Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA: Confiscating Aluminum Foil and Watching Out For Solar Powered Bombs

Posted by samzenpus on from the that's-some-good-work-there-lou dept.

schwit1 writes "If you think confiscating aluminum foil to prevent a solar powered bomb attack on a plane is a waste of time, don't blame the TSA agent. According to a former employee most of the security people agree with you. Instead, we need to hold accountable the people sending down such ridiculous orders. From the article: 'Ridiculous restrictions and the TSA have become nearly synonymous in the post-9/11 airport, and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules. But our best bet is to take the frustration toward the TSA agent confiscating our over-sized liquids, and re-direct it to the people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules — the ones who make the call as to whether our toothpaste is verboten and whether our shoes will need extra screening.'"

46 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. *Puts on tinfoil hat* by mattventura · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh wait....

    (Cue tinfoil vs aluminum foil pedants)

    1. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by mrbester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *Aluminium*

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That site appears to have it backwards. Davy settled on "aluminum" by the time he published Elements of Chemical Philosophy in 1812 (the year your link claims was when he settled on an ending of -ium. Wikipedia includes a quote from the book.

      "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."

      The quote is visible from a scanned copy at this link

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Actually, I have every reason to believe it contains Magnesium as well as traces of Titanium and other adulterants brought about by the recycling process.
      Technically, it should be an Alloy Foil.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    4. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      They need a lot, so they can foil all of the terrorists.

      Not really. If they just took the foil off of a stick of gum, they would have enough to wrap every terrorist they have caught in 10 layers of foil, and still have enough to cover a stick of gum.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  2. They still have not caught a single terrorist. by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

    It's all security theatre.

    1. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

      The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

      It's all security theatre.

      The've all been married?

    2. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course they've caught terrorist!

      You just don't hear about it.... because.... because it's classified.

      It's classified because... if the terrorist planners knew that their plot had failed then they would try again. If you just get rid of the ones doing it, then the plane is safe, the planners assume it's a successful mission, and everyone goes home safe and sound. Do you want the terrorists to make a new plot instead? Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

    3. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      With the other half being a powerful oxidizer. You can make an explosive out of: powerful oxidizer + just about anything.

    4. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by dargaud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I may play Devil's advocate.. isn't aluminum foil one of two ingredients in a simple, household-items explosive? I'm not sure why you would need to carry it on a plane with you, either.

      - aluminium powder rather than simply foil
      - to wrap your sandwich ? Since nowadays low-cost airlines don't even feed you on board.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    5. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      If I may play Devil's advocate.. isn't aluminum foil one of two ingredients in a simple, household-items explosive? I'm not sure why you would need to carry it on a plane with you, either.

      Flour is an explosive ingredient, (create a fine mist of flour then ignite it) while it's not going to take out the side of your ride, it would cause a very decent devision. It was a science project of mine in Junior High school, as I'm sure many have seen.

      I could mention a very easy to transport, freely available and a very destructive combo as I'm sure many here can do the same, and you know were not the only ones who know.

      Something else nobody hasn't brought up (all have been explosive potentials) are the toxic gases, that are so much easier to do.

      One reason I like reading /. is when something questionable is posted everybody downloads it (call it safety in numbers) long ago there was a post to a file that's worth a read "Massive Chemistry and explosives book collection" https://www.google.com/#q=%22M...
      I can't find the org link on /. but I'm searching by the file name. I mention it as it's been out for many years (2008 at least), I can't imagine it being on a watch list.

    6. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why doesn't he just suicide-bomb the TSA line? Wouldn't that cause enough terror?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could use it to make thermite too, but the process of preparing from foil it wouldn't be practical on a plane - it needs to be finely powdered.

    8. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by kasperd · · Score: 2

      Why doesn't he just suicide-bomb the TSA line? Wouldn't that cause enough terror?

      In Russia suicide terrorists bomb airports.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    9. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      How about nails? It'd be pretty easy to use common nails to make caltops (basically two nails bent and welded or twisted together so that a pointy side is always facing up). Then the terrists could throw those onto busy freeways, causing big pile-ups and choking our transit arteries.

      Are they going to ban nails now?

    10. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      They can't ban nails, but they may need to be individually serial numbered, stored in locked containers, and their final driving place recorded. Of course, this only works if we institute licenses for the purchase and possession of nails.

      Obviously, of course, there are many nails out there in middle class white suburban homes, so when found in such places, we can simply warn people about them. However, we know urban minorities have no excuse to have any at home, so we can nail them to the wall!

      Gotta stay safe you know.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

      I've been saying for a decade now that the very fact that there hasn't been a bombing of a security checkpoint line demonstrates that there certainly isn't a legion of crazed bombers trying to take down the country. Hit one security line and you'll bring American passenger travel to a screaming halt for a few days. Hit two lines and you'll shut it down for weeks. We'll piss ourselves trying to figure out how to check people for bombs before getting to the checkpoint. Don't just hit big, juicy targets like LAX and JFK -- hit a few random podunk airports too, places that no one would bother to bomb. Do that enough times so that the TSA can't effectively concentrate their defenses around the next likely target. The goal of terrorism isn't bodies, it's terror. A lower body count can be more effective if you're showing people that they can't expect to be safe anywhere.

      And until this starts happening, let's just admit that the TSA is a bunch of hokum and get back to some semblance of sanity.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  3. Enough with the security theater! by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

    Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

    Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost
    Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Enough with the security theater! by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.

    2. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It can't just be the media though, as the media has been lambasting the TSA as too expensive for negligible effect for quite some time now.

      I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Enough with the security theater! by CaptQuark · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This has been an option since 2003. The TSA was put into place after 9/11 but airports were supposed to be allowed to return to private screening after two years. New legislation passed last year supposedly makes it easier to replace TSA agents with private contractors although few airports have done so.

      Currently sixteen airports use private contractors instead of TSA agents. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03...

      ~~

    4. Re:Enough with the security theater! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      That's not really the same thing. Airports can hire their own screening personnel, but they still "have to follow T.S.A. guidelines and fall under its supervision". All the policy decisions continue to be made by the TSA; the only difference is that they are carried out by private contractors rather than federal employees.

      The GP's proposal was to leave all the security decisions up to the airlines, which would assume full liability in the event of a breach. The TSA wouldn't be involved at any point in the process.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    5. Re:Enough with the security theater! by captainpanic · · Score: 2

      Yes, but while it is a good idea, it could also be political suicide. If a politician is the reason that the security/safety rules became more reasonable, and if an accident happens soon after (no matter how unlikely), that will immediately be blamed on that politician.

      While it is incredibly annoying (and expensive!) to have these TSA screenings, it is better for the political careers of all those in charge to steer away from the topic, or to make the rules even more strict. Better safe than sorry.

      Btw, in reply to the OP: many citizens demand risk avoidance, not risk management. Screw the costs - the costs are paid by someone else (they think).

    6. Re:Enough with the security theater! by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Actually, they have to receive permission from the TSA to do so. As soon as it appeared that there was going to be a trend of many airports requesting permission the TSA suspended the ability to ask for permission to "study" the issue. Since that point it's been impossible for any airport to request permission for private screening. Until Congress removes the requirement that the TSA must approve an airport switching to private screening I can guarantee they won't approve anyone switching regardless of the reason.

  4. They don't care about real dangerous things by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Story: I walked into the Detroit airport a couple years ago while wearing the Video Coat. The nice TSA people marked my entire family's boarding passes SSSS. They inspected us thoroughly, including the eight 5 AH Chinese LiPo battery packs used to power the coat. These are the no-protection-board version with the factory connectors that let you plug two batteries together like BIG 9V batteries. They will happily put out 100 amps.

    Had we been 'the type', we could have started four fires in the cabin that day.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  5. This is why I take the train now by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Within the US you can take Amtrak. (No "c" in "Amtrak".)

    Don't believe the prices on the Amtrak website. It's a rather lo-budge operation, so they don't have advance purchase pricing available from the site. The site does work correctly for determining where and when you can go, but then go down to the station for your ticket purchase. If you purchase so much as one day in advance, quite likely you can get a discount.

    For example, last I checked, to fly one-way between San Jose, California and Portland, Oregon is about $250. Last Summer I took the Coast Starlight from Diridon Station in San Jose to Union Station in Portland, one day advance purchase for about $80.00.

    My Aunt just recently paid about $250.00 for a round-trip from Spokane, Washington to Portland. With two-week advance purchase, that's $86.00 on Amtrack.

    The trains don't go everywhere they really need to, so there is some chance you'll make part of your trip on an Amtrak bus. That was the case when I travelled from LA to San Jose. Rather oddly, I took a bus from the HUGE train station in downtown LA to Bakersfield, then the train from there to San Jose. However the busses are quite nice.

    Their only "security" is that they want to see your ID when you purchase a ticket. You don't need to show ID when you board the train. There is no X-Ray, no metal detector.

    The seats are spacious, there are lots of 110 VAC power sockets. Most but not all trains have WiFi, however the train itself gets onine via a 3G connection that's shared by the whole train, so they limit downloads to 10 MB and do not permit streaming video at all.

    Because 3G is a cell phone protocol, you can only get online when the train is within range of a cell tower. Sometimes the trains are way out in the sticks so you cannot get online.

    My only gripe is that the food is scanty and very expensive, although it is quite tasty. Pack some sandwiches.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
    1. Re:This is why I take the train now by stoploss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).

      $1100+, one way, from the middle of the country (say, Omaha) to an endpoint on a different route (say, Miami). Takes about 3 full days to get there, if you're lucky enough to avoid being hit with a 12+ hour stopover someplace. Yes, that price includes roomettes, but like I said: who wants to spend three solid days (again, one way) confined & sleeping in a coach seat? BTW, this is the advance price.

      It would be faster, cheaper, and more relaxing to drive, even if one had to rent a vehicle. Oh, and you can leave whenever you want and stop wherever you want, too.

      Passenger rail in this country is a half-baked solution in search of a problem. This makes me sad, because I would prefer to use rail in order to avoid the TSA. I just can't take a week of additional travel time to do it.

    2. Re:This is why I take the train now by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      The cross-country trains in Sweden are not bad at all. I usually go in first class, which includes a decent plate lunch (well, it tends to run to köttbullar, potatismos, lingon, which isn't all that exciting, but it's not likely to be messed up, either) and all the free fruit, cakes, and coffee/tea I want. It also includes wifi, which works quite well and is not noticeably throttled or otherwise limited.

      An additional bonus is that the toilets in first tend to remain much cleaner for much longer. (I am not that fussy... but prefer not to have to wade through someone else's pee, thanks.)

      And you go direct from downtown Stockholm to downtown $destination_city. In theory, you can fly from Stockholm to Malmö or Copenhagen in less than an hour. In practise--by the time I get all the way out to Arlanda airport (at least an hour from my part of the city), get through checkin/security/boarding/flying/landing/baggage pickup and get from Kastrup (airport) into the downtown of whichever city I'm going to (they face one another across the Øresund, BTW)... well... it seems I've not saved any time or hassle at all by flying. But I have spent more money than I would have for a train ticket.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:This is why I take the train now by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Last I heard, they tried this at some Amtrak stations and were ejected by Amtrak Police.

  6. It's crap like this .... by thephydes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That makes me wonder why I would ever want to visit the USA. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful places to go to and enjoy, but why would I want a semi-educated thug feeling me up and confiscating shit because I might be a bomber. Come to think of it I'm probably on the "fuck this guy over" list because of this and similar comments on other forums. Fuck you NSA, you've cost your country a potential tourist spending several thousand dollars travelling, eating, drinking, visiting places .........

    1. Re:It's crap like this .... by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly though, most european airports are exactly the same. I'm a pilot, and I've actually seen them take a bottle of after shave from a captain, not even apologising for their idiocy, as if it was the most normal and logical thing in the world. Never mind the giant crash axe behind the first officer's seat, we must not allow them to bring nail clippers on board! Back when I was flying private jets, they wanted to pass my passengers' cat through the X-ray machine. They might try to hijack their own private plane with a weapon hidden in the plastic cat container! We had to take the cat out, fortunately it didn't run away or they would no doubt have closed the airport. Idiots.

    2. Re:It's crap like this .... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're talking about the TSA, not the NSA. Do try to keep up.

      Somehow, with your hostile attitude, I think you made the decision quite a long time ago to never visit America. And yet you feel the need to get up and talk shit in front of everyone, acting like this is the last straw that cost America a shit-ton of money. Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people. But I have found in my life that closed-minded bigots will not do this, and instead spend time bitching and moaning to others like themselves. Like the people who modded you +5 Insightful.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:It's crap like this .... by martas · · Score: 2

      We're talking about the TSA, not the NSA. Do try to keep up.

      The TSA is (typically) not the one putting people on no-fly lists or "requires additional probing" lists, that's the intelligence agencies. Keep up yourself.

      Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people.

      A lot of good it does him when he ends up with all his possessions confiscated, sitting in some detention area for days praying that they'll let him go back home soon. If you weren't so hyper-sensitive (the reasons for which I can only speculate on), you may have noticed OP wasn't saying anything about Americans, only your government.

      --
      weinersmith
  7. Lousy argumentation by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

    The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

    The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

    Both statements are true. And totally irrelevant.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your sprinklers, smoke detectors, and airbags don't cost billions per year and have been proven to work in other cases in the past.

    2. Re:Lousy argumentation by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF?

      All the "TSA's" of the world have cought exactly zero terrorists.
      Can you make same claim about sprinklers, smoke detectors, insurances, airbags? Even USA wide? Even in your city? Your block?

    3. Re:Lousy argumentation by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No your counter argument is incorrect. All of those things are there to protect you from a statistical existent risk. Perhaps your smoke detector has never detected smoke but there are many houses and some have caught fire. The same for air bags we know lots people of car accidents every day and those airbags deployed saving lives. Thing is there lots of flights every day to the TSA is never caught a terrorist. I really only been a handful of incense in the last decade all them gotten past the TSA. Which demonstrates the TSA is both ineffective as a detective control and unneeded as the statistical risk is vanishingly small.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Lousy argumentation by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your smoke alarm, sprinkler system, seat belts, airbags, helmets, life insurance, condoms, life preserver, safety vest, and Depends have not violated anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.

      I bet your Depends have kept your bed dry.

      THIS is the question you need to ponder, "Has the U.S. government violated our rights in the name of (perceived) safety?"

    5. Re:Lousy argumentation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      How much do your sprinkler, your fire detectors, your insurance, your helmets or your airbags inconvenience you, how much do they cost every month, how much of an invasion in your privacy are they?

      Do I really have to point out the difference between the TSA and your examples? These things not only proved that they worked (something the TSA still has to do), their cost/benefit ratio is also much more favorable. That smoke detector is sitting there quietly and doesn't bother you in the least way, so NOT using it would be quite dumb. Even if the chance that it can detect a fire and warn you was minimal (and actually it's petty high), it doesn't really bother you so why not use it? The airbag is even invisible and "not there" until you need it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Lousy argumentation by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

      The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke.

      And that's where your analogy just crashed and burned. Has there been a fire at your office?

      There's been a shoe bomber. There's been Smokey the Terrorist who set his underwear on fire (yeah, not from here, but we're spreading our stupidity around the globe).

      See, we've had the fires, it's just that our "smoke detector" - the one that costs us billions of dollars while violating our rights, that smoke detector - has demonstrably failed. While they were patting down old ladies and little kids in wheel chairs Richard Reid walked right through.

      So, no, not only does it violate our rights, clog up airports, create a far larger security problem (ever see video of the Russian airport security line being bombed?) it has failed to catch at least one terrorist of which we are aware. And other airports using these same stupid policies around the world have likewise failed to catch actual terrorists.

      This isn't the least bit surprising to anybody paying attention. Old white ladies don't bomb airplanes, and it's highly unlikely (to the point that it can be safely ignored) that an old Muslim lady would do the same. And, yeah, I know, "white" is a race and "Muslim" is a religion. There are a total of about 5 old white Muslim ladies on the planet. And they wouldn't bomb a plane, either.

      So the simple fact is that the TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist, and they've actually failed to detect an actual terrorist. It's not because their policies work - quite the contrary it's because bombing a plane is difficult on a number of levels and very very few people care to do it. Combine that with people in the air who will "take care of business" (which started on 9/11/2001) and the chance of someone pulling off a successful terrorist attack on a plane is essentially nil. That's what happened to the shoe bomber. And the last hijacking that I'm aware of ended when the plane landed and the police stormed it and saved the "hijacker" from the rest of the passengers who were beating him to death.

      Hell, look at what happened over Shanksville, PA, on 9/11. The poor fool who had the job of "guarding the passengers" was tortured with scalding water and beaten - likely to death. He's lucky I wasn't on the plane.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    7. Re:Lousy argumentation by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

      You're putting up a straw man. He said that they "have not caught a single terrorist". You can catch terrorists without having a terrorist attack.

      Both statements are true. And totally irrelevant.

      They are quite relevant: the fact that the TSA hasn't even caught a significant number of potential terrorists suggests that the threat is, in fact, low.

    8. Re:Lousy argumentation by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      While your sprinkler system might not have put out a fire, other ones have. While your smoke detector hasn't detected smoke, others have. Same for life insurance, airbags, and helmets. Just because yours haven't been "put to the test" doesn't mean others haven't.

      The equivalent with the TSA would be if the TSA at my local airport has never caught a terrorist but TSA agents in Laguardia, LAX, or some other airport did. However, no TSA agent has *EVER* caught a terrorist. You could place "special rocks that ward off terrorists" at airports and be just as effective as the TSA confiscating toothpaste and aluminum foil. Better yet, roll airport security back to pre-911 levels. You'll still catch "guy trying to bring loaded gun on board" (at least as often as they catch those guys now) but will leave "traveler just trying to bring a sandwich to eat on the flight" alone.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Lousy argumentation by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      The devices you mention have a 1:100 chance of needing to operate in a 25-year timeframe for a single instance, roughly. They each add less than 1% to the cost of doing business.

      The TSA installation for a single checkpoint process on average 30,000 passengers per year, and has an annual operating cost of (roughly) $600,000, or say $40/round-trip ticket. That is closer to 10% average airfare. It's probability of detecting a "terrorist" (let's go ahead and take a liberal interpretation of the term to include anyone intending to do harm with a weapon on a plane that cannot be detected by a simple metal detector) is about 1:400,000,000,000. (The pre 9/11 checkpoints would have had an annual operating cost closer to $150,000 in fairness.). There is also significant economic cost due to the silly restrictions they create, but not sure how to capture that.

      So, you have a substantial cost for no significant improvement in security delivered. Sounds like security theater to me.

    10. Re:Lousy argumentation by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

      The problem is that the above statement is a bare faced lie.

      The TSA's method of preventing terrorism is to stop terrorists before they board a plane with a weapon. The terrorist's goal is to get weapons past the TSA checks and onto the plane.

      The Richard Reid successfully carried bombs onto a plane in his shoes. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully carried a bomb onto an airplane in his underwear. The TSA failed to stop them.

      The fact that they were stopped by passengers afterwards does not change the fact that the TSA failed to stop terrorists.

      And let's not forget the all the times that loaded guns, fake bombs that are supposed to be found and other contraband have been missed by the TSA.

      Anyone who is arguing that the TSA is a success is either seriously deluded or lying.

  8. Re:Oh for Pete's sake! by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    My crystal ball is working and I can predict your future:

    You will be talking to a Federal Law Enforcement agent very soon

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  9. Think... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2

    Let me make a quick edit here...

    "...and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules."

    ...and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, they won't be on airlines...

    Unless you have a disconnected, completely stupid terrorist, they will not use the same mechanism after it has been substantially controlled. They'll just move on to the next thing.