TSA Opens Blog — You Can Finally Complain

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The TSA has opened their own blog. According to Ars Technica, it's beginning to attract complaints from people who are sick of removing their shoes and having to forfeit their drinks. 'The blog's first post has 131 comments so far, almost all of which fall into one of two categories: TSA employees who got the internal memo about the blog launch and dropped by to post positive things, and citizens who are really mad about the liquids screening policy.'"

Comments

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

I can imagine that the comments feature will soon be disabled.

Re:Comments

[rob1980 (941751)]

Or heavily moderated.

Why? You can say what you want

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

...and they will listen.

Re:Comments

[Brickwall (985910)]

This isn't insightful; it's ignorant. I just visited the blog, and they make it clear that they won't post profanity or abuse, but they'll let just about anything else go through. I went through the liquids thread, and 99% of the comments were critical from one degree to another of the current policy. No censorship there that I could see. Hundreds of people pointed out the idiocy of allowing up to 10 bottles in your "baggy", all 10 of which could ostensibly be carrying 3 oz of some explosive, which you could then combine on the plane. Or, you carry a bunch in your baggy, and your accomplice carries some in his baggy, and you meet up on the plane to combine them.

And, of course, water. I suggested that the simple solution is for the agent to request that you drink some of the water, and then the agent sniff the bottle. If anyone here knows of a colourless, odourless explosive you can safely drink, I'd like to be apprised of it. They posted my comment unedited.

Why don't you bother to check it out before making such an uninformed comment? Oh, right, this is /.

Re:Comments

[arth1 (260657)]

No censorship there that I could see.

That's the idea of censorship...

Re:

[xstonedogx (814876)]

I suggested that the simple solution is for the agent to request that you drink some of the water, and then the agent sniff the bottle. If anyone here knows of a colourless, odourless explosive you can safely drink, I'd like to be apprised of it.

What is the purpose of drinking the water?

Anyone who is willing to blow themselves up on an airplane thinking they will receive 108 virgins is surely willing to suffer an hour worth of discomfort before the flight or a trip to vomit in the bathroom.

Fingers crossed

[Chairboy (88841)]

There are some serious problems with how the TSA is doing things, and this is a great step towards communicating some of them. ...if we, as the public, can keep our act together long enough to avoid dropping shrill, screeching, hate bombs of ranting incoherence on this website that'll convince the TSA that there's nothing of value to be gained from this conduit. Each "YOU GUYS ARE FASCIST NAZI LICKING THUGS!" message cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing this restraint won't be evident.

Re:Fingers crossed

[by Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely amazed and impressed that the TSA has opened their own blog to finally try and explain and educate their 'angry customers'.

In fact it is such a good thing, I can't believe they thought of it themselves.

Has this got anything to do with Bruce Schneier's interview [schneier.com] with the TSA head, Kip Hawley?

Regardless of what people think about the TSA, this move is to be applauded. I hope it expands even further into other areas of government.

Re:Fingers crossed

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

It's only to be applauded if they DO something. Until then it's a publicity stunt, or a lame outlet for the rage directed against them.

Re:Fingers crossed

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.

What effect might that be? The TSA is the Theatrical Security Agency - any blog they put up is just more theater. Nothing that might change their focus from theater to actual security will come about from something as trivial as a blog because looking effective is their job, not being effective.

Re:Fingers crossed

[sootman (158191)]

Each "YOU GUYS ARE FASCIST NAZI LICKING THUGS!" message cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.

There are already plenty of high-level, high-profile, already-accepted-as-smart people saying how completely fucked up TSA is, and TSA isn't listening to them, so why would they listen to us no matter how polite we are? Maybe it would be a good thing for them to hear how much every man-in-the-street hates them too. A lot of things come down to popularity, and an unpopular agency might have some serious problems staying around. And what will gain more press: a blog with a few well-reasoned comments or one packed with vitriol? Remember, there has never been a story on the news that said "3 million people in enjoyed a nice quiet night at home yesterday." I would love to see a story on the 11:00 news that say "Agency posts blog; 99% of comments all say what assholes they are." That would just make more people aware of how fucked up TSA is and maybe eventually lead to some change.

So yeah, go ahead and post some choice Bruce Schneier quotes if you want. But if you don't want to do that, FLAME ON!

Planes will NEVER be hijacked the same way as 9/11

[by Anonymous Coward]

Blown up? Maybe. Hijacked? NO! Why? Because we know the rules have changed. In the pre-9/11 days, people were told to cooperate with hijackers, because if they did, there was a good chance they'd get out of it alive. Now, we know that the hijackers are willing to kill us all as they use the plane as a weapon, and thus, we have nothing to lose by fighting back. Once the passengers of United 93 learned what had happened to the other plans, they realized this, and they fought back. There will never be another attack in the style of 9/11, and it's not because of the TSA or Homeland Security. It's because we know better.

Re:Planes will NEVER be hijacked the same way as 9

[blantonl (784786)]

100% correct.

I'll go on record as saying that in the United States there will never, ever, be another successful hijacking. I don't know about you, but if I saw someone stand up and begin the hijacking "process", I'd start the "process" of eliminating the threat.

And I suspect I'd have many passengers coming over my back to assist in the effort.

Even the old ladies and 10 yr olds.

Little do you realize...

[by Anonymous Coward]

that this is just a clever move to find people that disagree with them and put them on the no-fly list.

(Anonymous for obvious reasons, I like flying)

Honeypot

[oldhack (1037484)]

Why chase them? Let them come to you...

Silly question from a foreigner

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482)]

How much liberty does the TSA have with the screening that takes place? Surely it was either mandated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or is a reaction to perceived threats since, real or otherwise?

In the same way that a local police chief can't decide what the state speed limit is (although he might decide how anally to enforce it), I can't believe that the head of the TSA has a lot of freedom when it comes to screening:

Richard Reid? Off come the shoes.
Alleged binary liquid plot? No bottled water onboard for you.

It seems (from a perspective from across the sea) entirely reactive, and a result of the current political climate. That's not to say that US airport security wasn't atrociously lax pre-2001, it was; but things aren't going to become any easier until something rather more dramatic occurs than an official in a government agency starting a blog.

Re:

[Larry Lightbulb (781175)]

Can't remember who said it, but why did he have to try and be a shoe bomber - couldn't it have been a bra bomber or a panty bomber?

Long story short

[Arthur B. (806360)]

The government has no business performing security checks on passengers.

If passengers wish secure flights, the airlines will provide security checks, different airlines might even offer different security levels to cater from the person in a rush to the paranoid.

What if someday, I went to the doorstep of a DHS officer and start requiring every one entering, including his friends and family to strip naked, out of security concern for him. What if, even worst, I decided to charge the service to him, by threatening to put him in jail if he doesn't pay for the service or comply with the security checks. Hey I'd be arrested.

The government is doing the exact same thing and guess what : they're just a bunch of people. They are not different from other people. Just because they're elected by a majority and have a nice nametag saying "Hi, I'm from the government" doesn't really give them super-moral powers. If a normal person is not allowed to do something, there's no reason people from the government should.

With a monopoly on law enforcement, it is natural that the quality of enforcement lowers and the price rises. I mean... if everyone is forced to buy your security services, you're going to charge for anything. Hey why not protect people from nail clippers in airplanes ! Good !

A fair offering by the TSA

[Killer Eye (3711)]

If you actually read the intros and responses written by the TSA blog maintainers, it does seem (to their credit) fairly sensible and honest so far; so it has a decent shot at being effective. Yes, it's moderated, but not in a draconian way: they're trying to keep things as written, throwing away only the obvious personal attacks or things rife with ads, etc.

Wrong Two Categories

[alteran (70039)]

The categories are actually:

1) TSA employees who got the internal memo about the blog launch and dropped by to post positive things, and citizens who are really mad about the liquids screening policy and
2) people about to added to the no-fly list.

Still not preventing effective hijack tools

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

I heard this from an ex-military guy.

"The only thing you need to hijack a plane is a heart of stone and a baby (which almost every plane seems to have). You pick up the baby, and break a finger on the baby, and say either we're going where i want or I break another one. Guaranteed reroute of plane because no one likes hurt/screaming babies, and no baby screams more than one with a broken finger. No one can tackle and hogtie you because then you drop the baby."

How does bag screening, no liquids, shoe checks, etc. prevent that from happening?

Re:Still not preventing effective hijack tools

[fredklein (532096)]

While the safety of the baby may be important to the parents, I doubt the other 200 people onboard would care about it enough to just sit there while they are flown into a building.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[bsane (148894)]

I haven't flown since before 9/11. Unless the TSA cleans up its act, I will never fly again.

Unfortunately that probably fine with them, the more people they can keep from traveling the easier their job gets.

Re:

[xaxa (988988)]

It might put off potential tourists from visiting the USA. It's probably not a big deal to most though (at home the tourists will laugh and say "they even made us remove our shoes, and throw away bottles of water! Crazy Americans!" before talking about something more interesting from their holiday. IME, anyway).

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[davetd02 (212006)]

If you've ever gone through LHR, what I believe is still the busiest connection hub in the world, you still have to throw away all of your liquids and go through a MORE intense screening procedure than in the United States. And that's just to connect from one flight to another; in most cases in the US you don't have to be re-screened between flights!

That doesn't make Heathrow's policies right, but anybody connecting through there is just as likely to say "those crazy Brits" as "those crazy Americans."

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[somersault (912633)]

It's not crazy, just retarded.. (yes I'm a brit). I read an article on the Register by an ex bomb disposal officer who explained that there is no such thing as the fabled hollywood binary liquid explosive. I think there are ternary ones but they would require a lot of preparation on the plane, and probably a gas mask, etc. How they can be so paranoid so as to go to such extreme measures banning all liquids.. meh.. sad. Though I admit that some liquids could be used as fairly effective weapons, chloroform, acid, etc..

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[suckmysav (763172)]

They are not doing it to improve safety, they are doing it to provide the perception of safety.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[poopdeville (841677)]

You might be surprised how valuable the perception of safety can be.

Today, while waiting at a busy bus stop on my way home from work, a deranged looking black Muslim man wearing a large back pack came up, kneeled on the corner, and prayed. It made me realize two things: 1) being a Muslim in the US must be tough, because 2) everybody (including me, unfortunately) went OH SHIT when they saw this.

In retrospect, I was in no danger the entire time. But my perception of safety was ruined momentarily.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[networkBoy (774728)]

Red Fuming nitric acid and [cotton balls | Glycerin | coal tar ] qualifies, but because you eliminated the H2SO4 so it's be "binary" you'll have to do a bit of drying first. Cool thing is, *assuming* I could both procure and get through security with Red Nitric, then 3 x 1 Oz containers is vastly more than adequate, especially if I'm using a solid as my secondary so I can use all three bottles for nitric and sulphuric...

That said, if you want to bring down a plane, it is vastly more effective to simply smuggle some mercury on board (doesn't take much). Make a fake battery (AA) and use a 3 volt lithium AA in place of the other battery, thus two AAs gives you three volts and proper operation of the device (cheap digicam, flashlight, vibrator, whatever). Once in flight, open the fake battery and hold the plane hostage.

Even more effective: grab a fire extinguisher while in flight. hit people with it, bash in the cockpit door with it.
Or decompress the plane by bashing out windows.
Or take Krav Maga (sp?) or some other suitable "hostile" martial art.
Or claim to have a bomb even though you don't (still will terrify the plane).
Or smuggle a gun in.
Or Smuggle a knife in.
Or use some JB weld, a magazine, and a metal spoon (need a handle after all) and make a knife.
Or rupture all those butane lighters you bought after security in the concourse and make a fuel air bomb in the lav.
Etc.
Etc.

Point is that there are a million ways to take down a plane, or terrorize a plane, what have you. Almost all of them are simpler than a binary explosive.
-nB

Re:

[iminplaya (723125)]

It might put off potential tourists from visiting the USA.

But the falling dollar keeps 'em coming.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[LearnToSpell (694184)]

Please tell us all how you would make air travel safe and convenient.

It WAS safe and convenient. Now it's no safer, and something less than convenient. You think selling $3 bottles of water on the other side of security is preventing terrorism?

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[timeOday (582209)]

In a way, 911 actually validated existing airport security. The hijackers were unarmed! No bombs, no machine guns. (And no, I don't count boxcutters).

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Box cutters (we call the exacto knives - after September 11th all the news reports had to explain what box cutters were) fell well within the limits for carry on knives. Rather than do the SANE thing and ban knives in carry on baggage, someone decided it would be much more fun to ban nail clippers and water.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[JebusIsLord (566856)]

In July, 2001, I flew from Canada, through a connecting flight in Houston or Dallas, on the way to the Belize rainforest. I (and my fellow students) all had razor-sharp machetes either checked, or (in my case) in my carry-on. No joke. No one seemed to give a shit.

In 1997 I travelled back from Japan, and brought with me a boxed Samurai sword (not sharpened). People wondered how i'd get it home. It rode in the overhead bin.

Last time I travelled through the US, I had to throw out 50ml of cough syrup.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[by Anonymous Coward]

I wish your flight would have been on 9/11. Imagine how airport security would be different today if the story had been "4 terrorists, armed with box-cutters, attempted to hijack an airliner, only to have their limbs removed by a gang of Canadian college students armed with machetes".

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Charcharodon (611187)]

On some of the government chartered flights after 911, the screeners were making soldiers give up their personal tools and pockets knives, but the M16's they had slung on their shoulders were ok to take on board.

Personally I think they should do like they do with the seat cushions in case of a water landing.

In case of a terrorist highjacking your armrest converts into a blunt weapon. To use just raise it above your head and with a swift downward motion bash the highjacker in the head. Repeat as necessary.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. The SANE thing was to either:

1. Do nothing. Now that the rules of hijacking have changed just enjoying watching Americans tear the limbs off of any would-be hijackers.
2. Seal the cockpit.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Dun Malg (230075)]

Uh, no. The SANE thing was to either:

1. Do nothing. Now that the rules of hijacking have changed just enjoying watching Americans tear the limbs off of any would-be hijackers.
2. Seal the cockpit.

Indeed, this is what infuriates me the most. The only reason the 3 successful 9/11 hijackings worked was because the passengers were unaware that the "rules" had changed. It wasn't 15 minutes from the time the news of WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon got to them that the passengers of United 93 decided that they weren't going to play by the rules anymore either and counterattacked the lightly armed chickenshit bastards, forcing them to nose into the ground because they were about to lose control of the plane. Likewise, "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid was forcibly hogtied and sedated within minutes of someone smelling him light a match. Hijacking planes is just plain fucking over. Hijacking was always a very tenuous balance between the hostages desire to avoid injury and the hijackers' desire to have their pals let out of prison, or get away with the money, or not die, or whatever. All that quaint old "take me to Cuba" shit is history. If it isn't something that's big enough to take out the whole plane, and do it essentially instantly, the second any dumbass makes the threat with a swiss army knife, he's hogtied and sedated by passengers who know the stakes have been elevated. There's simply no reason for the TSA to bother screening for small personal weapons or potentially dangerous pocket objects. Like Bruce Schneier says, it's all just wasteful, distracting security theater. Fine, screen for bombs and guns, maybe check for poison gas cannisters, but leave our fucking toothpaste alone, you morons!

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[davetd02 (212006)]

Quote: It WAS safe and convenient.

It'd be nice to think that there was a golden age of air travel when nobody wanted to use aircraft as political weapons, but that only existed prior to the 1960s when air travel became affordable for the masses. There is NO period in time when airline travel was not subject to some kind of danger. Planes have always been targeted by hijackers and bombers because it's a strong political symbol that is guaranteed to generate news coverage.

For the record, metal detectors and security screening at airports started long before 9/11, and dangers to air travel started long before then as well.

In 1976, Cubana 455 [wikipedia.org], with 73 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.

In 1985, Air India Flight 182 [wikipedia.org], with 329 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.

In 1988, Pam-Am Flight 103 [wikipedia.org], with 259 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.

In 2000, Ahmed Ressam [wikipedia.org] pleaded guilty to trying to bomb Los Angeles International airport.

May I also remind you that, just in the year 1970, there were at least 13 attempted hijackings JUST TO CUBA [wikipedia.org]:

* February 16 * March 11 * April 22 * May 25 * July 1 * August 2 * August 19 * August 20 * September 19 * October 30 * November 1 * November 13 * December 19

And, even after 9/11, idiots [wikipedia.org] have tried to bring down commercial aircraft with bombs. They just happen to have been royally incompetent.

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

Quote: It WAS safe and convenient.

It'd be nice to think that there was a golden age of air travel when nobody wanted to use aircraft as political weapons, but that only existed prior to the 1960s

Gee, how do you define safe? Is driving to work in a car "safe?" Because, you know, there are at least 100x less deaths per mile traveled via car than there are via airplane.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Sir Holo (531007)]

Because, you know, there are at least 100x less deaths per mile traveled via car than there are via airplane.

It's actually the reverse. Flying is far safer than driving, per mile traveled. It's just that airline incidents are more, uh, spectacular.

Deaths in autos? Part of your ho-hum morning traffic report.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[vux984 (928602)]

Please tell us all how you would make air travel safe and convenient.

I wouldn't do anything.

Air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation, and that was BEFORE all the new inconveniences. Nothing has changed. 9/11 didn't change that. And the new procedures and inconveniences won't stop it from happening again. The biggest and really only real improvement they've made is improving the security of the cockpit. (And -that- didn't inconvenience anybody.)

All this bullshit about terrorists sneaking a liquid onto a plane and blowing it up is bullshit. The 'terrorists' could just as easily detonate bombs and kill large amounts of people by setting of their bombs -at- the security checkpoints in the airport or getting into a ballgame, or anywhere else. Sir, liquids are banned...please remove your shoes. Sir? KA-BOOM!

And what are they going to do to stop that? Put security checkpoints before the security checkpoints??

What would I do to make america safer? I'd stop fixating on paranoid fear reactions, and spend my time improving relations with muslims, resolving our differences, helping their countries become prosperous, healing the rifts between us.

There will always be extremists. And people will always die. But I don't want to live in an isolated padded prison cell and forfeit all liberty for absolute safety.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[GaryPatterson (852699)]

Well, clearly *you're* not a politician. You're trying to calm people down, start a dialogue with disaffected muslims and assert reason in the face of panic.

Madness! You'll never get anywhere with clear thinking!

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)]

Indeed. I have been rather saddened by all the rhetoric about "taking the tough decisions" thrown around casually by the likes of Bush and Blair post-9/11. The really tough decision would have been not to commit vast resources to fighting something that is a genuine but ultimately small threat, but to reserve them for other, realistically greater needs, and to stand up before the people the day after the attacks and give a single, simple speech saying that while the losses should be mourned we will never give in to terrorism by changing our way of life out of fear.

Re:

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

There's precious little reason to believe that the next president won't be just as abusive. Politicians are corrupt, and the American people have unfortunately decided to abandon all reason for fear. Even if we assume that all the loss of civil liberties in America since 9/11 is Bush's fault (which I find hard to believe, it's the fault of many people, not just Bush), I think he'd only prove to be the first in a long line of tyrants.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[GaryPatterson (852699)]

You don't have to have anything in common to talk to someone. You can even go to war afterwards.

You confuse dialogue with appeasement.

I didn't talk about appeasing Bin Laden. More critically (because Bin Laden is a small part of a larger problem, and has clearly been forgotten by the US) why do so many Muslims think he's a great guy? What can we do to stem the flow of new recruits? Maybe taking away their reasons for joining would help. If they have legitimate grievances, we should hear them and respond. It's not appeasement, it's smart strategy.

Al Qaeda only exist because people keep joining them. Stop the new recruits (and kill the current bozos) and the group will no longer exist. It's not about giving people whatever they want, but engaging in some diplomacy, the first step of which is a conversation.

Hence my comment on 'starting a dialogue.'

This isn't hard, but it requires standing up to the people who prefer to pick up a gun than pick up a telephone. Given the success in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it's time we evaluated other options as well as the current "kill them all" one.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[deniable (76198)]

And how many planes have been hijacked since? Is this:

a. Because of all of the new security measures.

or

b. Because passengers know the rules have changed and are likely to dismember anyone attempting a hijack.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Entropius (188861)]

Please tell us all how you would make air travel safe and convenient.

Stop going out of your way to piss off a large portion of the world's fanatics with your foreign policy.

Re:Do you think they really care?

[qw0ntum (831414)]

First, the parent needs to be modded troll. Lay off the stereotypes, will ya?

Second, it's kind of silly for you to state that you've only flown ONCE in the past 6-7 years, and then proceed to make comments about the entire TSA. I, for instance, fly three or four times a year, including a couple international trips. My experience with the screeners has been generally positive. Usually they are quite cordial, though I have run into a few unfriendly ones. I've only been taken aside for extra screening once - and I'm an Arab with a beard.

Since 9/11, I've flown through CDG. The security there was rude and somewhat intimidating. Since 9/11, I've flown through ATL, Sea-Tac, JFK, a bunch of regional airports. The TSA folks at the smaller airports are actually quite nice people. I've seen a lot of improvement in their operation over the past few years as well in terms of getting people through quickly and clearly explaining what will be expected of people. I don't mind having to take off my shoes, and having to keep my liquids in a plastic bag helps me pack lighter. Make the best of it; it's not that bad.

I've been through Israeli security as well. You try being an Arab crossing that border when the IDF soldier at passport control is having a bad day, and you'll never complain about the TSA again! :)

Re:Do you think they really care?

[metlin (258108)]

Eh.

The man who has flown three or four times a year mocks the man who's flown once in a few years. Nice.

I fly regularly - and when I mean regularly, I mean twice a week. I'm a consultant and I fly out every Monday and fly back every Thursday. Sometimes, I fly more.

And let me tell you that TSA is a bloody joke. The people who handle things look like the kind of people who wouldn't be able to get a minimum wage job at the local Walmart.

You don't mind having to take off your shoes or carrying liquids because - oh wait - you fly 3 or 4 times a year. When you have to fly every other day, it gets old. And oh yeah, the luggage handling is just wonderful. So, every damn time, I have to check in my luggage so that I can take my toiletries with me and risk losing my luggage to who-knows-where.

And oh, just today, I flew out of O'Hare. The idiots there wanted to know why I had two laptops. Because it's my damn job, and it's none of their business. But no, good luck explaining to them.

Take off my shoes? Wonderful. When you get an athlete's foot infection every two months, let me know how it goes.

And I am of east-Indian descent - good luck being a brown man and flying out twice or four times a week. Your probability of meeting those jerks (the "rude" and "intimidating" ones that you spoke of) just shot up. And guess what? I can tell you right now that at least half of TSA is full of arrogant, racist losers who shouldn't be allowed a job, let alone one handling security.

We've a system where you can't even transport a bottle of wine safely. The one time I tried checking in some wine, the wonderful TSA opened my bags, checked out the bottles of wine, didn't repack them the way they were packed and left a note saying that they were snooping around. And oh, I opened my luggage to find brilliant red wine all over my clothes. It's a wonderful feeling, let me tell you. What is this, stone age?

And guess what? Most of the people who travel regularly do so on business. And they do it often. After some time, it just gets old, annoying and plain ridiculous.

I've been through Israeli security as well. You try being an Arab crossing that border when the IDF soldier at passport control is having a bad day, and you'll never complain about the TSA again! :)

That's because Israel faces *real* terrorist threats on a daily basis - not a once in a blue moon thing that's used as an excuse to have people do stupid things, and make a mockery of security in the name of safety.

Maybe you should try traveling a little more often and see what that does to your wonderful feeling of "make the best of it, it's not that bad."

(An irritated frequent flyer)