Slashdot Mirror


TSA Screeners Can't Detect Weapons (and They Never Could) (arstechnica.com)

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: TSA screeners' ability to detect weapons in luggage is "pitiful," according to classified reports on the security administration's ongoing story of failure and fear. "In looking at the number of times people got through with guns or bombs in these covert testing exercises it really was pathetic. When I say that I mean pitiful," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), speaking Tuesday during a House Oversight hearing concerning classified reports (PDF) from federal watchdogs (PDF). "Just thinking about the breaches there, it's horrific," he added. A leaked classified report this summer found that as much as 95 percent of contraband, like weapons and explosives, got through during clandestine testings. Lynch's comments were in response to the classified report's findings.

349 comments

  1. Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by loony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is.

    Peter.

    1. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is

      Is what?

    2. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by whitroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yup. As Bruce Schneir refers to it, "security theater".

      Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then, and they got them on in other ways.

                      mark

    3. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of the TSA. Should probably get some common sense before posting here

    4. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I don't always start reading a comment from the subject line either ;-)

    5. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is easy to believe that the NSA eavesdropping was the only reason that US planes were not falling out of the skies like Russian ones are now, since the TSA efforts are largely for show

    6. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Security Theater is nothing more than the Wizard of Oz. The problem is, nobody learned that lesson, in spite of nearly universal knowledge of that movie's pivotal scene.

      The problem is, the security theater only makes it more difficult, and now we're finding out it actually doesn't make it all much more difficult.

      IMHO the chances of hijacking a plane became much less likely to be successful after 9/11, because they broke the cardinal rule of hijacking, and turned the plane into a weapon. People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over, and will respond accordingly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then, and they got them on in other ways."

      Are you sure about that? I was able to bring my pocket knife through security before 9/11 as long as the blade was just a few inches.

      Wikipedia confirms this as well:

      "Box cutters and similar small knives were allowed onboard aircraft at the time."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    8. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Informative

      This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.

      The TSA has not stopped ANY attempts at bombing or hijacking airliners since 9/11. Various other methods have, but the TSA has been singularly useless.

    9. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Shoten · · Score: 1

      ... giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is.

      Peter.

      You're forgetting the other purpose of TSA...to give old ex-Nortel salespeople and other unemployables an alternative to having to ask, "Would you like fries with that?"

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    10. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 1

      Once I was returning from a prolonged trip overseas and boarded the plane with a box cutter in my carry on. I only discovered it after getting home and unpacking. But I did get stopped by the Japanese for having a spoon and chopsticks.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    11. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct, GP is mistaken.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    12. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that?

      This.

      I've carried a Leatherman tool on myself aboard flights before 9/11 (on 9/9/01 actually).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I've had one in my backpack go through x-ray post TSA without a raised eyebrow.

    14. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problems are that there are vast swaths of the population that believe that the TSA is actually doing something to keep them safe. I have a cousin who is 13 years younger than I am who is a weekend warrior (MN national guard reserves) and he fully believes the line that all of this is necessary and prevents terrorist attacks. He is too young to really remember before 9/11/01 and so doesn't really know what has changed. Pointing out that the 3 things that have actually prevented another 9/11 doesn't register with him and he insists that our foreign adventurism has helped the most. He may very well be correct as he may be privy to information that I am not but I have yet to see any evidence showing this to be the case.Then you have people like my mother who will openly state that "At least they are trying to do something". Then add in the "if you have nothing to hide", and "so long as it keeps us safe" groups and this won't change for a very long time.

      As I have pointed out here before I have accidentally brought banned items through security without any real effort in concealing them, they were left in coat pockets, and the TSA never once found them. Yet every time I bring my camera through I get to play 20 questions with the otherwise unemployable.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      In that latter role they would at least be providing a useful service to society.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security Theater? So innocent. So naive.

      This is Security Scam!

      The goal of the scanners, and the whole of the TSA was never to keep anyone safe. Or even give the appearance of keeping anyone safe.

      It was to line the pockets of private contractors. Scaring the shit out of people is /profitable/. Profitable for vendors. Profitable for crooked officials that take bribes and kickbacks.

      Its about money. It was always about money, and it will continue to be about money in the future.

      See also:
      Warmongering

      Panic/perpetual outrage media.

      The defense industry

      The war on drugs

    17. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Security Theater is nothing more than the Wizard of Oz. The problem is, nobody learned that lesson, in spite of nearly universal knowledge of that movie's pivotal scene.

      The problem is, the security theater only makes it more difficult, and now we're finding out it actually doesn't make it all much more difficult.

      IMHO the chances of hijacking a plane became much less likely to be successful after 9/11, because they broke the cardinal rule of hijacking, and turned the plane into a weapon. People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over, and will respond accordingly.

      Zardoz as a film is often panned, but the point that Zed realized the nature of Zardoz and started taking action to learn the real truth behind the floating head seems to be where we're at now with the TSA.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    18. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is that you can buy highly flammable alcohol at the duty free and carry it onto the plane without hassle.

    19. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.
      The TSA has not stopped ANY attempts at bombing or hijacking airliners since 9/11. Various other methods have, but the TSA has been singularly useless.

      Reinforced cockpit doors do sod all. Even without a reinforced cockpit door the crew could have kept them out of the cockpit if they wanted to using a co-pilots foot .

      What has made us tons safer after 9-11 is that now there would be reasonable quantity of the passengers who would challenge the hijackers, as recently shown on a French train. Previously most air hijackings were about taking hostages and using them to plead for some worthless chum of yours to be released, as soon as it became clear that the hijackers were never interested in your survival or their own it made trying to subdue them the safest option, no matter how dangerous that seemed.

      If you wanted to fly a plane into a building now you would have to steal an empty one first.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    20. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why I wish people would stop publicizing their failures. After the initial reports came out a while back the security lines got noticeably slower. If they are ineffective, then fine, but if you tell everyone they are ineffective then "something must be done" and it just makes things worse. I'm comfortable with risk, but I'm not comfortable wasting hours of my life at the airport.

    21. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by random+coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.

      Which also is a major contributing factor to a certain airline suicide crash in Europe.

    22. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And it's a good thing you weren't carrying a 4-ounce bottle of shampoo.

    23. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over, and will respond accordingly.

      How will people respond accordingly if it's illegal to carry a gun into a flight? Is there an officer in each flight?

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    24. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That would be an interesting experiment. Go to the airport, take a short flight say from a regional to hub and back the same day. On the return trip do some airport shopping, in the sanitized zone. See if its possible to acquire items needed to construct an explosive device capable of harming an aircraft, and test your device at home in large open area where the only person who could possibly be injured is you.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    25. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Probably the most easily spotted contraband I have accidentally brought through was an almost full box of 7.62x54r ammo in a coat pocket. Sent the coat through the x-ray machine and they didn't find it. only slightly worse was the time I sent that same coat through with a handful of 3" 12 gauge magnum goose loads in a pocket. This was after 9-11-01, and I have also forgotten about pocket knives as well since then that were never found.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    26. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      As I have pointed out here before I have accidentally brought banned items through security without any real effort in concealing them, they were left in coat pockets, and the TSA never once found them. Yet every time I bring my camera through I get to play 20 questions with the otherwise unemployable.

      I was traveling with a colleague a few years back and he discovered that he had left an entire box of ammo for his .357 in his jacket pocket when we got to the gate. Since we didn't have a lot of time, he decided to throw it in the trash rather than go through the hassle of dealing with the TSA. The way they act when you forget a tube of toothpaste in your luggage, we probably would have been banned from flying for life. At least that was his fear.

      I remember flying through Amsterdam sometime around 2005 with an external hard drive. They weren't as common then. I got detained for a couple of hours over it. I'm still not sure what they thought it was.

    27. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The trouble is as someone who flies often its already pretty onerous, invasive, and expensive. I'd really like to see it all go back to the way it was pre-911. I don't know how to effect that other than by talking about it.

      The alternative is what: we continue to run a massive public works program, that accomplishes nothing other than violating the person and privacy of our fellow citizens when traveling, to the end of time?

      That does not sound like a good plan to me.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    28. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ... giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is.

      Peter.

      Feelings, huh?

      Tell me how I'm supposed to feel after the next attack happens because of the current inability to stop it. Should we citizens feel MUCH better when TSA2 is proposed at four times the price and half the effectiveness?

      In other words, this "reaction" is anything but, because it's now been proven it can't prevent or even detect an attack.

      And ignorant voters and taxpayers apparently have no problem paying trillions for nothing more than a security charade.

    29. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government knows damn well that the TSA is security theater -- someone just forgot to tell this particular elected official.

      Security theater can be great as a deterrent, but once everybody starts shouting about how it's not real, then its deterrent effect is decreased. So we can either tell people to shut up about it, or eliminate the facade, but increased security isn't an option, for two reasons:

      1) Nobody can be vigilant against mostly non-existent threats for hours and days and years on end, except the most paranoid, OCD people, who aren't hireable anyway. That's why bouncers are effective -- people are constantly trying to sneak in, and bouncers know they're going to catch people. Most other security guards know they'll never, ever catch anyone, because nobody ever tries, and their attention suffers as a result. It's not that they don't want to do their job; it's that the reality of their job is incredibly tedious. It becomes about going through the motions most of the time, and maybe making an effort every so often.

      2) Real security takes time, and that pisses people off. Maybe not in the immediate wake of a catastrophic security failure, but days or weeks later, it will. Patience will run thin. Moreover, the biggest advantage of flying is convenience -- it's fast. Once that convenience goes away, its popularity will decline.

      Honestly, it doesn't matter though. Security has diminishing returns, like anything else, and no target can be fully protected. We can't, even collectively, control all of the variables. And when the risks are infinitesimal to begin with, then taking steps to lower them even more is usually a wasted effort. Better to focus on having procedures in place to handle things when the worst case happens.

    30. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to guess it was a box of 20 (typical of self-defense rounds), rather than 50 (typical of target/practice rounds). 50 rounds of pistol ammo (excluding .22LR) is pretty darned heavy and bulky to not realize you have it in your pocket.

    31. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      They've caught my Micra every time I forgot to pack it in checked baggage. The last time I threw it in the amnesty barrel. The agent was visibly angry.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    32. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's never going to go back to the way it was. Too many people make too much money from the new way. No politician is ever going to get rid of the TSA; whenever the next attack happens, they'll get blamed.

    33. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Locke2005 · · Score: 0

      You may not have thought of this, but firing a gun in a plane at altitude is actually a really bad idea. A plane is a pressurized can with almost 1 atm pressing against the thin metal skin at 30,000 feet. Punching a hole in that skin tends to cause sudden depressurization, and may result in things (like people) getting sucked through the hole. Could also result in damage to the jet engines; again, a really bad idea at 30,000 feet. The other thing about planes: they are usually very densely packed with people, so missing one human being very likely results in the bullet lodging in another human being. Yes, Air Marshall's carry guns, but I'm pretty sure they are trained to use them only as a very last resort. Best strategy is exactly what has happened several times post 9/11: Everbody that can get close to the person perceived as threatening jumps them and beats the hell out of them, then their hands are zip-tied and somebody sits on them until the plane lands and they are removed by law enforcement.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    34. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes you can.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    35. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, I don't always start reading a comment from the subject line either ;-)

      Putting half of the first sentence of your post in the subject line should be a capital offense. If you oppose the death penalty for religious or moral reasons, then you should mod them down instead.

    36. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I work for an airline and back when I used to work on the ramp (only about 2-3 years ago), I was working a flight that was about to depart and a guy putting his bag in the overhead bin had a few bullets fall out. Apparently he had forgotten they were in there and it got through security. They simply deplaned everyone, reswept the plane, then allowed everyone, including that passenger, back onto the plane.

      Now, there was also the time I found a bunch of lose bullets (just the projectiles themselves) lying around on the ground in the staging area for our cargo facility and again on the ramp when I found some spent .22 casings. The casings my supervisor claimed were from nail guns, but I was a bit suspicious on those.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    37. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may not have thought of this, but firing a gun in a plane at altitude is actually a really bad idea. A plane is a pressurized can with almost 1 atm pressing against the thin metal skin at 30,000 feet. Punching a hole in that skin tends to cause sudden depressurization, and may result in things (like people) getting sucked through the hole.

      Myth: Busted.

    38. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      And then see all those useful and/or convenient items disappear from that area. Boo.

    39. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      And yet they somehow always get the bits for my screw driver...

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    40. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Before 9/11 I had a service call. Took an 18 inch mechanics toolbox as carry one. Appologiezed for forgetting to remove a box cutter in screening and mentioned for them to take it as it would be easly replaced. They let me keep it but was more concerned with the screwdrivers at the time. I assuered them it would be kept under the seat and remain closed for the trip. They let me keep the box cutter.

      Post 911 is more difficult to travel with tools.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    41. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Articles such as this are pure spin. While its questionable if the TSA has stopped a terrorist threat, they do find and confiscate and find weapons. Just because they aren't perfect does not make the exercise worthless. Also the only threats to planes are not just terrorists, look at all the issues we have seen with the general population with people wigging out on planes, letting potential weapons though would only make these situations worse.

      http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html

      As for the changes after 911, outrage a lot of people seem to have seem a bit much. Having traveled both before and after 911. The major changes I see, I have to take off my shoes and belt now, and they restrict liquids (which is the only real pain), its not like having to go through scanners is something new. The biggest difference that could cause people problems is the no fly list if you got put on it incorrectly, and while this has happened, its not a widespread problem, or the airlines would be up in arms about it.

      To be honest, having traveled extensively internationally, the security at US airports is often less bothersome than that in most of the countries I have travelled, while yes, its initially a pain to get in, especially at some major airports, mainly due to the lines, once your through, your essentially done, you don't have to keep going through security checkpoints which I have found a number of countries require, though some such as India might do it more just as a way to employ more people.

    42. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      I haven't flown for over a decade now simply because they, the government, have taken enough of my rights. Why should I freely give them any more. I even missed my dads funeral to some extent because of my refusal to fly. Family things being the other main contributor.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    43. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been done with entertaining results.

    44. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Actually, despite what the movies teach you, a bullet hole in the skin of a plane will not cause sudden depressurization that causes people and things to get sucked through the hole. It will not be very dramatic. Also, it would not cause enough damage to an engine to bring it down (at least, small arms fire wouldn't).

      However, if the bullet takes out a window, then you might have problems...

      Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/gun-on-plane.htm

    45. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The pilot took advantage of the locked door, but it's not like he wouldn't have been able to crash the plane otherwise. There's really nothing that can be done about a pilot who wants to crash their plane.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    46. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The French train situation isn't at all comparable, that was just a shooter who really picked the wrong car to start his rampage in.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    47. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then, and they got them on in other ways.

      Actually, it was legal to carry small knives at that time, no one would have thought that a box cutter would have been used to hijack a plane, it was more that the common wisdom was to not fight the hijackers and everyone would live.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    48. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, .22 casings would make sense. Think of the nailgun used to put a nail in concrete, not your typical wood nailgun.

      http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ram...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    49. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once spoke with a TSA "tester" who tried to bring guns, explosives, knives, etc. onto planes. (This was about 10 years ago.)

      She said she got stuff through about 90% of the time.

      So if it's now 95% of the time, our security has only gotten worse in the last decade.

    50. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Well before 9/11, I had a plastic squirt gun confiscated. I was like 11 at the time, I to this day don't know what they were thinking I would do with a squirt gun made out of clear plastic.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    51. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
      While they do work nicely on new concrete, with older brittle concrete they just make a mess (an sds-plus drill with a concrete nail holds up much better)

    52. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      My friend had his laser tag set out into special gun boxes and checked once when I was in middle school (80s)

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    53. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      And it's a thing that's happened before cockpit doors.

      If enything, the slower decent chosen because of the doors gives more time to back out.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    54. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO the chances of hijacking a plane became much less likely to be successful after 9/11,

      Ding ding ding, we have a winner. 9/11 succeeded *exclusively* because, pre-9/11, Everybody Knew that a hijacked plane meant an annoying delay as long as you stayed calm. Before the last plane on 9/11 itself (Flight 93) could be used as a weapon, one single person got a message about terrorists crashing planes into buildings and we saw what the new Everybody Knows is:

      If there's Americans onboard, don't you fucking try anything because we WILL bum rush you.

    55. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by phaethon2k · · Score: 2

      Flying home from Disneyland at age 7 or so, the airline workers freaked out when I boarded with a super soaker water gun still new in the box. They pulled me aside until the pilot came out and said 'what's he going to do, shoot water in the engine?' There were stupid people well before 9/11.

    56. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thats me too, last time I flew was in Sept 2004. In 2005, I turned down a pretty good job that I'd actually gotten a tentative offer on. The job entailed about 25% travel, and after much thought, I told them, "Thanks but no thanks...". The manager I'd have been working for told me they were having trouble filling the position, as I was the 3rd offer they'd made where the potential employee turned them down because of the travel... Really glad I turned them down as I found a MUCH better job about a month later with ZERO need to interface with the TSA....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    57. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's not a question about whether the rulers would allow it, but whether it'd be an improvement.

      Banning guns, but not knives, and securing the cockpit doors would give us better security, and move to a walk-through metal detector and high speed baggage scanning. Work on a no-fly list where anyone who triggers the metal detectors from stuff left in pockets twice is moved to the "slow" lane, and a "fast" lane for people who travel once a month or more with no detections.

      There are lots of ways to streamline the process and keep security the same or better than today.

    58. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      I have my doubts that our current programs are really that ineffective. When they take someone who doesn't fit any profile and send them through knowing that if they get caught they are authorized to do what they are doing, it's different than a real world threat scenario. I'd love for them to reduce wasted time and money and I would hope budget cuts will trim them down over time. I'm not hopeful that public opinion is going to make much difference in their approach up until the point that it starts to affect the number of people traveling. I'd bet if ticket sales declined they would respond to that, but so far everyone just adapts and tolerates their invasive stupidity.

    59. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      ... giving you the feeling...

      I'm not sure how feeling up little girls and grandmothers with the government's blessing is making us any more safe, but if you like getting the TSA blue-gloved ball/clitoris rub from someone who couldn't hold a job at Taco Bell and that makes you feel safe, more power to you. You are easily placated. The TSA scares me a hell of a lot more than the "terrorists".

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    60. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Squirt people with acid?

      Detonate the charge of liquid explosives?

      Dampen the Air Marshal?

      These are dangerous times.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    61. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What has made us tons safer after 9-11 is that now there would be reasonable quantity of the passengers who would challenge the hijackers

      Well, you weren't supposed to fight back. Literally, the training was the crew would go along with whatever the hijackers wanted, and keep the damn customers sat down and calm. (Special cases like air marshals aside)

      Which made sense, as the plane would land in some random country as a statement.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    62. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has made us tons safer after 9-11 is that now there would be reasonable quantity of the passengers who would challenge the hijackers, as recently shown on a French train.

      Someone tired to hijack a train?

    63. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      "Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then, and they got them on in other ways."

      Are you sure about that? I was able to bring my pocket knife through security before 9/11 as long as the blade was just a few inches.

      Wikipedia confirms this as well:

      "Box cutters and similar small knives were allowed onboard aircraft at the time."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But were box-cutters the reason the hijacking happened? I guess we'll never know but it's almost amusing (in a sad dystopian way) that the Lone Gunmen series [1] pilot episode described the GOVERNMENT trying to fly planes into the WTC towers via remote control... so who knows what happened on those planes.

      There's a sticker that used to be visible as you drove into the eBay campus in SJ for many years - "9/11 was an inside job".

      Banning box-cutters after 9/11 sounds like the same logic (we must do something!!) that led to the US attacking Iraq as a consequence.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    64. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by msimm · · Score: 1

      The TSA is not simply security theater anymore, it's social welfare.

      --
      Quack, quack.
    65. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Aren't you overdue for your wool combing?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    66. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by chihowa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I have pointed out here before I have accidentally brought banned items through security without any real effort in concealing them, they were left in coat pockets, and the TSA never once found them. Yet every time I bring my camera through I get to play 20 questions with the otherwise unemployable.

      It's funny that you use that example because the last time I flew they pulled me aside to explain the extra camera battery that was literally right next to a pocket knife that they didn't notice. After being grilled (bumblingly questioned, really) for five minutes, they finally accepted my explanation for the battery, put it back next to the knife and let me go.

      On the way back, they didn't seem to notice either the knife or the battery.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    67. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Lobachevsky · · Score: 1

      It's also hilarious to see the level of security theatre on the front door where all the passengers go through: millimeter wave backscatter machines, hundreds of do-nothing taxpayer govt salaried agents, K-9 units, and para-military troops, but then if you go to the backdoor where they push all the bagel carts in for the cafeteria, it's just a badge-swipe with no one around and most people keeping the door open for the guy behind them, and then you push a giant metal bagel cart in with (hopefully) bagels inside but no one knows or cares. You could just about as easily serve bagels in the airport as any other contraband. All those metric tons of onion rings, frying oil, cream cheese, dasani water, pots, pans, and other crap travelers fatten themselves up with didn't get in there by magic, but "out of sight, out of mind".

      And every day more metric tons of crap needs to be carted in to fill new tummies, not to mention all the retail merchandise, shirts, pants, watches, sunglasses, suitcases, headphones, and other crap that would be the envy of most mega-malls. But never mind all that, let's throw more millimeter backscatter machines to see what's under the bikinis! Welcome to idiocracy!

      Reminds me of those scenes where they show an exclusive club with a line a mile long, paparazzi flashing their cameras, and a bouncer reject all but the most elite into the front door, with full pat-down service, and then in the back is a busser throwing trash bags out, the door propped open by a wooden stick, a few stray cats and dogs wandering in and out of the back of the restaurant, occasionally tossed some scraps, and no crowd in sight; maybe a band rolls up and slowly carries in their equipment, in those giant guitar cases the film noir mobsters used to put their oozies in. It's the same place, just the front vs back.

    68. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was only possible because the pilot was allowed, both by law and by his airline's policy, to be in the cockpit alone.

    69. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Not exactly.

      The purpose of the TSA is to force all of us to perform an obedience ritual when traveling, instead of taking any practical measures to equip ourselves for emergencies.

      Right after 9/11, many people were calling for allowing all CCW holders to carry on aircraft, since the policy of attempting to disarm everyone discards the natural advantage that good people have over bad people, which is that bad people are almost always greatly outnumbered. GWB and the rest of the Ruling Party didn't want us taking our safety into our own hands, so they dreamed up the security theater bullshit to deflect public attention.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    70. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Punching a hole in that skin tends to cause sudden depressurization,

      Hollywood Bullshit.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    71. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Security theater can be great as a deterrent,

      It has no deterrent benefit whatsoever. The perps know that the days of "just do what the bad man says" are over.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    72. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1
      Frankly I doubt concealed carry on a plane could possibly be very effective. If five terrorists can get box cutters on a plane then five terrorists can get concealed carry permits and outnumber any other concealed carry citizens. Not to mention that explosive decompression is no fun and I doubt plane windows were intended to resist more than a couple shots from the inside before catastrophically failing. Explosives and planes don't mix well, and given that a fair number of gun injuries are actually accidents (not to mention uncounted accidental firings) I would imagine the first time a plane has issues due to gunfire it would be accidental from an otherwise legal concealed handgun.

      In the best case scenario some idiot terrorist without a gun gets shot a couple times in the center of mass with no over-penetration before setting off a bomb. Virtually any other scenario doesn't require firearms to handle; terrorists on a plane are literally at arms-length to a hoard of people who hate terrorists. Terrorists taking overt action need room to maneuver or the ability to barricade themselves, or else the ability to instill overwhelming fear and inaction in everyone surrounding them. Taking over a plane with the threat of personal violence is pretty much the hardest thing a terrorist could accomplish at this point.

    73. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      People were really, really pissed when 9/11 happened and I responded with, "Yeah, that sucks. So?" Seriously? What are we going to do about it?

      You know what? It's a shitty world. I accept that I, you, my family, or my friends may die - in very violent ways. I've seen a few deaths from violent trauma, in person. It sucks. You know what? So what? I'm not cold. I'm not lacking in empathy. I just don't think it's such a big deal that means we need to restructure our lives, reduce our rights, and live in perpetual fear. Shit happens. It sucks. Pick up, move on, and don't let it get you down.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    74. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Reinforced cockpit doors do sod all."

      They seems to work well enough to stop people from saving their own lives: Germanwings_Flight_9525

    75. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      The fact is there really haven't been a whole heap of attempts in the first place.

      The Terrorists are a lie.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    76. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to fly a plane into a building now you would have to steal an empty one first.

      You would be surprised at how easy this would be.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    77. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Well go batshit insane with a gun on the train. He was quickly subdued. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    78. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      because not everyone is a coward without a gun. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    79. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I dig that now.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    80. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you want to greatly increase the risk of there being a shooting on a plane in order to slightly increase the chances of being able to stop one should it happen?? Brilliant logic.

    81. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      But... we're safe from water fights on a plane as the TSA won't let us bring even bottled water on a commercial aircraft, nor clear plastic squirt guns that bear only the most superficial resemblance to an actual firearm.
      We're also safe from diet coke + mentos rockets flying around the cabin, thanks to the TSA.

      Thank you TSA!!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    82. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      The TSA illustrates Smith's Maxim perfectly: "The reaction of every state from the beginning of time to threats, real or perceived, external or internal, has been to simply victimize its own people. Always and in every case, without exception."

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    83. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Still better odds than not having a lock. There's a much higher chance of a crazy person/terrorist existing in a pool of 200 passengers than in a pool of 2 pilots.

    84. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me, used to be a Guard guy before I went active duty, he is just selling the public line. They're brain washed that what they do is important.

    85. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      ... giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is.

      Peter.

      If you're in a democracy, get the cause-effect correct. It's all your fellow citizens who wanted the guvmint to "do something" even tho going shopping was probably the best thing to do, but Bush could have been more eloquent, perhaps saying something about all we have to fear is fear itself.

      TSA is the fear itself.

    86. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And like every other government agency they will live on in perpetuity with no accountability to their utter fallibility and they will never be disintegrated. They may morph into something else, but they never go away. Once government starts a program, it never goes away.

    87. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      One of the guys I played hockey with was a bouncer at a bar, during an altercation he got stabbed in the face with a screwdriver (right through cheek). Bouncers definitely don't get paid enough for that sort of garbage. Anyway a screwdriver is way more dangerous than a box cutter in my view.

      The thing that pisses me off the most is bring booze on the plane. That used to be easy and not a big deal. Anyway that has tried to check booze, and had it break can attest to the pain of your bleeding suitcase when you go to pick it up. Sure there is duty free, if you enjoy drinking garbage, or not buying anything local. Some airlines, and some countries, and some airports, allow you to bring your own and use special bags, etc... but it is horribly inconsistent, and arduous.

      Though one funny kind of spin off of that, are if you are snowbirds or the like for any length of time, it is easier to just leave all your booze behind, which means:
      1) Some serious parties and drinking likely occur just before the rental month people have to leave just to get rid of their booze, and
      2) There is a thing where you leave all your booze for the next guy, or friends that haven't left yet, and the booze pile just kind of gets bigger and bigger.

    88. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Aww thought of changing the subject title to "Decanting weapons is NOT..." after I already post :(

    89. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then

      Boxcutters? Nothing illegal about those. I think there was a prohibition on long knives (check your Crocodile Dundee knife, or leave it at home), but most folding pocketknives and other short-bladed cutting instruments would've been OK.

      The better part of 20 years ago, Best Buy sent me around to its California stores to assist in merchandising resets. I carried a cheap boxcutter on my keychain as it was something I used regularly at work. It was basically an aluminum frame that held a single-edge razor blade that could be slid out for use and slid back in when you were done. I left it on my keychain as we flew from store to store; none of us brought checked baggage so we could avoid the hassle of waiting for bags. Out of maybe a dozen and a half trips, airport security only gave me grief over my boxcutter once at SFO, and even then I told them I'd already been flying with it multiple times and convinced them to let me through with it.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    90. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

      Prior to 9/11 I carried my Leatherman Tool with me when flying all the time. since then, my Gerber Multi-Tool (along with the rest of my EMT holster) goes in checked luggage, I really don't to go through the hassle of replacing it if by some chance the new guy is working the scanner and tries to impress the boss...

      --
      "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
    91. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real lesson from 911 was that sometimes the passengers desperately need to have some weapons. The day could not have turned out worse if they were all heavily armed. Of course the terrorists then would be heavily armed also, but much less inclined to try to take an aircraft.

      So it is good that the TSA can't find weapons.

    92. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over

      People on planes NOW know that, whereas previously that would only be an individual concern ("thank fuck I used my Irish passport for this flight, not my British one ; I hope they take the British passport guy beside me" being the internal conversation) or a concern of fucked-up flight decisions by the hijackers (such as the plane which crashed out of fuel 20-odd miles short of the runway for an Indian Ocean island in the late 80s. I forget the flight number.) So no hijacker can plan on a compliant passenger body and will need far higher body counts. Dozens.

      So, suicide bombers become a more effective use of opportunities.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. And yet..... by clifwlkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing happened. No hijackings, no downed planes, absolutely nothing. Maybe we don't need all of this security theater after all and could just leave our shoes on and take some water with us through the gate then? Save a few tax dollars?

    Of course it will go the other way and will be a huge call for more strict rules and procedures. Sigh.....

    1. Re:And yet..... by rlp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nothing happened ...

      because the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber" were stopped by alert passengers.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:And yet..... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> Save a few tax dollars?

      No, we need federal rent-a-cops grabbing people's junk to demonstrate "what your tax dollars are paying for." When tax dollars silently disappear into the banks of the well-connected, the ranks of the Tea Party (on the right) and Bernie supporters (on the left) tend to swell.

    3. Re:And yet..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shoe bomber could have held the lighter to his C4-laden shoes till his foot was nothing but a charred stump, and it wouldn't have gone off.

      On the other hand, he's lucky the static from walking across the jetway carpet didn't blow his sorry ass sky high.

    4. Re:And yet..... by Octorian · · Score: 2

      The way they seem to treat those water bottles at the checkpoint, is proof positive that they didn't even consider them dangerous for a millisecond. Seriously, they just toss them in a bin next to the X-Ray machine.
      Oh, and with the shoes, its also obvious they don't consider those potentially dangerous either. If they did, then why do they exempt anyone under or over certain ages from the rule?

      Basically, they make the process as annoying as possible, with specific exceptions for anything that's resulted in an incident the media has made a big deal about.

      I'm also not even sure what those millimeter wave scanner machines actually look for. The last time I flew, it detected something on my back that turned out to just be a patch of sweat from the backpack I was wearing.

    5. Re:And yet..... by trout007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The passengers on the 4th plane on 9/11 are the first. Planes are done. Crews and Passengers were taught to cooperate with hijackers. That's all over. To stop 9/11 all that would have been required is a declaration not to cooperate with terrorists.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    6. Re:And yet..... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Modern reports Americans are less free than Canadians, and have more fear of terrorist attacks than Egyptians, Sudanese, and Bangladeshians.

    7. Re:And yet..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also not even sure what those millimeter wave scanner machines actually look for. The last time I flew, it detected something on my back that turned out to just be a patch of sweat from the backpack I was wearing.

      The frequency is reflected by skin and denser (and somewhat lighter, I don't know what the cutoff is) materials. I've had it give false alarms after I'd missed a haircut (by a few months...) because some matting provided a region where the return signal was distorted. The exact tolerances of how continuous a surface is expected to be are likely proprietary trade secrets and possibly even marked as a governmental secret.

      The core intent is that any sort of metal, hardened ceramic, or other material that blades would be likely constructed from would be even more reflective than skin, and that any container would show a clear change in contour regardless of what it was made out of.

      It has weaknesses, but so does every form of mechanical security feature. I'm still uncertain it performs better than the classic metal detection door frame, but both are undeniably safer to use than the briefly proposed x-ray backscatter sensors. It shows a blatant hypocrisy to suggest that you can make things safer by installing many devices that require a total evacuation and heavily geared clean-up crew if someone kicks one.

    8. Re:And yet..... by PPH · · Score: 2

      So, let's allow passengers with concealed weapons permits to carry on board.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:And yet..... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Nothing the TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, US armed services did prevented those individuals for begin unsuccessful in their attempts. What did make them unsuccessful were the passengers as well as the bombers being only slightly smart enough to not choke on their own tongues.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    10. Re:And yet..... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Actually it takes an explosion to detonate C4 because it's very stable, that's why you have blasting caps.
      We'd often demil C4 by slapping it on the berm wall of the burning pit and light it.

    11. Re:And yet..... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The way they seem to treat those water bottles at the checkpoint, is proof positive that they didn't even consider them dangerous for a millisecond. Seriously, they just toss them in a bin next to the X-Ray machine.

      I see I am not the only one who has wondered about that. Get a bunch of attackers on a busy day to pitch some 20 oz. bottles filled with explosives in the trash at a few checkpoints and then a while later have someone pitch one in to set them all off. On another side note is the huge line the TSA manages to create, get some asshole who has one of those tool large to actually carry on, carry on bags that too many people have and fill that thing with explosives and detonate it in the security line.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    12. Re:And yet..... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Actually it's totally crappy at detecting someone carrying actual weapons. There have been numerous posts about this with actual videos and photos so that you could see what went through and how the scanner didn't show anything suspicious. Again, the tech is an interesting idea, but the actual application doesn't work up to claimed parameters, thus it's just more 'security theater'.

    13. Re:And yet..... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Are the Bangladeshians related to the Kardashians?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    14. Re:And yet..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let's allow passengers with concealed weapons permits to carry on board.

      As long as their not arabs...

    15. Re:And yet..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An energetic explosion will set it off, and so will an electrical discharge.

      That's right, no blasting cap necessary, just stick the two wires into the explosive and close the switch.

      Warning: close the switch from the other end of a very long wire if you have any desire for self-preservation.

    16. Re:And yet..... by random+coward · · Score: 2

      get some asshole who has one of those tool large to actually carry on, carry on bags that too many people have and fill that thing with explosives and detonate it in the security line.

      Its been done, and it doesn't even have to be in the security checkpoint line.

    17. Re:And yet..... by hey! · · Score: 2

      I'm actually old enough to remember when metal detectors and baggage screen were made mandatory in 1972. It made a HUGE difference; by 1970 or so major hijackings had become a multiple times/year event (check out Wikipedia's list). It took almost a decade but by the 80s hijackers successfully boarding at US airports became a rare event.

      We need to think in terms of two things:

      (a) marginal utility; and
      (b) patching specific vulnerabilities as they are exposed.

      The thing is baggage screening, metal detectors and requiring ID were the low hanging fruit in terms of systematic improvements. Reinforcing cockpit doors was a no-brainer after 9/11. After that there just wasn't a lot of numerical improvement to be had when things like full body scanners came along. I actually believe attempting to fix parts of the system where very little marginal improvement is possible is a scam. I was working in stuff that was remotely applicable to bioterrorism and we were multiple times approached by politically connected VCs looking to repackage our stuff to cash in on the homeland security bonanza; we declined. Meanwhile other things like physically securing the airport tarmac were neglected.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:And yet..... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      because the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber" were stopped by alert passengers.

      and they were also both 'walked' through security by CIA agents...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    19. Re:And yet..... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Superficially appealing, but I don't trust the average person - even someone with a permit - to have much skill, and to be prepared to act in a crowded setting with lots of collateral targets, and to hit what they're aiming at without making a hole in the fuselage that could be disastrous at 500 mph and high altitude. Now, if you want to talk about qualification levels based on testing . . . . but then, I think all owners (and especially any concealed carriers) should have to demonstrate ability to hit a target.

    20. Re:And yet..... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      The way they seem to treat those water bottles at the checkpoint, is proof positive that they didn't even consider them dangerous for a millisecond. Seriously, they just toss them in a bin If the liquid is flammable, you can still safely toss it in a bin. If the liquid is an ingredient for a multi-ingredient explosive or chemical weapon, you can toss it in a bin. The stated purpose of the rule is to prevent those two categories . . . not to enforce buying things from the licensed airport vendors at inflated prices . . .

    21. Re:And yet..... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We can only hope.

    22. Re:And yet..... by maeka · · Score: 0

      So, let's allow passengers with concealed weapons permits to carry on board.

      Seems very counterproductive. US deaths due to accidental firearm discharges are higher than US deaths due to terrorism.

    23. Re:And yet..... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And only with subsonic rounds that are low-energy. Something that has almost no stopping power, so that when you stand in the front and shoot 1C you won't kill 2C 3C and 4C. Though, there is the issue of stray buttons striking the hull, or worse, a hinge on a cargo door.

    24. Re:And yet..... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Also, "drunk guy on plane becomes belligerent" is more common than terrorism. I'd hate to make that "armed, belligerent drunk guy on plane."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:And yet..... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Something like this. Although the air marshals carry a P229 Sig Sauer chambered for .357 Sig rounds (a 10mm auto shell necked down to a .357 bullet). So, not really concerned with overpenetration or blowing out a window.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    26. Re:And yet..... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A 410 pistol would be on the large size, and loaded with shot would not be a precision item, and I have no idea what the penetration of a short-barrel 410 slug would be. Perhaps with a light load, and (light) kevlar seats, the slug would not go through more than one person.

    27. Re:And yet..... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong. Electrical discharge will not detonate it, neither will small arms fire. Only detonator will and that is why cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine in plastic binder (aka C4) is used

      educate your ignorant self before spewing nonsense

    28. Re:And yet..... by raind · · Score: 1

      While not TSA related maybe, showing in theaters (tv news) now is ISIS took down the Russian bound aircraft...

      --
      Get up!
    29. Re:And yet..... by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the families of the passengers of Metrojet Flight 9268. (Granted, screening wasn't performed by the TSA, but there was some sort of similar screening in place there.)

    30. Re:And yet..... by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      *they're

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    31. Re:And yet..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      But we can go back to the pre-9/11 security screening. I don't think anyone's in favor of doing away with the screening altogether, but let's dial it back.

      The chuck of budget used by the TSA can be allocated to other methods of preventing attacks that are way more effective. Maybe even add other security features to planes like the bolted and more resistant door... Germanwings crash not withstanding, other things that do not interfere (as much) with the travel for "regular" passengers.

    32. Re:And yet..... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Let the monkeys believe their truthiness. I mean he would only have to read the wiki to know better. Matter of fact the shoe bomber and the scrotum sac burner also just had to read the wiki to know it wasn't going to work.

      The Terrorists are a lie.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    33. Re:And yet..... by delt0r · · Score: 0

      A bunch of dumb americans with guns on a plane is a premise for a B grade movie. I mean reatards all pulling guns on each other in a confined space and zero cover. Yep that will end well. It is bad enough having you retards on the street and only a matter of time before it escalates into something truly horrific. Even the NRA won't save gun restriction laws after than.

      The Terrorists are a lie.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    34. Re:And yet..... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it maybe wikipedia should be filled with instructions to cause terrorists and crooks blow themselves up trying to make something bad. Ha! Good people can take organic chemistry courses and such.

    35. Re:And yet..... by delt0r · · Score: 1
      Point in fact most of the chemistry on the internet is simply not detailed enough from a safety stand point. They leave things out like heat of solutions and stuff.

      But i don't believe that knowledge is the enemy here. as the quote goes:

      No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

      .

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  3. Anecdotal evidence by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My sister watched the supervisor run her backpack through the xray 3 times before the screener notice the pen knife in it, and my mother actually succeeded in getting a small pen knife onto a plane by "forgetting" it was in her makeup kit. These incidents were years ago. And, they don't really matter; post 9/11, a knife would not be an effective weapon for highjacking a plane. When every passenger makes the assumption they are going to die anyway if they don't take out the highjacker, pretty much every passenger is going to attempt to jump the highjacker and take him out. Even with a knife, you'd be hard pressed to be 100 to 1 odds - people don't die fast enough.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prior to 9/11, past hijackings were primarily of the "Take this plane to Havana!" type. People believed that if they complied, they' go home safely. 9/11 changed that forever. When you have no expectation that the plane is going anywhere but into the side of a building, you're not going to sit still and wait for it to happen, pen knife or no penknife. And the handful of incidents since have proven that completely. The passengers will tear a hijacker limb from limb with their bare hands if they have to.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Anecdotal evidence by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't fly very often, and as such I don't think about things like the fact that I carry a pocket knife ... all the time ... including every time I go through the airport security circus ... including those retarded back scatter machines that apparently suck so much they can't detect a pocket knife with a 2 inch blade. 2 inches is pretty short (ask your wife) but certainly something they should have detected.

      The TSA and airport security is a joke.

      Planes haven't been used effectively as a weapon again because as you say, we'll fucking kill anyone that tries even at the cost of our own lives because the alternative may be not only does the plane crash, but so do 5000 other people not on the plane ...

      And also ... their really aren't that many nut jobs out there that are truly willing to kill themselves. I'd bet you a good chunk of change that only the pilots during 9/11 even knew it was a suicide mission if we really knew what was going on.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Anecdotal evidence by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Eh, they let me travel from Washington DC to Rhode Island with a screwdriver. On the way back to Washington DC they found and confiscated it though. So I guess we know who they really care about.

      Reminds me of the comedian sketch.... "Anyone here from Rhode Island?" *crickets* "Fuck 'em!"

    4. Re:Anecdotal evidence by arth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When every passenger makes the assumption they are going to die anyway if they don't take out the highjacker, pretty much every passenger is going to attempt to jump the highjacker and take him out.

      No, a good many will think it better that someone else risk their life. Or are unsure of whether enough others will join to make it more than a futile suicide against a more fit and better armed opponent.

    5. Re:Anecdotal evidence by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      And also ... their really aren't that many nut jobs out there that are truly willing to kill themselves. I'd bet you a good chunk of change that only the pilots during 9/11 even knew it was a suicide mission if we really knew what was going on.

      But sadly, there are; the religious fanaticism is so strong among many islamic based terrorists that they have done this already many, many, times, in the mideast and abroad. And IIRC, the documentaries on 9-11, some of the hijackers didn't know it was a suicide mission until late in the game, but I think they all knew before boarding the planes.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:Anecdotal evidence by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      post 9/11, a knife would not be an effective weapon for highjacking a plane.

      Even a gun wouldn't help a hijacker now, unless you can get into the cockpit.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      We've already had one example in Flight 93.

      And if Flight 93 had the reinforced locked cockpit doors that are now standard, it likely wouldn't have crashed either.

    8. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I remember once a few years ago when I had a cast on my broken arm, TSA stopped me while leaving the "security" area and wanted to swab my cast for explosives. I tried to calmly explain that I was already off the plane and leaving the airport and that if I had explosives in my arm with the intent to bring down a plane I would have done it... you know, While I was actually ON the damn plane. the knuckleheads still insisted.. although the third TSA guy just sat at his desk shaking head in disbelief so there must be a few people in TSA that aren't braindead... just not enough top make a difference.

    9. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Millimeter Wave" (microwave) scanners apparently can't distinguish between a belt buckle and a hand gun.

    10. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I've always figured the belt I wear could be used pretty effectively to disable an attacker with a knife or anything similar, if it came to it.

    11. Re:Anecdotal evidence by khallow · · Score: 1

      Reality can't either.

    12. Re:Anecdotal evidence by itsownreward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My wife has stopped emptying her purse and carry-on of tweezers, nail clippers, little bottles of make-up, etc. They always let her through because she's the little white woman flying first class, so she must not be dangerous.

    13. Re:Anecdotal evidence by slashdice · · Score: 1

      Can they tell if I'm hung like a horse or I stuffed a summer sausage in my pants?

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    14. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year there were at least 592 nut jobs willing to blow themselves up. That's more than enough to make it a legitimate concern, especially when the average nut-job kills 6 more people as well...

    15. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I had a pocket knife in a computer backpack bag in a Mesh side pocket that I discovered after several flights.

    16. Re:Anecdotal evidence by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We've already had one example in Flight 93.

      And even more examples of people not storming the bad guys.

      You can't rely on the public. Or screeners. Or air marshals. You can't protect everyone from everyone, all the time, or trust that threats you don't even know what are can be neutralized.

      The only reliable defences against terrorism are to (a) not go out of your way to piss off people so much that they want to kill your civilians to get your attention, (b) don't present such big fat targets, and (c) don't act terrified and make knee-jerk reactions when civilians are killed. Concentrate on why instead of who and what.

    17. Re:Anecdotal evidence by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    18. Re:Anecdotal evidence by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      Afew years ago they set up random checkpoints for city buses in Indianapolis, just to remind people that the TSA was in charge of that security as well.
      As documented here, http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

      found this as well, so their still doing it... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

    19. Re:Anecdotal evidence by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      In America?
      That's like telling people in Panama to conserve water because Saudi Arabia is a desert.

    20. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that US foreign policy could definitely be improved in ways that would reduce instances of terrorism, but there are also factions that hate us simply because we aren't them or because of past misdeeds (for which they won't accept any reparations except our deaths).

      Also, there's more than just Flight 93. The underwear bomber and shoe bomber we both stopped by passengers, not airport security. Security needs to be a multi-layered approach, but the level of "security" in airports is mainly for show, not for effectiveness. If we went back to pre-911 levels of security but kept the reinforced airplane cabin doors and increased passenger awareness, we'd be fine.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    21. Re:Anecdotal evidence by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My wife tried to get through with a legal sized shampoo bottle. The TSA agent said all liquids must be in a bag, though the reasons on the card are to verify that the sum of liquids is under 1l, not lack of spillage. So she'd have to put the lone liquid in an otherwise empty bag to keep it. She didn't have one handy, so threw it away. Though she met all stated rules (no more than 1l liquid, and no single container above maximum size), she wasn't allowed to pass because the means to easily measure the total sum of liquid wasn't needed.

      I don't know if it's the rules that are broken or those enforcing them, but they don't even do what they purport to do, which wouldn't increase security even if it were done right.

    22. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      My sister watched the supervisor run her backpack through the xray 3 times before the screener notice the pen knife in it

      I was on a flight last month and forgot that I had my toilet bag in my carry on (deodorant aerosols are banned).
      We get to the xray and the security monkey notices the can in the xray, grabs the bag next to mine by mistake and holds that guy up searching his bag for a non-existent item while I walk off laughing. I walked far enough away to merge into the crowd and observed the confused looks as they came up empty handed, but re-xrayed his bag a few times just in case.
      Airport security is a joke and needs to be exposed as such.

    23. Re:Anecdotal evidence by chihowa · · Score: 1

      That's awesome, though I have to say that I would take that shit away from a Nazi officer if I captured him, gun or not. There's no way I'd let him prance around in my prison cell wearing that gaudy thing.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    24. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      600 huh ?Wow....almost a 50th of the gunshot deaths in the US that year !

      I'd hate to live in that violent hellhole. Afghanistan is safer.

  4. That's good to know by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's good to know that when they gently stroke my private parts, it is literally for nothing........

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's the best part!

    2. Re:That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      normally you have to pay for that service

    3. Re:That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good to know that when they gently stroke my private parts, it is literally for nothing........

      ... And they could at least have the decency to finish you off.

    4. Re: That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it was gentle.

    5. Re:That's good to know by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just do what I do: look the TSA guy straight in the eyes, and in a high-pitched voice, say "Don't you wanna check my PACKAGE?!?" while thrusting your hips forward... nine out of ten times, they wave you through. One out of ten times, they caress you slowly and gently...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testicle Stroking Administration

    7. Re:That's good to know by Alypius · · Score: 2

      This is why you wear a kilt (utilikilit or otherwise...or hell, wear a skirt. It's 2015 and apparently that's ok now) in the "traditional manner".

    8. Re:That's good to know by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Well... It does help the Agent's spank bank, so not really nothing.

    9. Re:That's good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      normally you have to pay for that service

      Where do you think all of those airport fees are going? You paid for it, better enjoy it.

  5. What the report probably doesn't include... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that they got my large can of shaving cream. The skies were much safer that day.

    1. Re:What the report probably doesn't include... by Dale512 · · Score: 2

      Ditto for me. The fact that shaving cream and security are even in the same sentence is a testament to how pitiful we have become as a country.

  6. 95% of Contraband... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look, I hate the TSA as much as (if not more than) the next guy, but can we be clear about the numbers?

    95% of contraband, which **includes, but is not limited to** weapons got through.

    What percentage of weapons, then?

    They might just be terrible at detecting forbidden fruits and vegetables.

    1. Re:95% of Contraband... by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      The scope of their search is supposed to be limited. Fruits and vegetables are fine. I think contraband just means stuff like water that they're supposed to catch because it might be weaponized. They seem to be pretty effective at taking people's beverages, but I've never seen them pull out a gun. My guess is that 95% of all weapons, 98% of really deadly poisons, and 99.5% of guns get through.

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
    2. Re:95% of Contraband... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA only screens for 'Safety' issues, the hint is in the name, and their mandate.

      If they miss 95% of contraband, 100% of those items are things that they see as not safe to posses on an aircraft. We can debate the safety implications that a bottle of water, or a pair of nail clippers actually has on a given flight, but when testing their people, they are not sending them through security with a smuggled pineapple, or god forbid, a Kinder Egg. They are testing their ability to bring TSA denied items onto a flight, and all of them are safety issues in the eyes of the TSA, not agriculture violations, not immigration violations, aircraft safety violations.
       

    3. Re:95% of Contraband... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always figured that the water thing was really so that you'd have to pay the outrageous concession prices inside the airport if you wanted to take water with you on the plane.Nowadays they let empty bottles through and there are refilling stations after the security checkpoint, so who the hell knows anymore.

    4. Re:95% of Contraband... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might just be terrible at detecting forbidden fruits and vegetables.

      I'm sure they are. I don't think they could find a fart in a car.

    5. Re:95% of Contraband... by war4peace · · Score: 2

      And Kinder Eggs.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    6. Re:95% of Contraband... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scope of their search is supposed to be limited. Fruits and vegetables are fine. I think contraband just means stuff like water that they're supposed to catch because it might be weaponized. They seem to be pretty effective at taking people's beverages, but I've never seen them pull out a gun. My guess is that 95% of all weapons, 98% of really deadly poisons, and 99.5% of guns get through.

      You've apparently never flown on a plane where someone carried on durian fruit.

      Periodically, planes actually get diverted in mid-flight over that stuff.

      But I'm sure that there's probably some TSA directive protecting us against weaponized oranges and bananas.

    7. Re:95% of Contraband... by Whatsisname · · Score: 1

      Confiscating forbidden fruits and vegetables isn't the TSAs job, that is for Customs and Border Patrol.

    8. Re:95% of Contraband... by xombo · · Score: 1

      Fruits and vegetable contraband are a matter of Customs and Border Patrol, not the TSA.

  7. Webster's called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "In looking at the number of times people got through with guns or bombs in these covert testing exercises it really was pathetic. When I say that I mean pitiful," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)... "Just thinking about the breaches there, it's horrific,"

    News at 11: Rep. Stephen Lynch owns a Thesaurus.

    1. Re:Webster's called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and it looks like he even knows how to use it. Good for him!

      FWIW, I think you mean to refer to Roget, not Webster.

  8. Old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was reported in June.

    http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881

    1. Re:Old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe try linking the next comment.

      <a href="link">Link description</a>

      You're welcome.

  9. Oh god this ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now, I've never tried to bring a weapon on a plane ... but I've had one screener flag my suitcase in the security line, only to have another screener ask me "what did he see in your suitcase to flag you?", followed by me saying "if I knew that I wouldn't have put it in that suitcase".

    Then I asked if he'd show me the xray and I'd try to tell him what it was, he said I wasn't allowed. OK sir, shall I just stare at you as you demonstrate you have no idea of your own job? Or can I go now?

    And, on several occasions I've realized my laptop bag still had toothpaste, a Tide stick, and mouthwash in it -- and nobody noticed.

    TSA are inept, expensive, and annoying. And I very much doubt they can provably demonstrate they've ever actually stopped anything from happening.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Oh god this ... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      I remember once bringing a can of soda that was in my backpack, onto a plane to Atlanta around 2009ish, forgetting it was there, and only having the TSA notice when I went to fly home a few days later.

      I also remember them missing a multitool several times, before noticing it, when I - a soldier in uniform - was flying back to Iraq, after having forgotten it was in my bag from when I flew home for leave.

      Certainly we do want there to be some security screening, but the level the TSA goes to is ridiculous, and I'd speculate that the sheer volume of things they're supposed to look for makes it all that more likely that they miss the basic stuff like knives and guns.

    2. Re:Oh god this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, on several occasions I've realized my laptop bag still had toothpaste, a Tide stick, and mouthwash in it -- and nobody noticed.

      They may notice, but just not care. As a frequent traveler, I noticed they stopped caring about toiletries quite some time ago. They still make the announcement that you must have your things in a separate plastic bag to pull out for them, but you're perfectly fine if you don't.

      It's all theater. Back when they'd confiscate big tubes of toothpaste, I was in the security line in Huntsville, Alabama when a female passenger also in line remembered she had one in her bag and started to freak out. The uniformed military guy behind her (Huntsville has a huge Army presence) quietly told her, "Ma'am, if you'll just stick it in your pocket it will pass the metal detector just fine when you walk through. That's what I do."

      There are holes throughout airline security. They could be exploited. Nobody, however, seems to want to.

    3. Re:Oh god this ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "Ma'am, if you'll just stick it in your pocket it will pass the metal detector just fine when you walk through. That's what I do."

      There are holes throughout airline security. They could be exploited. Nobody, however, seems to want to.

      Hmmm ... so the endlessly bad security just helps people understand what they'd need to do to defeat security, while just pretending to not have endlessly bad security?

      Basically those of us who follow the rules just provide training for people to bypass security?

      That's absurd.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Oh god this ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Try flying with a bulb cable for a camera. When I bring my camera that one piece of equipment causes them the most confusion even beyond the film, filters, interchangeable lenses, detachable flash, and light meter. A set of macro rings also confuses the hell out of them just about as much.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Oh god this ... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Admittedly this was before 9/11, so they'd have probably had me jacked up and thrown in a locked room for two days if it happened now, but...
      I went through the screening, and they were taking a LONG time. They kept running my bag through the xray machine for some reason. So I went over to the two operators and asked what was wrong, so they showed me the xray pic on the screen and asked what 'that' was. I looked up and laughed, "That's the ceramic dragon!". One of the screeners eyes lit up and she pointed and said, "Oh! That's the wing, and there's the head!". That solved the problem pretty fast, but either way, being ceramic it was rather faint on the image so it wasn't metal, and in no way looked like any kind of weapon. (Nobody had heard of ceramic knives at that time either.)

    6. Re:Oh god this ... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Back in the 80s I was told a trick by the screener to get my large metal belt buckle (Had a silver dollar in it) through the metal detector, an it worked. If you know how those things worked, the method is obvious, and it still works for metal detectors these days too. And no, I won't tell you how because there's enough hassle in my life already.

    7. Re:Oh god this ... by pz · · Score: 1

      A little-recognized problem (from the public's perspective) with the TSA screening process is that the agents watching the x-ray machines get bored. Bored screeners aren't effective. If the rate of a detectable contraband object is too low, the brain turns off and the agents look without seeing. Once that happens, the agents are entirely ineffective and they miss rare, but important events like a weapon in someone's bag.

      The solution is to randomly insert images in the x-rays that are false positives. To keep screeners alert, these false positives need to happen about 5% of the time.

      That's one reason that every now and then, a bag gets sent back through the x-ray machine without being opened, despite not having any contraband in it.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    8. Re:Oh god this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And, on several occasions I've realized my laptop bag still had toothpaste, a Tide stick, and mouthwash in it
      >
      That's not how you're meant to clean a laptop. Use a damp cloth instead.

    9. Re:Oh god this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA are inept, expensive, and annoying. And I very much doubt they can provably demonstrate they've ever actually stopped anything from happening.

      That's why "Those Stupid Assholes" fits them better than the agency's actual name.

    10. Re:Oh god this ... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      Certainly we do want there to be some security screening,

      Do we? I never get screened going on the bus or train, what is different?

    11. Re:Oh god this ... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      The solution is to randomly insert images in the x-rays that are false positives. To keep screeners alert, these false positives need to happen about 5% of the time.

      That's one reason that every now and then, a bag gets sent back through the x-ray machine without being opened, despite not having any contraband in it.

      The Freakonoics podcast last week talked about boredom. One of the ways to make these types of tasks more interesting, and probably improve the effectiveness is to "gameify" it. Maybe something like this would work: As each tray goes through, the screen displays the image and the screener presses a red button for "bad stuff" and a green button for "everything is ok". Each time the red button is pressed but no "bad stuff" is found in later screening, the "player" looses points. Each time the red button is pressed and "bad stuff" stuff is found in later screening, the screener gets points. Now comes the part that makes it work: since we want to deduct points (presumably a lot of points) on occasions when the screener lets "bad stuff" pass with a press of the green button, but for actual items carried by travellers we do not know who might be carrying the bad stuff so we insert known images of "bad stuff containing" trays (and maybe known images of trays with no "bad stuff"). When the screener encounters these images, they can be scored appropriately, and these known images allow for calibration of the screener's effectiveness. The system can add the "virtual trays" at a rate that keeps the screeners alert, and the penalties for flagging a "clean" tray as dirty can discourage being overly cautious.

      Tie the points into some small reward like free lunch, or better yet have them contribute towards some team points totals to get the powers of competition and tribal grouping to focus attention and effectiveness would probably go up as well. Remove people from the screening job who cannot do it well enough.

      If implemented, we would probably have to work hard at preventing cheating - making the virtual tray images fit into the regular images in such a way that the screener cannot tell which is which, making sure that other members of the "team" do not somehow help the screener in a way that messes the system up, etc.

      To generate "no bad stuff" images for the system you would need to pack some bags with no bad stuff in it, but for "bad stuff" images you could use both bags packed with "bad stuff" in addition to images of actual traveller bags that got flagged by a screener and then were found to have "bad stuff" in them.

      All of this presupposes that there is an actual desire to effectively find all the things that are prohibited. I suspect that this is not actually the case. Sure, most people are happier if they feel that knives and guns are not carried by any travellers, but "the powers that be" probably all know that the list of prohibited items is needlessly long. Actually ferreting out all of these things probably would slow things down way too much for no actual improvement in safety. To catch all of the "bad stuff" containing virtual images for example, you probably need to flag every bag that might possibly have a "bad thing" obscured by another thing - it is probably impossible to catch all of the "red" images without also flagging lots of "green" images, which would result in lots of further screening of "clean" trays.

    12. Re:Oh god this ... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Stop dressing like a dick? Is that the answer?

    13. Re:Oh god this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absurd? Definitely.

      Completely true? Sadly.

    14. Re:Oh god this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying a train into the side of a skyscraper is not an easy thing to do.

    15. Re:Oh god this ... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      And flying a plane is? Sure it happened once but nothing the TSA is doing changes that either.

  10. weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA...How would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone know that's what op meant?

    1. Re:weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA...How would by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't know for sure since there is always room for weird situations, but that is what they wrote. And we generally assume people mean what they say or write.

  11. I'm sure that won't deter them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Guess they'll just have to step up the pat-downs conducted by their ghetto-trash employees to keep the theater going.

  12. horrific? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

    Just thinking about the breaches there, it's horrific," he added. A leaked classified report this summer found that as much as 95 percent of contraband, like weapons and explosives, got through during clandestine testings

    Given that US planes aren't exploding every day, this seems anything but horrific. In fact, it seems like excellent news, because it suggests that the screening is probably not needed (unless you believe that only terrorists are deterred by it).

    1. Re:horrific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's horrific is that the response from politicians, especially in the US House, will be to demand that the TSA be expanded and become even more intrusive.

      The appropriate response to this would be "hell, why have we been wasting our money and time on this? Let's cut this, or at least dismantle it and completely rebuild it."

      What will happen instead is "hell, they're not being aggressive enough. They need to require federal IDs to board planes, and strip search everyone on the highway and rail *before they even get to the airport*."

      This was all revealed for what it was when they named DHS the department of "homeland security"--it's all about emotional appeal and nothing about accomplishing real security.

  13. Golf Ball Detectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the Kenyan bomb detection squad who were using golf-ball detectors instead of real bomb detectors? And when they were told about it, they carried on using the golf-ball detectors because "it acts as a deterrent." This is the same shit but from a First World country. Fuckin' pathetic!

    1. Re:Golf Ball Detectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't even a golf ball detector.
      I was two sticks on hinges, in the olden days they used those to detect good places for drilling a hole in the ground to get water.

    2. Re:Golf Ball Detectors by meerling · · Score: 1

      Yes, the detectors that wouldn't even 'turn on'. Yeah, that was a total scam.

  14. Who's Surprised By This? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Number of people surprised that the TSA is completely ineffective: 0.

    Not coincidentally, that's also the number of terrorists that the TSA has caught.

    They have saved us from the scourge of water bottles and decent sized toothpaste tubes, though.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  15. they cant find guns in luggage.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    but they can find your laptop, ipod, ipad and other valuables in there. whether or not YOU can find them after you arrive at your destination and retrieve your luggage.........

  16. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the comments backwards. It makes them much more interesting. Also it then usually doesn't matter if you read the subject.

  17. But they find my tuning fork by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

    ...every time.

    --
    You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    1. Re:But they find my tuning fork by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      How many times did it take you before you learned to put it into your stowed luggage?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:But they find my tuning fork by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      Do you check luggage for a two-day business trip? Heck, I've done two and a half weeks in Europe carry-on.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    3. Re:But they find my tuning fork by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that ... just last week I had planned to bring a suitcase and a laptop bag with nothing checked.

      Turns out, the plane was full, there was barely any overhead space (and this is a 737), and I had to check it anyway. And my connecting flight was one of those pedal powered commuter planes with even less overhead storage.

      The lesson I learned is you can't reliably assume carrying it on works, it's not worth the damned trouble to not check the bag, and the damned company is paying the checked bag fees.

      Business travel sucks. Trying to do it without checked bags can make it much worse, and can screw up how you pack.

      Me, I'll never try to travel again with purely carry on. Because it's a pain in the ass unless you like to buy new toiletries when you arrive and spend two days in the same clothes.

      To me it created more problems than it solved.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:But they find my tuning fork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually you can voluntarily check-in cabin-size luggage for no fee, because you save them boarding time/confusion.

    5. Re:But they find my tuning fork by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because luggage isn't the bottleneck for travel it was in the '70s. Half the time my luggage is rolling around the carousel before I get there to grab it. My checked bag is small enough to be a carry on, should I choose to do so.

      I also get to carry toothpaste and such without worrying about whether it'll cause a 10 minute delay in security.

    6. Re:But they find my tuning fork by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      My under-seat bag holds everything I need for two nights/three business days: laptop, tablet, two clean shirts and a second pair of trousers, socks and underwear, toothbrush and razor (as well as whatever score I'm studying and the aforementioned tuning fork). I don't worry about overhead storage. I get to the airport without having to stand in the check-my-bag line before the check-my-body line. I can take a bump at the gate without luggage issues (which just last month got me enough Deltabucks for a family round-trip somewhere).

      Internationally, I generally have to make at least one and (depending on my Euro destination) frequently two connections. Waiting for the checked bag, then customs, then re-checking the checked bag (twice! each way!) is way more hassle than the rare gate-check. If I could fly direct, that would change the calculation, of course.

      YMMV.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
  18. "Security Theater" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm really torn between whether it's good to have news like this out there or counterproductive. On one hand, I would like more of my fellow citizens to be aware of the idea of security theater and what it means, that perhaps we don't have to put up with so much nonsense, that we should be wary of any further pushes for more security in diverse public spaces. On the other, I'd hate to give inept dummy terrorists the idea that they should give this stuff a try since we're catching so little. I doubt we're really deterring the committed, but the idea of loose-cannon types seeing what they can get away with seems somewhat concerning.

    1. Re:"Security Theater" by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "On the other, I'd hate to give inept dummy terrorists the idea that they should give this stuff a try since we're catching so little."

      Only then a change will occur. The terrorists could send 20 guys since 19 of them will be able to board the plane.

    2. Re:"Security Theater" by meerling · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they've been aware of this for YEARS

    3. Re:"Security Theater" by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, they've been aware of this for YEARS

      Indeed they have. I'm not sure if they could have asked for a better outcome from 9-11 actually. It seems like quite the victory to me.

      Anyone flying has lost a sizable percentage of their personal freedoms going forward, and the bad guys don't have to lift a finger. It's also a huge drain on the economy. Not only in the amount of money spent, but on the amount of time lost by everyone standing around (TSA-Thousands Standing Around). At least the TSA has stopped irradiating us though. That's a baby step in the right direction.

      I've said it before, but I still don't think they even want a successful attack going forward, on the US at least. The failed attempts have been much more costly for everyone. All they have to do is give a complete bomb to some patsy and be sure it is configured to malfunction. One idiot gets caught and everyone in the US goes bonkers over it. After the 9-11-01 attacks, everyone in the US was more united than any time I can remember in my adult life. 95%+ of the population was ready to attack anyone over it. The failed attempts seem to remove the threat of retaliation and unifying the population. In fact they tend to keep everyone arguing and wasting more money on prevention of something that will never happen again.

  19. Yes, and by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    [Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA] ...giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is.

    Yes, but never forget the lucrative windfall that assholes like Micheal Chertoff gained through all this kabuki horseshit.

    Not to mention all this security conditions the easily-led public to not bother questioning the need for Endless War (TM), which is also a very, very lucrative business for those that created it.

  20. Working as designed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Federalization of airport security successfully accomplished several things. Security is now more uniformly terrible in airports across the country, which discourages venue shopping for weaker scrutiny. Lots of money has been made in the manufacture and sale of scanning hardware, which surely made someone happy. Screening, in my experience as a traveller, has become more efficient and much more professional. The TSA screeners I've encountered seem to take their jobs seriously and act in the public interests, whereas pre-TSA screeners seemed to me more disposed toward thuggery. The list goes on, but it does not include keeping weapons off of planes.

    I would prefer a smaller government, but passenger screening seems like a perfect example of an activity that requires government intervention if it is to be done at all. No market pressure can cause meaningful security improvement by competition, and indeed there was a cost incentive to having worse security.

    I would also be happy to travel without any carry-on screening at all. I would guess that most of the real benefit is achieved by the agent who compares boarding pass to ID and asks me about the weather. Maybe I would feel differently about that guy if I were not a native speaker who travels frequently.

    I suppose if you want safety, you can have people rooting through your luggage looking for bombs or rooting through your email looking for bad actors, yet people tend to complain about both approaches. I prefer the latter because I expect it's less expensive and more effective. YMMV

    1. Re:Working as designed by meerling · · Score: 1

      And have you seen the backed up lines to get through that security screening? Heck with bombing the plane, you'd get more people bombing the line, and never have to get groped by TSA.

    2. Re:Working as designed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'd get more people bombing the line, and never have to get groped by TSA.

      There is no reason you can't do both.

    3. Re:Working as designed by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      As an added bonus you don't even have to buy a ticket and since no one seems to give a shit about the oversize roller bags that will in no way fit in the overhead compartment you can pack a bunch of explosives and ball bearings in one of them.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Working as designed by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Having airport screening under the control over the government instead of the airports or airlines is good. Spending all this money on expensive kit that doesn't actually pick up weapons any better than the old kit did is not. (forcing other countries to spend money on the same expensive kit or be shut out of the global air transport system is even worse)

  21. The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since their inception the TSA has been repeatedly proven to be almost completely ineffective at prevention, yet there has been no US planes hijacked or blown up since their inception anyway.
    This alone proves that any benefit to the TSA's existence is entirely imaginary because the threat is not real.
    The TSA were originally created as a perhaps understandable but nevertheless paranoid and ill-informed kneejerk overreaction to 9/11. We need to simply fix that mistake now.
    There is clearly no rational reason for the TSA to continue to exist, especially since they cost the taxpayer 7.9 Billion USD every year that could be spent elsewhere solving problems that actually exist.

    1. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Too late. The terrorists already won.
      America stopped being the land of the free and became the nanny state of the paranoid, and not enough people care to change it

    2. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since their inception the TSA has been repeatedly proven to be almost completely ineffective at prevention, yet there has been no US planes hijacked or blown up since their inception anyway. This alone proves that any benefit to the TSA's existence is entirely imaginary because the threat is not real. The TSA were originally created as a perhaps understandable but nevertheless paranoid and ill-informed kneejerk overreaction to 9/11. We need to simply fix that mistake now. There is clearly no rational reason for the TSA to continue to exist, especially since they cost the taxpayer 7.9 Billion USD every year that could be spent elsewhere solving problems that actually exist.

      "Terrorism", from Latin terre meaning "I frighten".
      I seem to recall whole regiments of armed National Guard troops at airports right after 9/11, and you couldn't bring a car within 1/2 mile of the building.
      Reactionary things like that, and the creation of the TSA showed that the population was, indeed, intimidated [or at least the politicians were], so they terrorists had already won.

    3. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by Gorkamecha · · Score: 1

      What's the incentive for the individual politician to fix the problem? If he votes to tear it down, and tomorrow someone figures out a new way to blow up a plane, he will be blamed for removing the "protection" for "bean counting". He just needs to grumble with a "but what can you do, the /other/ guys won't do anything to remove it" and he's got the same bump. System's borked.

    4. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by geekmux · · Score: 1

      There is clearly no rational reason for the TSA to continue to exist, especially since they cost the taxpayer 7.9 Billion USD every year that could be spent elsewhere solving problems that actually exist.

      Spent elsewhere? You mean like the billions we'll spend trying to re-create all of the jobs you would like to destroy by dismantling the TSA, or the billions we'll spend in welfare programs that will increase considerably when you dismantle the TSA?

      Unfortunately, the existence of the TSA now serves our economy in much the same way as a Wal-Mart greeter. Not much more benefit to it other than a source of employment.

    5. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Ok well if the state HAS to employ them, then instead of them being a pointless bottleneck at airports that actually inconveniences people, at least have them doing something actually productive that makes people's day better, like picking up garbage on highways or whatever.

    6. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA is a great jobs creation program for ex convicts, especially the pedophiles, since nobody else will hire them.

    7. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not really. There is another explanation (one which I don't personally believe, but which could still be true nonetheless): TSA is ineffective, but terrorists don't think it to be so.

      So no, the lack of attacks after the TSA was set up doesn't prove that the TSA's benefits are entirely imaginary.

    8. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Ok well if the state HAS to employ them, then instead of them being a pointless bottleneck at airports that actually inconveniences people, at least have them doing something actually productive that makes people's day better, like picking up garbage on highways or whatever.

      Sorry, but garbage pickup is a perfect job for the millions of employees who "work" for the Incarcerated States of America.

      Being the worlds largest organization of it's kind, I'd say they have plenty of resources sitting around watching taxpayer-funded cable TV.

    9. Re:The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dave420 it's become a slashdot tradition seeing apk bitch slap you down so badly your shoes fly off hahahaha http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  22. The stopped my weapon by hawguy · · Score: 1

    I had a tiny Gerber Dime multi-tool in the bottom of my backpack -- it had been there for 6 months and at least a dozen flights (including 2 international flights) until finally a screener in Las Vegas found it. It's truly a tiny tool, the blade must be no longer than 3 or 4 cm, so I was surprised that they wanted to confiscate it. I asked him if I could use the larger Leatherman I saw in his discard bin and use it to break off the blade on my tool (the scissors, which were just as long and almost as sharp as the blade were fine, only the blade was a "hazard"), he said "No, that is confiscated contraband, no one is allowed to touch it, and even if you did, you'd have to go all the way back through security"... and wasting another 30 - 40 minutes didn't seem worth it for a $15 tool, so he confiscated it (or took it home and sold it on eBay, who knows, since they don't give receipts for confiscated goods so there's no accountability)

    But really, if I were going to kill (or threaten to kill) someone on the plane, I'd use my metal shafted Cross Pen which is much more sturdy than any tiny fold out blade and I think I'd have a better chance of causing injury with it.

    1. Re:The stopped my weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came home from a trip once only to find I had done the entire trip with my Leatherman Wave Multi-tool in my carry-on. Not...one...hiccup.

  23. How do they miss the guns? by Milharis · · Score: 1

    Do they hide the weapons in a special way in those tests?
    Because if I forget the smallest metal thing on me, the detector starts screaming. Weapons are usually relatively big metal objects, how can they miss them?

    1. Re:How do they miss the guns? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Weapons are usually relatively big metal objects, how can they miss them?

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Seriously, it's not that hard to imagine how weapons of all kinds could get though security. Think social engineering, think of things that bypass the process... Use the rules to get around the screening process. It's not that hard if you think about what's happening and what tools TSA uses and stop looking at the think like a sheep.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:How do they miss the guns? by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For the body scanner, put it on your sides. The plane of the scanner field only rotates across your front and back; it will miss anything directly on your sides. Wear slightly loose clothes and you can strap a weapon (or other object) a number of places outside the areas that the scanner "sees". Upper arms near your elbows (well out to the sides in "scanner pose"), sides of your torso unless you're super skinny, outsides of your legs if it doesn't show through your pants, insides of your legs (especially near the ankle) if you keep your feet a little wider than you should, etc.

      For the baggage X-ray, just put "safe" stuff around the prohibited item. Tablet computers are great here; for some reason they're considered safe despite usually having plenty of metals, including potentially-dangerous lithium, in their chassis. Laptop power bricks and external hard drives are pretty hard to scan through; I've seen what they look like on the screens. Small items like pens, mint tins, coins, keys, flashdrives, jewelry, and so on can clutter the X-ray image and conceal stuff behind them, directly or by simply breaking up the outline sufficiently. A bag of toiletries containing a bunch of sub-3-oz tubes of this and that is *supposed* to be run through separately, but I've never once had a problem leaving it in my bag and I fly over a dozen times a year.

      It's embarrassingly easy to get shit past those morons. Sometimes I do it by accident, like forgetting a pocketknife or bottle of soda. If it's not on the outer part of the bag, they usually miss it.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:How do they miss the guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably fully broken down and/or camouflaged with other dense items.

    4. Re:How do they miss the guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They put them in a carry on bag, and go through security just like anyone else.

      The TSA folks aren't trained in security. The system has even been updated to throw *fake* images of weapons on screen to try to keep the TSA screeners alert, but a good number of *those* don't get flagged either. (And those are things like a 6" hunting knife being displayed, nice and clear, in the middle of the luggage image.)

  24. Strange Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what the TSA is doing wrong, but I was a screener in Canada and also managed 250 screeners at a major airport and we were tested hundreds of times a month, and seldom failed. The pass rate was extremely high and these were not easy tests either. The screeners here in Canada are highly trained and monitored.

    1. Re:Strange Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the TSA is doing wrong, but I was a screener in Canada and also managed 250 screeners at a major airport and we were tested hundreds of times a month, and seldom failed. The pass rate was extremely high and these were not easy tests either. The screeners here in Canada are highly trained and monitored.

      So your personnel are highly trained and monito...wait you call them "screeners" in Canada?

      Ah, that explains it. We call them McScreeners here.

  25. Perhaps if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps if the TSA weren't staffed by rapists, pedophiles, cleptomaniacs and other sundry archetypes.... Nah, forget it, even if the TSA were staffed by competent, honorable people, they'd still have issues, if only due to the incompetent leadership and non-nonsensical laws they're trying to enforce.

  26. Fertilizer testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a male on my mid twenties, who was traveling alone. I had 300lbs of ammonium nitrate fertilizer on top of my backpack the day before I used it as a carry on. The walk-through air puff machine flashed some lights when I walked through, and I was called to the side.

    They swabbed my hands and backpack, put the swabs in another machine, which flashed a red light on top. They called a supervisor over, who figured the machine was broken and let me through.

    Good thing I'm white, I guess.

  27. Obligat. Airplane ref. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S9H6RO0bKA

    So it was not such a joke finally.

  28. They find some things though by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

    They might miss guns... but damn if they don't spot a slightly oversized deodorant spray, too much toothpaste or a bottle of water.

    1. Re:They find some things though by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Hey, that water bottle might really be explosive liquid... so they need to throw it into the bin right in the middle of the security area with all the other potentially dangerous stuff. That's the only safe way of disposing of said items, right?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  29. They can detect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Shampoo bottles larger than 3 oz. Because that's more important.

  30. Love it. by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    I flew from Ithaca to Rhode Island 4 years ago for my father's funeral. Ithaca airport security pulled me aside but let my brother through. We both have big noses and I had a good beard going at the time. My brother had a valid drivers' license and at the time I did not, so when they asked for one I said "I have a NYS non driver ID" the woman didn't let me finish my sentence before saying "step over here sir" and for the next 15 minutes I was patted down, swabbed, and questioned about the nature of my trip. I was also asked how to pronounce my last name and what nationality it was (it is of Alsatian origin). On the flight home I had some of my fathers old military stuff in my bag (a few dead 7.62 rounds, a. dead 50cal, a demilitarized hand grenade, and a claymore detonator. Bags went right through no problem. I had shaved my beard for the funeral, so that had probably helped.

  31. But naturally by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    This won't lead to what it should, namely the destruction and disassembly of the TSA, but instead will lead to even more intrusive "security"...

    1. Re:But naturally by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Mod up the most insightful post of the day - bravo!

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  32. So yeah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can I get my record cleared of the arrest made when I accidentally left a hunting knife in my luggage in Denver that was .5" longer than the city allows? TSA found that just fine even though I didn't notice it when packing my bag. I'd like my 2 weeks of community service returned, too.

    Bull. They can't detect ALL weapons but they definitely detect weapons.

    The annoying parts for me that week (and this was back in 2008):

    * They also confiscated a loaded revolver from a state senator that week ... though they let him go without any charges.

    * They destroyed my knife before I even got to have a trial

    * I had to make 4 trips to Denver round-trip from my home 2 hours away to deal with the court issues and pay around $1000 in charges

    * The City Attorney recognized it was a complete accident and told me he wished he didn't have to, but prosecuted anyway (the Denver airport, while not actually in Denver geographically, is legally annexed so that they can use the Denver police at TSA stations).

    * Even though I was under suspicion ... they made sure to get me to my flight on time after the short arrest and charges ... knowing I was going to see my girlfriend ... to avoid any hassles from a white male grousing about missing his flight. I'm quite sure had I not had my privilege I would have been taken to jail that day.

    So it isn't that they can't detect weapons, it is that they can only detect a small lazy percentage of them and use those to look like they're actually effective. Had I actually been trying to hide it from them it would have gone through fine (I'd have hidden it inside the various computer server samples that I carried through security those days).

  33. Adam Savage classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/11/adam-savage-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades/

    The scanner can size up your junk but misses a foot long razor.

  34. treatment of hijackers has changed and needs to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pre 9/11 the rule was to cooperate and you will be ok.
    Now, everyone knows to stop the hijackers.
    We SHOULD KILL the bastard and piss on his face on the plane.
    If there are any menstruating women on board, they pee on his face.
    Chop off his dick and flush it down the toilet.
    When word gets out about the treatment of hijackers, they will find somewhere else to go.
    You try to kill me, all rational or civilization goes away.

  35. The TSA ... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Only keeps honest people honest. They are designed to provide the APPEARANCE of security, not actual security.

    If the TSA was about real security, I can assure you they would operate differently and your TSA screening would start the instant you purchased your ticket. They'd be doing background checks on EVERYBODY, full searches of you, your baggage, both using X-Rays, magnetometers, and blue gloves going everywhere you can imagine on everybody entering the secure areas. Plus, they'd do this to mechanics, ramp workers, crew members, cleaners and ANYBODY who has even indirect access to aircraft or things that go on them.

    TSA is just window dressing... And until the American people are willing to accept the intrusion that real security demands the TSA will remain just that.

    Personally, I think it's time to just forget this experiment of the TSA and put the airlines back in charge of their own security arrangements. If they want to put armed guards on their airplanes, just reinforced cockpit doors or what have you is up to them. Then let the market decide how much security passangers are willing to pay for...

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

      We could replace the TSA with "home security system" style stickers and would get just as much security at a greatly reduced cost.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  36. I thought it was obvious by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The purpose of federalizing airport security was to create more union members to funnel federal tax dollars to the Democrats.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...

    Looks like I was right.

    1. Re:I thought it was obvious by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 2

      That's the National Treasury Employees Union. Do Treasury Employees have something, anything, to do with airport security?

    2. Re:I thought it was obvious by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      My bad, the NTEU worked on the unionization but apparently doesn't "represent" them now.

      http://www.nteu.org/PressKits/...

      It's the AFGE that's "representing" them now. And by "representing" I mean "taking some of their paycheck and giving it to Democrats".

      https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

    3. Re:I thought it was obvious by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Yeah! That darn Democrat George W. Bush!!

    4. Re:I thought it was obvious by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I see someone can't be bothered to click links.

    5. Re: I thought it was obvious by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 1

      The TSA was created by the Transportation Security Act of 2001, voted for by every sitting Senator and more Republican U.S. Representatives than Democrats. The only thing following the money shows is that a union will donate more to the party that's not trying to weaken or end them everywhere, which is news to no one.

  37. Give XRAYS TO THE PEOPLE!!!!! by gargalatas · · Score: 1

    I am reading the comments and I realize that even here in Europe the equivalent of TSA force acts the exactly the same way, making exactly the same idiotic and annoying mistakes. Wanna be cops people giving their best efforts to exploit in the worst way the power that was given to them! That's TSA. Everywhere the same :(

  38. To quote Gomer Pyle. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  39. But no shoe bombs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, thousands of suspicious-looking iPad's, cameras and other expensive consumer electronics were disappeared during transit, so we can't be 100% certain of the results above. Some of them must have been weapons...right?

    Also, we're damn sure that no footwear or shampoo-based bombs got through!

  40. Guns not needed for security by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How will people respond accordingly if it's illegal to carry a gun into a flight?

    Newsflash. There are ways of dealing with Bad Guys other than shooting them. It doesn't even matter if the Bad Guys are armed themselves if the number of passengers is greater than the number of bullets. Anyone trying to hijack a plane today will get beaten down almost immediately by the passengers. No point in sitting quietly if you think you are going to die anyway.

    Is there an officer in each flight?

    Not relevant. Nobody is going to wait for the police. Anyone starts some shit on a plan now and half the passengers will curb stomp them and tie them up until the plane can land.

    1. Re:Guns not needed for security by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      In fact, this has already happened on numerous occasions; sometimes with the passengers actually beating the would-be 9/11-ers to death.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    2. Re:Guns not needed for security by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I thought that story ended up being fake, and that some Han just decided to kill a couple of Uighurs over some stupid fight.

  41. Having the information out there is better. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other, I'd hate to give inept dummy terrorists the idea that they should give this stuff a try since we're catching so little.

    Having the information out there is better.

    The effectiveness of a terrorist attack is proportional to how much people believe they are protected from a terrorist attack. In other words, the attack effect is amplified by the idea that the attack is impossible or unlikely to be successful.

    One of the reasons for using a commercial jetliner, rather than simply using the money, which these groups has in abundance, and buying or leasing business jets, and filling them with explosives, and then using those to crash into the targets instead was obviously to prove that the screening at airports was not enough to keep the public safe from such attacks.

    How much worse would the public overreaction to a subsequent attack, if the public had the perception that the security theater was in fact actually security, and terrorists were able to penetrate it anyway? How much more would the public be unlikely and unwilling to trust government reassurances that they are protected from terrorists?

    I can think of about 15 ways to crash the U.S. economy, and I can thing of at least 9 ways to crash the economy of the Western world, and I can think of about 11 more ways to crash things using domino attacks vs. European only targets, or a specific nexus or set of nexuses that don't look like they'd need protecting.

    It's pretty obvious that the attacks were not intended to crash the economy.

    In fact, if you think about it some more, the fact that there have not been subsequent large scale attacks... the terrorists must feel that they have achieved the goals they intended to achieve through them: massive losses of civil liberties, civil unrest relative to that, and so on.

    Security theater in the form of the TSA -- the inability to take bottled water not purchased at the on the other side of the security checkpoint aboard a plane, the inability to see friends and family off at the gate at departure, or greet them at arrival -- merely serves to rearm the weapon of a public perception of security where none actually exists.

    Once again: Having the information out there is better.

    1. Re:Having the information out there is better. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      If they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists in the first place. Or TSA screeners, for that matter.

      It's idiots against idiots, all the way down.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Having the information out there is better. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      If they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists in the first place. Or TSA screeners, for that matter.

      It's idiots against idiots, all the way down.

      A large chunk of the 9/11 participants had engineering degrees. If you include engineering, medical, and the sciences, more than 50% of terrorists have either some college or degrees in these fields. They aren't stupid, they just have goals which they can not meet through rational channels, and so they act out through irrational ones. It's not like there is available land for them to run off an form their own country. And it's not like women would flock to such a country to be their wives, were they able to form one; no woman wants to be prohibited from learning to read, be genitally mutilated, and then, if raped, be stoned to death for it, while their rapist goes scot free.

      You have to realize that the people engaged in terrorism are the implacable foes of expeditionism and cultural imperialism (and yes, this includes the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, since it's externally imposed).

      If they had open borders, in which anyone who wished to could leave their territory, and with it their rule, they would likely quickly die out as their reproductive population went to zero. It wouldn't be as dramatic as the Shakers, who are intentionally celibate, and therefore not reproduce, but over time, the effect would be the same.

      Therefore, they can not tolerate open borders, nor can they tolerate a number of things normally associated as basic human rights; if they are to maintain their desired society and social order, they must needs be maintain it through force and oppression. Obviously, they find it highly frustrating that the rest of us, pardon my "French", think they are assholes, and won't let them"live in peace" (at least the rulers in the society), and insist on things like human rights, and other things which seriously cramp their lifestyle.

      So they're not stupid, they're just really annoyed that the rest of us won't let them have something they'd like to have (or that the minority would like to have); and, as in the West, we will tolerate the sins of the privileged in the hopes that one day we ourselves can achieve similar status, they are largely willing to forgive the sins of their own leaders, in the same way.

      So you think they are stupid, and not achieving their goals, when in fact you are simply not *recognizing* that they are doing so.

  42. Accidentally? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Probably the most easily spotted contraband I have accidentally brought through was an almost full box of 7.62x54r

    "Accidentally"? RIIIIIIIIGHT...

    I believe you might have done that. I don't believe for a moment that it was an accident if you did.

    1. Re:Accidentally? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      The TSA confiscates hundreds - over a thousand last year - of guns from law-abiding citizens (disproportionately Texans) who go armed so frequently, as a matter of habit analogous to wearing a watch of carrying a phone, that they forget to remove their weapons before going to the airport. I fully believe the vast majority of those are accidental. The amazing thing is that the TSA actually manages to find that many; I've certainly accidentally passed prohibited items (not firearms or munitions, but knives, liquids, and so on) through the scanners, and am not that surprised the GP could have gotten a box of ammo through without even trying to conceal it.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:Accidentally? by KGIII · · Score: 2

      It's not uncommon for me to find a magazine, fully loaded, in a backpack or something - even my laptop bag. I have way too many and they tend to get left and forgotten because I prefer to not keep a round in the chamber and not even to have a magazine in the firearm for a good portion of the time. I'm not always in a position where I can wear my firearm(s) and I'd much rather that it require effort (loading, cocking, removing safety) before it can be used. A bullet, by itself, is pretty harmless most of the time. If it's a modern center-fire then you can (don't do this) chuck it in the fire and the projectile won't really go anywhere.

      Again, don't do that... You probably could get away with it but it's not a wise choice. The area around where the primer sits should allow for the gases to expand more rapidly which, while counterintuitive, means the gas will be mostly escaping out the back and not in a concentrated form. Of course, there's also no barrel for accumulated gas build-up. This is not true with the ammo that I typically carry - I'm almost always limiting myself to .22 LR. I'm comfortable with that choice. It also meshes fairly well my mentality of keeping the firearm unloaded, with no magazine inserted, and nothing in the chamber. There are times and places where this changes but that's often the case - frequently even when the firearm is on my hip.

      I should also add, I don't live in a very urban area. There are a total of six houses in the township where I reside.

      I guess my point is that I agree and could easily be guilty of having a spare magazine, spare rounds, or something similar in a bag and have missed it while packing. I do dislike the TSA and one of the things that I've learned is that, if you're in a group, and you're not in a huge rush, chartering a plane as pricey as one might expect. You can do it for just yourself and your mate but that's a bit pricey for most folks. I've chartered a flight from Maine to BC with six friends and put the pilots up in a hotel for a week while we fished. With all the baggage and equipment, it wasn't that much more than if we'd all flown business class and paid for the equipment to fly with us. As I recall, it was actually about 10% cheaper than first class seats would have been.

      Bonus? No TSA. We hopped on a plane in the little Augusta airport by riding in a van though a gate. We went right to the plane, helped the pilots load the plane, and we were off in about an hour. No TSA, no screening, no anything. We did have to go through customs in Canada and then when we came back. The flight was much slower than it would have been in a jumbo because we needed to refuel more often (twice, as I recall) but it wasn't a bad flight or anything.

      So, if you want to avoid the TSA and there's a few of you going AND it's not, you know, all the way to Africa or something then check out some of the charter prices. If you're open-ended they sometimes have other/quasi-regular flights where you're not quite in charter status but not quite a red-eye. You won't be flying drunk with a bunch of your buddies but you'll fly for a not-to-bad price. And, if you're not too drunk and you're well behaved, they might even let you sit in the co-pilots seat and fly the plane for a whole. It's legal. You just can't land it or take off with it. Well, they tell me it is legal. I've not actually checked the laws. I'm inclined to believe them.

      Anyhow, there's an option if anyone's interested. It works. It's really not as pricey as you might think. If you're going off to a conference or a convention, give it a look. They've got some great pilots and they could probably use the business.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Accidentally? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      This is simple. Take a box of ammo out deer hunting put it in your coat pocket and then when done for the day you unload the gun and leave the ammo in the pocket. Then you go forward about a week and have to travel for business and just send the coat that still has the box of ammo in the pocket through the x-ray machine. As I only have one winter jacket it gets used for hunting and regular use as it is warmer than most regular winter jackets as it is meant to keep you warm if you are sitting outside all day. Also 7.62x54r is a great round for deer, bear, and elk. I use the 203 grain soft points and with the Finnish M39 I use for hunting it is a tack driver of a rifle with them.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  43. So why don't they have mailers for sale? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    OK, you're carrying something they don't like. You forgot your multitool, or pocketknife, or (I saw this once) titanium dive knife in your carry-on instead of your checked luggage. So why don't they have USPS flat rate boxes handy for a rounded-up price? Because you need to be shamed and punished. Keeping the tools off the plane is almost incidental.

    1. Re:So why don't they have mailers for sale? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Why can't they just put it in the hold and you pick it up the other end if you actually want it?

      You're already through security, it's been identified, you don't want it in the cabin, but if you'd packed it in the hold luggage it would have been accepted.

      So put it in a box on a conveyor, send it via the same tracks as you send luggage, to arrive at the hold of the flight that probably hasn't arrived yet, and isn't going to be leaving for at least 45 minutes if you've followed proper check-in guidelines.

      It doesn't have to be labelled, just thrown in a "non-cabin" box and stuffed in the hold, which you can then just put on the carousel at the other end.

      It has NOTHING to do with security, whatsoever.
      Having you have to pay to send it, they'd be accused of profiteering (but then they would at least have an incentive to find this shit on you!).
      But why the fuck can't you just put it in the hold with everything else?

      It's to do with displays of fake power - by the government and the front-line staff.

      But there's a lot worse shit within airports that bothers me.

    2. Re:So why don't they have mailers for sale? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone has a nice little side business of selling items confiscated from the checkpoints.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    3. Re:So why don't they have mailers for sale? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      They do, actually, at my local airport. It's something like $8 for domestic and $13 to Canada, but you can send home that little whatever that you forgot.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  44. There is another purpose to security theater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to make Michael Chertoff crazy rich. And several other specific people, as well.

    And it has worked excellently.

  45. There are no real terrorists. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    As proof of this statement, I point to:
    1. the lack of any bomb detonations in the queues for the security check.
    2. Breaches of airport perimeter security by a teenager and others.

    If there were serious terrorist attempts against air passengers, they would have already happened.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  46. The TSA is just the old rent a cops with more powe by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The TSA is just the old rent a cops with a bit more power and the federal hard to get fired jobs.

  47. More Defense Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA was developed as way to siphon taxpayers money to defense contractors building the detectors and procedures. It was sold to the US peoples to alleviate fears of some future attack and show that the US Govt. was doing something while creating jobs along the way. When we first started traveling, we felt how stupid and ineffective the TSA process was, and more so after detector flaws were exposed. So much wasted man-hours, resources, and money that could have been invested in building an educated competitive workforce.

    1. Re:More Defense Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. TSA was developed as a jobs program for unskilled workers to join the government rolls and get pay and benefits from the taxpayer. If you look at TSA's budget, the cost of their 50,000 screeners far eclipses the cost of their capital equipment.

  48. Enriching cronies is the purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone really think it was anything other than enriching a bunch of cronies?

    Equipment purchased from companies that made nice campaign contributions, TSA agents hired on patronage, etc.

  49. guns and bombs are not the issue by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1
    Finding guns and bombs is not what's important. What's important is TSA contractors continue to receive no bid contracts so they can afford to continue to buy off politicians.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
    http://freebeacon.com/national...

    TSA agents continue to grope and oogle women through their clothing
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/a...
    http://time.com/3822487/tsa-se...

    Bored people in the airline reservation system who pre-screen passenger names for security using, in part , known pictures of them continuer to amuse themselves by seating "twin strangers" right next to each other then laughing as the internet loses its shit at the crazy coincidence. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

  50. but they can detect cheese by ksheff · · Score: 1

    They always get really excited whenever I'm flying back from Mexico with some cheese in my carry-on luggage since their scanners classify it as a plastic explosive. It's often a let down for the TSA agent when they finally open it and discover it's just cheese. They still swab down the luggage with a chemical detection wipes "just to be sure". They always open my checked in luggage and often screw it up too.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    1. Re:but they can detect cheese by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Back when my kids were in diapers, they would always flag the diaper cream and require it to be swabbed to make sure it wasn't some kind of explosive crammed into a diaper cream tube.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:but they can detect cheese by ksheff · · Score: 1

      You should have told them the real chemical weapons were in the diapers. Or soon would be. :D

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  51. if you're not doing anything wrong... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    so many people getting themselves on the enhanced screening list today. Why do you haet 'murika, maeka?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  52. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by barbariccow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why are you so angry? And also your garbage is constantly wasting screen space and resources. Can your hosts-file tool block your comments? Or does that require something special to block portions of a page from the same origin...

  53. Weapons of Ass Destruction by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    They're pretty good at finding dildos, though. All those D cells light the scanner up like a pride parade. Maybe someone just misread their mandate.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  54. Use (some) of Israel's methods by planckscale · · Score: 1
    I recall that Israeli airport security is highly effective in one of the most dangerous of locations. Implementing this would be difficult, but the only time I'm ever interviewed is when I'm getting OFF the plane by customs agents. Seems like it would be easier to spot someone sweating instead of relying on a beeper or buzzer to tell you something's amiss..

    From an article here: http://www.cleveland.com/world...

    the Israeli model worked because Israeli agents “try to detect behavior or people’s patterns” by asking them questions.

    Israeli officials say that any passenger trying to board El Al is subject to questions from security agents.

    “Everybody gets asked, who you are, where are you traveling to,” one Israeli official said, speaking on grounds of anonymity because he did not want to speak publicly about the security measures. The agents asking the questions, he said, “are very well trained. Depending on what you say, they will put you through an additional screening.” Baker said: “Israeli agents focus on the traveler’s country of origin, their profession, visas that are stamped in their passports, places they have visited, people they know and the color of their skin. If you say you’re a Renaissance art scholar, they’ll ask you if you know who Titian is.” Mica maintained that the Israeli system was not profiling. “Someone is trained to do it with people who warrant further scrutiny,” he said. Some travelers say they would rather go through a full body scan than the system at Ben-Gurion airport. “My experience leaving Tel Aviv was by far and away the most unpleasant encounter I’ve ever had with airport security officials in the decade,” said Matthew Yglesias, a blogger with the Center for American Progress who said it took three hours last month for him to get from the initial security check at Ben-Gurion to the food court. “As best I could tell, things went pretty smoothly as long as you were Israeli, traveling with an Israeli or traveling with some kind of well-established tour group.” Yglesias was traveling with a group of journalists. “The African-American woman in our group was taken off to be questioned. A bunch of us were told we couldn’t bring iPads on the plane,” he said. He said that the Jewish member of his group “had the easiest time; the black woman had the hardest time.”

    --
    Namaste
  55. Conversely, this means there is no threat by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Or not much of it. Otherwise somebody would have used that ineffectiveness by now. The people that established and are supporting the continued existence of the TSA must know that. My guess is this is a field study on how much loss of freedom US citizens are willing to accept when that loss is justified with bogus arguments. Incidentally, the same thing is being done in Britain, and the British population seems to not mind living in a police- and surveillance-state.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  56. the main thing by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    TSA get to play in Grandma's adult diaper and grope 13 year old girls, and send pictures of young women in THz scanners to each other, or young boys if they swing that way.

    The Founding Fathers would have killed such, and blown up shit of such

  57. Coren22 proven a LYING punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

    Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    (Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

    I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

    I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

    I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

    Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

    APK

    P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

  58. Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

    "So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

    Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it

    &

    How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

    ---

    "Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

    You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

    FACT:

    Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

    ---

    Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    * HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

    ---

    Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

    I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

    I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

    You told me you learn from guides?

    I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

    + WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    You did all that? No!

    (& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)

    APK

    P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk

  59. Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!

    Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?

    Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    APK

    P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

  60. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is everyone in America really this stuck on stupid.
    They cant even secure a prison how can they ever secure anything else?

  61. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You threw legislation in the trash?

  62. The TSA isn't the scary part, here. by shess · · Score: 1

    The scary part is that the various parties are complaining about the TSA's efficacy rate, NOT about whether the entire program is mis-guided. So the likely response is not "Oh, nevermind then", it is to give them more money and latitude to be more intrusive until they find more of the contraband.

  63. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect there may be an unmedicated schizoaffective disorder in play. Many of the hallmarks are present: persecution complex, delusions of grandeur, ideations of conspiracy, obsessive attachment ("stalking"), a pattern of diction comprised of disjointed and isolated statements instead of a coherent flow of sentences. Let's not forget the obvious sockpuppet posts, in which he speaks of himself in the third person, and pretends to be other people either defending his own points or attacking those who engage with him.

    One of the challenges in treating these disorders is that the medications are, in a sense, too good. They return the patient to relative normalcy, at which point they decide that they're okay and don't need to take the medication anymore. This can continue in cycles unless the patient has a caregiver to ensure that medications are being administered. It's unfortunate to see. All of his spam posts make me sad more than anything else.

  64. Extremely frequent traveller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because they're not looking for Bombs and Guns.
    They are looking for EATER, TOOTHPASTE, PERFUME, SHOES, COMPUTERS, TABLETS, ETC.
    Because some asshole told them those are really dangerous things, and that's what they are paid to look for.
    The even have hoards of special agents doing nothing but shout out messages aboput laptops and binds, and plastic bags for liquids, etc.
    Occasionally thgey will take their job seriously, and put some 90 year old geezer in a wheelchair through the spanish inquisitiuon.
    That's done by the special agents belonging to the "Let's see if we can get TSA some Viral coverage" Dept.

  65. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    Yes! 4 replies every time Coren22 posts. That'll show 'em! You moron. You've been beat and disproved many times. Your software sucks. Get over it.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  66. Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was created in a post-911 bi-partisan deal with GW Bush allowing it to be a government agency (Republicans wanted it to be civilian, but gave on this point) and the Democrats agreeing, in exchange, that it could never be unionized thus avoiding all the problems of unionized air traffic controllers, who in the 80's threatened the entire economy by going on strike even though the act was illegal (they were in a category of safety workers permitted to unionize but banned from striking).

    When President Obama was sworn-in and with Democrats Pelosi (in the House) and Reid (in the Senate) fully in control of congress, one of the first actions they took was to break the TSA deal and unionize the agency. This is just one of the reasons (along with the violation of the 1986 amnesty deal in which Democrats agreed to a secure border with Mexico in exchange for a few million illegals getting citizenship) so many Republicans no longer trust these "grand bargains" are so unwilling to do more of them, and are willing to "primary" their own members for talking about more of them (google: Eric Cantor).

    No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. - Ronald Reagan

    The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan

  67. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    A Micra is a Leatherman tool.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  68. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Relentlessly stalking people is precisely the worst way to dispel the "APK is suffering from serious mental illnesses" rumor.

    You are the only one who cares about your software. Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software, but software written by professionals who don't trawl slashdot drooling on people who call them out for their insanity.

    I look forward to your sock puppets coming out in defense of you. It's strange these defenders of yours are never signed in and write in a very similar style to you.

  69. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go die in a fire, you pedofaggot.

  70. Applesauce by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    By golly my daughter's applesauce pouch and baby wipes sure got me in trouble. You would have thought I was Osama bin Laden himself the way I was treated. The TSA at IAH terminal A has got to be the shittiest bunch of megalomaniacs in the nation. I've flown all over the place, and by far these guys were the worst. Tulsa, LAX, Atlanta, DC, Denver, Phoenix, Honolulu, even the other terminals of IAH. I've never had problems like I did there. Lines were almost an hour long, and the screeners were clearly not looking for weapons or explosives. They were just trying to agitate as many passengers as possible. Complete insanity. I wonder if they have a minimum number of reports they have to file, so they just try to get people to do something stupid.

  71. Dave420 "eat your words" as always vs. me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)

    A small sampling of /.'ers say my work is good who use my hosts file engine quoted:

    ---

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

    ---

    * So, what's that you said I have quoted above Dave420? LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do you have ANY idea how many of these I have bookmarked in your constant failures in trolling me, especially on hosts? 50 of them and the result is always like this one is - you say something I can put away with undeniable fact that proves you wrong... lol!

    Thanks for making me look good, & yourself? Well - lmao, "not so good"... apk

  72. MacGyver by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I used to carry a Swiss army knife on my belt all the time, including every flight (of which I would take several per year) between 1995 and 2001. Not once did anyone ever bat an eye. After 9/11 when I went to get on a plane, it was noticed, and they asked me if the flight attendant could hold onto it for the duration of the flight. The following year (I forgot I even had it on me) I was told they it would need to be put into an special envelope and flight staff would secure it for the flight and that I really shouldn't be carrying it at all. I stopped doing it for 2003, as at that point I think it was just not allowed at all anymore.

    As to why carry it at all, well you can probably blame a childhood full of MacGyver TV. Airways full of terrorists? Even better reason to carry a Swiss army knife if you're MacGyver, perhaps you'll need it to escape or save the day somehow using a screw driver and small tweezers...

  73. Why do we even worry any more about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our country is awash in weaponry. Mass shootings occur sometimes multiple times a day now, 365 days a year. If we can't make schools, malls, theaters, buses or trains weapon free, why do we believe we can make planes weapon free? We want to be safe, but we have people swaggering around like Doc Holliday at Tombstone. I just don't get it, Big Dan...

  74. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I more than suspect you're not professionally qualified to say that. Are you a licensed practicing degreed psychiatric pro? I've never seen the name Anonymous Coward on any of those so my judgement stands strong against your trolling.

  75. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also suspect you speak from first hand experience and taking your meds for schizophrenia as we know you're not a shrink.

  76. TSA is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a contractor at a small "international" airport somewhere in the northeast USA. We routinely (i.e., 100% of the time) bypassed security through a separate entrance away from the TSA checkpoint when we had to go into the "secure" or "sterile" part of the airport. Our tool bags were never checked. Shit - I could have brought a bag of guns and explosives on the job site every day if I wanted to and no one would know.

    The airport's greatest weakness is it's employees and contractors. Bottom line is if we never let questionable sand niggers in the country in the first place, this never would have happened.

    It's all security theater... a glorified jobs program for dipshits who could barely get a job at McDonalds.

    I now work at a nuclear power plant and there *everybody* goes through security - even the guards themselves. Nothing gets through without them noticing. But they don't get worked up over liquids or tools. They just care about firearms and explosives. With the number of armed security personnel on duty at any given time problems are very rare.

    That said, they'd do a better job with airline security with a metal detector, x-ray machine and a couple of armed plain clothes officers on every flight. The cockpits are secure - so short of people bringing bombs on board - where's the problem?

  77. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 you're a retarded aspergers autism genetically defective punk. No wonder computer security's so bad with retards like you at the helm! I understand you say you've passed on that curse to your kid too supposedly though I doubt any bitch would fuck you unless you paid her.