
TSA Moves On From Your Underwear to Your Starbucks - spathak
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/tsa-moves-on-from-your-underwear-to-your-starbucks/
======
Karunamon
If I had the money and time to spare, I'd create a group who's job it would be
to just buy random travel to random places and do nothing but screw with the
TSA. We're talking millionaire levels here. I'd buy people tickets, walk them
through how to jam the entire process start to finish (quoting the
constitution works exceedingly well if the stories I'm reading mean anything),
and hire lawyers to deal with fighting the inevitable legal challenges.

Call me childish, but I would like nothing better to but to make this system
such a cost drain that it's dropped. Once airlines have to start rebooking
people due to flights being missed by many, many paying passengers, _en masse_
, the corporate pressure that makes the government wheels turn will do the
rest.

Most people put up with this fucktardery only because they have somewhere to
be and don't want to miss their flight. And the security theater actors know
this.

~~~
thedrbrian
The TSA would probably arrest you andyour collaborators for obstructing the
law or inciting fear or something. Either way you wouldn't be able to operate
for long before something happened.

~~~
hosh
I thought the TSA has no arrest powers... ?

~~~
bdunbar
They don't need arrest powers. They have the phone number for the FBI.

~~~
hosh
Right. So the TSA won't arrest you. They'll call someone else in to arrest
you.

------
ck2
Speaking of the TSA, I am not sure how this didn't make national news:

[http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/politica...](http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-
potpourri/2012/aug/30/tsa-detains-interrogates-ron-pauls-family-and-aids/)

<http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331811>

HN completely bans his name being mentioned in topic titles apparently.

~~~
thornofmight
"HN completely bans his name being mentioned in topic titles apparently."

Is this actually true?

~~~
strmpnk
Given other common things I've seen filtered, I wouldn't be surprised. I don't
think the intent is to sensor as much as it is to keep the news a little more
focussed. Still, I wish there was a bit a transparency with a viewable list of
what is and isn't filtered.

~~~
ck2
Turn on _showdead_ in your profile and you can see what is being killed.

But even that isn't the whole picture - for example this thread has over 100
points and has magically disappeared from the front page in only a few hours
while topics with far fewer points stick around. So there must be an invisible
gravity switch.

------
ck2
So what happens when we hit two decades later, billions of tax dollars
completely wasted and the TSA has not caught a single "terrorist" ?

Even worse all that and they MISS another terrorist?

Will they then get more funding or less? Move the searches into our homes?

Tell me where exactly we draw the line.

~~~
DanBC
The TSA stops guns getting onto planes every week.

We have no idea if they miss any guns, nor if the guns they stopped were going
to be used on the plane.

But TSA will point to the 20 or so guns they fund each week as evidence of
effectiveness.

EDIT (after a bunch of comments): I should make it clear that I'm not
defending TSA, I think they're mostly lousy and pointless security theatre.

~~~
GFKjunior
And yet no terrorist attacks have occurred.

So either people got more violent after 9/11 and therefore brought more
weapons, or people were always bringing guns onto planes. I’d bet on the
latter, and yet how many terror attacks occurred? Hmmm…

~~~
saraid216
Uh... there have been a number of terrorists-on-a-plane incidents in the past
11 years, even if you restrict your search to incidents where Americans were
at risk.

~~~
GFKjunior
Please give me some links.

Here is a nice debate with Bruce Schneier.

"In the entire decade or so of airport security since the attacks on September
11th 2001, the TSA has not foiled a single terrorist plot or caught a single
terrorist. Its own “Top 10 Good Catches of 2011″ does not have a single
terrorist on the list."

<https://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/820>

~~~
saraid216
Your problem is that you require that the TSA be responsible for catching
them. The two I know off-hand from popular culture are:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab>

Found a better list here:

    
    
      * American Airlines Flight 63 The "shoe bomb", a failed al-Qaeda PETN bombing attempt in December 2001.
      * China Northern Flight 6136, a 2002 flight brought down by a passenger who had purchased life insurance, who set a fire in flight with gasoline
      * 2004 Russian aircraft bombings Islamist terrorist attacks on two domestic Russian passenger aircraft flying from Moscow. The bombs were triggered by two female Chechen suicide bombers. Shamil Salmanovich Basayev militant leader of the Chechen terrorist movement claimed credit.
      * 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot al-Queda terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried on board at least 10 airliners travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada. It followed the same general plan as the Bojinka plot.
      * Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the target of a failed al-Qaeda PETN bombing attempt in December 2009
      * 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, failed al-Qaeda PETN bombing attempt on two planes in October 2010
    

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_at...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks)

ETA: I want to note that my issue is only that you stated a factual
incorrectness: that no terror attacks have occurred involving airplanes in the
past 11 years. You can denigrate the TSA all you want; just do it based on
factually correct statements.

------
bluetidepro
Articles like this just make me so mad that the TSA can just be bullies and do
such ridiculous things.

Does anyone know the current state of the TSA, as far as upcoming funding,
plans, or improvement goes? Is it Homeland Security making these things
mandatory or what?

I just constantly hear insane stories like this and never hear any good coming
from the TSA. How do we change this? Or is that even an option?

~~~
wj
I dislike the TSA as much as the next guy but some of their employees are good
people. My father-in-law commutes weekly from Austin. Once he left his laptop
at the screening and remembered it the next day. He called and they had it
waiting for him when he flew back through a couple of days later.

~~~
cobrausn
This is obviously true, and ultimately meaningless. All organizations are
composed of people, and I guarantee you that within even the most 'evil'
organization is quite a few 'good people'. It doesn't make the organization
any less 'evil'.

------
ibejoeb
What if I were to quickly drink the coffee? Felony obstruction? This is a
serious question; I'm not being sarcastic.

------
poulsbohemian
It's not surprising this is at Columbus. I've had top-tier frequent flyer
status for the past 5 years and Columbus is the worst airport in the country
in terms of violation of your civil rights. The problem isn't the security
checkpoint, it's stuff like this nonsense - they _regularly_ do additional
screening at the gate or as people are getting onto the planes themselves.
There's _no way_ this is constitutional, even in light of past rulings
favorable to the TSA. I can't think of any other airport either in the US or
abroad that has taken things to the extreme they have in Columbus. Perhaps the
state of Ohio has forgotten what happened at Kent State? Must be something in
the water.

~~~
pedalpete
Or it could be a funding thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt Columbus
is one of the major airports in the US. However, I suspect that the more
'work' they do and people they employ, the more money they are given to
operate in that airport.

------
adrr
"While TSA agents lack the authority to arrest or detain anyone, passengers
cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening
checkpoint entrance."

How does that work? You can't just waive your rights. I wonder what would
happen if you said no. They may not let you on your flight but if you just
landed and buying coffee there's noting they can do if you refuse.

~~~
genwin
The law as I understand it is, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at and beyond
the security checkpoint. You could be arrested (by police) for saying no. And
of course you'll end up on the no-fly list and have to move to another country
if you want to fly again. Not that I'm supporting any of this.

~~~
adrr
I hate that "no fly" list. Its a clear restriction on constitutional right on
freedom of movement(article 4).

------
IanDrake
So, I smuggled explosives into the terminal and now I'm going to take it out
of my premo hiding spot and put it in a cup? Sure...that's what I'd do.

Glad we got that scenario covered.

------
rglover
The TSA is certainly going way beyond logic with this, but honestly,
passengers need to start speaking up (specifically I'm referencing the
placidity of the people having their drinks checked in the video).

Realize that while they may have a badge and a fun little uniform, these
agents are people just like you and I. Sadly, in most cases, they're of a
lesser intelligence too (yes that's mean and discriminatory but it's true).
When something is wrong, call it out. Otherwise this sort of absurdity will
continue to get worse. Civil liberties are more important than your meeting.

Don't be afraid of this crap.

------
kintamanimatt
This is possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read.

The complaints about security theater are loud and frequent, but aside from
bitching and moaning, what can be done?

~~~
bluedanieru
Nothing, and that's fine. America has been voting itself into a police state
for at least the last 30 years, arguably even since the start of the Cold War.
Enjoy it, you've have earned it.

~~~
kintamanimatt
Here's the thing: this affects non-citizens too who have had no part in the
voting process, particularly tourists and business travelers who have to
endure this absurdity. These ridiculous practices spread to other countries
too; it's a global issue.

~~~
mattstreet
Eventually we won't have either of those.

~~~
kintamanimatt
That seems very unlikely.

~~~
grecy
While managing a hostel in South American I met people from all over the world
with horror stories about security and customs while simply transiting through
the US for a matter of hours.

Hundreds and hundreds of travelers told me they would happily spent $1k extra
on flights next time simply to avoid the United States. They don't want to go
there ever again.

~~~
kintamanimatt
The numbers don't reflect this though. Just looking at the first quarter of
each year from 2006 to 2012 (inclusive), there have been more inbound arrivals
in 2012 than there have in any previous years.

2012: 14,195,321 [1]

2011: 12,839,980 [2]

2010: 12,635,880 [3]

2009: 9,762,932 [4]

2008: 11,388,763 [5]

2007: 9,871,406 [6]

2006: 9,045,854 [7]

Quite simply, people aren't voting with their feet. In fact, any declines in
people flying into the US seem to trend with the general economic climate.

The reason I picked the first quarter is because we already have the first
quarter's data for 2012 and I couldn't be bothered to deal with the second
quarter because this is only a quick glance at the data. :-)

[1] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2012-I-001/table1.html>

[2] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2011-I-001/table1.html>

[3] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2010-I-001/table1.html>

[4] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2009-I-001/table1.html>

[5] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2008-I-001/table1.html>

[6] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2007-I-001/table1.html>

[7] <http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2006-I-001/table1.html>

~~~
rosser
Please compare your numbers against total global travel numbers, and let's see
if they diverge, or track with one another.

~~~
kintamanimatt
I'm afraid I don't have time to. Perhaps this is an analysis you'd like to do
though.

I will admit I haven't separated the entries by land/air/sea, as I didn't have
that data readily available. The general trend still holds even excluding
Canadians and Mexicans who may be more disposed to cross a land border. On the
surface it just doesn't appear as though people are so turned off by the TSA
that they're refusing to fly to the US.

It's quite amazing what people will tolerate in order to travel to and from
the US. America's borders are sadly the most unfriendly I've encountered to
date.

------
peeters
> But the TSA says the practice isn’t new — it’s been going on since 2007 —
> and is part of random screening techniques designed to catch liquid
> explosives that might slip through initial screening.

Wow, who are these people trying to convince? A random sampling make
absolutely no sense here. To have a 95% chance of catching the offending
substance, you'd have to "randomly screen" 95% of passengers.

And that's assuming that the screening technique would actually catch a
determined individual, which it won't, because he's a terrorist and he's
thought things through.

~~~
MrMember
>And that's assuming that the screening technique would actually catch a
determined individual, which it won't, because he's a terrorist and he's
thought things through.

This is the real head scratcher. Say someone did get an explosive liquid
through the initial security screening. Why would they then be drinking it
later while waiting for their flight?

------
jfischer
This is just the tip of the iceberg - for some time now, many international
flights inbound to the U.S. have had a secondary screening of your carry-on
bags at the gate. They won't let you take any liquids into the gate (beyond
the 3 oz bottles) and go through your bags. They had this last month when I
traveled from HKG to SFO. Other international flights not going to the U.S.
did not have this screening. I think I remember an at-gate screening at
Frankfurt as well, but my memory is fuzzy.

At least there were no X-rays or pat-downs...

~~~
joezydeco
I just flew out of FRA to the states last month and they don't screen at the
gate (or just before) anymore. But they _have_ reconfigured terminal 1 so that
all US-bound flights leave through section "Z", which used to be section "A".
Everyone leaving through Z (since it's non EU/Schengen) gets a heavier screen
than domestic flights leaving out of the other gates.

------
catenate
If I encountered this (I usually fly up to six times a month) I would simply
not buy the supposedly-offending food item at that airport ever again. If
enough people do this, the businesses there will be less able to pay their
expensive airport concession fees, and complain to the airport, or just close
up shop. The airport has a lot more leverage with the Thousands Standing
Around than I do.

------
chimeracoder
> While TSA agents lack the authority to arrest or detain anyone, passengers
> cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening
> checkpoint entrance.

What does this mean, then - will they just throw you out if you refuse? Or
will they illegally detain you? My bet is on the latter.

------
gshakir
We are all living in a heightened sense of fear. It was apparent as I was
waiting to board a plane over the Labor day weekend, one of the airline
representative came over on the mic and said: "Calling Mr..Err Hmm..I rather
not say this passenger name aloud, so I will spell it out..Will Mr. G..U...N
please come forward? "

------
wkdown
We need to stand up against this shit. This is absolutely ridiculous. The TSA
and DoHS as a whole are a fucking joke.

/soapbox

------
smutticus
I wonder what would happen if I just politely refused. On most occasions I
would be willing to go to jail over this.

~~~
tantalor
FTA, "passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the
screening checkpoint entrance."

More likely, you _can_ refuse, but you'll be escorted out of the terminal (and
refused reentry).

I doubt you'll "go to jail" unless you assault the TSA agent, become
disorderly, etc.

~~~
ibejoeb
TSA can't arrest or detain, but they can call the police. I'm quite sure you'd
be detained. I don't know on what grounds an arrest could be made, so you're
probably right that you'd be removed from the premises after some holding
period.

------
Matt_Mickiewicz
... and this is why I'm Canadian.

------
blktiger
<sarcasm>The TSA is in BIG trouble when they start messing with citizens'
Starbucks!</sarcasm>

