8 ms·

The New, Terrifying, No-Electronics US Flight Security Rules

37 points by Flemlord 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Just flew back into USA last night from a week in Cancun. I saw two differences in security: 1. Every carry-on bag was searched. Oddly, many people had those neck-pillow things, which were completely ignored. I bet you could pack a lot of semtex into one of those pillows. 2. The security guy at the entrance to the gates -- you know, where we routinely take off our shoes, empty pockets, etc., was holding a sign say NOT to take off shoes. This supports Schneier's theory that the TSA is only engaging in theater, making a show of defending against whatever the most recent threat was.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Yeah. In LHR today, my bag was hand-searched, and I was patted down. Except, they didn't pat my whole body, and they only opened the smallest pocket in my backpack. It may or may not be theater, but it's certainly not security. Don't get me started on how I wasn't allowed to use a blanket or jacket for the last hour of the flight. I wish I was joking...
ghshephard 17y ago
Hanging out in YVR right now - the line that normally takes 15 minutes took 95 minutes today. It is the first time I've ever been told not to arrive so early for a flight. Apparently people showing up 3 1/2 hours early for a flight screws it up for other people somehow. Mea Culpa. 1. Every single person had their luggage opened and sorted through, item by item. 2. Every single person was being fully patted down. Including checking the soles of your (shoeless) feet. The pat down was remarkably thorough - the seams of my pants were checked. The waistband, shirt cuffs, pants cuffs each carefully probed, hair was cautiously checked. I was particularly impressed with what a good mood all of the screeners and passengers were in. Nobody was grumpy, and everyone was basically taking everything in a pretty good way, despite the inordinate delays.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Of course, it's all meaningless if you're just going to let people on your watch lists waltz on to your planes.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    What value do watch lists have? If someone is a danger to society, then charge and convict them of a crime. If they are not guilty of any crime, though, it makes no sense to punish them. The 9/11 hijackers had valid passports, visas, and were not on any watchlists.
    - pmorici 17y ago
      There weren't "watch lists" prior to 9/11, The FBI was alerted to shady behavior by a number of them though which seems to be exactly what happened in this case. Do you similarly think sex offender lists are a joke?
      - philwelch 17y ago
        I think a 16 year old kid caught fucking his 15 year old girlfriend, or a drunk college kid caught pissing on the sidewalk, deserves a punishment that's a little less severe than lifelong registration and shame.
        jrockway 17y ago
        But it was sex. SEX!!!!
      - NikkiA 17y ago
        There absolutely were 'watch-lists' prior to 9/11 - in fact, I recall when I entered the US in 1995 watching as the passport control guy checked me against the watchlist - what there wasn't, was a 'no-fly list'.
      - jrockway 17y ago
siculars 17y ago
Frankly, most airport security is an absolute joke and exists solely to add a certain amount of discomfort to all travelers including potential terrorists. The new TSA rules (like most of the old TSA rules) are utter theatrics. If anyone really wants to see how security should be done just go to an international terminal which ElAl flies to and watch how they screen passengers at their check in. The ground staff are not there to frisk you or ask you to take your shoes off. They work directly for the airline and have received extensive security training. What they do is actually ask you a battery of questions designed to flush out inconsistencies. ElAl also pays much closer attention to so called "no fly" lists. I think it's safe to say, and I'm sure the majority of us would agree that ElAl knows a thing or two about how to keep their planes in the sky with a maximum degree of confidence in their security. Would it really be that hard for other airlines to take a page out of their playbook? If not for the profiling (which I'm sure they do) then at least the questioning by ground staff.
- kgrin 17y ago
  El Al is often cited as an example in these discussions, and it's a pretty flawed one. The reason why profiling works (or at least works better) for El Al is that the demographics of the average traveler to Israel are pretty consistent and predictable, which greatly reduces the search space. For instance, many travelers to Israel go for at least tangentially religious reasons; it's common practice for El Al security to ask those folks some basic questions about the faith (logic: if the guy claiming to be making a religious trip doesn't know something any observant pre-teen would, that guy deserves a closer look). That doesn't mean that everyone traveling to Israel is Jewish (clearly not the case!), or that it's really all about profiling. But having a more homogeneous and constrained baseline (in addition to a smaller country) makes the "let's ask you some questions and see if your story makes sense" approach considerably more scalable. Why does country size matter? A guy says "I'm visiting friends... where? Comstock - it's near Sargent." Without Google Maps at the ready, it would be hard to know if that's a plausible travel plan; whereas in a country that's only 8,000 sq. mi., with fewer people than NYC - a security agent is more likely to know shenanigans when s/he hears it.
  - siculars 17y ago
jrockway 17y ago
After being subjected to these rules today, I almost want to be the legal test case for compliance with secret rules. Is refusing to comply with an unpublished rule a violation of the rules? (I am pretty sure the Constitution has something to say about this...) Basically, this proves that the terrorists won. One nut with a fake bomb can change millions of lives.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  I think if you refuse to comply with a flight attendant's directive, or the pilot's, you can be charge with interfering with a flight crew, or something. So whether a regulation is secret or not won't keep you out of jail; the regulation can be secret, but when the attendant tells you to do something you have to do it. My understanding. IANAL
  - jrockway 17y ago
    I think the wording is something like "reasonable instruction". Is it "reasonable" to say that you have to freeze to death because of a secret rule? (My guess is "yes", because that is how the US federal government works. If there is not extremely strong wording saying something is your right in the Constitution, it's not. Of course, there is explicit wording along the lines of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," but that's a little too broad for lawmakers or the Supreme Court to understand.)
    - Retric 17y ago
      What people find Reasonable is extremely subjective. A frequent flyer friend of mine suggested the naked airline. Basically you take nothing on board, get shoved in a box, but you get to avoid the TSA. The funny thing is he thought dealing with the TSA would be the hardest part of getting this off the ground. I often wonder how many other flyers would find this reasonable.
    - nfnaaron 17y ago
      My guess/assumption is that "reasonable instruction" is intended to give the flight attendant flexibility in deciding what you should or shouldn't be doing, and not to give us a basis for refusing instructions.
sown 17y ago
I hate people.
- cubicle67 17y ago
  Unfortunately, after having just spent a good few hours of my Boxing Day holiday (because Boxing Day fell on a Saturday, we get a Monday public holiday in leu) in a shopping centre, I'm inclined to agree
bmm6o 17y ago
I was expecting problems, but I was surprised when I flew today. Jetblue, JFK to LGB (via IAD) had the exact same security checks and regulations as every other time I've flown them. I guess it just shows how inconsistently the rules are applied, which is frustrating in its own way.
uuilly 17y ago
I am happy to report that this post is coming from 30k feet via an iPhone on virgin America.
- GoboGobo 17y ago
  Virgin America only flies domestic. Most of these restrictions will apply to the international flights to the US. (I guess the US doesn't really care about what happens outside, as long as everything coming in is checked)
  - uuilly 17y ago
    It's probably that they have no way of doing so once the plane is foreign airspace. Lots of Americans are on the outbound flights so they care a great deal for the plane's safety.
yason 17y ago
Why don't they just anesthesize people at the gates and shove them into comfortable boxes to be carried by cargo planes. It would certainly be more pleasant for the travellers.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  > Why don't they just anesthesize people at the gates Because the regime insists that citizens be reminded that they are cattle.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    No, it's because drugs are evil.
coolestuk 17y ago
There is an elephant in the room. The threat to US/Western Europe/Australasia is coming from muslims. They are by far the biggest terrorist threat to these areas. So we should have a 'no-fly' rule for muslims. A minority of current flyers would suffer inconvenience. As it is, the majority of flyers suffer both inconvenience and the possibility of being murdered. I hardly fly any more because it is such an awful experience. It is only a matter of time before another plane comes down - in September Abdullah Asieri stuck a bomb up his ass and passed through 2 sets of airport security AND the Saudi security services, which shows us that there is no way to stop someone getting a bomb on board. Dealing with suicide bombers is the most difficult thing to do. They have no fear of any punishment, and they can take their deathly payload anywhere. People should start reading sites like www.jihadwatch.org or www.thereligionofpeace.com instead of believing the politically correct media. Islam is the oldest form of totalitarianism. I'm no racist (I don't believe there are races). For 15 years I have lived in the heart of the most muslim area of London. I've seen most non-muslims leave the area, and watched as the muslims have become more and more radical. I'm married to an asian, and I've had two muslim boyfriends in the past.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- muriithi 17y ago
  And how do you suggest that we go about identifying muslims?
  - jrockway 17y ago
    By requiring them to register and wear an emblem on their clothing at all times. We can have the police visit everyone's house to see if the people living there have any literature sympathetic to the Muslim cause. History has shown that this is a great idea.
- maryrosecook 17y ago
  Treating people with suspicion based on the fact that they are perceived as being in a particular demographic category is unacceptable. Essentially, it means that these people are having their rights infringed - freedom of movement and freedom of expression - in an ineffectual attempt to stop a very rare event (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terr...) from occurring. This sort of treatment is afforded only a few special categories of people: minors and people with criminal records. I don't agree with denial of rights in those cases, either.
rubyrescue 17y ago
i bought the domain 'iamnotacriminal.com' on my iphone post-security at SEA after a particularly nasty interaction with TSA - i just felt violated and tired of the treatment. at the time i thought it might be a great project to let off some steam - perhaps a community wiki of TSA incompetence. more lucrative projects have always put it on the back burner but it's tempting to have a HN 'hack fest' made up of only disgruntled unwilling participants in the 'security theatre' that are also hackers and launch the site...

37 points by Flemlord 17y ago

Just flew back into USA last night from a week in Cancun. I saw two differences in security: 1. Every carry-on bag was searched. Oddly, many people had those neck-pillow things, which were completely ignored. I bet you could pack a lot of semtex into one of those pillows. 2. The security guy at the entrance to the gates -- you know, where we routinely take off our shoes, empty pockets, etc., was holding a sign say NOT to take off shoes. This supports Schneier's theory that the TSA is only engaging in theater, making a show of defending against whatever the most recent threat was.

jrockway 17y ago
Yeah. In LHR today, my bag was hand-searched, and I was patted down. Except, they didn't pat my whole body, and they only opened the smallest pocket in my backpack. It may or may not be theater, but it's certainly not security. Don't get me started on how I wasn't allowed to use a blanket or jacket for the last hour of the flight. I wish I was joking...

ghshephard 17y ago

Hanging out in YVR right now - the line that normally takes 15 minutes took 95 minutes today. It is the first time I've ever been told not to arrive so early for a flight. Apparently people showing up 3 1/2 hours early for a flight screws it up for other people somehow. Mea Culpa. 1. Every single person had their luggage opened and sorted through, item by item. 2. Every single person was being fully patted down. Including checking the soles of your (shoeless) feet. The pat down was remarkably thorough - the seams of my pants were checked. The waistband, shirt cuffs, pants cuffs each carefully probed, hair was cautiously checked. I was particularly impressed with what a good mood all of the screeners and passengers were in. Nobody was grumpy, and everyone was basically taking everything in a pretty good way, despite the inordinate delays.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Of course, it's all meaningless if you're just going to let people on your watch lists waltz on to your planes.
- jrockway 17y ago
  What value do watch lists have? If someone is a danger to society, then charge and convict them of a crime. If they are not guilty of any crime, though, it makes no sense to punish them. The 9/11 hijackers had valid passports, visas, and were not on any watchlists.
  - pmorici 17y ago
    There weren't "watch lists" prior to 9/11, The FBI was alerted to shady behavior by a number of them though which seems to be exactly what happened in this case. Do you similarly think sex offender lists are a joke?
    - philwelch 17y ago
      I think a 16 year old kid caught fucking his 15 year old girlfriend, or a drunk college kid caught pissing on the sidewalk, deserves a punishment that's a little less severe than lifelong registration and shame.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        But it was sex. SEX!!!!
    - NikkiA 17y ago
      There absolutely were 'watch-lists' prior to 9/11 - in fact, I recall when I entered the US in 1995 watching as the passport control guy checked me against the watchlist - what there wasn't, was a 'no-fly list'.
    - jrockway 17y ago

siculars 17y ago

Frankly, most airport security is an absolute joke and exists solely to add a certain amount of discomfort to all travelers including potential terrorists. The new TSA rules (like most of the old TSA rules) are utter theatrics. If anyone really wants to see how security should be done just go to an international terminal which ElAl flies to and watch how they screen passengers at their check in. The ground staff are not there to frisk you or ask you to take your shoes off. They work directly for the airline and have received extensive security training. What they do is actually ask you a battery of questions designed to flush out inconsistencies. ElAl also pays much closer attention to so called "no fly" lists. I think it's safe to say, and I'm sure the majority of us would agree that ElAl knows a thing or two about how to keep their planes in the sky with a maximum degree of confidence in their security. Would it really be that hard for other airlines to take a page out of their playbook? If not for the profiling (which I'm sure they do) then at least the questioning by ground staff.

kgrin 17y ago
El Al is often cited as an example in these discussions, and it's a pretty flawed one. The reason why profiling works (or at least works better) for El Al is that the demographics of the average traveler to Israel are pretty consistent and predictable, which greatly reduces the search space. For instance, many travelers to Israel go for at least tangentially religious reasons; it's common practice for El Al security to ask those folks some basic questions about the faith (logic: if the guy claiming to be making a religious trip doesn't know something any observant pre-teen would, that guy deserves a closer look). That doesn't mean that everyone traveling to Israel is Jewish (clearly not the case!), or that it's really all about profiling. But having a more homogeneous and constrained baseline (in addition to a smaller country) makes the "let's ask you some questions and see if your story makes sense" approach considerably more scalable. Why does country size matter? A guy says "I'm visiting friends... where? Comstock - it's near Sargent." Without Google Maps at the ready, it would be hard to know if that's a plausible travel plan; whereas in a country that's only 8,000 sq. mi., with fewer people than NYC - a security agent is more likely to know shenanigans when s/he hears it.
- siculars 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

After being subjected to these rules today, I almost want to be the legal test case for compliance with secret rules. Is refusing to comply with an unpublished rule a violation of the rules? (I am pretty sure the Constitution has something to say about this...) Basically, this proves that the terrorists won. One nut with a fake bomb can change millions of lives.

nfnaaron 17y ago
I think if you refuse to comply with a flight attendant's directive, or the pilot's, you can be charge with interfering with a flight crew, or something. So whether a regulation is secret or not won't keep you out of jail; the regulation can be secret, but when the attendant tells you to do something you have to do it. My understanding. IANAL
- jrockway 17y ago
  I think the wording is something like "reasonable instruction". Is it "reasonable" to say that you have to freeze to death because of a secret rule? (My guess is "yes", because that is how the US federal government works. If there is not extremely strong wording saying something is your right in the Constitution, it's not. Of course, there is explicit wording along the lines of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," but that's a little too broad for lawmakers or the Supreme Court to understand.)
  - Retric 17y ago
    What people find Reasonable is extremely subjective. A frequent flyer friend of mine suggested the naked airline. Basically you take nothing on board, get shoved in a box, but you get to avoid the TSA. The funny thing is he thought dealing with the TSA would be the hardest part of getting this off the ground. I often wonder how many other flyers would find this reasonable.
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    My guess/assumption is that "reasonable instruction" is intended to give the flight attendant flexibility in deciding what you should or shouldn't be doing, and not to give us a basis for refusing instructions.

sown 17y ago

I hate people.

cubicle67 17y ago
Unfortunately, after having just spent a good few hours of my Boxing Day holiday (because Boxing Day fell on a Saturday, we get a Monday public holiday in leu) in a shopping centre, I'm inclined to agree

bmm6o 17y ago

I was expecting problems, but I was surprised when I flew today. Jetblue, JFK to LGB (via IAD) had the exact same security checks and regulations as every other time I've flown them. I guess it just shows how inconsistently the rules are applied, which is frustrating in its own way.

uuilly 17y ago

I am happy to report that this post is coming from 30k feet via an iPhone on virgin America.

GoboGobo 17y ago
Virgin America only flies domestic. Most of these restrictions will apply to the international flights to the US. (I guess the US doesn't really care about what happens outside, as long as everything coming in is checked)
- uuilly 17y ago
  It's probably that they have no way of doing so once the plane is foreign airspace. Lots of Americans are on the outbound flights so they care a great deal for the plane's safety.

yason 17y ago

Why don't they just anesthesize people at the gates and shove them into comfortable boxes to be carried by cargo planes. It would certainly be more pleasant for the travellers.

asciilifeform 17y ago
> Why don't they just anesthesize people at the gates Because the regime insists that citizens be reminded that they are cattle.
- jrockway 17y ago
  No, it's because drugs are evil.

coolestuk 17y ago

There is an elephant in the room. The threat to US/Western Europe/Australasia is coming from muslims. They are by far the biggest terrorist threat to these areas. So we should have a 'no-fly' rule for muslims. A minority of current flyers would suffer inconvenience. As it is, the majority of flyers suffer both inconvenience and the possibility of being murdered. I hardly fly any more because it is such an awful experience. It is only a matter of time before another plane comes down - in September Abdullah Asieri stuck a bomb up his ass and passed through 2 sets of airport security AND the Saudi security services, which shows us that there is no way to stop someone getting a bomb on board. Dealing with suicide bombers is the most difficult thing to do. They have no fear of any punishment, and they can take their deathly payload anywhere. People should start reading sites like www.jihadwatch.org or www.thereligionofpeace.com instead of believing the politically correct media. Islam is the oldest form of totalitarianism. I'm no racist (I don't believe there are races). For 15 years I have lived in the heart of the most muslim area of London. I've seen most non-muslims leave the area, and watched as the muslims have become more and more radical. I'm married to an asian, and I've had two muslim boyfriends in the past.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
muriithi 17y ago
And how do you suggest that we go about identifying muslims?
- jrockway 17y ago
  By requiring them to register and wear an emblem on their clothing at all times. We can have the police visit everyone's house to see if the people living there have any literature sympathetic to the Muslim cause. History has shown that this is a great idea.
maryrosecook 17y ago
Treating people with suspicion based on the fact that they are perceived as being in a particular demographic category is unacceptable. Essentially, it means that these people are having their rights infringed - freedom of movement and freedom of expression - in an ineffectual attempt to stop a very rare event (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terr...) from occurring. This sort of treatment is afforded only a few special categories of people: minors and people with criminal records. I don't agree with denial of rights in those cases, either.

rubyrescue 17y ago

i bought the domain 'iamnotacriminal.com' on my iphone post-security at SEA after a particularly nasty interaction with TSA - i just felt violated and tired of the treatment. at the time i thought it might be a great project to let off some steam - perhaps a community wiki of TSA incompetence. more lucrative projects have always put it on the back burner but it's tempting to have a HN 'hack fest' made up of only disgruntled unwilling participants in the 'security theatre' that are also hackers and launch the site...