Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Changes Screening Based on Blog Suggestion

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the hey-they-actually-listened dept.

Security 279

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

cancel ×

279 comments

Ooh, now _everyone_ will be equal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22346580)

So now when something is complained about that isn't official, the TSA might decide it's a good idea and crack down on screeners following the official line. Enjoy complaining and spoiling it for the rest of us someday.

GNAA membership application (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22346602)

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

Copyright (c) 2003-2007 Gay Nigger Association of America

Mountain moving. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22346604)

""Less than a week after it launched a new blog aimed at gathering suggestions from air travelers to improve airport security processes, the Transportation Security Administration changed a practice where some screeners were requiring passengers to remove all electronics, including Blackberries, iPods, and cords from carry-on luggage. "

What!? We're suppose to believe the government can change? And for the better? Preposterous!

Re:Mountain moving. (1, Interesting)

aurispector (530273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347600)

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

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

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

Re:Mountain moving. (-1, Troll)

teflaime (738532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347672)

Maybe in Scotland, the flight screeners are friendly and efficient. In the US, they are meglomaniacal assholes who wanted these jobs so they could push people around. They intentionally go out of their way to make flying as unpleasant and as big a hassle as possible. Don't believe me? Fly through O'Hare some day.

Re:Mountain moving. (3, Insightful)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347794)

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

Which is one of the reasons I left Illinois.

Re:Mountain moving. (2, Insightful)

teflaime (738532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347978)

I've experienced the same abuse in Los Angeles, Portland, and Atlanta. It's a TSA thing, IMO.

Re:Mountain moving. (2, Informative)

kpainter (901021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347876)

I agree. Some of the TSA really are exactly as you say. I had one stupid fucker angrily point his finger at me and yell "YOU come when I SAY you come". This after I thought he had motioned me to come throught the metal detector. I guess he was gesturing to some other loser behind me. Then he had to stand there and glare at me for a moment. I thought that if I had said anything, it would have been cavity search time.

If the TSA wanted to change, they should look at their screening process to keep from hiring monkeys like this guy.

Re:Mountain moving. (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347958)

Welcome to Chicago, like another poster said. (I grew up in WI so I can vouch).

I've flown to Langley (VA), Atlanta, Huntsville (AL), LAX, Nashville, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Sioux Falls (SD) and Omaha quite a few times over the past few years, and the good experiences far outweigh the bad.

Didn't know? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22346610)

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

Re:Didn't know? (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347174)

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

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

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

What a monumental and sterling example of bureaucratic incompetence.

Re:Didn't know? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347198)

Think about it; if there ARE existing levels of communication, do you think they'd use them to say "Hey, we stopped 619 people this week and made them take out all their electronic accessories!"? They'd more likely say, "Hey, we stopped a guy named Mohamed Ahabi Bin Durka Durka, because he was carrying something that went off in the explosive detector and was muttering something about death to the infidels". The small things are ALWAYS going to make it under the radar - that's why the term "under the radar" exists...

Re:Didn't know? (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347450)

It was a written policy by the local office of the TSA. The local offices never communicated that they believed the devices were a threat to the main organization.

If the devices were dangerous "small things" that "make it under the radar", why the heck weren't they communicating their concerns to someone?

For that matter, if the main office believes that this is not a threat, then how did the local offices come to believe that there was a risk caused by these devices?

Re:Didn't know? (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347464)

P.S. what do you mean by "if there ARE existing levels of communication"? You speak as if you don't believe anyone in the TSA talks to anyone else!

I can't work out whether you are defending them or damning them. That really is a most confusing post.

Re:Didn't know? (1)

kornkobcom (1235606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347306)

What are you talking about? Individual business units and individual employees make decisions at companies constantly that the home office is unaware of. Anyone who is surprised that a specific field office might make a decision without the central office knowing about it is flatly stupid.

Commercial enterprises have tried for decades to give people worldwide consistency in their stores and failed, with a strong profit motive to drive it. McDonalds, long touted as the very model of worldwide consistency in product and experience, can't even achieve this in a single city much of the time. If they can't manage it for something as simple as making burgers and fries, how could the TSA expect to accomplish it.

Centralized control of a diverse organization works to a point but to expect that every action at every location is instantly known and authorized by the home office is flatly stupid.

Re:Didn't know? (4, Informative)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347414)

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

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

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

Prediction (4, Insightful)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346640)

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

Re:Prediction (3, Insightful)

stupidflanders (1230894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346704)

Ticket #123456789: Solution: PEBTTAC (Problem Exists Between Tray-Table And Chair).

What is this strange substance? (5, Funny)

stupidflanders (1230894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346664)

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

Re:What is this strange substance? (5, Funny)

xoundmind (932373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347188)

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

They read Slashdot?

Liquids (2, Insightful)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346670)

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

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

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (5, Informative)

aristolochene (997556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346866)

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

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

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

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

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346942)

Ahaaa, the flaw in my plan. Damn that weak booze!

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (5, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347114)

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

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

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347342)

Shouldn't you get new locks (or, better yet, a new car?). Or was that still part of the analogy?

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347196)

regular drinking alcohol (i.e. 40-45% by volume) will not ignite if you put a match to it.
Huh? Have you actually tried it? I've seen 30-40% alcohol drinks burn at room temperature without any problems.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Cassander (251642) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347428)

regular drinking alcohol (i.e. 40-45% by volume) will not ignite if you put a match to it.
Huh? Have you actually tried it? I've seen 30-40% alcohol drinks burn at room temperature without any problems.
I call bullshit. I have personally tried to ignite whiskey and vodka (both 80 proof = 40% by volume). They will burn with a pathetic blue flame that will go out if you walk past it. If you've seen a flaming alcohol drink, it involved something a bit stronger than normal booze (something like bacardi 151 (75.5% by volume) burns great).

40% will burn, when preheated (4, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347484)

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

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (3, Informative)

aristolochene (997556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347444)

yes. have tried it. am a chemist. you can get 40% alcohol to burn but it takes a little heating and a good ignition flame. It's not a great candidate for a molotov cocktail.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347462)

Drambuie certainly does, and I've no reason to suspect it's any stronger than other liqueurs or spirits.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (4, Funny)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347488)

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

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347528)

What a waste of good booze.
I wouldn't exactly describe it as good.

Drink it - don't burn it!
The two aren't mutually exclusive...

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347650)

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



Apparently, one guy in Germany followed your advice and almost ended up with a Darwin Award after downing a 1 liter bottle of vodka.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347696)

Wow. What a waste of good booze. What's with you people? Drink it - don't burn it!
I drink alcohol and burn it at the same time. I play golf regularly, walk the greens around 4000 miles per year, and drink a gallon of Bud a day. Therefore, I average around 11 miles/gallon.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347294)

So rather then a firebomb you have a nice broken bottle type knife to bring on the plane? Or are they shipping everything in Plastic these days?

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (2, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347422)

So rather then a firebomb you have a nice broken bottle type knife to bring on the plane? Or are they shipping everything in Plastic these days?


Those represent two very differnt types of dangers - someone armed with a knife would be a lot easier for passengers and flight crews to subdue, even with makeshift weapons such as pens, laptops, and fire extinguishers etc. Given today's climate I doubt passengers would be passive anymore in the face of such a threat - witness what happened to the guy who tried to get in a cockpit a while back.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347360)

The same taxfree shops (at least in airports i've been) sell also stronger alcohols - for example, I tend to by cheaper Stroh (Austrian brand of rum) there, and it comes in 40%, 60% and 80% alcohol varieties, and the 80% one definitely will ignite.
    So, what's the point of banning me from bringing a bottle of mineral water? Currently it seems that the point is to improve profits for the in-zone shops by ensuring a form of monopoly there, and that's it.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347890)

Brandy on Christmas puddings burns quite nicely. Granted, that may be pre heated.

How about Sambuca - often served and lit at the table (with coffee beans in). No pre-heating, and really good for burning your lips on the hot glass if you've left it burning too long before drinking it.

Both of the above are 40% abv.

Re:Liquids and a /. car analogy. (1)

Anonymous Cowtard (573891) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347954)

Who cares about lighting the alcohol. On our last flight to Britain my wife forgot to leave behind a pen knife she carries in her purse. Of course, they found that and she had to leave it behind at the screening station. I, carrying two bottles of alcohol in my bag had no problem getting through since you were allowed to bring such things in your carry-on at the time (post-9/11 but pre-"waterbomb" bs). I found it funny that I could easily do much more damage to people by breaking off the bottles and wielding them movie-barfight style than she ever could with that tiny knife.

Re:Liquids (2, Interesting)

Dracos (107777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347248)

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

Re:Liquids (3, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347356)

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

Re:Liquids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347910)

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

It's clear from reading the blog that a binary bomb is way too hard to create and set off on an airplane. I've know this from the day of the ban and this TSA blog effectively admits it. I have a number of theories for the ban. Including oncession prices, false security (like the lighter ban), easing x-ray screening, and power trips. However, there may be another way liquids could be a threat and they don't want clue the enemy in.

MacGyver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347532)

Maybe the screeners were right to make people remove electronic goods? Surely I could string together several iPod/laptop batteries to make an effective Taser?

Well I guess MacGyver is banned from flying now.

Re:MacGyver? (4, Funny)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347800)

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

No win situation (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346672)

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

Re:No win situation (-1, Offtopic)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346726)

It's easy to avoid, just don't fly. I haven't flown in 6 years and I have no plans on ever flying again in my lifetime until these fascist TSA practices are changed and airlines treat their passengers with more respect instead of like cattle cramming as many people as possible into tiny seats with no room. There's no place in this world that I want to go to that I can't drive to within a week or so.

Re:No win situation (3, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346888)

There's no place in this world that I want to go to that I can't drive to within a week or so.
Try driving from Europe to the USA or vice versa - Ok it was done in 'The Long Way Round' but it wasn't easy.

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

Re:No win situation (1)

ethanms (319039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347312)

Don't they still make boat trips between Europe and the USA?

Re:No win situation (3, Interesting)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347440)

Surprisngly no. I'm a Brit and my first wife was an American. When her parents wanted to visit my mother in law wasn't keen on the transatlantic flight and, as I'd made the trip in the QE2 back in 1959, I suggested looking at going by boat. To my surprise there was nothing that suited. Air travel has completely killed the transatlantic pasenger trade. Ok, so I know that someone will reply to this with a link to 'EasyBoat' or whatever with regular sailings bu when my father in law looked back in 1989 he couldn't find anything.

Re:No win situation (3, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347710)

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

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

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

Re:No win situation (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347404)

The US isn't much different from the UK, apart from people, cars, roads and buildings are generally a bit bigger. I could quite happily live my entire life without visiting the US. I've been to Canada, but it wasn't for a holiday. I'm not much of a tourist tbh. I could quite happily visit Europe though, the cultural differences and >300 year history can actually be kinda interesting. When I went to Canada they had this "200 year old oak tree" as a tourist attraction. Oh, how it made me laugh...

Re:No win situation (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347588)

Please, please, just once, go and see the Grand Canyon. I don't care how much you're not much of a tourist, you don't need to be to be totally overawed by one of the greatest sights on earth. And while you're there go and throw some money at the tables in Vegas.

To dismiss the US as not much different from the UK is really missing the bigger picture.

Re:No win situation (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347812)

Please, please, just once, go and see the Grand Canyon.

What, you don't think they have 6000 year old rock formations in Europe?

Re:No win situation (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22348022)

What you're saying is like saying I've seen the Da Vinci's Maddonna and Child, why do I need to see the Mona Lisa

They have many magnificent rock formations in Europe, but none of them are the Grand Canyon.

Re:No win situation (4, Informative)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346754)

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

Pretty much every government office works that way.

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

 

Re:No win situation (4, Funny)

Garridan (597129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346914)

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

I don't see it as a suggestion board (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346764)

but as a oversight board run by the very people subject to it.

In other words, the passengers can alert the TSA to practices that don't seem right and its up to the TSA to find out why. Like the part about removing electronics and such from bags. It simply wasn't policy. Yet the TSA as a whole cannot know what every airport out of the ordinary unless there is some easy to access place to get that information. Its even better that it comes from someone other than their own people. I bet the local screeners who were requiring these items removed didn't know they were in the wrong, it probably started with some supervisor or such and spread within the airport because it seemed like a good idea.

I fully expect most suggestions to be ignored because many should be. Some will just be impossible to implement and others would be physicaly impossible (GFY for one). Who knows, someone might suggest to the TSA something they are overlooking. Still I hope the complaints come in as some TSA setups are just damn stupid, having moved beyond abusive. Heaven knows my little old mother and her Shih Tzu are a threat; she hasn't made it through TSA once without them going over the dog and her luggage EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The TSA is yet another bloated and overbearing government organization that will never go away. The employees are unionized which furthers the impossibility of removing this mess. Considering its size I am amazed anyone ever thought we could get rid of it.

Re:I don't see it as a suggestion board (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346958)

The TSA is yet another bloated and overbearing government organization that will never go away. The employees are unionized which furthers the impossibility of removing this mess.
Indeed. I loved this howler from the liquids blog:

Whatever you think about our policies -- please recognize our Security Officers who train and test every day and will do whatever it takes to make you and your families safe when you fly. They are the best in the world and are on your side; please give them a little recognition when you see them.
Puhleeeese. Anybody who's ever flown in the US knows that the TSA is an inner-city jobs program. The notion that you're going to achieve security by having drones check things by rote is laughable. Had all this mechanism been in place on 9/11, the terrorists would only have had to be slightly more careful than they were, and they still would have succeeded.

bullshit detectors (-1, Troll)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346676)

The baggie gives us two benefits: A) It serves as a visually identifiable, easy way to limit quantity. Even if they wanted to bring multiple bottles to mix, we limit the quantity of their total liquids as well (bottles "hidden" in the carry-on bag stick out). B) The baggie serves to concentrate the vapor - substances used to create liquid explosives are very volatile and emit fumes even through sealed bottles. (We have tested.) We have liquid explosives detectors that take advantage of the vapor concentration factor in the baggie. This way, we do not have to examine what's inside every bottle, regardless of what the label says.

I bet if I put a baggie over a TSA persons head that would mist over as well because of the sheer amount of bullshit coming from him.

Re:bullshit detectors (1)

bratwiz (635601) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347570)


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

Opening laptops (0)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346694)

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

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

In a few words if I may, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22346790)

Hamlin quonset chaotic bipartisan skindive villein mete swipe gratify continued chairman spinoff blaine sherwin ameslan diebold raytheon wiretapper labrador committed screechy member eyeglass moneymake trifluouride cold insuperable leigh ligature wool wharves felonious hager. downstream beer cover cathedral cornelius privet gumbo prosopopoeia incline gangway potomac pestilential bashful sima centaur yerkes bough yves bit anabel culbertson coward increasable archetype. bullyboy heckle refrigerate march cargill waken vertex achieve brusque phenotype tuberculosis doom bully rocky aphasic chevrolet softwood disgruntle adage leftward calendrical homologue nee dodd substituent rancid diacritic oatmeal anna clandestine harem dismal some dielectric beatitude antigen. bluebill paint russell slope bootlegged breeze blasphemy cud envy digestive gristmill paper dissertation cruel payroll songbag trapezoid calculus longish adhesive amphioxis aldehyde bilinear nourish purslane velocity fluke smile o'donnell. ape module czar dint argillaceous aside fingerprint curriculum earmark sax summary tibia horntail.

Simple solution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22346792)

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

Re:Simple solution (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347478)

You eat a ham sandwich and drink a glass of beer (or wine) or you ain't getting on.
Mmmmm! Sounds yummy! I'm all for it!

RTFS (4, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346794)

It's right there in the summary.

No policies were changed as a result of blog comments.

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

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

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

Re:RTFS (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346844)

If I walk into Safeway/Kroger/Food Lion, and tell the manager that one of their cashiers is stealing money out of the register, there's no doubt that he'll respond immediately. If I walk in and tell the manager that his store is dirty, and that prices are too high, I doubt I'll receive any sympathy.
Of course. My response would be "You want us to do MORE work, and then LOWER our prices? Sure. And we'll change the name of our store to NoprofitFairytaleLand."

Your complaints have to be reasonable in order for you to be taken seriously.

little woosh. Not a WOOSH, just a woosh. (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346980)

Wow, where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?

Re:RTFS (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347508)

Correct. Electronics were required to be removed from carry-ons prior to 9/11 and the TSA. My wife worked as an airport security screener at one point (it paid well.) After that, you were required to demonstrate that they weren't bombs in the simplest manner possible -- you had to turn them on. Not a guarantee, but they also ran a bomb-sniffing wand over it, too.

Right..I'm going to get the Internet banned!!!!!!! (1)

oldbamboo (936359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346832)

I have discovered a way of making a bomb that I can hide up my ass, it's the size of watch battery, and sends out telepathic waves which turn all pilots into priapic lunatics who will instantly wrestle with the controls, slavering with depraved lust while they turn the nearest convent school into a hideous fireball. My method is simple. I am going to wait until such technology is made available on the Internet. You cant stop me John Law, you hear me! I'm a coming for ya! The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers....

What about the rest of the world? (3, Informative)

Xolotl (675282) | more than 6 years ago | (#22346886)

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

Re:What about the rest of the world? (4, Informative)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347122)

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

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

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

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

Re:What about the rest of the world? (1)

Xolotl (675282) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347280)

Well, I can attest to the fact that I have had to remove belt, shoes and all electronics on various occasions, and in all cases it was happening to everyone in the queue. With the exception of flights through Paris CDG and flights to the UK (where they seem to like shoes off, probably because the shoe-bomber was on a flight from the UK) these were all flights outside of or going to or from Europe, not internal.

Internal flights in Europe do seem to be different. I only had to take my laptop out at Gatwick, which is fine, but everyone had to take their shoes off. No problems either going through Frankfurt. Warsaw to Paris was laptop, shoes and belt. In December, Paris CDG terminal-to-terminal and Paris to Bangkok was all electronics out (incl phones and cameras and power). Coming back it was almost all electronics out at Bangkok, but the lady looked at my bag as I was opening it up and saw it was cameras and waved me through. All out at Paris again, once moving from terminal to terminal and once before boarding, and that was also shoes off. A couple of people in the queue with me were also hand-searched, apparently at random. Internal flights in Thailand were also everything out.

Come to think of it, it seems Paris CDG caused the most issues; the airport is a huge mess, with vast empyt halls, narrow confusing passages, and two terminals which aren't securely connected so that security has to be done twice. It seems also they have rules for incoming flights, so that people flying to Paris CDG get hassled more.

I do agree that as in the original article the policies seem to vary widely between airports and perhaps between flights, and so people's experiences will too.

Re:What about the rest of the world? (2, Informative)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347558)

I'm assuming you're talking about Terminal 2.
CDG is a huge airport [look at it on GE] - in various stages of upgrades, etc.

Your mileage definitely varies depending on your sector of the airport, with D probably being the worst, and the one you came through.
The other areas are surprisingly intuiative.

In regards to shoes and belts: you can opt to leave your belt on, but more often than not, the clasp sets off the detectors.
Shoes are a mixed policy depending on the type of shoe. If it's got a heel, normally you take them off, as the nail also set of the detectors.

FWIW I fly in and out of CDG 3 - 4 times monthly.

Re:What about the rest of the world? (1)

Xolotl (675282) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347690)

Yes, I noticed there was a lot of building work and whatnot going on. I went through 2E and 2B. 2E was quite nice once inside, getting in was the problem :)

I do remember going through one of the (now older) areas of CDG before the expansion and it was as you say intuitive, so it probably is just the ongoing work in the new buildings.

With shoes and belts, I think it's like with the TSA, security controllers with semi-independent policies. My shoes don't have any metal and don't set off the detectors, but even so I have been in queues where everyone was being asked to remove shoes (once they even had those little plastic hospital-style foot covers for everyone). Kids' trainers, boots, shoes, high-heels, the lot. In Gatwick there was actually a separate X-ray (!) for shoes after the main one last time I went through. I wish I could have taken a picture. Again my belt clasp doesn't set the detectors off, but some controllers insist on having belts off before the metal detector regardless.

.

Re:What about the rest of the world? (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347732)

You're right - the more you travel, the more you realise that you're at the whim of the person and the place of that particular day.

Bullshit answer from TSA (5, Informative)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347156)

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

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

Undue cynicism? (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347338)

Clearly, you're quite knowledgeable regarding the complexity of making a bomb. But that complexity, from what I can gather, is precisely the point (according to the TSA blog post) of restricting the liquids in secure areas of airport terminals.

From the post in question:

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

It's quite plain to see that the lab researchers and the TSA officials are quite aware that making a TATP bomb requires a precipitate. According to the TSA's logic, which from my lay perspective seems pretty right on, by making it difficult to bring substantial amounts of the liquids required to make the precipitate, a layer of complexity is added to bomb plots involving the mixing of liquids. Complexifying an already complex procedure makes chances of success all the more unlikely.

Now, before my fellow /.'ers charge me with being a TSA cheerleader, I am not a fan of the liquids ban. I like my joe made my own espresso machine and in a sealed thermos. I used to enjoy bringing good-tasting water on board. I wear contacts and because I refuse to check baggage in, I have to find a drugstore within a day or two of landing. The liquids ban inconveniences me, but that's all it does. From the point of view of the government, that inconvenience is offset by the reduced threat of explosives on commercial aircraft.

This overlooks the very real possibility that all of this, however, is governmental hand-waving to distract us from the fact that we may be no more secure in commercialized domestic airspace than in 1970. But my best guess is that some people working for the government and the TSA actually believe what their doing has some measure of effectiveness.

Take two bottles onto the plane? (5, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347582)

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

Except the argument went something along the lines of:

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Take two bottles onto the plane? (4, Insightful)

niiler (716140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347860)

I especially liked this part:

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

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

Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (5, Insightful)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347168)

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

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

Re:Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347314)

Actually, creating a widespread fear of flying would be something that would benefit a terrorist - something which targeting planes would help with. It would isolate Americans and hurt the (already damaged) economy. Also, the pilots have to eat - that's why the steward(/ess)es have access to the cockpit. This could allow for terrorists to use hostages to get into the cockpit.

Re:Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347344)

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

Would you like to be the pilot who - half way across the pacific - tries to explain "we have no way of opening this door from inside the plane" to the - mostly arab speaking... erm, yelling - terrorist who informs you that one passenger will be executed each minute until the door is opened?

Would you like to be the official trying to explain the policy that got that door in place to the families of those who were executed because the door was not opened?

How about when it turns out that the terrorist was the old-fashioned "take me to Syria/Iran/Cuba" kind, who wouldn't have killed anyone if not for that door?

The real question. (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347410)

Would you like to be the pilot who opens the door and causes 9/11?

Terrorist also won't be killing people one by one with bombs, let alone liquid bombs they've constructed out of something they smuggled in their Starbucks coffee cup.

If the new policy is enforced, it will be publicized, and can even be announced prior to take-off. Knowing what is possible and not possible will change any plans the terrorists have, and hopefully deter them from including airplanes in any of their plans. And they do plan. They aren't stupid.

old-fashioned "take me to Syria/Iran/Cuba" kind
Why not? Take them to Syria. It doesn't mean they will gain control of the aircraft.

Re:Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (1)

thechao (466986) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347556)

Exactly. Airport security is stupid; I want airplane security. I need a secure airport like I need a secure Starbucks: not at all. On this topic, there are a lot of political "dialogs" managed by the media which address an issue with a pair of "polar" answers that are both Bad Ideas (TM). For example: nationalized health care plans, e.g., Clinton's mandated insurance scheme. I don't need insurance when I'm injured, I need fucking health care; cut out the middle man and make sure I'm treated! etc. etc.

Re:Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347778)

"If terrorists can't get to the cockpit, then they cannot take over a craft."

The exception being the Boeing 787, on which the Flight Management System shares a physical network with the Passenger Access Network.

FSX Anyone? :-)

Re:Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347798)

Then you had better get the designers to put a BATHROOM in the cockpit because on a 7-hour flight, at least ONE of the flight deck crew is going to have to GO! And, without one in the secured area of the flight deck, they are going to have to OPEN the door so they can use the facilities - and that compromises security!

Locks only work when the door is closed.

Re:Problem is with hijacking, not bombing. (2, Interesting)

aembleton (324527) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347950)

If hijacking is the real threat, then the cockpit is what needs to be secured. Have it lock automatically prior to boarding, and have it unlock automatically after the plane is emptied
Agreed. Or, for new aircraft remove the door and give the cockpit its own entrance from the outside, so that there is no way of going in without having to get outside first.

Don't forget SAM's (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#22348014)

The true threat with aircraft security is hijacking. A hijacker can take over an aircraft and use the plane as a missile. As someone pointed out earlier, if the goal was to just kill people, terrorists could just blow up prior to reaching the security check point or suicide bomb a crowd somewhere else. There are plenty of places to just blow up that would kill more people that can fit on a plane.
Don't forget SAM's. For some reason, & you may call me crazy, but I can't imagine that it would be terribly difficult for an organized crime network to get hold of some SAM's. Despite the country's efforts for trying to make me feel safe (through some idiotic thinking that fearmongering will make us 'feel safer'), if the russian mafia wanted a SAM in the United States, they could get it; if they happen to be in a populated area (e.g. New York, Chicago), they could launch it from one of a number of parking ramps. If in a not-so-populated area (e.g. Madison, WI), there would be no problems launching from a roadside.

Dear Customs People Throughout The World... (4, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347200)

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

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

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

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

They MUST be stopped!

Airline travel made amusing (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347220)

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

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

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

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

Re:Airline travel made amusing (4, Funny)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347362)

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


Ask you for a date?

Re:Airline travel made amusing (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347470)

you realise that if you'd been female, it would have been considered obscene, and you'd have probably been carted away....

This is bullshit (1)

Henry Pate (523798) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347290)

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

B) The baggie serves to concentrate the vapor - substances used to create liquid explosives are very volatile and emit fumes even through sealed bottles. (We have tested.) We have liquid explosives detectors that take advantage of the vapor concentration factor in the baggie. This way, we do not have to examine what's inside every bottle, regardless of what the label says.
That is part of the somewhat rambling 750+ word answer to "Why can't someone just mix an explosive by combining multiple liquids after security?"

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

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

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

Re:This is bullshit (2, Insightful)

bratwiz (635601) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347594)


You missed the point. The whole idea is to limit the amount of liquids that could potentially be explosive or mixed together to be explosives because they CANNOT or DO NOT actually test for actual explosives. What other reason could there be?

Liquids: BS (3, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347486)

The blog did blogeth:

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

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

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

RS

Re:Liquids: BS (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347728)

Interesting on how limited you are in your thinking.

If your goal is to take down an airplane, why are you limiting yourself to explosives? Just because that's what everyone else has used before?

The oz limit reduces your options and your effectiveness.

Re:Liquids: BS (2, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347756)

Nitro Glycerine is not the only liquid explosive. Further, it has not been conclusively shown that an explosive is required to bring down an airplane. One thing that could be causal is combustion, and that said, a bottle of any inflammable liquid and a match would probably be sufficient to cause a mid-air catastrophe. Nobody said the plane had to be destroyed mid-air. It just has to be put in a condition that it will suffer uncontrolled descent terminated by sudden inelastic collision with another object (usually the Earth).

Wow! (4, Insightful)

dpaluszek (974028) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347656)

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

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

The TSA has NO policies (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22347680)

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

How many liquid explosives found??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22347714)

So how many liquid explosives has the TSA confiscated since they began the liquid ban back in Aug 06??
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...