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.'"

Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Quattro Vezina]

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

Comments

[the eric conspiracy]

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

Fingers crossed

[Chairboy]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[bsane]

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.

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

[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:Comments

[rob1980]

Or heavily moderated.

Re:Fingers crossed

[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

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[LearnToSpell]

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

[vux984]

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.

Silly question from a foreigner

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[timeOday]

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]

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:Do you think they really care?

[maxume]

The first time I flew after 9/11, I wondered if the National Guardsmen with M16's were really planning on shooting anything. I was checked for explosive residue once, and my bag was searched, but I didn't think they did a very good job. The M16's were intimidating, in an off putting way. The other stuff seemed crazy.

The second time I flew after 9/11, I was somewhat amused that I had to take my shoes off but didn't even really notice the TSA people. Sure, they were there putting on their serious act, but they had it down, and things moved along smoothly.

Maybe comparing 1 US airport to 1 French airport does not a survey make.

Re:Fingers crossed

[ceoyoyo]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[GaryPatterson]

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!

Long story short

[Arthur B.]

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 !

Re:Comments

[Brickwall]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[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.

A fair offering by the TSA

[Killer Eye]

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.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

The sane thing would have been to do nothing directly reactive to the 9/11 hijackers' plans, because it was obvious even on the day of the attacks that they would never work again.

Re:Fingers crossed

[sootman]

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!

Re:Comments

[arth1]

No censorship there that I could see.

That's the idea of censorship...

Re:Comments

[xstonedogx]

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.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[deniable]

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

[somersault]

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]

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

Re:Liquid ban has nothing to do with security

[greyhueofdoubt]

That is ridiculous. Think about what you are saying. Each flush costs a few mWh's of electricity and a pint of disinfectant.
If the airlines didn't want you to flush, then why on earth do they serve free beverages?

For crying out loud, every flight I've taken must have cost the airlines the price of my ticket plus a few hundred dollars.

How did this get modded informative?

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Entropius]

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:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[bigstrat2003]

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:Planes will NEVER be hijacked the same way as 9

[blantonl]

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.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Aczlan]

Trying to "start a dialogue" with people who strap bombs onto themselves so they can go out and kill women and children on a city bus is not "clear thinking". Rational discussion requires rationality on both sides. All you accomplish if you try to "dialogue" with radical terrorists is to prove to them that you are weak and an easy target.

what is really interesting (to me anyways) is that it is ALWAYS the low guys on the totem pole who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, you will not see Osama Bin Ladin or any of the top leaders in Al Kiada or Hamas or any other terrorist organization, they are too smart for that or just don't have the balls to put their lives on the line and they like many leaders all around the world the power too much

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton (link) [phrases.org.uk])

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[poopdeville]

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:Long story short

[geek]

They aren't policing the planes. They are policing the SKIES and the potential threat of them dropping on my head. I could care less about the guy in a hurry taking a cheap flight with no security checks, I do however care about the cheap guy landing in my backyard on my family during a BBQ.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Dun Malg]

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:Do you think they really care?

[blitz487]

This is what they'll do, at the most. They'll read the comments, take a few minor suggestions that are about as a substantive of a reform as a changing the paint on the wall from beige to white, and call it even. Then everyone in power will trumpet how the system works, the people were heard, and how America is still the greatest country on the face of the Earth.
In the end, we'll end up with an agency that can best be described as being filled primarily by the sort of people that routinely get rejected by local police agencies, affirmative action hires, etc.

And somehow government run universal healthcare will sidestep this and be a marvel of efficiency and customer service.

Re:Things to get though the TSA security

[g0rAngA]

Well, I can't stand the liquid thing, though its never affected me directly.
If I want to take several litres of water on board a plane, then I should be able to. Its not like restricting the volume of liquids and gels each person can take will make much of a difference. I mean, several people could pool their liquids and blow up the plane. Done. I digress.

I read about a man was making a weekend holiday flight abroad, who took with him two bottles of Penfold's Grange 1986 (fetching about AU$2,000 per bottle). Of course, security wouldn't let him take it on board, in case it was an explosive. They gave him two options: put it in his checked luggage (of which he had none), or surrender it to security. In the end, he opened them both there with his corkscrew (which for some reason they allowed him to keep), and poured them out into the nearest bin. What a waste.

Clearly, this fellow should have known that the wine would be confiscated, but still...its not right by my reckoning.

Disclaimer: I read this headline a few months ago, and heard about from word-of-mouth, and have done no fact-checking.

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Sir Holo]

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

[NickNameCreateAccoun]

Talk about a miserable failure. First you send me to a 9/11 site. Then i notice the aura of conspiracy on that site. Last, my browser tells me to download a divx plugin so i can watch a film that perhaps contain the message you wish to bring to me? In a era of communication, you have failed miserably of letting me know your point...

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Dialog with high-rank terrorists is one thing (I can believe Saddam had bad enough relationships with his former employer - CIA - after he has quit). But how do you think, do actual suicide bombers always believe all that jihad, or are they just told what will be done to their families if they will not go (OK, they can not press the button if they prefer, as there is backup radio one). Often they already do believe - after years of being brainwashed. And not that USA does little to make that brainwashing easier (and not that USA or Russia or UK does not try to brainwash own citizens in a very similar way). Look at elections. Do you see 'lesser evil' psychology in action? Now, there are some US forces in Iraq that played the same game - they try to be lesser evil than terrorists for tired local population, and some of them succeed.

Bomb disposal

[Hektor_Troy]

Someone should inform the TSA of proper bomb disposal procedures.

They prevent you taking a bottle of liquid with you onto the plane, due to the idea that it might be an explosive. And then dump it in a bag next to their checkpoint.

What they SHOULD be doing is call in the bomb squad, set up a big safety area around the bottle and toss whomever brought that bottle to the checkpoint in jail for a few days for disrupting public security.

After all, if you really suspect that it's an explosive, isn't that what YOU would do? Imagine that it was a stick of dynamite instead - would you just toss it in a plastic bag next to your workstation?

Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11

[GaryPatterson]

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

[Mr. Slippery]

Trying to "start a dialogue" with people who strap bombs onto themselves so they can go out and kill women and children on a city bus is not "clear thinking"

You start the dialog, and work to improve the political and economic situation, before they become desperate enough to strap bombs onto themselves.

Appeasement didn't work with Hitler

No, but better treatment of Germany after WWI could have prevented German citizens from becoming desperate enough to fall into line behind Hitler.

Re:Still not preventing effective hijack tools

[fredklein]

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

[Reziac]

"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."

Never mind the M16's; explain to me how someone gets into the U.S. Military in the first place, if they can't be trusted with personal tools and pocket knives?? aren't these the guys who are supposed to be protecting us, not the guys we're being paranoid about??

Bah. The whole thing is spherically senseless.