TSA's Precheck Registration Program Causing Longer Security Lines (usatoday.com) 382
McGruber writes: The Associated Press is reporting that TSA's PreCheck program is causing maddening long security lines at U.S. airports. TSA's PreCheck security lanes can screen 300 passengers an hour, twice that of its standard security lanes. Based on that and other increased efficiencies, the TSA's front-line screeners were cut from 47,147 three years ago to 42,525 currently. At the same time, the number of annual fliers passing through checkpoints has grown from 643 million to more than 700 million. The TSA told Congress its goal was to have 25 million fliers enrolled in the PreCheck registration program, but as of March 1, only 9.3 million people had registered for PreCheck. TSA first tried to make up for that shortfall by randomly placing passengers into the express Precheck lanes, but scaled back that effort for fear dangerous passengers were being let through. That's when the regular security lines started growing -- up to 90 minutes in some cases. The TSA is now shifting some resources to tackle lines at the nation's biggest airports, but it claims there is no easy solution to the problem with a record number of fliers expected this summer. To enroll in TSA's Precheck registration program, travelers must pay $85 to $100 every five years, then submit to a background check, in-person interview at an airport, and to being fingerprinted. Unsurprisingly, getting once-a-year fliers to spend the time or the money to register has been a challenge. While 250,000 to 300,000 people are registering for Precheck every month, it will take more than four years at that pace to reach the TSA's target enrollment.
T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the answer is obvious, but since you did not actually say it... Disband the TSA. Fire their sorry and stupid asses so they can contribute to the economy in some other way. Go back to metal detectors and a simple xray as in the 1990's. Let passengers put their keys, coins, small knives, and Leatherman tools in the plastic basket going around the metal detector. Okay, have a vapor detector for common explosives and do a polite check when it gives a (false, of course) positive. Otherwise, non-metalics go through.
When I flew for business, my boss often gave me his tickets, and I just had to remember to respond when his name was called. The airlines hated this and they were a major force for the stupid regulations for checking ID. They were really pissed that senior citizens that bought cheap tickets way in advance could sell their tickets to business people who wanted close dates.
As far as I can remember, there are only a couple cases of actual airline "terrorist" actions in the last few decades that were not state sponsored. I think the Lockerbie bomb is one example. Most every other is a product of the CIA, Mossad, or one of their operatives. TSA can't do a thing about a privileged agent walking the "underwear bomber" or his equivalent around security.
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Interesting)
That was a "revenge" attack paid for by Iran with the contract carried out by a person from Libya (with what appeared to be full approval of the Libyan leader) so most definitely state sponsored.
Re: (Score:2)
You hit it on the head - the real reason for TSA is to increase airline profits. 90% of their "security" is theater.
Re: T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:3, Interesting)
Has there been a single case where it has been proven that the reinforced cockpit doors have thwarted anything? There is one case where it was proven that those reinforced doors led to the loss of an airliner along with all the passengers: Germanwings flight 9525.
Re: (Score:3)
While this may not have required "reinforced doors", it nonetheless makes complete sense to fortify the means of exclusion to the cockpit as that is precisely what the terrorists want to get access to in order to maximize the "terror" part.
Re: (Score:3)
The fire ax is on the inside of the cockpit on the left side next to the door and designed so the pilots can hack their way OUT of the cockpit in case of emergency landings. Same reason they have egress ropes stored above the side windows in the cockpits.
Lock the damn cockpit door (Score:3)
Depends on the model of plane.
For the price of 45,000 FTE's and 30-90 minute lines to board every airport in the country, you could move the damn axe and install a steel door with a manual release from the cockpit. Now all a terrorist can do is blow the plane up, and he can blow up a bus--so the rest is just stupid theater.
Unfortunately, people care more about stupid theater than they do about having a pleasant flight or making their travel efficient or encouraging tourism.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do know that the two planes which crashed into the WTC were within a couple miles of 2 airports, one of which is international, as well as a few dozen miles away from another. Right? A larger no-fly zone would not have been meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They did implement a policy of requiring two people after this incident. The fact is, no solution is going to be perfect. There will always be a flaw. The cockpit doors are a simple solution to a rare problem of hijacked aircraft. Most people that would want to hijack a commercial aircraft normally want control of the craft itself, whether it is to steal it, hold it hostage or use it as a bomb. The doors make that a lot harder but, it won't stop everybody. The nice thing about this solution is that i
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:4, Informative)
the real reason for TSA is to increase airline profits.
It does not increase airline profits. I think airlines are suffering with us (and $85 over 5 years is trivial money)
The profits are for the contractors, most notably the ones who sold the scanner machines to TSA. First they sold the "unsafe" (1st generation) machines. Then they admitted (after years!) that there may be actual bad radiation and again sold the "safe" (2nd generation) machines.
I am waiting for sudden realization that the 2nd generation machines can give people cancer as well so that they can be phased out and replaced by 3rd generation machines at a great profit.
Notably, 1st generation are "officially" recognized as unsafe (you can get a lecture from a friendly TSA officer, when opting out from a scan, on how the "new" machines are the "safe" kind of radiation), but no one went to jail for imposing the "bad" radiation on so many people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but no one went to jail for imposing the "bad" radiation on so many people
If memory serves, that's because it was Michael Chertoff's company (you know, the Director of Homeland Security at the time) who sold the machines to the TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not increase airline profits.
TSA confiscates your drinks, while the airline sells you drinks at insane margins. More profits for airlines.
Re: (Score:3)
TSA confiscates your drinks, while the airline sells you drinks at insane margins. More profits for airlines.
I think that is still the airport's benefit, not the airline's. It is always hilarious to trash my drink while a guy with 10 cases of water bottles is waved through security right next to me.
Water/Soda bottles are now at least $3.5-$4 each, but I think almost all are bought in the airport and not on the plane.
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:4, Informative)
Water/Soda bottles are now at least $3.5-$4 each,
I've seen many airports that have free filtered water sources so you can refill your own water bottle at no cost. Those are the ones with special taps with enough clearance to hold a bottle under. There are always water fountains you can fill from. Even so, I see $2.50 bottles of water, but not as high as you say.
but I think almost all are bought in the airport and not on the plane.
I have yet to find an airline that charges anyone for water. And I don't recall ever having to pay for soda there. I think there is a requirement that they provide fluids to help prevent dehydration or thrombosis issues in passengers, but it may just be a self-defense mechanism.
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Insightful)
/Oblg. "Airport Logic"
9 oz = dangerous
Three 3 oz = perfectly safe
http://gentlemint-media.s3.ama... [amazonaws.com]
Total Stupid Agents
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Where are you getting the beverages that you are carrying on to the airplane
At any of the several shops inside the secure area of the airport.
Paid for at the airport? how were the prices?
Of course paid for. And at the airport. And the prices are usually a lot higher than off-airport. So what? Those shops aren't run by the airlines, and are thus also not a profit center for them.
Free beverages on the airplane, or carry on what you want. Airline beverage carts are not a profit center for any airline, and thus TSA confiscation of liquids is not a plot to increase airline profits.
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Insightful)
And, of course, they threw it all out in a big bin right by the security line. All those "potentially explosive" liquids just dumped in one area. Either the reasoning for dumping this stuff is disingenuous or they're just stupid. Or both. My money's on both.
Re: (Score:3)
You hit it on the head - the real reason for TSA is to increase airline profits. 90% of their "security" is theater.
I think the airlines and the airport concessions vendors have figured out how to profit from travelers who can't bring their own goodies on the plane, but I don't think that money means all that much to them.
And ironically, up until the late 1960s/early 1970s there was no airline security at all. You just carried whatever you wanted onto the plane. Some shuttle flights (NY-DC, for example) didn't even require a ticket to get on the plane, you just got on and paid the fare on the plane.
And even in the fac
Re:T.his S.ucks A.lot (Score:5, Informative)
TSA is about politicians covering their hineys (Score:3)
You hit it on the head - the real reason for TSA is to increase airline profits.
The existence of the TSA has nothing to do with airline profit. TSA is a part of the federal government. As a general proposition they are indifferent to the amount of profit the airlines make. Speaking as an accountant I can tell you that you would have a very hard time showing that TSA has any sort of tangible positive effect on the bottom line of any airline company.
The reason for the TSA is so that politicians don't have the answer the question of why the federal government allowed airline security t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why it matters: if healthcare cost $100 a year for everyone, it wouldn't be a huge iss
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to suggest that healthcare was not a problem until recently because it wasn't very expensive.
Partially true, sure. Medical practice was also quite different. As was the amount of Government requirements for all of the above.
You didn't have to worry about expensive treatments for cancer, because you just died.
You are making two very frightening implications. First, the only reason Medical treatment has improved is because "Government", which is verifiably false. You are further implying that Government made the system economically viable for all people to participate and all people to receive the same care. Which is also verifiably false./p
Re:Source the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Let's get a similar image which includes the US, shall we?
http://fm.cnbc.com/application... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, the answer is easy: Hire some smart people to look at efficiency, and honestly try to solve the problems.
The sign-age isn't in multiple languages. The rules are absurd, arcane and stress causing. Open up the process enough to reassure people so you don't get as much passive aggressiveness from the passengers. Inspect and overhaul the hiring process: The current hires vary, and include scum. They don't include Mandarin speakers. No effort is made to communicate beyond shouting. Even one well-done w
Re: (Score:3)
I would love to see what Toyota would come up with if they had to implement a TSA.
- In Lieu of Money, Toyota Donates Efficiency to New York Charity [nytimes.com]
- Meals Per Hour [youtube.com] (Video on Toyota improving meals made per hour)
The entire flying process is a cluster of inefficiency.
Re: (Score:3)
Step one should be to get both your immigration officers and TSA staff to STOP YELLING AND BARKING OUT ORDERS AT PEOPLE. Seriously, you get off a 14 hour flight from some far off country and you have these people screaming "get in this line, US residents over there, have your passports out" etc. at the top of their lungs. If you are confused by something and have the gall to ask them a question, no matter how friendly you are when asking, they look at you with disdain and answer as if you are the dumbest pe
Interviews (Score:5, Informative)
Just a small correction: the interviews don't have to happen at the airport. I was able to go through the interview process about a half our away from the airport, about 5 minutes away from my house. The interview process was painless. The entire thing is handled online, and then in person you just say "yes"/"confirm" to all the information on the form, that's it. The fingerprints are also taken electronically, so nothing messy there. They do the whole hand at once. I was in and out of the place in maybe 10 minutes? I can understand why infrequent travelers wouldn't want to pay the fee, but if you travel regularly it is more than worth it! (especially in airports with super wonky security, like San Diego where you have to leave and re-enter security to switch between gates sometimes)
Re:Interviews (Score:4, Insightful)
Painless and unnecessary
Re:Interviews (Score:4, Insightful)
All bureaucracy is unnecessary, most is not painless though.
Re: (Score:3)
bureaucracy is necessary. It is necessary to avoid legal ramifications of random people doing stupid shit. The problem starts with a stupid person doing something really stupid and hurting someone, often themselves, and then suing someone else because the other people should have known stupid people would do stupid shit, and thus they are at fault!
My best example is the warning label (a form of bureaucracy) on a hair curling iron, which read "Do Not Use On Eyelashes. Severe injury may occur".
Every single wa
Re: (Score:3)
Painless and unnecessary
Maybe... maybe not. I mean the whole process for general airport security is ridiculous. I did finally break down and sign up for the Border Patrol equivalent. Every time I go through passport control I am flagged for additional screening. The screeners always laugh when they see me in the line. I don't. It takes me over an hour to clear customs sometimes - even when all the others from my flight have already grabbed their bags. Why do I get flagged? My name. My simple, common as can be name. After
How did you interview outside the airport? (Score:2)
I was told the only interview location was at the airport. How dod you get interviewed away from it?
The interview process was painless but be away they are looking at the entirely of your government accessible records when doing so.
If you travel even once internationally Global Entry (which includes PreCheck registration) is utterly worth getting, just to skip customs lines coming back into the U.S.. And like the article says, the $100 Global Entry registration lasts five years.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably varies by region. But I had the same experience as the grandparent: I interviewed at an off-site location.
The TSA has a handy locator site [dhs.gov] that lists all of the facilities offering PreCheck interviews. Besides government facilities, a lot of them seem to be operated by IdentoGo.
Re: (Score:3)
I've traveled internationally multiple and the customs lines were never more than a few minutes coming back. Did you have a different experience?
My main issue with Customs is when they ask you what you did while out of the country. None of their business, that's what, but I usually answer (truthfully, of course, as lying would be illegal) to avoid hassle. At some point when no one's picking me up I might just assert my 5th Amendment right not to answer and let them hold me until they have to let me go (w
Re: (Score:2)
...seems to happen to most people who do that from reading the Internet).
Usually longer for me. (Score:2)
I've traveled internationally multiple and the customs lines were never more than a few minutes coming back. Did you have a different experience?
An hour and a half coming back through Minneapolis, an hour or two mostly coming back through Chicago, LA and Denver in prior years. Every now and then is was perhaps 15 minutes but I think only once was it ever less than that - and part of that is determined by how fast you are able to sprint past everyone else getting off the plane ahead of you.
Since getting gl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was told the only interview location was at the airport. How dod you get interviewed away from it?
In the Seattle area, when I did my interview, the locations were in SoDo and Fife. Seatac Airport may have been an option as well, but I don't remember.
I scheduled the interview and the first open spot was in five weeks. However, someone told me there was often no waiting at the office. I went down with a book to read, expecting to wait and, sure enough, there was no waiting. I was lead straight in, answered some questions on a display, got my photo and fingerprints taken and was out in 5-10 min. It seem
That is a good trick (Score:2)
However, someone told me there was often no waiting at the office. I went down with a book to read, expecting to wait and, sure enough, there was no waiting.
I don't think that always works, but I also went down without an interview - I think I had to wait 20 minutes, but it was still better because I went at a time that was really convenient for me rather than worrying about making a specific appointment. The interviews are very short too so there are often gaps between them doing an interview and the next
Re: (Score:2)
So far the TSA lines have never had that long of a wait - the main problem these days is the PreCheck lines are not always open, or sometimes they have them only at certain checkpoints.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> if you travel regularly it is more than worth it
The point is, it shouldn't NEED to be 'worth it'.
It's willful, deliberate incompetence to implement a program, assume it will achieve targets when the agency in question has a known history of failure, and then cut staffing based on that assumption AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT - fail to appropriately mitigate the failure when it becomes obvious. It's as though GWB appointees were still running it.
Re:Interviews (Score:5, Insightful)
It's willful, deliberate incompetence to implement a program
It's almost like there are no performance metrics or expectations to meet!
Like no one cares if the program is implemented well.
Undercover teams smuggled banned items in 67 out of 70 cases [cnn.com] during an internal test. It is a unique operation indeed. Where else is less-than-5% success rate is a perfectly acceptable performance?
Re: (Score:3)
It's as though GWB appointees were still running it.
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that there are major differences between how each administration is actually run. Gitmo is a great example of a meaningless gesture by Obama, that doesn't actually affect most Americans, but people seem to get all riled up over it being open or being closed down. It is the fodder that keeps Fox and MSNBC profitable.
And while many people are distracted by GWB vs Obama Gitmo policies, the real goals of tyranny keep marching forward, because "Terrorists!"
Re: (Score:2)
"The entire thing is handled online"....except the bits that aren't. :P
Re: (Score:3)
We can look forward to the time when you'll be given the option to "voluntarily" give blood, urine, and semen samples in o
America is the Worst (Score:5, Insightful)
Airport security does suck everywhere. Australia's is pretty bad. Germany's is pretty terrible too, but the worst, by far, out of any country I have every flow through, is Americas. I have never had more confrontations with security than in the US. Most other countries don't require ID for flying domestically (and fun fact: America doesn't either. Next time, refuse. It takes a little longer, but it's worth it. The US government has no right to restrict transit if you don't have papers. In most EU countries you are required to have ID on you at all time. Not in the US).
Airport security is a joke. It's not security, it's security theatre. They've never stopped a single damn person intending harm ever in the history of their existence. Fuck them, fuck airports and fuck the TSA.
Not to mention, the TSA searches are totally and completely illegal and unconstitutional. Back when airport security was private, it was the airlines getting together to set the standards and searches were part of their terms of service. When the federal government starts doing it, it now becomes a 4th amendment violation. Texas tried to return airports to private security and was bullied by the federal government and gave up the fight. The new mm-wave body scanners have a massive false positive rate and are effectively useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Airport security is a joke. It's not security, it's security theatre.
Quoted for truth...
I know, I've seen the gaps and holes first hand... if I wanted to do something bad, it would not be hard...
Re:America is the Worst (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are just things I though up without any effort and anyone who has 2 brain cells to rub together could also think up. The fact that none of these has happened would indicate that there really aren't any real terrorists in the US, or that if there are they are so dumb I'm surprised they don't choke on their own tongue which may be the case given the few terrorists that various agencies do catch.
Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a misleading report. Attributing long lines to TSA pre-check is false; attributing long lines to mismanagement would be more accurate. Problem with TSA precheck enrollment? Drop the price. Recently; in 75% of the airports I've traveled - the TSA Precheck line was closed. This article is completely bogus; and everyone should do their own due diligence than blindly believing these reports and redistributing these articles. Please - due your own diligence; mainstream media has a long track record of misleading people.
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Attributing long lines to TSA pre-check is false; attributing long lines to mismanagement would be more accurate.
Yes, this times 1000. And, FWIW, the article isn't slanted this way, only the summary is. The article is much more straightforward, although they don't explicitly call out mismanagement.
Honestly, I think we'd be better off just getting used to the fact that sometimes bad people will get on planes, and security doesn't need to keep the casualty rate to zero; just discouraging most of the bad guys is good enough. We don't require that cars protect you from every possible way you could die in an accident - we just require them to be pretty good at protecting you most of the time. That's what I'd rather have the TSA's replacement tasked with.
Forget PreCheck if you fly international (Score:5, Informative)
If you travel overseas, go for Global Entry. It costs the same ($100), and it includes PreCheck as a perk. As an added bonus, you get to use kiosks for passport control (never a wait) and the crew line for customs.
I routinely take 8-10 minutes total from deplaning at LAX (Bradley Terminal) to the terminal exit. A bit longer if I have to wait for checked luggage. Worth every cent.
Re:Forget PreCheck if you fly international (Score:4, Insightful)
If you travel overseas, go for Global Entry. It costs the same ($100), and it includes PreCheck as a perk. As an added bonus, you get to use kiosks for passport control (never a wait) and the crew line for customs.
I routinely take 8-10 minutes total from deplaning at LAX (Bradley Terminal) to the terminal exit. A bit longer if I have to wait for checked luggage. Worth every cent.
Global Entry is definitely the way to go if you travel internationally. Flying into ATL or JFK is no longer a hassle at customs and immigration. At YVR when a cruise ship is dumping their passengers in the line is no big deal as well. GE is now $200, but many credit cards will refund the fee; even so I'd gladly pay the $200 to avoid a hour or more wait to get back in after a 10 plus hour flight. Pre-check is an added bonus, and I'm glad they are limiting the non - Preorder GE folks from using Pre. Nothing is more annoying to be in line behind someone who doesn't understand they don't need to disrobe and empty their luggage and hold up the line because they are clueless.; and then look all pissed because you toss your bag on the belt ahead of theirs and go through the metal detector.
GE also is expanding to some overseas airports as well for an extra fee. The U.K. Is one destination that would be worth the fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the goal of these programs is to make sure those who aren't in them are a powerless minority, which the TSA and Customs can fuck over as much as they want without worrying about pressure on elected officials to not do that. Something to keep in mind.
Re:Forget PreCheck if you fly international (Score:4, Informative)
Easier answer, stay out of the USA.
Kiosks for passport control? Never wait? This has never been a problem for me (except the day after the Paris attacks, but the following week it was back to normal again). I've been using kiosks in immigration for years too.
Never heard of Global Entry or PreCheck.
Good summary (Score:2)
So, what's the problem, exactly?
I mean, do we want faster lines, more people in the pre-check program, a cheaper program, safer flights, less complaints, what?
Maybe we want convenience without the need to define what that is.
On a side note, sufficiently frustrated travelers may mean fewer flights which could lead to a decrease in global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
However you measure it, driving is worse then flying: more dangerous, less convenient, more pollution, more time consuming. It's a real failure as a nation that the TSA is so very bad that some people drive instead.
Active Military included? (Score:2, Informative)
Active duty military are automatically enrolled in TSA pre-check without any additional effort or payment on the member's part. That is probably a good percentage of the claimed 9.3 million registered persons.
Re: Active Military included? (Score:2)
When I was in the military, my whole platoon walked on board carrying M16A2's for a cross-country flight.
Re:Active Military included? (Score:4, Insightful)
All active duty military and civilian employees of DOD. I.e. Anybody who has a CAC. The equivalent PIV-II badges from other agencies don't get you precheck.
Heh Heh (Score:2)
The Associated Press is reporting that TSA's PreCheck program is causing maddening long security lines at U.S. airports.
That doesn't make any sense at all... Please refrain in the future from including the TSA & long lines in the same phrase, you crazy bastard.
Numbers (Score:2)
Re:Numbers (Score:5, Funny)
It's the body scanners (Score:5, Informative)
I fly a lot, and routinely notice that the body scanners take about 5x as long as the metal detectors (and probably cause cancer). I regularly watch the TSA agents clear their backed-up lines by opening the metal detector for 30 seconds, sending 10 people through, and then closing it again (making the value of the scanner clearly questionable).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fly a lot, and routinely notice that the body scanners take about 5x as long as the metal detectors (and probably cause cancer). I regularly watch the TSA agents clear their backed-up lines by opening the metal detector for 30 seconds, sending 10 people through, and then closing it again (making the value of the scanner clearly questionable).
If the scanners worked reliably (and there's evidence that they don't [wired.com]), there'd still be value in sending only 10% of people through the scanners.
If a criminal were facing a 1 in 10 chance that his scheme to sneak contraband past security would be thwarted and he'd be arrested in the attempt, that would still be a good deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
I fly a lot, and routinely notice that the body scanners take about 5x as long as the metal detectors (and probably cause cancer). I regularly watch the TSA agents clear their backed-up lines by opening the metal detector for 30 seconds, sending 10 people through, and then closing it again (making the value of the scanner clearly questionable).
Not just the scanners. The whole rigamarole of undressing and redressing (shoes, belts, jackets), plus taking laptops and baggies of liquid bottles out, and then putting them all back. Frequent travelers, of course, have all of this down to a science... but frequent travelers are over in the pre-check lane where it's not done, leaving the occasional travelers who have to figure out how to do it all bunched up smelling each others' feet.
I guess their strategy now is to hope that very long security lines en
Re: (Score:2)
The millimeter wave scanners don't cause cancer like backscatter XRAY do but damage the electric field that's over the skin.
There's no evidence that the backscatter X-Ray machines are a cancer risk to passengers (they are probably more of a risk to TSA employees that are exposed long term).
I've never even heard about this electric field disturbance, but I'll guess that there's no evidence for that either.
Absence of evidence (Score:2)
There's no evidence that the backscatter X-Ray machines are a cancer risk to passengers (they are probably more of a risk to TSA employees that are exposed long term).
And that is because the X-ray scanners did not go through FDA testing for safety, and also because we are relying on the manufacturer's measurements of the delivered dosage.
And relying on the manufacturer's estimate that the screeners will engage the system once, and not several times (as for example, when a really hot looking redhead [politico.com] goes through).
If you extrapolate the X-ray-to-cancer curve dosage to the amount the scanners are reported to deliver, and multiply that by the number of passengers per year (a
Dangerous Passengers?? (Score:2)
Have they actually found any of those by now?
Re:Dangerous Passengers?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Attractive women [naturalnews.com] are quite dangerous, it turns out.
Prosthetic devices [go.com] and the people who wear them are also quite dangerous.
fullest possible random checks are the best way (Score:2)
whole idea that every passenger can be checked enough to detect any item that can be used in terrorist attack is stupid, impracticable, and as this story shows unmanageable.
if the aim is to deter terrorists from going through a check point, best solution is to subject random passengers ( and this has to be completely random, with all passengers having equal chance of being checked, with no possibility of knowing who will be checked) to fullest possible checks available. that way checks can be reduced in num
Re: (Score:2)
whole idea that every passenger can be checked enough to detect any item that can be used in terrorist attack is stupid, impracticable, and as this story shows unmanageable.
if the aim is to deter terrorists from going through a check point, best solution is to subject random passengers ( and this has to be completely random, with all passengers having equal chance of being checked, with no possibility of knowing who will be checked) to fullest possible checks available. that way checks can be reduced in number to be manageable, checkers will be alert and multiple, and all the while there would continue to be doubt in terrorist's mind about his chances of passing through.
There are miles of lightly secured perimeters around airports, tons of materials and hundreds of vehicles drive into the secure area every day. There's no amount of passenger screening that will stop a terrorist from getting contraband on an airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
as i said, "if the aim is to deter terrorists from going through a check point,..."
i agree that its impossible to completely prevent terrorists (as you say)"from getting contraband on an airplane". but that does not mean we should not deter them going through a check point, by using random full checks as described.
not even the slighest bit safer.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No point in bombing the airplanes anymore, just bomb the TSA checkpoint.
Taking off shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, their policy of making people take off their shoes is causing long lines.
Belts and jackets too.
I generally like to wear nice clothes when flying, I'm part of the old school who remembers when flying was expensive so people dressed up for it. However when flying domestically in the US I've resorted to T-shirts and shorts because if that belt comes off, so do my trousers.
Coimplete BS. (Score:2)
Yes, whatever. I fly 6 times a konth from end to end. I have "pre-check", and scoot right through. Normal lines seem normal. I walk to the front, keep my belt and shoes on, and head directly for the the food court where I have sushi and beer, and then pre-board. If you hoi polloi want to ignore simple rules of flying without issues, more power to you. Me? I like to be educated on how to fly, and end up with no issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you intend to respond to someone and fail to, just like you somehow failed to spell "month"? Because otherwise, your comment is both useless and partially incoherent. The story's about the continuing incompetence and uselessness of the TSA, not about how you successfully "got yours".
I personally wouldn't join PreCheck or Global Entry even if it DID make sense for me to do so. The abuse of power at Customs and the destructive uselessness of the TSA's entire existence is such that I would not want to h
for $85 you can be treated like a pre 9-11 citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
seems like a scam to have to pay $85 to be treated like a citizen again.
Citizens don't get fingerprinted, interviewed and have to have a background check to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse when you think about it this way:
You pay $85 and go through a bunch of rigamarole so the TSA can save money by cutting back on screeners?
The head of the TSA are *ALL* former military (Score:5, Interesting)
Pre-check is not an option for everyone (Score:2)
I did have a really pleasant TSA experience leaving North Carolina recently. They allowed travelers to leave shoes and belts on, laptop and toiletries in bags. The end result was an experience on par or better than what
Hard to qualify (Score:2)
Even a misdemeanor "Disturbing the Peace", the lowest you can get, will block you from being approved for the TSA's PreCheck program.
This, even though you might still hold valid a US SECRET or TOP SECRET security clearance.
Catch 22 (Score:2)
So we started a special lane, where people would be thoroughly examined, so they could go through screening faster.
Anticipating efficiencies, fire 10% of the screeners.
Resulting in extra congestion.
To relieve the congestion, put random *UNSCREENED* people in the pre-check lane.
Seriously, Joseph Heller couldn't have written it better.
TSA PRE is my new social security. (Score:2)
Don't you dare touch it!
Global Entry and TSA PreCheck = Soft-Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
These systems that require payment for favorable treatment and faster pass-through security checkpoints are akin to soft-corruption since they cost money to attain such elevated status. Their value is questionable and the procedure and process to pass-through is a bureaucratic joke without elevating security in any way. My in-person interview was getting a glace by a TSA employee and being asked my name. (Speaking as a Global Entry and TSA PreCheck holder.)
Re:Global Entry and TSA PreCheck = Soft-Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting data point. My interview(s!) were actually much more detailed and involved. I think I spent about 20 minutes with the agent in Canada, not to mention around 40 minutes combined with both US and Canadian border personnel doing a more cursory interview and an explanation about how the system worked from a functional standpoint (IE - How to use Nexus when I cross in a boat, with multiple travelers, etc). The main interview in Canada was largely focused on making sure I wasn't violating business visa limitations but I'm sure a 10+ minute interview is probably enough to also identify the presence of someone being disingenuous about the purpose of the program enrollment.
Might be the difference between strictly Global Entry and NEXUS (which includes Global Entry by default).
Somewhere in Hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
...Osama is laughing his ass off.
Re: (Score:3)
...Osama is laughing his ass off.
Actually, it's apparently a guy named Khalid the Droll. As humorist Calvin Trillin predicted the Underwear Bomber in 2006 [newyorker.com]:
I'm convinced that the whole shoe-bomber business was a prank. What got me onto this theory was reading that the shoe bomber, a Muslim convert named Richard Reid, had been described by someone who knew him well in England as "very, very impressionable." I had already decided that the man was a complete bozo. He made such a goofy production of trying to light the fuses hanging off his shoe that he practically asked the flight attendant if she had a match. The way I figure it, the one terrorist in England with a sense of humor, a man known as Khalid the Droll, had said to the cell, "I bet I can get them all to take off their shoes in airports." So this prankster set up poor impressionable Reid and won his bet. Now Khalid is back there cackling at the thought of all those Americans exposing the holes in their socks on cold airport floors. If someone is arrested one of these days and is immediately, because of his M.O., referred to in the press as the underwear bomber, you'll know I was onto something.
Trillin did indeed say this, and you can find clips of TV interviews from 2006 [youtube.com].
His theory makes as much sense as anyone else's:
after the shoe-bombing scheme worked to perfection, Khalid the Droll announced to his cell, "When they've had a few years of taking off their shoes, I bet I can make them expose their private parts to full-body scanners." Not once has one of these after-the-fact analyzers considered the possibility that... Khalid the Droll is engaged in an elaborate scheme to embarrass us to death.
TSA = amateur hour^h^h^h^hdecade (Score:5, Interesting)
I fly a lot. Not as much as the tech sales guys I work with, but enough to get Alaska's MVP75K top-level status in just the last half of last year. A few years back I had top-tier status on United and Alaska in the same year. So I have one of those nice little cards that lets me go thru the "premier/first class" lines at every airport. AND STILL the process sucks, and remains a constant source of despair for the state of business, security, and the country.
To wit:
1. Orwellian PRE bureaucracy: I cannot get a PRE approval, because my state ID (DL) doesn't list my middle initial, while my passport does. I would have to produce a certified copy of my birth certificate to correct the state ID, and my original birth certificate has a one-letter misspelling of one of my parents' names. It is a clusterfuck. And why the hell should I have to pay a private company for what amounts to a national ID card anyway?
2. The nakey microwave: The goddamn "millimeter wave" (high frequency microwave) xray machines are STILL NOT TESTED OR CERTIFIED as medically safe for xray exposure, only that they're safe from a heat damage perspective. It would be a federal crime to use one in a hospital, because there have been "no human tests or studies to prove scanner safety." And yet the TSA video playing at top volume above the line makes baseless claims that it's perfectly safe...
3. False positives: Even when I resign myself to go through the untested scanner, for me it gives a false positive about 75% of the time. Apparently I have oddly shaped legs. So I have to wait or step to the aide and get a patdown, which often takes as long as the opt-out groping (without the RF exposure).
4. The intentional delays: When I opt-out, the procedure is to let me stand there for at at least 5 minutes before calling a screener to come grope me. Not joking about this -- I had about 60 TSA pat-downs last year all across the US, and often the gate agent would just call "MALE ASSIST" off into the void to no one (literally calling out to an empty area). A few minutes later, they would say it again to the agent on the other side of the microwave box, and then someone would come up and walk me back. It was consistent enough to wonder if there's a policy to make sure that opt-out takes long enough to discourage others.
5. Nonexistent training for TSA: The opt-out manual screening procedure is passed on through oral tradition. I'm supposed to be read a statement about the procedure, asked if I want a screening in private, asked if I have medical devices (I do, so it matters), or if I have any sensitive or painful areas. Only 1 in 4 TSA agents remember to ask all of these, and I've frequently had to remind agents of what they're supposed to ask me. On 4 different occasions in the last quarter, I've had a newly hired TSA agaent being instructed on how to do the procedure by a slightly less inexperienced agent -- with no written instructions, no consistency to the procedure, and the instructor omitted one of the key points EVERY TIME. It's clown school.
6. Total failure to detect: They have no idea what to look for -- through some unintentional testing. I found an unsubtle pocketknife (a kershaw switchblade my teenager had bought) stuck between the frame and outer covering of one of the rolly bags I use -- after I'd used it half a dozen times as a carry-on, and TSA had missed it EVERY time. I can carry on a bag full of a dozen lithium-ion battery packs, and they don't even blink. A ziplock baggie full of random powder? No problem, as long as it's not a liquid or gel... But god forbid my girlfriend use a Lush product with too much glycerine in the lotion, and they're calling the explosives expert.
I could go on. A lot. But there's no point; there's already way way too much money invested into this security theater, enough that it has become its own ecosystem. Stopping now would mean publicly acknowledging the total lack of success or value. Not gonna happen... And
fingerprints (Score:5, Insightful)
>"To enroll in TSA's Precheck registration program, travelers must pay $85 to $100 every five years, then submit to a background check, in-person interview at an airport, and to being fingerprinted. "
Yeah, because I am really going to submit to being FINGERPRINTED so I can be searched without probable cause EVERY single time they run anybody's prints for ANY reason from ANY agency. I think not. Totally unacceptable.
Fingerprints should not be used for biometrics. Period. Once you give this data to the government (or big business), it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between all agencies and used however they want for as long as they want.
If they really need a biometric for this "feature" of security, there is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.
Example: http://www.m2sys.com/palm-vein... [m2sys.com]
But we also need to realize that IT IS NOT EVERYONE'S BUSINESS WHAT WE ALL DO. The first step in securing freedom is privacy. When you are tracked, you are losing your freedom, whether you realize it or not. And the whole TSA security theater is a scam on everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Last week, more than two dozen of us missed. (Score:2)
when the guidelines globally are 2 hours then yeah...
Re: (Score:3)