Slashdot Mirror
US Airport Screeners Missed 95% of Weapons, Explosives In Undercover Tests
An anonymous reader writes: An internal investigation by the TSA found that 95% of agents testing airport checkpoints were able to bring weapons through. In one case, an alarm sounded, but during the pat down, the screener failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to the undercover agent's back. ABC reports: "Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was apparently so frustrated by the findings he sought a detailed briefing on them last week at TSA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, according to sources. U.S. officials insisted changes have already been made at airports to address vulnerabilities identified by the latest tests. 'Upon learning the initial findings of the Office of Inspector General's report, Secretary Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of actions, several of which are now in place, to address the issues raised in the report,' the DHS said in a written statement to ABC News."
Sometimes I think the governments are simply trying to spend themselves into the kind of debt that breaks the banking system. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
...Steve
It was about creating another welfare program.
Cheese and rice!
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
All this means is that they failed to find FAKE plastic explosives and the like, not that they wouldn't find real stuff.
Do a real test!
But they did manage to grope 8 out of 10 Grandmas and 5 out of 10 toddlers.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I've seen various comments/analysis on other sites about how unsafe this makes people feel. My response was completely the opposite: security is completely ineffective yet it's quite rare for terrorists to blow up airliners. Conclusion: terrorists don't pose a massive threat to our safety and we can do away with all the infringements of our liberties made in the name of safety from terrorists.
Although, no doubt, the government will see it as an excuse to make airport security fondle your bollocks for a minimum of 30 seconds; after all, we've got to stop all those terrorists that aren't blowing up planes from blowing up planes!
See what happens when we can't listen to your phone calls!
On a positive note: in 5% of the times it worked all the time.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
List the vulnerabilities at a company that fails penetration tests, watch the IT department fill out the checklist saying "we fixed that", lather, rinse, repeat.
I've been in the IT group that was carefully banned from securing things because the architect and the CTO just found it a lot easier to be able to do anything they wanted, to any system they wanted, any time they wanted, without a paper trail or traceable history. It took me a while to figure out it was deliberate: then I found where the architect had SSH tunnels running from the finance company internal network to his home box, with passphrase free SSH keys with root access on both ends, with the keys on NFS shares on both ends.
When I found that, and as the security consultant I was allowed to do nothing, I knew to make sure my checks were cashed *fast* and my resume already out elsewhere.
nothing happened ...
I'm assuming this is going to be the impetus for another round of more intrusive screening? I also find the timing curious with the fight over domestic spying taking place now as well. After all if your first attempt at security theater is shown to be completely ineffective I suppose the natural government tendency is to try MORE security theater.
This has been known for years. Women in Aerospace held a forum on this topic on an easy to remember date -- September 10, 2007. Before I walked in to the event, I knew that when TSA tested its own "security" by trying to smuggle guns through, the guns got through over 90% of the time. That day I also learned about a college student who had smuggled high explosives onto planes just to show he could. The people there that day were furious at this farce.
Some Women in Aerospace members have significant political connections. How the farce of the TSA has survived this long I do not know.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
In their defense, they did find 100% of the water bottles being smuggled through. At least we are protected from that threat.
My point is that the methods (and level of "fake enemy") on those "friendly" security checks are very different from what most people (most "bad guys" included) will ever use.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Given what I have inadvertently brought through over the years:
About a dozen 3" 12 gauge shot gun shells (magnum goose loads)
An almost full box of 20 7.62x54r rifle ammunition
A 4"lock blade knife with a brass handle (multiple times), A small 2.5" folding knife
This really doesn't come as a surprise, and I wasn't even trying to sneak the stuff past them. The ammo was in coat pockets the went through the X-ray machine at different times and the pocket knives were just left in my pocket as I went through their metal detector. But every time I bring my camera, a Pentax Spotmatic F with assorted lenses, it is off to the extra screening area for a pat down, explosives check, a game of 20 questions, and for them to dig through my stuff. Also the bulb cable really confuses them and I get accused of bringing a weapon onto a plane as they push the button and the cable extends out the other end a bit
Time to offend someone
so how come these jackasses could not find the contraband? -plateshutoverlock
The controls in place are obviously inadequate. According to my calculations we MUST increase the effort by a factor of 1(1 - .95) = 20 times. That'll surely teach 'em tarrists.
It's in the testers' interests to beat the system, and they know what all of the protocols and technologies involved are. Unlike a terrorist, they also don't need to use real munitions, or carry anything that would be practical for the previous or next phase of their plan. The testers also are just devising the hardest tests they can, instead of trying to imitate the methods utilized by the people they're supposed to be training the checkpoints to spot. They're specifically targeting known weaknesses. A high failure rate is their objective!
It's a possibly a good process but we can't write off the system as ineffective because of this result. It's just clickbait. "You're not safe!!! Monsters lurk behind every door!!!"
You stop terrorists by first knowing who is getting on the planes in the first place. This is how Israel secures its airports. They know who you are before you even show up at the airport. They have multiple layers of people that are trained to spot suspicious behavior and act upon it.
The second thing you do is give the plane an ability to defend itself when it is attacked. Let us just assume the terrorists get on the plane with whatever. What is the plane going to do to defend itself. I refer to the passengers, the flight attendants, the pilots, etc. What can they do to shut it down when it happens?
The funniest thing that has come out of 9/11 is that the government was actually totally useless and that people... just people are far more useful. Because what is actually stopping terrorist attacks is that you cannot take over a plane like they did on 9/11 anymore. What allowed that to happen was that passengers didn't know what the terrorists were going to do. They thought the plane was going to Cuba or something. They didn't know they were going to be murdered en mass to murder thousands of other people. If you tried to do 9/11 today... the passengers would rip the terrorists apart. No government agency required.
The TSA is at most stopping Richard Reed type attacks where someone just wants to blow the plane up. But you can't fly those planes into anything anymore because the passengers will just kill you.
Here is my solution:
1. Require a special ID to use commercial airplanes. The ID would require that you are on a list and they know who you are... transport on the system is not a right. If you're a suspicious person then the system might just say "take a bus". By all means open the system up to due process so if you think you're on a ban list then you can fight that in court. The system might also flag certain people out for more security when they show up at the security gate. So you'd still get to be on the plane but you personally would be going through extra security because the system doesn't trust you.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
3. Upgrade the computer security on those planes. You shouldn't be able to control the auto pilot through the entertainment network accessed by wifi. That was fucking pathetic.
4. The actual gate security can probably go back to what it was before 9/11 with the addition of checking special IDs and subjecting people to additional security if they're on a list. The vast majority of people would have much less to worry about.
Things that would cause someone to get flagged... non-citizens might be inherently less trustworthy. Various age brackets and genders... if you're an old woman then you're just less likely to be a problem. That sort of thing. Of course this should link to the FBI and the NSA and the CIA so that if any of those groups had an issue with someone, then they could independently flag someone for the TSA.
My objective here is to keep as many people safe as possible while maintaining the effiency of the transport network. Some people might say "this will lead to profiling and profiling is wrong"... profiling is a basic aspect of criminal investigation and intelligence work. Ever see Silence of the Lambs? It was about an FBI serial killer PROFILER. Profiling is fine so long as it isn't stupid. Profiling on the basis of race for example is stupid especially when that is the only variable. It can BE a variable so long as there is a reason for it. I'm not sure what reason you could use to justify it... but I'm open
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's impossible to stop all terrorists. We're simply reacting to the last attack, because there's no realistic way to stop the next one.
Profiling might be somewhat useful, but it's doubtful. Disallowing large/serious weapons on a plane is a good thing simply because, without some amplification of strength, the numbers are wildly against any single attacker. Simple security is sufficient.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
For some time the TSA has been shown to be inefficient and way over-priced for the service they provide. Now, as the news comes out (CNN even reported on this one) the Government will still not see their decision as an error but will decide they simply need to throw more money at it.
Who wants to grope that? (/sarcasm)
You were wonderful once, but now you won't cover tech news that makes your parent company look bad. You're not what you once were, so I'm packing my bags. Farewell!
All good ideas. I'm sute implementing them would have stopped precisely zero out of zero terrorist attacks on US planes that actually succeeded since 2001.
So, since security is lax (like we didn't know already) and there haven't been any successful terrorist attacks on planes in the US since 2001, what precisely would your methods achieve?
If the answer is saving lives then I contend there are better methods to save lives. Your methods sound expensive. Terrorism isn't a significant threat. If you spend the money on road safety you'll likely save a lot more lives.
Anyway point by point:
1. Require a special ID to use commercial airplanes. The ID would require that you are on a list and they know who you are... transport on the system is not a right. If you're a suspicious person then the system might just say "take a bus". By all means open the system up to due process so if you think you're on a ban list then you can fight that in court. The system might also flag certain people out for more security when they show up at the security gate. So you'd still get to be on the plane but you personally would be going through extra security because the system doesn't trust you.
Except no one was in any doubt who the 9/11 terrorists were. They all used their real names because why not? They had no prior terrorist activity and didn't exactly care about their future reputation becoming tarnished.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care.
He can't though, not in the US. The US has already required two people to be in the cockpit for years precisely to stop this kind of thing.
3. Upgrade the computer security on those planes. You shouldn't be able to control the auto pilot through the entertainment network accessed by wifi. That was fucking pathetic.
OK firstly that never actually happened as far as anyone can tell. Secondly having better security is equivalent to a highschool teacher telling you he always makes sure he has the best brand of condoms when dealing with pupils (with apologies to XKCD). The solution is an airgap, of course, not upgraded computer security.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What you're saying is that most criminals are dumb, and that's why security manages to catch them. Smart criminals are unlikely to get caught.
If we accept that as true, and if we are willing to accept that life is never totally risk free, then all of TSA and Homeland Security could be abolished. Then the rest of the world could also stop complying with the idiotic restrictions (liquids, etc.) initiated by the US.
Anyway, there is absolutely no evidence that security today is any better than it was pre-9/11. Without the security theater, we would save such huge amounts of time. I still remember fondly being able to show up at the airport 30 minutes before flight departure, show my ticket, walk onto the airplane. That's the way is was, and the way it should be again.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
According to this poll http://www.harrisinteractive.c..., about 57% of frequent flyers believe the current TSA procedures are making it safer to fly. The other 43% recognize them for the theatrics that they are.
Sure, they find their fair share of fake novelty hand grenades and medieval weaponry in checked baggage. They even once saved a plane from the pudding cup my daughter left in her backpack (which naturally earned her a pat-down). But what the TSA was really doing was keeping a major mode of transportation operational for a brief time of uncertainty. As with all things government, the project's scope began to creep and pockets got lined while we stood in a line to have our pockets felt by a creep.
57% think the TSA is money well spent. That is the metric by which the TSA measures itself.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
All one person has to do is disable the other, then there's effectively one person in the cockpit.
What would it achieve? No worse than what we have no with overall superior efficiency of the existing transport network.
My idea is superior to what we have now. That's all.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Something doesn't have to be perfect to be a good idea just because there is another system that is possibly better that NO ONE is going to implement.
1. The point is to track people and give the TSA some real control over who is even allowed to buy a ticket.
2. As to pilots flying something into a building etc... whatever dude. If you think the pilot isn't dangerous then I don't know what to tell you. The second pilot/flight attendant in the cockpit reduces risk but the pilot is quite dangerous if he wants to do something nasty.
3. Yes it did happen. He pushed the throttle forward on one of the engines three times during the flight. Very slightly. Not enough that the pilot even noticed. Just enough to test it.
As to better security versus airgap... in what way is an airgap not better security? Obviously it is... you're presuming to know specifically what I'd recommend when I didn't get specific enough for you to correct me by suggesting an airgap.
I actually would prefer these systems be airgapped. Ask me next time instead of making an ass out of yourself and assuming. ;)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Short of prison-like strip searches, what they're trying to do is likely impossible. The old joke about "No carry on luggage and everybody flies naked" is probably the only thing that would really work, except that they'd have to use a second plane to fly the baggage in case there's a bomb in the luggage, which they will also miss. The 2nd plane should probably have a crew of 1 or 2 and ejection seats...
So, now the security theater is going to become unbearable again, and I'm going to KEEP driving where I want to go. Sold my car a couple weeks ago - 3 years and 2 months old, with 124,000 miles on the odometer because I've BEEN driving wherever I wanted to go, and there were some really long trips in there most of the way across the country that were repeated several times a year. Fortunately, I love to drive and loathe gov't intrusion, but the reason I drove, and took trains, is the TSA. Otherwise, I would have flown.
Today, the passengers wouldn't do anything except take video of/tweet about/make Facebook status updates about what's going on.
In billions. Total=$61B
Departmental Operations 748,024
Analysis and Operations(A&O) 302,268
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 145,457
U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) 12,764,835
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) 5,359,065
Transportation Security Administration(TSA) 7,305,098
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 9,796,995
U.S. Secret Service (USSS) 1,895,905
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 2,857,666
Office of Health Affairs (OHA) 125,767
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 12,496,517
FEMA: Grant Programs 2,225,469
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) 3,259,885
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 259,595
Science &Technology Directorate (S&T) 1,071,818
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 304,423
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
Save me, USA Freedom Act!!
" transport on the system is not a right."
Uh, yeah it is, at least being transported without being searched by the gov't is a right. Judge Napolitano on Fox News went into great detail about this, with what they are doing being absolutely positively illegal with respect to the 4th amendment. The gov't just can't legally do what they're doing. The AIRLINES can institute, pay for, and run a TSA-like security system, but not the gov't.
It's been obvious from day one that all the security stuff in our airports is nothing but theater.
They always seem to find my shaving cream bottle ... never have managed to sneak it through :(
You stop terrorists by first knowing who is getting on the planes in the first place. This is how Israel secures its airports. They know who you are before you even show up at the airport. They have multiple layers of people that are trained to spot suspicious behavior and act upon it.
That's cute. But the US has been slurping all sorts of data about air passengers, down to the books they read, and it makes no discernible difference. That is, in actual security. It does make for seven years of hell on wheels if you end up on the sooper seekrit not-allowed-to-fly lists by mistake and you are not a senator so you can't just ring up a buddy to get you off again.
The Israelis protect their airports by clever use of competence. Not so the DHS, it only has itself and the TSA.
The funniest thing that has come out of 9/11 is that the government was actually totally useless and that people... just people are far more useful. Because what is actually stopping terrorist attacks is that you cannot take over a plane like they did on 9/11 anymore. What allowed that to happen was that passengers didn't know what the terrorists were going to do. They thought the plane was going to Cuba or something. They didn't know they were going to be murdered en mass to murder thousands of other people. If you tried to do 9/11 today... the passengers would rip the terrorists apart. No government agency required.
Meaning that all those hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent on security are really but thrown away. No need to up the national debt for something that the passengers have now realised they must do themselves, and therefore do on the rare occasion they need to. Even those vaunted air marshalls have not the track record of the random passenger. Better to "pay" those same passengers by doing away with the security circus and pay them back the security surcharge.
If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, they use a Surface to Air Missile from just outside the airport.
If they want to hijack a plane, it won't work anymore because the doors are heavily locked - any explosive capable of opening the cockpit door will crash the plane.
The routinely miss liquids - water, suntan lotion, etc. I traveled with someone that packed suntan lotion in a carry on bag and they missed it. They found and took the blade out of his safety razor, but missed the suntan lotion.
Even their own original studies claim that any benefit is far exceeded by the cost. The basic rule for MOST government agencies is if the cost exceeds $1 million per life saved, don't bother - smoke detectors cost $210,000 per life saved. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/interventions.pdf
But the TSA argues they should be allowed to spend $10 million per life saved - and admit they actually cost $180 million per life saved. https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
Their budget should be cut to 1% of what it currently is, that way we will only be spending twice what we spend on other industries to save lives.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Disallowing weapons is not a good thing. If the passengers on flight 93, as well as the other planes had been armed, they would easily have overwhelmed the terrorists. Our best security would be to encourage concealed carry of weapons onto airplanes, so the bad guys wouldn't know from where the threat to their plans would come. They would have to assume that every passenger on the airplane who is not a child has a gun. In actuality, maybe 10% would be armed, but that's a lot of people to thwart your plans if you're a terrorist.
My idea is superior to what we have now. That's all.
Fair enough. I think it's more expensive though, especially the ID thing would require a Big Government Project (tm).
1. The point is to track people and give the TSA some real control over who is even allowed to buy a ticket.
The problem with that is that the TSA seem to be wildly incompetent in all things. It would pretty much require that the TSA is burned to the ground and rebuilt.
3. Yes it did happen. He pushed the throttle forward on one of the engines three times during the flight. Very slightly. Not enough that the pilot even noticed. Just enough to test it
I don't remember seeing anything except his own claims about this. Link?
actually would prefer these systems be airgapped. Ask me next time instead
You specified "upgrading computer security". If you meant air-gap, you should have said it.
of making an ass out of yourself and assuming. ;)
I'm now not going to assume that you haven't suddenly switched to another language which looks like English and where what you wrote means "I'm very silly for saying silly things about assumptions".
And to that I wholeheartedly agree.
Which is a pointed way of saying it's impossible to communicate without making assumptions.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
They get paid regardless of whether they do a good job.
But what if *both* people are in on it! Oh crap! We need three people. Be then those two people can overpower the third! So we need at least 5 people. But what if the two bribe a third to go along, then its 3 vs 2. So we need at least 11 people in the cockpit.
The illusion of effectiveness was the only real deterrent the TSA had to keeping terrorists from bringing explosives onto planes. Now that the illusion is gone, what's stopping them?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't understand why I need special blessing from the government for commercial flying to be safer. Commercial airplanes are safer than my bath tub. We can prevent "9/11's" by locking the cockpit. We can save orders of magnitude more lives by spending effort on [managing preventable disease, automobile safety, weapons proliferation].
So, if an outsider had performed this test would hey have been jailed as a traitor?
By revealing the results of the test aren't they passing critical information to the 'enemy'?
I say prosecute. Think of all the people who will now lay awake at nite in fear - both of them.
As to it being more expensive, you're forgetting the value of actually keeping track of that information a more accessible way. We could use that for a lot of other things. And there are side projects doing the same thing already in a more half assed way. We could roll it all together which should reduce the cost.
As to the TSA being incompetent, not any more than any other government agency. They're all equally incompetent.
The TSA's real problem is that their priorities are wrong. Security is not their primary priority. The illusion of security is their primary job. Just looking like they're doing something is what they actually do. Hold them to empirical standards and set everything up in a goal oriented way to obtain actual security and they'll be just fine.
As to chris roberts... come on:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
I hesitate to link to other sources because you're likely going to say they're not credible. Even though those are the sources that have the technical information that actually show how it works and that it not only was done but could be done again RIGHT NOW.
As to assumptions... ask more questions.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's worked so well in the rest of the USA, it should work awesome in the air too. More guns=less violence!
http://time.com/3822487/tsa-se...
The government owns the airports. So... go to a private airfield and charter a private plane. You'd be surprised by how little security you go through if you do that. They don't check anything.
As to preventable diseases... what do you think we should be doing that we're not doing? Love to hear... honestly and truly. :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Give everyone a grenade. Who's going to fuck with a person with a grenade?
..which is NOT to detect weapons.
They're trained to detect common tools, water bottles, and other harmless items to harass people. This performance is what is incentivized and reinforced, so that's what is optimized.
Security theatre doesn't work. Security that works offends people.
C'est la vie. Shoes off!
..don't panic
so, what if this report is BS and really an attempt to provoke attack by ISIS or other groups, leading to national support for an expanded/resumed military presence in the middle east? nothing stimulates an economy like a good war, right?
i guess it's a sad statement that the above is not completely, utterly unthinkable... the guys running the show really could be that dumb.
Disclaimer: I don't agree with the following, but here are the counter arguments that I think would apply. To an extent described in the article.
1. Willing suicide bombers are rare. This means that if there is a significant chance they will be caught pre-explosion, they will seek another avenue. So the goal of TSA measures is not to catch 100% of smuggled weapons, it is merely to make airplanes too risky a target. If the bomber/hijacker is caught, the expensive resource is squandered.
2. These tests are performed by the agency's own 'red team' who have extensive knowledge and resources to draw on. It is common practice to have training tests far exceed the level of threat one is likely to encounter in the real world. In other words, the real world adversary is nowhere near as skilled and capable as the red team.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
They found the nail clippers I had forgotten to leave at home and made me dispose of them before getting on the plane. So the world became a little safer for everyine on that particular day.
Yeah I heard the Chris Roberts story. It sounded like a bit of a tall story and there's not been that much by the way of corroboration. I was wondering if there was anything more concrete.
As to assumptions... ask more questions.
Do you relly mean that?
Like I said, one cannot communicate without making assumptions. Even to follow your instruction I have to assume you're speaking English and actually mnean what you say. I then have to assume answers are in good faith. But not assume you ever mean what you say. That leads to infinite loops.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As to profiling not working, I guess the Israelis are full of shit then.
Or you've made a false assumption somewhere along the way. Care to explore that or just go with the theory that the Israelis that deal with terrorism on a regular basis and yet have very secure airports haven't figured this out?
Bitch please.
As to paying passengers... I'll accept lower taxes as my payment thanks.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Isn't the extra ID/verification essentially TSA precheck?
because, from personal experience, they have not missed a single bottle of water or contact lenses solution.
I think it can be concluded that if 5% effectiveness offers safety, we may be safe w/o it.
From publicized "tests" of the TSA to real world situations where people sneak onto a flight without a ticket, I question whether the TSA process is even really about stopping threats or whether it's really about conditioning people to accept a heavy-handed, intrusive "security" as a normal party of daily life.
" transport on the system is not a right."
Uh, yeah it is, at least being transported without being searched by the gov't is a right. Judge Napolitano on Fox News went into great detail about this, with what they are doing being absolutely positively illegal with respect to the 4th amendment. The gov't just can't legally do what they're doing. The AIRLINES can institute, pay for, and run a TSA-like security system, but not the gov't.
No it's not. Cause any kind of disturbance and the airlines can and will put you on their own internal "no-fly" lists. These are kept in addition to federal no-fly lists. It could be something as simple as getting shit-faced and belligerent ona flight to claiming you hacked a plane and changed engine power(I can guarantee you that guy will have a hard time booking a flight on a US domestic airline any time soon). If it's a right, it is one that is very easily lost.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Statistics show that concealed carry license holders are less likely to be involved in crime and violent crime than the general population. Concealed carry holders generally have to pass a criminal background check, and in many states get certified training. It's not unreasonable to think a plane full of CCWs is safer than a plane not full of them. You're the one making an unsubstantiated claim: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
So Slashdot, why did I hear about this story on NPR Marketplace yesterday afternoon first?
No it's not. Cause any kind of disturbance and the airlines can and will put you on their own internal "no-fly" lists.
Hmm...
Uh, yeah it is, at least being transported without being searched by the gov't is a right.
(emphasis mine). I guess you missed that part when replying?
So glad I don't fly anymore, the TSA Nazis are going to be in full Stasi mode for the next few months after this...
Recent advances in computer vision (using deep learning) has enabled s/w to outperform human in imagenet test. Hopefully in the near future, the x-ray peering humans are mostly replaced/augmented by AI.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
Reassigned, not fired. Also not shot.
Just as we are discussing the renewal of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, just like the TSA, has been absolutely worthless in stopping any terrorist attacks. I knew that the TSA was doing a poor job but a 95% failure rate is laughable. Basically that means that they are only doing 5% better than if there were no security whatsoever.
I remember back when this whole farce was unfolding and how the government was going on about how we shouldn't trust the airlines and their subcontracted security folks and how Uncle Sam can do it so much better.
Well, 7 billion a year later this is what we have to show for it. 95% failure rate. Numerous scandals within the TSA. Not a single potential terrorist attack foiled by the TSA. And every single airline passenger is inconvenienced as a result of it.
Those subcontracted rent-a-cops that the airlines used to hire are looking pretty good right now.
Every person 5-years and older know that TSA and its Department of Homeland Security is a joke. A Cruel joke that costs USA citizens $60 billion dollars annually through the Federal Budget and depletes the USA economy by $1.2 Trillion dollars every 6-months.
Time to "Moose Hunt" TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.
As to profiling not working, I guess the Israelis are full of shit then.
Or you've made a false assumption somewhere along the way. Care to explore that or just go with the theory that the Israelis that deal with terrorism on a regular basis and yet have very secure airports haven't figured this out?
Bitch please.
You sure produce many words but apparently lack something in... eloquence, thinking things through, that sort of thing.
I already said: Competence. The US does not have it. The Israelis do. It makes all the difference.
You can profile all you want but if all you get is misery through false positives and you fail to show a single true positive, then you're fucking up by the numbers. They've been at it for (at least) 14 years, and all the US government-claimed successes invariably turn out to be contrived if you look even a little beyond the jubilant press release. I say again, this spells fucking up by the numbers.
And it does mean that simply dropping all the incompetent profiling, no-fly-lists, and all that, is a massive net win for the US. Same results, less cost. In fact, since the "handling" of all that stuff no longer interferes with normal operation, I won't be surprised by better results, less cost. Also less opportunity to "make career" inside various agencies but that really is the same argument as the military-industrial complex. So now you know why simply dropping the whole enchilada won't happen. But it really shouldn't be hard to see that actually doing so wouldn't create security problems. Only lack of security theatre "problems".
Your presentation likewise starts with "oh but I know the answer!" and dressing it up real nice. It's the (stereo)typical developer approach, but that really only means you're swapping out the colour of the lipstick on this pig. You want to do better, you need to change the approach.Let's do it differently, so here's a brainteaser:
Your one prerequisite is that you don't get to know anybody's name or government ID for domestic flights. No unique tracking whatsoever carried by the commoner himself. Many reasons, but for the sake of this exercise you just don't. It's a given. Now how would you keep bombs, hijackers, terrorists, and all that, off the aeroplane? Failing that, how do you at least keep them from harming too many people? Note that I'm not saying "no people", because expecting zero casualties for every incident isn't even realistic in (ObCar) accident reduction, n'mind terrorism.
But do work out just what the expected damage per (type of) incident would be. For having a good idea what you're getting into is a far better proposition than expecting to be 100% safe, always, and needing oodles of therapy to deal with the betrayal should something, anything, unexpected sneak up and happen.
Show your numbers. I say that makes for a better discussion than "bitch please".
As to paying passengers... I'll accept lower taxes as my payment thanks.
Inasmuch that scrapping the security surcharge on your ticket is exactly that, yeah....
Profiling might be somewhat useful, but it's doubtful. Disallowing large/serious weapons on a plane is a good thing simply because, without some amplification of strength, the numbers are wildly against any single attacker. Simple security is sufficient.
From the Supreme Court on down, courts have consistently held that profiling is illegal and convictions have been thrown out for it. TSA does profile but the only way they can get away with it is that they have to screen small children and grandmothers and then everybody here screams "Security theater!" about it. At least in this thread we have people posting who actually do fly. That hasn't always been the case. I used to be friends with a guy and he last flew in the late 1990s and has never flown since and likely will not ever for any reason fly anywhere again before he dies. He has never been subjected to TSA. That didn't stop him from railing on about how evil and useless they were and just completely losing his mind anytime he talked about air travel. We get a lot of similar people here posting all the time on this subject.
So the conclusion is that no matter how many rights you remove, and privacy you invade (they can strip you naked if they suspect anything) the bad guys will still find a way to do their stuff? Hmm...I never would have guessed.
It is defense in depth.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
After my last airport screening, I'm now fairly confident that I don't have colon cancer.
And why do the Israelis have competence and we do not?
I frankly think the lack of competence is because too many of our organizations are hamstrung by people with conflicted agendas. If you were trying to do the thing you said you want to do then you'd be competent when you did it. What happens so often is that what people want to do and what they say they want to do are two different things.
So when they fail to do what they said they wanted to do, look at what they might have wanted to do instead. Often as not, they actually succeeded in doing what they wanted to do but not what they said they wanted to do.
The reason the Israelis succeed at this sort of thing is because they actually want to succeed at it. Many of the people in the US tasked with similar responsibilities do not. They have conflicted agendas.
That conflict is the problem.
As to your prerequist that i can't do the one thing I want to base my entire security system on...
If I can't profile which is my primary suggestion, then I don't think you can keep the airplanes safe.
I mean, what am I supposed to do? check everyone's anus with a tooth brush? Make sure it is nice and clean up there? I could jam a bomb up my ass and blow a plane up that way. Your scanners aren't going to stop that.
If I can smuggle drugs and cell phones into a prison. Make weapons in a prison... then how are you going to stop people from bringing that stuff on the plane? I really dont' think you can.
So my suggestion is to try less hard to stop things and instead stop people.
I think people are easier to track and easier to identify than are random shit people can jam up their butts.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's impossible to stop all terrorists. We're simply reacting to the last attack, because there's no realistic way to stop the next one.
But if you don't react to the last one, then the last one will be used again (because it works). Are you thinking that if we didn't step up explosives/weapons scans and secure cockpit doors (you know, defenses against "old" attacks), that no terrorist with any self respect would repeat a very successful previous attack because ... it would seem out of fashion and not as rakish to do what someone else did? Come on now.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A lot of the guards in China are there just because everyone is supposed to have a job. (communism)
The government pays for a lot of companies to staff various bullshit jobs, at a swanky hotel there were two and sometimes three door attendants per entrance, which reduced down to one late at night for all six of the main entrances. At peak times there were of course a dozen bell hops waiting in a row.
A local told me that a lot of the staff is subsidized by the government to insure that people have jobs, because the alternative to working at the hotel is to go back to the countryside and work on a farm. Being unemployed is not an option if you are able bodied. (the flip side is true as well, being employed is not an option if you are disabled)
>If you're a suspicious person then the system might just say "take a bus".
You obviously have taken an interstate bus trip recently. TSA does security checks at a number of bus and train stations throughout the country
>and subjecting people to additional security if they're on a list.
We know that people are placed on the current lists for any reason, or no reason at all. (One TSA employee put women who refused to go on a date with him, on the non-fly list.)
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
A graphic design contractor I worked with many years ago flew to D.C. to do some graphic design work for TSA training manuals. What she learned there (which she never shared with us over do to non-disclosure agreements) freaked her out so much that she refused to fly back and took the train again, literally from the east coast clear to the west coast. And to my knowledge she has never flown again. I tried to get her to tell me what she learned the freaked her out so much that, even though she had flown lots before, she will no longer take a step on a plane. I continue to fly, but every time I do I can't help remembering her and wondering...
USA citizens killed by terrorists in 2011? 17 ( http://www.theatlantic.com/int... ). About the same number killed by furniture.
USA citizens killed by automobiles in 2011? 32,479 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... )
We're coming for you, GM...
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The lesson here: So long as the explosives aren't anywhere near your crotch, you'll probably pass the pat-down.
I've always thought the solution obvious, or at least as obvious as the school shooting situation. The only way to stop terrorists on planes is to hand out guns to everyone on the boarding ramp.
So as much as I hate to give the government any credit in this regard, lets also be fair..
Israel has 4 airports (major and minor).. As an example, NORTH CALIFORNIA has 473 airports (major, minor and private). So we have to remember there is a scale difference that is going to impact training as a cost variable. If training 1 person to the correct level of competence at a single airport costs say 100,000 and to do the job correctly at a single airport requires 200 such people (we won't even get into ancillary staff that should be trained, monitoring of that staff to insure they don't themselves become a vector, etc..) that means 2 Million per airport.. so we are talking 8 Million for the COUNTRY.. vs. if we take just the top 10 largest airports in California, it would cost 10 Million to CA.. (and don't forget, there are 49 other states that have similar numbers).. some of which these numbers are not correct because traffic wise, they get in a month, what Israel gets in a year. Also lets also consider that most of Israel's traffic is international. vs. the US gets as much (if not more) international traffic and domestic (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts).
So lets not forget we have a game of numbers that most other countries just don't have. Yes it could be done better.. (heck, my 15 year old half blind Maltese dog could do a better job.. damn labor laws won't let him work). but lets also be realistic that everyone wants everything without cost to them. (ie: protect me, do the best job possible.. but don't raise my taxes or impose other fees) its a delicate balance.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
TSA keeps your sexual organs healthy! Isn't that worth the price of admission? :-DDD
They aren't testing the true capabilities of the airport screeners. If they sent there fake weapons through taped to the crotches of young children and elderly grandmothers they would see the agents really shine.
Physical security (standing watch) is one of the most monotonous, thankless, and just plain boring jobs. At best you may be have spurts of attentiveness, but the rest of the time you're faking it. Fake badges (as tests) would get through at least 90% of the time, unless you saw someone coming who you knew was likely to test your attentiveness, or it happened to be during a spurt of attentiveness. The toughest physical security is going to be a bouncer, because he knows with 100% certainty that multiple underage patrons are going to try to sneak in on his watch, but even then dozens will, even without a bribe.
The most unrealistic aspect of first person shooters isn't the shitty AI, it's the AI's hypervigilance and flawless ability to instantly identify a threat on sight.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Look, the TSA has never worked.
It never will work.
As someone with extensive counter-terrorism experience and who started off as a combat field engineer, I can tell you that it is a total farce and waste of time and money.
Anyone with even a minor bit of experience or training can get through them. Just for fun I've usually put forbidden items during half of my trips, knowing they'd never spot them, due to their methods.
The full body scans are even more useless.
Just end it and stop wasting our scarce tax dollars which should be used overseas by nuking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with extreme prejudice. Neither of which is our ally.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
..annoying honest people to create the illusion of safety
Seriously, am I the only one noticing that? I mean, whenever there is some kind of blatant incompetence in anything people are dealing with on a semi-regular base, you may rest assured that some comedy troupe or at least some comedian will start a routine about it.
I've never seen one about the TSA. Never. And the TSA is by far not some obscure entity that nobody ever got bothered with. Hell, anyone who ever boarded a plane in the US not only saw them but can almost certainly tell some story about their incredible stupidity.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"It's in the testers' interests to beat the system" - as opposed to, oh, I don't know - actual terrorists?!?
"The testers also are just devising the hardest tests they can" - um, see above...
"imitate the methods utilized by the people they're supposed to be training the checkpoints to spot" - which are what exactly? oh, that's right - that would require catching an actual terrorist to know...
"They're specifically targeting known weaknesses. A high failure rate is their objective!" - do we see a pattern starting to form here?
for someone who seems to want to criticize the red team you're making a pretty strong case for their methodology...
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
Defense training is a great idea; not just a bit of Aikido like police get, but plane-centric defense training (when to depressurize the cabin, dropping the oxygen masks, when to cause turbulence, getting everyone back into their seat, when to seal off the cabin, etc.)
Guns? We now know that depressurization due to a few shots isn't explosive on modern planes, and so this isn't a problem. However, if an attacker/terrorist knew for certain that every pilot carried a machine gun, the reason for the TSA would cease to exist -- the weapon he needs is pre-loaded on the plane. If you lock up the gun enough that it takes some time to get it out and ready, then you've lost its effectiveness. If it is portable and loaded and just needs the safety released, then there are MANY creative ways for someone to get their hands on it who isn't the pilot/copilot. This isn't a situation where you can see the shady group of thugs hanging out at the other end of the street; anyone going after the gun is going to give close to no warning and already be in close quarters.
Plus there's the facts that a) you don't want someone already operating a deadly weapon to have to be distracted by a second deadly weapon, b) guns tend to miss their targets a LOT even when fired on stable ground; in the air with a bunch of people packed in like sardines, there's going to be a lot of friendly fire.
It'd be better to give the pilots gas masks and a panic button, so they can depressurize and stay conscious. Oh wait -- they've already got that!
So it comes back again to training.
The head of DHS is worried how to get the TSA one step ahead of the bad guys.
Seems like first, he needs to get them even with the bad guys.
Come on, that is absurd. Idiotic.
Yes, TSA is wasteful, stupid and probably corrupt. There may be behind the scenes success, but I doubt it and would not believe it without proof.
But a few minutes of your life every time you fly vs. someone's entire life (some of those killed were quite young - 2 and 3 years old) - no meaningful comparison at all. It's a typical aspergers/autistic sociopathic argument to add up supposedly wasted minutes of people's lives as if it is in any way comparable to another individuals entire remaining life. Would you voluntarily die so everyone else could have ten more minutes of life? I doubt it, I certainly would not take that tradeoff either way.
Sorry but life is full of 'wasted' time - Transport breakdowns, traffic jams, elevator delays, blackout, ad infinitum. If you are not smart enough and prepared enough to utilize that downtime productively its your failure, not anyone elses. (your brain is still available while waiting in line. Do some thinking.)
...and whenever anyone attempts to raise awareness to these issues (Snowden, for example), we just throw them to the wolves.
They really need to build performance testing into the system. That is, ensure that 10% of all passengers who are screened have something that needs to be detected. There are many ways to accomplish this. Such a change solves two problems at once.
The first problem is the obvious one. How do you know the system is working. With continuous testing, then you know at all times exactly how well it is working. You also have an easy way to evaluate how changes in procedure help/hurt, since you have continuous data collection on performance.
The other problem is more important, but perhaps less obvious. Security screeners are like people on watch duty in the military. They stare out at an empty ocean, and if you do things in the most obvious way then in a typical shift they observe exactly nothing 99% of the time. Or they have lots of false positives, that then cause trouble, and if anything that can tend to result in negative feedback that discourages the reporting of true observations. When you stare at a whole lot of nothing for a long time, your brain tends to zone out, and expecting to find nothing, the brain manages to find that even when there is something to be found.
If 10% of all passengers being screened were controls where something needed to be found, then you have to maintain a constant state of vigil. If for whatever reason that vigil is broken you get immediate feedback, and positive reinforcement for when you pay attention. Sentry duty becomes more like a game, or at least somewhat more engaging for the brain.
There are lots of ways to make it work. If nothing else you can hand random passengers fake weapons and have them stick them in their bags at the start of the line. Or, you could modify the equipment to generate a false positive at random (the metal detector goes off with nothing in it, or the x-ray machine adds a picture of a weapon to the image). Before doing an actual search that would pester the passenger, you first push a button that removes any artifacts from the results, and then the machine registers a successful response and then shows the true image, which then gets re-screened. That would result in fairly minimal delay to passengers, and a much better security environment.
Sure... and how does any of that actually contradict anything I've said?
To the point of TSA monitoring other things... sure, but you don't need to have the same security for a bus that you do for a plane. So... a no fly list is not a no bus list.
You might still log where so and so went but you don't really care if they take a bus or not.
As to government employees abusing their power... you see that at the IRS as well... want to abolish that? IRS Audits people all the time on specious grounds. I believe the FBI raided a factory because the owner donated to the "wrong" politician.
This sort of thing is typical.
Unless you're advocating for small government with very tightly enforced restrictions on what it does... I don't find this argument against the TSA to be especially credible.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Is it really a surprise that a system specifically designed solely to curtail personal liberties doesn't catch terrorists? Hint: failure was a design goal.
As to the training, glad we agree.
As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to the training, glad we agree.
As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
Yeah; I agree with this too. It's all a measure of calculated risk. And yes, the question is: is the risk worth taking?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
I think you missed my point here, although the "goes with the pilot" is a good clarification. What I'm saying is that unlike air marshals who are anonymous, pilots carrying guns makes them a target, as everyone knows they're carrying a gun. This means that any attacker can leave their gun at home, and get one off the pilot after they've gone through security. It doesn't even have to be the pilot for the plane they're boarding, as long as they incapacitate the victim pilot for long enough that their plane can get in the air.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
I think I already covered this one. The pilot can depressurize the cabin. Doing so would not only deprive the attacker of oxygen, it would also deprive the blow torch of oxygen. No need for a gun where the shots could cause more damage. Subsonic rounds are great, but if they hit the wrong person, they're still going to do damage -- and subsonic rounds can actually do MORE damage in some cases, as instead of a clean puncture, they can cause greater internal damage.
Your taser suggestion is actually really good -- Tasers are great for close quarters, and are usually a one-use weapon, which means that the attacker can't then take the taser and turn it on someone else.
This is a weapon that will also be of less use if taken off a pilot who has gone through security but not yet boarded. Good idea all around :)
Another idea I was thinking about was outfitting pilots and cabin crew with these: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2357/ -- 80,000 volts when armed should be enough to deter most attackers.
So people who pass a criminal background check are less likely to be involved in crime? That's not an impressive statistic.
A friend of mine was detained in Colorado over the weekend after her hands tripped a sensor for what she lovingly refers to as "bomb juice". She's a mother of a young toddler, still being breastfed. I seem to recall a mother's milk being a frequent offender on scans such as these. She concedes that perhaps she should have washed her hands prior to screening, but all that proves is the TSA might be sufficient in detecting lackluster personal hygiene.
Nobody managed to perpetrate another "terrorist attack".
So you don't need it. It didn't work and you couldn't tell it wasn't working. Pretty damn conclusive you don't need it.
Has it occurred to you that targeting a CCW on the ground is much less necessary for someone interested in obtaining a firearm than it would be in a restricted space like an airplane? So much so, that comparing the statistics on the ground to the situation in an airplane is nothing more than a wild guess pulled from your posterior?
The issue is that data mining doesn't work for this sort of thing. There are well over a million passengers a day in the US. If you can find terrorists with an 0.1% error rate, there are a thousand false positives a day, and almost certainly no actual terrorists. There are far too few terrorists to validate any model. There are far to few for diversity, and any decision technique is going to finger people like the 9/11 terrorists, because that's almost the entire sample, and miss people who aren't very much like them.
Another issue is that it went from stopping people from hijacking planes and using them as weapons to stopping people from blowing up the aircraft they're on, which is a much smaller risk. Since air travel is so safe, taking that money and spending it on almost any other safety issue would save more lives.
The authorities should drop back to pre-9/11 security, which was adequate for what it did. The terrorists did not carry guns, but rather knives. The passengers can deal with terrorists with knives, but it's a whole lot harder to deal with guns, and pre-9/11 security forced the terrorists to count on knives. Keep the guns off and trust the passengers.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Looks like the top Security Screener Clown was re-assigned to comfy State D post, i.e. resigned and re-assigned.
But after all TSA and DHS are just jobs programs for those who would otherwise be unemployable.
How do you think the Army couriers with live anthrax sample in their carry-on briefcases got by the TSA screeners? They just walked through and onto the plane.
Ha ha
As to the pilot having his gun taken from him... we need to clarify where and how that happens.
If the gun is being taken while the pilot is off the airplane, I can come up with a lot of really easy ways to make the gun useless off the plane.
If we're talking about the gun being taken from the pilot WHILE he is on the plane... I don't see that because you'd have to get into the cabin to do that.
So what is your concern? Off the plane or on the plane? If you can get into the pilot's cabin to take his gun then you're already too close.
As to electrified clothing... if they get close enough to touch me, I'm calling that a total failure.
As to depressurizing the cabin and forcing the hijacker to sit in a seat sucking oxygen... that's a good point. I'd still recommend the defense training and the taser.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to the pilot having his gun taken from him... we need to clarify where and how that happens.
If the gun is being taken while the pilot is off the airplane, I can come up with a lot of really easy ways to make the gun useless off the plane.
If we're talking about the gun being taken from the pilot WHILE he is on the plane... I don't see that because you'd have to get into the cabin to do that.
So what is your concern? Off the plane or on the plane? If you can get into the pilot's cabin to take his gun then you're already too close.
Main concern is off the plane. Agreed that if you can take the gun away in-cabin, the gun doesn't really make a difference one way or the other.
As to electrified clothing... if they get close enough to touch me, I'm calling that a total failure.
Yes, that's why I included all staff in this; it would be more useful for attendants, to make them another large self-aware obstacle between the attacker and the cockpit.
As to depressurizing the cabin and forcing the hijacker to sit in a seat sucking oxygen... that's a good point. I'd still recommend the defense training and the taser.
Me too :)
I'll bet 95% of the decoys were Caucasians.
It had two the same bags, one for my laptop and other for my gun and ammo. It went though X-ray. Only in the air I found out. Made a picture of it on the empty seat next to me otherwise my collegeaus would never believe it.
have nearly a %100 rate at finding candy bars, nail clippers and infant formula.
No it isn't.
If you come into my house, I have a right to search you before I let you into my house.
If I have an airplane, I have a right to search you if I want before I let you on the plane.
And beyond that, searching people as part of customs is basic at this point.
I don't know what you think you're talking about but you don't know US law.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I said, "By the gov't." If I come into your home, you have the right, but the gov't doesn't. If YOU have an airplane, YOU have the right, but the gov't doesn't. Customs is different because you don't necessarily have the right to cross the border. You have the right to travel, tho, and the gov't searching everyone traveling by airplane is illegal under the 4th Amendment. The airlines could set up such security and do it just fine, they aren't the gov't. But the gov't doing it is illegal under the 4th amendment.
I have a million different loopholes i can use to defeat your legal argument. That was my point.
The entire constitution is largely null and void at this point. Its been bypassed too many times.
You have the first amendment unless you happen to offend someone.
You have the second amendment unless you frighten me.
You have forth amendment except when the government says they really want to check you and find getting a warrant to be inconvienent.
You have the fifth amendment unless the government finds the legal process to be a hassle.
You have the sixth amendment unless the government wants to keep the trial secret for some reason and the right to speedy trial unless the government wants to grind you into submission with legal fees.
You have the seven amendment unless the government threatens you with extreme threats and forces you into a plea bargain.
You have the Eighth amendment unless the government wants to make an example of you or unless they want to intimidate you into that plea bargain.
You have the ninth amendment which... basically everyone totally ignores.
And then you have the tenth amendment unless the feds bribe or extort the state into a federal program... offering the carrot of billions of dollars in aid and the stick of cut funding and your people still being taxed to pay for a federal program they can't benefit from.
Tell me about your rights under the law. You have none. The system doesn't care. The people get the government they deserve.
Most americans are ignorant peasants and they've got a government that treats them as such. Were they anything but that... this wouldn't have happened.
Citizens do not permit the government to take away their rights. The american people did.
So... now that we understand what century we live in and how the system really works... tell me again why I can't do that?
If you wanted to really assert your rights... you'd have to do so more robustly than that. And your peers are such sheep that they're more interested in blending into the herd than they are stepping out and demanding anything.
Don't get me wrong. I wish this weren't the way things were. But they are this way. This is reality. This is today. The NSA spying powers just go renewed again. A clear violation of 4th amendment protections... no one cares.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Flew with my buddy, an ATC with his FAA badge around his neck. At the TSA security, The first guy told me to take my glasses off. Because "they could spark in the scanner." I couldn't see a thing. I held my hands out because I can see anything... Including CLEAR scanner tubes... So I had to feel my way in and out... A fat guy yells, "Suspecious character!!!" They isolated me and fondled every crevice of my body then processed me as not dangerous. They wasted 35 minutes of my time and told me I was never suppose to take my glasses off even though I was told to and I waited for no reason on the side. I went back to get my stuff, still no help seeing my path. It took 3 tries to find the right line... My watch and glasses turned up missing. My items were left unattended... I panicked and suddenly the luggage xray shutdown. My glasses slipped off the top of my basket and into the conveyor belt system then broke the hinges of my glasses... They pried them out like if they were going to AIDS. "Move aside sir!" So this whole ordeal, I'm barefoot and blind. Lost my watch, coulded find it, TSA said I should keep better watch on my stuff, and we rushed to the terminal while trying to fix my glasses. Got there when 1st class boarding started. Whole thing took just over an extra hour.
When flew back to USA, the airport we flew out of had us walk through an old metal detector and that was it... Took longer to get coffee than get through the checkpoint.
because my father in law was pulled out of line and searched/detained for a razor blade in his wallet @ SFO while at the same time when I was in Boston-Logan we watched a security person bypass security/no boarding pass for a woman who wanted to meet her daughter at the gate because she was coming home from college and wanted to surprise her... TSA is inconsistent is what it seems like
TSA screeners often get paid minimum wage. With that little compensation I wouldn't care either. Also, with 20 of those gnomes hanging around at each checkpoint it is difficult to pinpoint the single one who eventually screwed up. It would be much more effective if the US guvments stopped p*ssing off so many people, maybe they do not hold a grudge then.
That's all government has become. It's Brazil everywhere.
They're just preoccupied with stealing our stuff. "Ex-TSA agent: We steal from travelers all the time...A TSA agent convicted of stealing more than $800,000 worth of goods from travelers said this type of theft is “commonplace” among airport security. Almost 400 TSA officers have been fired for stealing from passengers since 2003." http://rt.com/usa/tsa-stealing... http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/... Solution? Protect Yourself: "100% foolproof solution to stop TSA from stealing your valuables out of your carry-on bag" "They're lazy pathetic thieves..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The purpose of the TSA (Terrorist Support Authority) is to keep the populace living in fear. The obvious goal is to keep us so terrorized by the thought of the boogie men terrorists that we will concede all of our liberties and civil rights without complaint. That the system and it's operators are completely incapable of providing any actual security is not only unsurprising, it may be the unavoidable reality of any so called "security" measures. The security is an illusion. Only the fear is real.
"Management would like to recognize the shining triumph of our agents in the field. Independent testing has revealed that 5%, that's right, a record of 5% of all weapons are being detected!!!
In recognition of this major milestone, all agents may take the afternoon off, effective immediately. Please code the time to the 'High Performance Rewards' category."