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

TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#21

Post by m_for_monkey »

dschobel wrote: post #16
wpietri wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know that too. I just threw in $100 (via the donation button on the top right of the linked article), but I'm glad to donate more if he needs it. I really wish I had time to tilt at this particular windmill, so I'm very grateful that this fellow is being so relentless.

just FYI, the idiom "tilting at windmills" implies an imaginary opponent. TSA is very much real, unfortunately.

"Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#22

Post by JVIDEL »

2 words: Ethiopian rat

This species can detect all kinds of weapons, explosives, drugs, everything.

It can even tell if a person has a contagious DISEASE.

And best of all its cheaper to train and maintain than dogs, and more friendly/less intimidating for the passengers.

These are already being used in some African countries to find landmines that dogs and electronic detectors can't see.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#23

Post by mikeash »

newman314 wrote: post #14

Here's a few FAQ'ish type links: Body scanner proven ineffective video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo Body scanner has 54% false positive rate https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-sca... Cost of the body scanners http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/07/what_tsa_se... Some pretty interesting numbers here: "Of these, 18 airports handle fewer than 1,000 passengers daily but were…

The way the system is set up, all airports are only as secure as the least secure airport. Once you go through security, you can fly around the country from one airport to another without going through again. Thus, if the tools were effective but you somehow made an exception for small airports, you just invite terrorists to use those small airports for sneaking their weapons through, which can then be used on bigger, more visible flights later.

I think these machines are a waste of money and the threat of terrorism vastly overblown in general, but if you make the assumption that the machines are desirable and useful, you can't make an exception for small airports.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#24

Post by pseingatl »

wpietri wrote: post #9
lonnyk wrote: post #3

What are the estimated costs of getting a lawsuit to the Supreme Court?

I'd love to know that too. I just threw in $100 (via the donation button on the top right of the linked article), but I'm glad to donate more if he needs it. I really wish I had time to tilt at this particular windmill, so I'm very grateful that this fellow is being so relentless.

You should get some assistance from the ACLU or similar organization because you are not a lawyer and you will end up spinning your wheels. The U.S. Supreme Court only hears 150 or so cases each year. Except in a very small range of cases (such as cases between states) they are not obligated to hear any cases. You would have much better luck with the Court of Appeals. If the facts are not developed on appeal, you can ask the Court to appoint a special master. The matters you raise are important and merit judicial consideration. But get a professional to help.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#25

Post by mahmud »

m_for_monkey wrote: post #21
dschobel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just FYI, the idiom "tilting at windmills" implies an imaginary opponent. TSA is very much real, unfortunately.

"Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

isn't it from Don Quixote?

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#26

Post by m_for_monkey »

mahmud wrote: post #25
m_for_monkey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

isn't it from Don Quixote?

Yes, it is.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#27

Post by jacquesm »

JVIDEL wrote: post #22

2 words: Ethiopian rat This species can detect all kinds of weapons, explosives, drugs, everything. It can even tell if a person has a contagious DISEASE. And best of all its cheaper to train and maintain than dogs, and more friendly/less intimidating for the passengers. These are already being used in some African countries to find landmines that dogs and electronic detectors can't see.

If you think rats are less intimidating for passengers then I invite you to test your hypothesis by walking around an airport with a rat on a leash and a dog on a leash, see what gets the most response.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#28

Post by JVIDEL »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
JVIDEL wrote: post #22

2 words: Ethiopian rat This species can detect all kinds of weapons, explosives, drugs, everything. It can even tell if a person has a contagious DISEASE. And best of all its cheaper to train and maintain than dogs, and more friendly/less intimidating for the passengers. These are already being used in some African countries to find landmines that dogs and electronic detectors can't see.

If you think rats are less intimidating for passengers then I invite you to test your hypothesis by walking around an airport with a rat on a leash and a dog on a leash, see what gets the most response.

Have you seen the average bomb dog? is not a labradoodle...

And google ethiopian rat, is not that ugly/scary like black rats and others.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#29

Post by jacquesm »

JVIDEL wrote: post #28
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think rats are less intimidating for passengers then I invite you to test your hypothesis by walking around an airport with a rat on a leash and a dog on a leash, see what gets the most response.

Have you seen the average bomb dog? is not a labradoodle... And google ethiopian rat, is not that ugly/scary like black rats and others.

I'm not sure how to compute the average bomb dog but Labradors are in fact very common sniffer dogs:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-09-30-1Adogs30_ST...

Lots of German Shepherds as well and plenty of other breeds. No, the're not 'doodles' but a pack of angry Jack Russels isn't a pic-nick either. The point is that people are somewhat used to bomb sniffer dogs because they associate them with the dogs they already know. With rats they will also associate them with the rats they already know, and that association is not going to be a good one.

That rat looks like this:

http://www.viewchange.org/videos/africa-bomb-squad-rats

So, you'll be testing your rat-on-a-leash in a crowded airport ---->>> there

and meanwhile I'll be

I hate being trampled by screaming tourists.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#30

Post by newman314 »

mikeash wrote: post #23
newman314 wrote: post #14

Here's a few FAQ'ish type links: Body scanner proven ineffective video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo Body scanner has 54% false positive rate https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-sca... Cost of the body scanners http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/07/what_tsa_se... Some pretty interesting numbers here: "Of these, 18 airports handle fewer than 1,000 passengers daily but were…

The way the system is set up, all airports are only as secure as the least secure airport. Once you go through security, you can fly around the country from one airport to another without going through again. Thus, if the tools were effective but you somehow made an exception for small airports, you just invite terrorists to use those small airports for sneaking their weapons through, which can then be used on bigger…

But the point is alternate and arguably more effective methods exist, particularly scaled to a smaller airport. I would say that even if you patted everyone down at the airport, the cost would be less but that's just speculation on my part.

However, I would like to post an excerpt from the last link that I shared.

"TSA acknowledges that it takes 10-12 seconds per passenger to go through the scanner while only 2 seconds is needed for the metal detector. Since the scanners have a 54% false positive rate, approximately half of those using the scanners receive some form of pat-down, further slowing the process. When hundreds of people are in line, that additional 8 to 30 seconds each adds up, resulting in substantial delays.

So while TSA claims that the scanners speed up the screening process, the opposite, in fact, is true."

Post reply on HN