Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security • Hacker News Board

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#301

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

geerlingguy wrote: post #80

freehunter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the reasons I love the Midwest and living in smaller cities. My airport is international and flies just about anywhere you want to go, but 90% of the time I walk up to an empty line and I'm told "we don't have a precheck lane open, just walk on through". As a consultant, I fly the busiest times (monday and thursday), but the only trouble I've ever had was in Denver where I waited almost an hour and a h…

With the exception of Chicago, I agree. St. Louis, Indianapolis, KC, and many other airports have direct flights to most parts of the US (or connect through Chicago almost anywhere in the world), and I've never waited more than 20 minutes in the TSA lines. Due to the frequency of travel, I do have Pre-Check, but I hate that I had to pay extra money to get what I think should be the normal experience for all domestic…

KC is a great get-out-and-go airport but it's terrible airport to have a layover in. It was designed to be the most efficient airport in the country in the era before security screenings were a normal thing. Pre-9/11 airport security put somewhat of a damper on this, but it was made many times worse when the TSA came into being and implemented the concept of "sterile areas". Now, if you get a layover in KC, you're literally stuck in a glass box with five gates, a juice cart, and a bathroom for its entirety (unless you wish to dirty yourself with the non-sterile area and go through security again).

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#302

Post by buro9 » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #186

Havoc wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this "legal connection time"? Never heard of it before - despite being in Europe.

It just means the minimum amount of time between flights that an airline will require. They will try not to let you book a connecting flight 10 minutes after the first one lands; that would be an "illegal connection". Not an actual law, just airline policy.

I have the fun of going through Secondary every time I touch US soil... for me, if I have a connecting flight on the way from LHR to SFO (via Dallas, LA or Chicago) then I need to allow 3 hours for the connection.

It is very hard to book such flights, and if booked as 2 single hops I've once before missed the connection due to being in security and United argued that the second flight was not a connection and so they didn't have to put me on the next flight. My baggage of course had gone ahead.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#303

Post by drzaiusapelord » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

JupiterMoon wrote: post #271

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some shit head got a gold star for "finding a weapon" and I get fucked. Everything about security and law enforcement has some level of perverse incentives. People learn to game the system and their supervisors don't care as long as there's a benefit to them. I'm certain this guy knew it was a toy, but he wanted that gold star and his supervisor wanted a report showing all the gold stars that month were from his guy…

Contracts for private sector companies doing work for the public sector tend to protect the private sector company from being fired. Also you may want to check who sits on the boards of some of the private contractors working for your government (or you might not want to - the results might make you more cynical).

Obviously we can't have a perfect world, but vendors get fired all the time. Contracts go up for renewel, a new administration fires old vendors, etc. Public sector unions are eternal and only get worse over time.

As far as "connections" go, Theranos is imploding right now even with its deep government and military connections.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#304

Post by superuser2 » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #296

superuser2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please fund them fully or eliminate them entirely. The inbetween states just suck for everybody.

They're basically useless. The money would be better spent on agencies like the FBI that can prevent terrorists from ever showing up at airports. As Israeli security experts have said time and time again, if the terrorist gets to the airport it's already too late. Brussels is an unfortunate demonstration of this principle.

They are basically useless, but we still have to go through them to get to our flights. The fewer staff they have, the slower it goes.

A sufficiently resourced-starved TSA might "succeed" at preventing attacks on passenger air travel by eliminating passenger air travel altogether. Once lines approach 4, 5 hours people will just drive.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#305

Post by kidsthesedays » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

Story time!

I once wore a glitter sweatshirt through airport security. It made the backscanner machine go crazy and mark my entire shirt area as suspect, back and front. TSA was like "oh, it's the glitter on your shirt." As a result I was subjected to the most ineffective "pat down" ever. The TSA agent ran her hands across my shoulders and clavicle area and that's it. I could have hidden a small arsenal of weapons inside my bra, strapped to my arms, or strapped to my belly. It would be funny if we weren't paying millions for that "security."

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#306

Post by mikemac » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #246

spinlock wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I can't support high speed rail enough. You get from downtown nyc to Washington dc without having your human rights violated. And its faster too.

IIRC the TSA occasionally sets up airport style security checkpoints at train exits. A search of HN should show some examples.

Boston police (or transit police) does this randomly on the MBTA train system.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#307

Post by op00to » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #246

spinlock wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I can't support high speed rail enough. You get from downtown nyc to Washington dc without having your human rights violated. And its faster too.

IIRC the TSA occasionally sets up airport style security checkpoints at train exits. A search of HN should show some examples.

VIPR is what you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_...

It's not exactly airport style - at least in NYC and Philly they swab you for explosives and check your ID. No X-Ray or nude-o-scope. You're free to not go through the checkpoint (but you won't board your train).

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#308

Post by astrodust » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

velox_io wrote: post #122

I really do wonder how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled by TSA/ security staff. They seem to just be following guidelines with ZERO common sense. E.g. most screw drivers ok, but not safety scissors. My biggest pet-hate is the ban on liquids over 100ml, anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows that explosives (by their very definition) are volatile and you really do not want to start drinking an…

You're completely wrong about explosives. They're not necessarily volatile, and in fact the best ones aren't.

Dynamite will burn slowly and without any explosion. Other materials like C-4 are ridiculously stable under most circumstances to the point where there are stories of troops using it to light fires.

Without a proper initiator most explosives are basically safe. An initiator usually introduces a lot of heat, a large amount of shock, or both, which kicks off the explosion.

Likewise, many liquid explosives are totally harmless until the two components are mixed together, at which point it becomes extremely dangerous. I'm not sure what would happen if you drank either component, but my guess is you might become ill a few hours later. If your goal is more short-term in nature that is probably irrelevant.

My biggest gripe about the liquid limit is that dangerous explosives come in many forms, liquid is just one. You could probably smuggle a kilogram of thermite on the plane and nobody would notice, yet if ignited that would be extremely dangerous.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#309

Post by elif » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

nfriedly wrote: post #67

tehwebguy wrote: post #25

Here's an awesome TSA story for you: Late last year while trying to fly out of LAX a TSA employee thought I was carrying a throwing star. They called the police, who correctly identified as a toy in seconds. I thought the whole ordeal was over until I got a "notice of violation" in the mail from TSA 45 days later. Now I'm banned from pre-check for three years, even though I have global entry and even though the fine…

They're just as bad at identifying actual "weapons": I flew to South America with a layover in Miami a few years back. Got past TSA without any trouble on the domestic leg, then I had to go through again for the international leg. The second time through security, they said they saw a blade on the x-ray.. turns out they were right. I forgot I had left a multi-tool in my bag. Thankfully, they just trashed it and let m…

Very similar story about MIA. I flew out of ATL with a pocket knife, and lost it at MIA on the way back. Also conversely, ATL wouldn't let me carry-on my pool cue and forced me to check it, but at YUL on the way back, they had no problem with it.

I think it's more of a roulette of circumstances more than a pattern of compliance/negligence, but it is curious to have 2 MIA data points.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#310

Post by astrodust » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

grkvlt wrote: post #132

velox_io wrote: post #122

I really do wonder how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled by TSA/ security staff. They seem to just be following guidelines with ZERO common sense. E.g. most screw drivers ok, but not safety scissors. My biggest pet-hate is the ban on liquids over 100ml, anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows that explosives (by their very definition) are volatile and you really do not want to start drinking an…

I don't think the prospective terrorists would be chugging away at their bottles of Exploditall (tm) liquid though. The fear is that the smarter terrorists (i.e. the ones that didn't start the day with a celebratory shot of Exploditall) will put their volatile dangerous liquid explosives in harmless looking bottles of Irn-Bru or Vimto or something.

The good news is that "smarter terrorist" tends to be an oxymoron.