Options

Do we really need the TSA anymore? Have we EVER?

1246789

Posts

  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    fuck that, the first time someone pees in the aisle because they're not allowed to get up will be the end of that policy

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    ph blakeph blake Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm actually interested to see what will happen when I refuse to put my laptop away an hour before landing. What will they say? "I'm sorry, but now you can't get off the plane."

    The "can't get up for an hour" is going to be the first one to go, probably following a lawsuit. I guarantee the first person that has a medical condition that isn't allowed to take a piss will be suing. And rightfully so.

    Supposedly the TSA is now leaving the "no getting up or having anything in your lap in the last hour" rules up to the flight crew's discretion, according to a news article I read in the morning paper (they cited an anonymous source in the TSA). I'm willing to bet that most of these new restrictions will be gone before the end of January.

    I guess I'll find out soon though; I fly back home tonight and am already preparing for an extra hour of bullshit.

    ph blake on
    7h8wnycre6vs.png
  • Options
    juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?

    Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.

    As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!

    juice for jesus on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!

    :rotate:

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    A bit of a tangent, but I have an issue with the concept of No Fly Lists.

    Such lists seem to be designed as an end run around due process. They restrict people's rights extrajudicially and without giving the effected people any recourse. Hell, no one even knows how people get on the list, or whether you can actually get your name removed.

    If an American citizen is supporting terrorism, charge them with a crime. If someone here on a visa is a threat, kick them out. And we can certainly ban dangerous foreigners from travelling to the US.

    But this idea of secret lists strikes me as un-American.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A bit of a tangent, but I have an issue with the concept of No Fly Lists.

    Such lists seem to be designed as an end run around due process. They restrict people's rights extrajudicially and without giving the effected people any recourse. Hell, no one even knows how people get on the list, or whether you can actually get your name removed.

    If an American citizen is supporting terrorism, charge them with a crime. If someone here on a visa is a threat, kick them out. And we can certainly ban dangerous foreigners from travelling to the US.

    But this idea of secret lists strikes me as un-American.

    It's as American as Joe McCarthy. Still stupid, though.

    moniker on
  • Options
    BackstopBackstop Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    While I agree with you about secret lists, [devil's advocate] it's not like there's a constitutional right to airplanes. They aren't "no travel" lists, no one is preventing them from Amtrak and Greyhound. Or ( I think) a charter flight. [/devil's advocate]

    Backstop on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, why does it matter if the plane is in the last hour of flight or not?
    The plane's likely to be over/travelling toward a populated area, and not in the middle of nowhere. Though, it begs the question of why not right after takeoff or close to a populated area (which could be verified by looking out the goddamn window).

    He was really tall, and so wanted an aisle seat.

    moniker on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?

    Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.

    As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!

    The purpose of the watch list was to inconvenience Muslims and the political enemies of the Bush Administration.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A bit of a tangent, but I have an issue with the concept of No Fly Lists.

    Such lists seem to be designed as an end run around due process. They restrict people's rights extrajudicially and without giving the effected people any recourse. Hell, no one even knows how people get on the list, or whether you can actually get your name removed.

    If an American citizen is supporting terrorism, charge them with a crime. If someone here on a visa is a threat, kick them out. And we can certainly ban dangerous foreigners from travelling to the US.

    I have to say, Modern Man, that I agree with this 100%.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Options
    JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    The stupidest part of the no fly list is people that share common names. There was a big article on CNN a few months ago about a 7 year old boy sharing the same name as a suspected terrorist who is on the list and the parents still haven't been able to get the boy off the list.

    JustinSane07 on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A bit of a tangent, but I have an issue with the concept of No Fly Lists.

    Such lists seem to be designed as an end run around due process. They restrict people's rights extrajudicially and without giving the effected people any recourse. Hell, no one even knows how people get on the list, or whether you can actually get your name removed.

    If an American citizen is supporting terrorism, charge them with a crime. If someone here on a visa is a threat, kick them out. And we can certainly ban dangerous foreigners from travelling to the US.

    But this idea of secret lists strikes me as un-American.

    It gets better when you apply logic to it. The idea of a No Fly List makes no sense, because unless every single potential terrorist is on it it's pointless. Either your security is good enough to keep a bomb (or other weapon) off the plane, or it isn't. If it is, then Osama Bin Laden himself should be able to get on a flight down to Tampa. If it isn't, then your list is pointless if you run into a single terrorist you haven't identified yet (or a known one with a bogus identity).

    At best, the people on the NFL should be on a simple watch list, and flagged for additional screening. The idea that somebody can be too dangerous to be allowed to board a plane, even after you've identified them and run them through a security screening, doesn't say much about your security screening process.
    The stupidest part of the no fly list is people that share common names. There was a big article on CNN a few months ago about a 7 year old boy sharing the same name as a suspected terrorist who is on the list and the parents still haven't been able to get the boy off the list.

    They do at least have a process to get you a special ID card that basically says "I'm not the bad one."

    Still silly as all fuck, though.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    BackstopBackstop Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    At best, the people on the NFL should be on a simple watch list, and flagged for additional screening.
    Okay that made me 0_o for a second.

    Backstop on
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    There is a similar list to try and prevent major drug-dealer types from getting credit cards (and bank loans?), to try and keep them from laundering money. I'm sure terrorists are on the same list.

    BUT, in addition to names it checks things like social security numbers, etc. I don't really have more details because when I worked at that job it was all checked automatically and I NEVER saw an application denied for that reason.

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    ಠ_ರೃಠ_ರೃ __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    Wouldn't you launder money with cash?

    ಠ_ರೃ on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Backstop wrote: »
    While I agree with you about secret lists, [devil's advocate] it's not like there's a constitutional right to airplanes. They aren't "no travel" lists, no one is preventing them from Amtrak and Greyhound. Or ( I think) a charter flight. [/devil's advocate]

    Why argue devil's advocate for a completely useless thing?

    The No-Fly list doesn't work. At all, ever. It never has and it never will. So arguing the merits doesn't really need to pass Go. Go being in this case "It is completely useless".

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I have this theory that the continued "attacks" on planes are all part of some terrorist mastermind's Crowley-esque terror campaign. This dude realized that he didn't have the resources to carry out a large-scale attack, but that inconveniencing millions of people every single day is just as good as killing a handful of people once.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    Wouldn't you launder money with cash?

    Here's how it works:

    You buy a bunch of stuff on a credit card (department store cards are good for this). You pay off the credit card with your dirty money. You then return the merchandise and get clean money in exchange, either right then and there or through the mail a few weeks later since you have a negative balance.

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Adrien wrote: »
    I have this theory that the continued "attacks" on planes are all part of some terrorist mastermind's Crowley-esque terror campaign. This dude realized that he didn't have the resources to carry out a large-scale attack, but that inconveniencing millions of people every single day is just as good as killing a handful of people once.

    That or they figured that the TSA would respond in the same way to this as with Richard Reid. Briefs are banned on flights and now you have to put your boxers through the x-ray machine. :P

    moniker on
  • Options
    The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    I have this theory that the continued "attacks" on planes are all part of some terrorist mastermind's Crowley-esque terror campaign. This dude realized that he didn't have the resources to carry out a large-scale attack, but that inconveniencing millions of people every single day is just as good as killing a handful of people once.

    That or they figured that the TSA would respond in the same way to this as with Richard Reid. Briefs are banned on flights and now you have to put your boxers through the x-ray machine. :P

    That... that would be awesome.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Options
    AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    WRT to those body scans.

    The Dutch minister stated that there is new software in development that would automate the analysis of the body scans and no one would actually see the pictures unless an alarm went off.

    Consider it similar to the good ol' scans that beep at metal, only these scans are more sophisticated.

    If that goes through and it is just as effective as an X-Ray is at detecting metal and it means we won't have to take off our shoes etc then I'm all for it.

    Aldo on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Aldo wrote: »
    WRT to those body scans.

    The Dutch minister stated that there is new software in development that would automate the analysis of the body scans and no one would actually see the pictures unless an alarm went off.

    Consider it similar to the good ol' scans that beep at metal, only these scans are more sophisticated.

    If that goes through and it is just as effective as an X-Ray is at detecting metal and it means we won't have to take off our shoes etc then I'm all for it.

    If there is software that does this, I'm willing to bet that they can localize the interesting area for the picture as well. That would be great.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.

    This.

    We need the TSA.

    We just need them to not be fucking retarded.

    No we don't.

    We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.

    KevinNash on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Alternately, your odds of being on a hijacked plane (assuming you are flying) are something like 1 in 10,000,000. Nate Silver did the math recently.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Alternately, your odds of being on a hijacked plane (assuming you are flying) are something like 1 in 10,000,000. Nate Silver did the math recently.

    1 in 10,000,000 per what?

    Per plane in service, per departing flight....

    Also, sadly, the security theatre people are right - a noticeable reduction in airport security without a consequential massive campaign about how it's better then ever and some high profile arrests probably is likely to cause a spike in attempted terror attacks from the "door's open boys!" idiot crowd.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ಠ_ರೃಠ_ರೃ __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    Alternately, your odds of being on a hijacked plane (assuming you are flying) are something like 1 in 10,000,000. Nate Silver did the math recently.

    Then he did it wrong.

    Your odds vary wildly depending on where you take off from and where your destination is.

    ಠ_ರೃ on
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Aldo wrote: »
    WRT to those body scans.

    The Dutch minister stated that there is new software in development that would automate the analysis of the body scans and no one would actually see the pictures unless an alarm went off.

    Consider it similar to the good ol' scans that beep at metal, only these scans are more sophisticated.

    If that goes through and it is just as effective as an X-Ray is at detecting metal and it means we won't have to take off our shoes etc then I'm all for it.

    I'm going to be that software is just as effective as the Pentagon's software for detecting secret Al Qaeda messages in Al Jezeera broadcasts.

    I'll give you a hint: The graphic on that story is a bottle of snake oil.

    Now, I would call such software theoretically possible. But if it is scanning for ANYTHING that would be considered a threat I find it much more likely that it will just do false positive after false positive all day long, and woe to the security person that doesn't check every single one! But I find it more likely that it doesn't do a thing.

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    Adrien wrote: »
    I have this theory that the continued "attacks" on planes are all part of some terrorist mastermind's Crowley-esque terror campaign. This dude realized that he didn't have the resources to carry out a large-scale attack, but that inconveniencing millions of people every single day is just as good as killing a handful of people once.

    Yeah, it really reminds me of Good Omens.

    "I tempted a priest."
    "Well, I designed the M25."

    Echo on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.

    This.

    We need the TSA.

    We just need them to not be fucking retarded.

    No we don't.

    We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.

    Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?

    moniker on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The stupidest part of the no fly list is people that share common names. There was a big article on CNN a few months ago about a 7 year old boy sharing the same name as a suspected terrorist who is on the list and the parents still haven't been able to get the boy off the list.

    that plus simply changing your legal name will let you fly

    Sam on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Sam wrote: »
    The stupidest part of the no fly list is people that share common names. There was a big article on CNN a few months ago about a 7 year old boy sharing the same name as a suspected terrorist who is on the list and the parents still haven't been able to get the boy off the list.

    that plus simply changing your legal name will let you fly
    Or even just having a good fake ID.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    look up how much explosive power a standard lithium laptop battery has

    hint: a lot

    I know. Why terrorists haven't tried this yet I do not know.

    Because successfully pulling off a terrorist attack involves more than just a dude with an idea somewhere. Hell, wasn't there an SE thread where people came up with the worst possible terrorist attack scenario completely fucking over large swathes of the US which came up with some rather simple but horrific possibilities?

    I don't know what the guys in SE said, but I really don't understand why no one's gone after an LPG tanker yet. Run that big boy aground in San Fran Harbor and you kill a fuckload of people. Do it right, and no one even realizes it was a terrorist attack until you take credit.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Fire the TSA and replace them with Bruce Schneier.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Fire the TSA and replace them with Bruce Schneier.

    I think that's the best solution for anything security related.

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The thing that sort of still amazes me is how wet the bed terrified the media has become by a failed attack. Apparently the President needed to rush back to Washington and do... something? And if he doesn't show the American people he has responded forcefully to this, Democrats are doomed in 2010? Washington really is a pocket universe.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The thing that sort of still amazes me is how wet the bed terrified the media has become by a failed attack. Apparently the President needed to rush back to Washington and do... something? And if he doesn't show the American people he has responded forcefully to this, Democrats are doomed in 2010? Washington really is a pocket universe.

    It's the only part of America where the terrorists actually did win.

    moniker on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    The thing that sort of still amazes me is how wet the bed terrified the media has become by a failed attack. Apparently the President needed to rush back to Washington and do... something? And if he doesn't show the American people he has responded forcefully to this, Democrats are doomed in 2010? Washington really is a pocket universe.

    It's the only part of America where the terrorists actually did win.

    Well, it's not the only part, there are major news bureau in New York and Atlanta, after all.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Washington really is a pocket universe.
    But is it a simulation?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.

    This.

    We need the TSA.

    We just need them to not be fucking retarded.

    No we don't.

    We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.

    Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?

    the ENTIRE POINT of the TSA is to enforce idiotic regulations. That is it's only power, and the sole reason for its existence. If you strip the TSA of idiotic regulations, it will cease to exist.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.

    This.

    We need the TSA.

    We just need them to not be fucking retarded.

    No we don't.

    We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.

    Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?

    the ENTIRE POINT of the TSA is to enforce idiotic regulations. That is it's only power, and the sole reason for its existence. If you strip the TSA of idiotic regulations, it will cease to exist.

    Or they become the equivalent to what existed in 2000 but with Federal authority and jurisdiction rather than ending past the Cinnabon.

    moniker on
Sign In or Register to comment.