TSA: Fail • Hacker News Board

Re: TSA: Fail

#91

Post by Terretta » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 3:25 AM UTC

ot wrote: post #23

I don't really buy the argument "TSA has never [...] foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner.": it could be argued that the TSA measures act as an effective deterrent. A stronger argument could be to show that in none of the countries that do not adopt TSA-like measures there have been any terrorist attempts, let alone successful. How easy would it be to board in, say, Mexico or Canada, and hijack…

I have some highly effective Elephant Stampede Deterrent spray to sell you. You will be very pleased with it. Any American to use it in the continental US has never been stampeded.

Re: TSA: Fail

#92

Post by joeyh » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 3:30 AM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #47

joelmichael wrote: post #31

Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? The purpose of the TSA is to screen all passengers for real threats like guns, blades, and most of all, bombs. He says there was no outcry over the backscatters. That's just out of touch; it was all over the Internet and even major news media back around November of 2010. Liberals and conservative…

> Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? Yes. Actually there's an interesting connection with a recent HN article about how space missions are being severely hampered by an irrational aversion to the risk of loss of human life. In the same way, someone with a sharpened stick holding it at the throat of an innocent woman could very well…

Holding sharp objects at someone's throat was a tactic that worked for only part of one day (on 9/11). Try it now and there will be one passenger with a cut throat, and an entire plane swarming you.

Re: TSA: Fail

#93

Post by Duff » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 3:32 AM UTC

morsch wrote: post #75

I'm not as convinced by his arguments as everyone else seems. He starts out with a huge -- and admittedly hugely impressive -- appeal to authority. The tilting at windmills argument -- you can't fix all security holes, prison inmates can macgyver deadly weapons out of iPod cables (not to mention laptop batteries), you'd have to tie up people naked to make it safe -- is well taken, but nothing new. His argument for ra…

You need to consider what threat you are defending against.

Before credit cards were popular, it was common for aircraft passengers to be armed with handguns and carrying a lot of cash -- yet there were few incidents. Think about that.

An organization planning an operation against any nation-state relays on secrecy and anonymity to function, period. That is what random screenings will help combat.

The current TSA regime is really trying to stop crazy people. I believe there is some documentation to establish that they are somewhat successful at that too. The problem with the TSA approach is that they are too big to be competent at what they do, and the near universal contempt that they are held in hurts that mission -- even deranged people hunk the TSA is dumb.

Re: TSA: Fail

#94

Post by GoodIntentions » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 3:34 AM UTC

verelo wrote: post #28

gareim wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a customer service page is not synonymous with being accountable. The thing is, whether or not we are satisfied with them, we still have to deal with them until the government changes it. So they aren't held directly accountable. Instead, we have to effect change in the government in a way that will then effect change in the TSA. That extra layer makes things much harder.

You know, i totally agree...i just ask myself "would it hurt if they were friendly" and i don't see why not. They are citizen facing, treat others as you would like to be treated. It just feels like common sense to me.

/agree. It doesn't cost anything to _not_ be an asshole.

Re: TSA: Fail

#95

Post by joeyh » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 3:46 AM UTC

joelmichael wrote: post #31

Does he really think potential terrorists or criminals are going to hijack a plane using toothbrushes or popsicle sticks? The purpose of the TSA is to screen all passengers for real threats like guns, blades, and most of all, bombs. He says there was no outcry over the backscatters. That's just out of touch; it was all over the Internet and even major news media back around November of 2010. Liberals and conservative…

Speaking of security theater, the linked image smacks of it. Is that image what they see? Or what they want us to think they see? Who has the password that turns on display of the full images? How long are the full images retained? Who has access to them? If an algorithm is now the only thing handling the security scanning, how hard is it to get a copy, in order to develop an exploit?

Re: TSA: Fail

#96

Post by GoodIntentions » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 3:46 AM UTC

richardlblair wrote: post #89

InclinedPlane wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens ALL THE TIME. I accidentally boarded a plane (through SEATAC) in 2007 with this knife in my pocket: http://www.amazon.com/Gerber-45860-Ranger-Serrated-Knife/dp/...

With an item like that there is no real excuse for them to miss it. There is no mistaking that as something else. It is clearly a knife. It just proves the whole thing is "Security Theatre".

Some folks might say it's just proof they need to spend a tonne of your tax dollars on better, bigger, scanning machines.

I think this is as much ( more ) about harvesting tax dollars as anything else

Re: TSA: Fail

#97

Post by njharman » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 4:12 AM UTC

TSA should be and should have been funded directly from air fair increases. That way it will end tomorrow or would never had happened.

Re: TSA: Fail

#98

Post by bdunbar » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:37 AM UTC

maeon3 wrote: post #34

There needs to be a webapp that grades airports for hassle index. So we can steer our dollars away from them.

So we can steer our dollars away from them.

How would that work? Most cities only _have_ one airport.

If I live in Tulsa, I use the airport there. It's that or drive two hours to Oklahoma City.

Re: TSA: Fail

#99

Post by bdunbar » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:41 AM UTC

richardlblair wrote: post #36

True Story: A friend of mine was traveling through various airports in the states. He had accidentally left his pencil bag in his back pack which had a pair of scissors in it. The scissors were over the length allowed on a plaine (Something like 4" is considered safe.) He went through 2 security checks in the states, and boarded planes with these scissors in his back pack. It wasn't until he went through a simple, sm…

I accidentally carried a box of .45 ammunition through several checkpoints in D.C. one day, in the bottom of my backpack.

Gave me a start when I found it that evening on the train.

Now, I don't know how security in the capital compares to that found in airports - but you'd think it would be comparable.

Turns out all you need to do to foil security is jam a pair of socks down on top of bullets and you're set.

Re: TSA: Fail

#100

Post by Joeri » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 6:49 AM UTC

Duff wrote: post #93

morsch wrote: post #75

I'm not as convinced by his arguments as everyone else seems. He starts out with a huge -- and admittedly hugely impressive -- appeal to authority. The tilting at windmills argument -- you can't fix all security holes, prison inmates can macgyver deadly weapons out of iPod cables (not to mention laptop batteries), you'd have to tie up people naked to make it safe -- is well taken, but nothing new. His argument for ra…

You need to consider what threat you are defending against. Before credit cards were popular, it was common for aircraft passengers to be armed with handguns and carrying a lot of cash -- yet there were few incidents. Think about that. An organization planning an operation against any nation-state relays on secrecy and anonymity to function, period. That is what random screenings will help combat. The current TSA reg…

You don't stop crazy people by strip-searching them. You stop them by asking them questions to detect the crazy ones. The TSA focuses on the mechanism instead of the person, and that never works. There's a reason israel's airports are safe from terrorism, and it's not because of fancy body scanners.