patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

HydroCabron says

Let me guess: you're a staunch opponent of considering race in university admissions, but it's fine at the airport, right?

No I'd rather no such security at the airports at all. But IF they are going to take everyone for this long ride of Stupidity, then at least have the common sense to screen the people that this new have of security has inspired with an even more prejudice than anyone.

When the red Neck terrorist start being a problem, then we can build special rooms where Ted Nugent get's private body cavity searches. But until that day happens, the let's stick with the assholes that all of this shit was created for in the first place. If Mexicans drove low riders into the twin towers, then I would expect the police to be on the look out for esses, and cabrons with sombreros.

Go ahead Captain, you can say it. Discriminate the Koran readers the way Israel does. If Israel invented a round wheel, why are we trying to outsmart them by working on a square wheel? Why do we keep doing stupid things that harm us in the name of human rights? What about our human rights?

I fly a lot and was given the TSA pre. without request. I really like it. Much faster and less hassles. At small airports it doesn’t mean much as there is no separate line (keep your shoes on) but at SFO, ORD and others of that size it is great. Pretty much just like it was before 911. Eventually you will be able to apply, buy into the TSA pre program. Not sure on the time frame maybe you can do it now. As an aside your boarding pass does not come up TSA pre every time so there is some random full checking that goes on.

Regarding TSA security in general all you can say is the proof is in the pudding. Haven’t had very many airplane incidents have we? I know that proves nothing definitively but it is something to consider.

Strategist says

The fact that we have had no serious attempts to highjack planes post 911 indicates we are doing something right.

Other places have had the same 'indication', without doing what we're doing. As Dan wrote, locking the cockpit door and changing the instructions to flight crew was already enough. Previously, American flight crews were told to cooperate with hijackers. That was obviously a mistake, and changing that policy would have cost nothing. The security theater is like a rain dance; whether there is rain the next day is not a function of how many rain dancers were hired, or how much money got spent on the dance. You posit a false choice between "no security" and rain dances. Those aren't the options.

I see the same in the medical sector. If somebody dies, even a morbidly obese smoker, cue the mandatory insurance salesmen to say the solution is to spend more money on subsidized insurance. "No lifetime caps!" It's the mantra of a new religion, eternal life through infinite spending, whether on medical insurance or "security" theater.

Evaluating whether a particular drug or procedure is good or bad for your health or security, and if so what is it worth, depends on careful study of actual evidence and available alternatives. It isn't rational or reasonable to look at an outcome and use it to say that everything that preceded it was necessary or even helpful, let alone infinitely valuable.

The Professor says

Strategist says

constitutional rights are not important enough for me to sacrifice the safety of my family.

"Sacrifice liberty for safety and you will end up with neither". Everyone knows that.

Ben did not have to deal with planes, skyscrapers, or radical Muslims. We do...everyone knows that. :)

curious2 says

Strategist says

The fact that we have had no serious attempts to highjack planes post 911 indicates we are doing something right.

Other places have had the same 'indication', without doing what we're doing. As Dan wrote, locking the cockpit door and changing the instructions to flight crew was already enough. Previously, American flight crews were told to cooperate with hijackers. That was obviously a mistake, and changing that policy would have cost nothing. The security theater is like a rain dance; whether there is rain the next day is not a function of how many rain dancers were hired, or how much money got spent on the dance. You posit a false choice between "no security" and rain dances. Those aren't the options.

What are the option, then?

CaptainShuddup says

HydroCabron says

Let me guess: you're a staunch opponent of considering race in university admissions, but it's fine at the airport, right?

No I'd rather no such security at the airports at all. But IF they are going to take everyone for this long ride of Stupidity, then at least have the common sense to screen the people that this new have of security has inspired with an even more prejudice than anyone.

When the red Neck terrorist start being a problem, then we can build special rooms where Ted Nugent get's private body cavity searches. But until that day happens, the let's stick with the assholes that all of this shit was created for in the first place. If Mexicans drove low riders into the twin towers, then I would expect the police to be on the look out for esses, and cabrons with sombreros.

Answer the question.

If it's a black college, Jewish college or Continuation of the White arts study college then yes race should be a factor. Otherwise no, race should not be a factor.

And as I said before I would rather we not have all of this stupid security.
We need tactical force units patrolling the Airports. But the process of getting through the gate should be much more civil. I'd rather be blown to a million pieces 30,000 feet in the sky, than what we have lost as a Nation. Once we decided to go down that path. We lost a lot more our personal liberties at the airport.

Oh, ok.
Here's what we can do then. Require airlines to offer both "TSA checked" and "No security check" flights in equal amounts. That way everybody gets their wish.
Dan and his family can enjoy open seating and 3 seat across stretched out lounging on his US flights, as there will be no other passengers.

Gee, I wonder when mr. terrorist comes to town which flight he will choose to commandeer and fly into the nearest infidel victorias secret outlet?

curious2 says

Strategist says

The fact that we have had no serious attempts to highjack planes post 911 indicates we are doing something right.

Other places have had the same 'indication', without doing what we're doing. As Dan wrote, locking the cockpit door and changing the instructions to flight crew was already enough.

SoftShell says

Oh, ok.

Here's what we can do then. Require airlines to offer both "TSA checked" and "No security check" flights in equal amounts. That way everybody gets their wish.

Dan and his family can enjoy open seating and 3 seat across stretched out lounging on his US flights, as there will be no other passengers.

Gee, I wonder when mr. terrorist comes to town which flight he will choose to commandeer and fly into the nearest infidel victorias secret outlet?

He will choose Dan's flight. Say goodbye to Dan everyone.

Call it Crazy says

CaptainShuddup says

When the red Neck terrorist start being a problem, then we can build special rooms where Ted Nugent get's private body cavity searches.

Sounds kinky!!! Can I pay extra to get that type of treatment?

It's complimentary if you just say "I have a bomb"

Or just yell out, "I'm trying to get back to Texas to attend a gun show. What in the hell is wrong with you People!?" in the screening line.

Strategist says

What are the option, then?

Some PatNetters seem to post rhetorical questions that I misread as literal. This question, addressed to me specifically, might be an example. I assume you've read the comments above about life in other countries that achieve similar or better security without American theatrical spending. I don't understand why you would need me to refer you to the same page that you posted the question on. If you have traveled outside America's borders, or longer than the period of theater, you should already have noticed these differences. I think the TSA has actually stopped taking away nail clippers now, so hopefully without too much fear of contradiction I can now say that taking away nail clippers was not necessary. The number of hijackings by nail clippers did not increase when they were allowed on board. Likewise, making people take off their shoes, prohibiting pilots from traveling with toothpaste and shampoo, making people pack all their liquids in a clear plastic bag, the x-ray scanners and millimeter wave scanners, are all rather dubious in terms of efficacy. The shoe thing started with a guy who got on a plane in Paris, the CAPP system had already flagged him as a terrorist but nobody at CDG thought to check his shoes; it would probably be enough to check the shoes of CAPP-flagged people (either by removing them or swabbing them or having a dog at the gate). It makes no sense to waste resources including time over-scanning people who aren't terrorists; that's theater and possibly abuse, not security.

curious2 says

Strategist says

What are the option, then?

Some PatNetters seem to post rhetorical questions that I misread as literal. This question, addressed to me specifically, might be an example. I assume you've read the comments above about life in other countries that achieve similar or better security without American theatrical spending.

These other countries do not face the same level of threat that we do. We are the number one target of these terrorists, therefore we require extraordinary precautions. Sure some of our precautions are overreactions and theatrical, but it's always better to err on the side of safety.

Strategist says

curious2 says

Strategist says

What are the option, then?

Some PatNetters seem to post rhetorical questions that I misread as literal. This question, addressed to me specifically, might be an example. I assume you've read the comments above about life in other countries that achieve similar or better security without American theatrical spending.

These other countries do not face the same level of threat that we do. We are the number one target of these terrorists, therefore we require extraordinary precautions. Sure some of our precautions are overreactions and theatrical, but it's always better to err on the side of safety.

Its always better to remain a silent fool, than to write a post that removes all doubt

curious2 says

Too many people fail to distinguish between "security" and "security theater."

Too many people fail to distinguish between "security theater" and "security theatre."

curious2 says

TSA screeners were wasting their time searching his shoes, he's the pilot, if he wanted to bring down the plane he wouldn't need a weapon.

Excellent example of security theater.

It is a source of continual astonishment to me that pilots -- many of whom, it should be pointed out, are military veterans who possess security clearances -- are not allowed to carry onboard their airplanes pocket knives and bottles of shampoo, but then they're allowed to fly enormous, fuel-laden, missile-like objects over American cities.

Strategist says

Guys, cargo on planes does not stand up, kill the flight crew, and fly the plane into buildings.

Dan8267 says

Air mail is not scrutinized like the genitalia of your children when you go through TSA checkpoints. A terrorist could place a bomb in an air package, and rig the detonator to a smartphone. When the GPS on the smartphone reads an altitude passed some threashold, an app on the smartphone sends a signal (can be wired like USB instead of wireless) to the detonator and boom. Your family is dead.

Strategist says

The fact that we have had no serious attempts to highjack planes post 911 indicates we are doing something right.

Not at all true. Well, at least you didn't mention Benghazi. I suppose we should be grateful for that.

The only reason that 911 happened was that the cockpit door was unlocked and the pilots and passengers were required to cooperate with the hijackers. Since 911, airlines have taken the common sense step of locking the cockpit, something that should be done even if terrorism didn't exist. A drunk person in first class could endanger the plane when he thinks he can fly it better than the pilot.

Also, no pilot and no passengers are going to cooperate with hijackers since 911. I guarantee you that there were dozens of able-bodied men on each of the 911 flights that didn't fight back (except in the PA case, and that was after the opportunity passed) because each of them was thinking "I could easy take out these smucks but I'll be sent to prison for 20 years if I try". That's not going to happen again because no jury in this country will ever convict a person for fighting plane hijackers since 911.

Strategist says

If I was to choose which planes by children will board, it will still be the plane with the ultra security.

Correction: If I was to choose which planes by children will board, it will still be the plane with the ultra security theater.

Your children will be less safe, probably sexually molested, exposed to cancer-causing radiation, and blown up to bits while waiting in the security line.

You really should read my replies fully before responding to them.

curious2 says

In Israel, where security has been a way of life for decades, you can't get near an airport without being interviewed. They have roadblocks.

The interviews will decrease terrorist attacks -- we can assume the Israelis do them right -- however, there will be a lot of false positives. Essentially, travel becomes a privilege.

The roadblocks will limit damage. Instead of blowing up the bomb in the airport, the terrorist will have to blow up the bomb at the roadblock, killing himself and perhaps one or two guards, maybe one or two other people. It's definitely better than a security line which endangers hundreds of people. However, there's no way this will happen in the U.S. because such roadblocks would be expensive and would greatly discourage air travel, and the airlines, which are big lobbyists, won't stand for it.

The real solution is to retire commercial air travel, at least domestic air travel for now. Privately owned maglifts can get you from place A to B cheaper and more conveniently than commercial air travel. And if we're willing to fork the expense of having super-fast, vacuum lanes, maglifts at ground level can travel faster than airplanes, even supersonic speeds, while using little energy. (Transcontinental maglift lanes are possible, but will require greatly more infrastructure development.)

If a terrorist blows up a maglift vehicle he's occupying, he only takes out himself and his passengers, no one else. At best, he delays other travelers.

Of course, privately owned maglifts will never become a reality in this country because of the evil auto and aviation industries and their lobbyists.

I just drive anyplace I want to go to. I really don't want to leave the Northeast anyway, so it's no big deal to me to just catch a bus or drive to anywhere else around here anyway. That and there is still tons of stuff to do around here that I haven't done, and I am not sure if I can actually see everything in my area anytime soon or ever.

SoftShell says

Require airlines to offer both "TSA checked" and "No security check" flights in equal amounts.

Actually, the choice will be the "rape your daughter" line and the "real security" line. In the real security line, you go through metal detector and a explosive detector, perhaps using bees.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-1GadTfGFvU

OK, maybe not bees. Some people are allergic to them. But there are electronic detectors that work on smell. The technology isn't great right now, but it is the nature of technology to become more reliable and cheaper if people invest in it. Ultimately, such detectors are the only reliable way to find explosives. Patdowns and rape-scanners simply don't work.

The Transportation Security Administration’s full-body scanners failed to detect a number of potential weapons, including knives, guns and explosives, according to a study released this week.

The controversial scanners, which captured explicit images of passenger’s bodies, provided “weak protection against adaptive adversaries,” researchers from the University of California, San Diego; the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins University concluded.

“It is possible to conceal knives, guns, and explosives from detection by exploiting properties of the device’s backscatter X-ray technology,” the authors of the study wrote.

Hell, it would be trivial to modify a laptop with a plastic explosive and it would go through airport security, no problem. The TSA agents are idiots, power-hungry idiots, but idiots nonetheless.

Oh, and on my commercial flight, there is no air mail, so my family will be safe while yours is blown up by an mail bomb. So much for security theater.

Strategist says

He will choose Dan's flight. Say goodbye to Dan everyone.

By the way, on my flight, we have the best anti-terrorist security system. On each flight, there is a copy of the Quran and a piece of the Black Stone of Mecca, two things that the terrorists won't risk blowing up for fear of offending their gods. The planes are also painted with "Allah is great" in Arabic. I'm safe. You're not.

The whole liquids thing is pure bullshit. It revolves around the highly unlikely scenario where somebody, and the flight would have to be at least 12 hours long non-stop, that somebody would occupy a restroom for the entire flight and try to grow explosive crystals. He would need tons of ice to produce his explosive crystals, and maybe end up with enough to break one of the windows.

Somebody is going to take bucket of ice after bucket of ice into a bathroom the entire flight and not raise suspicions?

thunderlips11 says

The whole liquids thing...revolves around the highly unlikely scenario where somebody, and the flight would have to be at least 12 hours long non-stop, that somebody would occupy a restroom for the entire flight and try to grow explosive crystals. He would need tons of ice to produce his explosive crystals, and maybe end up with enough to break one of the windows.

Do you have a source for that? I read that there will be new contracts to purchase and operate new equipment to detect liquid explosives. Also as Dan's link noted, security auditors have got through with what they call liquid explosives. I imagine that anything flammable could probably start at least a smoke condition, e.g. using lighter fluid to accelerate burning the carpet or the trash bin, and that would require the plane to land. (OTOH, it seems even using a Knee Defender can require the plane to land.)

Dan8267 says

The real solution is to retire commercial air travel, at least domestic air travel for now. Privately owned maglifts can get you from place A to B cheaper and more conveniently than commercial air travel.

I like the Hyperloop idea, but nothing has yet been proven to substitute for air travel. Even if evacuated tube technology works, it would take years to set up each link between cities, and a tube might be as vulnerable as a plane - more so in the sense that damaging a tube would make the whole line unusable and might cause a pileup, like shutting down an entire flight lane for possibly months. Air travel works pretty well, although I've been avoiding it due to the security theater and the nuisance fees and the airline consolidation resulting in all sorts of unpleasantness. Ironically, the best time to fly was 2002-2005, when everyone else was afraid to fly: plenty of seats, low fares, crew happy that somebody found the courage to join them on the plane.