The Inquirer: "TSA "security" measures are internally inconsistent"
Dec 31, 2006 | 1:38 pm
#1
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
The Inquirer: "TSA "security" measures are internally inconsistent"
More press from a widely read IT rag. I've personally met this reporter (Charlie Demerjian) at a convention (even competed against him and lost
) and he's a pretty sharp guy. He's also a very frequent flyer too. ^
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36636
Here are a few snippets.
[quote=The Inquirer=ONE OF THE more interesting things I noticed while unpacking my bags in a TSA security line for the 73rd time this year was that the new 'security' features are not even internally consistent. No, not a way to sleaze around them, just the simple fact that they don't do what they say.
The two dumbest reactionary 'security' measures enacted recently are the remove all shoes and x-ray them and no fluids/gels. The first one may have a precedent, Richard Reid did try to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoes. The liquids/gels thing was comprehensively debunked, someone needed a press distraction, but even I forget what for. Basically, it never happened.
In any case, the TSA put in place placebos to make us quake in fear, cheese us off, and generally do nothing for our security. If you look at what they do, it flat out does not work, much less do what they say.[/quote]
On shoes:
On liquid explosives:
His general opinion"
I'm going to link him this thread and FT in general.
) and he's a pretty sharp guy. He's also a very frequent flyer too. ^http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36636
Here are a few snippets.
[quote=The Inquirer=ONE OF THE more interesting things I noticed while unpacking my bags in a TSA security line for the 73rd time this year was that the new 'security' features are not even internally consistent. No, not a way to sleaze around them, just the simple fact that they don't do what they say.
The two dumbest reactionary 'security' measures enacted recently are the remove all shoes and x-ray them and no fluids/gels. The first one may have a precedent, Richard Reid did try to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoes. The liquids/gels thing was comprehensively debunked, someone needed a press distraction, but even I forget what for. Basically, it never happened.
In any case, the TSA put in place placebos to make us quake in fear, cheese us off, and generally do nothing for our security. If you look at what they do, it flat out does not work, much less do what they say.[/quote]
On shoes:
Originally Posted by The Inquirer
The purported purpose of removing your shoes is so you don't smuggle explosives in, and possibly so you don't hide a knife or other sharp object in there. Sounds good, right? Well, last time I checked, and I have enough chemistry under my belt to choke a horse, plastic explosives don't show up on x-rays. Duh!
If you want to smuggle a knife through the security, it sure will be seen by the x-rays no question there. It will also however be picked up by the metal detector you walk through after you put your carry-ons though the x-ray machine. If the knife won't set off said detector, there is no incentive to hide it, put it in your pocket.
If you want to smuggle a knife through the security, it sure will be seen by the x-rays no question there. It will also however be picked up by the metal detector you walk through after you put your carry-ons though the x-ray machine. If the knife won't set off said detector, there is no incentive to hide it, put it in your pocket.
Originally Posted by The Inquirer
Lets pretend that there was an actual plot to blow up a plane with liquid explosives, which there was not. What does putting the items in plain sight do again? What does x-raying them do again? Nothing. Really. If you want to bring prohibited items on board, you simply do so now, and they get x-rayed for no particular reason.
There are explosives detectors in all security checkpoints, they are right behind the x-ray machines. If the TSA is worried about people bringing in explosives, shouldn't they use the machines designed to do just that? They are there, they detect bondo, I can personally attest to that when I brought a costume mask made out of it to Defcon, what a laugh riot that turned out to be. What the TSA is saying is that they may be expensive, slow and annoying, but they won't detect explosives.
There are explosives detectors in all security checkpoints, they are right behind the x-ray machines. If the TSA is worried about people bringing in explosives, shouldn't they use the machines designed to do just that? They are there, they detect bondo, I can personally attest to that when I brought a costume mask made out of it to Defcon, what a laugh riot that turned out to be. What the TSA is saying is that they may be expensive, slow and annoying, but they won't detect explosives.
Originally Posted by The Inquirer
What it comes down to is that the TSA seems to react to every headline in the dumbest possible fashion. What they implement does not do what they want, or at least what they say it will. That would be fine if they realised this and backed away when it was obvious that they were spending millions of dollars hiring people to ask if you have any liquids or gels in your bag. I personally would prefer my share of this went to equip our troops properly in order to actually fight terrorism.
For some unknown reason, once these ineffectual annoyances get put into place, they never get rolled back even when it is clear they do nothing. I have long past the point of appealing to governmental common sense, and am not sure what if anything can be done to fix these abject stupidities. Anyone got any thoughts?
Note: This was written in the Indianapolis (almost) International Airport.
For some unknown reason, once these ineffectual annoyances get put into place, they never get rolled back even when it is clear they do nothing. I have long past the point of appealing to governmental common sense, and am not sure what if anything can be done to fix these abject stupidities. Anyone got any thoughts?
Note: This was written in the Indianapolis (almost) International Airport.
Dec 31, 2006 | 1:50 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: CO Plat, Priority Club Plat, HH Diamond, Avis First, Hertz #1Gold
Posts: 720
TSA responds from an emotional perspective, not a scientific one. By playing on emotions and fears, they can enact their convoluted rules and keep everyone guessing.
Dec 31, 2006 | 2:24 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: RSW
Programs: HHonors - Diamond; IHG - Diamond; Marriott Bonvoy - Platinum
Posts: 14,288
I keep seeing reports that "The Public supports this" yet I honestly wonder if that includes a fair number who personally feel it's not necessary, but are resigned to it indefinitely?
Are there really that many Kettlesheeps who actually feel the post-August measures are an effective deterrent?
Are there really that many Kettlesheeps who actually feel the post-August measures are an effective deterrent?
Dec 31, 2006 | 2:39 pm
#4
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Good question. I do think the kettles are getting fed up with it though. My bro-in-law's younger brother flew in last week and he isn't a FF at all ... just a typical beer-banging college student. One of the first things he did when we saw him was gripe about security. 
I might also add that even though the Inq is a a British publication, this particular reporter is an American.
I might also add that even though the Inq is a a British publication, this particular reporter is an American.