Slashdot Mirror


US Airports Still Fail New Security Tests (go.com)

schwit1 quotes ABC News: In recent undercover tests of multiple airport security checkpoints by the Department of Homeland Security, inspectors said screeners, their equipment or their procedures failed more than half the time, according to a source familiar with the classified report. When ABC News asked the source if the failure rate was 80 percent, the response was, "You are in the ballpark." In a public hearing after a private classified briefing to the House Committee on Homeland Security, members of Congress called the failures by the Transportation Security Administration disturbing. Rep. Mike Rogers went as far as to tell TSA Administrator David Pekoske, "This agency that you run is broken badly, and it needs your attention."

182 comments

  1. TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cartoon take on the original official video.

    1. Re:TSA Intro by msmash+(Top+Editor) · · Score: 1

      I find this highly disrespectfull

    2. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your existence is highly disrepectful to people actually literate in English.

    3. Re:TSA Intro by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Actually they were very respectful of the TSA goofballs. They depicted them as being able to talk in whole sentences.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The saddest part is that the TSA had to remove the high school diploma as a hard requirement (all you need is at least 1 year experience working in security if you don’t have one) because they couldn’t find enough qualified people with such pre-requisite. So, yeah, the South Park video seems about as respectful as can be to the mouth breathers at the TSA checkpoints.

    5. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then gain some skills and get a real job, tosser.

    6. Re: TSA Intro by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      david...whos side are you on dude ? dennys is...hiring ya know...

    7. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your spelling disrespectful to the English language.

    8. Re:TSA Intro by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually they were very respectful of the TSA goofballs. They depicted them as being able to talk in whole sentences.

      First off, I get that you're joking.

      But as a frequent traveler I've found the TSA frontmen to be quite polite and personable. Sure there are bound to be exceptions but I've never been mistreated or misdirected by the TSA agents I've had to deal with. The problem with the TSA comes from up high, their key metric is how safe passengers feel, not how safe they actually are so they run a 3 ring security theatre circus based on perceptions rather than proven security methods.

      Also, I think a fair few TSA agents are ex-military.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never been mistreated or misdirected by the TSA agents

      You mean aside from wasting everybody's time and taking nudies of people in their cancer machines and then leaking those nudies online.

      The TSA does nothing. NOTHING. They haven't caught a single terrorist, they have only caused stress to and wasted the time of millions.

      I fly a lot too and I remember how much better things were before 9/11 gave the government an excuse to spread FUD and implement the TSA. I could literally arrive at the front doors of the terminal 20 minutes before my flight and still have time to spare before boarding. Now, even if you are only flying domestic, you have to arrive 2 hours early.

    10. Re:TSA Intro by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "But as a frequent traveler I've found the TSA frontmen to be quite polite and personable. "

      Indeed.
      Problem is, that is _all_ they are.
      They have no other competence.
      Maybe good to work at Denny's but to deter terrorists?

    11. Re:TSA Intro by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "But as a frequent traveler I've found the TSA frontmen to be quite polite and personable. "

      Indeed.
      Problem is, that is _all_ they are.
      They have no other competence.
      Maybe good to work at Denny's but to deter terrorists?

      Much like the UK, a lot of them are ex-military, so I wouldn't be so quick to say they have no other competences.

      As for stopping terrorists, that is a task for intelligence agencies, not customs and immigration. In that regard the TSA is horribly flawed. If a terrorist is not detected before getting to an airport, you're pretty much screwed. Customs and Immigration's responsibilities are about filtering out hazardous and illegal goods as well as ensuring that entrants have the correct visas/authorisations. However to reduce the TSA's responsibilities to this means that you'd have to cut their budget and axe more than a few senior staff (and pork must be protected).

      Not to mention that a large number of people think that there are terrorists hiding under every rock, so they somnambulantly consent to anything for the illusion of safety. Fear is a good way to get re-elected.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re: TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being ex-military does not automatically make you qualified to be a TSA screener. Generally, they're completely different skill sets.

    13. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean aside from wasting everybody's time and taking nudies of people in their cancer machines and then leaking those nudies online.

      Citation or at least a link to prove what you said is true please?

      The TSA does nothing. NOTHING. They haven't caught a single terrorist, they have only caused stress to and wasted the time of millions.

      You can't prove a negative case! Because there is no news about catching terrorist, it doesn't mean they didn't. Also, the word "terrorist" tends to be used to those who have "already done" an action which is consider terrorist. It doesn't seem to be used for those who have not yet act and harm others.

      I fly a lot too and I remember how much better things were before 9/11 gave the government an excuse to spread FUD and implement the TSA. I could literally arrive at the front doors of the terminal 20 minutes before my flight and still have time to spare before boarding. Now, even if you are only flying domestic, you have to arrive 2 hours early.

      Again, you demonstrated that you failed to understand. The tragedy of 9/11 demonstrates how lack of security was. You are those who call out "me me me" because you simply use that as the reason here. I don't believe that the current security check is that secure, but at least it is somewhat screen the obvious out. However, the current security is still short sight on other things else. I just hope that they will do something about it.

    14. Re:TSA Intro by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I've found that the TSA people *in the Pre lane* are generally tolerable. I've rarely encountered someone I'd call personable, but it's a workplace not a strip club.

      In the cattle lanes, I've found them to almost always be indifferent at best and usually tend toward hassling.
       

    15. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not the people that the TSA hires (well maybe in some cases it is) but the fact that the TSA is security theater, not real security! It was never meant to be anything but a show put on to make people feel safe when they fly, and for a way Congress to give their beltway buddies highly lucrative contracts!

    16. Re:TSA Intro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search for it yourself, you lazy fuck. It's not like it's hard to find.

    17. Re:TSA Intro by chapstercni · · Score: 1

      Just watched the video. HILARIOUS! LMAO.

  2. Hey Congressional assholes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You've had... 17 years. Maybe it is time you paid it *YOUR* attention and dismantled it already.

    Bunch of fucking lazy do-nothings unless they've getting their palms or genitals greased.

  3. Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sick and tired of people arguing for more security theatre. The world isn't perfect. The world isn't this safe utopia and the costs of "safety" are enormous. It's much more cost effective to get rid of the security and accept that life has risk. It has risk with or without the "security" and paying more for security theatre just makes us all worse off. If you really insist of throwing that money away consider insisting it be thrown at something that might someday lead to something of value like research. Research of all kinds at least has a potential real benefit. The top 10 causes of death are probably where that money should be thrown. Not speed limits, police, or TSA. These are more or less just superficial efforts that act more as a means of distributing wealth to the most powerful gang in a given region, state, or country.

    If you agree that the only role of government is to criminalize murder, violence, and theft then you should move to New Hampshire and take part in the Free State Project. A migration of liberty and freedom minded individuals looking to minimize or near eliminate the biggest gang in town: Government. We're succeeding little by little and have elected 20+ state reps, decriminalized marijuana, eliminated permission slips for those wishing to conceal a firearm, eliminated regulations on crypto currencies, established New Hampshire as #1 for crypto currencies (two of our cities on #1 and #2 on a per captia basis for crypto currency acceptance), secured our rights to film police and hold them accountable, and much much more.

  4. It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by BobC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who confuses TSA checkpoints with actual security is sadly missing the point.

    These checkpoints are truly, in the words of Bruce Schneier, "Security Theater". And I'm not using that in a pejorative manner equivalent to saying they are useless. Far from it!

    First, the checkpoints are first aimed at discouraging the stupid, a category that includes most terrorists and mass-murderers. It can't prevent folks smart enough to see behind the curtain, but it can discourage those unable to think at a deeper level. For simple folks intent on disruption, the checkpoints work.

    Second, the checkpoints are intended to reassure the public. Even when the public is told how ineffective the checkpoints are against real threats. Even when the actual risks of airborne terrorism in the US are statistically tiny. Again, despite our knowledge to the contrary, the checkpoints work at an emotional level to reassure the public.

    The above successes do come at a substantial cost for taxpayers, but we can't say the results are "worthless", even though the checkpoints utterly fail to meet all of their stated purposes.

    1. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same reason you lock your doors at home. A determined person isn't stopped by your locks. It's to keep the person who is trying many doors in the hopes of finding one unlocked.

    2. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      First, the checkpoints are first aimed at discouraging the stupid, a category that includes most terrorists

      Just how "stupid" are the terrorists who get around security issues, who go around killing members of the public despite the immense resources thrown against preventing them, the ones that use encryption and don't leave incriminating evidence lying around, the ones that successfully have smuggled stuff past the TSA in the past.

      I can't believe I'm defending them from anything, but if there's one thing terrorists are not, it's stupid.

    3. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Fire all of TSA
              2) Put the billions of dollars against the national debt; give people back their dignity, not to present "mein Paperien" and shuffle off to the "examinations". (Didn't some country(ies) do this before?)
              3) Profit? Or at least make TSA get a life.
              4) Oh, wait. It has been 10 years. It is a "government agency".
              5) It can never be killed.

              Other studies show they spend more time ogling female passengers and having sex in the "image rooms" where they review the (not-yet-approved-for-use-on-humans) backscatter devices, which were moved to the "spokes" after the news media fastened on to that discrepancy.
              Heaven forbid the news media were "interrupted" in their oh-so-important travels, subjected to search, or even had their feathers ruffled.
              Jeez, I was once accused of being a "reporter, for news media" simply because I had a blank pad of paper in my bag. They tried to deny me entry to that country.
              I call "bushwa" on all this nonsense.
              Just how many Americans (or others) die on a daily basis because of terrorism, automobile accidents, cancer, heart attacks, food poisoning, or stupid-texting-while-driving?
              Can anybody get a grip on this?

    4. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, most are indeed stupid. BUT, it only takes ONE successful one (stupid or not) to bring things crashing down....that's the fallacy of these sorts of systems. You have to be accurate 100% of the time to be successful while the terrorist only needs to be accurate ONCE.

    5. Re: It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeif there's one thing terrorists are not, it's stupid.âoe

      Yes, those 72 virgins will be waiting. Not stupid at all.

    6. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Terrorists" are not a homogeneous group. They come in varying levels of intelligence.

      It's a reasonable bet that many people who are tempted to commit terrorist acts are, simply, too stupid to figure out a way around those "immense resources" you speak of.

      After all, the Twin Towers attack - was simple. It could have been done, at minimal cost, by anyone from about the late 1960s - when air travel became cheap enough and planes big enough - onwards. But it took until 2001 for it to actually happen, because it took a genius to think of it.

    7. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by BobC · · Score: 1

      I probably should have said "stupid and/or easily intimidated' above.

    8. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But they don't reassure me. All they do is getting me really angry, actually angry enough to replace flying with trains if there is at least a remote option of doing so.

      And I can't really think of anyone who actually feels "safe" with those checks. How could you feel safe if you knew that the Three Stooges are running security?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The difference is maybe that getting past the lock is trivial and not a hour long procedure that costs me, besides time, any shred of dignity left. If it was, people would probably stop locking their doors.

      Or, more likely, find a better way of securing their stuff.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a hard time imagining the goofballs blowing themselves to kingdom come for the promise of goodies in some afterlife as anything resembling intelligent. Then again, I have a hard time giving anyone above the age of 8 with imaginary friends much credits in the mental department.

      There are intelligent ones, no doubt about that. The whole planning and logistics is certainly run by people who use religion for what it was invented for, but the goons they send to redecorate the interior of airports are hardly Nobel Prize material.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by ckatko · · Score: 1

      You're insane.

      If it's all security theater, then why the FUCK are we wasting time TRAINING these people for classes of criminals you say they will never encounter and are not designed to stop?

      If we don't have the TSA to stop guns and drugs, then why are we "training" them, and paying them salaries worthy of people who detect guns and drugs? Why aren't we paying them the minimum wage they deserve? Why aren't we giving them the BARE MINIMUM training, number-of-meetings-a-week, et al? Why are the x-ray rape machines connected to monitors at all?

      Oh yeah, because the TSA was "supposed" to safe us and has failed miserably. It is not some sort of magical 4-D chess that efficiently stops low-tier criminals and insane people. What it is, is a gigantic waste of taxpayer money that has YET (after a DECADE) to show any provable progress in solving ANY the goals it was set out to solve.

    12. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's all security theater, then why the FUCK are we wasting time TRAINING these people for classes of criminals you say they will never encounter and are not designed to stop?

      Because trained security theater is much better than untrained security theater. If you haven't seen or heard stories of TSA employees being unnecessarily unprofessional or abusing their power in really stupid ways, you haven't been looking. Training cuts back on how often that happens. Also, if you cut the training, then the theater is less effective because they're not trained at all in how to respond to thing they're being used to reassure people about.

    13. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't take a genius to think of it, it took an organization to do it. A lone guy wouldn't do it because one hit doesn't have as much impact as multiple hijacked planes and he'd be dead afterwards. It needed a group following to be an effective terrorist attack. Had the towers not fallen, people would barely remember it. Planes had hit buildings before 9/11, no one remembers whose.

      You can take a crop dusting plane and release toxic shit over a populated area. Clean up would be $$$$ and you can slowly kill a ton of people. Ideas are trivial to come up with. Luckily few people want to go around mass murdering people for political gain.

    14. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      TSA == Department of Homeland Pork.

      That's why.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    15. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I'm defending them from anything, but if there's one thing terrorists are not, it's stupid.

      I think both the underwear and shoe bombers were clearly not all there.

      The Tsarnaev brothers? No, not stupid. And notice, they didn't bother trying to get through airport security.

    16. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      That was the angriest "I hate you and I agree" post I've ever read.

      Dude, chill out. Have a lood or something.

    17. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap.
      And there is no instant pre-clearing (as there should be), as in people who have clearances or have flown enough time or have family/community > 10Yrs to be known quantities. Go to high speed processing that only catches big stuff.

      Israeli style Q&A would be better. The problem here is unstable people would be flagged. and need costly followup. That will save some mass shootings and save more lives. Security discrimination is fine by me if you can openly explain why.

      That would leave single, young, foreign, low socio-economic and poor literacy more likely, with some color bias. Also if smelly, drunk/high or twitchy. I'm ok with this, even if not politically correct.

      It really looks like security theater is to create jobs for low skilled nasty people, and waste peoples time. The real rich use private jets or own them. So why bother.

    18. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA isn't for any of that stuff. It is first and foremost a jobs program for deplorable unemployables (no one who is not deplorable would be willing to sign up to sexually molest air passengers, and no one who is not otherwise unemployable would want to in the first place) and second a way of making the American public more used to doing whatever they're told no matter how insane it is.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by houghi · · Score: 1

      Again, despite our knowledge to the contrary, the checkpoints work at an emotional level to reassure the public.

      Are you perhaps interested in some Snake oil? I can prove it works; No snakes here.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time imagining the goofballs blowing themselves to kingdom come for the promise of goodies in some afterlife as anything resembling intelligent.

      Then you are a very narrow thinker. The goofballs blowing themselves up are doing so for a strongly ingrained reason. The same reason allows people all over the world, be they scientists, politicians, engineers, or whatever to believe in some imaginary skydaddy. Intelligence and strong religious faith only have a weak correlation.

    21. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      not all there.

      Same thing was said of Einstein by some people. I think fundamentally the point is we need to define "stupid".

      I have seen some incredibly smart people do some incredibly stupid things. I know the technical authority in my company is a guru, an absolute genious, and has a mind that is incredible. But he's also my most likely person to self flagellate if he misses his wine drinking and biscuit sessions with the other religious nuts on a Sunday morning.

    22. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but in my experience they pretty much exclude each other. Maybe because believing and knowing are anathema for each other.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what the TSA is for, is it actually effective? Other countries don't have the same level of theatre but also don't have more aircraft related terrorist attacks. Then again maybe there are more people trying to blow up the US, I don't know.

      Seems like if people want to do harm they will find a way. Buy guns and start shooting up a crowd, buy a car and run people over...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Some of the domestic terrorists in the UK have been highly educated, up to medical doctor level.

      It's not about intelligence, it's about radicalization. It's easier to understand if you think about non-religiously motivated terrorists and criminals, the ones who mow down "leftist" protesters in their car, the ones who shoot up a school because girls won't date them. Over a long period of time their world-view has been distorted to the point where they think their actions are rational and correct, or alternatively that even if they are wrong at least they are part of something bigger than their dull, prospectless life.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      my experience they pretty much exclude each other

      So just ignoring fact then. There's sound logical thinking right there.

    26. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What fact exactly are you talking about? Maybe you could name one of the great minds that is devoutly religious?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      I think fundamentally the point is we need to define "stupid".

      Minor point, but we already have.

      stupid - having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense

      It's somewhat ironic that you express the need to define a rather common term (stupid), but then exaggerate another (self flagellate) to make your point.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    28. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems evident that you'll just use a "no true Scotsman" argument to dismiss any example given - that e.g. any theologian like C.S. Lewis or a computer scientist like Don Knuth clearly couldn't really be intelligent, because otherwise they wouldn't be religious.

      I'm an atheist, but I acknowledge that there are clearly intelligent people who are -- nonetheless -- religious.

      I find it hard to believe that in your entire life you've never met an intelligent person who happened to be religious.

      FWIW:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

    29. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget some of them were educated as engineers and other hard science disciplines.

      So they can't have been stupid in the traditional sense. I even doubt they would have listened much about the boggy man in the sky.

      Maybe they pissed about something else and they used it as an excuse.

    30. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Other countries don't have the same level of theatre

      It appears you haven't departed from London or Paris in recent years.

    31. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I go through London regularly. You had to dodge the degrading nudie scanners but the security is nothing like the US. Didn't even have to take my shoes off last time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by drafalski · · Score: 1

      You aren't the intended audience then. I've met many people that feel the TSA is doing a good job. No more planes have been crashed into buildings, right? It seems like the ones that support it most strongly also never or rarely fly and so do not really have first hand experience with the real world impact of the TSA.

    33. Re: It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you didn't get the memo. They haven't used the xray machines for over a year.

    34. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understand that it's not general taxpayers. There is a separate "9/11 security" fee under taxes on your ticket.
      You, frequent flyer, are paying for the annoyance.

    35. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I have a stone here that can do the job of a TSA agent. At least there haven't been any planes hitting my house since I have it, so this alone should convince anyone that it's working.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off the top of my head:
      Mendel - A friar

      And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_churchmen-scientists
      Giovanni Battista Venturi
      Georges Lemaître
      James B. Macelwane
      Jean Picard
      Richard of Wallingford
      Berthold Schwarz
      Anton Maria Schyrleus of Rheita
      Jacques de Vaucanson

    37. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by bugs2squash · · Score: 1
      Maybe they reassure the "public" but they don't reassure the "travelling public". They simply throw the travelling public under the bus so that the wider public can feel a little more secure. Also what's with all the various privilege levels for security today ?
      • non-travellers don't put up with this
      • private fliers don't put up with this
      • 1st class passengers
      • clear members
      • tsa pre members

      All of them avoid the pain on ordinary taxpaying passengers for this federal imposition

      --
      Nullius in verba
    38. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      One of the many absurdities is that they won't let you throw away your water/soda/whatever if you make it through the checkpoint with it. You have to drink it ALL!!! They won't let you go to the trash can at the end of the line to just dump it out. No! Only a TERRORIST would throw away all that dangerous water. Morons. And you can't even drink like half of it. See, it's really water guys! What the fuck ever. This country is so doomed.

      Here's a scary thought. Checkpoints kill people. Say there are 3 billion passengers each year who spend an extra 15 minutes in line. That's 45 billion minutes, or roughly 86 years. So every year, security lines kill one person. Traffic kills a lot more people (some of them acutely), but it's worth noting that the human cost of security theater is deadly all the same.

    39. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Say I spend about 5 seconds locking my door when I leave, and 5 seconds unlocking it when I get home. I do this about 250 times a year for 50 years. That's a total of 35 hours over the course of my life. Let's round up and say it costs me two days of my life. Since 2001, I have spent about 50 hours in security lines at the airport. (not to mention everything from museums to theaters to high school football games. WTF, America?!) Additionally, locking my door is something I do to protect my belongings. TSA is something done to me, without my consent, where I lose my belongings, for other people to get happy feelings that I am not a terrorist. So no, it is not the same as locking my doors at home. BTW, there are still neighborhoods where locking your door is not considered necessary.

    40. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat ironic that you express the need to define a rather common term (stupid)

      It's not ironic at all. It's quite sad actually. But given the responses in this thread maybe I'm just dealing with ... stupid people.

    41. Re:It's Taxpayer-supported Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until the check points are on every corner to reassure everyone.

  5. Hasn't Changed by superstargoddess · · Score: 2

    Yes they do, I went to Las Vegas in 2006 and managed to get my cigarette lighter onto the plane, even though I told them I thought I forgot to leave my lighter in the car and they missed it in the x-ray machine.

    1. Re:Hasn't Changed by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Last week, flew out of LAX, same old shit. This past Friday, flew out of LAX again, and am told that all foodstuffs (things like granola bars) must come out and be placed in their own separate bins. I ask the agent when that change took place (because they weren't saying that shit last week). She says, "December" -- okay, whatever. I have three granola bars in my backpack. I take two out, throw them in the trash, leave one in the bag deliberately. Through the scanner it goes and out the other end it comes -- naturally without a peep from anyone. It's all such bullshit.

      I will be flying out of LAX again in two weeks. I wonder what will happen to the new granola bar program.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    2. Re:Hasn't Changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was under the mistaken assumption that knives sub-3 inches in length were allowed on planes. Plane number FIVE (a RETURN flight) told me that I was mistaken. I kept putting it right next to my wallet in the little plastic tray.

    3. Re:Hasn't Changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I carried a jeweler's screwdriver for years with my laptop - until one flight they told me I couldn't have it when they saw it on the scan.

      They asked me where in the bag it was, I told them I didn't know (I didn't) - the lady checked around for 10 minutes, sent it through a few times, couldn't find it, and told me to be on my way.

      Classic.

    4. Re:Hasn't Changed by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the height of the immediate post-9/11 paranoia and security changes, my friend brought his American wife back to the UK. Then to Corfu. Then back to the UK. Then to America.

      On the final leg of the trip, we took them to Heathrow and were walking with them to see them off at security, where the bins are for "this is your chance to ditch prohibited items", before you join the fecking long queues.

      The American reaches into her bag and says "Do you think I should bin this?" It was a can of CS spray. Probably nothing to you Americans but it's illegal to even own in the UK, let alone carry around with you, let alone take on a plane. She'd have been having a very long discussion with an armed officer if that had been pulled out at the check.

      After some discussion, we got her to bin it as she went past, because it looked like a deodorant and the bins were for stuff like that. During the discussion, however, we discovered that she'd already taken it, in her hand luggage (carryon), on all those previous flights and been carrying it around in London quite happily.

      Meanwhile I was asked to contaminate a baby's bottle by proving it was "real milk" by drinking it in the queue before it was allowed through. While doing so, I honestly thought of at least three ways that I could make a bottle look real, carry something incredibly nasty, and still be safe taking a swig of "something" from it, without them being able to notice via this amazing security method.

    5. Re: Hasn't Changed by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      LAX seems to have rules that no other airport in America have. They are the only security check to make me remove my laptop from my tsa scan approved bag. I asked why this was the only place to do it and the lady just said "do it now or you will get sent to the additional screening line".

      Their setup is also terrible.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    6. Re:Hasn't Changed by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's kinda arbitrary what's allowed and what's not. I was nearly tackled and pinned over a bottle of water, but they didn't have a problem with my lockpicks...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Hasn't Changed by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Granola bars (especially a box of them) have been flagged for over a year, presumably due to the glycerin. They seem to be trying to do more to prevent secondary screening of bags, but they need huge input and output conveyors to let people unpack and strip.

      The system is stupid, ineffective, and inefficient; it is especially bad at certain airports (LAX is on my list), but an effective alternative strategy isn't obvious.

    8. Re:Hasn't Changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cigarette lighter

      Clarify: Zippo?

      Because if it was a stereotypical BIC, nobody was bothering to look for it.

    9. Re:Hasn't Changed by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It's whatever the dipshit in front of you can (mis)remember from the manual at that exact moment.

    10. Re:Hasn't Changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During that period, my father organised a surprise weekend for him and my mother. He grabbed the passports, picked her up from work with suitcases etc. packed and went to the airport. She made it from London to Poland on my little brother's passport when they realised the mistake.
      They had to go to the embassy and get a letter explaining the situation as she was paranoid they'd pick it up on the way back.

    11. Re:Hasn't Changed by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I once spent 30min talking to security because of a laptop battery. I also once spent less than 10 minutes talking to security after testing positive to explosives. It's arbitrary as heck.

      These days at Schipol Airport I ignore them. Through the entire bag through and let the security person request to go through it in detail. It's much faster than unloading all my stuff.

    12. Re:Hasn't Changed by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      *Throw - Slashdot really needs a preview function.

    13. Re:Hasn't Changed by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Last week, flew out of LAX, same old shit. This past Friday, flew out of LAX again, and am told that all foodstuffs (things like granola bars) must come out and be placed in their own separate bins. I ask the agent when that change took place (because they weren't saying that shit last week). She says, "December" -- okay, whatever. I have three granola bars in my backpack. I take two out, throw them in the trash, leave one in the bag deliberately. Through the scanner it goes and out the other end it comes -- naturally without a peep from anyone. It's all such bullshit.

      I will be flying out of LAX again in two weeks. I wonder what will happen to the new granola bar program.

      OK, bio-security is a big thing, its actually one of the more useful things that the TSA and other customs agencies do. You'd be surprised at the amount of common pests that are not common in other countries and how easily they hide in foodstuffs. Most of it is harmless to humans but can wreak havoc on other ecosystems. Australia is a prime example of how much damage foreign pests can do (cane toads, rabbits, foxes, camels, horses).

      As or arbitrary rules, these are often foisted on them by management many thousands of miles away with no explanation. Its a shit system, but it originates from the top, so no point in trying to take it out on the poor bloke at the bottom. He's already getting enough shit from his manager (who's getting it from their manager, who's getting it from their manager... lets cut to the chase, the shit originates from Parliament/Congress who are only doing what they think they have to to be re-elected).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Hasn't Changed by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I recently flew out of the US to a county on the Pacific Ocean side of the globe and my flights required me to go through LAX both leaving and returning. All I can tell you is that TSA lines in LAX are pretty tough and long and if you aren't in TSA pre check, you may honestly need 2 hours to go through that line. I don't live in California so I can't really tell you why, but it does seem that LAX is the worst place in the USA to deal with TSA that I've seen.

  6. Just in time to buy new gear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guys under Bush that set up tsa now run the companies that sell the gear to tsa. If the gear doesnâ(TM)t fail every few years the money would stop flowing. Gotta life cycle those scanners.

    Google Chertoff group for proof. Look into their dealings.

  7. Bureaucracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The system provides employment to large numbers of people who would otherwise be unemployable. The bureaucrats who run the organization command huge budgets and paychecks to match. The is there any other objective?

    1. Re:Bureaucracy by youngone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The is there any other objective?

      There is also the objective of getting us used to standing in line while a uniformed agent holds his hand out and says "papers please".
      I have overheard people in airports (foreign, not US, so not actual TSA agents) argue with the Security Theatre guys.
      In Melbourne airport I actually heard a guy in a suit call the security guy a " Fucking useless Jobsworth" which usually a British expression and pretty insulting. The Aussies can be quite a direct bunch though.

    2. Re:Bureaucracy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then put them into some corner and have them count the bumps in the road but put them where they aren't a nuisance to the rest of the world.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Bureaucracy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Aussies can be quite smart and honest. Dangerous combo in this time and age.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, are we still pretending that the purpose of the TSA is to stop terrorists? I thought everyone knew they were useless security theater and the true deterrent is the locked cabin doors?

  9. This keeps getting proven again and again by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anti-terrorist measures are actually terrorism themselves...against the people they are supposed to protect

    1. Re:This keeps getting proven again and again by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, the original definition of "terrorism" is a government that rules by fear.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re: This keeps getting proven again and again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silence!

      I keel you!

  10. What's with USA and units? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    When it's time about land it's measured in football fields, when it's about documentation it's measured in librairies of congress and when it's about percentages it's measured in ballparks...

    Do you even school?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:What's with USA and units? by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      Fourteen schools per parsec, baby!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:What's with USA and units? by Bovius · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the old USA mantra: if it was good enough for Britain, it's good enough for us.

    3. Re:What's with USA and units? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When you have a measurement system that's completely out of whack with sub units that divide by some arbitrary number instead of powers of 10, you're inclined to use metrics that are easier to grasp.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:What's with USA and units? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      When you have a measurement system that's completely out of whack [...], you're inclined to use metrics that are easier to grasp.

      I see what you did there.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  11. wrong problem... by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    It may be security theater and it may be so leaky that it only stops the stupid. But one thing is for sure, there is an abundance of stupid people in this country, and a general unwillingness to nip problems in the bud, so I'm willing to accept this security theater as a compromise.

    Can you imagine the situation if there were no security? Welcome to public bus territory. We have so many people clamoring about the ability to carry weapons in public already. You want them to have airplanes as the next debate ground? Feel free to create that unscreened airport system, and let people decide if they want that or what we have now.

    There is no way, with the level of air travel we have, that we can ever have the perennially-admired goal of Israel-level security. They have 1 airport, and a willing/skilled/alert security service. The goal here is preventing the lowest common denominator, not UBL again. Sometimes, you have to do something stupid just to prevent something even stupider from happening.

    1. Re:wrong problem... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's been so much death and destruction in public buses.

    2. Re: wrong problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make arm wrests removable and more club like. Locked cabin doors solved the real half of the problem already.

    3. Re:wrong problem... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And they get hijacked all the time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:wrong problem... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the only two possibilities are total absence of security and the insanity we have now?

      The older ones among us might remember a time when you could actually use planes for a faster transport from A to B than ... well, by now pretty much any other form of transportation. You'd put down your bag to be x-rayed, you'd go through a metal detector and you'd be done. And, lo and behold, the amount of planes that were bombed or otherwise "terrorized" was pretty much on par with today.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:wrong problem... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the only two possibilities are total absence of security and the insanity we have now?

      The older ones among us might remember a time when you could actually use planes for a faster transport from A to B than ... well, by now pretty much any other form of transportation. You'd put down your bag to be x-rayed, you'd go through a metal detector and you'd be done. And, lo and behold, the amount of planes that were bombed or otherwise "terrorized" was pretty much on par with today.

      Locked cockpit doors made the TSA's mission obsolete for all practical intents and purposes. That's why they've tried to expand to train stations and buses, and even post offices and other locations under the VIPR program.

      I remember back when you could smoke on a flight, and you were also trusted with steak knives to eat your in-flight dinner with.

      It's easier and more profitable for the government to punish us than do the hard work of solving real problems.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:wrong problem... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I've been through the Israeli airport and their screening is basically the same as a US airport except that you also get interrogated. Well unless you have a letter that says you are a nice person. They certainly have better trained screeners and there are probably additional non-visible measures. In the end it's really hard to tell what things are by looking at them or xraying them and it doesn't take a lot of disguise if you really are determined to bring a prohibited item.

    7. Re:wrong problem... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      And back then you didn't need a ticket to go through security. So the airports tried to be places that people actually wanted to come. They encouraged you to bring your family along or even come in for food/shopping as if they were a mall. Those days are gone and now they just settle for selling $4 bottles of water to a captive audience.

    8. Re:wrong problem... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But one thing is for sure, there is an abundance of stupid people in this country, and a general unwillingness to nip problems in the bud, so I'm willing to accept this security theater as a compromise.

      It's not a compromise. It's an attack on personal freedom and the right to travel which has never caught even one terrist. It's a means of terrorizing the American public into thinking that they are under constant attack.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:wrong problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and you were also trusted with steak knives to eat your in-flight dinner with.

      Both times I've flown business class on international flights, they gave us actual metal stabby-stab knives with our meals. I just sat there with a WTF face the first time, as I nearly got a finger up my asshole by the fine gentleman at the security booth just to make sure I wasn't smuggling 3.5 ounces of toothpaste.

    10. Re:wrong problem... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I'm delighted to see that my post received 100% positive moderation (I know, now some joker will mod it down). It shows that there is common ground here across a wide political/ideological spectrum on this topic.

      We *do* have common ground beyond 'Party'! Can't we drop the labels and 'tribal mentality' dividing us and unite on this and similar issues for our mutual benefit? I'd love to see a grasssroots movement form to abolish the TSA (along with 'Homeland Security' in a perfect world, but one step at a time. I mean, holy crap! How damned Orwellian/Authoritarian can government agency/department-naming get, FFS!?).

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  12. So now it's 100% .. by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... because there ain't a goddam other thing that's secure.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  13. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    Alternatively, perhaps security vs the crap you propose isn't a binary choice.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  14. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they move towards flipping a coin for decision making, they could at least achieve a 50% success rate and save taxpayer money in the process.

  15. The problem with theatre by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    The problem with theatre is that if you look behind the curtain the whole illusion comes crashing down.

  16. It's run by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Equifax

    1. Re:It's run by... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why, did they replace the Air Marshals with a Dixie Band now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Why.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    ...is this a surprise? They've failed numerous tests in the past. You expect things to get BETTER???

    1. Re:Why.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, actually I expected things to get worse. Then I realized that this would actually be a feat.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Do we really have to single out a religion or can we just off everyone with an imaginary friend?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Airport "security" is not about security by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is about giving the appearance of "doing something" to impress the stupid masses and it is about giving some top bureaucrats a lot of power and boost their egos. Remember that a bureaucrat becomes more important by being able to "bind" time of others (i.e. waste it) and hence any bureaucracy tries to waste as much time of their victims as possible. Of course, any pretext is is acceptable. "Security!" is the best of them, as it will cause an immediate shutdown of all intelligence in most people.

    I.e. the TSA wastes time, money and insults people, while it does not create security. This is as intended.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Airport "security" is not about security by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Most security is not about security. In fact it really just makes things worse. Whenever I've had the misfortune to travel on a busy airport day and am waiting halfway through the TSA line, or if I'm waiting to get into a concert at a venue that's inserted the security stick up its ass and added metal detectors and pat-down thugs, or if I'm at a theme park that does the same (Even DisneyWorld has jumped onboard this particular stupid train.)...

      ... I'm kind of forced to stop and think: why would the terr'ists I'm supposed to be so frightened of bother trying to get onto the plane, into the Above & Beyond show, or onto Space Mountain? There're a lot of people penned up, close together, and moving only very slowly waiting to be "screened". The "security" line would be a fine target for someone with a semi-automatic rifle or three. Or, just how much explosive and ball-bearings could a suicide bomber pack into a carryon suitcase he could set off in the midpoint of the line on the day before Thanksgiving?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    2. Re:Airport "security" is not about security by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Except that I don't know anyone who is impressed. The problem is that there is no way for someone to campaign on getting rid of the TSA in a sound bite that cannot be made to seem like they want to do away with all airline security.

      Actually, now that I have thought about it, maybe you could. It would have to be about using the TSA as an example of something larger. "Elect me to root out the government agencies which spend lots of money but fail to accomplish what they are there for. Look at the TSA, we all know that they don't make us any safer, but they spend a lot of money and make life miserable for anyone who flies."
      You would need to go into more detail about your plan, but that might work. Personally, I have always felt that the TSA should have been set up as an auditing authority with airport screening left in the hands of the airlines. The TSA would then employ agents who would try to smuggle things on to flights. Different airlines could handle security in different ways and the TSA could be set up to handle getting things through security in a couple of different ways. First, they could regularly publicize which airlines were most secure and which were least secure, with the potential liability those less secure airlines would be subject to in case of an incident. Or it could fine those airlines which fell below a certain standard. Or some combination of the two.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Airport "security" is not about security by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      There're a lot of people penned up, close together, and moving only very slowly waiting to be "screened". The "security" line would be a fine target for someone with a semi-automatic rifle or three. Or, just how much explosive and ball-bearings could a suicide bomber pack into a carryon suitcase he could set off in the midpoint of the line on the day before Thanksgiving?

      Obviously, the next step is to declare the security line a 'gun free zone', to be immediately followed by erecting an additional security checkpoint before the security checkpoint so people won't be in danger when they go through security.

    4. Re:Airport "security" is not about security by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      'parents' are impressed.

      all my single friends, of all ages, are highly annoyed at the TSA bullshit and they realize its all fake nonsense that does nothing but wastes time, money and degrades us all.

      BUT - the parents out there - especially the moms - they change when they have kids. all of a sudden, their precious snowflakes' lives are all that matter and ANYTHING that gives the illusion of safety for them, they'll buy into.

      today, they call them helicopter parents and they totally overdue that crap. they don't let kids be kids, run outside on their own, go play in the woods alone or with friends, they always have to be in sight and there is this notion of 'stranger danger'. a single male with a beard is the scariest thing to these soccer moms.

      so, yes, I blame the politicions that play on the MOMS' fear. they are easy to control and they want to believe they will live forever thru their offspring and if their offspring gets killed, their family line ends. that seems to terrify some people, for some reason, and they'll do anything to have the illusion of permanence.

      think about it. soccer moms are mostly to blame for this because they are SO controlled by fear and emotion.

      I just have not seen childless people (singles or couples) fear 'terrorists' and life, in general, as much as parents.

      emotion is running our country and that's just SO wrong. but its what we now have and it seems that we're stuck with it until/unless someone grows a spine and is ready to deal with the real world and all its ups AND downs.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Airport "security" is not about security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the stratification of society for all the rich people into the PreCheck program while the proles waste their time standing in line!

    6. Re:Airport "security" is not about security by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You have a point. The really bad thing is that these people make it much harder for their children to ever be self-sufficient adults. It already started with turning colleges and universities into "safe spaces" instead of places of learning where your assumption get challenged and you come into contact with new ideas. If this is were it goes, the price for society will be very high.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  20. Can you blame them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you outsource security like this

  21. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which 9/11 attackers were non-Muslim?

  22. Shouldn't we privatize airports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't we privatize airports? Already, it is private airlines who are providing the services, might as well let the airlines own the airport, so they can provide top notch security from parking lot to plane. Plus, the private sector can do a better job at things than any government bureaucrat can ever will, just because of the incentive that failing means getting fired.

    This is basic high school stuff. Ayn Rand's words about limiting government hold true today. Sell the airports to the airlines or a private company, and let people who know what they are doing run the show.

    1. Re:Shouldn't we privatize airports? by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      So why does Israel, which has the best airport security on the planet, not privatize?

      And it's only Libertarian idiots who ignore the real-world fact that not one of the private sector captains of finance who delivered the world into a catastrophic recession lost their job. They got bonuses.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Shouldn't we privatize airports? by spazzmo · · Score: 2

      Oh please, Ayn Rand's words didn't even last her lifetime...

      --
      The cheese stands alone...
    3. Re:Shouldn't we privatize airports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apples and peanuts. Israel has how many airports and how many state airlines?

      Why privatize the TSA? 80% Failure Rate Would Get All Of Us Fired. Not The TSA.

    4. Re:Shouldn't we privatize airports? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the comparison is apples to apples, and airports to airports. Thanks, though, for showing me an excellent example of "No True Scotsman".

      If there's a problem, it's that the US government handed over billions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations for scanners that don't do the job. They might be great at showing people naked, but, as proved conclusively in a number of videos, they don't provide a lot of actual security.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  23. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Singling out an attack is as sensible as singling out a religion.

    Look back in history and show me one religion that has not been the source of unspeakable atrocities.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pastafarianism? Rastafarianism? Jainism?

  25. Re: Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, but very few cultures are like that NOW, and only one of them has an organized terrorist recruiting and brainwashing machine and has openly declared war on Europeans and Americans. And if we spent all that money destroying them instead of funding this debacle we probably we would be done by now. Instead, money was wasted and we didn't really change anything except increase our momentum towards becoming a police state.

  26. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The religion of science. Oops, except for eugenics. And lobotomies. I'm sure there are many other things if I put my mind to it. Every religion can be misused.

  27. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol Jainism, now that's a religion where you can definitely say they were doing it wrong, if they engaged in terorrism.

  28. The most retarded thing... by baker_tony · · Score: 2

    The most retarded thing I encounter in US airports, is security screening transiting passengers, by sending them out to the beginning of the main security line after making them queue for an hour, fingerprinting and stamping passport.
    I mean, seriously, if someone was going to do something to a plane, it would be on the flight in and how it is "safer" to put security screened passengers back out in to the public areas for 60 seconds to put them back through security again?! All it does is fuck off passengers and make additional work for EVERYONE.
    It's like you want to fuck off everyone, even if you want nothing to do with going to America.
    Meanwhile, on my return flight to the UK I went back via Singapore. Massive, kick ass airport, stayed there 17 hours, slept at a transit hotel (with pool!). Never went through security or passport control at all (which makes total sense as I never needed to leave the airport).

    1. Re:The most retarded thing... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I flew from Europe to LAX via Minneapolis. They made us redo the security screening. The only rationale I can think of is that we had access to our checked baggage (customs) before going to the connecting flight.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:The most retarded thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most retarded thing I encounter in US airports, is security screening transiting passengers,

      It's not just the USA, that happened to me in Frankfurt. A couple years ago I flew in from Montreal, and my connecting Lufthansa flight was in 6 hours or so.

      There was a security screening on arrival.

  29. This is why the feds shouldn't manage Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The TSA, VA, IRS, DOD's F35 program and Obamacare say everything you need to know about how well the government would manage healthcare.

    If healthcare is ever single payer it won't be successful if it's managed by the US government.

  30. Re: Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    ...very few cultures are like that NOW,

    Um, you may be more than a little out of touch with the world outside your mom's basement.

    and only one of them has an organized terrorist recruiting and brainwashing machine and has openly declared war on Europeans and Americans.

    I can think of at least two without really trying...

    And if we spent all that money destroying them instead of funding this debacle we probably we would be done by now.

    I know the irony of this escapes you, but it made me laugh.

  31. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    His name's actually spelled "Moore."

  32. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    We're going to discriminate because safety is more important than being politically correct?

    Cool, looking forward to banning white guys from owning guns.

  33. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which 9/11 attackers were non-Muslim?

    I recall that one of the pilots was a Christian, participating for political reasons. I could not find a name with a quick internet search.

  34. Hack needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know botspyATcyberservicesDOTcom is one of the best hackers who I can vouch for. botspyATcyberservicesDOTcom is very skilled, competent and reliable. botspyATcyberservicesDOTcom helped me with so many issues including hacking my husband’s phone, when I noticed he was cheating. I was able to spy on everything on his phone without him noticing. Just contact botspyATcyberservicesDOTcom for any hacking related issues like hacking phones, computers, emails. Facebook accounts, WhatsApp, Instagram, to get a good hacking service just send a mail to botspyATcyberservicesDOTcom

  35. Abolish the evil TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is just another manifestation of the police star apparatus forced on us by both parties under the guise of alleged security, despite objective studies showing that it is wildly ineffective (not to mention all the abuse passengers endure).

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/john-w-whitehead/silent-coup/

  36. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Pastafarianism: Let's stick with actual religions where the proponents really have imaginary friends instead of just mocking those that do.

    Rastafarianism: Tell a Rasta you're gay. Make sure your life insurance covers it.

    Jainism: Ok, that one's a tough cookie. But at the very least it has a similar problem as most contemporary religions, i.e. that it considers women lesser than men and far from equals and their practice of accepting children as monks is another thing I would consider rather problematic. I agree, though, that their threat as classic "terrorists" is close to zero.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Re: Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So... "respect my religion because I don't really follow the atrocities it commands me to do"?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Science needs no worship. Science needs what religion explicitly forbids: Doubting, testing, questioning and changing.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I agree. So let's get rid of the whole bronze age bullshit while we're at it, why only dump the one from the early middle ages?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. Schipol has those "new scanners" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Schipol has those "new scanners"... which I refuse to use. I don't trust what any govt claims about them. Sorry.

    Then some security person starts speaking loudly that their scanners aren't dangerous like those in the USA. I refuse again, expecting to be patted down, like every other airport. Everyone in line behind me also refuses. Next thing that happens is all security scanning for the flight stops and we all got on the plane, flew to NYC and landed safely. Useless.

    I haven't gone through any scanners since they switched from the metal detectors. Not once. Some places pat me down. Usually it is pretty weak - in Britain, the guy patted 3 times and said I was fine.

    In Prague, I was groped, twice, before boarding a single flight. Felt violated both times. And he didn't even buy me a drink. There was a Russian couple who were both violated at least as much as I was - though I was smartly dressed and they were dressed like an 1980s metal band.

    In the USA, the pat downs have always been thorough and professional. Have an international flight this weekend - think I'll drop some fertilizer on the lawn before going just to see if their blue gloves actually pick it up. I know, I know, I'm 6 weeks behind on my yard work.

  41. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testing, like the Tuskegee experiments.

  42. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    The Dystopians, the Pastafarians, and the United Church of Christ. I don't know the minor or protest religions outside of North America.

    The UCC do not take their faith so seriously or devoutly as many other Christian sects. I'd not specifically been seeking their history out, but they seem quite free of the righteous dogma and fervor that have led so many other sects to destructive violence.

  43. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by coofercat · · Score: 1

    Bhuddism?

  44. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because only one accounts for the vast majority of modern-day terrorist attacks?

  45. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    No, testing your findings and whether they apply universally.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  46. I was asked to participate in a test once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in 1989 I flew via American Airlines from California to Pennsylvania. The plane had a layover in Atlanta and while standing at a security kiosk I was asked if I would allow them to place a fake grenade in my bag and go back through the security checkpoint. The lady tried to explain it was how they do random tests but I was only 12 years old and thought it was entrapment so I refused to participate. The lady, literally, had fake grenades sitting on a shelf inside her kiosk which was fully exposed to the back and the kiosk itself sat out on the floor away from the wall such that people walked behind it all the time. Didn't seem very smart to me.

  47. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by gnick · · Score: 1

    ...can we just off everyone with an imaginary friend?

    I have gods. They're not imaginary; they're symbolic.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  48. LOL, Tell that to Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, Tell that to Israel

  49. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There's no alternative to cars yet. Once self-driving cars become feasible and can be rolled out, yes we should.

    There is a perfect alternative to guns though, it's simply banning them. They serve no purpose.

    They'll use knives or clubs if they can't find a gun.

    There won't be mass shootings. Do you get all your arguments from bumper stickers?

  50. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after all, there are pedophiles of all religions.

  51. Re: Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously don't know much about the dalai lama and how his folks treat the poor.

  52. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just leave this here

    https://lawandcrime.com/high-p...

  53. Re: Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Obviously there wouldn't be any mass shootings, but there would still be mass KILLINGS. If 50 people are killed, do you think they give any fucks whether it was a gun or a bomb? They're still FUCKING DEAD. People who want to hurt and kill others will find a way, that's why banning objects is futile, you have to address behavior.

  54. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You look at this church window and tell me it isn't so!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And I'm certain you're able to explain the difference in ways that don't involve me having to believe or imagining something, right?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  56. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

    Great job couching your argument so that it's impossible to disprove. You'll just change what you mean by "modern-day" or "terrorist" or "majority" until the remaining facts fit you assertion. The Lord's Resistance Army, Malegaon bombings, the Troubles, the NLFT in India, the list goes on and on. No single religion has a monopoly on people doing horrible things in the name of their god.

  57. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by gnick · · Score: 1

    There are forces we don't understand. If gravity's not magic, I don't know what is. It's easiest for me to conceptualize that force as a god - The same one that decides where hurricanes go. It does require belief in a mysterious force that does things like pulling massive bodies toward each other. No imagination necessary - I don't picture something with fingers and toes that I can hold a conversation with.

    The donkey is the symbol of the Democratic party. There isn't an actual donkey making policy decisions. I can recognize what that donkey stands for without imagining an actual braying beast in my head. If you can't recognize a symbol without engaging your imagination, we're on different pages. Are you familiar with the peace symbol? How do you "imagine" it? Or does "peace" not exist?

    I recognize more than one force greater than myself and treat them similarly. The one in charge of gravity and hurricanes is the only one that does magic and, unfortunately, doesn't give a shit about us.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  58. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Once we have self-driving cars, car bombs can deliver themselves.

    Just because you don't use a gun, doesn't mean they serve no purpose.

    > There won't be mass shootings.

    Really? Just like magic?

  59. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    There is a perfect alternative to guns though, it's simply banning them. They serve no purpose.

    Sounds like a great idea! Lets ban ALL guns. Hunters who feed there families, hobbyists/collectors who never actually use them, home/shop owners who want to protect family/property, body guards, security, police, secret service, military, everyone. If you concede that even a single person/organization should keep their guns for any reason then you admit that sometimes a gun does have a purpose. Guns are tools, nothing more. They do not load themselves, walk into a school room full of children and pull their own trigger. If the killer at Sandyhook had thrown pipe bombs into the classrooms would you be calling for the banning of plumbing supplies as well? Once a person decides to kill someone else they will find a way, it is the desire to kill that must be addressed, not which tool they choose to use.

    There won't be mass shootings.

    but there will still be mass killings. Oklahoma City 1995 (120+ dead), New York 2001 (3000+ dead), Nice 2016 (86 dead 400+ injured). Gikondo 1994 (110 dead) to name some off the top of my head. No guns used in any of those mass killings, for almost every mass killing involving guns I can cite one just as bad where guns were not used. Even if guns vanished with a wave of a magic wand people will still find a way to kill others. We need to focus on changing the culture and mind sets that consider violence an acceptable answer to a disagreement.

  60. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recognize more than one force greater than myself and treat them similarly.

    Your other gods are just as imaginary. Using the word "symbolic" instead of "imaginary" does not make them real.

  61. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by gnick · · Score: 1

    Using the word "symbolic" instead of "imaginary" does not make them real.

    Not trying to say anything's "real" except for the forces being described. For me, the gods are tools for shaping the way I view the world. It's not important that they make sense to anyone but me - I have no reason to try to persuade anyone.

    For example, I perceive a force that allows me to do calculus while my distant relatives were still struggling with fire. It's a force that exists because of the combined efforts of many men and women. It has disciples in the form of students and professors. It has temples in the form of schools. It rewards prayers in the form of studying. It's just one way to conceptualize human knowledge; one that makes sense to me. If you're not buying it, that's fine; I'm not selling it.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  62. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "here isn't an actual donkey making policy decisions"
    Are you sure?

  63. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    No one is arguing for disarming the military and police, so maybe stay out of adult conversations.

    You bring up a bunch of terrorist attacks which are far far less frequent than mass shootings. And I'll note that in the ones you bring up, changes were made after a single tragedy.

    The OKC bombing? They started regulating the fertilizer and other materials used for the bombing.

    9/11, they locked the cockpit doors and did a ton of other stuff.

    Nice attack: they started regulating heavy trucks more and put up barriers

    Hundreds of mass shootings? We've done jack shit.

    Your own examples prove that it's a fucking travesty we haven't done anything about guns.

    (Gikondo was part of the Rwandan genocide and aided by police, so that's not exactly applicable)

  64. Ridiculous Regulations No255 by gordguide · · Score: 1

    I have from time to time worked at remote jobsites; you are there for various lengths of time (two weeks, three, sometimes longer, but in any case 7days/week 12 hours/day) and then flown home for what are the equivalent of your days off.

    Sooo ...

    We board the plane at home, six AM, go through security, yes the boots, belt etc are a hassle because you only have limited luggage and you need your tools and proper dress for the job, typically outdoors or a combination of indoors and out. So I have to remove workboots with ankle support and many laces, etc.

    At the jobsite we disembark and go to work, typically starting at about 10AM on travel days.

    On the way home, we board the aircraft, no security, and travel to the nearest city 250 miles away.

    THEN we disembark, all luggage is unloaded from the aircraft, and you carry your bags and go through security. Yes, after flying for the majority of the trip.

    Then you reboard the aircraft while your luggage is re-loaded, and fly a 25 minute leg to your home city.

    There is no earthly use to this regimen on the return flight. It only exists to satisfy silly regulations. The jobsite, by the way, has explosives on site.

  65. Re: Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we have over 5 billion "behaviors" that need to be "addressed".

  66. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    home/shop owners who want to protect family/property

    From what?
    I didn't see a gun protect a single person killed in Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Florida, Texas, NC, Colorado, Columbine, etc. etc. etc. Guns don't protect people, people do.

  67. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    There are forces we don't understand yet. Yes. That's why we do science. I dread the day we know everything, I can only imagine that the world becomes incredibly boring and dull, with nothing to learn and nothing to explore. But I don't go from "I don't know" to "a wizard did it". That's an easy cop-out, not an explanation. Where does the universe come from? A wizard waggled his wand. Where does life come from? He said abracadabra. What kind of an explanation is that supposed to be?

    The donkey of the democrats is a symbol. Ok. It stands for ... well, essentially nothing. It doesn't mean that they are stubborn, it doesn't mean that they carry a lot of weight and it doesn't mean that they all have massive dicks. Symbols have no meaning. They get a meaning by us giving them one, but by themselves they have no meaning. Humans create symbols because we think easier in images and can operate with abstract concepts more easily if we give them a symbol or icon to represent them. But by themselves, they have no meaning at all.

    I agree that there are forces that are stronger than what I can do. I cannot create hurricanes. That this force is in any way anthropomorphic is silly, though. Wind has no persona.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  68. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by gnick · · Score: 1

    There are forces we don't understand yet... But I don't go from "I don't know" to "a wizard did it".

    Neither do I. No wizards involved. Forces that may as well be magic, but no wizard and nobody "doing it." Just an abstract symbol that makes it easier to conceptualize the mysterious forces involved.

    Symbols have no meaning. They get a meaning by us giving them one, but by themselves they have no meaning. Humans create symbols because we think easier in images and can operate with abstract concepts more easily if we give them a symbol or icon to represent them. But by themselves, they have no meaning at all.

    Glad we're on the same page.

    Wind has no persona.

    No argument there. The force behind wind/gravity/electrons spinning/etc. follows a very strict and specific set of rules and couldn't care less about prayers or consequences.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  69. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Technology if advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic. And random effects if chaotic enough are indistinguishable from a bene- or malevolent intelligence.

    Just because we do not have a sensible explanation for something yet doesn't make it mysterious or magical. It makes it unknown. And a pretty good field for further study so we have a chance to learn more about it, with the goal of understanding it.

    400 years ago the forces behind lightning were mysterious and terrifying. We knew that there was something powerful coming down from the sky that could start fires and even kill you if it hit you. People had no idea what electricity is and attributed it to some supernatural being or a force beyond our world. Today we know that it's simply charged particles that interact. Nothing mysterious, no magical, supernatural forces.

    Why should it be different with things like gravity? So far we found a very mundane explanation for every kind of event that used to be magical, mysterious, spooky or even "godly" to people in the past. And so far nobody gave me a good reason why this shouldn't also be the case in the future with things we do not know the underlying principles just yet.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  70. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by gnick · · Score: 1

    Are we off representing forces with symbols and on to magic? Did I defend magic? Never mind; I will try.

    Just because we do not have a sensible explanation for something yet doesn't make it mysterious or magical. It makes it unknown.

    To me, the unknown is mysterious. If the unknown isn't mysterious, what is? It's practically the definition.

    400 years ago the forces behind lightning were mysterious and terrifying... Today we know that it's simply charged particles that interact. Nothing mysterious, no magical, supernatural forces... Why should it be different with things like gravity?

    Doesn't have to be. Maybe one day gravity will be mundane. Right now, it's as close to magic as it gets. I don't think there's anything "supernatural" going on - Gravity's as "natural" as it gets. But, at my present level of understanding, it's indistinguishable from magic. Whether gravity actually is magic is entirely a matter of perspective and is unimportant to our relationship with it.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  71. Sedatives by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Airports can become 100% safe when you inject sedatives to passengers.

  72. Re:Fuck security; eliminate it; the risk is still by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    When I hear hooves, I think of horses, not zebras. Why? Because in the past, when I heard hooves hit the ground, it invariably meant a horse is coming. Not a single time I spotted a zebra coming around the corner.

    When I see a force of nature that I don't understand, I expect it to have a natural explanation and do not consider magic as a viable alternative? Why? Same reason. Any phenomenon we saw that we eventually found an explanation for had a very natural, mundane reason for it. Never, not a single time, magic or supernatural causes were the explanation.

    That I, personally, don't understand it doesn't change anything. I don't know how the glasses I wear work. I know THAT they work, but not how. A friend of mine does. He went to school to know how to put glasses on people that correct their faulty eye sight. I should probably consider him some sort of high wizard because it is beyond my understanding how this is possible.

    Gravity works according to laws that we do actually already understand. We can predict what gravity will do to bodies. Even though we still have a bit of a problem if more than two bodies are involved. Then again, I also consider it a bit confusing if more than two bodies are involved in my bedroom, and yes, that can very well be considered magical.

    Or at least a miracle.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  73. Odd departmental difference.... by MercTech · · Score: 1

    TSA and the department of Homeland Security keep saying there is no viable bomb detection equipment usable in airports. Yet, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been requiring automated bomb detectors at entry portals to licensed facilities since the early 1990s. In the early 2000s; automated machinery was developed for Border Patrol to detect explosive materials hidden in truck loads of other materials that could easily be used for luggage scanning.

        Why the TSA continues with ineffectual, intrusive, painfully stupid, protocols seems to be just sheer circus drama that provides nothing extra in the way of security.

        When I'm flying, I can't help thinking of flying Lufthansa between German cities during elevated terrorist alert conditions back in the 90s. The Lufthansa solution was not more pre-boarding screening but to post a body armored security person in front and back of the plane armed with a sub-machine gun loaded with rubber ammunition. (I asked the guard about the cabin integrity issue at altitude. BTW, rubber bullets are are still lethal but don't put holes in walls and airplane cabins that would kill bystanders.)

    --
    NRRPT/RCT