Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are the TSA's New Electronic Device Screenings Necessary?

Posted by samzenpus on from the obvious-answer-is-obvious dept.

First time accepted submitter Amanda Parker writes In July the US warned of a terrorism risk which led countries, such as France and the UK, to step up their security screening for flights to the US. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson directed the TSA to implement enhanced security measures. In his statement on 6 July, Johnson warned that passengers could also be asked to "power up some devices, including cell phones" and stated that "powerless devices will not be permitted on board the aircraft". In light of the US Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) recent tightening of airport security to include stricter screening of electronic devices, is the TSA right to be cautious or have its actions caused unnecessary hassle for passengers?

128 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Betteridge says by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...no.

    I'm surprise they still bother to pretend that all that homeland 'security' theatre has anything to do with security.

    1. Re:Betteridge says by cavreader · · Score: 2

      It's not about security. It's always been about covering the airlines and government asses. People complain about the security procedures but if someone was able to hijack or blowup a plane the very same complainers would be howling about not having enough security to prevent such an attack. Even before 9/11 airline security was adequate and fairly reasonable. The 9/11 hijackers didn't smuggle guns or explosives onto their target planes. They bluffed using box cutters and threats about having a bomb. If someone was to try the same thing today there would be race by the passengers to see who could get the first punch in.

    2. Re:Betteridge says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I flew home for nearly 15 years to visit my family. I live a 20 hour drive away. This year I am driving it again. I am fed up with this shit.

      They cram us in like cattle then treat us as criminals. Even if you fly 'first class' they can just randomly decide not to put your luggage on the plane and you still go thru all this crap. Then turn around and nickel and dime you over a small swig of a beverage and some stale pretzels.

      Flying now sucks more ass than driving for 20 hours. The terrorists won. I am tired of having my rights violated for the possibility of someone maybe doing something.

    3. Re:Betteridge says by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Covering asses? I hope you are right but the increased militarization of police forces and training the DHS, ATF, CIA, FBI, and every other government agency that people that are liberty minded are highly suspect as "terrorists" and those same government agencies stockpiling 2Billion rounds of ammo and of course the government continuing to spy on everyone locally makes me think of more nefarious purposes.

      The old saying "Hope for the best but plan for the worst." should be forefront in everyone's mind today.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Betteridge says by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I remember when Americans thought pre-WWII German security was outrageous. Papieren, bitte (Papers, please)!

      Americans were proud that they could go anywhere they wanted without being stopped and harassed or even asked who they were, and made fun of those not so lucky.

      These days, if Americans were only asked for papers, they would be confused.
      It has become a land of chickenshit cowards who shiver in fear, and behave like cattle being prodded.

      No, the terrorists have not won, but we have lost far more than what the terrorists could have hoped for: Our hearts.

    5. Re:Betteridge says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... behave like cattle being prodded.

      You're wrong. If one prods a cow too quickly, it turns and attacks. Electrified prods force the cow to move away and it just keeps going. The cow never thinks the assault is beneficial.

    6. Re:Betteridge says by davester666 · · Score: 1

      just like the old ones.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Betteridge says by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So the US gov't is planning for the day that their entire population [minus the US gov't/military/police] will become terrorists?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Betteridge says by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      You don't have to drive it, go to your local municipal airport. You can get a short flight like that for a little more than the airlines charge and if you get to know some of the pilots you can get the flight for the cost of the fuel. You can also ask around, I bet you know someone or someone who knows someone with a pilots license. You could even get your own and just rent the plane, it is not hard.

      The small municipal airports dont have all the BS security, the flights tend to be shorter as there is no waiting in line. In most cases it is you and the pilot on the plane so no crowds. That's assuming you don't have an issue riding in a small prop plane.

    9. Re:Betteridge says by laird · · Score: 1

      "People complain about the security procedures but if someone was able to hijack or blowup a plane the very same complainers would be howling about not having enough security"

      People aren't complaining about security, they're complaining about things that don't improve security, but which do make travel an absurd hassle. Taking our shoes off, not carrying liquids, etc., don't prevent any significant threats. Both measures would detect attempted attacks that were both detected and stopped other ways when they were attempted, and both of which would have failed even if they'd not been stopped - the "liquid explosives" take hours to process during which time the attacker would have to be locked in the bathroom doing chemistry with the liquids, and the shoe bomb and the underwear bomb would have badly injured the attacker but not destroyed the plane.

      Things that really improve security are measures that countries that take air travel security seriously take, with Israel the obvious example. A good start would be actually putting an Air Marshall on every flight, and to actually understand who the fliers are and interrogate anyone suspicious, which require real effort - they'd have to train tens of thousands of agents to put one on each flight daily. They likely have under 5,000 now, to cover 87K flights a day, so odds are there's no Air Marshal on any given flight. And there aren't trained detectives talking to fliers to pick out suspicious people - there are checklists given to "lowest cost bid" contractors. But they'd rather talk about security than do anything difficult or expensive, so Air Marshals are out. And, amazingly enough, they've been _cutting_ the number of Air Marshals.

      So instead they funnel money into expensive equipment of marginal value (but profits for vendors, and lowest-cost-bid "agents" can operate them). So we get no security, but we get hassles.

      The most absurd part is that the people working in "security" are all following orders, and appear to think that what they're doing improves security somehow.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    10. Re:Betteridge says by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      a 20 hour drive is halfway across the country. LA to Houston is roughly 1500 miles and google maps puts it at 21 hours.

      1500 miles, assuming 25 mpg, at 2.50$ a gallon is 150$.

      meanwhile, it's a 3 hour flight, assuming 5 hours total each way... I just found a flight on southwest for 200$ pre tax round trip.

      you're literally saying your going rate is -3.00$ per hour. you're paying more money for spending more time.

      the terrorists haven't won, you're just a moron.

    11. Re:Betteridge says by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Im surprised anyone bothered to respond to this troll of a submission.

      What, are they expecting someone on slashdot to say "gee, yes, theyre necessary!"

    12. Re:Betteridge says by rocco.rizzo · · Score: 1

      That is EXACTLY what they are planning for. They don't want an "Arab Spring," or another Occupy Wall Street type of thing going on. You can see the militarization of police when people came out against the shootings in Missouri and New York. Our police have become the Gestapo of the US. The military are the next step. All this over the past thirty or so years. I am glad that I probably will not be alive in thirty years to see this. (On the off chance that I should be alive, I plan to get the hell out of the Police States of America within the next couple of years) Even today, there are military patrolling Grand Central and Penn Stations in New York City on a daily basis. Yes they are fewer than they were after the 9/11 inside job, but they are still there. The news media is partially at fault as well, because for the most part, they are on the side of the powers that be, because they ARE the powers that be. Hell, they bought many lawmakers with their lobbying money, and hidden campaign contributions. They mostly show the part that these powers that be want them to show. (And don't tell me that there is a massive liberal media in the US, because if there was, they would be calling for an end to capitalism, and the current oligarchy that is in place in the US.)

    13. Re:Betteridge says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      3 hour flight? You didn't include: driving to the airport. Getting to the airport 2 hours early. Getting groped by the TSA, getting from the destination airport to your actual destination.

    14. Re:Betteridge says by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Even today, there are military patrolling Grand Central and Penn Stations in New York City on a daily basis.

      Yep, I've seen (and talked to) them too. Technically, they're National Guardsmen called up by the state governor (which is why the Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply) (also note that the NY state governor is a Democrat), but still that's military.

      However, every time I bring this up on an internet forum some moron says that I'm making it up.

    15. Re:Betteridge says by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think most people would be pleased with what the Israelis actually do for airline security, granted it is effective.

      Security starts outside the airport. First as you approach there are guards with machine guns that operate a check point they stop your vehicle take a peak inside and wave you through. At this point you now will enter the airport grounds and proceed on a fairly long drive to the actual terminal with lots of cameras. As you walk in there are more guards with machine guns just watching.

      Upon entry you will have to have your documents out and ready to show to an Israeli security official and hopefully you had some entity of importance sponsor your trip and provide certified exit paperwork otherwise the quick 5 questions plus verification number you were given and passport check turns into a longer interview. All this time you still have all your crap. After this you go and see the wonderful people at the x-ray machine and send your checked luggage through. If there is a question you pick up your luggage carry it over to a secure area and the nice security people make you unpack your bag with the issue and you answer their questions. If there is no issue or once done with further screening they apply the their stickers and you proceed to the ticketing counter where they ask you a few more questions, take your checked bags and give you your tickets.

      Now you get to send all your carry on crap through the X-ray machine and you get to walk through a metal detector. They are very insistent that you leave your shoes on even if they are steel toe boots. If you trip the metal detector let them know what you have that is metallic and they wand and pat you down. If you have steel toe boots they wand you and then make you go and get a foot X-ray. At this point you still need to go through passport control where they will again ask you a few more questions. Finally after all that you get to go eat some crappy food in their terminal and go visit the tax rebate office there before you begin to board the plane. When boarding begins they open everyone's carry on luggage and search through it, sometimes if it is really a mess (the women with the suitcase of a purse with 15lbs of trash in it) they dump it all out on the table.

      This also completely ignores the paperwork that you have to fill out to go there but I haven't had to do that since I have only traveled for work. The exit paperwork that your important sponsor, if you are lucky enough to have one, has you fill out stamps and sends to the airport requests all details about your trip. Where you stayed, where you went, what you did, where you spend each night and day. If you go to an interesting place where you might have had contact with bad people expect more questions at the airport. It is cheap (compared to what we do), effective, invasive as hell, and requires having competent people who are willing to profile the hell out of people.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:Betteridge says by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I don't give it any specifics, that is what conspiracy theories are for. I only provide what we know is happening and has happened. You can find plenty of theories for why they are doing these things, but those are all just theories (Illuminati world control, economic collapse, and luciferian cults are probably the most common).

      We don't see the plans that are resulting in things like training guides proclaiming people that believe in the US Constitution are "terrorists", but we know those training guides exist. We know that last year DHS alone purchased 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, and that none of this ammo is really "training rounds" like they claimed because it's mostly hollow point and AP rounds. You don't train with either because they are more expensive than standard FMJ and Hollow points ruin your ability to do any scoring with a target. We know that even after the Snowden leaks the Government has ramped up domestic spying, not reduced domestic spying as the populace has been demanding. We know that programs giving MRAPs and other military gear (sniper rifles, assault weapons,grenade launchers, body armor) to local police forces has been going on for at least 5 years and picking up pace. We also know that military exercises over US cities have been increasing in frequency, even though Posse Comitatus should prevent it to begin with (and during the time I served in the US Army it did prevent exercises over civilian populations). To prevent looking like a douchebag and giving you a LMGT link for you, just search for "US Military exercises over cities" and you will find plenty.

      We also know that all of the spying and militarized police have been used to stifle dissent. See OWS, IRS targeting, etc.. We also know that we have seen massive increases in trying to take away the 2nd amendment rights for citizens. Fast and Furious was one example, but look at the rhetoric that follows every shooting event in the US. The whack job from California immediately comes to mind, where his dad's first statement was that he blamed politicians that support the 2nd amendment for the attack instead of his mentally ill kid for the shooting.

      I will say that what we know is a cause for concern. We all need to demand transparency in Government and start putting new people on ballots instead of accepting what someone chooses for us. This is the only way to break the oligarchy currently controlling US Politics.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:Betteridge says by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      "People complain about the security procedures but if someone was able to hijack or blowup a plane the very same complainers would be howling about not having enough security"

      No, different complainers would be howling.

      People aren't complaining about security, they're complaining about things that don't improve security, but which do make travel an absurd hassle.

      You have a point here, but I think it's overstated a bit. Speaking for myself, I would find the TSA procedures nearly as objectionable even if they did improve security -- because we're well into the land of diminishing returns with them, where the cost of the measures greatly exceeds the benefits that could be gained by them.

    18. Re:Betteridge says by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Unless both are large enough cities for decent public transit options, flying is more expensive than just the cost of the ticket.
      You forgot:
      Cost of long term parking at home airport (or taxi)
      Cost of car rental at destination airport (or surrender your freedom to travel at will upon arrival)

      Either way, there's also the stress of the entire flying process. Unless it's around a major holiday, a 2 day road trip can actually be relaxing.

      That said, what this country could benefit from is either high speed rail, or more slow speed auto carrying rail like Amtrak's Auto Train. I'm surprised that idea hasn't taken off for coast to coast travel, the only reason we even have that route is because it was a novel idea a legacy railroad had long before Amtrak was formed...

    19. Re:Betteridge says by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      cost of long term parking near me is roughly 8 dollars a day, a cab ride is going to run you what, 50 dollars? super shuttle less. I'm also not factoring in wear and tear on your vehicle, variable cost of eating out, number of passengers etc, hotel fare etc.

      i imagine for the average american the stress of flying pales in comparison to the stress of driving for 20 hours.

      the hidden costs of flying over driving would have to be roughly 300 dollars for there to be parity if you value your time at minimum wage.

      visiting family isn't typically a scenario where you're typically expected to have an independent mode of travel.

      I'm fine with a 3-4 hour drive, happy even over flying. but 20 hours is pushing it, and i like to drive places.

    20. Re:Betteridge says by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Oh don't worry, you are already designated as a terrorist. We are all already designated as terrorists by our government. Have you never read the memos to the police departments outlining how to spot one? It is almost impossible to not be on that list! Also you are really fucked if you happened to volunteer for the military, ex-military are at the fucking top of the list and deemed to be most dangerous.

  2. that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    being asked to power up devices is not new at all. I had to power up my laptop on a flight sometime Fall 1998.

  3. Redundant Question by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Are the TSA's New Electronic Device Screenings Necessary?"

    Reformat the question: "Is TSA Necessary?"

    Now you have a question worth asking.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Redundant Question by Livius · · Score: 1

      Is it really a different question? The answers certainly aren't different.

    2. Re:Redundant Question by bobbied · · Score: 1

      "Are the TSA's New Electronic Device Screenings Necessary?"

      Reformat the question: "Is TSA Necessary?"

      Why yes they ARE necessary. How else will we manage to keep the appearance of security on airplanes?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Redundant Question by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Lock the cockpit door. Nothing you can reasonably do is going to keep someone(s) well-trained in hand-to-hand combat from killing passengers, nor from someone with an implanted gut-bomb from destroying the plane. The only thing you can protect against is hijacking, and a good solid lock is all that's needed.

      If you want to keep up appearances have a scary-looking uniformed guard or two patrolling the cabin with a taser. They might even prove useful in a number of scenarios, unlike the TSA security checkpoints.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re: Redundant Question by apraetor · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not fly on a plane where the pilots are put in the position of needing to do anything besides actually fly the plane.

    5. Re:Redundant Question by coofercat · · Score: 1

      The cock pits of most planes isn't en-suite, so you'd have to fix that up too. I should imagine that external doors cost lots of money and add lots of weight, so less of them makes sense in that regard. Having a door for just 2-3 people to escape from makes that one an expensive door ;-)

    6. Re:Redundant Question by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Just view them as a useless WPA and you will see why having them is important.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:Redundant Question by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Lock the cockpit door.

      Even better, design planes so that there is no passage at all between the cockpit and the passenger section. The pilots enter the cockpit through an external door.

    8. Re:Redundant Question by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Why? External doors are complicated and expensive, essentially impossible to retrofit, and require that a separate boarding mechanism be trundled out for the pilots. Meanwhile it's easy enough to make a dead-boltable internal door sturdy enough that attackers will have an easier time going through the wall. Plus an internal door can be unbolted to allow the the pilots can receive medical attention or other emergency assistance should something go very wrong in flight - which it sometimes does. If it's just two people locked in an inaccessible room they, and possibly the plane, are screwed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  4. Already too much hassle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We used to holiday in the US and drop $$$ there every year but we don't go there anymore. Grabbing at my balls and pushing me into a microwave oven isn't really what I call laying out the welcome mat. But hey, it's your country.

    1. Re:Already too much hassle by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... Grabbing at my balls and pushing me into a microwave oven isn't really what I call laying out the welcome mat. But hey, it's your country.

      A turkey posting on Slashdot? Maybe you should just visit with vegetarians.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Already too much hassle by pigoon · · Score: 1

      Is it Friday already?

      ...you're welcome, btw.

    3. Re:Already too much hassle by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      If it was a turkey posting, he would be complaining about having bread shoved up his ass and then being put in a broiler.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Already too much hassle by davester666 · · Score: 1

      that only happens if they don't like the answers to their questions.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  5. Nope! by Zargg · · Score: 1

    Are any TSA screenings necessary?

    1. Re:Nope! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Are any TSA screenings necessary?

      Only in so far as they keep up the appearance of doing something about security.

      The real question is "Are any TSA screenings making us safer?"

      But the answer doesn't change..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Nope! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      TSA? No, but basic airport screenings (pre-911 levels) are useful. You don't want someone bringing a loaded gun on board. The only post-911 security improvement I'd keep would be the locked, reinforced cockpit doors (and the passenger mentality of "take down anyone who causes trouble" versus the pre-911 "cooperate and nobody gets hurt").

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Nope! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And air marshals have killed at least one harmless person (off his meds, scary, but harmless). Have they saved any lives?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. device boot up won't stop terrorists by kesuki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i have a postage sized mp3 player from china with a tf/sd card slot it boots up shows a menued screen and plays mp3s. a fake phone that has a plastic explosive bomb could easily use a 'fake' power on screen with menu and the menus would be browsable and possibly functional and also be a bomb.

    so no this doesn't make airplanes safer.

    --
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    1. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by bobbied · · Score: 1

      so no this doesn't make airplanes safer.

      Neither does the TSA. They really only provide the appearance of security.

      REAL security is something they simply cannot do. Partly because we won't let them for political correctness reasons and partly because they do stupid stuff like this.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It's not like you have to spend any thought on it - hell, I usually think of at least 2-3 ways to bypass every security system I pass just in the time it takes to get though it, and not just in airports. Public-facing security screning is a joke - providing even basic screening that can't be readily bypassed is so invasive nobody will stand for it, the best you can do is stop the idiots, and they're probably not a serious threat anyway.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by fuzza · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Likewise, I spent 2 weeks overseas with the MD of a gold mining company. Among many other tales, he asserted that it would be simple to replace up to 2/3 of a laptop battery with enough explosive to bring down a plane, and still have plenty of power left to operationally boot the laptop to Windows login if required...

      He also said that the scanners frequently pick up residue on his shoes from chemicals used on the mine site (eg arsenic, not to mention explosives), so someone could easily use that as an alibi.

      --
      Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
    4. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by davester666 · · Score: 2

      and that's just you physically carrying something aboard yourself.

      nevermind the thousands of pounds of illegal drugs shipped into the US via plane every year. not like any one of those packages could be a bomb instead.

      security is even worse for the back side of the airport [all the workers who load/unload/service the planes, and even the security guards, who are not paid that much, because profits].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Farmers are widely reported having a similar problem. Common fertilisers are chemically identical to an explosive, just packaged differently - that's why you can build fertiliser bombs.

    6. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by Beat+The+Odds · · Score: 1

      i have a postage sized mp3 player from china with a tf/sd card slot it boots up shows a menued screen and plays mp3s. a fake phone that has a plastic explosive bomb could easily use a 'fake' power on screen with menu and the menus would be browsable and possibly functional and also be a bomb.

      so no this doesn't make airplanes safer.

      It's just a little suspicious that your phone looks like this: http://midlifecrisishawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/motorola-first_cell_phone.jpg

    7. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i think the thing there is the laptop would still have to go through an x-ray. and you'd be looking at a battery with 2 different densities.

      it's two phase i guess, you want to build a functional bomb that looks like a laptop to an x-ray? doable, but probably not in a way that it'll also be functional as a laptop. you want to build one that is a functional bomb and also a functional laptop? probably not in a way that still looks innocuous in an x-ray machine.

      Also, terrorists aren't rocket scientists. If you've never seen it, i'd recommend watching 4 lions, excellent film. And from what i gather, not too far fetched a portrait. Apparently, a crew of terrorists were trying to blow up a US naval vessel in a harbor. They gathered up explosives, started loading it into a dingy they were going to use. Fortunately no one bothered to figure out how much the dingy could hold and it sank. they tried again at a later date and unfortunately successfully attacked the USS cole.

    8. Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I figured it should get an insightful. Only terrorists think of ways to make bombs :D

  7. US warned of a terrorism risk .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    "In July the US warned of a terrorism risk which led countries, such as"

    Look, it's just some bullshit to excuse the US neocons to impliment their hegemony in the middle east .. nothing to see here .. movinhg on ...

  8. ive been through the new check (France, CDG airpor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And its pretty shitty and annoying.

    They select suspicious targets only, so any single white male, or non-single (or single) person with colored skin who isn't American and pick them apart, in front of everyone else during boarding. (so, this is after regular customs).

    There's a lot of public shaming (you're explicitly a potential terrorist at this point) and discrimination (skin color and social status) in that process obviously.

    At this point, you are in a separate queue and everyone in that queue will get all his bags checked, devices opened and powered up - if they don't power up, you can choose to trash them or miss the flight. If by any sort of bad luck your expensive phone or laptop is not charged, this is terrible news.

    I asked (nicely and after I had been cleared) the officers why I was selected during that check and they told me that if I asked this question in the US I would be sent back to France so I'd better shut the hell up. I said ok and moved away, at which point another office came by saying they don't know how the selection is done (they get a file with names) and that he was sorry for the way its being handled (yay faith in humanity not entirely lost.. i guess).

    Final note: I'm a French white male, citizen, born in France, French parents (also born in France), etc. i.e. the check is not done based on your country or origin or citizenship.

  9. Re:TSA is unnecessary by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Sure TSA is necessary...

    It's not that they provide much security but we got to keep up appearances you know.. Makes rubes/sheep (I mean people) feel sooo much safer when they fly.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Waste of time... by jddeluxe · · Score: 1

    Seems like it would be relatively trivial to build something that could boot up to security's satisfaction that could be exploded later in a laptop form factor...

  11. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by faedle · · Score: 1

    Your assumption that being French isn't a reason for selection is dubious.

    US Customs officers at some border crossings are often more suspicious of US Citizens (based on behavior) than certain non-US citizens. I swear US Customs at the Interstate 5 crossing to Canada seem more suspicious of me than most Canadians crossing at the border checkpoint.

  12. (In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Riddle me this: Has the TSA ever done anything to actually make anything more secure? I've never seen an example of the TSA catch any attempt. I've heard of passengers catching people who made it through TSA screening. I've seen people carry pocket knives on aircraft after going through that retarded microwave scanner. I've heard of Air Marshals stoping people.

    Not once have I heard of the TSA doing anything useful.

    On the other hand, the terrorists pretty much did exactly what they said they were going to do, make our lives more difficult and made people feel less secure. Of course they didn't make people feel less secure, the TSA makes us feel less secure.

    Israel doesn't do the silly bullshit that the TSA does, yet they catch more people trying to blow them up and actually have a daily threat from their next door neighbors. Of course they also care more about being effective than security theatre to make certain friends of politicians rich or bullshit faux political correctness. They do intelligent profiling, and no that doesn't just mean go after the guys with brown skin, for obvious reasons.

    If I can get enough explosive or poison into an iPhone to be effective, making the screen light up isn't going to be that difficult. A laptop? Give me a break, trivial to fake.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      TSA is a jobs program for those who wouldn't be hired for any other jobs.. thus they get all the thieves, perverts and power-trippers, since being in the TSA gives the power-tripper a channel to exert his "power" over others. Not to mention the thief, who arranges to get on the TSA team that inspects luggage.. Perfect job for him... Then theres the pervert, who arranges to get on the team that watches the nude-scanner... After a day doing that, he can go home and get his jollies off...

      One of the most worthless TLA government agencies, right close behind the IRS....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    2. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by apraetor · · Score: 1

      Yea, El Al flights are safe; they also have missile countermeasures packages on their aircraft. Safe, sure.. but have you seen their ticket prices?

    3. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Since the formation of the TSA, how many US planes have been hijacked? None! It's obviously a huge success and worth every penny and minute of lost time.

      How many attempted hijackings were foiled? Also zero.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by lsllll · · Score: 2

      Well, you've just described the definition of terrorism. It is there so it can terrorize people and make life more difficult. Al Qaeda won. Not because they killed 3000 people, but because they successfully rearranged the lives of Americans and most of the rest of the World, all for the worst. Many people (Muslim and not) suffered because of their act, many people will continue to suffer. We lost and we continue to lose, every day, via these bullshit tactics by TSA, the CIA, the FBI, and the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court. All of our rights are being stripped away one bit at a time. I am an immigrant and this is not what I signed up for.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    5. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by gibbsjoh · · Score: 1

      As someone who grew up in an Arab country still technically at war with Israel, and with a passport filled with Arabic stamps, I had a very courteous experience with El Al security both at LTN and TLV. Maybe it's because I've flown in and our of JED (and RUH) 50+ times, and I'm used to Saudi security, I didn't find the folks at Ben Gurion too bad at all. Always very polite.

      The story above sounds a bit fishy as well - a little bit too horrible for an international travel experience.

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    6. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      In the case of Israel, there is an actual, ongoing threat. If you have security theatre there, it *will* be compromised and the politicians *will* be taken to task for not implementing real security.

      In the US, there isn't a big actual threat of terrorism. Yes, we have an attempt every now and then but the actual threat level is very low. However politicians want to 1) cover their rears and 2) award juicy contracts to companies that lobby them. So we get fancy new machines that aren't really effective but help the politicians say "I fought terrorism" during their re-election campaigns. Win-Win for the politicians and companies. Lose-lose for us and actual security.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      A better question would be how many attempts has the TSA stopped? Keep in mind that the TSA and their regulations (apply to inbound international flights) didn't stop the shoe or underwear bombers but the passengers. So by my count they are sitting at about a -2.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      They are polite but they are very through and do their job well. I have never had a problem with Israeli security and find entering their country to be easier than reentry to my home country of the USA. It has always been a fairly quick trip from entry to the Ben Gurion airport to the main terminal but they have lots of quick checks. I have had a coworker who got the 3rd degree because he is usually an overly quiet guy who is honest to a fault. His mistake was on the have you had you bags under your sight since you packed them? He responded no because they were in the trunk of our driver's vehicle. This is a sure way to get additional questioning. Even when their X-ray machine had problem scanning my camera bag (metal chassis SLR with lots of metal bodied lenses) it was a simple matter of showing them it was a camera and answering their questions about it like where did I get it, when did I get it, does it take really take better pictures than a digital camera? After which they sent me on my way.

      From the GP's recount it sounds like their problem was they wanted to leave their shit at the airport and leave which from my experience is the exact opposite of what you are suppose to do there. The times I was there they had you haul your crap around for as long as possible outside of the secure area probably in hopes that if it was going to blow up it would just blow your dumb ass up. Add in that they are watching and if you start looking a bit stressed or paranoid they can spot the terrorist.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    9. Re:(In that Counter Strike voice) Terrorists Win by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Since the formation of the TSA, how many US planes have been hijacked? None! It's obviously a huge success and worth every penny and minute of lost time.

      That's not because of the TSA, it's because I started carrying a magic pebble.

  13. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    The US government isn't about dignity. It might have been, but it's no longer.

    FWIW, I've had the Canadians and the Germans ask me to turn on devices. They all worked, of course, so this technique isn't unique, and I don't think it's particularly productive, either.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  14. The TSA said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who would believe a word the government says anyway?

  15. Even the TSA knows they've become a joke by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    Last flight I took out of LAX, they were randomly handing out "expedited security" slips to people. Keep your shoes on, laptops can stay in bags, no x-rays or pat-downs, etc. and I was through in about 30 seconds. I even found out after I went through the metal detector that I had left keys in my pocket and my belt on.

    Basically, it was like security used to be, pre-9/11. It was marvelous.

    1. Re:Even the TSA knows they've become a joke by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      That happened to me in October flying out of BWI (no slip, they just directed me to a different line). I think they were pilot-testing this:

      http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-prechec...

      Note that there is a fee involved. The sad thing is, if I flew more often than 3-4 times a year I might be tempted to pay.

  16. ok..what if i don't have one? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    no laptop, no tablet, no e-reader, no smartphone, and no dumb phone. "what are you hiding, sir?"

    1. Re:ok..what if i don't have one? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Then a person is of more interest as they know all devices face to risk of been cloned or having globally unique numbers recorded.
      Buy an old laptop, replace the storage, load in Linux. Add some productivity applications.
      Find a phone that is so cheap it can really only make a voice call and has few other functions.
      The reason to ask for a power on is so that consumer grade devices look for a network.
      A lot of unique numbers and other device details are sent out or can be requested by local networks.
      That device is then recorded as been linked to travel documents and biometric data.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:ok..what if i don't have one? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      tl;dr: only carry burners (burner phones, burner laptops, burner audio players).

      gotcha.

      done and done.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:ok..what if i don't have one? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That will not help if the device is cloned or out of sight for a while.
      Or have free services in the area "How the NSA, GCHQ and crooks can hack mobile apps" (30 Jan 14) http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:ok..what if i don't have one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      errr yes it will?

      How can those free services work without your wifi or 3g when in Airplane mode?
      How do you think it is useful for them to have you beacon your device, if they have already hacked it and have access enough to make you beacon.

      How does cloning your device help them link you to the device that you just turned on?
      pro tip: they make you turn it on, they don't take it to a clean room and hack it (or insert any USBs) that you cant see

      In what way is this different from a standard baggage check when you go through customs? (remember; this is international flights into the USA, if they wanted to search your bags they'd do it on your way in, they wouldn't do it on your way out in france).

      Christ you tinfoilers are fucking stupid. Airplane mode + disabled wifi = safe device to turn on and they don't get any free info.
      Worreid about them cloning your sim card? take the sim card out and store it somewhere not electronic (your wallet? BUT OH NOES THEY MIGHT PICK POCKET YOU, CLONE YOUR SIM CARD, THEN REVERSE PICK POCKET YOU AND YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!!! DAMN THOSE CIA).

      Pro pro tip: If they wanted to do this to you; they would do it without making you turn it on in front of them, they would wait for you to leave your hotel room for dinner, or take a shower and break into your hotel room and do all this shit without you even seeing them.

      If you are going to come up with some conspiracy nut shit, at least make the conspirators sound like the most fucking resourceful powerful country in the world instead of the crew from oceans eleven or some shit.

  17. TSA Has Been Useless Since The Beginning by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is the TSA right to be cautious or have its actions caused unnecessary hassle for passengers?

    The TSA has done about ten billion screenings since its inception. They have caught zero terrorists. They have missed three. All three failed, for reasons completely unrelated to TSA. TSA screenings are ineffective and unnecessary. This has been apparent for years, this story is just one more bit of security theater. TSA panders to the terror that is the terrorists' only weapon when we should be fighting it.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:TSA Has Been Useless Since The Beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now now, they've made BILLIONS of dollars for somebody. That can't possibly be useless!

    2. Re:TSA Has Been Useless Since The Beginning by apraetor · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of the TSA, but: how can we quantify the effect of simply having *some form* of security to deter the less-suicidal ones?

    3. Re:TSA Has Been Useless Since The Beginning by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      They may have missed more than three. Who knows how many made it through security and then chickened out?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:TSA Has Been Useless Since The Beginning by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      how can we quantify the effect of simply having *some form* of security...?

      Brief aside; of course we should have some security. I'm only saying that the things TSA has done are generally both unnecessary and ineffective.

      quantify the effect of ... security to deter the less-suicidal ones?

      The way to measure the deterrent effect of a system is by looking at the risk in cases where that system is not in place. In the case of TSA, we can look at cases where the TSA has no deterrent effect and there isn't an analog agency or system. By looking at the probability of attacks that are not deterred by TSA, and comparing that to the probability of attacks in cases where TSA is in place, we can approximate the risk mitigation.

      So, for example, we have little or nothing like TSA to deter toxic gas attacks in crowded public spaces. AFAIK, the recent (and possibly accidental) chlorine gas release at the furry convention is the only case since the creation of TSA.

      Consider how much terrorism we experienced in the recent years prior to TSA, the level of terrorism in first world nations that don't have something like TSA, and the number of events in the US in areas that are not protected by TSA or a similar deterrent. Compare that to the three minor terrorist attempts that made it through TSA's watch, and their threat level. Even if you take the most pro-TSA estimates you reasonably could, I think we're talking about a deterrent effect that falls somewhere below the life saving benefit of "Don't Run Near The Pool" signs -- at a much higher cost in both dollars and liberty.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    5. Re:TSA Has Been Useless Since The Beginning by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We had some form of security before the TSA. We had searches that were reasonably successful in catching guns.

      Why do you think the 9/11 attackers were using box cutters? Because, with the pre-TSA security, that was about the best weapon they could get aboard. The only reason those hijackings worked was that the passengers were strongly advised to cooperate with hijackers back then. Nowadays, a few attackers with box cutters would be swarmed by passengers before they could accomplish anything.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. Re: TSA is unnecessary by Jaxim · · Score: 2

    Correction. Airport security is necessary but it doesn't have to be conducted by the TSA.

  19. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by bobbied · · Score: 1

    The TSA is about appearances so don't sweat it.

    IF they where actually about security, you can bet stuff like this would be not only common, but UNIVERSAL. This and MORE. But it is really complaints like this that turned TSA into a paper tiger. All the stories of cavity searching little girls and naked X-Ray machines has systematically taken ANY pretense of actually being able to provide security away from the TSA and why? For Political Correctness.... Oh no, you can't PROFILE! Oh no, You cannot do secondary pat downs on anybody, epically young girls, good looking women, or Grandma in the wheel chair. Don't get me started about the "naked X-Ray" scanner bit.

    No the TSA has been reduced to a joke, somewhere above the level of a mall-cop who looks all official with the badge, but about all he can really do is call the police while they sit on you.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  20. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    being asked to power up devices is not new at all. I had to power up my laptop on a flight sometime Fall 1998.

    Yea but after 9/11 and all the reviews of airport security the "power on your devices" thing was dropped because at the time all the experts said it was useless.

    And yet here we are today.... I'm just waiting for the day when you have to ship all your luggage a day ahead of travel and fly in paper hospital gowns.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  21. Dead Laptop? by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Great. Your laptop dies, and won't boot. Now what?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Dead Laptop? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Then they bring in the bomb disposal robot to blow it up?

  22. Absolutely. by man_ls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once everyone is used to this, they'll introduce "limited content inspections" to ensure devices don't contain "Terrorist materials" before boarding. Any device which the passenger refuses to unlock and hand over for inspection won't be permitted to fly.

  23. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    And yet here we are today.... I'm just waiting for the day when you have to ship all your luggage a day ahead of travel and fly in paper hospital gowns.

    With the charges that airlines are imposing on baggage, it's often cheaper to mail your stuff than to fly with it.

    Paper hospital gowns might be a while.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  24. Won't Last by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    I remember when this was fairly common in the late 90s. It got dropped, because it slowed the line to a crawl. "Turn it on" meant waiting for Windows and the usual overhead of HP or Dell bloatware to load before you could shut it off. Few people would hibernate one of those things, because it usually locked up and/or crashed. These days, I get pre-check about 75% of the time, and never even open my computer bag.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  25. T SS A by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    The TSA's very EXISTANCE is an unnecessary inconvenience on ALL travelers.

  26. It's the economy stupid. by pigoon · · Score: 1

    Let's see...
    CIA, FBI, NSA, HLS, US Marshals, DEA, ATF, INTERPOL, NDIC...
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the TSA is redundant.

    Here's a table of just the law enforcement costs to tax payers...
    Law Enforcement Activities
    United States Marshals Service $2,668,000,000
    Federal Bureau of Investigation $8,347,000,000
    Drug Enforcement Administration $2,018,000,000
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives $1,201,000,000
    Federal Bureau of Prisons $6,894,000,000
    Interpol-Washington Office $32,000,000

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  27. Re: TSA is unnecessary by smaddox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sealing the cockpit is necessary. Random bomb sniffing dogs is a great idea. Pretty much all of the rest is extraneous.

  28. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by Cramer · · Score: 1

    Well, nearly useless. It does prevent one from filling the entire laptop full of C4 -- vs. just the spare battery bay.

  29. Where's that outlet? by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

    Is the TSA going to provide a power plug? 'Cause that's the only way my laptop is going to power up on command, it's hardly portable but for its size anymore.

  30. Domestic flying in Australia does it well. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Domestic flying in Australia is almost like catching a train. I often do flights from Brisbane to Sydney as a commute - down in the morning, back in the evening. I book online, and check-in online. Then on the day of the flight I usually arrive 40 minutes before departure time, walk in, throw my carry-on on the scanner conveyor pick it up the other side and be sat at the gate with 15 minutes to spare before the gate closes 20 minutes before departure. Total time from walking in the airport door to the gate, 5-7 minutes.

    When it comes to boarding I just hand the person at the gate my home printed boarding pass. Done. No ID required. No groping, no pat downs, no real queue. Worst case scenario is I time coming out of the xray process at the wrong time and get held up for another minute by the guy who swabs my bag for explosives residue.

    To be honest the only reason I give myself that much of a window to get there is because unlike trains they don't let you get on the next one if your miss yours.

    1. Re:Domestic flying in Australia does it well. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I flew from Perth to Brisbane last xmas with a desktop tower case PC plus a bunch of peripherals and other stuff in my checked luggage (it was part of a permanent move from Perth to QLD) and there was basically no security checks of my luggage at all (despite the fact that the cardboard boxes or their contents could easily have contained explosives). In the US on a similar domestic flight, I am sure my 2 cardboard boxes and suitcase would have been run through all sorts of scanning machines and possibly opened (they may have even removed the cover off the PC to inspect its inside).

      That said, I did learn just what a cross-country flight (and QANTAS baggage handlers) can do to a desktop PC when the only thing protecting it from damage is a layer of bubble wrap and a cardboard moving box...

    2. Re:Domestic flying in Australia does it well. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      The checked luggage goes through a screening process between the drop off point and being loaded on the plane. So they would have been able to see exactly what was inside it. Every piece of checked luggage goes through that screening process. That is the thing I don't understand about the US system. Real security happens in the background, not in front of people. Once a bag goes on the conveyor it is easily controlled and inspected.

      As for transporting a pc - cases are fairly susceptible to crush damage and they dent easily. The fact they are hollow makes it even worse. That is why the boxes that the cases come in have so much foam in them. When it comes to loading bags onto a plane it is a case of stack them deep stack them fast.

      Back in 2004 I was doing a motorcycle camping trip around europe with my wife. I crashed the bike in Croatia and my wife got a little hurt. So she flew from Split back to London and I rode the bike back to fix it up before leaving again. When she went through security with all the crap we had been carrying they put it through the scanner, then reversed it, put it through again, a couple of times over. Then they said to her "do you have metal rods in your bag?" Her reply was oh that would be our knives and tool kit for travelling, spanners and screwdrivers. At that they just went, ok and put it through.

  31. Do they have spare batteries? by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My old laptop had a dead battery. It only worked when plugged in. That doesn't mean I didn't still travel with it. It was still useful to me at my destination. Company policy won't let me check it in luggage.
    Also, I work for a company that deals with healthcare and there is Protected Healthcare Information on my laptop. Do I need to carry HIPAA releases with me so that I can have them sign before looking at my laptop? Also, corporate policy forbids me to allow anyone else to operate my laptop, as does probably 90% of other companies in America.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Do they have spare batteries? by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why on earth are you traveling with HIPAA regulated data on your laptop? Is that truly necessary?

    2. Re:Do they have spare batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      OMG this a thousand times over.

      You have no need to travel with HIPAA PHI on your laptop. There is another way somewhere: the easy solution is to VPN in to your office and download files as you need them across the VPN. Return any changes to your server via VPN. Do NOT leave data on your hard drive. There are free, open-source VPN servers and every operating system (even your phone) can connect to them. There is NO excuse not to use it.

      The same goes for credit card info, FERPA-protected data, etc. What happens when you get mugged and the perps walk off with your laptop? Data that your company can get sued over does not rest on machines that you travel with. It lives encrypted on a server at work, where the company IT looks after it. It transits through encrypted connections to your laptop, and it stays there only so long as is necessary to perform the tasks you're authorized to perform on it. It transits back across encrypted connections to the home office server where it lives. No one with reasonable means (i.e. everyone but determined, state-sponsored actors) be able to eavesdrop on your lawsuit-worthy data in transit or steal it at rest. Doing anything less puts your company at risk.

      This isn't because of James Bond or NSA or China or the boogeyman who probably doesn't care that much about your silly health data, but because of the street-level thug who is real and is hanging outside your Chicago hotel at night and will end up fencing your laptop to someone who knows someone who will buy data. You will be blamed for the breach, and the fact of your mugging will garner you no sympathy or protection: you risked company data by traveling with it because you could not be bothered to follow common sense protocols, and your risk ended badly for everyone involved.

      If your company's IT staff is having you travel around with PHI on your laptop, they should be replaced.

    3. Re:Do they have spare batteries? by ToddDTaft · · Score: 2

      You have no need to travel with HIPAA PHI on your laptop..

      The policy of the medical school where I used to work is to consider any device that even accesses PHI as "contaminated with PHI", even if such access should never have resulted in any PHI being stored on the local hard drive of the machine accessing that data. It's possible that OP may have worked at a place with a similar policy.

      Our internal forensics group was able to demonstrate too many cases where it wasn't necessary for a laptop user to even do something as dangerous as download a file containing PHI for the local hard drive to still end up with PHI on it. One such case was OS swap/page files. There were others.

      While we took steps to minimize the likelihood of these events happening and PHI ending up on portable/mobile devices, we still treated devices that merely accessed remote PHI as if they contained PHI in local storage and required required them to have appropriate controls in place, such as whole disk encryption, local firewalls, mandatory reporting of lost/stolen devices, etc.

  32. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

    There are way better places to hide C4 if you have access to it that they won't be able to detect.

  33. Re: TSA is unnecessary by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Sealing the cockpit is necessary.

    But a real pisser if the pilot decides to hijack the plane.

    Personally, I'd rather have the cockpit door open, and me and three hundred other passengers ready to beat to death any aspiring hijackers if they try anything.

  34. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by chrism238 · · Score: 1

    Paper hospital gowns may get a little cold, so how about orange jump suits?

  35. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    With the charges that airlines are imposing on baggage, it's often cheaper to mail your stuff than to fly with it.

    Damn if that isn't true, I can fedex my luggage cheaper across Canada then it would be to take it on the plane with me.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  36. Archie Bunker had the solution by gewalker · · Score: 1

    Archie Bunker Editorial Rebuttal

  37. Re: TSA is unnecessary by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

    Still, at least the cockpit entrance should have some sort of door restricting entrance, so that the few hijackers that do end up mingling among passengers won't find it easy to enter before they are apprehended. In case it's the pilot, a hundred people would have no problem breaking the door down.

  38. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 2

    I have noticed that too in my last 3 flights to the US. Interestingly enough, this additional screening was only for economy passengers. As I was travelling in business, I could just walk through the gate and enjoy the show.

    So yeah, there's my anectodal evidence.

  39. smoke screen, like CIA Pakistan vaccination by citizenr · · Score: 1

    They want you to power up devices so its easier to dump data without leaving a trace.

    Recent iPhone encryption bypass (if the phone was powered up and manually locked) using USB connection comes to mind.

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  40. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    I've only ever been asked once, over countless flights before and after 9/11. That was in 2000, to board a flight leaving the US for Europe. Unfortunately, I was using it on the first flight, and my battery died. I told the agent "The battery is dead, but I can plug it in if you'd show me where an outlet is". That was the end of it.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  41. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    Actually, there will be an extra charge for paper hospital gowns.

  42. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Nah, you will be stripped naked, securely bound in hospital restraints and sedated to complete unconsciousness before being allowed on the plane....

  43. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by slaughts · · Score: 1

    Considering what flying is like these days, this might be an improvement...

  44. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    Sleep regulators like in Fifth Element would improve upon comparability.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  45. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by pcardoso · · Score: 1

    When leaving the US I had to power up my HP48 and try to explain it was a calculator and how to do a sum using RPN.

    It was in 1998, shortly after the Swissair 111 flight and there was no explanation for the crash.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

  46. Re: ive been through the new check (France, CDG ai by mrmaster · · Score: 1

    I haven't ran into any issues and have never been asked to turn anything on when traveling international. . Sure, you get the random screening but get global traveler with Tsa precheck and it's super fast. But if someone could tell me how my socket set was considered a potential weapon in china but none of my screwdrivers I'd appreciate it. Fly more and get the nice seats and free checked bags!

  47. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by coofercat · · Score: 1

    I have a white, male British friend - it's a bit of a running joke that he gets checked every time. Years ago, he and I went to/from Canada via the US. On departure from London, there were three American goons (yes, imported goons!) doing 'random' bag searches on the way to the gate (extra to the actual security screening). He got checked by all three - presumably the first two were incompetent so the third guy had to do it right. Or maybe the whole system was a complete sham. Should anyone ever want to smuggle anything, just go along with my mate. He'll get checked for everything, you won't get checked for anything and you get to take your contraband wherever you like.

  48. And it's by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Security theater at its finest. I've never turned off any devices when I go through checkpoints. In the case of a laptop open it up and it's a login prompt. I refuse to enter my password as that is a security risk. In fact all my devices from laptop, to phone to Fire tablet are password protected.

    More to the point - what is to say that electronic device is the key to say blowing up the concourse? I mean I have Echolink on my phone and theoretically I could use it remotely trigger an event. Hell - even WifI or bluetooth will do.

  49. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Kill Bill Part 1-style...

  50. They have to check for explosive devices by naris · · Score: 1

    Like lithium batteries

  51. The Big secret to getting YOUR Luggage Safely by laurencetux · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://deviating.net/firearms/... Airlines really really REALLY do not want to lose a bag with a "gun" in it. and just for a Chapter and Verse copy of this see http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-in... so if you are traveling with valuables (nice costumes of some sort??) slip a pistol into the bag (and properly declare same).

  52. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by adsl · · Score: 1

    Would this mean that portable USB powered Hard Drives are also prohibited? And also what about a spare battery?

  53. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    it's also pretty negligible time-wise and cost-wise.

  54. Need to log wifi/BT MAC's + IMEI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    TSA needs to make sure that all devices are electronically logged & fingerprinted.

  55. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Even here in the US some airports have roving bag searchers. The last time I traveled I had one who wanted to search my carry on bags. The roving agent came up and asked "Can I search your bags?" to which I replied no. At this point she got a very confused look on her face as I went back to eating my pile of over priced tacos. She gets on her radio and radios for some more help. So a couple more TSA agents come over and one of the new one asks "May I search your bags?" again I reply no. At this point the discuss amongst themselves and eventually one of them demands in a loud stern voice "Sir we must search your bags" and I replied "While I am legally required to allow you to search my luggage I feel that this search is a violation of my rights and I do not consent. By executing this search you are indicating to me your other methods are ineffective or that your employes are ineffective, but likely both." They open my small suitcase and find a work laptop, 2 changes of cloths, my keys, and a my work cellphone.

    From this experience I gather that they are not use to people not saying yes to their requests and that they get fairly confused when someone challenges their authority. I'm sure someone recorded it hoping it would be the next "don't taze me bro" video but some of the other passengers asked why I wouldn't just comply initially and were shocked when I told them that I didn't have to as they didn't order me to. I wish more people would stand up as much as they legally can as I wasted about 15 minutes of each of the agents' time so that was net benefit for all as it probably prevented 3 other searches.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  56. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    It was something of a problem for Macintosh owners at the time, since without hooking up at least a mouse it was impossible to shut the machine down properly. Then people came out with little programs that would run on startup, wait ten seconds for a keypress or mouse click, and then shut down the machine if they didn't get one.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. Re:that pre dates 9/11. laptops from late 90's for by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for the day when you have to ship all your luggage a day ahead of travel

    I got in the habit of shipping my luggage on ahead of me using UPS and the like several decades ago, well before this TSA madness began. I started doing it because my luggage doesn't get lost or abused that way. I highly recommend the practice to anybody. Especially now, when your luggage is at greater risk of theft than ever before.

  58. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    But it is really complaints like this that turned TSA into a paper tiger.

    I disagree. The TSA was a paper tiger from day one. The complaints about it had nothing to do with it.

  59. Re:ive been through the new check (France, CDG air by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    While I've never been asked permission for a search at the airport, I have a couple of times in my life by cops. My policy is to always decline to give permission no matter what. If they have a legal right to search me, then they don't need my permission. If they don't have that right, then they have no business searching me.

  60. powerless devices by mlemley · · Score: 1

    Hey, if the TSA bans powerless devices on planes, maybe they will require airlines to put power outlets in all seats . . .