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

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#31

Post by mikeash »

newman314 wrote: post #30
mikeash wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 secon…

54% is an astonishingly high number. Any idea what the false negative rate is? I wonder if the scanners are any better than just flipping a coin....

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#32

Post by dschobel »

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

That's a poor definition which you won't find repeated in any other reference (really, take a look). The entirety of the meaning of the idiom concerns the misperception of ones opponents.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#33

Post by newman314 »

mikeash wrote: post #31
newman314 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 secon…

54% is an astonishingly high number. Any idea what the false negative rate is? I wonder if the scanners are any better than just flipping a coin....

Well, a false positive rate of 54% essentially means it is in fact just coin flipping.

For any other product on the market, a failure rate of 54% would be cause for a complete recall if not a wholesale scrapping of the product but apparently does not apply in this case.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#34

Post by mikeash »

newman314 wrote: post #33
mikeash wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

54% is an astonishingly high number. Any idea what the false negative rate is? I wonder if the scanners are any better than just flipping a coin....

Well, a false positive rate of 54% essentially means it is in fact just coin flipping. For any other product on the market, a failure rate of 54% would be cause for a complete recall if not a wholesale scrapping of the product but apparently does not apply in this case.

You need to know the false negative rate to evaluate it against a coin flip. For example, a hypothetical machine with a 50% false positive rate but 0% false negative rate could still be really useful, if the machine itself is cheap/fast and the subsequent screening slower/more expensive. With such a machine, you know that the 50% who pass are clean, thus reducing your followup screening load by half.

Of course, a machine with ~50% false positive and negative rates is indistinguishable from flipping a coin.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#35

Post by JVIDEL »

jacquesm wrote: post #29
JVIDEL wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well look at this way: if you don't like the scanner then you're getting a very intimate patdown, which depending how you take it could end with a surprise cavity search.

Now the rat doesn't sounds that bad does it?

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#36

Post by wpietri »

dschobel wrote: post #32
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

That's a poor definition which you won't find repeated in any other reference (really, take a look). The entirety of the meaning of the idiom concerns the misperception of ones opponents.

That's incorrect. A number of other sources say that it also means exactly what I mean: "to pursue an unrealistic, impractical, or impossible goal". E.g.:

http://www.word-detective.com/2009/03/10/tilting-at-windmill...

A quick peek at Google News also shows plenty of people using it that way:

E.g.:

http://articles.mcall.com/2012-03-08/news/mc-pat-toomey-jobs... http://jurist.org/forum/2012/02/brian-landsberg-affirmative-... http://www.idahoreporter.com/2012/barbieri-wont-run-anti-tsa...

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#37

Post by wpietri »

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #10
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.

Thank you for that! The cost in filing fees, printing, and mailing for SCOTUS I estimate to be near $2K. If it's accepted, I need to travel to DC for oral arguments. All this in addition to dozens (or more) hours of missed work in order to research, write, and handle things. Even if I got no donations, I would self-fund this suit, so no worries about donating more... anything anyone wants to contribute is much apprec…

I'd encourage you to get a professional lawyer with supreme court experience involved in this. Perhaps the EFF can recommend someone?
Post reply on HN