12 ms·
TSA Moves On From Your Underwear to Your Starbucks
- ck2 14y agoSo what happens when we hit two decades later, billions of tax dollars completely wasted and the TSA has not caught a single "terrorist" ? Even worse all that and they MISS another terrorist? Will they then get more funding or less? Move the searches into our homes? Tell me where exactly we draw the line.
- indiecore 14y ago>Will they then get more funding or less? Move the searches into our homes? More and yes. See the War on Drugs.
- ctdonath 14y agoThe line was drawn some 225 years ago: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It's not about drawing the line, it's about holding an uncooperative government to it. They're willing to go so far as shoot you if you don't let them cross that line and examine your coffee; you're not willing to pursue similar means to hold them to that line.
- ck2 14y agoTry quoting that line while they are beating and arresting you for not allowing them to search your car within 100 miles of a border: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty... Some states are considered to lie completely within a "constitution-free zone": Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
- archon 14y agoThese states "are considered" to be a "constitution-free zone" by whom? What does that even mean?
- danielweber 14y agoWell, by the ACLU. They describe what they mean in the fact sheet linked from the page that was provided: The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.” But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />United States. (I left the XML error in there just for the lulz.) You can disagree with their analysis, but it's pretty clear that their position is that normal 4th amendment rules are being superseded merely because of a rather wide proximity to the border.
- tnorthcutt 14y agoMore info: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-con...
- ctdonath 14y agoIt means that the explicit language of the US Constitution is flagrantly ignored and violated, as though outside its jurisdiction.
- kalleboo 14y agoAs long as there are people making money off it it, it'll just keep expanding. Probably not to our homes, but expect to see the TSA with naked body scanners at sports arenas, train and subway stations, shopping malls, office buildings...
- DanBC 14y agoThe TSA stops guns getting onto planes every week. We have no idea if they miss any guns, nor if the guns they stopped were going to be used on the plane. But TSA will point to the 20 or so guns they fund each week as evidence of effectiveness. EDIT (after a bunch of comments): I should make it clear that I'm not defending TSA, I think they're mostly lousy and pointless security theatre.
- GFKjunior 14y agoAnd yet no terrorist attacks have occurred. So either people got more violent after 9/11 and therefore brought more weapons, or people were always bringing guns onto planes. I’d bet on the latter, and yet how many terror attacks occurred? Hmmm…
- saraid216 14y agoUh... there have been a number of terrorists-on-a-plane incidents in the past 11 years, even if you restrict your search to incidents where Americans were at risk.
- GFKjunior 14y agoPlease give me some links. Here is a nice debate with Bruce Schneier. "In the entire decade or so of airport security since the attacks on September 11th 2001, the TSA has not foiled a single terrorist plot or caught a single terrorist. Its own “Top 10 Good Catches of 2011″ does not have a single terrorist on the list." https://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/820 https://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/820
- saraid216 14y agoYour problem is that you require that the TSA be responsible for catching them. The two I know off-hand from popular culture are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab Found a better list here: * American Airlines Flight 63 The "shoe bomb", a failed al-Qaeda PETN bombing attempt in December 2001. * China Northern Flight 6136, a 2002 flight brought down by a passenger who had purchased life insurance, who set a fire in flight with gasoline * 2004 Russian aircraft bombings Islamist terrorist attacks on two domestic Russian passenger aircraft flying from Moscow. The bombs were triggered by two female Chechen suicide bombers. Shamil Salmanovich Basayev militant leader of the Chechen terrorist movement claimed credit. * 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot al-Queda terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried on board at least 10 airliners travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada. It followed the same general plan as the Bojinka plot. * Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the target of a failed al-Qaeda PETN bombing attempt in December 2009 * 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, failed al-Qaeda PETN bombing attempt on two planes in October 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_at... ETA: I want to note that my issue is only that you stated a factual incorrectness: that no terror attacks have occurred involving airplanes in the past 11 years. You can denigrate the TSA all you want; just do it based on factually correct statements.
- bluedanieru 14y agoIn 20 years the TSA will be a fond memory.
- danielweber 14y agoand the TSA has not caught a single "terrorist" ? There's a lot of TSA crap and the whole agency should probably be zero'd out, but this isn't the right measure. If a metal detector at an airport never stopped a gun, that wouldn't mean the metal detector is useless for keeping guns off planes.
- bdunbar 14y agoIt would if guns have slipped by the metal detector. Which they have.
- danielweber 14y agoA metal detector that has a 99% chance of stopping guns -- meaning some slip by -- would be awesome. It's a classic problem in computer security that, if it actually works, people say "why do I need security since there are no incidents?" Metal detectors, even if not completely perfect, stop people from bringing serious weaponry onto airplanes because people don't bother bringing serious weaponry in the first place. The chances of getting caught are too high. People who simply don't bother will never show up in your direct measurements of the effectiveness of the metal detector.
- mtgx 14y agoThe same thing that happened to the failed war on drugs after 4 decades. It will carry on. As for your other question, it will keep getting bigger budgets, because "mission creep". What do you think this, and those cases where they went to subway and bus stops was? They are testing the waters to see how the people are reacting to them expanding their scope. If no one says anything or the outrage is not big enough, they'll most likely propose the Government to allow them to set-up check-ins in other places as well, and of course increase their budget.
- blktiger 14y ago<sarcasm>The TSA is in BIG trouble when they start messing with citizens' Starbucks!</sarcasm>
- bluetidepro 14y agoArticles like this just make me so mad that the TSA can just be bullies and do such ridiculous things. Does anyone know the current state of the TSA, as far as upcoming funding, plans, or improvement goes? Is it Homeland Security making these things mandatory or what? I just constantly hear insane stories like this and never hear any good coming from the TSA. How do we change this? Or is that even an option?
- wj 14y agoI dislike the TSA as much as the next guy but some of their employees are good people. My father-in-law commutes weekly from Austin. Once he left his laptop at the screening and remembered it the next day. He called and they had it waiting for him when he flew back through a couple of days later.
- cobrausn 14y agoThis is obviously true, and ultimately meaningless. All organizations are composed of people, and I guarantee you that within even the most 'evil' organization is quite a few 'good people'. It doesn't make the organization any less 'evil'.
- Karunamon 14y agoIf I had the money and time to spare, I'd create a group who's job it would be to just buy random travel to random places and do nothing but screw with the TSA. We're talking millionaire levels here. I'd buy people tickets, walk them through how to jam the entire process start to finish (quoting the constitution works exceedingly well if the stories I'm reading mean anything), and hire lawyers to deal with fighting the inevitable legal challenges. Call me childish, but I would like nothing better to but to make this system such a cost drain that it's dropped. Once airlines have to start rebooking people due to flights being missed by many, many paying passengers, en masse, the corporate pressure that makes the government wheels turn will do the rest. Most people put up with this fucktardery only because they have somewhere to be and don't want to miss their flight. And the security theater actors know this.
- thedrbrian 14y agoThe TSA would probably arrest you andyour collaborators for obstructing the law or inciting fear or something. Either way you wouldn't be able to operate for long before something happened.
- kintamanimatt 14y agoThis is possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read. The complaints about security theater are loud and frequent, but aside from bitching and moaning, what can be done?
- bluedanieru 14y agoNothing, and that's fine. America has been voting itself into a police state for at least the last 30 years, arguably even since the start of the Cold War. Enjoy it, you've have earned it.
- kintamanimatt 14y agoHere's the thing: this affects non-citizens too who have had no part in the voting process, particularly tourists and business travelers who have to endure this absurdity. These ridiculous practices spread to other countries too; it's a global issue.
- mattstreet 14y agoEventually we won't have either of those.
- kintamanimatt 14y agoThat seems very unlikely.
- grecy 14y agoWhile managing a hostel in South American I met people from all over the world with horror stories about security and customs while simply transiting through the US for a matter of hours. Hundreds and hundreds of travelers told me they would happily spent $1k extra on flights next time simply to avoid the United States. They don't want to go there ever again.
- 14y ago
- ck2 14y agoSpeaking of the TSA, I am not sure how this didn't make national news: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2012/aug/30/tsa-detains-interrogates-ron-pauls-family-and-aids/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/politica... http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331811 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331811 HN completely bans his name being mentioned in topic titles apparently.
- mcantelon 14y agoAt least one of his colleagues claims to have had their luggage tampered with as well, so this might have been done in conjunction with someone tipping off the TSA about planted items. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TsFVmZBAWI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TsFVmZBAWI
- thornofmight 14y ago"HN completely bans his name being mentioned in topic titles apparently." Is this actually true?
- strmpnk 14y agoGiven other common things I've seen filtered, I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think the intent is to sensor as much as it is to keep the news a little more focussed. Still, I wish there was a bit a transparency with a viewable list of what is and isn't filtered.
- ck2 14y agoTurn on showdead in your profile and you can see what is being killed. But even that isn't the whole picture - for example this thread has over 100 points and has magically disappeared from the front page in only a few hours while topics with far fewer points stick around. So there must be an invisible gravity switch.
- toomuchcoffee 14y agoReally now? Let's try a little experiment: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4487628 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4487628
- poulsbohemian 14y agoIt's not surprising this is at Columbus. I've had top-tier frequent flyer status for the past 5 years and Columbus is the worst airport in the country in terms of violation of your civil rights. The problem isn't the security checkpoint, it's stuff like this nonsense - they regularly do additional screening at the gate or as people are getting onto the planes themselves. There's no way this is constitutional, even in light of past rulings favorable to the TSA. I can't think of any other airport either in the US or abroad that has taken things to the extreme they have in Columbus. Perhaps the state of Ohio has forgotten what happened at Kent State? Must be something in the water.
- pedalpete 14y agoOr it could be a funding thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt Columbus is one of the major airports in the US. However, I suspect that the more 'work' they do and people they employ, the more money they are given to operate in that airport.
- smutticus 14y agoI wonder what would happen if I just politely refused. On most occasions I would be willing to go to jail over this.
- tantalor 14y agoFTA, "passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening checkpoint entrance." More likely, you can refuse, but you'll be escorted out of the terminal (and refused reentry). I doubt you'll "go to jail" unless you assault the TSA agent, become disorderly, etc.
- ibejoeb 14y agoTSA can't arrest or detain, but they can call the police. I'm quite sure you'd be detained. I don't know on what grounds an arrest could be made, so you're probably right that you'd be removed from the premises after some holding period.
- chimeracoder 14y ago> While TSA agents lack the authority to arrest or detain anyone, passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening checkpoint entrance. What does this mean, then - will they just throw you out if you refuse? Or will they illegally detain you? My bet is on the latter.
- ibejoeb 14y agoWhat if I were to quickly drink the coffee? Felony obstruction? This is a serious question; I'm not being sarcastic.
- rglover 14y agoThe TSA is certainly going way beyond logic with this, but honestly, passengers need to start speaking up (specifically I'm referencing the placidity of the people having their drinks checked in the video). Realize that while they may have a badge and a fun little uniform, these agents are people just like you and I. Sadly, in most cases, they're of a lesser intelligence too (yes that's mean and discriminatory but it's true). When something is wrong, call it out. Otherwise this sort of absurdity will continue to get worse. Civil liberties are more important than your meeting. Don't be afraid of this crap.
- jfischer 14y agoThis is just the tip of the iceberg - for some time now, many international flights inbound to the U.S. have had a secondary screening of your carry-on bags at the gate. They won't let you take any liquids into the gate (beyond the 3 oz bottles) and go through your bags. They had this last month when I traveled from HKG to SFO. Other international flights not going to the U.S. did not have this screening. I think I remember an at-gate screening at Frankfurt as well, but my memory is fuzzy. At least there were no X-rays or pat-downs...
- h1srf 14y agoThat(screening at the gate) has been going on forever though and most people (international travelers) are used to it by now. Most international flights to the US will have additional security screening for liquids/whatever since most destinations don't require the whole liquids/take shoes off/turn on your laptop crap. Not saying it's right, just that it's been going on forever.
- joezydeco 14y agoI just flew out of FRA to the states last month and they don't screen at the gate (or just before) anymore. But they have reconfigured terminal 1 so that all US-bound flights leave through section "Z", which used to be section "A". Everyone leaving through Z (since it's non EU/Schengen) gets a heavier screen than domestic flights leaving out of the other gates.
- Matt_Mickiewicz 14y ago... and this is why I'm Canadian.
- catenate 14y agoIf I encountered this (I usually fly up to six times a month) I would simply not buy the supposedly-offending food item at that airport ever again. If enough people do this, the businesses there will be less able to pay their expensive airport concession fees, and complain to the airport, or just close up shop. The airport has a lot more leverage with the Thousands Standing Around than I do.
- IanDrake 14y agoSo, I smuggled explosives into the terminal and now I'm going to take it out of my premo hiding spot and put it in a cup? Sure...that's what I'd do. Glad we got that scenario covered.
- adrr 14y ago"While TSA agents lack the authority to arrest or detain anyone, passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening checkpoint entrance." How does that work? You can't just waive your rights. I wonder what would happen if you said no. They may not let you on your flight but if you just landed and buying coffee there's noting they can do if you refuse.
- ctdonath 14y agoYou can't waive your rights, except for situations where they decide you can just by being there.
- wkdown 14y agoI think we should refuse to acknowledge their authority. Obviously, when REAL law enforcement comes, you recognize theirs. When the TSA tries to touch you, you press assault charges.
- genwin 14y agoThe law as I understand it is, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at and beyond the security checkpoint. You could be arrested (by police) for saying no. And of course you'll end up on the no-fly list and have to move to another country if you want to fly again. Not that I'm supporting any of this.
- adrr 14y agoI hate that "no fly" list. Its a clear restriction on constitutional right on freedom of movement(article 4).
- peeters 14y ago> But the TSA says the practice isn’t new — it’s been going on since 2007 — and is part of random screening techniques designed to catch liquid explosives that might slip through initial screening. Wow, who are these people trying to convince? A random sampling make absolutely no sense here. To have a 95% chance of catching the offending substance, you'd have to "randomly screen" 95% of passengers. And that's assuming that the screening technique would actually catch a determined individual, which it won't, because he's a terrorist and he's thought things through.
- MrMember 14y ago>And that's assuming that the screening technique would actually catch a determined individual, which it won't, because he's a terrorist and he's thought things through. This is the real head scratcher. Say someone did get an explosive liquid through the initial security screening. Why would they then be drinking it later while waiting for their flight?
- gshakir 14y agoWe are all living in a heightened sense of fear. It was apparent as I was waiting to board a plane over the Labor day weekend, one of the airline representative came over on the mic and said: "Calling Mr..Err Hmm..I rather not say this passenger name aloud, so I will spell it out..Will Mr. G..U...N please come forward? "
- wkdown 14y agoWe need to stand up against this shit. This is absolutely ridiculous. The TSA and DoHS as a whole are a fucking joke. /soapbox
- wkdown 14y agoWe need to stand up against this shit. This is absolutely ridiculous. The TSA and DoHS as a whole are a fucking joke. /soapbox