6 ms·

Nobody is accountable though. Who do we yell at? We can't blame the line employees. They are just state machines with no free will [N]. Their managers aren'

by seiji 13y ago

Nobody is accountable though. Who do we yell at? We can't blame the line employees. They are just state machines with no free will [N]. Their managers aren't empowered do anything either except harass you even more. Are there TSA "executives?" Politicians won't dare entertain the idea of defunding them. There is literally no solution. There exists no recourse any person alive can do to stand up against the TSA. [N]: Stop limiting liquid carry ons. Stop throwing them away in bulk containers that make no sense if you think they are potentially dangerous. I will give you $10,000 if you make my sunscreen or toothpaste explode more violently than the as-much-as-you-like-sir laptop batteries, phones, and iPads everybody carries.

stanleydrew 13y ago
I suppose you could move to a different country and never return to the USA. I don't know if that qualifies as a "solution" though.
- seiji 13y ago
  Last year at Heathrow, I got selected for a "random screening" where they take everything out of your luggage and scan every piece individually through the x-ray machine again. It takes me half an hour to pack my luggage, so the process took a while. I was not pleased that morning. (Amusing side anecdote: There was a group of mexican school kids passing through security at the same time. Some were also selected for random screening. The random screening lady was from Spain, but she told them the policy (law?) dictated she only speak to them in English even though everybody involved in the transaction spoke Spanish better than English.)
- dataminer 13y ago
  Every other country has these problems, the bureaucratic machinery is all powerful, even more powerful than politicians whom you can vote out.
  - mixmax 13y ago
    I think America is pretty bad - certainly worse than where I happened to be born (Denmark). An example: Like many other countries we have logging of telecommunications. The difference from the US is that it has been a transparent process. A bill was introduced into parlaiment, it was discussed both in the media and on the floor of parlaiment, then voted on and made into law. I know exactly what is logged, because the process is open. So does the media, and some of the major Danish tech-sites have criticised the way the logging works (it's basically useless for the police). Personally I don't like the law, but it was an open process; I know exactly who voted yes and no, I know exactly what is being logged, I know from the media debates how the police uses this, etc. Democracy at work.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > I know exactly what is logged Wouldn't one of the reason it's "useless for the police" be because anyone who has been paying attention has the exact blueprint needed to evade this logging?
      - lcampbell 13y ago
        Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
        mpyne 13y ago
        I wasn't aware that was the only option. I wonder if there are any nations out there which are able to conduct investigations in accordance with the law, but without tipping off those being investigated?
        lcampbell 13y ago
        I'm completely oblivious to non-US law, but I think, in general, you cannot both have your cake and eat it. As far as I can see it, there are two choices: * Publish the standards and practices of the government. Lawbreakers know what to avoid, ala Denmark. * Keep the S&P secret. The law-abiding populace has no say in the rule of law, ala the US. I'd love if there was some middle ground here, but I think there is none. In direct response to your question, it could be argued that the US's actions (specifically, the interception and storage of telecommuniques by government entities) have been completely in accordance with the law, though I won't be the one to make the argument.
CamperBob2 13y ago
Nobody is accountable though. We are. We're not allowed to lie to them, only the reverse. Isn't government awesome?
- ahallock 13y ago
  Yup, government by its very nature is about opposites and double standards. Government is pretty much an exclusive place to carry out the worst parts of humanity legally. Steal, murder, lie, kidnap, coerce--it's all good under the State. It's like the movie 'The Purge' in a sense.
sage_joch 13y ago
There exists no recourse any person alive can do to stand up against the TSA. Civil disobedience is always an option. The protester at Tiananmen Square changed the world because he realized that there was recourse in doing the right thing.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Low-barrier civil disobedience people can take with the TSA: Opt-out/in to everything that will make the process take longer. Gum up the works.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Civil disobedience against the "people at the bottom of the org chart" is the height of stupidity and futility. And your childish, short term approach will do absolutely nothing other than antagonise your fellow flyers (many of whom will be in a rush).
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Does this attitude only apply in airports, or do you apply the same logic to buses too?
      - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        Buuuuuuurn.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      And your better suggestion would be? Also, I think you have pretty low standards for the height of stupidity, and also for being antagonized by minor inconveniences. When I opt out, they just have me stand aside until a screener is free.
    - dapole 13y ago
      There is the off chance that while they are waiting longer and watching their fellow travelers patted down more and more they will realize what a ridiculous show of security theater TSA checkpoints are. There are significantly easier ways to get contraband on board planes then the security checkpoints, and most of them involve weak ground crew security and checks.
Amadou 13y ago
Politicians won't dare entertain the idea of defunding them. They might if they had to put up with the same crap the plebes do. But the TSA has figured out how to keep all the powerful people from having to undergo the same indignities that normal people do - they let them opt out of almost all of it for a background check and about $100. http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck Which, I'd like to point out is ridiculous if you believe that the TSA is about actual security. They've just created a whole class of passenger that get to bypass almost all of the 'security.' Background checks don't prevent people from being conned into carrying explosives in their baggage.
- boondocker 13y ago
  Rand Paul wants to defund them and was detained by TSA for refusing a pat down. He may very well be the Republican nominee for President in 2016.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    Anyone refusing a pat down will be detained. The lowly TSA hourly employee was probably shaking at the thought of having to do that to a US Senator and possible consequences but he had to do it.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      I'm sure he had no idea.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jrockway 13y ago
  I'm powerful for having $100 and the ability to fill out paperwork? Cool!
Wingman4l7 13y ago
That's just it though -- they obviously don't think liquids are potentially dangerous. It's just a sort of cargo cult practice at this point, completely dissociated from the original reason & intent. Same argument goes for anything verboten, really. If the item actually was dangerous and you actually cared about people not having it, you wouldn't just make them throw it away if and when you caught them with it -- you'd have a real disincentive, like a fine (a good example is fresh fruit & Australian quarantine laws).
AutoCorrect 13y ago
"Nobody is accountable though. Who do we yell at? We can't blame the line employees. They are just state machines with no free will [N]. Their managers aren't empowered do anything either except harass you even more." Bullshit. Following orders is no excuse.

by seiji 13y ago

stanleydrew 13y ago

I suppose you could move to a different country and never return to the USA. I don't know if that qualifies as a "solution" though.

seiji 13y ago
Last year at Heathrow, I got selected for a "random screening" where they take everything out of your luggage and scan every piece individually through the x-ray machine again. It takes me half an hour to pack my luggage, so the process took a while. I was not pleased that morning. (Amusing side anecdote: There was a group of mexican school kids passing through security at the same time. Some were also selected for random screening. The random screening lady was from Spain, but she told them the policy (law?) dictated she only speak to them in English even though everybody involved in the transaction spoke Spanish better than English.)
dataminer 13y ago
Every other country has these problems, the bureaucratic machinery is all powerful, even more powerful than politicians whom you can vote out.
- mixmax 13y ago
  I think America is pretty bad - certainly worse than where I happened to be born (Denmark). An example: Like many other countries we have logging of telecommunications. The difference from the US is that it has been a transparent process. A bill was introduced into parlaiment, it was discussed both in the media and on the floor of parlaiment, then voted on and made into law. I know exactly what is logged, because the process is open. So does the media, and some of the major Danish tech-sites have criticised the way the logging works (it's basically useless for the police). Personally I don't like the law, but it was an open process; I know exactly who voted yes and no, I know exactly what is being logged, I know from the media debates how the police uses this, etc. Democracy at work.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > I know exactly what is logged Wouldn't one of the reason it's "useless for the police" be because anyone who has been paying attention has the exact blueprint needed to evade this logging?
    - lcampbell 13y ago
      Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      - mpyne 13y ago
        I wasn't aware that was the only option. I wonder if there are any nations out there which are able to conduct investigations in accordance with the law, but without tipping off those being investigated?
        lcampbell 13y ago
        I'm completely oblivious to non-US law, but I think, in general, you cannot both have your cake and eat it. As far as I can see it, there are two choices: * Publish the standards and practices of the government. Lawbreakers know what to avoid, ala Denmark. * Keep the S&P secret. The law-abiding populace has no say in the rule of law, ala the US. I'd love if there was some middle ground here, but I think there is none. In direct response to your question, it could be argued that the US's actions (specifically, the interception and storage of telecommuniques by government entities) have been completely in accordance with the law, though I won't be the one to make the argument.

CamperBob2 13y ago

Nobody is accountable though. We are. We're not allowed to lie to them, only the reverse. Isn't government awesome?

ahallock 13y ago
Yup, government by its very nature is about opposites and double standards. Government is pretty much an exclusive place to carry out the worst parts of humanity legally. Steal, murder, lie, kidnap, coerce--it's all good under the State. It's like the movie 'The Purge' in a sense.

sage_joch 13y ago

There exists no recourse any person alive can do to stand up against the TSA. Civil disobedience is always an option. The protester at Tiananmen Square changed the world because he realized that there was recourse in doing the right thing.

jlgreco 13y ago
Low-barrier civil disobedience people can take with the TSA: Opt-out/in to everything that will make the process take longer. Gum up the works.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Civil disobedience against the "people at the bottom of the org chart" is the height of stupidity and futility. And your childish, short term approach will do absolutely nothing other than antagonise your fellow flyers (many of whom will be in a rush).
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Does this attitude only apply in airports, or do you apply the same logic to buses too?
    - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      Buuuuuuurn.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    And your better suggestion would be? Also, I think you have pretty low standards for the height of stupidity, and also for being antagonized by minor inconveniences. When I opt out, they just have me stand aside until a screener is free.
  - dapole 13y ago
    There is the off chance that while they are waiting longer and watching their fellow travelers patted down more and more they will realize what a ridiculous show of security theater TSA checkpoints are. There are significantly easier ways to get contraband on board planes then the security checkpoints, and most of them involve weak ground crew security and checks.

Amadou 13y ago

Politicians won't dare entertain the idea of defunding them. They might if they had to put up with the same crap the plebes do. But the TSA has figured out how to keep all the powerful people from having to undergo the same indignities that normal people do - they let them opt out of almost all of it for a background check and about $100. http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck Which, I'd like to point out is ridiculous if you believe that the TSA is about actual security. They've just created a whole class of passenger that get to bypass almost all of the 'security.' Background checks don't prevent people from being conned into carrying explosives in their baggage.

boondocker 13y ago
Rand Paul wants to defund them and was detained by TSA for refusing a pat down. He may very well be the Republican nominee for President in 2016.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Anyone refusing a pat down will be detained. The lowly TSA hourly employee was probably shaking at the thought of having to do that to a US Senator and possible consequences but he had to do it.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    I'm sure he had no idea.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jrockway 13y ago
I'm powerful for having $100 and the ability to fill out paperwork? Cool!

Wingman4l7 13y ago

That's just it though -- they obviously don't think liquids are potentially dangerous. It's just a sort of cargo cult practice at this point, completely dissociated from the original reason & intent. Same argument goes for anything verboten, really. If the item actually was dangerous and you actually cared about people not having it, you wouldn't just make them throw it away if and when you caught them with it -- you'd have a real disincentive, like a fine (a good example is fresh fruit & Australian quarantine laws).

AutoCorrect 13y ago

"Nobody is accountable though. Who do we yell at? We can't blame the line employees. They are just state machines with no free will [N]. Their managers aren't empowered do anything either except harass you even more." Bullshit. Following orders is no excuse.