×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TSA Wants You To Keep Your Seat, and Your Hands In Sight

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ex-post-facto dept.

Transportation 888

An anonymous reader excerpts from an AP story as carried by Yahoo News about changes stemming from yesterday's foiled bombing attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight: "Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing. The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day. Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in US airspace. ... Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows." The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

888 comments

NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561354)

yeah, really effective policy.

Re:NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561400)

yeah what a bunch of coons. TSA = thugs standing around

Re:NO! (4, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561420)

Especially because the terrorist in question remained in his seat the whole time.

In fact, the only person who seems to have left his seat is the guy who got up to stop the attack. So, should he have remained seated instead?

Re:NO! (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561482)

Especially because the terrorist in question remained in his seat the whole time.

No he spent 20 minutes in the toilet possibly preparing for the explosion. Then he covered himself with a blanket and tried to set it off.

Re:NO! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561756)

If he had spent that long just trying to set it up, why didn't he also try to set it off while still in the toilet?

Also, what kind of brainwashing and delusions of thinking is going on that causes these people to think that blowing up a plane and themselves is the answer to anything? That is the real issue. What is it that's causing some people to go against every programmed instinct of human nature to try to do such things? And is there any way to intervene in that process, before it even gets to be a threat?

Re:NO! (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561762)

Especially because the terrorist in question remained in his seat the whole time.

In fact, the only person who seems to have left his seat is the guy who got up to stop the attack. So, should he have remained seated instead?

Exactly - how on earth did the TSA come up with such seemingly braindead directive? Makes you think that either there's someone incredibly cunning, or a sufficiently large group of utterly unimaginative and obtuse individuals work for the TSA.

Oh, look! (5, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561362)

Another reason for me not to fly. And another Al Qaeda success in disrupting the US economy and society beyond their wildest dreams.

Re:Oh, look! (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561402)

Indeed. It's the streisand effect of terrorism... 9/11 could have been at most a minor annoyance but instead it became the rallying cry for numerous restrictions on freedom with questionable results at best.

Re:Oh, look! (4, Insightful)

honkycat (249849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561546)

As much as I agree that the response to terrorism is often irrational, try to maintain some perspective. Thousands of people dying cannot reasonably be described as a "minor annoyance."

Re:Oh, look! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561606)

Most people regard the annual road toll as a "minor annoyance".

Re:Oh, look! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561652)

I agree, lets maintain some perspective.

almost 2 people die every second in the world.

over 100 people die every minute in the world.

That's 6000 every hour. 144000 every day. 1008000 every week. 52416000 every year.

9/11 didn't even have the power to change the average for a year.

lets continue to put things in 'perspective'

over 4 babies are born each second. 5760 born per day.

by the time it was 9/12, every person who died there, was replaced.

you are a drop of water in an ocean. you are insignificant.

no matter how much you tell yourself that 'thousands' of dead is important, it simply isn't.

Re:Oh, look! (5, Insightful)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561742)

2 people die per second... 144000 per day.

4 babies born per second... 5760 per day.

I don't understand this math.

Re:Oh, look! (3, Insightful)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561744)

Every life is important. Just because it's not possible to prevent deaths everywhere , doesn't mean you should be ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.

Their loved ones still lost them and that still causes them pain , not matter whether they got 'replaced' or not .

By your logic , you would be ok with having your entire family killed , as they will be replaced inside an hour ?

People are more than statistics.

Re:Oh, look! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561666)

It can.

It all depends on your point of view. Perhaps similar to the 100,000+ deaths in the Iraq war up to now. Or the 100,000+ deaths in the tsunami in Indonesia a few years ago.

Although all these are sad, for a random individual, it can easily just be that.

Re:Oh, look! (3, Informative)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561718)

I think he means "minor annoyance," as in an attempt to change our everyday life (flying isn't every day for most people). A perspective on the stability of government, not a humanist perspective.

Kinda like the quote which is often misattributed to Stalin:

The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.

I don't know who actually said the above phrase, according to wikiquotes: "Mustering Most Memorable Quips" by Julia Solovyova, in The Moscow Times (28 October 1997) states: Russian historians have no record of the lines, "Death of one man is a tragedy. Death of a million is a statistic," commonly attributed by English-language dictionaries to Josef Stalin. Discussing the book by Konstantin Dushenko ( ) Dictionary of Modern Quotations ( : 4300 , , , ).

Re:Oh, look! (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561730)

Comparatively speaking, it is. Anyone that has any remote understanding of the statistics of the causes of death in this country knows that terrorism, at least what we have seen, is largely irrelevant. Car accidents alone have claimed over 400,000 lives since 9/11. Getting Cancer I worry about from tiem to time, same goes for car accidents; but terrorism? That ranks pretty low on my list of things to worry about.

Re:Oh, look! (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561726)

Indeed. It's the streisand effect of terrorism... 9/11 could have been at most a minor annoyance but instead it became the rallying cry for numerous restrictions on freedom with questionable results at best.

Not only that, but it's become a rather strong rallying cry in support of General Aviation - you know, private planes and all?

As a member of a flight club, I can fly a private Cessna 182 at 150 MPH (pretty much) anytime I want, at a cost that's perhaps 25% higher than driving. Typically, private planes get me there in somewhere between 25% and 33% the time to drive, and for trips between 100 and 750 miles is a very competitive way to go.

1) I don't land at big airports, I land at small ones that exist in nearly every community over 5,000 to 10,000 people or so. At these airports, delays really don't exist. There are usually not more than 2 or 3 other planes active at any given time, often none.

2) Small airports almost inevitably put me very close to where I want to go, anyway! Rather than drive 1.5 hours after landing, I get a taxi for the 3-5 mile ride.

3) Stupid security restrictions? Naw - back the car up to the side of the plane and throw your bags aboard! At larger airports, there are often security fences and the like, but even these are easily navigated, certainly without the stupid wands, shoes, and security theater.

The only real limit in going this way is weather - as a visual-only pilot, I'm grounded when the clouds get too low. (But even that won't be a limit for much longer)

Is this a new gimmick from Ryanair? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561366)

How ridiculous can flying become? Just say "F**K YOU" to terrorists, and fly as if nothing had happened. Otherwise they've won.

They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (4, Insightful)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561368)

With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it... not my fault you guys tied to keep me from using the bathroom despite pointing out how badly I needed it a dozen++ times. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. The TSA has gone beyond asinine now.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (5, Insightful)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561406)

I have to agree with you. An hour? There's a lot of flights where I'd never have a chance to visit the lavatory.

And we wonder why the airlines are having so much trouble making a profit today?

I've been avoiding flying because of the TSA for ages now. First you have to go through massive amounts of trouble at the checkpoints, worry about your luggage, now you're even going to be interfered with on the flight itself.

My fear that eventually travelers will all have to fly wearing issued paper-tissue gowns and be sedated during the flight approaches...

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (2, Funny)

Stu Charlton (1311) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561650)

I fly regularly. It's really not that bad. I've never had a problem at the checkpoints, even when I'm randomly selected for a detailed search. Even U.S. CBP has been courteous when I cross the border.

This last hour sitting bullshit is rather fresh, of course.... but the TSA's measures aren't much of a hassle to date.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561724)

My fear that eventually travelers will all have to fly wearing issued paper-tissue gowns and be sedated during the flight approaches...

Or mandatory diapers. Why beat around the bush when their real objective is to regress everyone into infants that constantly need help with everything?

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561754)

I agree. This is all getting to be too much. We're being guided down a path of lousy options. The new rules sound like "Con-Air." Might as well be a bunch of prisoners on a plane. What's the answer?

1. Naturist Airways. Fly nude.

2. Vigilante Airways. Authorize passengers to use deadly force if they think anybody is up to something. Mistakes will be made. Automatic pardons and a "whoops!" certificate plus a $50 air voucher will be issued to your estate if you are killed without cause.

3. MedAire. Everyone on board gets a dose of anesthesia, is intubated and put to sleep, watched over by ten or so medical specialists. They too are entitled to "whoops!" certificates and a pardon if they accidentally kill you.

I don't know what the answer is, but the impact is people are not going to want to fly. Not worth the trouble.

Of course, if they want to hire really gorgeous babes to completely search me before I board, I'm okay with that. I'd even pay extra.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561478)

With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it...

I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561512)

Once could argue though that the FAs have a choice in exercising common sense... which dictates that when a guy/gal [or a baby/toddler] has to go, you let them go.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561556)

Once could argue though that the FAs have a choice in exercising common sense... which dictates that when a guy/gal [or a baby/toddler] has to go, you let them go.

I very much doubt that FAs have any choice when it comes to application of TSA regulations. More likely they'd be punished or even fired if they did.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561664)

I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...

That's the "they are just doing their job" cop-out. If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job. To give them a pass because they are just little people in the machinery of a big faceless organization is to give the big faceless organization a pass.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (2, Insightful)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561692)

I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...

That's the "they are just doing their job" cop-out. If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job. To give them a pass because they are just little people in the machinery of a big faceless organization is to give the big faceless organization a pass.

No, you can punish the big faceless organisation by not purchasing tickets from them in the first place, but urinating on the floor of the plane will only punish the FAs who already have a very hard and sometimes dangerous job, and might not be in a position to "look for a new job".

The cop-out is you claiming that you can treat people in such a disgusting manner because of your assumption that they're able find a less degrading job at their whim.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561716)

I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...

That's the "they are just doing their job" cop-out. If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job. To give them a pass because they are just little people in the machinery of a big faceless organization is to give the big faceless organization a pass.

No, you can punish the big faceless organisation by not purchasing tickets from them in the first place, but urinating on the floor of the plane will only punish the FAs who already have a very hard and sometimes dangerous job, and might not be in a position to "look for a new job".

The cop-out is you claiming that you can treat people in such a disgusting manner because of your assumption that they're able find a less degrading job at their whim.

Furthermore, the "consequences" you're advocating fail on both a moral and a pragmatic level. Morally for the reasons I've stated above, but pragmatically too since it wont change the TSA regulations, it won't make the airlines fight on your side & the only real result will be pissing off your fellow passengers as well as making life a harder for some people trying to make a living. If you want to complain then complain to your government, rather than take out your frustration on some low-level employee who has very little decision making power in the organisation they work for.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561524)

With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever...

Or even just if the pilot keeps the "fasten seat belt" sign on for all but 20 minutes of a five hour flight and somehow expects that will be adequate for 100+ economy class passengers all sharing two bathrooms at the back of the plane. Is it really too much to ask that the airlines provide a reasonable opportunity for people to deal with their basic needs (e.g. going to the bathroom)?

But what really puzzles me is that I watch the news and get the impression that most people are OK with this. The news announcers discuss the new policies as if they were routine common sense measures - and then the news shows a few clips of "ordinary" people saying something to the effect that they understand the need for the new policies.

Where is the outrage?

When I drive down the freeway on my way to the airport I see all kinds of people driving recklessly: tailgating, abrupt lane changes, passing at high speed way over in the slowest lane - all while holding a cell phone to the ear. So it can't be that other people somehow generally value human life (or even just their own) much more than me. And it can't really be about legacy "He was a dumbass who got himself killed driving recklessly on the freeway." isn't really any better than "He was a good man who was, through no fault of his own, killed tragically before his time in a senseless terrorist attack." Maybe it's that there's a culture where if you can somehow find a way to be the victim then you can justify being mean to other people (e.g. taking a bigger slice of the pie for yourself) all in the name of "self defense".

But, anyway, I'm left puzzled: terrorist attacks aren't scary to me because I afraid of the terrorists, terrorists attacks are scary to me because they highlight just how little I have in common with my fellow Americans. At least on Slashdot, I find a few people who seem to be thinking roughly the same things I am.

Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (1)

Rick17JJ (744063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561580)

Perhaps they could allow people to pee into a special bag during the one hour when they must remain in their seats. If they were to allow that, I hope the passengers sitting on each side, would not object.

Whenever I have the time, I now prefer driving instead of flying to a nearby state, as the simpler more relaxing option.

Boy, flying just keeps getting better! (1)

MelodicMotives (724089) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561374)

The TSA's policy of retroactive bans has already made flying almost unbearable. Does terrorism need not even succeed anymore to impact our day-to-day lives so much?

Re:Boy, flying just keeps getting better! (5, Insightful)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561424)

Impacting our day to day to lives = terrorism has succeeded.

Its psychological warfare. The mind is infinitely more powerful than any bomb.

Re:Boy, flying just keeps getting better! (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561442)

Well, next step is to physically restrain and drug passengers as they take their seats - all in the interests of safety. :-)

Fortunately the rest of the world, for the most part, doesn't have such draconian knee jerk reactions and policies as a result of a little fire in the cattle compartment.

Re:Boy, flying just keeps getting better! (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561514)

Well, next step is to physically restrain and drug passengers as they take their seats - all in the interests of safety. :-)

I wouldn't mind at all if they pumped me full of tranquilizers for the 25-35 hours flight from Australia. If not for the accompanied risks of DVT and the like, I'd very much prefer it!

How about not allowing direct flight from Nigeria? (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561376)

Seriously. Make every passenger from Nigeria go out through security in Amsterdam, then back in. And while you are at it if some guy in Nigeria goes to the US embassy and says look out for my son here is his name then bloody look out for that name in visa requests and think twice before granting it.

Oh and another thing. US security seems to focus on detaining the bad guys after they have landed in the US. We have heard of this happening to plenty of people. How about recognising that they can get up to bad stuff while still in the air over Detroit, and trying to keep the bad guys from even getting on the plane.

Prohibited Items (2, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561382)

The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.

Explosive devices aren't already listed?

Re:Prohibited Items (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561472)

Fireworks in specific are banned too! And he was in his seat.

Basically there should be no rules because of this, because everything he did was already sufficiently covered.

Any policy changes because of this are 100% "Looking like your doing something" and/or fear.

Re:Prohibited Items (4, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561538)

Well duh. If you're already hopelessly worthless at enforcing the rules you've always had, well just make more rules!

Enough already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561386)

Just make it illegal to be a passenger on a plane and get it over with! No passengers = No terrorists

My Theory (4, Interesting)

Rev. DeFiLEZ (203323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561408)

I am starting to think the airlines want this.

If government rules make it impossible to have comfortable flight, why should an airline even try to make the flight comfortable?
(fedex can ship 200 pounds of meat cheaper than american airlines)*

*might not actually be true, but I am sure some bean counter is thinking it

Re:My Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561456)

It would cost 909.81 dollars to get a 200 pound box from SFO to Tampa Fl, to arrive by wed via fedex. Thats pretty competitive. Hope their boxes have air holes. (1340.90 to get it there by monday)

this message was posted @ 11:50 PST saturday.

This makes perfect sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561438)

After all, Abdulmutallab was out of his seat and attempting to ignite an explosive in his carry-on luggage.

No, wait, he was in his seat, and attempting to ignite an explosive he had attached to his leg.

So what's the point of the new rules?

Re:This makes perfect sense (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561484)

So what's the point of the new rules?

To keep the rule makers employed.

"On every second Tuesday, you will strap a sausage to your nose, hope on one foot and shout 'I am a pretty wittle princess!'"

"But why? How will this rule solve anything?"

"Silence! Are you on the side of the drug smugglers/pedophiles/terrorists! Submit to us, and demonstrate it by quacking like a duck."

Re:This makes perfect sense (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561542)

So what's the point of the new rules?

Human nature. When something bad happens, we try to prevent it from happening again.

It's easy to harshly judge these guys, but if they did nothing and another attempt was successful I would not want to be in their shoes. Not that I want to be in their shoes anyway. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Re:This makes perfect sense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561604)

It's easy to harshly judge these guys, but if they did nothing and another attempt was successful I would not want to be in their shoes.

Abdulmutallab's failure was due to his own ineptitude, not the TSA's myriad rules & procedures.

If the TSA did nothing, they would not be any less effective.

Re:This makes perfect sense (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561672)

If the TSA did nothing, they would not be any less effective.

He succeeded in bringing explosives aboard and proved to the world it was possible. If the TSA does nothing they will be blamed if the next guy is successful.

Re:This makes perfect sense (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561630)

So what's the point of the new rules?

Human nature. When something bad happens, we try to prevent it from happening again.

It's easy to harshly judge these guys, but if they did nothing and another attempt was successful I would not want to be in their shoes. Not that I want to be in their shoes anyway. Damned if they do, damned if they do their job.

Fixed that for you

One hour? Seriously? (4, Insightful)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561440)

Because apparently the only possible time to detonate something and bring down an airplane is in the last hour before landing. So THAT is why the shoe bomber failed....he did it too early!

How about we have a reasoned response to this instead of just blindly making shit up based on the last attack?

Re:One hour? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561576)

Within one hour of landing the plane is much more likely to be over a populated area.

Other than that though, the new rules or mainly just reactionary security theater. However, security theater serves a purpose, which is why it is done.

Long story short, how about you think before posting instead of just blindly making shit up based on a cursory read of the article summary.

invent It already (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561448)

news like this make me want to vow that i'll never fly again, but unfortunately in this country often there is no viable alternative. that's why i want to say, please somebody invent it [wikipedia.org] already!!

I feel safer now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561450)

Much, much safer.

Yesterday's "foiled" bombing attempt? (4, Insightful)

Sowelu (713889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561454)

The last one sounded like some guy successfully set off a charge that was barely large enough to set his pants on fire, then some guy jumped him afterwards. How, exactly, is that foiled?

Re:Yesterday's "foiled" bombing attempt? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561544)

Sounds more like a misfire to me. One article said he basically had a bomb built to the shape of his lower body. My supposition is that he had to manually install a trigger while he was in the toilet and he stuffed it up.

What this incident proved... (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561462)

Just like the shoe bomber fracas a couple of years ago, is that to thwart a perp attacking an aircraft, what you need are passengers who are ready to go berserk on his ass. No TSA or air marshalls needed.

The spurt of rule-making that follows an incident like this is nothing but a demand for more docility from the public. The TSA is useless.

-jcr

Are they disingenuous? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561464)

Do they actually realize that anyone with half a brain-cell thinks they look like idiots? Wait till they make their ultimate security policy: no passengers allowed on planes.

Preception (1)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561466)

Another example of how the government is keeping us safe. But they are not, this guy was on a watch list for two years and still got on a plane. The perception of safety is there yet really it has no real and only impacts everyones personal liberties.

Congrats TSA/Al Queda (5, Insightful)

straponego (521991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561470)

I've canceled my vacation. Not because I'm afraid of terrorists-- I'm not, at all. We're talking at about 1 death per 4 million passengers.

No, it's that in response to this sliver of a threat, you're guaranteeing that I'll spend twice the time in line, and the flight will be as miserable as you can make it. This will cost literally billions of dollars (at 300 million hours, about 450 lifetimes) of productive passenger time per year. And all because some twat might set his crotch on fire-- good thing you don't allow us to have water anymore.

Alright. Fine. Let the airlines go out of business; this nation of cowards deserves it. I suppose we'll need another bailout, to pay the airlines to leave their aircraft on the tarmac.

Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for imaginary security are assholes.

Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561752)

Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for imaginary security are assholes.

That's the most insightful paraphrase of that quote that I've ever seen on Slashdot.

10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561486)

And one dumb-ass giving his crotch second-degree burns is enough to cause these stupid policies for every one of these flights?

Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561510)

Has anybody provided any evidence that the guy had anything remotely like a bomb? I mean, suicide bombers, and guys that bomb airplanes don't tend to use explosives where they have to light the fuse. I mean, this is like terrorism ala the Sylvester and Tweety Show.

I'm willing to bet this guy is nuts, had no compatriots in Al Qaeda, did not pick up any kind of package from evil confederates, but was a dipshit who bought some fireworks and was sufficiently stupid and delusional to think he could bring down an airplane with them. Now he gets to rot in jail with torched testicles. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to rot, but come on, just WTF does the TSA, or anyone think they're fooling here?

Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually... (4, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561634)

Has anybody provided any evidence that the guy had anything remotely like a bomb?

From this article: [bbc.co.uk]
 

High explosives are believed to have been moulded to his body and sewn in to his underpants.
...

A preliminary FBI analysis has found that the device allegedly found on Mr Abdulmutallab contained the high explosive PETN, also known as pentaerythritol.

It sounds pretty full on to me. I think we dodged a bullet.

Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually... (2, Interesting)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561690)

Has anybody provided any evidence that the guy had anything remotely like a bomb?

From this article: [bbc.co.uk]

High explosives are believed to have been moulded to his body and sewn in to his underpants. ...

A preliminary FBI analysis has found that the device allegedly found on Mr Abdulmutallab contained the high explosive PETN, also known as pentaerythritol.

It sounds pretty full on to me. I think we dodged a bullet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol [wikipedia.org]

Derivatives of pentaerythritol are components of alkyd resins, varnishes, PVC stabilizers, tall oil esters, and olefin antioxidants.

Or he could have had a HEAVY tan after he put on the pants?

Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually... (1)

Donkey_Hotey (1433053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561638)

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to rot, but come on, just WTF does the TSA, or anyone think they're fooling here?

The general public...and they're buying into it.

This is kind of rediculous (4, Insightful)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561488)

I'm all for security but now this all nonsensical. Instead of actually making actual changes they just impose extremely annoying rules that have no actual security improvement. What does it matter whether or not it is the last hour...can't the terrorist just set off a bomb...I dunno before the last hour. I don't understand what the actual point of this rule is.

So if I want to pee, read a book, put something away, or so much as even flinch I'm gonna be threatened with an arrest. Simply inconveniencing people isn't gonna make security any better...

Re:This is kind of rediculous (2, Insightful)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561536)

I'm all for security but now this all nonsensical.

Ok, I'm game. What's been implemented post-9/11 that's made us more secure?

Instead of actually making actual changes they just impose extremely annoying rules that have no actual security improvement. What does it matter whether or not it is the last hour...can't the terrorist just set off a bomb...I dunno before the last hour. I don't understand what the actual point of this rule is.

To make stupid people feel more secure by appearing to do something.

So if I want to pee, read a book, put something away, or so much as even flinch I'm gonna be threatened with an arrest. Simply inconveniencing people isn't gonna make security any better...

You're assuming that's their goal.... and it SHOULD be. I ask you this: do you feel more secure now?

Re:This is kind of rediculous (4, Informative)

keithmo (453716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561646)

Ok, I'm game. What's been implemented post-9/11 that's made us more secure?

I agree with Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] on this: "Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."

To make stupid people feel more secure by appearing to do something.

Sadly, most people confuse "activity" with "progress".

Re:This is kind of rediculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561654)

I'm all for security but now this all nonsensical.

Ok, I'm game. What's been implemented post-9/11 that's made us more secure?

Being able to shoot politicians/layers/government employees that create stupid laws.
Oh, wait you said implemented, not that should have been implemented.

Re:This is kind of rediculous (2, Insightful)

Lokinator (181216) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561568)

It's been feel-good security theatre since day one. I now only fly if there is no other practical option. This sucks...as once flying was a joy in and of itself, a pleasant addition to the travel experience. Now it's a little slice of hell, and I won't play if I don't have to...and what's truly offensive is these various unpleasantries, as far as I can tell, do little or nothing to enhance safety and have everything to do with "looking busy" and providing a "sense of security" where there is little actual security, as actual security measures would largely be politically unacceptable. So...one dim-bulbed attempted bombing that...if successful...might have killed *at most* 1,000 persons (all aboard, crashing into crowded high school and/or nursing home) will inflict largely useless idiocy upon everyone flying in U.S. Airspace. If we consider that a goal of asymmetrical warfare is to make things unpleasant for the populace of the opponent - wouldn't this count as a casualty-free win for the Al-Qaeda bandits?

I'm already seeing... (1)

fabioalcor (1663783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561496)

This terrorism paranoia will end up with passengers travelling nude and with arms handcuffed in their seats...

I've seen the future in the past . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561500)

I will have to re-watch CON-AIR to get familiar with our future flight accommodations.

International Standards??? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561504)

I wonder if the TSA's motive is to make air travel so unbearable that international travelers begin to lobby their own government to impart effective measures to counteract these types of attacks.

Like the TSA or not, I'm pretty sure they would have caught this guy if he was getting on the plane stateside. Why can't other countries do the same?

Re:International Standards??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561640)

I wonder if the TSA's motive is to make air travel so unbearable that international travelers begin to lobby their own government to impart effective measures to counteract these types of attacks.?

Or they can choose not to go to US and spend their money or take their business somewhere else.

Re:International Standards??? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561694)

A logical conclusion, but then again, we aren't speaking of logic now, are we?

Enough of this shit already (4, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561522)

Number of people dead from an airplane incident this year: 0
Number of people dead from car accidents this year: tens of thousands
Number of people dead from cancer this year: hundreds of thousands
Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid airline regulations: millions
Number of people losing their livelihood due to reduced tourism to the USA: probably tens of thousands
Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of airline regulations: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year
Number of people failing to comprehend basic statistics: hundreds of millions

Seriously, enough of this madness. It was a foiled bombing attempt that came with the usual Al Quaeda franchise branding. I certainly don't care about the original news more than a few brief lines about it on some buried page on the BBC's website, however it's pissing me off in a major way that a lot of people seem to think this is a big deal. It's not!

Re:Enough of this shit already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561582)

Number of people dead from an airplane incident this year: 0 Number of people dead from car accidents this year: tens of thousands Number of people dead from cancer this year: hundreds of thousands Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid airline regulations: millions Number of people losing their livelihood due to reduced tourism to the USA: probably tens of thousands Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of airline regulations: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year Number of people failing to comprehend basic statistics: hundreds of millions

Number of people making up statistics: one

Re:Enough of this shit already (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561720)

Un-named individual who doesn't know how to take a framework and substitute their own ball-parks: you.

Typical cop response (5, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561528)

You beat terrorists by raising a middle finger in their direction, mocking them mercilessly and accepting casualties once in a while. You kiss terrorist arse when you pull this kind of crap. What's next, handcuff passengers to their seats and have police strutting up and down the aisles during flights? Give me an effin' break!

Just take a train. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561532)

Trains may take longer but you can walk around and see the country side. No lines and relax and talk with those around you.
Oh and you can use you cell phone.

Question (4, Insightful)

DTemp (1086779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561590)

So, during this time when you aren't allowed to get out of your seat, aren't allowed to use the bathroom (explicitly mentioned in an article I read):

What happens if you have to crap? Like really have to? I have a feeling if someone started yelling about how they were gonna shit their pants, a flight attendant would let them to the bathroom, although I think if you're at the point where passengers are having to yell about needing to take a crap (in front of dozens of passengers), you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

A prediction of what's next.... (1)

steve buttgereit (644315) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561594)

Once the wise bureaucrats of the TSA get a full chance to gather their collective minds together and make thorough examination of incident I fully expect the following policy changes.

1) All airline passengers must travel nude and will be required to be nude to traverse any security checkpoints. After all the guy had the goods in his underwear, so to speak.
2) All airline passengers must submit to random body cavity searches at the security checkpoints. This way the TSA is saying they are keeping one step ahead of the bad guys.

Of course you'll still be allowed to carry on any number of things that a clever person could use as a weapon, but what the hell... perception is more important than reality! ...and some suggest the terrorists have won...

Re:A prediction of what's next.... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561658)

1) All airline passengers must travel nude and will be required to be nude to traverse any security checkpoints.

And not a year too soon I say. I have been waiting for this day since I first read The Puppet Masters [wikipedia.org] in about 1970.

new rules are important for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561596)

I agree with most of the comments that new rules are pointless and I think will eventually go away. But right now they are important to change rules of angagement so potential terrorist will think they need to adjust and make mistakes.

As the parent of a 1 year old. I say good luck (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561610)

I have trouble keeping my son in his high chair with his hands in plain site in a high chair. Good luck getting infants to sit still.

I don't know who's stupider: The idiots at the TSA who come up with the rules, the politicians that give them this power, or the dickheads that allow the politicians to be elected.

I'll stay well out of your country. I only wish your fucked up rules didn't get copied by our own government and idiotic organisations. We just had some ridiculous security restrictions lifted in Australia. What's the bet that all gets reversed thanks to you crazy as fuck yanks?

Re:As the parent of a 1 year old. I say good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30561702)

...or the dickheads that allow the politicians to be elected.

I hear you.

I only wish your fucked up rules didn't get copied by our own government and idiotic organisations.

I know what you mean.

What's the bet that all gets reversed thanks to you crazy as fuck yanks?

Wait, is it our fault or your fault? You were making a good case until the end.

Re:As the parent of a 1 year old. I say good luck (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561736)

I have trouble keeping my son in his high chair with his hands in plain site in a high chair. Good luck getting infants to sit still.

I don't know who's stupider: The idiots at the TSA who come up with the rules, the politicians that give them this power, or the dickheads that allow the politicians to be elected.

I'll stay well out of your country. I only wish your fucked up rules didn't get copied by our own government and idiotic organisations. We just had some ridiculous security restrictions lifted in Australia. What's the bet that all gets reversed thanks to you crazy as fuck yanks?

Not likely: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/us-bound-passengers-in-for-tightened-security/story-e6frg6n6-1225813969830 [theaustralian.com.au]

The Australian government relaxed airplane security measures, which came into affect on Friday.

Items including nail clippers and knitting needles are no longer prohibited.

Mr Albanese said those changes would remain in effect for good reason.

“To take security personnel away from worrying about whether nail clippers are on board or not and worry about firearms and high-risk dangerous items,” he said.

I guess I'll just start getting arrested (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561614)

As much as I would like to avoid federal charges, if I've gotta go, I've gotta go. And forcing my way past flight attendants and taking the inevitable bullshit when I finally land is what I assume will happen to me on future flights.

Re:I guess I'll just start getting arrested (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561660)

And forcing my way past flight attendants and taking the inevitable bullshit when I finally land

When you land? They carry handcuffs and tasers onboard. Do you think you're asked to wear the cuffs when you push too far? Or do you think that US Marshal gets up out of his seat, and hits you with the taser, if need be? It's not like Inglourious Basterds:

You'll be shot for this!
Nah, I don't think so... more like chewed out. I been chewed out before.

Air travel == UnAmerican (1)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561676)

Until air travellers grow a pair and just collectively shove past TSA refusing to be illegally searched, the security theater will continue to inconvenience the public without so much as slowing down terrorism.

Shoe bomb vs. pants bomb (2, Funny)

TXISDude (1171607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561688)

First a shoe bomb makes me take off my shoes at the checkpoint. If this is truly a pants bomb, then they have really won, for imagine us having to take off our pants before going through the metal detector. Brilliant stategy.

whack a mole policy at its finest (2, Funny)

cl191 (831857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561704)

Leave it to the Tupperware Stacking Agency to come up with all this security theater non sense, pretty soon they will ban farting on airplanes.

OK, this is stupid. (5, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561708)

It's stupid not because it's exaggerated, but because it's ineffective. It's BS. I went to a conference in the US at the end of November, and was reminded just how bad it is to fly to and from the US. I have also flown to and from Israel, a country very much in the crosshairs of terrorists, and the security procedure was MUCH more humane, both on the flights and at boarding. (in fact, I didn't even need a visa for Israel, while I need to go through an incredibly complicated and expensive procedure to get a US visa... but this is a different story (or is it?)) The Israelis do have some security processes in place, but they are mostly stealth and unobtrusive. Well, in any case, they must be doing something right, because there has not been a hijacked or otherwise terror-affected flight to or from Israel in decades now.

I can't wait to defecate myself. (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30561750)

I have long faced the dilemma of choosing either public humiliation, or fecal pleasure. Now I can swim in my own stools in public and not be ridiculed.

It's a wonderful day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...