Schneier Talks to the Head of TSA 342
Bruce Schneier recently had the chance to sit down with Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and discuss some of the frustrations travelers experience head-on. "In April, Kip Hawley, the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), invited me to Washington for a meeting. Despite some serious trepidation, I accepted. And it was a good meeting. Most of it was off the record, but he asked me how the TSA could overcome its negative image. I told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that. He did enjoy writing a guest blog post for Aviation Daily, but having a blog himself didn't work within the bureaucracy."
Ask him... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd ask myself, but I'd rather stay off that list, and since no one can say how you get on, this post might put me on that list, but I wouldn't know it until I couldn't fly next week.
P.S. Ask him if he admires Kafka and is trying to emulate his writings...
Not an idiot, but still evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not an idiot, but still evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that makes it a whole lot worse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, you've got to pay the bills. Perhaps this guy has a very good grip on what he can and cannot change without getting fired.
I'd rather have somebody with good intentions and good goals running the system, helping to slowly erode the bureaucracy than somebody who actually feels that the current state of the TSA is perfectly acceptable.
Flying isn't a particularly pleasant experience, but in my experiences, the TSA isn't complete and pure evil, and they take a lot
Yes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Become a card carrying Republican.
2. Attend Church every Sunday.
3. Report UnAmericanism in friends and neighbors.
4. Watch FOX NEWS exclusively and echo its opinions.
5. Most Importantly of all.... Donate bucketloads of cash to the GOP!!
Anything less and you're siding with the terrorists.
Re:Ask him... (Score:5, Informative)
Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues with! (Score:5, Interesting)
I have flown quite a bit this past year and visited airports across the country (for pleasure, never for business) and have never once had a run in with the TSA. My issues are solely with the airlines and their "customer service".
Last night was a prime example. Flying from SAV to ATL and on to MSP. My flight out of SAV was delayed from 19:42 to 22:15 and then in ATL we were originally delayed out until 01:20 then moved back to 22:10 (which I would have missed the connection) and then back to 00:10 (which was actually 00:30). We arrived at MSP 45 minutes late (which isn't that bad overall).
The flight from ATL to MSP has a TERRIBLE track record according to Flight Stats [flightstats.com] (0.9 out of 5 stars).
Then with Northwest's pilots calling in sick and them dropping ~9% of their flights for the weekend (170 to 200 flights) is just a joke.
The TSA hasn't exactly been friendly or courteous but at least they are doing their job. The airlines, OTOH, aren't doing anything except making a big hole and getting bailed out by the taxpayers while paying their CEO's millions.
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:5, Interesting)
United flight from Hong Kong to Chicago. There's two of these a day. The day before our flight, both flights had been overbooked and everyone showed up. So they had to pay people effectively $1200 each to stay an extra day in HK. The day we were flying everyone showed as well as the people who had been left over from the previous day. They paid 56 people $1400 to wait around in the hopes of getting the second flight that day. One of them had been bumped twice the previous day and had no reason to hurry home so he had gotten a total of $5000 in order to delay his flight a day or so. Keep in mind the plane tickets themselves were $1200 each when we purchased them.
The weird part is that once we were on the plane and they had already paid 56 people who were at the gate to not get on the plane, they had to ask another 10 to get off because of weight restrictions. So the airline paid out $92000 on that flight alone because they overbooked it. This is why the airlines are going bankrupt, because their predictive models of who is going to no-show isn't working anymore. I have several relatives who always build an extra 2-3 days into their travel schedules so they can volunteer to be bumped. As a result they usually end up essentially getting upgraded to business or economy plus AND getting to fly for free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Overbooking happens because on a certain percentage of flights business travelers always fail to show up. By overbooking the flight they can sell the seats of those no-shows. More bums in the plane = Cheaper airfares. Therefore, I don't want them to stop overbooking as airfares I pay will by extension go up. Bumping = cheaper airfares. Typically most overbooked flights are swarmed with volunteers willing to be bumped in exchange for per
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More time waiting is equivalent to a higher cost ticket. Perhaps your time is worthless?
Tickets are transferable if you give up any money you would have saved by purchasing early. In reality, ticket prices should go down as the flight nears, in order to encourage sales of the remaining seats. Additionally, agencies should be able to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, but if I'm travelling in business I can just get to the airport and work on my laptop. Who cares whether I'm at my desk or at Starbucks? And if I'm travelling for pleasure I've already taken the day off so who cares if I'm hanging at home or at the bar in the airport?
In reality, ticket prices should go down as the flight nears, in order to encourage sales of the remaining seats.
Incorrect - The vast majority
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've got the cause and effect backwards. The only reason the airline can ch
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes and no - United says 'we're the only ones who can sell you a ticket' but they can't prevent you from buying a ticket on Southwest, JetBlue or Delta. They're in effect the 'third party' - The competition. Competition in major markets has also pretty much determined the lowest fare available anyway - So even if these mythical 'third parties' could resell tickets they probably wouldn't have
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:3, Interesting)
More people are beginning to understand that security theater is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. But not enough to end this lunacy any time soon, I'm afraid. Some peopl
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:5, Interesting)
On my last few trips to the USA I have been pulled over by the TSA on about a third of the flights (several internal flights on each trip), and by customs once. Since they were not pulling over one third of the people in the line, I presume something about me had me flagged as a potential terrorist. Every single time, the operatives have been polite and efficient.
Last but one time it was not at all surprised to be flagged, since I had only noticed that there was a screw up with my booking when I went to collect my ticked and I was, in fact, booked on the flight exactly one month earlier (fortunately the airline just charged me a token 'don't be a numpty again' fee and let me on). Even I can see this is quite suspicious behaviour (although the fact my connecting flight was booked on the correct day would have been evidence of incompetence, rather than malice, on my part). The guy who checked my hand luggage was very friendly, and since I wasn't in a hurry (and the airport wasn't busy at that time) we chatted for a bit after he had decided that I probably wasn't a terrorist. I was a bit worried about being searched then, since my laptop had one broken hinge and being opened carelessly would have probably snapped the other one and pulled the screen off, but they let me open it and after I pointed to the damage were very careful with it. They wouldn't let me have another go in the machine that blew a puff of air at you from all directions to find explosive residue though.
The next time I think the security personnel were more interested in seeing what the Nokia 770 I was carrying could do. It took about five seconds to assure them it wasn't a bomb, and then another five minutes of demonstrating the various features and discussing with them and whether they should buy one. I felt like I was trapped in a parallel universe where 'does it run Linux' was a more important question than 'is it a bomb.' While that might be true on Slashdot, it probably shouldn't be to security people.
I haven't been in an airport where I couldn't see at least a couple of ways of bypassing the security[1], but I've also never been inconvenienced by it. At Narita, I arrived at the check-in desk as they were packing up and my flight was due to start boarding. They rushed me through the pilots-only lane in security and got me from the airport entrance to the boarding area in ten minutes (it would be the furthest terminal away from the entrance when I was running late...). It's a shame airports aren't always this efficient.
[1] Interestingly, some of the security is expressly designed this way, as a honeypot. They make a few ways of bypassing it obvious and then have a secondary check which picks up the people who do.
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:2, Interesting)
Last night was a prime example. Flying from SAV to ATL and on to MSP. My flight out of SAV was delayed from 19:42 to 22:15 and then in ATL we were originally delayed out until 01:20 then moved back to 22:10 (which I would have missed the connection) and then back to 00:10 (which was actually 00:30). We arrived at MSP 45 minutes late (which isn't that bad overall).
I have found the problem with your flight already. You were going through ATL. It is almost a necessity at times, sadly, but this is one of the nations busiest airports, which makes travel into and out of ATL a royal pain. I try to avoid it whenever possible and usually do.
The TSA hasn't exactly been friendly or courteous but at least they are doing their job. The airlines, OTOH, aren't doing anything except making a big hole and getting bailed out by the taxpayers while paying their CEO's millions.
I am not going to completely absolve airlines, but some of them have been willing to pay for TSA screw ups. Let me give you my one example (that actually led to me flying a lot less). If you have ever flown through IAD, you know th
Re:Not the TSA, it's the airlines I have issues wi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doing their job? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not first-class seats per se, but you can already do this on United and a number of other carriers. For more see:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44 2986 [flyertalk.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Legroom (Score:2)
Re:Doing their job? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course being High dollar union employees, Most of the workers get a large salary plus lots of benefits and all. Then for each route, they divide the amount of passengers up into weight that the plane can carry and then figure this into the the amount of passengers the plane can hold. First class might cost more because it takes the space of more seats up (potential passengers). They might subsidize the coach fairs but it is more likely that if your taking the space of two passengers, you ticket will cost relatively the same plus the added benefits like more personnel and luxury items being stored, profit and all that.
This is one of the reasons why if you book your flight several months in advance, your tickets are cheaper then last minute flights. they attempt to make up the short comings at the last minute. You can also look a this as why they over book flights sometimes too. The want to make sure that with all the last minute cancellations and all, that all the seats are sold.
When I got my pilots license, they taught us to calculated the cost of the flight on the total weight of the plane as it would fly along with a fraction of the required maintenance. It boiled down to a unit we could multiply against the cost of fuel and accurately cover our expenses. Of course I can only fly single engine small aircraft for private use but the principle is the same.
Re:Doing their job? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doing their job? (Score:5, Informative)
He seems to have a sense of humor (Score:4, Interesting)
And they really seem to get into the details of airport security. Certainly doesn't seem like PR fluff, could be an interesting read.
His answers are PR fluff. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an attempt to confuse the when you do follow the scripted PR.
Right
That seems completely illogical to me. And the attempt at evading the specifics just illustrates how much of a PR flak he is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right ..........
That seems completely illogical to me.
Actually, it would be perfectly logical if you assumed that explosives research showed that using larger containers was also not a viable option. It'd be like telling someone that you can bring a small order of fries on the plane, as your explosives research shows that combining small orders of fries into a larger container is not a viable option. Nowhere have *you* said that explosives research has shown that a supersized order of fries *is* a viable option (although there was that rumor about how that
Define Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey buddy, if you want to be more transparent, hold less of your meeting 'off the record'.
Re: (Score:2)
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
We're not ready to make a comment at this time.
No comments.
Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this 3oz liquid horse shit has been going on, Hawley has been saying it's based on "scientific findings" like a broken record. But he has yet to show these "scientific findings".
So what would the justification be for prohibiting lip gloss, nasal spray, etc? There was none, other than for our own convenience and the sake of a simple explanation.
There you have it folks, Hawley freely admits that he's stupid and lazy.
Oh, I'll report if I get on the "No-fly" list for this. Because, obviously, I'm a "threat" for pointing out Government stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Hawley has been saying it's based on "scientific findings" like a broken record. But he has yet to show these "scientific findings".
That's because most of the public will just blindly accept anything that claims to be based on "science, or research". They might be a little suspicious, but people haven't been taught to think critically about how science is done. (Or on the other hand have to accept the conclusions of well done science even when it challenges what they believe). Science is too often presen
They don't want to address the real issues. (Score:2)
#1. Flying planes into buildings. Lots of people die. Lots of damage. Lots of expense. So you fit the flight deck with a secure door. One that can keep out the terrorists long enough for the pilot to land somewhere.
#2. Blowing up a plane. About 200+ people die. You lose a plane. It might hit something on the way down. So you check passengers AND crew AND support s
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. (Score:2)
You can mitigate that by moving the vehicles away from the terminal. The passengers would need to unload and move to an initial screening point.
And so on and so forth. You'd have to have enough redundancy to handle the holiday rush so that you'd have no more than 20 - 50 people stuck
Bureaucracy is a force multiplier for idiocy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can partially sympathize with him. The TATP plot wouldn't have worked, but there are probably other things that could be smuggled onboard and used to bring down a plane. By limiting quantities and the sizes of things that could be used as mixing/pressure vessels, some risk may have been mitigated.
> Hawley has been saying it's based on "scientific findings" like a broken record. But he has yet to show these "scientific findings".
And I can even go so far as to say I agree with him on his lack of specifics. There's no need to censor recipes, but there's no need to publicize them. Better to let the bad guys Google it themselves, wind up with something copied out of a 60s-era cookbook, and Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool without hurting anybody.
> Oh, I'll report if I get on the "No-fly" list for this. Because, obviously, I'm a "threat" for pointing out Government stupidity.
And therein is the root cause: bureaucracy. Kip Hawley may not be an idiot [kiphawleyisanidiot.com], but he's a bureaucrat. It doesn't matter how smart you are if the system you're working with is fundamentally flawed. That applies from Kip all the way down to the goon who barks at you for failing to remove your shoes soon enough, or the goon who barks at you even louder for removing your shoes before you were ordered to.
Since the typical TSA Goon is too poorly-educated to understand chemistry, and the typical civilian is too poorly-educated to understand either chemistry or risk, that neither audience needs to know.
There's the first idiocy: A bureaucracy is happy to tell you "what" (three ounce containers, one Freedom Baggie) to do, but never "why". The TSA goon enforces the policy with mindless efficiency; he is trained to be mindless. His civilian subjects see the policy as wholly arbitrary unfounded in reason or logic, because no reason or logic has ever been supplied, and treat him as the goon he is -- and he likewise learns to regard the cilivian subjects as idiots, because they're too stupid to follow a rule as simple as "3 oz containers in a 1-liter baggie".
And here's the second level of idiocy: Since nobody has a "need to know" the reason, nobody's allowed to know, and it's not too big a step before you get is afraid to know and is afraid to even think.
Some guy ahead of me was raising a fuss about the 3/1/1 rule, and I would have loved to have explained to him the reasoning behind the rule. Of course, I didn't. If I'd said "Dude, it's about limiting the size of reaction/pressure vessels and the amount of reagents that can be smuggled in without having more than a certain number of people buying airline tickets within a certain timeframe, just chill out and toss the toothpaste", I'd probably still be in some black hole somewhere.
It's this second level of idiocy that's the real problem: the notion that, in a bureaucracy, anyone who does think through the reasoning behind a policy, must be a threat.
More than however many years since (a plot that's mentioned in TFA that I no longer want to type on a web form), more than 5 years since 9/11, two years since the bogus liquid plot, and only now, on an obscure web forum, does the bureaucracy actually come out and admit why the rules are what they are.
The original policy isn't a great idea, but it isn't exactly a dumb idea either. But it's taught arbitrarily to the goons, it's enforced arbitrarily against the goons' victims, and ends up with all three sides (Policymaker, Goon, and Civilian alike) regarding each other with nothing but contempt and suspicion. To the point that I (like
Re: (Score:2)
But they didn't do that. I'm still allowed to bring a hard-side plastic or metal case and as many plastic bags or other small containers as I like on to the plane, so long as none of them have liquid in them when I do it.
Don't make excuses for stupid rules -- someone might believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that the smokers might not want to have to constantly re-purchase lighters when they fly, allowing a ligher on-board makes sense. There is only so
Good Intentions + $2.00 (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a million reasons why there will be practically no transparency. While it's easy to point fingers at the current administration and break out the tin foil hat, most blame goes right back to non-voters and voters alike.
It's nice that the TSA head honcho knows how to play Good Cop but that's about all one can expect.
Dignity (Score:5, Insightful)
Treat passengers with dignity. That, in my opinion, is the most important part. It does not cost very much — hardly anything at all.
For example, if you force people to remove their shoes (and I always refused to do that, when it was still optional — until a year or so ago), do keep the floor sparkling clean in the area — and make sure, TSA employees are bare-feet too as a reassurance. Thousands of people cross those spots daily — it is not only undignifying, but also unsanitary to be walking there without footware.
For crying out loud — a Ukrainian airport provides travelers boarding a JFK-bound flight with disposable footwear. Can JFK not do the same?
When I made myself a pair out of paper-towels, the TSA-thugs at JFK (both the drone and his supervisor) insisted, I take them off too...
Of course, my calling them names (as I just did) only further alienates them and contributes to the problems, which Mr. Hawley is trying to solve...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as having the TSA employees barefoot: that's just an incredibl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you just have major OCD. There is nothing unsanitary about walking a few feet without shoes, especially on a dry, hard surface. You can't spread any diseases that way. If you are so concerned, wear socks or something. People walk barefoot all the time at the beach, which is far more unsanitary -- you could step on something sharp, for instance. And I've never been at an airport where the screening area was not perfectly clean.
Are you serious?
Hard, flat surfaces are a breeding ground for athletes foot, plantar warts and other lovely fungii that would love to accompany you on your destination. The likelihood of contracting one these issues is magnified when the surface is wet which happens when your feet are sweat or someone elses were
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Viruses can survive on the dry, hard door knobs for 24 hours [google.com]. If whoever walked through the gates 5 minutes before me had a viral foot illness of some sort (such as HFHF [cdc.gov]), the subsequent passengers can pick it up — even through the socks — a wonderful thing to bring with you to vacation or a business trip.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it would be downright uncomfortable to have them stand around with no support for 8 hours a day. Second, it limits their ability as a security officer. Imagine them having to give chase to someone while in your bare feet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, well, they won't let me wear my tin-foil shoes either.
Negative image (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Negative image (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is no effective screening method for that, so we'll pretend that little problem doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not out to stop every single possible threat. Its all about risk vs reward
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just because a system can't protect against every threat does not mean there is no value in protecting against some."
And as proof all you need to do is take a look at the friggin' warehouses holding TSA confiscated items...
2002-2003 -- TSA screeners confiscated 1.4 million knives, 2.4 million sharp objects, 1,101 guns, 15,666 clubs, more than 125,000 incendiary items and nearly 40,000 box cutters.
All taken from people who weren't going to hurt anyone with them. So what's your point?
Re:Negative image (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Negative image (Score:5, Interesting)
But there is no effective screening method for that, so we'll pretend that little problem doesn't exist.
Ever departed from the Tel Aviv airport? That, my friend, is security. Sure, they have all of the neat whizzy gizmos that TSA has (better, probably, but it's been a while since I've been through TLV), but the crux of what they do is to interrogate the passengers. Not kidding. They stop and intensely question each and every passenger and assess their motives for being there. I was on a professional trip as part of a scientific delegation, and had to not just produce documents to that effect, but demonstrate that my name was in the conference program, and give part of my talk (naturally, since the agents aren't in my particular profession, I doubt they cared about what I was saying nearly as much as how I was saying it, and whether it appeared I was demonstrating fluency in some topic). There's about 10-20 minutes of this, and it's intense. They're trying to trip you up, to find someone who has something to hide. Like motives for having had surgery to implant C4 in their abdomen, as the parent post suggests.
The part that makes this mechanism tolerable, this mechanism which provides far better security than any purely technological solution, is that they have sufficient bandwidth to process many people despite imposing a 10-20 minute delay on each. There are banks and banks of agents, not just 2 or 3 inspection booths as in the US.
Re:Negative image (Score:5, Insightful)
The hope is that methods can be developed that limit the amount of damage that a person can do. Bombs on planes are pretty scary because in one instant, a person can feasibly bring down the whole plane and everyone on board dies. That same guy can stab someone in the neck with a pen, and it certainly sucks for that person, but it'd only be a matter of minutes before other passengers have subdued the attacker, and he's no longer a threat.
The terrorists on 9/11 apparently hijacked the plane with box cutters. That only worked because the passengers figured that the hijackers were going to follow the standard hijacking script of landing the plane somewhere and making demands to release the hostages. If the passengers had in any way thought it probable that the hijackers were going to purposely crash the planes into buildings, they would've resisted. They'd have had nothing to lose, seeing as the other alternative was certain death. And five guys with box cutters aren't likely to survive too long against 150 passengers fighting for their lives. There's not likely to be another attack like 9/11 where a plane gets hijacked and flown into a building. The standard response from the passengers would be different now. It'd still suck if someone jabbed a pencil into your stomach on a plane, but that sort of thing isn't really any more likely to happen on a plane than anywhere else. The attacker wouldn't gain anything by being on an airplane, they'd just make their escape much less likely.
Re:Negative image (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the part everyone missed/is still missing post-9/11. There's no security that can overcome the compliance of all the people on the plane. The problem wasn't lack of security in boarding, or lack of air marshals on the plane (which may or may not have helped*), or even easy access to the cockpit.
The problem, as you state, was that everyone from the passengers through the captain was trained to do what the hijackers wanted. The (presumed) worst-case scenario was they'd all have a frightening three months in Tehran, then they'd all get to go home.
That is no longer the presumption; that attack will never work again. Flight 93 demonstrates that perfectly well. I imagine the group of people most irate at the 9/11 hijackers are all the other organizations who were thinking about hijacking a plane in the more traditional fashion; now they can't.
All the new tightening of security is, literally, meaningless. Boxcutters weren't the problem; the attackers having a scheme whereby everyone on the plane is helping them was the problem.
*Odds are not bad that the air marshal, even if present, would have judged the risk to the plane of acting against the terrorists not worth it - that's certainly what everyone else judged the case to be.
Q: Where is my pocket knife? (Score:3, Funny)
Was anyone else disturbed by this statement? (Score:2, Insightful)
If they really think it's not a threat, why throw it in the trash?
And I can take larger bottles of saline solution on-board, but not my Venti mocha-decafe Starbucks drink I bought just yards from the checkpoint?!
Dodging the issues, indeed. I thought his first answer was just in jest and sarcasm, but after reading the article, I'm beginning to wonder if he wasn't being honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Cig lighters: TSA not about security (Score:2)
Personally, I'd like to see a purely private system of airports open up in the U.S., whereby said system posts a $10 billion bond to cover terrorist attacks. Then we would see practical, m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get a cluebat/some common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that.
Maybe he does (bwahaha, you don't get to a federal government position that high up by being "transparent", Bruce) - but if you think the Bush administration was controlling with scientists and public health officials (see recent stuff from surgeon general), I bet his control of "security" people is even worse.
Most of it was off the record, but he asked me how the TSA could overcome its negative image.
First off, why didn't Bruce say, "I'll only come if everything is on the record?" As it stands, this is basically a PR puff piece for nerds.
Second, to actually answer the question:
I'm too disgusted to keep thinking about this. Overall? Don't do something unless/until you can do it competently.
Re: (Score:2)
Having been a TSA screener... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fire all the dumbasses that think they are either "federal agents" or otherwise "law enforcement."
They need to focus on customer service and let one or two guys at any given checkpoint be "the bad cop" in that the primary mission and focus for screeners would been to assist passengers in compliance with regulations rather than "getting the cattle through the meat processing plant" mentality that we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
yes -- attitude is job 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
This attitude problem isn't unique to TSA. It happens frequently to low-status people who are given more authority than they know how to handle. It happens to cops and to computer systems administrators who forget that they are ONLY working for the benefit of the people they are mistreating.
If TSA wants to fix it's image, they should look around to law-enforcement and other public-facing agencies and find ones who have been effective training their front-line employees to be both firm and courteous, both vigilant and respectful.
Bill Maher had it right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill Maher had it right (Score:4, Funny)
Can you imagine the hilarity when you find out that the other 199 passengers are carrying bombs as well?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have this - commonly known as 'private' jets - though they are usually a comercial charter as well from a paperwork perspective. Thing is, most folks can't afford it.
Re:Bill Maher had it right (Score:5, Funny)
They have this - commonly known as 'private' jets - though they are usually a commercial charter as well from a paperwork perspective. Thing is, most folks can't afford it.
Especially not terrorists. They could never charter a jet and then smash it into a building.
This proves the terrorists have won. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This proves the terrorists have won. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are the real terrorists at this point?
important transformer question (Score:4, Funny)
Haven't they seen the documentary [transformersmovie.com] currently playing at theaters across the nation?
Seth
Its all for show anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Flying from Seattle to Amsterdam on British Airways recently, I watched as their boarding pass barcode scanner went on the fritz. It appeared to be unable to scan about 25% of the E-ticket (printed at home most likely on an empty toner cartridge) passes. They had no backup procedures and simply waved passengers through when their passes didn't scan. I didn't think much of that until they lost my checked bag. Upon filing a claim and attempting to track it through their (practiaclly inoperative) on-line claim system, I realized that they don't have any idea where bags are in ther system. They think they know exactly where it is but seem unable to actually make it appear.
So, after doing a bit of thinking, I've already come up with several ways of exploiting their systems' flaws to get an unaccompanied suitcase loaded onto an airplane.
Does anyone care? Nope. As long as we have to take our shoes off (another interesting story there) and subject ourselves to a bunch of pointless searches (yet another story) that make the general public think they are safe, that's all that matters.
Interesting note: Before the infamous 'shoe bomber' and 'liquid bombers' I purchased a comfortable pair of walking shoes with gel insoles. Since these events, I've worn them (and had them x-rayed) numerous times. Nobody has ever raised an eyebrow.
Interesting story: A friend of mine was supposed to be across the state to meet some people. Upon attempting to drive, his car quit. Now late and in a panic, he called a local commuter airline and booked a flight at the last minute. After rushing to the airport (SeaTac), he boarded his flight and arrived successfully. Only after all of this he realized that he had just boarded and flown across the state carrying one pistol (he has a carry permit) on his person, plus another and ammunition in his carry-on luggage. Security never noticed anything.
Some background on Bruce Schneier (Score:3, Funny)
Since no one else has posted yet: http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/ [geekz.co.uk]
Re:thanks for saving me the trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're engaging in some security theater in order to justify the existence of their own jobs, and the bureaucracies that support those jobs.
If they thought the liquids were really hazardous (as in, 'might be a bomb') then they'd need to put it in some sort of special disposal container. That they don't makes it clear that they know they're just taking people's shampoo.
It's all for effect. The idea is to make the shee--I mean, taxpayers--feel like they're getting something for their dollars.
Dude, calm down (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I think they ought to be forced to take down the posters of stuff they've take
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this idea does have a bit of science behind it. The supposed threat they're trying to defend against are "binary" bombs -- where one part of stable chemical A plus one part of stable chemical B combine to make an unstable compound. While they're not mixed together,
Re:thanks for saving me the trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
If they didn't find (you) a threat, then WHY THROW THE FREAKIN' LIQUIDS IN THE TRASH?!?!?
Jeez Louise... ''
Do you people have a brain at all? What he is saying is: Football mum goes in the queue with a bottle of water. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether she was a threat or not. Terrorist goes in the queue with a bottle of clear liquid that will blow up an aeroplane. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether he was a threat or not.
By throwing _any_ bottle of sufficient size in the trash, dangerous explosions are prevented without a costly determination whether someone was a threat or not. On one hand, the danger is avoided. On the other hand, terrorists will go undetected and they can try again. That's what he said, and it sounds very reasonable to me.
Re:thanks for saving me the trouble (Score:4, Informative)
Terrorist goes in the queue with a bottle of clear liquid that will blow up an aeroplane. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether he was a threat or not.
You go in the line with a bottle of clear liquid that is innocuous, but incidentally happens to react with the clear liquid the terrorist was bringing. They take away the bottle, toss it into the trash, it leaks...
BOOM.
In a busy terminal full of people.
The fact of the matter is, if there is the SLIGHTEST bit of suspicion that a container contains liquids which are a danger to the people around them, then proper handling procedures must be followed, including isolation and proper disposal. The fact that they're not checking for threats is not the point... the point is they are tossing potentially explosive liquids together in a standard trash can in a terminal full of hundreds of people. If the liquid wasn't potentially dangerous, then why do they take it away?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing less efficient than a union is a government bureaucracy.
(Just think if we unionized the bureaucrats!)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then don't get on the plane. (Score:2)
Nobody 'puts themselves in my place' when interacting with me at my job, those TSA goons shoulda known what the customers were going to be like. Don't like it? Quit!
Tired of people apologizing for the illiterate mumbling goons I've encountered at security checkpoints.
Good little sheeple. (Score:2)
Seriously, this isn't about about plane crashes (supposedly). We're talking about protecting ourselves from people willing to strap bombs to themselves or drive cars loaded with explosive material into buildings.
These individuals have a serious commitment
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
And never question how one is necessary to prevent the other. Because if they didn't take that Boy Scout's 2 inch pocket knife, you would have certainly been stabbed to death before your plane was used in another 9/11!
the 3 oz thing... well it doesn't have to be a bomb.. I imagine a 3 oz container of some sort of chemical or biological substance could do some serious damage.
Yeah, or what looked like simple saline solution could pop out of the bottle and turn into a fucking dragon and eat everyone on board the plane! I mean, we are dealing with your paranoid imagination here so why not go whole-hog?
one thing I will admit however the shoe things sucks... it's needed but it could be done a little more polite as brought up by "mi" earlier it would be great if they'd just give you disposable shoes so you're not standing their bare foot or
I don't give a crap about the sanitation, though the possibility of picking up athlete's foot from somebody else's sweaty socks is probably the greatest danger to me in air travel these days. It's the humiliation of having to take off my shoes and shuffle like a convict through the line.
But here's a hint about how "needed" this little bit of security theater is: The same amount of explosives will fit in the sole of a shoe as will fit in the crotch of underwear. So when you took your shoes off to be screened, thus making you feel safe, did they also grope your crotch? And do you want them to start groping your crotch? Maybe shoving a finger up your ass; the human colon could fit as much C4 as the sole of a shoe. Do you want them to start doing that? If not, then you are admittedly sacrificing safety for the "convenience" of personal dignity. And furthermore, this means that the current inconvenience of having to take off your shoes is not making you safe.
Your bargain is a false one. You've let yourself be inconvenienced for nothing more than the paltry illusion of safety, and like most illusions it only works if the viewer believes and doesn't question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what kind of intruder does your fence deter? The most half-assed. Certainly not anyone who was intent on robbing you. What kind of terrorist does screening your shoe but not your underwear or asshole deter? The most half-assed. When do the terms "serious security threat" and "half-assed terrorist" intersect? Never. No half-assed terrorist who thinks to put explo
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
One gram of anthrax about 0.04 ounces, or the weight of two paper clips -- contains enough doses to kill 10 million people.
Uh, yah, math. Let's see 0.04 ounces can kill 10 million people, and a terrorist is going to release it on an airplane containing perhaps 200. That math makes a lot of sense.
Botulinum toxin is one of the most poisonous substances known. The lethal dose is one billionth of a gram per kilogram, meaning that breathing in 70 billionths of a gram would kill a person weighing 70 kilograms or 154 pounds. The toxin is fatal within three days to 80 percent of those exposed.
Okay, so the terrorist is going to expose everyone on the airplane, including themselves, killing everyone but leaving the plane in the air on auto pilot, having done only a fraction of the damage that opening the same bottle in an office building would do -- or in the airport terminal before even going through security. What a fantastic terrorist plot you've concocted!
Here's what's really funny: You imagine on the one hand that a terrorist will smuggle anthrax or botulism onto a plane, and on the other hand you imagine that making said terrorist take off their shoes will serve as a deterrent in any way, shape, or form. It won't! In fact, none of the security theater that you say is a necessary inconvenience would do anything to stop our 3oz-bottle-of-anthrax-carrying terrorist!
That's why you may as well worry about terrorists using dragons. There's as much connection between that and your imagination of the terrorist threat and the actual security procedures in place to stop it. Shoe removal deters dragon-wielding terrorists as well as anthrax-wielding terrorists, which is to say not at all. If you feel safe it's because useless security theater makes you feel safe.
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, that's fine, the part about "I'd rather be inconvenienced and safe then killed in an avoidable plane crash... " was just hyperbole, because you know that you aren't being made safe, and that none of this security theater would make a plane crash "avoidable".
The question is why do you feel any safer when you're forced to take off your shoes? That vector has only been attempted once, and any future terrorist is going to hide their explosives somewhere that isn't checked, an absolutely trivial exercise. Would you feel safer -- not a lot, but some -- if there was a switch on the side of the metal detector passengers could hit to disable it? I mean in theory a really half-assed terrorist wouldn't hit the button so they might be caught! Is that easy enough security to get around for you to not consider it a deterrent? Because that's what checking shoes is like.
I mean, you yourself thought of an attack vector that completely avoids 100% of the security currently in place, and I think we will both agree that you aren't very serious about planning and executing terrorist attacks, no? So you don't think even the shoe-bomber, clearly not the brightest match in the book, would if given another chance be able to think of a way through security? Even he could think "put the explosives on me, but not in my shoes".
life isn't safe...if I wanted to be safe i'd curl up in a ball in the corner of a bomb shelter somewhere
Exactly. So stop adding completely useless and unnecessary "safety" precautions to my life just so you can feel "safer... and i'm not saying alot safer either ". It doesn't actually help, we could all still be killed by a thousand things including but certainly not restricted to terrorists, so why would you even support something so superfluous?
basically it's only a minor inconvenience and you are all a bunch of whiners...
And you are perfectly willing to inflict inconvenience on me for no reason, because you're a scaredy-cat who thinks terrorists are going to release botulism on an airplane, and somehow thinks checking shoes makes you even the tiniest bit safer. You're happy to be inconvenienced for the Paper-Thin Illusion of Security that can quell your fear, even if only a little.
It's not the inconvenience. It's that it's pointless outside of convincing the gullible that Something Is Being Done. That is why I'm against it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I would rather die a free man.
And your forefathers* made the same decision; and for them it was not even "would" but "did".
It's terrible how many take our freedoms for granted, and how many willingly trade very real freedom for the illusion of security.
*Assumes US-ian, or one of many other countries where the ancestry fought for (and won!) their freedom, securing a very different and much better life for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so we are trying to prevent terrorists from crashing a plane into a building..... by making sure they don't have explosives with them? That makes no sense. The banning of liquids is to prevent the terrorist from detonating it on th
Re: (Score:2)