Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 512 posts

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

#481

Post by themartorana »

gcb0 wrote: post #258
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…

serve you good for giving up your freedom for a little convenience (paying TSA bribe: pre-check). I have no simpathy for you :( do what you must. bite the bullet on 1h plus for security, and opt out of the undocumented scanner. your country thank you.

I always opt out, although I've heard rumblings about that option going away.

I always feel bad for the poor dude who had to feel up my junk with the back of his hand, but it's my tiny little bit of civil disobedience.

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

#482

Post by leesalminen »

tombrossman wrote: post #390
dawnerd wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats funny. I had an unopened box of amazon aa batteries which really looked like a bomb on the x-ray (got to see it when they were inspecting). We both laughed about it when the lady saw what it was. I could tell he was really nervous though. Took me all of 5 minutes to resolve. Guess some tsa agents are just not very good at their job.

I flew from Atlanta a while back with a bunch of Trader Joe's 'Pound Plus' chocolate bars and a ten pound (!) Ghirardelli chocolate bar in my carry-on which got quite a reaction. The poor girl doing the screening seemed to think an explosion was imminent and was visibly distressed, quickly leaving her post and grabbing a supervisor. For those that don't know, big chocolate bars are organic material and look like expl…

And at their current pay rate, they probably can't afford to fly very often.

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

#483

Post by devishard »

There are two improvements to airline security that have occurred since the world trade center attacks:

1. Blast-proof cockpit doors 2. Better passenger awareness

Let's put in perspective why this is: a terrorist with resources can easily get weapons on a plane. You blackmail and bribe a bunch of security people, tell them it's drugs, and you're in.

But then they run into problems. They can threaten passengers, but the passengers know that if they let the terrorists take over the plane they're dying anyway, so they're going to fight to the death: this realization was enough that by itself passenger awareness prevented whatever attack was intended with the plane that went down in central Pennsylvania.

And if somehow the terrorists kill all the passengers, they come up against the blast-proof door. It's probably possible to get past that if they smuggle some truly gigantic fireworks on board, but whatever they do to get through the door is probably going to take down the plane; not exactly a targeted attack.

So at the very worst, you're looking at them killing max 120 people on a plane? Let's be generous and say they kill 300.

Let's do some back-of-the-napkin math here:

There were 9,074,185 revenue departures on planes in 2015[1]. There were no crashes. So even if a terrorist hijiacking happened every year you'd have a 300 in 9,074,185 chance, or about 1 in 30,000 chance, of dying on a plane.

In 2013 there were 10.345 motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 people[2]. So just by living in a society where people drive, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from a car. Not in a car, from a car. If you're in a car, your chances are probably significantly higher.

In other words, we could let a real hijacking attempt get as successful as one can get once a year and planes would be more than three times safer than cars. At that rate, we could probably get rid of TSA security completely and devote all that funding to car safety, and it would make us safer.

[1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

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

#484

Post by baby »

yompers888 wrote: post #477
baby wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people will top giving their money to the TSA.

*People will be glad they spent money to more quickly pass the weird people booing from the normal line. Doesn't TSA pre cost $80 for 5 years? That's gotta be worth it if you fly even once per year.

Out of principles, not giving money to the TSA. Call me weird if you want.

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

#485

Post by superuser2 »

crystalmeph wrote: post #289
brown9-2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them Good luck finding someone who wants to be the anti-airport-security candidate.

I don't know. Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Even though you have to take it as a fact that the status quo is a powerful force in politics, it seems like there is room for someone who wants to get elected on a populist platform to make this a banner issue.

Nothing destroys a political career quite so violently as being the guy who relaxed some apparent safeguard just before a (potentially uncorrelated) bad thing happens that the safeguard was meant to prevent.

This is why no one will back off the light pollution from Chicago's streetlights. If you're the alderman who made that street dimmer at night, and someone gets murderered there, your career is over forever.

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

#486

Post by bogomipz »

And yet every time you wait in the line theres at least 2 TSA agents standing around not doing anything.

Here's an idea why don't we give all Americans a free TSA screening instead of charging $85.00. Then we can reduce their work force even further and actually make some progress in reducing wait times.

What's amazing is that in the 15 years since this agency was created there has been no visible innovation in expediting this process. None. The only innovation I have seen is someone in the agency did took the initiative to sell advertising spots on the inside of the gray bins.

This agency seems to have completely forgotten their mandate. Their job was to look out for us no make us miss our flights and humiliate us.

I also like that they claim its due to an increase in air travelers. Really? Is everyone just flying more because money is just burning a hole in their pocket. The TSA is really the most absurd bit of theater.

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

#487

Post by morgante »

cookiecaper wrote: post #315
jessriedel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than just membership fees. To join a precheck program, you need to submit personal information that they constitutionally can't force American citizens to provide, even at international borders: fingerprints and retina scans. So basically they hold huge amounts of your time hostage in order to force you to provide what ought to be protected info. It's similar to incentives for long-term contraception. The…

I don't think I'm really paranoid about my personal information. I remember a time when everyone's name, phone number, and address were published in a large white book and distributed to every home in the metro area. I think a lot of the hyperventilation about that stuff is a little over the top. However, I draw the line at biological data. That is permanent, irrevocable, unchangeable personal information that no one…

I personally don't see how something which I'm constantly leaving behind to strangers can be considered private data. It's personal but I don't think it's private.

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

#488

Post by morgante »

seizethecheese wrote: post #268
oh_sigh wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is wasting 1 minute for 42,000,000 people equivalent to just killing a newborn baby?

It would be more like forcing a baby to spend her whole life going through airport security.

Killing them would be altogether kinder.

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

#489

Post by gsnedders »

peteretep wrote: post #406
menage wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A criminal conviction could lead to a fine.

The OP's point was: they either think you're trying to bring down a plane or they don't. Punishing minor infractions is not on their menu.

Almost: the important point is they have no right to impose any fines; any punishment will be done by the British Transport Police in accordance with British law, and there are relatively few crimes of possession in the UK (drugs are an obvious one, but even then a first arrest for Class C drugs is typically dealt with by means of a police caution). Essentially: any punishment arising from a security checkpoint would be a police matter, and have nothing to do with those manning the security checkpoint.

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

#490

Post by lsc »

tyrust wrote: post #254
avn2109 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad grew up under the Soviets, where he learned a thing or two about waste, inefficiency, and systematic corruption. He says the following: "If the government ever gives you the chance to bribe them, do it immediately and with a smile. Pay double if they'll let you. You'll always come out ahead in the long run." Precheck/Global entry is clearly unrelated to actual security; instead, it's an obvious shakedown, plai…

>you'd be dumb not to pay up It's a difficult decision, one that I've been wrestling with for a while. Imagine if everyone (and I mean everyone) collectively said "This is bullshit." and refused to pay for PreCheck. The TSA would have no choice but to stop the program. This is probably the only way they would stop it (beyond legislation, ha.). Unfortunately this will never happen. People don't want to stand in line.…

>Imagine if everyone (and I mean everyone) collectively said "This is bullshit." and refused to pay for PreCheck. The TSA would have no choice but to stop the program. This is probably the only way they would stop it (beyond legislation, ha.).

I personally believe that we have the TSA and the pre-check program because the majority of Americans want something like this, just like a near-majority of Americans really think that putting a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration is a good idea.[1]

Pre-check, or some way of harassing "them" without harassing "Us," I think, is rather a lot like what Americans wanted when they gave George W. Bush a second term.

I think we have the government we asked for. I mean, certainly, it's irrational, and of course, the profiling ended up being a lot less race based than expected, and, of course, it's now unionized, so some of the people who originally asked for it are now opposed to it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is what America demanded, that the man who gave us this got two terms.

[1]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ques...

(yes, yes, bias. But according to Silvers, we're talking under 5% bias, which still gives us some pretty scary numbers.)

Post reply on HN