TSA Changes Screening Based on Blog Suggestion

hhavensteincw writes "Less than a week after it launched a new blog aimed at gathering suggestions from air travelers to improve airport security processes, the Transportation Security Administration changed a practice where some screeners were requiring passengers to remove all electronics, including Blackberries, iPods, and cords from carry-on luggage. Seems the TSA didn't know this was going on, and after the question was raised on its blog, it clamped down on the practice. The TSA also provided a detailed description of their reasoning behind the liquids policy. We discussed the opening of the blog last week."

Didn't know?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Like it hasn't been all over the news. If they don't know something as simple as this, how are we supposed to trust that they'll know when a terrorist is lugging explosives on board.

Re:Didn't know?

[ta bu shi da yu (687699)]

Precisely. I find it quite amazing that there are "field offices" who can just make up policy on the fly. I'm even more amazed that little or no information is being shared between offices and the main operations!

If this is the level of coordination to protect U.S. citizens from being blown up, then I think that there's a big problem with this agency.

Imagine it. They found out about this from a blog. They don't appear to do regular reviews of field offices (else they'd have known about this practice). What else is slipping through the net? Terrorists?

What a monumental and sterling example of bureaucratic incompetence.

Re:Didn't know?

[afidel (530433)]

It's not that the devices themselves are a threat per se, it's that the complex xray signature of an electronics device with a battery makes it difficult to interpret what you are seeing when there are things above and below them. Therefore they have you remove them to get a cleaner picture of both your luggage and the devices. I'm surprised this isn't national policy considering that laptops are already singled out to the point of them having to be out of any type of satchel.

Re:Didn't know?

[ta bu shi da yu (687699)]

Oh come on. Surely they have an operational manual? When they create policy or decide what needs searching, surely they would communicate this back to head office. If the electronic devices they were looking for were so dangerous, why weren't they notifying the main organization as to their concerns?

Just remember: head office didn't know that they considered these things to be dangerous. Let's say, for a second, that the devices were a danger. Why would only a few local offices checking them and not everyone?

Make you feel any safer, knowing that they are too disorganized to communicate concerns about what they felt were risks?

Re:Didn't know?

[singularity (2031)]

I wrote to the TSA several years ago about discrepancies involving shoe removal (this was before it was made mandatory at all airports).

I flew quite a bit back then, and on one trip went through security at at least three airports. Each of them had different "shoe rules", and at one I was pulled aside for additional screening because I did not remove my shoes. I argued with the supervisor, but of course nothing came of it. Two weeks later I flew again and actually had the TSA printout with me when I went through the same airport. Did not matter. Argued again with the supervisor.

So I emailed the TSA about my encounters and they sent me back a generic email saying that each airport had the ability to pretty much do whatever in the world they felt like doing.

Part of the response:

Security requirements issued by the TSA establish a security minimum for adoption by air carriers and airports. Air carriers and airports may exceed those minimum standards by implementing more stringent security requirements. This prevents potential terrorists from "beating the system" by learning how it operates. Leaving out any one group, such as senior citizens or the clergy, undermine security. We simply cannot assume that all future terrorists will fit any particular profile.

Prediction

[ezzzD55J (697465)]

The blog will close (or be neglected) in a month or so after the flood of complaints become too much for them. They might blame the abundance of unreasonable or irrational people on the internet for having a blog up not being practical. (Actually I think it is true a blog is a terrible medium for handling complaints - use a ticketing system instead.) I hope not though, this looks really great on the surface. What's the catch?

What is this strange substance?

[stupidflanders (1230894)]

In other news, TSA is looking in to claims that some inspectors were unfamiliar soap, shampoo and other personal hygiene products...

Re:What is this strange substance?

[xoundmind (932373)]

In other news, TSA is looking in to claims that some inspectors were unfamiliar soap, shampoo and other personal hygiene products...

They read Slashdot?

Re:What is this strange substance?

[1u3hr (530656)]

In other news, TSA is looking in to claims that some inspectors were unfamiliar soap, shampoo and other personal hygiene products...,

Which is why they think that only a terrorist would carry them in his luggage.

Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers etc.).; (Al Baqarah 2:222)

Liquids

[Mushdot (943219)]

What always gets me is the fact I cannot take 100ml of a liquid from outside the airport but I can buy a few Molotov cocktails worth of alcohol in duty free before I get on the plane. Fair enough I might not be able to take the plane down but I could certainly do a lot of damage to the plane and passengers.

Maybe the screeners were right to make people remove electronic goods? Surely I could string together several iPod/laptop batteries to make an effective Taser? Look at all the reports of exploding/igniting batteries in the news, yet it's normally ok to walk onboard with those.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy.

[aristolochene (997556)]

regular drinking alcohol (i.e. 40-45% by volume) will not ignite if you put a match to it. It requires pre-heating an strong flame source to get it to burn. (Try making a molotov cocktail with room temp vodka, a rag and a match and you won't get very far).

Of course, stronger alcohols (80-90%) will ignite. And for that reason you'll have a tough job taking them on board a plane (and this goes back way before 9/11). You could possibly try and use aftershave / perfume, but the overpowering smell would probably alert people before you get a chance to make a molotov cocktail.

There simply is no way of covering every single eventuality and still ensuring an economically viable transport system. The whole point in airline security is to prevent some of the obvious risks.

The /. analogy of cars is required here - you *cannot* prevent a car being stolen (or aeroplane being blown up), the more you secure you make it , the more tempting a target it becomes to high-end thieves(committed, organised terrorists). But that doesn't mean that locking the doors and setting the alarm (x-rays and searches) is a bad idea......

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy.

[SharpFang (651121)]

But that doesn't mean that locking the doors and setting the alarm (x-rays and searches) is a bad idea......

Unless you spend over 15 minutes in front of the door fumbling with the multiple locks and alarms, you call in locksmith twice a month to let you in, and you got arrested twice for attempt to get inside your own car.

40% will burn, when preheated

[langelgjm (860756)]

As the other poster noted, you have to preheat the alcohol. I make "cafe brule" for special occasions, which is basically coffee mixed with brandy, orange extract, and sugar. In order to ignite the brandy, which is standard 80 proof (40%), you heat it in a saucepan for a few minutes. After that, taking a match to it creates a nice blue (and extremely hot) flame, that's actually quite difficult to put out (it takes more than walking by). It's quite impressive when done in the dark, especially when you stir it, and remove a still-flaming spoon from the mixture!

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy.

[ta bu shi da yu (687699)]

Wow. What a waste of good booze. What's with you people? Drink it - don't burn it!

Re:Liquids

[somersault (912633)]

:O the reason is that George Bush believes in man-made Global Warming, and is trying to cut down on pollution by removing unnecessary weight from planes!! *gets dragged away by men in dark suits and shades*

Re:Liquids

[russotto (537200)]

The given reasons (August 2006 Heathrow plot) for the liquids restrictions are bullshit. The real reasons are highly classified.

Yeah, but the document was misplaced and found by a reporter. Here's what it said

TOP SECRET/TSA/NOFORN EXCEPT UK,CA

Page 1/1

1.1 Rationale for TSA liquids restrictions policy

This section intentionally left blank.

Re:MacGyver?

[Grimbleton (1034446)]

He'll just build his own plane from the scraps he finds in the dumpster behind the terminal, and get there before his scheduled flight even takes off.

No win situation

[clarkkent09 (1104833)]

Somehow I don't see this catching on. If they implement the suggestions, they just open themselves to criticism. My first thought was, how come they didn't know about this practice earlier. Everybody who flies know about it (except for the cords, I never had to do that). How many other silly practices have been inconveniencing passengers for years for no good reason? On the other hand, if they don't implement the suggestions, then what's the point of having the blog.

Re:No win situation

[freedom_india (780002)]

No.
What reasonable suggestions come by, TSA will implement it.
Unless TSA wants to be scrapped completely(being a creation of Bush), they will continue to work with passengers.
TSA does not know everything that goes on in each airport. Its management by exception. they set broad guidelines for safety and leave it at that.
Airport TSA contractors then try to fulfill those outlines, and use whatever means necessary to achieve it.
If it involves strip-searching lindsay each time, so be it is the attitude of contractors. And TSA itself pays them based on the non-incidents they have. So if a contractor was pretty lax and allowed Reid to blow up something, then TSA would not only cut them out of the gracy train, but also blacklist them, thus making sure the contractor stays in line.

Pretty much every government office works that way.

The good point is TSA is taking suggestions seriously enough to warrant direct interruption in contractor jobs to make sure passengers are not complaining.
To what extent this direct intervention would go on, is the question. It will stop when someone gets through security and then TSA comes down hard on even clothes (So the nudist flight company has a field day), or berefit of any incidents, we may even go back to the 1999 era slowly.

 

Re:No win situation

[Garridan (597129)]

I regularly wear two almost identical fleeces -- one has a zipper, one does not; also, I fly rather frequently. I've noticed that security *always* asks me to remove my zippered fleece, and never requires me to remove the one without the zipper. Every time, I think that I should wear a trench coat, and nothing more. They ask me to remove my coat, and I calmly comply, and proceed to the metal detector... but something tells me I'd get in *much* worse trouble than indecent exposure...

Re:I don't see it as a suggestion board

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

The TSA is yet another bloated and overbearing government organization that will never go away. The employees are unionized which furthers the impossibility of removing this mess.

Indeed. I loved this howler from the liquids blog:

Whatever you think about our policies -- please recognize our Security Officers who train and test every day and will do whatever it takes to make you and your families safe when you fly. They are the best in the world and are on your side; please give them a little recognition when you see them.

Puhleeeese. Anybody who's ever flown in the US knows that the TSA is an inner-city jobs program. The notion that you're going to achieve security by having drones check things by rote is laughable. Had all this mechanism been in place on 9/11, the terrorists would only have had to be slightly more careful than they were, and they still would have succeeded.

Re:No win situation

[Silver Sloth (770927)]

There's no place in this world that I want to go to that I can't drive to within a week or so.

Try driving from Europe to the USA or vice versa - Ok it was done in 'The Long Way Round' but it wasn't easy.

If you are European and don't want to visit the States occasionally, or if you're American and don't want to visit Europe, then I would suggest that you need to expand your world view.

Re:No win situation

[nsayer (86181)]

You need to rent Around The World In 80 Days [imdb.com] - not the fictional movie(s), the A&E documentary with Michael Palin.

While regularly scheduled passenger service is not available, there are places you can go to seek passenger accommodations aboard cargo vessels. It's not The Love Boat, but it didn't look nearly as uncomfortable as steerage^Wcoach on a passenger plane.

Note to /.: How about allowing <s> tags? It would bring the ^W joke somewhat closer to the 21st century.

Opening laptops

[pipatron (966506)]

One thing I hate is that they sometimes open my peacefully sleeping laptop for 2 seconds, so it will start to wake up, then close the lid, causing half of it to continue waking up and half of it to try to sleep again, wreaking havoc with my poor processes.

I just can't understand why they do this at all.

Simple solution

[by Anonymous Coward]

You eat a ham sandwich and drink a glass of beer (or wine) or you ain't getting on.

RTFS

[moosesocks (264553)]

It's right there in the summary.

No policies were changed as a result of blog comments.

What *did* happen was that a few bloggers indicated that TSA employees were searching bags in a manner that is prohibited by the TSA's own rules.

Given just how much organizations like the TSA love rules and procedures, the fact that they clamped down isn't a surprise at all. Although it's a big step for the TSA to actually be accountable to its own rules, we still have a long way to come.

If I walk into Safeway/Kroger/Food Lion, and tell the manager that one of their cashiers is stealing money out of the register, there's no doubt that he'll respond immediately. If I walk in and tell the manager that his store is dirty, and that prices are too high, I doubt I'll receive any sympathy.

What about the rest of the world?

[Xolotl (675282)]

Unfortunately this practice of having all the electronics out has now spread to the rest of the world, as I posted a month or so ago (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400884&cid=21845314 [slashdot.org]). Even if the TSA changes its practices, it won't make much difference for anyone travelling outside the US, unless those authorities choose to copy the TSA in this.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[CaptainZapp (182233)]

Unfortunately this practice of having all the electronics out has now spread to the rest of the world

No it didn't. Except for the laptop, which you had to take out of its bag and put into the xray tunnel in a separate tray for years now I never had to take out any electronics out of my bag, or coat (iPod, 2 cell phones, power adapter, cables, whathaveyou...). I also never had to take off my shoes or other such shit.

This involved a minimum of 80 inter-European flight segments in the last couple of years, involving the airports of Düsseldorf, Prague, Zurich, Amsterdam and Vienna. All pretty sophisticated, modern airports.

I can imagine though that different rules are applied on flights from Europe to the US.

Bullshit answer from TSA

[Shadow-isoHunt (1014539)]

The "binary explosive" plot involved TATP, triacetone triperoxide. Synthesis of AP requires time, ventilation, and an ice bath. The precipitate is NOT a liquid, it is a crystaline organic peroxide.

See: http://roguesci.org/chemlab/energetics/acetone_peroxide.html [roguesci.org]

Take two bottles onto the plane?

[itsdapead (734413)]

But that complexity, from what I can gather, is precisely the point (according to the TSA blog post) of restricting the liquids in secure areas of airport terminals.

Except the argument went something along the lines of:

Q: Why can't we take more than 100ml of liquid on board?
A: Because its possible you might mix up a binary liquid explosive on the plane!

Q: So why can't several people work together and each bring 100ml of binary explosive makin's?
A: Because you need the other people to carry the ice bath, liquid nitrogen, bunsen burner, pipette, magnetic stirrer, thermostatically controlled heater, fume cupboard and all the other lab gear you need to successfully mix up a binary liquid explosive; so making them carry the ingredients in several 100ml bottles is going to be the last straw that makes them abandon their dastardly plan!

Q: But they could all bring on small quantities pre-mixed explosives?
A: No, because liquid explosives are too unstable to carry pre-mixed.

Q: So you're confirming that its nigh-on impossible to blow up a plane with liquid explosive?
A: (mumbles) - we've found several bad 'uns manufacturing TATP.

Q: Correction - you found pieces of several people who attempted to make TATP in the comfort of their own homes - oh, PS, TATP isn't a liquid.
A: Oh look - butterfly!

Re:Take two bottles onto the plane?

[niiler (716140)]

I especially liked this part:

The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet. You have to have significant uninterrupted time with space and other requirements that are not easily available in a secured area of an airport. It adds complexity to their preferred model and reduces our risk, having the expert make the bomb and give it to someone else to carry aboard. They are well aware of the Richard Reid factor where he could not even ignite a completed bomb. Simple is truly better for them. Also, bomb-makers are easier for us to identify than so-called clean 'mules.'

So what they are saying is that with top of the line equipment, even their experts had a tough job of it. I'm not sure how this helps their argument at all.

Problem is with hijacking, not bombing.

[v(*_*)vvvv (233078)]

The true threat with aircraft security is hijacking. A hijacker can take over an aircraft and use the plane as a missile. As someone pointed out earlier, if the goal was to just kill people, terrorists could just blow up prior to reaching the security check point or suicide bomb a crowd somewhere else. There are plenty of places to just blow up that would kill more people that can fit on a plane.

If hijacking is the real threat, then the cockpit is what needs to be secured. Have it lock automatically prior to boarding, and have it unlock automatically after the plane is emptied. If terrorists can't get to the cockpit, then they cannot take over a craft.

Dear Customs People Throughout The World...

[pandrijeczko (588093)]

...I have it on good authority that there are an extreme minority of well-dressed Cthulhu-type cultists who are planning to cause air travel chaos and disrupt as many flights as possible over the next few coming months.

These cultists are ardent students of the Book of Genesis in the bible who consider that all evil stems from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden who were tempted to pluck a fruit from God's tree by the Devil in the form of a serpent.

The emblem of this fruit is carried openly upon the mind control boxes possessed by these cultists, who frequently gather in Starbucks and Internet cafes, openly displaying this emblem in order to attract other cultist colleagues into terrorist quangos to plan their revenge upon the rest of us.

Therefore, please keep an eye open for smartly dressed people carrying little white boxes bearing an apple emblem on them - they are not to be trusted. Remove their boxes from them and stamp on them, find out where they live, break into their houses and smach up their huge designer coffee tables and African dance memorabilia.

They MUST be stopped!

Airline travel made amusing

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm a frequent flyer, and fly around the world. By far, and I really mean by a far far way, the U.S. has the WORST experience you can ever have in an airport, and it's not just the security. I've been stuck in Dhaka Bangladesh without being told what was going on, and didn't feel as screwed as I sometimes feel in the U.S. (Full disclosure, I'm an American living in Japan, I might think twice about pulling off the same thing in the U.S. I did this in Japan.)

Long story short, I got really fed up with the way they handled my carry on, and insist on going through my personal belongings. I fly out of a local airport, and I KNOW that they know me (they see me once a week) and I know them. One day when I had time to spare, I went to the airport early on, and had sweet revenge. I had a laptop in my carry on... along with 3 rather vigorous vibrators, rigged to turn on at full speed when they opened the bag. Inside the bag I also had a homosexual porno magazine, along with a few tubes of personal lubricant, condoms, and latex gloves. Apparently dildo vibrators do not show up in that exact shape on the X-Ray machine, but the motors, wires and controllers, along with the batteries, sure do.

Security: "Can we open your bag?"
Me: "As if I have an option?"
Security: "Sir, this is security. We must open your bag for security purposes."
Me: "Like I said, I don't have a choice now do I. Just make sure you put it all back in place."

The following expression of the officer, along with his mixed reactions as to what to do next, were pure Kodak moments. I really, really would have paid good money to get a copy of the surveillance camera video!! He first tried to close it and just return it to me, then he realized that he better check it out since he was the one that said it had to be done. I think he took about 0.8 seconds of a "thorough" inspection, then closed the bag. However, that wouldn't turn the dildos off, and they were still buzzing away, quite audibly. I gave him the "turn them off. All of them." look, and he fumbled again attempting to get all 3 turned off. Next Monday I fly out again. I can't wait to see what they'll do this time.

Re:Airline travel made amusing

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

The following expression of the officer, along with his mixed reactions as to what to do next, were pure Kodak moments. I really, really would have paid good money to get a copy of the surveillance camera video!! He first tried to close it and just return it to me, then he realized that he better check it out since he was the one that said it had to be done. I think he took about 0.8 seconds of a "thorough" inspection, then closed the bag. However, that wouldn't turn the dildos off, and they were still buzzing away, quite audibly. I gave him the "turn them off. All of them." look, and he fumbled again attempting to get all 3 turned off. Next Monday I fly out again. I can't wait to see what they'll do this time.


Ask you for a date?

This is bullshit

[Henry Pate (523798)]

The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite.

and then a few lines down

B) The baggie serves to concentrate the vapor - substances used to create liquid explosives are very volatile and emit fumes even through sealed bottles. (We have tested.) We have liquid explosives detectors that take advantage of the vapor concentration factor in the baggie. This way, we do not have to examine what's inside every bottle, regardless of what the label says.

That is part of the somewhat rambling 750+ word answer to "Why can't someone just mix an explosive by combining multiple liquids after security?"

So if we have explosive detection devices that can detect any liquid explosives why can't I bring bottle of water? Does having MORE explosive in a bottle make it harder to detect, fuck no. So why can't I bring larger bottles on a plane?

If the detectors don't work as well as he claims then it still can't stop someone from mixing explosive beforehand and putting it in multiple containers or using multiple people.

He closes by saying the TSA folks are the best in the world, which if you've been to the airport you know this is patently false, all you need is a GED and you too can harass foreigners and your fellow citizens today!

Liquids: BS

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

The blog did blogeth:

Was this a real threat? Yes, there was a very serious plot to blow up planes using liquid explosives in bombs that would have worked to bring down aircraft.

And this is utter horseshit. If someone walked onto a plane with a water bottle filled with nitroglycerin, it would blow up when they tossed it through the XRay machine. So, they would have to make the explosives on the plane, and one of my best friends is a professional chemist and she said "Bullshit". You'd have to hole yourself up in the bathroom for a very long time with a magnetic stirring plate, a very precise dropper, dry ice, and a number of other bottles cups and things, and then in a very programmatic manner make the stuff, all while heaving and bucking on a jet liner and being exposed to some very nasty orders and chemicals. In short: it won't happen and isn't gong to happen and the threats about it are pure bullshit.

The TSA is just there to make people think the gov't is doing something about terrorism, and to keep people afraid. In fact, it's all bullshit, and a way to funnel huge sums of money into the military/industrial complex and keep the nightmare train rolling down the rails to an oblivion as it is headed directly off a cliff.

RS

Wow!

[dpaluszek (974028)]

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of the TSA, but I'm pretty impressed with them getting government approval and hosting a blog where they discuss this type of material. As someone who's been working for government agencies for years, this is definitely something that I haven't seen before nor would of gotten approved through multiple government agencies/directorates.

Kudos to the TSA to spend the time and resources to do something like this. It blows my mind that, in my opinion, a government agency did something practical for once.

The TSA has NO policies

[gelfling (6534)]

It has $12/hr fatassed shitheads telling you what's what.

How many liquid explosives found???

[by Anonymous Coward]

So how many liquid explosives has the TSA confiscated since they began the liquid ban back in Aug 06??

On liquids

[Zolodoco (1170019)]

Funny. The comment I posted on the TSA's blog that mentioned various scenarios not addressed by passenger screening never made it past moderation. For example, garroting a passenger or crew member with your shoelaces, or carrying on ammonia and high concentration chlorine in your allowed 3oz containers to create mustard gas. My point was of course that, considering the fraudulent nature of the the Justice Dept's claims regarding the so-called liquid bomber plot, there's absolutely no reason to ban liquids. If we want to cover every potential for violence, we'd have to take away everyone's belts, shoelaces, all liquids, all sharp or pointy objects, trim their fingernails, and bind all passengers' hands and feet.

They hired some good bloggers

[asilentthing (786630)]

That blog makes almost makes me think "hm... TSA isn't so bad".

Although next time I go through Lambert-St Louis or LAX I'll remember why I hate TSA.

Ban pens

[jo42 (227475)]

After the most recent MythBusters episode, the TSA needs to ban pens and any other small objects that can hold powder. After all, we saw what a plain pen holding 3 cc of explosives can do to a styrofoam dummy.

Previously Covered on Slashdot

[s31523 (926314)]

When the threat of liquid explosives was first perceived, slashdot covered it [slashdot.org], with specifics on what the real threat was (triacetone triperoxide) and some real chemistry behind it. It is interesting that now the TSA basically confirms what the original coverage stated, basically "But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy".

A Salient Presumption

[Nexus7 (2919)]

The blog post (or was it a response to a blog posting) by the official suggests that the TSA bases its policies on the important assumption that terrorists are more intelligent than passengers.

haha I love this line

[geekoid (135745)]

"They are the best in the world and are on your side; "

No0, they are not. They are a bunch of low educated nobodies who are enjoying there new found authority.

As someone who has handed a package across the 'line' to my wife on the boarding side of security, I have to say either:
A) They are not even good, much less the best in the world.
B) or; the world is screwed.

But hey, keep on searching old women, children and following a predictable screening process, because this sort of activity sure has stopped terrorism everywhere else in the world~

Put a secure door, and easy Autopilot lock system, and an armed security officer at the front of each plane and we will be fine.

re:

[Teflon_Jeff (1221290)]

I like these changes, they should make life easier and faster.

I personally have never had a problem, but it is time consuming to unpack your laptop each time.

The TSA is a JOKE!

[Newer Guy (520108)]

The TSA is a multi billion dollar joke! Its sole function is to make the flying public feel good about flying-that something is being done about security. Do you really think that having two people located ten feet apart, both checking the same picture ID makes flying safer? My 3 year old daughter wanted some food on a layover at the Portland (OR) airport, so her mother took her for some. The food court is out of the "sterile" area, and when they tried to get back through security, the refused to let ma daughter back in because the MORON TSA ID screener at the earlier airport had marked her ticket in the wrong place. They actually held my daughter! My wife called me on the cell phone crying. I had to take our 1 year old and all our luggage to the TSA security counter. They still wouldn't let her in and actually threatened me-until I walked over to a nearby pay phone and loudly asked directory assistance for the phone number of the Portland CBS TV station's news room. Then, they finally relented.

New plot I heard.....

[phishfood (562800)]

I agree with the above and also noticed how the TSA contradicted themselves concerning liquids. Complete BS, do they get a kick back from the airport vendors on the other side of security? Also, its amazing that one poorly built non-functioning shoe bomb is now the reason we take off our shoes.

Regardless of that past non-sense, I have heard of a more serious threat - the bra bomb. I heard that they could be wiring women's bras and now I am rally concerned for my safety. I propose that the TSA now have all women remove their bras and place them on the x-ray machine for a proper inspection. Because who really knows what kind of 'wired' bra they might have on.

Also it will make my waiting in line much more enjoyable ;)

Silver Lining

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869)]

I hate the TSA. I think they're a bloated waste of my tax money, and they don't improve security one darn bit.

However, the fact that they, a bloated government agency who normally could not give a crap about what we terroris^H^H^Citizens think, have a blog and respond to, and hear us on the internet is a huge deal. That's big.

To Sum Up

[Dolohov (114209)]

It sounds to me that the complaints all come down to a few things:

* The TSA's employees generally don't know and don't understand the TSA's published rules and guidelines. In addition (in consequence?) rules and procedures are applied haphazardly and inconsistently, and are misrepresented by TSA employees -- sometimes resulting in Federal employees misrepresenting Federal law.

* There is a perception among passengers that the security procedures are arbitrary and/or ineffective.

* There is no recourse for passengers who either feel wronged or identify misapplications of the rules. Almost by definition, everyone in the line is in a rush. Passengers are routinely presented with the decision to either give up their rights or property, or miss their flight (or worse).

* No effort is being made to secure passengers in the security line itself, which is an increasingly attractive target: lots of people in close quarters, many shuffling belongings around to prepare for the security screening, and not well-monitored by security personnel.

Have I missed any of the basic complaints here?

missing the point

[slew (2918)]

TSA screening was made so that people keep flying (so that airlines don't go bankrupt). It's a delicate balance. Screen too little and people are scared and don't fly. Screen too much and people get frustrated and don't fly. They can't ban all liquids because of the latter, that have to do something to prevent the former. Someone came up with this 3-1-1 thing and since it sounds like 9-1-1, it's catchy so that people think the TSA is doing something, but it's not so inconvenient that people put up with it.

Think about this sometime when you sign your name on a charge card slip at a restaurant. Basically the signature is something to make you feel good and continue to use charge cards. If you didn't have to sign a charge slip people get worried about how secure it was and stop using cards, if you have to put down a fingerprint people would find it very inconvenient. A signature on a charge slip is just about right, not so inconvenient that people stop using charge cards, but just enough to make people feel safe enough so they continue to use them. Notice how there's no signature required for on-line transactions, or the machine-swipe in the gas station or some grocery stores for small amount. Also if you forget to sign the charge slip at a resturant or hotel, the charge still shows up on your bill anyways. Nobody really gives a crap about the signature on the charge slip, it's all for show, but nobody seems in an upcry about it on this forum.

Move along, nothing to see here...

never forget...

[RecycledElectrons (695206)]

The comments section on the TSA blog is moderated (CENSORED.)

Let's just say that Ron Paul supporters are not welcome to quote the Bill or Rights!

Andy

You vfail

[Alex Belits (437)]

Was this a real threat? Yes, there was a very serious plot to blow up planes using liquid explosives in bombs that would have worked to bring down aircraft.

No, there wasn't. Ridiculous claims about validity of your idiotic policy don't make you any less of pwn3d losers.

This is crap

[clegault (27268)]

I had this happen to me this year. They made me take out everything, multiple batteries, external hard drive, multiple ipods, iphone, power cords, usb and ethernet cables, bluetooth ear piece etc. Immediately after passing through and getting dirty looks from the people behind me, there was a table with suggestions/complaint forms. I stopped and filled it out explaining my entire experience. A pilot came through after me, and had gone through the same treatment, and he said he fills one out every time he passes through (this was the atlanta airport). Saying they were unaware this was going on is crap unless they weren't reading their "fan" mail up until the blog made it public.

The Real Reason: $6 Water!

[olvr (840066)]

Take a look at who really benefits from this policy. Presumably, passengers are safer, but since it seems to be extremely difficult to implement an airline attack using liquid explosives (see TSA blog point #4), we are probably wasting resources by focusing on this threat. However, airport vendors and airlines directly benefit by preventing you from bringing your own snacks and drinks and then charging you $6 for a bottle of water. There is a post on the TSA blog about a woman whose egg salad sandwich was confiscated because it was deemed a "consumable liquid". And at many airports I can't even find a water fountain anymore.

Also note that any politician who would support weakening security measures faces the small but very considerable political risk of being blamed for an attack after restrictions might be loosened - on top of whatever "weak-on-terror" mud-slinging the politician would have to face anyway. Since the measures have strong airline support and it's difficult to find someone principled enough to take the passenger's side, we all face a painful travel experience.

I'm equally resentful about the ID-checking requirement [freetotravel.org] since all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID and it still wouldn't be hard to get a fake ID past the TSA. That requirement has a similar history of having nothing to do with security and a lot with not being able to sell your ticket to someone else and reducing the pricing power of airlines.

Re:bullshit detectors

[bratwiz (635601)]

You wouldn't have to worry about the 3-1-1 liquid limit though since he doesn't have enough brain matter to be an issue.

Re:Mountain moving.

[aurispector (530273)]

I found the blog post to be fairly persuasive. Sure, I could poke a few holes in it, but the last time I flew, the TSA folks were efficient and courteous despite being obviously stressed. A long-looking screening line turned out to be less than 10 min delay - not much worse than before 9/11. The screeners are PEOPLE - some are good, some are bad, most all will respond positively to cooperation that makes their job easier. I laugh every time I hear about some arrogant asshole getting hassled mainly because he was acting like an arrogant asshole.

Hell, The screeners at Glasgow airport were genuinely upset having to take a liter of top shelf scotch I had stupidly shoved into my carryon.

The blog is a good thing - didnt know the bit about vapor concentration in the baggies. People should save their complaints for things that really matter.

Re:Mountain moving.

[russotto (537200)]

Hell, The screeners at Glasgow airport were genuinely upset having to take a liter of top shelf scotch I had stupidly shoved into my carryon.

Yeah, genuinely upset that they didn't see a way around letting their supervisor get his hands on it.

Re:Mountain moving.

[ErikZ (55491)]

That's a Chicago thing, not a US thing.

Which is one of the reasons I left Illinois.

Re:Right..I'm going to get the Internet banned!!!!

[foniksonik (573572)]

You need to write a book. Just a short one but it should read the same way your comment does and you'll be a best seller among the outsider artist circles in days.... nice prose.