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."
Cartoon take on the original official video.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anti-terrorist measures are actually terrorism themselves...against the people they are supposed to protect
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
The problem with theatre is that if you look behind the curtain the whole illusion comes crashing down.
...is this a surprise? They've failed numerous tests in the past. You expect things to get BETTER???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
...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.
His name's actually spelled "Moore."
We're going to discriminate because safety is more important than being politically correct?
Cool, looking forward to banning white guys from owning guns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bhuddism?
Because only one accounts for the vast majority of modern-day terrorist attacks?
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.
...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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Airports can become 100% safe when you inject sedatives to passengers.
Casteism
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.
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