5 ms·

I don't really understand the importance of this story. Sure it's annoying and a huge inconvenience for the OP and I'm genuinely sorry for him. But it's a lost

by blowski 10y ago

I don't really understand the importance of this story. Sure it's annoying and a huge inconvenience for the OP and I'm genuinely sorry for him. But it's a lost laptop. How often does this happen? Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone? If this story was "TSA gave away my diamond necklace" or "Nightclub cloakroom hands bag to wrong customer" we would recognise this story for what it is - one of those things. Backup your files, kids, keep an eye on your possessions at all times, get insurance, and don't get too attached to a piece of metal.

yoo1I 10y ago
> Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone? That one's easy: Getting rid of the TSA alltogether.
- nmeofthestate 10y ago
  No screening at all? That'd certainly be interesting.
  - yoo1I 10y ago
    For starters it wouldn't lower overall security by all that much[0] [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
    - blowski 10y ago
      So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't know what I don't know about international security. I don't have access to the NSA and CIA files about international terrorism. Sure, some of it is overplayed for certain people's agendas, but it's very clearly an actual risk that needs actual solutions. The TSA may not be the best one, but if it was removed, it would need to be replaced by something that would probably end up looking very similar.
      - gonzo 10y ago
        > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes.
        blowski 10y ago
        Do you think people aren't trying to attack planes, or that the TSA has zero effectiveness in stopping those people?
        ascagnel_ 10y ago
        The latter. The TSA screening process (a recent report had them pegged at 5% effectiveness[0]) is next to worthless and itself creates a security hazard/potential attack vector. The TSA screening process is also entirely reactionary -- shoe removal only became a thing after an attacker tried to hide explosives in their shoes. If the TSA was pro-active and had a reasonable degree of effectiveness, then I'd be more willing to put up with it. As it stands, the $85 pre-check fee is more of a "pay us money and we won't actively put you at risk for no benefit" fee. [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
        blowski 10y ago
        How would you make it more effective?
        scholia 10y ago
        You could remove the TSA and let airlines do their own security checks at the gate. Airlines really don't want their planes hi-jacked.
        blowski 10y ago
        Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.
tfm 10y ago
At CDG airport a few weeks ago we encountered a straightforward process I'd not seen before – items going through the screening are associated with your boarding pass. It had no significant effect on the speed of the procedure, and it provides accountability for objects. I don't fully understand why it's not standard practice.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Especially since it's a blatant security lapse: Put something through the x-ray, leave it there, as the staff is used to things waiting around for a while, and then walk away as quickly as possible before the bomb you left in it [1] blows up the checkpoint and everyone waiting. They're providing a convenient way of dropping off explosives and leaving them that reduces the chance of a guard noticing you intentionally leaving something behind and reacting. Then again, we know very well by know that these checks does not have much to do with actual security. [1] I have no reason to believe they'd react to a bomb with sufficient urgency to stop anyone from walking off. I've left bottles of liquid in many times (by accident), and they don't usually notice. They have noticed my sons game console (was bringing it with us to his grandparents and didn't think to take it out of the carry-on), but it's not like they reacted with any urgency - they just put it aside and waited for us to come over and point at it before dealing with it.
someguydave 10y ago
The difference is that the TSA uses the power of the state to compel you to give up your stuff. Night clubs and other private entities have to compete with each other so there is incentive to help the customer.

by blowski 10y ago

yoo1I 10y ago

> Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone? That one's easy: Getting rid of the TSA alltogether.

nmeofthestate 10y ago
No screening at all? That'd certainly be interesting.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  For starters it wouldn't lower overall security by all that much[0] [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
  - blowski 10y ago
    So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't know what I don't know about international security. I don't have access to the NSA and CIA files about international terrorism. Sure, some of it is overplayed for certain people's agendas, but it's very clearly an actual risk that needs actual solutions. The TSA may not be the best one, but if it was removed, it would need to be replaced by something that would probably end up looking very similar.
    - gonzo 10y ago
      > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? Yes.
      - blowski 10y ago
        Do you think people aren't trying to attack planes, or that the TSA has zero effectiveness in stopping those people?
        ascagnel_ 10y ago
        The latter. The TSA screening process (a recent report had them pegged at 5% effectiveness[0]) is next to worthless and itself creates a security hazard/potential attack vector. The TSA screening process is also entirely reactionary -- shoe removal only became a thing after an attacker tried to hide explosives in their shoes. If the TSA was pro-active and had a reasonable degree of effectiveness, then I'd be more willing to put up with it. As it stands, the $85 pre-check fee is more of a "pay us money and we won't actively put you at risk for no benefit" fee. [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...
        blowski 10y ago
        How would you make it more effective?
        scholia 10y ago
        You could remove the TSA and let airlines do their own security checks at the gate. Airlines really don't want their planes hi-jacked.
        blowski 10y ago
        Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA. I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA? It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.

tfm 10y ago

At CDG airport a few weeks ago we encountered a straightforward process I'd not seen before – items going through the screening are associated with your boarding pass. It had no significant effect on the speed of the procedure, and it provides accountability for objects. I don't fully understand why it's not standard practice.

vidarh 10y ago
Especially since it's a blatant security lapse: Put something through the x-ray, leave it there, as the staff is used to things waiting around for a while, and then walk away as quickly as possible before the bomb you left in it [1] blows up the checkpoint and everyone waiting. They're providing a convenient way of dropping off explosives and leaving them that reduces the chance of a guard noticing you intentionally leaving something behind and reacting. Then again, we know very well by know that these checks does not have much to do with actual security. [1] I have no reason to believe they'd react to a bomb with sufficient urgency to stop anyone from walking off. I've left bottles of liquid in many times (by accident), and they don't usually notice. They have noticed my sons game console (was bringing it with us to his grandparents and didn't think to take it out of the carry-on), but it's not like they reacted with any urgency - they just put it aside and waited for us to come over and point at it before dealing with it.

someguydave 10y ago

The difference is that the TSA uses the power of the state to compel you to give up your stuff. Night clubs and other private entities have to compete with each other so there is incentive to help the customer.