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

TSA: Fail

gmancasefile.blogspot.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: TSA: Fail

#111

Post by repsilat »

sukuriant wrote: post #85
willvarfar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its natural to read your comment as though the article disagrees with Bruce and you think the article is wrong and Bruce is right. We all know that the article is completely in line with Bruce and he even blogged it: www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/fbi_special_age.html Just clearing that up ;)

Erm... I honestly didn't read that from what he said... I thought the article was in agreement with Bruce. Where would someone get the opposite idea?

It's in the interpretation of the "TL;DR". GGP could be read as, "Don't bother with TFA, listen to Bruce."

For the record, I interpreted it the same way you did.

Re: TSA: Fail

#112

Post by maeon3 »

bdunbar wrote: post #98
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.

It would decrease tourist dollars, dollars of people moving to tulsa, and encourage young upstarts leaving and never returning. The government is accountable, technically, but only when people vote with their actions and dollars.

Re: TSA: Fail

#113

Post by bdunbar »

maeon3 wrote: post #112
bdunbar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would decrease tourist dollars, dollars of people moving to tulsa, and encourage young upstarts leaving and never returning. The government is accountable, technically, but only when people vote with their actions and dollars.

One problem with this.

TSA is a federal organization.

The pain would be felt at the local level.

TSA is like the phone company. They don't care - they don't have to.

Aside: the idea that anyone would go to _Tulsa_ as a tourist is bizarre. But I grew up there so it's hard for me to see it as anything but a good place to leave.

Re: TSA: Fail

#114

Post by joering2 »

mikeash wrote: post #86
joering2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hahaha, love how you throw Rackspace at the end (I deal with them everyday and can say they are top notch!) I hate TSA as much as I do. I hate them more because I can imagine how this show will look in the future (further on this one) > They are not friendly, have a real attitude problem and treat you as if you are guilty before proven innocent I think this is one of those places where presumption of being guilty sho…

"I think this is one of those places where presumption of being guilty should proceed the one of being innocent. Otherwise, would you really care that now its about the time to point a finger that this guy is guilty [for planting a bomb] where your eardrums exploded from sudden cabin decompression and you free-falling into the ocean?" You don't get to toss out innocent before proven guilty just because you come up wi…

What do you mean by "toss out" ? Ok, the checkup goes quite far: shoes off, jacket off, backscatter machine, but if nothing is found on you ,you are left alone.

Re: TSA: Fail

#115

Post by mikeash »

joering2 wrote: post #114
mikeash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think this is one of those places where presumption of being guilty should proceed the one of being innocent. Otherwise, would you really care that now its about the time to point a finger that this guy is guilty [for planting a bomb] where your eardrums exploded from sudden cabin decompression and you free-falling into the ocean?" You don't get to toss out innocent before proven guilty just because you come up wi…

What do you mean by "toss out" ? Ok, the checkup goes quite far: shoes off, jacket off, backscatter machine, but if nothing is found on you ,you are left alone.

The 4th Amendment is pretty clear that you need to have some reason to suspect a person of committing a crime before you search them. What did you mean by "presumption of being guilty should proceed the one of being innocent"?

Re: TSA: Fail

#116

Post by alalonde »

verelo wrote: post #9

As someone who travels regularly and is not an American, I've had nothing but frustrations generated by the "TSA". Initially it caused me to unfairly assume all Americans are like TSA agents (i know this isn't true, but i guess its just my human bias). A few things that frustrate me: - They are not friendly, have a real attitude problem and treat you as if you are guilty before proven innocent. You are the face of th…

The lack of courtesy is due to the sheer antagonism which comes with the job. I dislike flying as much as the next guy, but I can't help but feel bad for the grunts carrying out such an unwelcome job. Distrust breeds contempt which makes the whole experience worse for everyone.

Re: TSA: Fail

#117

Post by botondus »

tmcdonald wrote: post #103
glenra wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scanners we have in the US are using radiation. Some of the scanners used in Europe are using sound waves instead. (I noticed this because I always opt out of the radiation ones.)

I'd recommend not travelling through Manchester Airport then, which have backscatter machines in place and do not allow for opt-out (although this is as-per DfT guidelines). They do only test a random sample, however. The Department for Transport has full confidence in the independent assessment undertaken by the Health Protection Agency. We are confident with their assessment that the dose from being scanned is far…

Interesting. So it constitutes only acceptable risks to health. Of course "acceptable" being judged by whatever officials are there at the Health Protection Agency. I'd be curious to know how many exposures did they take into account.... what if you're flying every day? Or say 3 times a week?

Re: TSA: Fail

#118

Post by javajosh »

joeyh wrote: post #92
javajosh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree with you, and that they should really just let pocket knives on planes since they are an equivalent threat to a toothbrush and 5 minutes of modification.

Re: TSA: Fail

#119

Post by doug1001 »

My life-long dream of becoming a TSA Agent is a little tarnished, i suppose. This Post is full of excellent lines.

E.g., "Another time, I was bypassing screening (again on official FBI business) with my .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and a TSA officer noticed the clip of my pocket knife. "You can't bring a knife on board," he said."

"With the congressional spotlight on the organization, TSA is finally feeling what it's like to be screened."

Re: TSA: Fail

#120

Post by Duff »

Joeri wrote: post #100
Duff wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True. The problem with that approach in the US is that our laws demand an "objective" approach to dealing with this stuff. We don't trust police to make subjective decisions.
Post reply on HN