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

Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#71

Post by zeteo »

cgs1019 wrote: post #58
DanBC wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

I've always been amazed that with all the effort to keep "dangerous" objects off the plane, they still hand out aluminum soda cans which can easily be crushed/bent/torn into quite dangerously sharp forms. Why bother carrying a weapon on board when they're provided free of charge in flight?

If you can make a shiv out of a soda can, I'm sure there are a lot of high security inmates who are very interested in your recipe.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#72

Post by sliverstorm »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #45
nathanb wrote: post #22

I'm a little disappointed with the article when compared to my expectations given the title. Besides using a fraudulent boarding pass, the journo didn't "test" the TSA in any meaningful way. This wasn't like the experiment where a guy got a gun on a plane using his wheelchair, for example. While the article has great information and I agree with almost all of it, I would like to see people demonstrating the uselessne…

It's a demonstration that the TSA cannot actually perform the functions it's supposed to be performing. In that sense it is a test. If getting though security with fraudulent identification is not a problem, why does the TSA bother to attempt to prevent it?

Perhaps to distract? The same way you might put $500 in a drawer near your front door, in hopes that a thief will find the $500 and, satisfied, bail before finding the $50,000 in jewelery (or what have you) in your bedroom?

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#73

Post by Joakal »

zeteo wrote: post #71
cgs1019 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been amazed that with all the effort to keep "dangerous" objects off the plane, they still hand out aluminum soda cans which can easily be crushed/bent/torn into quite dangerously sharp forms. Why bother carrying a weapon on board when they're provided free of charge in flight?

If you can make a shiv out of a soda can, I'm sure there are a lot of high security inmates who are very interested in your recipe.

The prisoners would be more interested in lock-picking. Here's an example: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Padlock-Shim

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#74

Post by sliverstorm »

ims wrote: post #27

This article makes some big leaps. It says in the fourth paragraph: "Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent more than $1.1 trillion on homeland security." It seems to imply that this is mostly because of wasteful TSA-like spending. The Department of Homeland Security's FY11 budget authority was around $56 bil. The TSA only accounted for 14% of that money. [1] Just for perspective -- top 5 slices of DHS's FY11 pie: U.S. Custo…

I think we all feel a little silly as grownups waiting around in a security line in our socks

I was a kid the last time I flew before 9/11, but didn't they still use metal detectors back then?

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#75

Post by Terretta »

cgs1019 wrote: post #58
DanBC wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.

I've always been amazed that with all the effort to keep "dangerous" objects off the plane, they still hand out aluminum soda cans which can easily be crushed/bent/torn into quite dangerously sharp forms. Why bother carrying a weapon on board when they're provided free of charge in flight?

> aluminum soda cans

LOL (and I don't use that lightly) ...

Many airlines bring you silverware with your business or first class meal. A metal fork, spoon, and yes, KNIFE.

Several also serve beverages in glass, including stemware.

And many items taken from you at the security line can be purchased in the concessions: batteries, lighters, even fuel (vodka).

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#76

Post by WettowelReactor »

siphor wrote: post #42
nathanb wrote: post #22

I'm a little disappointed with the article when compared to my expectations given the title. Besides using a fraudulent boarding pass, the journo didn't "test" the TSA in any meaningful way. This wasn't like the experiment where a guy got a gun on a plane using his wheelchair, for example. While the article has great information and I agree with almost all of it, I would like to see people demonstrating the uselessne…

Like three weeks ago I was leaving vegas and accidentally left a pocket knife (4" blade) in my bag.. I opted out of the full body scan, (rumors of cancer, and the line was shorter) for a pat down... it's an intense pat down im pretty sure they definitely touched some private sensitive areas, they also left the 4" knife in my bag theres tons of stories like this too..

Funny enough Thanksgiving 2010 I accidentally left a similar sized pocket knife in my pocket. I elected for the full body scanner which did not pickup the knife. Instead I was reminded I had it when the regular old metal detector at the cruise line picked it up. On another trip while i was still in the service I accidentally flew with chained live rounds (machine gun ammo) in my back pack. Again no security picked it up. I am a fairly small sample size but thanks to these incidents I am thoroughly convinced that the TSA is utterly worthless. On the plus side they banned the carry on of lighters for our chartered flight to Kuwait. This was the same flight that we all hand carried our weapons on, go figure.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#77

Post by mgkimsal »

When will we get congressional and presidential candidates vowing to shut down the TSA? "I'll shut down the Dept of Education!" was a bit rallying cry for Bachmann a couple months ago, partially with the justification that "It was only started in 1979!". Well, the TSA was started less than 10 years ago, so let's shut that down first.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#78

Post by Terretta »

ams6110 wrote: post #51
mahyarm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before the TSA, we had xray luggage scanners and metal detectors world wide. Now how the majority of the public interacts with the TSA at airports, you go through a metal detector or body xray and xray luggage scanners. What else has changed?

We had xray inspection of carry-on luggage. Checked bags, and especially cargo, didn't really get inspected at all, before 9/11.

Lockerbie didn't get us excited enough--it happened over there.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#79

Post by WettowelReactor »

ams6110 wrote: post #50
0003 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who here did not think of Bruce Schneier after reading in the lead paragraph: "...that’s the conclusion of Charles C. Mann, who put the T.S.A. to the test with the help of one of America’s top security experts"?

I respect Bruce Schneier as an expert in cryptography and computer/network security. But nothing I've seen him say about physical security seems like anything more than obvious common sense, delivered in a sort of pompous, sarcastic tone. I also don't think the people in charge at the TSA are so stupid as to not have considered that someone might alter a boarding pass. I'm reminded of a post here a few weeks ago, I d…

As someone who has been on the inside that last quote is almost all a smoke screen. In reality they do not know as much as they claim and many idiotic policies are there for idiotic or political reasons. Besides since government should be accountable to its people we should fully call to task idiotic or irrational behavior and the excuse of "you wouldn't understand" just does not cut it.

Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA

#80

Post by mgkimsal »

And yeah... the next wave of 'terrorist' attacks won't be airports, but probably consumer-level areas or something that directly affects a large number of every day people (or, just, threatens to): malls, restaurant chains, etc.

I posited this idea to friends/family back in 2002: have a large number of geographically distributed attacks on salt/pepper/condiments at chain and independent restaurants around the country at the same time. Dozens/hundreds would get sick or die, and confidence in the food supply would be disrupted for weeks at minimum. "terror-proof" condiment dispensers would be developed, and required on flights (cause our anti-terrorists will still be focused on flying), and it would cost probably $500 in drugs to spike salt/pepper shakers around the country.

People thought I was crazy (or a terrorist), but I could swear I read of this being reported on (on a small scale) in 2005 or 2007 - Miami perhaps?

I found this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/20/eveningnews/main71... but it's from 2010 and it's not what I was thinking about.

Post reply on HN