TSA Encounter at SAN

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The TSA should be eliminated.

I have always wondered what exactly they would do if they found someone with a bomb on them, I mean really what the fuck could they do, the guy would just detonate it in the terminal and kill everyone anyways so really besides saving the plane they are not stopping anything.

I like Orions idea, let the airlines pay the military to shoot the plane down if it goes off course and isn’t responding.

But then again the evil freedom fighters, I mean terrorists must be stopped at all costs so what the hell lets feel up little boys and girls.[/quote]

So let’s be clear: you and orion would rather see 350 people die in a crash than be slightly inconvenienced at an airport?

Those are some mighty strong principles you cherish.
[/quote]

No, I would rather have determining travellers on their own how much risk they are going to take and how much it is worth it for them then to have them go through a useless, yet very expensive charade.

[/quote]
But without the charade, the risks to the terrorists drop and it make it more likely for everyone to be injured.

Travellers degtermine their risks?
Yes, and how do they weigh the “rational” risk of being blown up on a plane, or being shot down from the sky in your plan? Do you have figures in mind? Is there an actuary or an insurance company to back you up?

No, I thought not. There is no risk assessment here; to pretend that there is is to lie.

[/quote]

There does not have to be an exact number, I doubt that anyone weighing road vs train travel or consenting to a medical procedure hires a statistician to determine his odds, and yet people make decisions of this kind all the time.

Amazing, isnt it.

Insurance companies however will hire statisticians and will come up with a price, there are very few risks as thourougly analyzed as the risks of air travel.
[/quote]

As I thought; disguised by the muddled verbiage, you really do not know the risks, nor would you be able to assign a risk value to flying (with or without various screening procedures.)

When I give the risk of medical procedures, there is a confidence of the frequency of adverse unintentional events.

Not so with terrorism, I would think. An actuary may estimate the chances of random or natural events, but he cannot predict the risk for intentional malicious events with any degree of confidence. (Past experience is not a good predictor of the future behavior of terrorist bent on destructive acts.)

But good luck with your guesses.

I guess you have decided a pat-down is not such an invasion of your inviolate freedoms, after all. Funny how reality intrudes into even the most rigidly dogmatic mind.[/quote]

First, if predicting future possiblities with the help of past events is pointless that is bad news for the insurance companies because this is all they do.

So either you are right and they are all constantly deep in the red, due to the futility of their endeavour or you are just plain wrong.

Second, if I decide to make life just a little bit harder for jack booted thugs, that is entirely my decision.

Freedom is not about comfort but about making your own decisions. So if I decided to hire a dominatrix to whip me unconscious that is entirely my business and gives nobody else the right to do that.

Incidentally, if I hired someone to fondle my nutsack, which is probably more likely, that does not confer any rights to a highschool dropout in a government issued clown costume either.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The TSA should be eliminated.

I have always wondered what exactly they would do if they found someone with a bomb on them, I mean really what the fuck could they do, the guy would just detonate it in the terminal and kill everyone anyways so really besides saving the plane they are not stopping anything.

I like Orions idea, let the airlines pay the military to shoot the plane down if it goes off course and isn’t responding.

But then again the evil freedom fighters, I mean terrorists must be stopped at all costs so what the hell lets feel up little boys and girls.[/quote]

So let’s be clear: you and orion would rather see 350 people die in a crash than be slightly inconvenienced at an airport?

Those are some mighty strong principles you cherish.
[/quote]

No, I would rather have determining travellers on their own how much risk they are going to take and how much it is worth it for them then to have them go through a useless, yet very expensive charade.

[/quote]
But without the charade, the risks to the terrorists drop and it make it more likely for everyone to be injured.

Travellers degtermine their risks?
Yes, and how do they weigh the “rational” risk of being blown up on a plane, or being shot down from the sky in your plan? Do you have figures in mind? Is there an actuary or an insurance company to back you up?

No, I thought not. There is no risk assessment here; to pretend that there is is to lie.

[/quote]

There does not have to be an exact number, I doubt that anyone weighing road vs train travel or consenting to a medical procedure hires a statistician to determine his odds, and yet people make decisions of this kind all the time.

Amazing, isnt it.

Insurance companies however will hire statisticians and will come up with a price, there are very few risks as thourougly analyzed as the risks of air travel.
[/quote]

As I thought; disguised by the muddled verbiage, you really do not know the risks, nor would you be able to assign a risk value to flying (with or without various screening procedures.)

When I give the risk of medical procedures, there is a confidence of the frequency of adverse unintentional events.

Not so with terrorism, I would think. An actuary may estimate the chances of random or natural events, but he cannot predict the risk for intentional malicious events with any degree of confidence. (Past experience is not a good predictor of the future behavior of terrorist bent on destructive acts.)

But good luck with your guesses.

I guess you have decided a pat-down is not such an invasion of your inviolate freedoms, after all. Funny how reality intrudes into even the most rigidly dogmatic mind.[/quote]

First, if predicting future possiblities with the help of past events is pointless that is bad news for the insurance companies because this is all they do.

So either you are right and they are all constantly deep in the red, due to the futility of their endeavour or you are just plain wrong.

Second, if I decide to make life just a little bit harder for jack booted thugs, that is entirely my decision.

Freedom is not about comfort but about making your own decisions. So if I decided to hire a dominatrix to whip me unconscious that is entirely my business and gives nobody else the right to do that.

Incidentally, if I hired someone to fondle my nutsack, which is probably more likely, that does not confer any rights to a highschool dropout in a government issued clown costume either.
[/quote]

First, read what I wrote and stop listening to those voices in your head. Actuaries predict natural events based on the past, but they cannot predict intentional malicious events. (There may be a general risk for fire, yes, but that will not predict the chance for arson if, suddenly, there is a band of extortionists who choose arson as their weapon). Planes fell out of the sky occasionally, but no actuary predicted the chance that four of them would crash on 9/11/01 precisely.

Second, your jack-booted thugs are a figment of your imagination. You imagine them to make a political point. I make the contrary point that the rules may be stupid, but passengers are made less safe–without their permission–if some other passengers decide that they are not subject to any screening; i.e., the unscreened put even the screened at risk, and limit their “freedom.”

Now, if you need to hire someone to fondle your nutsack, it is entirely a pathetic choice for you, and a repulsive one for the fondler.

You said on page 1

Oh? I suppose that when I fly I contract to be conducted safely, without an increased risk of maliciously intended human action (terrorism).
But then you contradict yourself, conveniently on page 3

[quote]As long as government reduces violence, fantastic, when it starts to interfere everywhere it becomes the main source of it.
[/quote]
(I am sure you will protest that security measures are a “source of violence.” Nonsense. Violence is one thing, loss of privacy another, but inconvenience is something quite less.)

You do not have the freedom intentionally to put others at risk. Your safety is increased because others put up with the inconvenience of screening. (It is given “free” to you as side benefit.) If you and others like you declare yourselves above screening, you put others at risk.

83

Had a good laugh from this article written by comedian Tom Naughton:

“The TSA Grabs Some T and A”

http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=838

86

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
There does not have to be an exact number, I doubt that anyone weighing road vs train travel or consenting to a medical procedure hires a statistician to determine his odds, and yet people make decisions of this kind all the time.

[/quote]

Sure.

Because those areas are GOVERNMENT REGULATED, Franzel, and therefore all options fall within a reasonable degree of risk.[/quote]

Weak.

How does government regulation lead to a higher predictability in these areas?

His basic argument that we are all unable to make any decision unless we know without any doubt what the actual risk is down to the last decimal.

This is obvious nonsense, we make decisions under uncertainty all the time.

87

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
There does not have to be an exact number, I doubt that anyone weighing road vs train travel or consenting to a medical procedure hires a statistician to determine his odds, and yet people make decisions of this kind all the time.

[/quote]

Sure.

Because those areas are GOVERNMENT REGULATED, Franzel, and therefore all options fall within a reasonable degree of risk.[/quote]

Weak.

How does government regulation lead to a higher predictability in these areas?

His basic argument that we are all unable to make any decision unless we know without any doubt what the actual risk is down to the last decimal.

This is obvious nonsense, we make decisions under uncertainty all the time.

[/quote]

No, again you are not reading me. Put down the joint and try again.
I do not disagree that we all make decisions under uncertainty. My argument is that you cannot provide any risk assessment by which a traveler can make a rational decision about his risks, and you have argued that one can–and one can monetize it! Now that is nonsense.

88

[quote]John S. wrote:
No, what I am saying is what can the TSA do? What if the terrorist gets caught half way through the airport and detonates. How many people would die then?

Again what can the TSA really do? one push of a button is all it will take and BOOM, many many more people will die.

When you can give a credible way to stop someone from pressing a button then we can talk about TSA being worth a damn. Unless of course you believe the next step is we cut the hands off everyone who gets on a plane.

How does it feel to know that you have been beat by a bunch of uncivilized cave dwellers in Afghanistan? They have got you to not only not think rationally but surrender your freedoms.[/quote]

This is borderline retarded. First off terrorists, if they want to bring a bomb on board will, because of security that is in place, have to bring it disassembled so it’s not as simple as just pushing a button.

Second, if you removed security from the airports what do you think would happen within a few days? Planes would be dropping all over the place. I think Usama would jizz on himself if he heard that was going to happen.

You can criticize TSA and DHS and I’m sure there are legit points to be made but that is also an easy thing to do; offering a sane alternative is another thing and I don’t see that coming from you.

And what freedoms have been surrendered? One chooses to fly or chooses not to fly. If it’s a problem get in your car and drive because we all know you have 100% freedom on the roads to do as you please. Oh wait…damn govt regulation forcing me to drive on a particular side of the road! I feel so violated!

89

[quote]orion wrote:
Since my suggestions whatelse terrorists might too even if TSA employess were even able to find weapons and explosives, which they have proven not to be able too, let us just say that anyone with half a brain can do quite a lot of damage outside of commercial transportation.

[/quote]

Perhaps blow up a bus or train?

90

TSA has stopped actual weapons from getting onto planes. They also stop the prohibited items that can be used as improvised weapons and bombs from getting onto planes. They just don’t tell the public everything in order to try and maintain secrecy when it comes to the details of their methods.

Obviously it isn’t perfect and fool proof but it is definitely better than nothing. BTW, those who cry about civil liberties and then add in TSA’s supposed ineffectiveness miss the point. If you want better security you will have to give up even more of what you define as civil liberty and freedom so make up your minds about what you really want: security or freedom, although it’s hard to be free without some form of security protecting that freedom.

91

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
TSA has stopped actual weapons from getting onto planes. They also stop the prohibited items that can be used as improvised weapons and bombs from getting onto planes. They just don’t tell the public everything in order to try and maintain secrecy when it comes to the details of their methods.

Obviously it isn’t perfect and fool proof but it is definitely better than nothing. BTW, those who cry about civil liberties and then add in TSA’s supposed ineffectiveness miss the point. If you want better security you will have to give up even more of what you define as civil liberty and freedom so make up your minds about what you really want: security or freedom, although it’s hard to be free without some form of security protecting that freedom. [/quote]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.- Benjamin Franklin

92

Anyone that believes the TSA is operating efficiently and appropriately is on crack.

Are passengers from overseas subject to the same scrutiny? If not then these measures are a waste. Someone from overseas will put the bomb in his underwear while the terrorist on domestic flights will put the bomb in is checked luggage and detonate it with his cell phone.

Life is about balance and this is out of balance. Typical of government bureaucracy.

93

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
No, what I am saying is what can the TSA do? What if the terrorist gets caught half way through the airport and detonates. How many people would die then?

Again what can the TSA really do? one push of a button is all it will take and BOOM, many many more people will die.

When you can give a credible way to stop someone from pressing a button then we can talk about TSA being worth a damn. Unless of course you believe the next step is we cut the hands off everyone who gets on a plane.

How does it feel to know that you have been beat by a bunch of uncivilized cave dwellers in Afghanistan? They have got you to not only not think rationally but surrender your freedoms.[/quote]

This is borderline retarded. First off terrorists, if they want to bring a bomb on board will, because of security that is in place, have to bring it disassembled so it’s not as simple as just pushing a button.

Second, if you removed security from the airports what do you think would happen within a few days? Planes would be dropping all over the place. I think Usama would jizz on himself if he heard that was going to happen.

You can criticize TSA and DHS and I’m sure there are legit points to be made but that is also an easy thing to do; offering a sane alternative is another thing and I don’t see that coming from you.

And what freedoms have been surrendered? One chooses to fly or chooses not to fly. If it’s a problem get in your car and drive because we all know you have 100% freedom on the roads to do as you please. Oh wait…damn govt regulation forcing me to drive on a particular side of the road! I feel so violated![/quote]

You are not listening to what I am saying, if someone was to bring a bomb on them into an airport what the fuck could the TSA do. Lets say a suicide bomber runs into the airport what the fuck can they do.

And besides they are now using the mail system to send bombs.

Now about rights getting violated, what about the people who are forced to use the airlines due to business. When they have to fly internationally, now you may believe you can drive across the ocean but I hate to be the one to tell you that you can’t.

What about the man/woman that has to fly all over the country in a couple days for business, they don’t have any choice but to use the airlines. Business becomes interdependent on each other and those people are getting violated by the government. They are told either let us take a nude picture of you or let us grope you.

How does it feel to know that you have been beaten by a bunch of uncivilized cave dwellers. You are the biggest bitch I have ever had the pleasure of talking to on this forum. You are also in the very small minority who approves of this, this is one of those issues that have massive bi-partisan support in removing, incase you havn’t been following the news, people are already knocking out/speaking out against the TSA, we have one woman already claiming sexual assault. Why do you want women to get sexually assaulted you sick fuck?

94

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Since my suggestions whatelse terrorists might too even if TSA employess were even able to find weapons and explosives, which they have proven not to be able too, let us just say that anyone with half a brain can do quite a lot of damage outside of commercial transportation.

[/quote]

Perhaps blow up a bus or train?[/quote]

Or bridges.

Or maybe the internet keynodes in Manhattan, or a chemical plant, or poison the water supply of a meduim sized city…

95

Why not just have a Passenger 57 on every plane? You guys have enough troops right?

97

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
TSA has stopped actual weapons from getting onto planes. They also stop the prohibited items that can be used as improvised weapons and bombs from getting onto planes. They just don’t tell the public everything in order to try and maintain secrecy when it comes to the details of their methods.

Obviously it isn’t perfect and fool proof but it is definitely better than nothing. BTW, those who cry about civil liberties and then add in TSA’s supposed ineffectiveness miss the point. If you want better security you will have to give up even more of what you define as civil liberty and freedom so make up your minds about what you really want: security or freedom, although it’s hard to be free without some form of security protecting that freedom. [/quote]

This is obvious nonsense because it has be proven time and time again that you can smuggle pretty much anything on board of a plane.

They do not provide security, but the illusion of it, which actually makes things more dangerous, not less.

And yes, I am VERY sure that they do not tell us everything.

98

Yup, while I canâ??t have a tube of toothpaste thatâ??s 4 ounces or an extra tube of lipgloss in my purse, undercover agents got these things through 75% of the time, according to a January 2007 classified TSA report, which excellent USA Today TSA-beat reporter Thomas Frank obtained:

* Detonator and explosive hidden in briefcase lining;
* Inert explosives inside CD players;
* Fake dynamite and timer in toiletry kit;
* Phony plastic explosive and battery inside hollowed-out book; and
* Inert explosives and detonator in back support concealed clothing.

All of these things got through security 75% and 60% of the time. You got 10 terrorists trying this, 7.5 of them will succeed at LAX and 6 of them at Chicago Oâ??Hare.
And USA Todayâ??s Frank reports that, like Iâ??ve said, security is getting worse, NOT better:

A report on covert tests in 2002 found screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies.
Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs, according to a separate report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

More details to make you cringe:

Security screeners at two of the nationâ??s busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.
Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.
At Chicago Oâ??Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons â??�?�® including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.

Yup, private companies always do best what government does worst.

The report looks only at those three airports, using them as case studies to understand how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to stop terrorists from carrying bombs through checkpoints.
The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago stunned security experts.
â??Thatâ??s a huge cause for concern,â?? said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Departmentâ??s former inspector general. Screenersâ?? inability to find bombs could encourage terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes, Ervin said, and points to the need for more screener training and more powerful checkpoint scanning machines.
Screeners who miss detonators, timers, batteries and blocks that resemble plastic explosives get remedial training[, says TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe].

Well, thatâ??s great if youâ??re on the plane that just blew up. No biggie, the TSA guy/chick who didnâ??t prevent my death will now get remedial training.

The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago are â??somewhat misleadingâ?? because they donâ??t reflect screenersâ?? improved ability to find bombs, Howe said.

â??Misleadingâ??? I think a 75% failure rate is quite blunt and frank. You donâ??t need to be Einstein to understand it.
Itâ??s actually quite simple: Terrorists have free reign at our airports, while weâ??re stuck in long lines getting undressed, felt up, and forced to dump our unopened water bottles.
Weâ??re hassled and degraded, while those who want us dead are not. The terrorists have won.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/3026/safe-ha-tsa-misses-75-60-of-bombs-major-u-s-airports/

Incidentally these tests were something the TSA chose not to tell anyone about, all for our own safety of course.

Or maybe just to cover their asses and to keep the money flowing.

99

On Sept. 14, Heatwole boarded a Southwest Airlines flight at BWI bound for Raleigh-Durham International Airport. According to a court document, he carried onto the plane three disassembled box cutters, three box-cutter razor blades, matches, about eight ounces of liquid bleach and molding clay “made to resemble a possible plastic explosive.” He stashed the items in a restroom, along with a note, so that “any maintenance personnel would not, in his opinion, be unduly alarmed,” according to the document.

The next day, he sent the e-mail to the TSA, alerting it to “six recent security breaches”; he had smuggled prohibited items onto planes five times previously. Between February and September 2003, he carried similar items on Southwest flights as he shuttled between Montgomery County, where his parents live, and the North Carolina airport near Guilford College.

In the e-mail, Heatwole provided his name and telephone number and asked to be contacted by authorities. The TSA forwarded the e-mail to the FBI on Oct. 17. Agents interviewed Heatwole that evening at his parents’ home. He appeared in court three days later, charged with the felony offense.

B

100

TSA thwarts its own undercover security check
Official sends e-mail detailing tests; agency’s inspector general investigates

WASHINGTON â?? The Transportation Security Administration touts its programs to ensure security by using undercover operatives to test its airport screeners. In one instance, however, the agency thwarted such a test by alerting screeners across the country that it was under way, even providing descriptions of the undercover agents.

The government routinely runs covert tests at airports to ensure that security measures in place are sufficient to stop a terrorist from bringing something dangerous onto an airplane. Alerting screeners when the undercover officer is coming through and what the person looks like would defeat the purpose.

But thatâ??s exactly what happened on April 28, 2006, according to an e-mail from a top TSA official who oversees security operations.

In an e-mail to more than a dozen recipients, including airport security staff, the TSA official warned that â??several airport authorities and airport police departments have recently received informal noticeâ?? of security testing being carried out by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The e-mail from Mike Restovich, assistant administrator of TSAâ??s Office of Security Operations, relayed an alert that described a couple who were testing security. The woman is white but has â??an oriental womanâ??s pictureâ?? on her identification card, it stated. â??They will print a boarding pass from a flight, change the date, get through security (if not noticed) and try to board a flight and place a bag in the overhead.â??

Because the pair had altered the date on a boarding pass, the e-mail advised: â??Alert your security line vendors to be aware of subtle alterations to date info.â??

The TSA inspector general is investigating the incident, and the agency would not discuss details of the case because itâ??s part of an ongoing investigation.