17 ms·

Why It's Time to Break the Code of Silence at the Airport

262 points by eplanit 14y ago

mikec3k 14y ago
The TSA needs to go. The security theater we have to go through every time we fly does NOTHING to make us safer. It's all just a big show.
- jumby 14y ago
  And billions down the drain.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Too many people are making too much money from it. Good luck.
grecy 14y ago
> Besides, American airport security is the "gold standard," isn't it? Depressingly, this is the same logic that keeps Americans from improving anything. Because they're constantly told they live in the best country in the world(TM), Americans are apathetic when it comes to making things better (healthcare, education, poverty rates, incarceration rates, living standards, etc.), because they think it's already "the best".
- iends 14y ago
  Generalizations like these are exciting. Let me try too... I've yet to meet an American who didn't think at least one one of these, if not all, were completely broken. Source: I live in America.
  - grecy 14y ago
    Not that it's a great source of truth, but this one says a massive majority of Americans still believe they live in the best country in the world: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/fox-news-poll-america-weaker-greatest-country-world-voters-say/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/fox-news-poll-america-w... > I've yet to meet an American who didn't think at least one one of these, if not all, were completely broken. More importantly, what are any of those people doing about fixing the things that are broken?
    - B-Con 14y ago
      There's a difference between having the best X and living in the best country. A lot of nations have fantastic X but would widely not be considered anywhere close to the best place to live. In theory you could rank at #10 in all things desirable and still be the all-round "best" place. The US is a good country and the citizens are indeed well off. We're not trending in a good direction on average and a lot of things need to be fixed, but it's still a very good place to live.
      - grecy 14y ago
        > but it's still a very good place to live. Spend some time looking at the statistics [1] and you'll see that in almost all key areas, America ranks dead-last among developed countries, and is often more comparable to developing countries than developed ones. Compared to undeveloped countries, you are right, America is a very good place to live for the average Joe on the street. Compared to developed countries, it is not. [1] http://www.oecd.org/statistics/ http://www.oecd.org/statistics/
        lsc 14y ago
        America is a pretty good place to be above-average. Our good schools, for example, are pretty expensive, but they are really good. Same goes for high-end medical care, and, for that matter, taxes. It's a pretty nice place to be above-average, even though, yeah, for the average and below, you are probably right. The thing, I think, that most of us miss is that, well (and I am in this category too,) most of us think of ourselves as above average. As Steinbeck said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." From my experiences, even just looking at my own feelings, this is absolutely something built into the American culture. I go on like I'm wealthy, and I do own a company with a very high revenue, but profit? what I actually get paid? well, I'm barely above average. But I still see myself as 'above average' I think this explains most of the very American phenomina of poor folks voting for various policies that disproportionately favor rich folks.
        iends 14y ago
  - btilly 14y ago
    Where do you live in America? I know several Americans who think those are all in fine shape. They tend to be Republicans living in places like Arizona. I don't meet a lot of people like that in Los Angeles, but they really do exist.
    - iends 14y ago
      I'm a republican (think Barry Goldwater, not George Bush), from North Carolina. No 'republican' around here is happy with anything, everything is broken and it's all Obama's fault. :)
      - btilly 14y ago
        If you're a Republican in the spirit of Barry Goldwater, then you should do as Barry Goldwater did and become a Democrat! Seriously, his belief in individual liberty lead to sharp disagreements with his party on abortion, gay rights and drug laws, with the result that by the 1990s he was endorsing and voting for Democrats over Republicans.
  - mattstreet 14y ago
    Usually people I talk to about this seem to think things are broken, and yet learning from other countries would just make it worse.
- DuskStar 14y ago
  It's a mentality I really think is going to hurt the country in the long run. The only way to stay the best at anything is to keep striving forward - like Singapore does with education. And this is still my favorite clip from a TV show- somewhat related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYjyLg8bbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYjyLg8bbo
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    I went to an Ivy League school, and I spent a bit of time working for the office of Alumni Relations. About 90% of the alumni members of "The Greatest Generation" I spoke with seemed to be convinced that the country was going down the tubes, and my sense was that this was something more than just the bitterness of old men.
- jumby 14y ago
  Laughable, travel to Israel. There have been numerous news stories on the security theatre that is the TSA.
- siculars 14y ago
  Try flying into or out of Israel. Israeli airline/airport security is far and away the best in the world.
- yareally 14y ago
  Quite a few Americans know things are broken. Just many that do tend to adopt an apathetic or indifferent attitude about it (i.e. "It sucks, but what can I do about it?", "I don't like it, but how can we make it better?" or the worst one "It doesn't affect me really."). disclaimer: I'm an American Citizen.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Americans are apathetic when it comes to making things better (healthcare, education, poverty rates, incarceration rates, living standards, etc.), because they think it's already "the best". A great many of my fellow Americans are worse than apathetic. If you point out areas where we can improve, some Americans will actively attack you through accusations of treason and verbal abuse. (Seems to be 10X worse in Texas than any other place I've lived.) It's as if they're willfully trying their best to ensure they won't ever learn anything.
  - vacri 14y ago
    When I was travelling through the US, it seemed to me that the state religion of some Americans is "America" - and like all religions, it's not up for questioning. I noticed that this patriotic religion increased and I had a lighthearted mental count going in my head of how many houses had a little US flag in the front yard (in LA, this would be on the other side of the yard as the post telling you which security company would respond to a burglary). It seemed to me that the more patriotic-religiouse areas hit one beflagged house in every 4-5. To be fair, most areas didn't have any flags or rare flags, but when it got to one in five... anyway, this theory was turned on its head when I stayed in a part of Pittsburgh where it was one in five houses that didn't have that little flag...
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > Depressingly, this is the same logic that keeps Americans from improving anything...because they think it's already "the best" So this is why there is no innovation in America? We are all culturally caught up in tradition and taught in such a rote manner that we can't innovate? You should see the caste system we have -- inflexible tradition all the way!
  - vacri 14y ago
    The 'can-do' attitude that the country is famous for does seem to be evaporating. Sure, it's still present on an individual level (witness the point of this site), but it seems that the idea of nation-building projects is gone, perhaps even considered evil by some in the current political climate. When faced with war in the 40s, the nation banded together and did amazing things never before seen. While today, when faced with impending financial doom, everyone's content to merely bitch about the politicians bickering. Roll up your sleeves and put some sweat equity into building the nation? That's a long gone notion in terms of the national psyche, it seems. I dunno, I don't have particularly clear examples, but as an outsider, Americans used to have a reputation as having a real can-do attitude, but recently it seems to have... attenuated? More content to fiddle while Rome burns?
- ersii 14y ago
  I'd just like to chip in that, in Sweden, I've come across a lot of people who use the exact same saying to things that can be improved in general. I think this rhetoric is a lot more wide spread than just the United States of America.
fjorder 14y ago
The TSA's budget is just a tad short of half that of NASA's. Cutting back on the little-old-lady-molesting budget and giving the cash to space-explorers seems like a no-brainer to me. However, I'm not an American.
- jumby 14y ago
  You are talkin' loco. That could mean American excellence once again and we have vowed to end that.
- B-Con 14y ago
  Here's perspective: The TSA's budget is on par with what we estimate the CIA and NSA use. The freaking CIA.
  - jackpirate 14y ago
    How much of the TSA's budget is secretly diverted to the CIA?
  - MaysonL 14y ago
    Given that the TSA budget is about $7B and that the total intelligence budget is around $50B, that seems a tad high.
- taligent 14y ago
  > little-old-lady-molesting budget How about a bit of maturity ? The TSA performs a legitimate role that is required by EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Yes. Every country has a TSA. The difference is in the aggressiveness of their searches. So how about instead of this "abandon the TSA and let every gun toting idiot board the plane" why not focus on the specific policies.
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    Yes, as soon as the TSA begins loosening its procedures like other countries(using your example), gun toting idiots will come out of the woodwork to board flights. Obviously this is what happens in every other country. The current TSA procedures are the only thing stopping the hoards of gun toting idiots attempting to board planes.
JDGM 14y ago
The author gives three very persuasive reasons for NOT "breaking the code of silence", with no explicit rebuttals to them. Perhaps the implied point is that by calling people to arms to speak up, the peer pressure (reason #2) will crumble, and those who do speak up will not be labeled crazy (reason #1). As for "you'll miss your plane" (reason #3), I'm not sure his solution, but I assume it would be something along the lines of "they can't make everyone miss their plane". A decent article, but its conclusion paragraph "The next time a TSA agent asks you to do something you're uncomfortable with, say something. [...]" is bad advice. We need to speak up, but not at the moment of the offense when we have least credibility - it must be from outside the queue, where we have a stronger position.
tokenadult 14y ago
I remember a more innocent time almost three decades ago when my work involved frequent flying, such that I have been to most major airports in the United States repeatedly and have logged weeks above 30,000 feet of altitude. I have a photograph from those days showing me seated at the controls of a commercial airliner, which the crew of the airliner took after I boarded a flight early in the boarding process. In those days a business traveler could sit down to pose for a snapshot inside the aircraft cockpit, with the crew having no concerns about a person who was not an airline employee being there. That's the carefree ease of flying in the United States I remember from the beginning of my adulthood. 1329 days ago I wrote here on HN, in reponse to one of the recurring complaints about airport security procedures, "Hear. Hear. I was just on flights out of town over the weekend, and it occurred to me that the terrorists have won by making air travel so inconvenient and annoying for every American who ever flies domestically. 'Maybe Secure Flight is a good use of our money; maybe it isn't. But let's have debates like that in the open, as part of the budget process, where it belongs.' This is the general answer for review of current security procedures: we should check whether they are worthwhile for the amount of improved security they promise to provide." 334 days ago another participant, who came to the United States from another country, wrote, It's also the only place that made me take my shoes off before the metal detector, which I found quite humiliating This appears to have been one of the calculations of the terrorist group that put up the shoe bomber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot to trying his failed attempt to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his shoe. Some of the co-religionists of some of those terrorists consider it extremely degrading to be bare-footed in certain situations deemed to be "holy" situations (I know this from having been warned about how I oriented my feet in flip-flop sandals once when I was overseas in 1984), and thus they have probably been glad to humiliate Americans as Americans have reacted to the failed shoe bomb plot. My proposal is that United States airport security give up on requesting passengers to remove shoes. Yeah, maybe have chemical sensing devices with air intakes at floor level to screen for bombs on shoes, but let us all wear our shoes onto airplanes and throughout the insides of airports. The screening procedures at present appear to be an overreaction to the actual risk of a shoe bomb destroying a passenger airplane, especially in view of other countries not having the same screening procedure for airline passengers. I've summed up my reaction to the past incidents of terrorism directed at Americans overseas or civilians in the United States in a more recent Hacker News comment: "It's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind." Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize Transportation Security Agency "security theater" as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs. We should also be able to fly freely about the country with no more than strictly necessary security precautions. I want to be able to walk into an airport with my shoes on and walk calmly to an arrival gate to greet arriving passengers there. I used to do that. And I want to be able to carry a Swiss Army knife in an airline carry-on bag. Grandmothers and mothers and children should surely be able to board an airliner unmolested in a free country like the United States. That said, I remember when conditions changed in the United States. I stood on top of the former World Trade Center in New York City twice while traveling with foreign visitors to the United States during my earlier frequent flyer days. Because I remember the peace and freedom I long enjoyed here to welcome visitors to the United States from around the world, I want the leaders and active participants in terrorist networks to identified through constant surveillance and intelligence, and I want terrorists to be attacked relentlessly where they live, so that they have to hide in caves while people all over the world who renounce their goals get to lead civilized, peaceful lives in the Twenty-First Century. Taliban delenda est. Al Qaeda delenda est. AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the several interesting comments. I think it is important to acknowledge that, yes, the United States government as a matter of official policy has engaged in assassination of foreign government leaders, and plotted the assassination of others, as well as committed and plotted break-ins in foreign embassies (but not random bomb attacks on foreign embassies, to the best of my recollection). I think the United States has been chastened by some of the results of those earlier policies. The movie Argo has been watched by many Americans, and it frankly acknowledges the assassination of an elected prime minister in Iran by the CIA back before I was born. I think now the United States is much more interested in information openness as a means to make sure that countries all around the world trade peacefully rather than waging war one one another, and I think that is the only long-term way to defeat terrorist networks. The current armed warfare strategy of drone attacks on specific terrorist leaders rather than mass bombing attacks on cities (as in World War II) is a step forward in war-fighting effectiveness and an improvement in reducing civilian casualties. Yes, the United States is still second only to France as a country destination for foreign tourists (and rather more of the tourists to France can drive cars or ride trains to France than can many visitors to the United States). So as obnoxious as current TSA security procedures are to me and to many, they are not so obnoxious that people have stopped visiting the United States for fun. Oh, yes, and my "half-Asian" children look very Central Asian, as one might expect, and my oldest son with his full black beard looks like someone from the latest news story about Al Qaeda. I'm not sure what his experience has been traveling around the country for his study and work. He barely remembers the old days before the TSA. Certainly we should also make sure not to harass citizens or visitors who happen to have the wrong name or the wrong pattern of physical appearance, but identify threats on the basis of more relevant information. Another top-level comment in this thread says that Israel succeeds in doing that for the most part.
draggnar 14y ago
it's a jobs program
pytrin 14y ago
I recently moved to the U.S from Israel. If there's a country that knows about Airport security, it's Israel, for obvious reasons. Let me tell you this - most of the security procedures in U.S airports are pointless and ridicules. Taking off your shoes and your belt. Holding your hands in front of a screen. Pat downs. We have the technology to avoid this (and have had it for the past 20+ years). If you've been to Israel, you know it's a completely different procedure, and I can guarantee you it's way more secure. They focus more on behavior profiling through multiple inspection points and with a series of questions they ask you AS YOU WAIT IN LINE for checking in your luggage. No fuss, no body strip checks, no taking off pieces of clothing. X-ray screening is done by simply walking through the machine, while your baggage passes a different machine. Airport security in the U.S feels like the result of bureaucracy and procedure for the sake of appearance. EDIT: clarified what I meant by profiling.
- peterjmag 14y ago
  I was really intrigued to learn about Israel's approach to airport security, especially given the relative threat they face. Here's the article that I read a while back: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2009/12/30/the_israelification_of_airports_high_security_little_bother.html http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2009/12/30/the_israelifica... Seems like the US could stand to learn something.
  - pytrin 14y ago
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    The TSA is experimenting with behavioral screening of this kind. I was screened at Logan last time I flew. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/expanded-behavior-detection-pilot http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/expanded-behavior-de... There are two problems with it, I think. First, it requires a fairly well-trained interrogator or it's no better than window dressing. Second, when it's effective, it's almost always perceived as rude. U.S. border guards have been doing it for years, and it's one reason they get such a bad reputation vs. those friendly Canadians on the other side. Deployed on a large scale, I bet more folks here on hn would be complaining about it than about the nude scanners. "What do you mean I have to tell an agent of the government what I'm planning on doing in LA?"
tlrobinson 14y ago
The most disturbing thing about this article is this fact: "But in a recent poll, one-third of Americans said they would be in favor of cavity searches to board a plane. No, you didn’t read that wrong. Cavity searches." What the hell, people?
- cheald 14y ago
  I suspect there's an implied "of other people" there. Or maybe they think that the backscatters have an ultrasound in them somewhere. Latex up the butt would be a great way to get people pissed enough to do something.
  - T-hawk 14y ago
    Yup, "of other people". Remember that the median number of flights taken by an American in a year is zero. Millions of armchair patriots are perfectly happy to sacrifice someone else's convenience for the edifying notion that we're beatin' them terr'ists. The war on terror they see is a far-off unreal spectator sport, not daily personal violations of human and constitutional rights.
- Joe_Knapp 14y ago
  I don't believe those polls. In fact I don't believe the mainstream media anymore.
- mtaubman 14y ago
  Well, he's restating something posted on something called TSA News Blog, which was just repeating something mentioned by Jonathan Turley, who was reporting this little factoid courtesy of Infowars, so yeah, I'd say it's completely credible all around.
cheald 14y ago
I opt out every time that I fly, and I always request a public screening, because I want people to see me being patted down. It's amazing how many people still aren't aware that they have the option. I've talked to a few folks in line about it, and even convinced one guy to opt out after me. Set an example and be obvious about it. Funny story - on my last flight, the patdown resulted in an alert for some banned residue on my clothing, so the TSA took me aside to a private cubicle, re-ran the patdown, came up clean, and then left me to pack my stuff up and go on my way. In this cubicle with me were two 5-gallon buckets filled with confiscated lighters and pocket knives. Someone thought it was a good idea to leave me to re-pack my luggage unsupervised in a room full of contraband with no additional security checks. I didn't take anything or do anything untoward, and I wanted to point it out to the agent who'd patted me down, but I'm sure that would have just flagged me as suspicious and I would get to expend extra time being thoroughly searched. If that doesn't tell you how hilariously bad security is, I'm not sure what will.
- kstenerud 14y ago
  You mean besides the fact that pocket knives and lighters pose no real danger?
  - martinced 14y ago
    Wasn't flight 93, according to the official version, hijacked by four people using pocket knives?
    - machrider 14y ago
      Cockpit doors are secured now, which really limits the damage a person can do with simple tools.
      - danielschonfeld 14y ago
        and by secured u mean what exactly?....
    - 14y ago
trout 14y ago
I tend to vote against this type of security by opting out of the scanners. If even one quarter of the passengers opted out they would need to reexamine their security - one that would likely not include the expensive scanners or intrusive pat down tests. I just get to the airport 10 minutes earlier. They do seem to intentionally penalize you with delay, and often question why you're opting out.
- logn 14y ago
  Yeah they asked me why I opted out. I said "I don't trust the government". Then I imagined a CIA robot zooming in on me. I clarified: "I don't trust the government with medical x-ray procedures"
paliderek 14y ago
I have restarted the petition to abolish the TSA here: http://wh.gov/dUK1 http://wh.gov/dUK1 or here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-tsa-favor-airport-security-measures-which-clearly-do-not-violate-rights-those-being-screened/fxSVWy3N https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-tsa-favor-...
mbesto 14y ago
There's no evidence that patting down passengers like Burton has made air travel any safer. I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. How on earth do you actually prove prevention techniques?
lsc 14y ago
> "I wasn't even afforded the privacy of a screen." this is... interesting. I mean, I know this is very different for me because of the cultural expectations of me as a male, but personally? I'd /much/ rather have an authority figure violate me in public than in private. In public, they are restrained by witnesses; in private? well, who knows what they will do? and if I complain of what they do in private, well, it's my word against that of an authority figure. In public, there are witnesses.
trotsky 14y ago
Often, air travelers either have to pay for a new ticket at an expensive "walk-up" fare Wait, what? While I'm sure it can't be 100%, I've missed dozens of flights over the years and never once was it ever suggested that I might have to pay a dime to the airline. Usually it's the next flight on the same route unless its full or a long way off. imho you don't speak up against the TSA because it's designed to be a dominating experience. you don't speak up in prison either.
ctdonath 14y ago
4th Amendment. Use it. (To wit: the US government is forbidden from searching people without a warrant signed by a judge for that particular person and situation. Creeping judicial decisions have in effect destroyed that restriction.)
- dsymonds 14y ago
  Doesn't necessarily apply. Courts have ruled that the 4th amendment can be limiter or suspended in certain situations. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/ http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    Hence my comment Creeping judicial decisions have in effect destroyed that restriction. Same kind of reasoning which turns synonyms into antonyms.
- jaredmcateer 14y ago
  While it's well within your right to refuse a search, it's within the private airline/airport rights to refuse you access to a secure area if you refuse to be "properly" screened and they can just turn you around at that point to find another means of transportation to your destination.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    The private airline/airport has no say. The government, a la TSA, is the one who will not just refuse, but jail, you for opposing the unwarranted search.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Has this actually happened, or do the low-level agents use this as an empty threat?
run4yourlives 14y ago
Curious: Does anyone have any sort of information that the TSA has even prevented a single terrorist attack? As in: Terrorist was going to board a plane, and the security that we all go through stopped him/her. You get some surprising results if you google it... just wondering if any of you have any futher knowledge. Spoiler: The answer seems to be "No".
- dclowd9901 14y ago
  Worse than "no", many independent tests were run by "false negative" terrorists -- people who weren't actually planning anything but were probing security by bringing contraband onto the plane -- who were actually successful. It's worse than bad.
- devicenull 14y ago
  Don't you think that if they had, it's all we'd be hearing about for months/years afterwords? I can't imagine they'd catch someone then do anything less then blast it all over the news.
- mrcrassic 14y ago
  I met a TSA airport agent a few months ago and, naturally, asked him exactly this. Apparently, the TSA purposely does not release accurate statistics as a security measure and that he and his colleagues have definitely stopped a lot of potential, but minor, scenarios from happening. I could be wrong and uneducated about this, of course.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Without statistics it's hard to say what "potential" meant, doesn't it? The TSA reports that they find 4-5 guns each day. People forget that they have their gun one them or in their luggage. These incidents are reported. Are these part of the "potential, but minor, scenarios"? It's hard to say without knowing the statistics. But it's safe to assume that "minor" means "not terrorism related." I can't come up with any scenarios where the release of accurate statistics would cause a security problem, except to lower the security of the TSA's own existence. To take it up a notch, are all of the accurate statistics from 2010 still so sensitive that none of them can be revealed? I don't think so. But I don't think those have been released at all.
conroe64 14y ago
So many people here are acting like nothing happened to justify the existence of the TSA. Yet, there were two buildings destroyed in the one of the most iconic cities in the world, the pentagon was damaged, and the Whitehouse was almost also destroyed, with more than 3000 civilians killed, and all of this can be directly attributed to the lack of airport security. Yes, the TSA does a questionable job, but the constant whining and calls to demolish it without the acknowledge of the need for changes from the "good old days" before 9/11 is not only sophomoric but downright dangerous.
- chill1 14y ago
  You neglected to mention that since 9/11, it would be almost impossible to do now what the hijackers did then. If that were attempted now, a whole plane load of vigilantes would rise up against the hijackers.
  - conroe64 14y ago
    It's a pretty simplistic viewpoint to think that nothing should have been done to amp of security and the problem would just take care of itself after the tragedy of 9/11. Yes, maybe the exact same plan wouldn't work again, but downing a plane would take far less compliance by the other passengers than running it into a building.
  - readme 14y ago
    Sure, sure... And you know this how? A gut feeling? Remember, there were multiple planes on 9/11, and this did not succeed or happen in any of those situations. I like that you are so sure about this, with no data or anything.
    - logn 14y ago
      Remember the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania or near there? News spread to the passengers and they overcame the hijackers.
      - 14y ago
jstalin 14y ago
Very few break the silence because the far majority of human beings will submit to authority without question, if the conditions are right. It's well documented that they will even do so to the point of hurting or even killing someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
jbarham 14y ago
FWIW one thing I really appreciate about living in Australia is the complete absence of security hassles when flying vs. the US. I've flown domestically within Australia half a dozen times in the past couple of years and I don't think I've been asked even once for ID. Obviously they screen your carry-on luggage and you walk through the X-ray machine, but it's reasonable and relaxed security compared to the US. It's fine for non-travellers to go through security and meet friends or family right at the gate as soon as they get off the plane. Very civilized.
- nmcveity 14y ago
  The only time I've been through a body scanner is in Australia. Just recently returned to the US through Melbourne airport where I had a 'wtf' moment when I saw the scanner. I was selected (about 25% of the people went through it, I'd guess) and when I said I'd rather have a pat down - as I do in the US - they told me that if I refuse, I would be escorted out of the airport and banned from returning for 24 hours. I argued for a little bit but eventually had no choice, not really being able to miss the flight. The old system with metal detectors and xray screening of luggage was more civilised, imo. Things have really changed, ... When I was a child I used to fly from Devonport (a small city) to Melbourne a lot. In those days, you didn't even go through security to get onto the plane in Devonport - they put you through security after you disembarked in Melbourne!
lotso 14y ago
Luckily I haven't been groped by any TSA agents, but I did have one experience that was very annoying. I went through the scanner and my bags did as well, but I forgot to empty my water bottle. In the past, TSA agents have asked if they could empty it for me and rescan it. This time the TSA agent said I would either have to throw it away or leave the gate and reenter the whole security line. I'll admit that I should have dumped my water, but I was bewildered by how aggressively the TSA agent told me my options. This may sound like whining, but I've never had anyone talk to me like that. I asked if there was anyone else I could talk to and she said no. Not wanting to create a scene, or be taken away by the TSA to be questioned, I left the gate and reentered the security line. I started talking to the person next to me in the security line and explained the situation, and for some reason, the TSA agent came over and basically yelled at me to empty my water bottle. I hadn't even gotten to the trashcan to empty my water bottle. And it is entirely unnecessary for a TSA agent to scold a passenger. At this point, I felt relatively shaken up by the whole ordeal. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a huge deal, but, man, I really hated being basically yelled at in front of everyone and having the TSA agent go out of her way to yell at me in line again. I should have filed a complaint, but it seemed pointless to do.
- driverdan 14y ago
  I had the opposite experience once. I forgot to empty my bottle and the TSA agent apologetically said I'd have to throw it away or re-enter. I was frustrated and asked if she could just empty it for me. She said no, it was against the regulations. In a frustrated tone I told her how I thought that was ridiculous but was never rude or disrespectful. I even made it clear that I understood her position and that she had to follow the rules. I decided to throw it away. As I put my belt and shoes back on she handed it back to me on the sly, empty. I was very thankful knowing that she had gone out of her way to help at the risk of being reprimanded.
- dschep 14y ago
  I sometimes forget to empty my bottle. I just drink the contents before they can finish their spiel.
berlinbrown 14y ago
My comment: Simple solution and nobody ever wants to talk about it. Sure it is more towards the long game but perfectly valid. The TSA budget is $8 billion, we should quit funding all of these crazy government programs. With a federal government budget of 1 trillion dollars, of course they are going to abuse their power. Iraq war, don't fund it. Afghanistan war, don't fund it. Drone operations, don't fund them. TSA, Department of Homeland Security, don't fund them. 3m
- erichocean 14y ago
  For that, we'd first need to be able to work up a new Federal budget, pass it in the House and Senate, and have it signed by the President. It's been four years since we've even been able to do that much; I'm not holding out hope that anything, anywhere, will have its budget cut in real (or nominal) terms.
robomartin 14y ago
The problem isn't TSA. The problem is that we and the world have not delivered a sufficiently severe set of consequences for engaging in terrorism. If you have small children you've seen this at work a million times. It could be about not touching a hot pot or not abusing the cat. Sometimes you can repeat your "don't do <x>" a million times and it simply does not register. Kids are wired that way, and, I suspect, most of us remain wired that way for some time. When does the behavior stop? When they touch the hot pot and get burned or when they mess with the cat too much and they are attacked. Just to clarify, none of these things happened to my kids because (a) I got lucky and they tend to listen and, (b) we don't own a cat. The point is that TSA and a bunch of other measures none of us like (Patriot act anyone?) were a reaction to an absolute failure to communicate, in no uncertain terms, that terrorism has severe and dire consequences. Almost unimaginable consequences that not one person on this planet would want to provoke. We are not a "hot pot" or a "cat" in the eyes of any of these people. We are a country and a people to be messed with because the consequences just don't hurt enough. And so is much, if not all of the West and Europe. This is a problem when you have an ideology and people who are living 800 years behind the rest of the planet. No? Ha! Go ask their women, their homosexuals and anyone who dares express such vile things as wanting women to be educated. Maybe 800 years is too small of a number, maybe it's more like 1,500 years. What consequences am I talking about? No point in going into it. The opportunity was lost over a decade ago. I am not sure I am smart enough to even begin to imagine what could be done today. You have to turn the environments within which would-be terrorists are cooked-up into environments where not one person would even consider the idea of terrorism due to a clear understanding of the consequences. Do that. Accomplish that. And you can shutdown the TSA, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and all else that is making our lives miserable and expensive. Yes. They won. Why would anyone doubt that? Look at all you've given up in the name of security. Sad.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > The point is that TSA and a bunch of other measures none of us like (Patriot act anyone?) were a reaction to an absolute failure to communicate, in no uncertain terms, that terrorism has severe and dire consequences. Almost unimaginable consequences that not one person on this planet would want to provoke. So you think it is possible to have absolute security? The TSA and Patriot Act are similar to irrational escalation or commitment bias ala "throw bad money after good money." We've already suffered a massive loss of life and money, but we'll throw all of this money at the problem that has passed and take away a number of liberties. The downside of an open society is the ability to be harmed. Giving up that openness doesn't seem like much of a trade for the margin security it provides.
geuis 14y ago
I was originally writing this as a response to conroe64 below, but it deserves to be its own comment. Yes, the days before 911 were the good old days. I have an older brother that didn't live with us. During the holidays, he would fly in and we'd go pick him up at the airport. On many separate occasions, the family would all wait at the exit gate for family and friends to get off. Can you even remember the experience of having a hundred people all patiently waiting for their loved ones to get off the plane, or being one of those people to exit the plane and to have all of your loved ones waiting for you right there? One time when my brother was leaving for home, we were able to go with him on the plane and I got to sit in the pilot's seat. Soooo many buttons. For some reason, I still remember there being a little button with a Christmas tree on it. No idea what it was for. So to your other points: modern airport security would have done NOTHING to prevent 9/11. Those guys didn't carry guns or large knives on board. They didn't hijack planes with water bottles and belts. They had fucking box cutters. You can't kill everyone on board with a box cutter. At worst, you can severely injure a couple of people, and by that point the passengers rise up and strangle your ass. What allowed those planes to be hijacked is that pre-9/11 the universal experience of being hijacked was to do what the hijackers said. That was what we were all told, because up until then that's what happened. Hijackings were a way to make political statements, not necessarily to kill the passengers. You might end up in Cuba, or held on the tarmac for ransom or something. What would have stopped 9/11 is if the public had a different mindset, being "take these assholes down at any cost". That's the mindset we have today. There were a few fatalities back then. The Lockerbie Scotland incident was a bombing. It wasn't even a hijacking. The perpetrators were hanging out in Libya. In fact, that bombing was sponsored by Gaddafi. We didn't invade Libya in revenge for that. The fact is, 9/11 happened. It was horrible. It brought to light that some changes were definitely needed in airport security, but it also brought to light that the passive reaction to hijackings was something that needed to change. The reason this is all fucked up is that we had a lame-duck president and government who over-reacted. If they had handled the incident responsibly, rather than initiating 2 wars that led to no capture of Bin Laden (remember, it was under Obama that the fucker got taken out), then we would be in a very different world today. The TSA is a left-over remnant from a horrible event that happened 12 years ago. It was an over-reaction due to the climate of uncertainty and fear that existed at the time. Like all snakes set loose in an environment with no natural predators, it has gone on to swallow multiple government departments and their budgets and gotten so fat and dangerous no one is willing to fight it. Its time to stop this bullshit, dismantle the TSA, set the various government agencies back on their own that it absorbed, start arresting these high-school dropout alpha fucks the TSA hires when they molest people and children, and put something rational and sensible in place. Do we need airport security? Yes. Do we need this bullshit TSA theater we have now? No. The next time you're flying and you're mistreated, make a scene. Ask the 10 people around you to record the interaction. You will likely miss your flight. Accept that. Its unlikely you'll be arrested as long as you don't hit anyone, you'll just be escorted from the airport or made to catch a later flight. Be rational and stand up for yourself like a human being with dignity. We NEED everyone to start doing this, to make this into an issue. Stop being passive. Its an inconvenience now, but its the first step in making it better. Years down the line, you'll be proud of what you did. And you and your kids won't have to deal with this shit anymore. I know I will.
Taylorious 14y ago
Isn't Hacker News suppose to be about tech stuff? Why is this political stuff making it to the top? I realize a lot of people here fly a lot and so anything TSA related is relevant to them, but there are other places on the internet to discuss these political issues. As a side note, some of the posters rabid hatred for the TSA is borderline concerning. These people are normal folks with a crappy job doing what their bosses and the US government tells them to do. They aren't heartless demons whose sole existence is to make your air-travel uncomfortable. Every time a TSA post comes up (which seems like once or twice a month) I am shocked by the type of comments people leave here when they refer the the TSA and their employees. Frankly I expect a lot more from comments here than in other places on the web.
- grimtrigger 14y ago
  Not sure how moderation works on HN. Are there mods who are supposed to take this kind of stuff down? I flagged the original post though.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  If everyone's excuse for doing evil things is "it's just a job," "not my department," or "above my pay grade," then those evil things will continue. Everyone is responsible to make an ethical decision with regard to the jobs they will accept, and the assertion from the HN posters to which you refer appears to be that those taking a TSA job have made a questionable ethical decision in doing so. As for why it's on HN, many here have dealt with being treated like an outsider or an inferior, and have a heightened awareness of such issues. There's a long tradition of geeks taking up non-geek causes because they would want the same (that is, non-geeks taking up geek causes).
aaronh 14y ago
if you don't want to be treated like cattle stop accepting it. opt-out every time. every time i have, they have asked if i wanted a private screening, and in fact the personnel that performed the "pat down" was always very professional. i never wanted a private screen since i'm pretty comfortable in public, and if they were going to do anything embarrassing to me or themselves, I do want it out and public so everybody can see how their fellow citizen is being treated. let's disregard that this pat down is also demeaning and pointless. but at least you can just say no to the automatic total recall porno scanning. i don't give a fuck who hears me opt out, or if it interrupts the line (which it doesn't), or their jobs (tiniest violin playing). the first time i did they even seemed to make a show by calling it out, but i think it's probably just because they have to yell for the pat-down dude to come over and do it.
Kiro 14y ago
I'm always surprised at the amount of interest TSA receives on HN. Can someone explain why this is such a hot topic?
methodover 14y ago
An opt out is not a protest. It's not. The TSA doesn't keep records of opt out rates. The random folks waiting in line around you probably don't recognize that you're opting out as a form of protest. The only thing opting out accomplishes is letting a TSA agent rub his or her hands all over you. IMO, the opt out is a genius maneuver by the TSA: They give passengers who have privacy concerns a sense that they're protesting, without them actually having protested.
moon_princess 14y ago
just take trains instead of flying. amtrak sucks but not as bad as airports

262 points by eplanit 14y ago

The TSA needs to go. The security theater we have to go through every time we fly does NOTHING to make us safer. It's all just a big show.

jumby 14y ago
And billions down the drain.
rhizome 14y ago
Too many people are making too much money from it. Good luck.

grecy 14y ago

> Besides, American airport security is the "gold standard," isn't it? Depressingly, this is the same logic that keeps Americans from improving anything. Because they're constantly told they live in the best country in the world(TM), Americans are apathetic when it comes to making things better (healthcare, education, poverty rates, incarceration rates, living standards, etc.), because they think it's already "the best".

iends 14y ago
Generalizations like these are exciting. Let me try too... I've yet to meet an American who didn't think at least one one of these, if not all, were completely broken. Source: I live in America.
- grecy 14y ago
  Not that it's a great source of truth, but this one says a massive majority of Americans still believe they live in the best country in the world: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/fox-news-poll-america-weaker-greatest-country-world-voters-say/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/fox-news-poll-america-w... > I've yet to meet an American who didn't think at least one one of these, if not all, were completely broken. More importantly, what are any of those people doing about fixing the things that are broken?
  - B-Con 14y ago
    There's a difference between having the best X and living in the best country. A lot of nations have fantastic X but would widely not be considered anywhere close to the best place to live. In theory you could rank at #10 in all things desirable and still be the all-round "best" place. The US is a good country and the citizens are indeed well off. We're not trending in a good direction on average and a lot of things need to be fixed, but it's still a very good place to live.
    - grecy 14y ago
      > but it's still a very good place to live. Spend some time looking at the statistics [1] and you'll see that in almost all key areas, America ranks dead-last among developed countries, and is often more comparable to developing countries than developed ones. Compared to undeveloped countries, you are right, America is a very good place to live for the average Joe on the street. Compared to developed countries, it is not. [1] http://www.oecd.org/statistics/ http://www.oecd.org/statistics/
      - lsc 14y ago
        America is a pretty good place to be above-average. Our good schools, for example, are pretty expensive, but they are really good. Same goes for high-end medical care, and, for that matter, taxes. It's a pretty nice place to be above-average, even though, yeah, for the average and below, you are probably right. The thing, I think, that most of us miss is that, well (and I am in this category too,) most of us think of ourselves as above average. As Steinbeck said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." From my experiences, even just looking at my own feelings, this is absolutely something built into the American culture. I go on like I'm wealthy, and I do own a company with a very high revenue, but profit? what I actually get paid? well, I'm barely above average. But I still see myself as 'above average' I think this explains most of the very American phenomina of poor folks voting for various policies that disproportionately favor rich folks.
      - iends 14y ago
- btilly 14y ago
  Where do you live in America? I know several Americans who think those are all in fine shape. They tend to be Republicans living in places like Arizona. I don't meet a lot of people like that in Los Angeles, but they really do exist.
  - iends 14y ago
    I'm a republican (think Barry Goldwater, not George Bush), from North Carolina. No 'republican' around here is happy with anything, everything is broken and it's all Obama's fault. :)
    - btilly 14y ago
      If you're a Republican in the spirit of Barry Goldwater, then you should do as Barry Goldwater did and become a Democrat! Seriously, his belief in individual liberty lead to sharp disagreements with his party on abortion, gay rights and drug laws, with the result that by the 1990s he was endorsing and voting for Democrats over Republicans.
- mattstreet 14y ago
  Usually people I talk to about this seem to think things are broken, and yet learning from other countries would just make it worse.
DuskStar 14y ago
It's a mentality I really think is going to hurt the country in the long run. The only way to stay the best at anything is to keep striving forward - like Singapore does with education. And this is still my favorite clip from a TV show- somewhat related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYjyLg8bbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYjyLg8bbo
- stcredzero 14y ago
  I went to an Ivy League school, and I spent a bit of time working for the office of Alumni Relations. About 90% of the alumni members of "The Greatest Generation" I spoke with seemed to be convinced that the country was going down the tubes, and my sense was that this was something more than just the bitterness of old men.
jumby 14y ago
Laughable, travel to Israel. There have been numerous news stories on the security theatre that is the TSA.
siculars 14y ago
Try flying into or out of Israel. Israeli airline/airport security is far and away the best in the world.
yareally 14y ago
Quite a few Americans know things are broken. Just many that do tend to adopt an apathetic or indifferent attitude about it (i.e. "It sucks, but what can I do about it?", "I don't like it, but how can we make it better?" or the worst one "It doesn't affect me really."). disclaimer: I'm an American Citizen.
stcredzero 14y ago
> Americans are apathetic when it comes to making things better (healthcare, education, poverty rates, incarceration rates, living standards, etc.), because they think it's already "the best". A great many of my fellow Americans are worse than apathetic. If you point out areas where we can improve, some Americans will actively attack you through accusations of treason and verbal abuse. (Seems to be 10X worse in Texas than any other place I've lived.) It's as if they're willfully trying their best to ensure they won't ever learn anything.
- vacri 14y ago
  When I was travelling through the US, it seemed to me that the state religion of some Americans is "America" - and like all religions, it's not up for questioning. I noticed that this patriotic religion increased and I had a lighthearted mental count going in my head of how many houses had a little US flag in the front yard (in LA, this would be on the other side of the yard as the post telling you which security company would respond to a burglary). It seemed to me that the more patriotic-religiouse areas hit one beflagged house in every 4-5. To be fair, most areas didn't have any flags or rare flags, but when it got to one in five... anyway, this theory was turned on its head when I stayed in a part of Pittsburgh where it was one in five houses that didn't have that little flag...
darkarmani 14y ago
> Depressingly, this is the same logic that keeps Americans from improving anything...because they think it's already "the best" So this is why there is no innovation in America? We are all culturally caught up in tradition and taught in such a rote manner that we can't innovate? You should see the caste system we have -- inflexible tradition all the way!
- vacri 14y ago
  The 'can-do' attitude that the country is famous for does seem to be evaporating. Sure, it's still present on an individual level (witness the point of this site), but it seems that the idea of nation-building projects is gone, perhaps even considered evil by some in the current political climate. When faced with war in the 40s, the nation banded together and did amazing things never before seen. While today, when faced with impending financial doom, everyone's content to merely bitch about the politicians bickering. Roll up your sleeves and put some sweat equity into building the nation? That's a long gone notion in terms of the national psyche, it seems. I dunno, I don't have particularly clear examples, but as an outsider, Americans used to have a reputation as having a real can-do attitude, but recently it seems to have... attenuated? More content to fiddle while Rome burns?
ersii 14y ago
I'd just like to chip in that, in Sweden, I've come across a lot of people who use the exact same saying to things that can be improved in general. I think this rhetoric is a lot more wide spread than just the United States of America.

fjorder 14y ago

The TSA's budget is just a tad short of half that of NASA's. Cutting back on the little-old-lady-molesting budget and giving the cash to space-explorers seems like a no-brainer to me. However, I'm not an American.

jumby 14y ago
You are talkin' loco. That could mean American excellence once again and we have vowed to end that.
B-Con 14y ago
Here's perspective: The TSA's budget is on par with what we estimate the CIA and NSA use. The freaking CIA.
- jackpirate 14y ago
  How much of the TSA's budget is secretly diverted to the CIA?
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Given that the TSA budget is about $7B and that the total intelligence budget is around $50B, that seems a tad high.
taligent 14y ago
> little-old-lady-molesting budget How about a bit of maturity ? The TSA performs a legitimate role that is required by EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Yes. Every country has a TSA. The difference is in the aggressiveness of their searches. So how about instead of this "abandon the TSA and let every gun toting idiot board the plane" why not focus on the specific policies.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  Yes, as soon as the TSA begins loosening its procedures like other countries(using your example), gun toting idiots will come out of the woodwork to board flights. Obviously this is what happens in every other country. The current TSA procedures are the only thing stopping the hoards of gun toting idiots attempting to board planes.

JDGM 14y ago

The author gives three very persuasive reasons for NOT "breaking the code of silence", with no explicit rebuttals to them. Perhaps the implied point is that by calling people to arms to speak up, the peer pressure (reason #2) will crumble, and those who do speak up will not be labeled crazy (reason #1). As for "you'll miss your plane" (reason #3), I'm not sure his solution, but I assume it would be something along the lines of "they can't make everyone miss their plane". A decent article, but its conclusion paragraph "The next time a TSA agent asks you to do something you're uncomfortable with, say something. [...]" is bad advice. We need to speak up, but not at the moment of the offense when we have least credibility - it must be from outside the queue, where we have a stronger position.

tokenadult 14y ago

I remember a more innocent time almost three decades ago when my work involved frequent flying, such that I have been to most major airports in the United States repeatedly and have logged weeks above 30,000 feet of altitude. I have a photograph from those days showing me seated at the controls of a commercial airliner, which the crew of the airliner took after I boarded a flight early in the boarding process. In those days a business traveler could sit down to pose for a snapshot inside the aircraft cockpit, with the crew having no concerns about a person who was not an airline employee being there. That's the carefree ease of flying in the United States I remember from the beginning of my adulthood. 1329 days ago I wrote here on HN, in reponse to one of the recurring complaints about airport security procedures, "Hear. Hear. I was just on flights out of town over the weekend, and it occurred to me that the terrorists have won by making air travel so inconvenient and annoying for every American who ever flies domestically. 'Maybe Secure Flight is a good use of our money; maybe it isn't. But let's have debates like that in the open, as part of the budget process, where it belongs.' This is the general answer for review of current security procedures: we should check whether they are worthwhile for the amount of improved security they promise to provide." 334 days ago another participant, who came to the United States from another country, wrote, It's also the only place that made me take my shoes off before the metal detector, which I found quite humiliating This appears to have been one of the calculations of the terrorist group that put up the shoe bomber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot to trying his failed attempt to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his shoe. Some of the co-religionists of some of those terrorists consider it extremely degrading to be bare-footed in certain situations deemed to be "holy" situations (I know this from having been warned about how I oriented my feet in flip-flop sandals once when I was overseas in 1984), and thus they have probably been glad to humiliate Americans as Americans have reacted to the failed shoe bomb plot. My proposal is that United States airport security give up on requesting passengers to remove shoes. Yeah, maybe have chemical sensing devices with air intakes at floor level to screen for bombs on shoes, but let us all wear our shoes onto airplanes and throughout the insides of airports. The screening procedures at present appear to be an overreaction to the actual risk of a shoe bomb destroying a passenger airplane, especially in view of other countries not having the same screening procedure for airline passengers. I've summed up my reaction to the past incidents of terrorism directed at Americans overseas or civilians in the United States in a more recent Hacker News comment: "It's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind." Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize Transportation Security Agency "security theater" as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs. We should also be able to fly freely about the country with no more than strictly necessary security precautions. I want to be able to walk into an airport with my shoes on and walk calmly to an arrival gate to greet arriving passengers there. I used to do that. And I want to be able to carry a Swiss Army knife in an airline carry-on bag. Grandmothers and mothers and children should surely be able to board an airliner unmolested in a free country like the United States. That said, I remember when conditions changed in the United States. I stood on top of the former World Trade Center in New York City twice while traveling with foreign visitors to the United States during my earlier frequent flyer days. Because I remember the peace and freedom I long enjoyed here to welcome visitors to the United States from around the world, I want the leaders and active participants in terrorist networks to identified through constant surveillance and intelligence, and I want terrorists to be attacked relentlessly where they live, so that they have to hide in caves while people all over the world who renounce their goals get to lead civilized, peaceful lives in the Twenty-First Century. Taliban delenda est. Al Qaeda delenda est. AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the several interesting comments. I think it is important to acknowledge that, yes, the United States government as a matter of official policy has engaged in assassination of foreign government leaders, and plotted the assassination of others, as well as committed and plotted break-ins in foreign embassies (but not random bomb attacks on foreign embassies, to the best of my recollection). I think the United States has been chastened by some of the results of those earlier policies. The movie Argo has been watched by many Americans, and it frankly acknowledges the assassination of an elected prime minister in Iran by the CIA back before I was born. I think now the United States is much more interested in information openness as a means to make sure that countries all around the world trade peacefully rather than waging war one one another, and I think that is the only long-term way to defeat terrorist networks. The current armed warfare strategy of drone attacks on specific terrorist leaders rather than mass bombing attacks on cities (as in World War II) is a step forward in war-fighting effectiveness and an improvement in reducing civilian casualties. Yes, the United States is still second only to France as a country destination for foreign tourists (and rather more of the tourists to France can drive cars or ride trains to France than can many visitors to the United States). So as obnoxious as current TSA security procedures are to me and to many, they are not so obnoxious that people have stopped visiting the United States for fun. Oh, yes, and my "half-Asian" children look very Central Asian, as one might expect, and my oldest son with his full black beard looks like someone from the latest news story about Al Qaeda. I'm not sure what his experience has been traveling around the country for his study and work. He barely remembers the old days before the TSA. Certainly we should also make sure not to harass citizens or visitors who happen to have the wrong name or the wrong pattern of physical appearance, but identify threats on the basis of more relevant information. Another top-level comment in this thread says that Israel succeeds in doing that for the most part.

draggnar 14y ago

it's a jobs program

pytrin 14y ago

I recently moved to the U.S from Israel. If there's a country that knows about Airport security, it's Israel, for obvious reasons. Let me tell you this - most of the security procedures in U.S airports are pointless and ridicules. Taking off your shoes and your belt. Holding your hands in front of a screen. Pat downs. We have the technology to avoid this (and have had it for the past 20+ years). If you've been to Israel, you know it's a completely different procedure, and I can guarantee you it's way more secure. They focus more on behavior profiling through multiple inspection points and with a series of questions they ask you AS YOU WAIT IN LINE for checking in your luggage. No fuss, no body strip checks, no taking off pieces of clothing. X-ray screening is done by simply walking through the machine, while your baggage passes a different machine. Airport security in the U.S feels like the result of bureaucracy and procedure for the sake of appearance. EDIT: clarified what I meant by profiling.

peterjmag 14y ago
I was really intrigued to learn about Israel's approach to airport security, especially given the relative threat they face. Here's the article that I read a while back: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2009/12/30/the_israelification_of_airports_high_security_little_bother.html http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2009/12/30/the_israelifica... Seems like the US could stand to learn something.
- pytrin 14y ago
  Interesting article, thanks for sharing
- twoodfin 14y ago
  The TSA is experimenting with behavioral screening of this kind. I was screened at Logan last time I flew. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/expanded-behavior-detection-pilot http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/expanded-behavior-de... There are two problems with it, I think. First, it requires a fairly well-trained interrogator or it's no better than window dressing. Second, when it's effective, it's almost always perceived as rude. U.S. border guards have been doing it for years, and it's one reason they get such a bad reputation vs. those friendly Canadians on the other side. Deployed on a large scale, I bet more folks here on hn would be complaining about it than about the nude scanners. "What do you mean I have to tell an agent of the government what I'm planning on doing in LA?"

tlrobinson 14y ago

The most disturbing thing about this article is this fact: "But in a recent poll, one-third of Americans said they would be in favor of cavity searches to board a plane. No, you didn’t read that wrong. Cavity searches." What the hell, people?

cheald 14y ago
I suspect there's an implied "of other people" there. Or maybe they think that the backscatters have an ultrasound in them somewhere. Latex up the butt would be a great way to get people pissed enough to do something.
- T-hawk 14y ago
  Yup, "of other people". Remember that the median number of flights taken by an American in a year is zero. Millions of armchair patriots are perfectly happy to sacrifice someone else's convenience for the edifying notion that we're beatin' them terr'ists. The war on terror they see is a far-off unreal spectator sport, not daily personal violations of human and constitutional rights.
Joe_Knapp 14y ago
I don't believe those polls. In fact I don't believe the mainstream media anymore.
mtaubman 14y ago
Well, he's restating something posted on something called TSA News Blog, which was just repeating something mentioned by Jonathan Turley, who was reporting this little factoid courtesy of Infowars, so yeah, I'd say it's completely credible all around.

cheald 14y ago

I opt out every time that I fly, and I always request a public screening, because I want people to see me being patted down. It's amazing how many people still aren't aware that they have the option. I've talked to a few folks in line about it, and even convinced one guy to opt out after me. Set an example and be obvious about it. Funny story - on my last flight, the patdown resulted in an alert for some banned residue on my clothing, so the TSA took me aside to a private cubicle, re-ran the patdown, came up clean, and then left me to pack my stuff up and go on my way. In this cubicle with me were two 5-gallon buckets filled with confiscated lighters and pocket knives. Someone thought it was a good idea to leave me to re-pack my luggage unsupervised in a room full of contraband with no additional security checks. I didn't take anything or do anything untoward, and I wanted to point it out to the agent who'd patted me down, but I'm sure that would have just flagged me as suspicious and I would get to expend extra time being thoroughly searched. If that doesn't tell you how hilariously bad security is, I'm not sure what will.

kstenerud 14y ago
You mean besides the fact that pocket knives and lighters pose no real danger?
- martinced 14y ago
  Wasn't flight 93, according to the official version, hijacked by four people using pocket knives?
  - machrider 14y ago
    Cockpit doors are secured now, which really limits the damage a person can do with simple tools.
    - danielschonfeld 14y ago
      and by secured u mean what exactly?....
  - 14y ago

trout 14y ago

I tend to vote against this type of security by opting out of the scanners. If even one quarter of the passengers opted out they would need to reexamine their security - one that would likely not include the expensive scanners or intrusive pat down tests. I just get to the airport 10 minutes earlier. They do seem to intentionally penalize you with delay, and often question why you're opting out.

logn 14y ago
Yeah they asked me why I opted out. I said "I don't trust the government". Then I imagined a CIA robot zooming in on me. I clarified: "I don't trust the government with medical x-ray procedures"

paliderek 14y ago

I have restarted the petition to abolish the TSA here: http://wh.gov/dUK1 http://wh.gov/dUK1 or here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-tsa-favor-airport-security-measures-which-clearly-do-not-violate-rights-those-being-screened/fxSVWy3N https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-tsa-favor-...

mbesto 14y ago

There's no evidence that patting down passengers like Burton has made air travel any safer. I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. How on earth do you actually prove prevention techniques?

lsc 14y ago

> "I wasn't even afforded the privacy of a screen." this is... interesting. I mean, I know this is very different for me because of the cultural expectations of me as a male, but personally? I'd /much/ rather have an authority figure violate me in public than in private. In public, they are restrained by witnesses; in private? well, who knows what they will do? and if I complain of what they do in private, well, it's my word against that of an authority figure. In public, there are witnesses.

trotsky 14y ago

Often, air travelers either have to pay for a new ticket at an expensive "walk-up" fare Wait, what? While I'm sure it can't be 100%, I've missed dozens of flights over the years and never once was it ever suggested that I might have to pay a dime to the airline. Usually it's the next flight on the same route unless its full or a long way off. imho you don't speak up against the TSA because it's designed to be a dominating experience. you don't speak up in prison either.

ctdonath 14y ago

4th Amendment. Use it. (To wit: the US government is forbidden from searching people without a warrant signed by a judge for that particular person and situation. Creeping judicial decisions have in effect destroyed that restriction.)

dsymonds 14y ago
Doesn't necessarily apply. Courts have ruled that the 4th amendment can be limiter or suspended in certain situations. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/ http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...
- ctdonath 14y ago
  Hence my comment Creeping judicial decisions have in effect destroyed that restriction. Same kind of reasoning which turns synonyms into antonyms.
jaredmcateer 14y ago
While it's well within your right to refuse a search, it's within the private airline/airport rights to refuse you access to a secure area if you refuse to be "properly" screened and they can just turn you around at that point to find another means of transportation to your destination.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  The private airline/airport has no say. The government, a la TSA, is the one who will not just refuse, but jail, you for opposing the unwarranted search.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Has this actually happened, or do the low-level agents use this as an empty threat?

run4yourlives 14y ago

Curious: Does anyone have any sort of information that the TSA has even prevented a single terrorist attack? As in: Terrorist was going to board a plane, and the security that we all go through stopped him/her. You get some surprising results if you google it... just wondering if any of you have any futher knowledge. Spoiler: The answer seems to be "No".

dclowd9901 14y ago
Worse than "no", many independent tests were run by "false negative" terrorists -- people who weren't actually planning anything but were probing security by bringing contraband onto the plane -- who were actually successful. It's worse than bad.
devicenull 14y ago
Don't you think that if they had, it's all we'd be hearing about for months/years afterwords? I can't imagine they'd catch someone then do anything less then blast it all over the news.
mrcrassic 14y ago
I met a TSA airport agent a few months ago and, naturally, asked him exactly this. Apparently, the TSA purposely does not release accurate statistics as a security measure and that he and his colleagues have definitely stopped a lot of potential, but minor, scenarios from happening. I could be wrong and uneducated about this, of course.
- dalke 14y ago
  Without statistics it's hard to say what "potential" meant, doesn't it? The TSA reports that they find 4-5 guns each day. People forget that they have their gun one them or in their luggage. These incidents are reported. Are these part of the "potential, but minor, scenarios"? It's hard to say without knowing the statistics. But it's safe to assume that "minor" means "not terrorism related." I can't come up with any scenarios where the release of accurate statistics would cause a security problem, except to lower the security of the TSA's own existence. To take it up a notch, are all of the accurate statistics from 2010 still so sensitive that none of them can be revealed? I don't think so. But I don't think those have been released at all.

conroe64 14y ago

So many people here are acting like nothing happened to justify the existence of the TSA. Yet, there were two buildings destroyed in the one of the most iconic cities in the world, the pentagon was damaged, and the Whitehouse was almost also destroyed, with more than 3000 civilians killed, and all of this can be directly attributed to the lack of airport security. Yes, the TSA does a questionable job, but the constant whining and calls to demolish it without the acknowledge of the need for changes from the "good old days" before 9/11 is not only sophomoric but downright dangerous.

chill1 14y ago
You neglected to mention that since 9/11, it would be almost impossible to do now what the hijackers did then. If that were attempted now, a whole plane load of vigilantes would rise up against the hijackers.
- conroe64 14y ago
  It's a pretty simplistic viewpoint to think that nothing should have been done to amp of security and the problem would just take care of itself after the tragedy of 9/11. Yes, maybe the exact same plan wouldn't work again, but downing a plane would take far less compliance by the other passengers than running it into a building.
- readme 14y ago
  Sure, sure... And you know this how? A gut feeling? Remember, there were multiple planes on 9/11, and this did not succeed or happen in any of those situations. I like that you are so sure about this, with no data or anything.
  - logn 14y ago
    Remember the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania or near there? News spread to the passengers and they overcame the hijackers.
    - 14y ago

jstalin 14y ago

Very few break the silence because the far majority of human beings will submit to authority without question, if the conditions are right. It's well documented that they will even do so to the point of hurting or even killing someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

jbarham 14y ago

FWIW one thing I really appreciate about living in Australia is the complete absence of security hassles when flying vs. the US. I've flown domestically within Australia half a dozen times in the past couple of years and I don't think I've been asked even once for ID. Obviously they screen your carry-on luggage and you walk through the X-ray machine, but it's reasonable and relaxed security compared to the US. It's fine for non-travellers to go through security and meet friends or family right at the gate as soon as they get off the plane. Very civilized.

nmcveity 14y ago
The only time I've been through a body scanner is in Australia. Just recently returned to the US through Melbourne airport where I had a 'wtf' moment when I saw the scanner. I was selected (about 25% of the people went through it, I'd guess) and when I said I'd rather have a pat down - as I do in the US - they told me that if I refuse, I would be escorted out of the airport and banned from returning for 24 hours. I argued for a little bit but eventually had no choice, not really being able to miss the flight. The old system with metal detectors and xray screening of luggage was more civilised, imo. Things have really changed, ... When I was a child I used to fly from Devonport (a small city) to Melbourne a lot. In those days, you didn't even go through security to get onto the plane in Devonport - they put you through security after you disembarked in Melbourne!

lotso 14y ago

Luckily I haven't been groped by any TSA agents, but I did have one experience that was very annoying. I went through the scanner and my bags did as well, but I forgot to empty my water bottle. In the past, TSA agents have asked if they could empty it for me and rescan it. This time the TSA agent said I would either have to throw it away or leave the gate and reenter the whole security line. I'll admit that I should have dumped my water, but I was bewildered by how aggressively the TSA agent told me my options. This may sound like whining, but I've never had anyone talk to me like that. I asked if there was anyone else I could talk to and she said no. Not wanting to create a scene, or be taken away by the TSA to be questioned, I left the gate and reentered the security line. I started talking to the person next to me in the security line and explained the situation, and for some reason, the TSA agent came over and basically yelled at me to empty my water bottle. I hadn't even gotten to the trashcan to empty my water bottle. And it is entirely unnecessary for a TSA agent to scold a passenger. At this point, I felt relatively shaken up by the whole ordeal. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a huge deal, but, man, I really hated being basically yelled at in front of everyone and having the TSA agent go out of her way to yell at me in line again. I should have filed a complaint, but it seemed pointless to do.

driverdan 14y ago
I had the opposite experience once. I forgot to empty my bottle and the TSA agent apologetically said I'd have to throw it away or re-enter. I was frustrated and asked if she could just empty it for me. She said no, it was against the regulations. In a frustrated tone I told her how I thought that was ridiculous but was never rude or disrespectful. I even made it clear that I understood her position and that she had to follow the rules. I decided to throw it away. As I put my belt and shoes back on she handed it back to me on the sly, empty. I was very thankful knowing that she had gone out of her way to help at the risk of being reprimanded.
dschep 14y ago
I sometimes forget to empty my bottle. I just drink the contents before they can finish their spiel.

berlinbrown 14y ago

My comment: Simple solution and nobody ever wants to talk about it. Sure it is more towards the long game but perfectly valid. The TSA budget is $8 billion, we should quit funding all of these crazy government programs. With a federal government budget of 1 trillion dollars, of course they are going to abuse their power. Iraq war, don't fund it. Afghanistan war, don't fund it. Drone operations, don't fund them. TSA, Department of Homeland Security, don't fund them. 3m

erichocean 14y ago
For that, we'd first need to be able to work up a new Federal budget, pass it in the House and Senate, and have it signed by the President. It's been four years since we've even been able to do that much; I'm not holding out hope that anything, anywhere, will have its budget cut in real (or nominal) terms.

robomartin 14y ago

The problem isn't TSA. The problem is that we and the world have not delivered a sufficiently severe set of consequences for engaging in terrorism. If you have small children you've seen this at work a million times. It could be about not touching a hot pot or not abusing the cat. Sometimes you can repeat your "don't do <x>" a million times and it simply does not register. Kids are wired that way, and, I suspect, most of us remain wired that way for some time. When does the behavior stop? When they touch the hot pot and get burned or when they mess with the cat too much and they are attacked. Just to clarify, none of these things happened to my kids because (a) I got lucky and they tend to listen and, (b) we don't own a cat. The point is that TSA and a bunch of other measures none of us like (Patriot act anyone?) were a reaction to an absolute failure to communicate, in no uncertain terms, that terrorism has severe and dire consequences. Almost unimaginable consequences that not one person on this planet would want to provoke. We are not a "hot pot" or a "cat" in the eyes of any of these people. We are a country and a people to be messed with because the consequences just don't hurt enough. And so is much, if not all of the West and Europe. This is a problem when you have an ideology and people who are living 800 years behind the rest of the planet. No? Ha! Go ask their women, their homosexuals and anyone who dares express such vile things as wanting women to be educated. Maybe 800 years is too small of a number, maybe it's more like 1,500 years. What consequences am I talking about? No point in going into it. The opportunity was lost over a decade ago. I am not sure I am smart enough to even begin to imagine what could be done today. You have to turn the environments within which would-be terrorists are cooked-up into environments where not one person would even consider the idea of terrorism due to a clear understanding of the consequences. Do that. Accomplish that. And you can shutdown the TSA, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and all else that is making our lives miserable and expensive. Yes. They won. Why would anyone doubt that? Look at all you've given up in the name of security. Sad.

darkarmani 14y ago
> The point is that TSA and a bunch of other measures none of us like (Patriot act anyone?) were a reaction to an absolute failure to communicate, in no uncertain terms, that terrorism has severe and dire consequences. Almost unimaginable consequences that not one person on this planet would want to provoke. So you think it is possible to have absolute security? The TSA and Patriot Act are similar to irrational escalation or commitment bias ala "throw bad money after good money." We've already suffered a massive loss of life and money, but we'll throw all of this money at the problem that has passed and take away a number of liberties. The downside of an open society is the ability to be harmed. Giving up that openness doesn't seem like much of a trade for the margin security it provides.

geuis 14y ago

I was originally writing this as a response to conroe64 below, but it deserves to be its own comment. Yes, the days before 911 were the good old days. I have an older brother that didn't live with us. During the holidays, he would fly in and we'd go pick him up at the airport. On many separate occasions, the family would all wait at the exit gate for family and friends to get off. Can you even remember the experience of having a hundred people all patiently waiting for their loved ones to get off the plane, or being one of those people to exit the plane and to have all of your loved ones waiting for you right there? One time when my brother was leaving for home, we were able to go with him on the plane and I got to sit in the pilot's seat. Soooo many buttons. For some reason, I still remember there being a little button with a Christmas tree on it. No idea what it was for. So to your other points: modern airport security would have done NOTHING to prevent 9/11. Those guys didn't carry guns or large knives on board. They didn't hijack planes with water bottles and belts. They had fucking box cutters. You can't kill everyone on board with a box cutter. At worst, you can severely injure a couple of people, and by that point the passengers rise up and strangle your ass. What allowed those planes to be hijacked is that pre-9/11 the universal experience of being hijacked was to do what the hijackers said. That was what we were all told, because up until then that's what happened. Hijackings were a way to make political statements, not necessarily to kill the passengers. You might end up in Cuba, or held on the tarmac for ransom or something. What would have stopped 9/11 is if the public had a different mindset, being "take these assholes down at any cost". That's the mindset we have today. There were a few fatalities back then. The Lockerbie Scotland incident was a bombing. It wasn't even a hijacking. The perpetrators were hanging out in Libya. In fact, that bombing was sponsored by Gaddafi. We didn't invade Libya in revenge for that. The fact is, 9/11 happened. It was horrible. It brought to light that some changes were definitely needed in airport security, but it also brought to light that the passive reaction to hijackings was something that needed to change. The reason this is all fucked up is that we had a lame-duck president and government who over-reacted. If they had handled the incident responsibly, rather than initiating 2 wars that led to no capture of Bin Laden (remember, it was under Obama that the fucker got taken out), then we would be in a very different world today. The TSA is a left-over remnant from a horrible event that happened 12 years ago. It was an over-reaction due to the climate of uncertainty and fear that existed at the time. Like all snakes set loose in an environment with no natural predators, it has gone on to swallow multiple government departments and their budgets and gotten so fat and dangerous no one is willing to fight it. Its time to stop this bullshit, dismantle the TSA, set the various government agencies back on their own that it absorbed, start arresting these high-school dropout alpha fucks the TSA hires when they molest people and children, and put something rational and sensible in place. Do we need airport security? Yes. Do we need this bullshit TSA theater we have now? No. The next time you're flying and you're mistreated, make a scene. Ask the 10 people around you to record the interaction. You will likely miss your flight. Accept that. Its unlikely you'll be arrested as long as you don't hit anyone, you'll just be escorted from the airport or made to catch a later flight. Be rational and stand up for yourself like a human being with dignity. We NEED everyone to start doing this, to make this into an issue. Stop being passive. Its an inconvenience now, but its the first step in making it better. Years down the line, you'll be proud of what you did. And you and your kids won't have to deal with this shit anymore. I know I will.

Taylorious 14y ago

Isn't Hacker News suppose to be about tech stuff? Why is this political stuff making it to the top? I realize a lot of people here fly a lot and so anything TSA related is relevant to them, but there are other places on the internet to discuss these political issues. As a side note, some of the posters rabid hatred for the TSA is borderline concerning. These people are normal folks with a crappy job doing what their bosses and the US government tells them to do. They aren't heartless demons whose sole existence is to make your air-travel uncomfortable. Every time a TSA post comes up (which seems like once or twice a month) I am shocked by the type of comments people leave here when they refer the the TSA and their employees. Frankly I expect a lot more from comments here than in other places on the web.

grimtrigger 14y ago
Not sure how moderation works on HN. Are there mods who are supposed to take this kind of stuff down? I flagged the original post though.
nitrogen 14y ago
If everyone's excuse for doing evil things is "it's just a job," "not my department," or "above my pay grade," then those evil things will continue. Everyone is responsible to make an ethical decision with regard to the jobs they will accept, and the assertion from the HN posters to which you refer appears to be that those taking a TSA job have made a questionable ethical decision in doing so. As for why it's on HN, many here have dealt with being treated like an outsider or an inferior, and have a heightened awareness of such issues. There's a long tradition of geeks taking up non-geek causes because they would want the same (that is, non-geeks taking up geek causes).

aaronh 14y ago

if you don't want to be treated like cattle stop accepting it. opt-out every time. every time i have, they have asked if i wanted a private screening, and in fact the personnel that performed the "pat down" was always very professional. i never wanted a private screen since i'm pretty comfortable in public, and if they were going to do anything embarrassing to me or themselves, I do want it out and public so everybody can see how their fellow citizen is being treated. let's disregard that this pat down is also demeaning and pointless. but at least you can just say no to the automatic total recall porno scanning. i don't give a fuck who hears me opt out, or if it interrupts the line (which it doesn't), or their jobs (tiniest violin playing). the first time i did they even seemed to make a show by calling it out, but i think it's probably just because they have to yell for the pat-down dude to come over and do it.

Kiro 14y ago

I'm always surprised at the amount of interest TSA receives on HN. Can someone explain why this is such a hot topic?

methodover 14y ago

An opt out is not a protest. It's not. The TSA doesn't keep records of opt out rates. The random folks waiting in line around you probably don't recognize that you're opting out as a form of protest. The only thing opting out accomplishes is letting a TSA agent rub his or her hands all over you. IMO, the opt out is a genius maneuver by the TSA: They give passengers who have privacy concerns a sense that they're protesting, without them actually having protested.

moon_princess 14y ago

just take trains instead of flying. amtrak sucks but not as bad as airports