without thinking...

      "If its so dangerous you can't risk allowing it on a plane I'm surprised you are comfortable leaving it in a bin next to you."

      Fortunately all i got back was a dirty look, but it really crystallized for me just how stupid the rules were. That so many people here are advising to just "follow the rules and keep your head down" is truly pathetic.

    5. Re:It's all just CYA. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      North Korea is saying they are going to pre-emptively strike the USA with nuclear weapons. Why aren't we all building/hiding in bomb shelters right now?

    6. Re:It's all just CYA. by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Situational awareness. Crying wolf. Et cetera.

    7. Re:It's all just CYA. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So how do you know when to and when not to ignore warnings? You said this is a case of NK crying wolf, but at the end of the story the boy finally gets eaten. So when NK is finally serious we are going to just ignore them because the were crying wolf before?

      My point is that you can never know for sure who is a real threat. All you can do is make educated guesses. It is also counterproductive to treat every remote threat as a serious threat (e.g. building bomb shelters for an NK attack, or shutting down airports for idiots joking about bombs). Instead we should be focusing our attention on objective assessment of the seriousness of threats (e.g. figuring out Japan was a serious threat, or figuring out if/when NK becomes a serious threat).

      Shutting down an airport is a giant waste of time and money. We should not be doing this over some idiots comments to TSA unless there is a good reason to believe he is serious. The TSA doesn't care if they need to shut down an airport. If anything, defusing fake threats makes them seem seem more relevant, but in reality its very costly.

    8. Re:It's all just CYA. by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      What few people realise is that this may very well be exactly what the terrorists want.

      Every day you hear a comment along the lines of "this now sets up the perfect scenario where a terrorist can blow up a big queue of people at a security checkpoint"

      But what's not said is that this continuing erosion of free thinking, the indoctrination of "follow the rules, do as you are told" is the ultimate victory for the terrorist. We are in such constant fear of them that we have given up our freedom, surrendered it willingly to them.

      I'm from, and living in, Ireland. For years we wouldn't go to Belfast for fear that that would be the one day a bomb would go off in a shopping centre. I also won't go to America for holidays, because I don't want to be finger-printed, scanned, groped whatever, treated like a criminal for wanting to spend money there. There are so many more places in the world I can visit (I haven't gone all around Europe yet) where they seem genuinely happy to have you come over and visit you. Even the French don't mind if you can't speak much French, when you are a paying customer!

      Terrorists are not going to upset what they worked so hard to achieve. The cost to the US, both economically and socially is so high that the best thing for them is to keep it going as is.

    9. Re:It's all just CYA. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      North Korea is saying they are going to pre-emptively strike the USA with nuclear weapons. Why aren't we all building/hiding in bomb shelters right now?

      Because their 'attack the US' map has the ICBMs not taking great-circle routes. Some NK PR flunky hacked that map together with a Mercator projection and a ruler. Here is the GC route from Pyongyang to Austin, TX, one of the cities supposedly on the list.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:It's all just CYA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather die in the initial blast than from radiation after wasting away for three weeks in a bomb shelter. There was a move like this. Can't remember the name...

    11. Re:It's all just CYA. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Well, I can imagine the following: take a large water bottle, feel it with azeotropic alcohol (94%), get on the plane with it, spray it over the ground, let it seep, light it on fire. You could even take a small seep at the checkpoint and not cough too much. And it wouldn't pose any risk at all to the checker if they place it at their feet after confiscating it. Of course, a quick response with an extinguisher should save the ass of everyone on board, but it would still suck.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    12. Re:It's all just CYA. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And despite the apparent stupidity, they currently have nuclear weapons and missiles with a range of about 3000 miles. Obviously their science and engineering abilities far exceed their propaganda/photoshop abilities. I fully expect that NK engineers and scientists know about great circle routes in addition to rocket science, albeit maybe not as much as we do.

      We shouldn't be scared by any ridiculous threats made by the NK propaganda machine, but we also shouldn't underestimate their actual abilities by assuming that the incompetence of their PR people is indicative of their whole government/military.

    13. Re:It's all just CYA. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Well, I can imagine the following: take a large water bottle, feel it with azeotropic alcohol (94%)

      The counter argument to that is that I can buy a bottle of 151 Rum (75.5% alcohol) or maybe some 190 proof everclear after the security checkpoint just before I board the plane.* Or I can buy some perfume ... eau de toilette is around 85% alcohol, eau de parfum is up to 96% alcohol.

    14. Re:It's all just CYA. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      3000 miles along the great circle path puts a warhead short of Anchorage, Alaska. Honolulu is 4600 miles. Here is an equidistant azimuthal projection centered on Pyongyang. The first yellow distance ring is 4000 km, the second is 8000 km. Assuming their missle range is 3000mi/4825 km, they can only reach the distant Aleutian Islands. I wouldn't be the least bit worried of you're not within the 4000km ring.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    15. Re:It's all just CYA. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I wasn't suggesting that 3000 miles is far enough to get to the continental US. I am suggesting that the probability of NK successfully launching a nuclear strike in the future is getting larger the closer they get,.

      Also, I don't worry only for myself. I have family and friends all over the world. Moreover, I feel empathy for people I don't personally know, and see it as a great tragedy when life is needlessly lost.

      Even if NK attempts to launch a nuclear strike that turns out to be a dud and lands in the middle of the Pacific ocean killing nobody, the launch could easily lead to an immediate retaliation of the US, which in turn could lead to other countries like China retaliating against us.

      This is like a Mexican standoff where most of the people are rational and have assault weapons and one particularly irrational person looking for a fight has a musket. This situation could easily lead to everyone being killed even if the musket doesn't work.

      everyone except NK is pretty calm right now, but that could change at a moments notice, once they decide to do something stupid.

    16. Re:It's all just CYA. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I agree with all your points, but let's not forget the citizen/slaves of NK. Your statement "I feel empathy for people I don't personally know, and see it as a great tragedy when life is needlessly lost" applies to them, too.

      I would love to see a surgical removal of the head of the snake that keeps them enslaved, but the political and economic realities may prevent that.

      1) South Korea and China don't want 24.5 million refugees pouring across their border
      2) China would rather not have South Korea take control of NK resulting in a strong western ally on their border
      3) Whoever does take responsibility for them is committing to a multi-billion (possibly trillion) dollar investment to just bring them into the last century wrt standard of living, much less get them to a point of self-sufficiency and where they can contribute back to the world economy.

      I hope that China has finally had enough of NK's foolishness and is willing to let the rest of the world intervene in the lives of the NK citizenry.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    17. Re:It's all just CYA. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      What few people realise is that this may very well be exactly what the terrorists want.

      Its not what the terrorists want.

      Its worse than then what they want. They want us to stop meddling in their countries affairs and just leave them alone. The acts of terror are largely acts of 'revenge' for things they've perceived we have done to them. (And to be fair their perception though warped isn't completely wrong either.)

      We respond by turning our own country into an idiotic police state.

  17. Honestly by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    What - real - terrorist would say in the face of the security that he have a bomb (or better, a nuclear one) in your luggage?

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the affront is that if you make a joke about it, then you're obviously not taking their security precautions seriously. And if you're not taking it seriously, then you aren't frightened enough to support arbitrary gropings and other violations of your privacy. The whole system falls apart if we all just laugh at it.

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

      If saying you had a bomb exempted you from security, then all the terrorists would be saying it.

    3. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "real" terrorist? None, by definition, since you'd say that anyone who confessed at the last moment is pretty much a "failed" terrorist.

      But what real suicidal nutjob whose brain lets lose one last call for help, or who wants his victims to know they're about to blow up, or who's living out their suicide-by-cop fantasy, or who wants to maximize the number of responders involved in the explosion?

      Some.

      There's a lot of things wrong with airport security. But taking bomb references seriously isn't one of them.

    4. Re:Honestly by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      They pass you through the scanner anyway, then quickly would become clear if it was a joke or not. What surprise me is taking so seriously something that can only be a joke.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    5. Re:Honestly by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Hum... Good point. Glad I did not tell then that I had a whole bomber full of nukes in my luggage.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the guards start doing what most everybody here is advising to - lighten up - the "real" terrorist would do exactly that.

      "I've got a bomb, you know."
      "Oh, ha ha... go on through..."

      And, all it takes is one time for that to be true. It can be joking and false literally billions of times. But the security theatre isn't going to be held responsible for doing their jobs the best they can, and they certainly won't be jacked up for reacting to people acting stupidly. They *will* be jacked up if people can joke about it in their presence and a plane then blows up. (Not even by said joker.)

      One. Time.

      What - real - terrorist would say in the face of the security that he have a bomb (or better, a nuclear one) in your luggage?

    7. Re:Honestly by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      You fail in one small detail:

      supposed terrorist: "I've got a bomb, you know."
      security officer: "Oh, ha ha... go on through..."

      Luggage goes to scanner and security officer checks the guy anyway


      The joke is no reason to let the guy go without being searched.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  18. Nothing to See here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really every one involved a Bomb. You can't have an article on people saying the darndest things and every thing be a Bomb threat. Seriously the title should be look at this 100 people that made a bomb threat that were jokes.

  19. I'll save you all some time by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

    None of them are actually funny, at least in print. Nearly all involve passengers attempting to say "I have a bomb" in a humorous manner in some capacity. Now I'd love to see the TSA abolished as much as the next Slashdotter, but I for one don't find bomb jokes funny in the context of an airport.

    Now, if you want to read something regarding airlines that are actually funny, might I recommend either this or this, or this.

    1. Re:I'll save you all some time by ovidiu.ban7792 · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine got a little drunk on vodka on Moscow airport and he suggested he had a bomb in his bag. He spent 8 months in a Russian prison. I guess in the Soviet Union the airport bombs you.

  20. What a terrible excuse for a website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The layout is awful, some of the darndest things are listed twice, who submits this crap and who *approves* it?

  21. claiming you have a bomb to go faster? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    So some people claim they have a bomb to go through a security theatre zone faster? Where are they rushing to? Gitmo?

    1. Re:claiming you have a bomb to go faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I tend to want to get through security fast. There are generally two places I may be rushing to get to.

      1) I may have not planned or not actually gotten much airport time. I am rushing to get to the gate. Arrive too late and you don't get overhead space. Arrive even later, and you miss your flight.

      or,

      2) The bar! After the stress of packing, getting to the airport, getting through security, you really want to get to the bar. In order to have enough time to order and relax, you need at least 50 minutes from the time you find a seat to the time you leave the bar. Try to do that in 40 minutes, and you will still feel stressed the whole time. If they are busy and you have to get a table not sit at the bar, make that more like 60 minutes. If they are really busy, you may have to wait for even a table. One time I only made it because some strangers offered to let me sit with them. Or, I may be planning on going to the SkyClub. In that case, I'm going to want 90 minutes minimum, but really more like 120 minutes, to relax in the SkyClub. I have to pay $25 to get in, so it isn't worth it without that much time.

      So while saying you have a bomb is not the right way to do it, and doesn't even make any sense, there are reasons for wanting to get through security quickly.

  22. TSA's Funniest Home Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other things you should avoid saying before boarding Fascist Airlines USA:

    - you're spending a lot of time searching that child's crotch for nuclear weapons, aren't you?
    - is this search actually legal?
    - are the backscatter x-ray machines safe?
    - my last name kind of sounds arabic, should I... *

    * flyer is usually being cavity searched before question is finished

  23. Didn't preview by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    The first "this" in the prior post is supposed to be this link:
    http://www.businessballs.com/airtrafficcontrollersfunnyquotes.htm

    Next time, I shall use the 'preview' button to actually preview.

  24. worst pick-up line EVER by apcullen · · Score: 1

    An Atlanta passenger approached a flight attendant and asked her if she had ever been hijacked before.

    I'm guessing since it made it into the TSA hall of shame, it didn't work out too well.

  25. Weed out the mentally dysfunctional? by LandGator · · Score: 1

    Then does the TSA hire them?

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  26. Luggage Tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they would find the following luggage tag funny:

    "This bag has been outfitted with a GPS device. It will explode if it fails to reach its intended destination. Please exercise special care regarding this bag. Thank you."

    Would that make them more or less likely to lose my luggage?

  27. Last time I checked US was not a Police State by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Funny

    We're a Police State Superpower.

    There's a difference.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  28. Also, make sure you don't criticise them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    "After learning that his luggage had made a flight that he missed, a Las Vegas (LAS) passenger told the gate agent: "Imagine there was a bomb in my bag. I'm not on plane, and it would explode."

    Which is something I could conceivably say myself as well. Haven't we agreed (Lockerbie bombing and all that) that no plane shall carry the luggage of a passenger who isn't on board? Yet this policy still isn't be followed in domestic US flights and various European airlines. If you want to ensure the safety of flights wouldn't this be your starting point?

    I don't know what they did to the guy that said this. But it baffles me how the TSA would quote this on their site as an example of something that's not acceptable to say. That they picked this over any other comment that could have potentially shown them in better light (as opposed to people that punish and ridicule those who criticise them) shows just how out of touch the entire thing has got.

  29. They x-rayed my burrito by xeno · · Score: 4, Funny

    A few years ago I made the mistake of grabbing something to eat outside the SeaTac security theater zone when I was in a hurry. There was no line (very late at night) but the flight was leaving soon, so I asked "Does my burrito constitute a 'tube of gel' or can I take it through to the boarding area?" Three luggage monkeys wearing aviator glasses at night and a harrumphing silverback later, they came to a conclusion.

    They x-rayed my burrito.

    How is it possible for me to take them seriously? I do risk management for a living, and -- while my jackass question and their retarded response was funny at the time -- there's no way to examine the situation that doesn't indicate heightened overall risk due to bewildered agents looking for irrelevant indicators. Sure, morons joking about a bomb and the forgetful gun-toter need to be weeded out, but neither is a material risk to the lives of anyone on a flight. A good revamp of the TSA would start from undesirable risk outcomes and work its way back to a determination of effective controls... nah. Not gonna happen.

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
    1. Re:They x-rayed my burrito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just did you a favor by x-raying that burrito. More often than not, a loaded burrito can blow out your ass and cause a horrific scene. Hell, they might even charge you with chemical warfare!

    2. Re:They x-rayed my burrito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was departing from Maine once with a box of live lobsters, clearly marked, sealed and stamped, and they asked if the box contained anything with more than 3oz of fluid. My response was a tired and rather bewildered "Well, there're ten pounds of lobster in there, so maybe."

      They didn't open it or put it through the x-ray, but they did use a metal detector wand (I think?) and then make me check it.

    3. Re:They x-rayed my burrito by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

      x-ray the burrito seems to be the correct answer (no joke).

      As a side-note I've seen at some point a sign saying "no food" before the screening area. I was a bit amused; however later on a half eaten sandwich comes in one of the boxes where you are supposed to put your watch or belt to be X-Rayed ....

  30. They're really not THAT bad, they're just people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My flight out of Boston, leaving PAX East, I had ab 800-count card box full of different card games in my carry-on (couldn't fit it in the checked bags). When that went through the scanner, they said, "what the heck is that?" I told them, a guy made a joke asking if I had any Black Lotus' in there, I joked back, they scanned the box specially by itself and then my whole bag one more time to be safe, we chatted for a minute about PAX in the meantime (the one guy is planning to take his son next year), I thanked them and was on my way.

    They're just people. If you're nice, they'll tend to be nice. If you're a giant, flaming douche, you get what you give.

  31. My friend Jack by mindcandy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Never greet him at the airport.

  32. Did you bring your "bom"? by DarthBling · · Score: 1

    I guess Mormon missionaries sometimes/frequently get in trouble at airports because they will refer to the Book of Mormon as the B.O.M. and somebody will overhear them.

    At least, this was a story I heard way back when, pre 9/11 days.

    1. Re:Did you bring your "bom"? by neminem · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I suppose one should avoid talking about different types of text files, and whether they contain BOMs, too. Or for that matter, about how to make your own balm.

  33. Some TSA Agents by TheBrando · · Score: 2

    I always thought all TSA agents lacked a sense of humor, until my last trip to the airport that is. It was 6:30 in the morning and I had just passed through the body scanner. The TSA agent told me to wait. Then he told me I could continue. While picking up my stuff from the x-ray machine I turned back to him and asked, "Could you see my junk on the screen?" I was surprised he busted out laughing instead of putting me in hand cuffs.

  34. Grease Bomb.. by houbou · · Score: 1

    aka the hamburger, don't carry it in your bag or at least, don't call it 'grease bomb' :)

  35. Guy claims to be a terrorist. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    During a bag search at Dallas (DAL), a passenger stated: "I'm a terrorist."

    Sure, perhaps that his job, but that doesn't mean he has a bomb or is going to threaten the plane.
    He could simply be on his way to a convention, reunion or visit with friends out-of-town.

    Even terrorists have mundane things to do - grocery shop, yard/house work, dentist appts...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Guy claims to be a terrorist. by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

      That one seemed a little weird. Obviously a terrorist who's planning to attack the plane, or wanted for some crime, or on the no-fly list would be in trouble trying to board a plane, but is it illegal to be a terrorist in and of itself? Some terror groups like Hamas and the IRA also have political fronts. Members involved solely in the group's attempts to go legitimate could still be described as terrorists. What's their standing before the law? Then you have situations like Bill Ayers where the guy is a terrorist but also a friend of the President. Good luck telling him he can't get on the plane.

    2. Re:Guy claims to be a terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure (considering this is Texas) that the person in question simply proclaimed:
      "I'm a Teeuw-Wist" (aka Tourist)
      Next thing you know, hillarity ensues.

  36. XKCD by Alarash · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know you thought about this. http://xkcd.com/651/

  37. Houston by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "Caaaaart!"

  38. T-Shirts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if everyone started wearing t-shirts...

    "TSA = Totally Senseless Authority"
    "I have a bomb"
    "BOMB"
    "Nuclear Airlines" - complete with exploding airplane
    "Don't touch my junk"
    "allergic to x-ray"
    "I want my shoes back"
    "I have a gun in my bag"
    "I have a tube in my pants greater than 6 oz. can I still bring it on the plane?"
    you get the idea.

    If everyone started wearing shirts like that what could they do? Gonna arrest everyone? LOL good luck with that.

  39. Yelling "Bomb" in an airport is a dick move by Theovon · · Score: 1

    I believe in satire. If you're a comedian or writing a blog, joking about bombs may be off-color, but it's protected free speech. There are certain people you just don't threaten, like the president, for good reason, but otherwise say what you want. (Before you get all worked up, it's perfectly fine to say that you hate the president; it's not okay to make jokes about threatening his life. Besides, making death threats about anyone is a criminal act.)

    On the other hand, joking about bombs while in the airport is just being a dick. You have the right to be a dick. You STILL have the right to say what you want. But you DON'T have the right to fly. And you don't have the right to adversely impact 1000 other people. If you get arrested for closing down an airport with your stupid bomb joke, it's not the joke that gets you in trouble; its the fact that your joke negatively impacted many other innocent people.

    Does the TSA handle these jokes with common sense? No. The TSA itself is not common sense. Sure, we should have tightened security since 9/11, but we all know that the TSA is an elaborate show that does nothing but inconvenience earnest passengers and has no capacity to catch any real threats. The TSA is a fact that should go away, but it is nevertheless a fact. You know damn well what will happen if you make a bomb joke in an airport; the fact that you don't like the TSA doesn't give you the right to disrupt the lives of everyone else trying to travel that day.

    They say that yelling "fire" is a crowded threater doesn't qualify as free speech. People can get hurt if you do that. It's not funny and accomplishes nothing useful. So why is yelling "bomb" in an airport any better?

    1. Re:Yelling "Bomb" in an airport is a dick move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no sense of humor or logic. There is a clear difference between shouting BOMB! and talking normally and smiling in front of TSA officer that you have a nuclear bomb, 5 grenades, a flamethrower and a lawnmower in your luggage.

    2. Re:Yelling "Bomb" in an airport is a dick move by martijn+hoekstra · · Score: 1

      They say that yelling "fire" is a crowded threater doesn't qualify as free speech. People can get hurt if you do that. It's not funny and accomplishes nothing useful. So why is yelling "bomb" in an airport any better?

      It isn't, and that kind of behavior should be punishable, I don't think many people disagree with that. Saying something like "Did you think there was a bomb in there or something" to the TSA is not actually the equivalent of yelling "bomb" though.

    3. Re:Yelling "Bomb" in an airport is a dick move by Theovon · · Score: 1

      It's the effect I'm talking about. You KNOW that the TSA are going to be morons about it. Talking to a TSA agent about a bomb has a very high probability of grinding the airport to a halt for an hour or so. No one will get trampled, but lots of people will get held up. Who has the right to do that? Well, the TSA thinks they do, but you shouldn't a dick and antagonize them into closing the airport.

  40. Playlist Time by unfortunateson · · Score: 2

    I've been trying to come up with the all-time best "Not to sing along to in the TSA line" playlist. Amongst the top songs:

    * Janie's Got a Gun - Aerosmith
    * Boom Boom Boom Boom - Dr. John
    * If I Had a Rocket Launcher - Bruce Cockburn
    * Shot With His Own Gun - Elvis Costello (actually about consequences of sex, which makes it doubly good for this list "No, sir, I'm singing a song about a girl getting pregnant!")
    * I Don't Like Mondays - Boomtown Rats
    * Tear Down the Wall - Pink Floyd
    * Rosalita - Bruce Springsteen ("You pick up Little Dynamite, I'm gonna pick up Little Gun")
    * Crash Into Me - Dave Matthews Band

    What else? No rap please, it's just too easy.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:Playlist Time by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      Also, never bring Susan Ivanova with you through airport security.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Playlist Time by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Here are a few more ideas, in a wide variety of genres:
      * I Shot the Sheriff - Bob Marley
      * London Calling - The Clash
      * Bloody Sunday - U2 (especially on a Sunday)
      * Psycho Killer - Talking Heads
      * Pretty Boy Floyd - Woodie Guthrie
      * Anything by Cheb Khaled, not because of anything particularly violent about his songs but just because they're partially in Arabic.
      * Onward Christian Soldiers

      and last but not least:
      * The Star-Spangled Banner (all that talk about bombs bursting in air, rockets, etc)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Playlist Time by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Feuer Frei by Rammstein, particularly for it's repeated use of "Bang Bang!" in the chorus.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    4. Re:Playlist Time by richlv · · Score: 1

      the world is a big balloon ? ;)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jRxIhBXUc

      --
      Rich
    5. Re:Playlist Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Chicago, Is Not Chicago - Soul Coughing (Google the lyrics if you don't know why this would be a problem.)

    6. Re:Playlist Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neuroticfish - The Bomb
      Some of the lyrics:
      I wear my bomb near to my chest, is it ticking?
      Cold, hard, no time to rest, I feel it kicking
      I wear my bomb near to my chest, is it moving?
      Cold, hard, no time to rest, and never soothing

    7. Re:Playlist Time by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 1

      I Shot the Sheriff

  41. Heh. Reminds me of a couple game developers. by Chas · · Score: 1

    A couple of my partners were flying back from a con (more than) a few years ago.

    Sitting in O'Hare, they started spitballing a terrorism game.

    Finally, one of the guys' wives elbowed them and FORCEFULLY reminded them where exactly they were, and the general lack of humor they had about this sort of thing.

    So they shut up right?

    WRONG.

    They continued on, couching everything in euphemisms.

    Thus the Ice Cream game (I Scream).

    If we ever decide to do it, we'll probably have to start up a throw-away imprint to do so (like White Wolf did with their Black Dog imprint for Hol).

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  42. Meanwhile In Australia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember flying back to Australia after September 11th. I remembered they had to put up signs stating that you should not joke about bombs.

    I wish I had snapped a picture of one of those signs....

    1. Re:Meanwhile In Australia... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Anyone taking photos of airport security is treated as a terrorist.

  43. less commonly known by nimbius · · Score: 1

    if the fact that if after you say something about a bomb in an airport, you can be released from custody by saying "Bruce Schneier" to indicate your appreciation for all the actors and actresses at the play.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  44. Link Abbreviation by Atlas_Atkinson · · Score: 1

    "I have a bomb."

  45. The TSA says the darndest things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like "I am a sworn officer". No sorry clerk, you're a regular guy with a fancy dress.

    Wish I had had the time to record and have him arrested for impersonating a peace officer.

  46. Freeze!! Don't think about penguins!! by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Stress can make people laugh or giggle, even if they don't want to. If people are walking around thinking to themselves "oh my, I better not make any bomb jokes or even accidentally say a word like 'bomb'", it's just like an admonishment that requests "Don't think about penguins!".
    .
    The admonishment alone inserts thought about penguins into your head. So consciously thinking "don't say anything stupid" could make your brain ask itself "stupid things such as what?" and then your brain cooks up examples and a genuinely nervous person innocently blurts out "so, what do you think, that i have a bomb in there?"
    .
    And then the excitement begins. This is ridiculous thought-porn torture, people, as part of security theater. And we buy tickets for that security theater every time we purchase a seat on an airliner. We pay to be subjected to this humiliation and useless piece of proof of our obeisance to group-think. It's like the idiotic "Freeze!" tactic exercises being performed at various airports: TSA Freeze Drill links
    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/09/tsa_freeze_drill_videod_at_sky.php
    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5103484/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/tsa-all-stop-drill_n_1923683.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0awE1Q2HA

  47. Code Bravo!! Freeze!! by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
    Here's a freeze drill article from the New York Times entitled "Playing Simon Says at the Airport", just in case people don't trust the authority or believability of the links I posted above. But wait a minute: Am I really supposed to freeze? At many airports, T.S.A. officers conduct occasional drills in which the agents suddenly start screaming things like "Code Bravo! Freeze!" The drills, which the T.S.A. tells me happen only once or twice a year at any given airport, are intended to give the officers experience in what happens if there is a security breach. The goal is to train them in how to quickly shut down a checkpoint and, once the potential threat is resolved, get it up and running again in a timely manner.
    .
    "These drills are generally conducted during off-peak hours to minimize disruption, and generally last a minute," said Kristin Lee, a spokeswoman for the agency. The agency conducts a range of security exercises, not all of them in public, to train checkpoint officers, she said.
    .
    Understood, I said. But still, am I, a citizen, required to stop motionless when the T.S.A. officers yell "freeze"?

    It seems like a way to get people to start being subjugated and to prove compliance with any authority figure, regardless of whether or not that "so-called authority figure" has any right to assert that sort of, or any sort of, power at all.

  48. Re:Freeze!! Don't think about penguins!! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Ya that never works with me, If you say don't think about cheese cake, don't think about the power rangers, don't think about a bomb then after I read it I just wont think of any of that stuff. Before you think about something you have to process the fact your going to think about it, so just stop before you do and you'll be good to go.

    Before you you tell me that I'm not the average person, I know at least five other people who "think" the same way, just don't think about it period!

  49. My father would have been arrested by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Years ago, when my parents went on their honeymoon, they had a disaster of a trip. Long story short, my mother broke her neck on a hiking expedition and the area they were in had horrid medical care. Then, their plane back got diverted thanks to a storm. My father, who had reached the end of his rope, told the flight attendant that there had BETTER be medical care waiting for his wife when they landed.

    When the plane landed, it didn't taxi in, but was surrounded by police and ambulance. Officers stormed the plane asking who had requested medical help and my father and mother were helped off. My father, using poor judgement even for the time, decided NOW was the perfect time to joke around so he whispered to my mother "I guess they found the bomb in the suitcase."

    When they finally got home and went to claim their baggage, it was pushed off to one side with chains surrounding it. The person they spoke with said there was a bomb threat. My dad got off without even a warning. Today, he'd be locked up and charged with a federal offense.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  50. Dilbert by BarryHaworth · · Score: 2

    An old problem, as Dilbert discovered.

    --
    I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
  51. heh by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm going to open a bottle of dihydrogen monoxide once the plane gets off the ground.

    1. Re:heh by theCoder · · Score: 1

      You fool! Don't know know how dangerous that stuff is?

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  52. treated like a prisoner in the airport not funny by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    opting out of the scanner is what every person needs to do.

  53. Other Articles Were Also Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article was linked to two others that I thought were rather interesting. Apparently the TSA is going to allow "small" pocket knives (smaller than 2.36 inches and less than 1/2 inch in width; doh!) on board as of April 25th. Then there was the article on scary/crazy things they'd found on travelers, some hazardous items and a chastity belt...

  54. Chemists must have a tough time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be a pain to transport one of these.

    "Oh, that? That's just the casing for my bomb calorimeter. I didn't want to put it through checked luggage because I was worried it might get broken."

  55. Something less than theatre... by physicsdot · · Score: 1

    After learning that his luggage had made a flight that he missed, a Las Vegas (LAS) passenger told the gate agent: "Imagine there was a bomb in my bag. I'm not on plane, and it would explode."

    I could write why TSA's response to this comment as a threat is patently stupid - but to do so demeans us all. You guys are paying people to detain anyone who utters the word "bomb" - in any context.

  56. I just interrupted the lecture by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Agent: "It's a millimeter wave scanner, which means..."

    Me: "I have a degree in electrical engineering. I know what millimeter wave scanners are. I am not stepping into it because I feel it is a waste of my tax dollars. Don't waste my time any further."

    Just show the TSA idiots the respect they deserve (none) and let them do their jobs with the full knowledge that they are less well liked than the IRS.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  57. what if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you told the TSA that you overheard that woman over there say that she has a bomb up her rectum? Could be quite amusing.

  58. Australian weather is dangerous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always tricky when I'm landing in airports in Australia, as I like to check the weather report for my destination. Usually I do this by checking the website of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (www.bom.gov.au) on my phone. The challenge, of course, is to be careful when asking a friend or partner to "check the BOM site"

  59. They are penalizing you... by mapuche · · Score: 1

    Because the terror theatre is based on conductivism. You behave bad, they treat you bad.

    I travel a couple of times every year to the U.S. Every year I can see changes in their behaviour, even they seem erratic or random. The last couple of years I''ve felt like the TSA agents are more loose and even smile and talk a like with passengers, but passengers are similarily tamed since 2001. Of course this is my perception, not a scientific research.

  60. Isn't there a minimum IQ before recruiting people? by ami.one · · Score: 1

    Somehow I get the idea that general US population now has a very low IQ. Maybe its due to sustained pollution or something and not their fault, but there should be a minimum threshold IQ before employing people for security / TSA duties. They should just do the checking and ignore what anyone SAYS. I seriously can not imagine anyone thinking that people who DECLARE they have bombs/guns WILL ACTUALLY HAVE THEM.

  61. people suffering from by invictusvoid · · Score: 0

    people suffering from constipation would be detained because of their facial expressions?

  62. Abnormal by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    The point isn't really to single out people who make jokes about a bomb. It's to single out people who aren't behaving normally. And joking about a bomb in your bag simply isn't normal behavior (as witnessed by how few cases have been recorded)

    A significant percentage of normal people will joke in tense situations. Many of them are used to joking inappropriately in tense situations. By now, most people know better than to treat the TSA as sane, but that doesn't make those who don't abnormal.

    (And yes, ditto to your disclaimer, with the caveat that "consistent" cannot not be read as an excuse.)

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  63. Chastity belt by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Linked in TFA was weird things people got flagged for. Who carries a chastity belt onto a plane? Is the Mile High Club to hard to resist?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  64. Pervert Scanner, Giving the Wand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I called the new ultra detailed body scanner a "pervert scanner" as I walked through and got a very brief laugh, and then was pulled aside and was "given a good wand-ing".

  65. Lex Luthor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a pocket full of kryptonite

  66. I said "bong", not "bomb" by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    You drooling fascist retarded monkeys...

  67. RBLOCKBUSTER. Huh? by Occams · · Score: 1

    A blockbuster was a big bomb during the WWII blitz in London. Now it is used to praise a movie.

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  68. Before 9/11... by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1

    There was no TSA (this was in the 80's) and I was an airport police officer. Had some great times there. They used to have large (7 foot tall) wooden signs that read "WARNING! - It is a federal crime to even joke about having a gun or bomb" This was in large letters, and next to the carry on search x-ray machines. I happen to be standing next to that sign one day and a kid (about 20) said "Ha ha... Guess what? I have a gun in my bag"... I replied "Ha ha... Guess what? You're going to jail". He didn't believe me :)

    --
    The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
  69. Apologies for the inconvenience, bro. by jalopezp · · Score: 1

    But it's for your own safety.