

TSA Security Directive SD-1544–09-06 - cwan
http://volokh.com/2009/12/28/tsa-security-directive-sd-1544-09-06/

======
maxklein
And people still ask me why I prefer taking high speed trains! Flying by plane
is so nerve-wracking nowadays, what with dogs sniffing about and burly custom
agents and you have to arrive 2 hours beforehand, wait in long lines, sit in
an enclosed room and wait even longer, share a bathroom with hundreds of other
people.

In euro style fast trains, you arrive 2 minutes before, walk in, you can go
have a meal, there is electricity for your laptop, there are toilets
everywhere.

For any journey that can be done in 6 hours with the train, the plane journey,
which would take between 1 hour and 2 hours actual flying, will take much
longer.

That high speed train china built is the way to go. Planes should be used for
flying really big distances, and then trains should be used to go on. The
entirety of europe should be connected with trains, the U.S should have 10
major airport hubs and the rest done with trains.

Nowadays, flying is just such a bother!

~~~
ams6110
Terrorists blow up trains, too.

~~~
daten
The "terrorists" aren't the reason he prefers the train. Terrorist attacks on
both are so rare that they're not a real reason to prefer one over the other.
However the overly invasive, rude and ineffective airport security is a strong
reason not to fly when there's an alternative available. For some reason the
trains, malls, schools, libraries, churches and stadiums around where I live
aren't getting blown up by terrorists and they have little or no security at
all.

~~~
ams6110
The point being, if a few train attacks occur, you can expect similar TSA
regulations being issued for that mode of transport.

Not that its very likely in the USA; with a few exceptions rail service is
abysmal. It took me 48 hours to travel from Nevada to Chicago last time I took
the train, what with mechanical breakdowns and other unexplained delays. Lost
my luggage too. Never again.

~~~
imajes
The uk experimented with metal detector type screening at train stations after
our bombings on the 7th july. It doesn't work with you have thousands of
people streaming in and out of the gates- all you do is end up practically
shutting down the station.

So now they focus on temporary gates and profiling - which turns out to be
much more efficient than random screening.

------
henrikschroder
Why even comment on this story? It isn't even security theater anymore, it's
amateur's night at the corner pub, with knee-jerk policies that a normal five-
year-old kid can figure out how to get around.

------
axod
I still really want someone to try and blow up a plane by dousing their
clothes in some flammable/explosive/unstable chemicals.

Then we'd all be told to fly naked, or in airport provided suits.

~~~
jrockway
I'm waiting for people to start blowing up expressways. Then maybe we can get
some decent public transportation.

------
mrduncan
The original posting (as best I can tell), which has additional information,
is at the following site -
[http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2009/12/27/tsa-...](http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2009/12/27/tsa-
security-directive-sd-1544-09-06-the-fallout-from-nw253/)

This blog appears to have just repeated what was posted there.

------
muriithi
The terrorists have won.You don't have to bring down an aircraft to make
flying a nightmare.

I know this sounds insane and the Terminally Stupid Administration will not
allow it, but if someone came up with a "low security" airline, where
screening was done by the airline itself using their own guidelines, I would
be an enthusiastic customer.

We only need two things, an airline that values it's customers but is not
willing to lose any planes and passengers who are alert and ready to take on
any threats in the air. The latter attitude has been there since United
Airlines Flight 93, the former is a mirage.

~~~
decadentcactus
I agree. I don't see the need for such an invasive govt run organisation to
get airlines to provide security - they already will have an interest in not
losing their planes, they're expensive as hell.

------
icey
What do you think will happen after this directive expires?

    
    
      EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009

~~~
nollidge
I was going to point that out also. This isn't a permanent change. It's still
silly, but at least it's not permanent like the stuff with liquids and toenail
clippers.

------
beeker
The more scared people are, the easier they are to control.

------
flatline
At least they are (so far) only enacting it for a few days. I really wonder
what would happen if people consistently, politely resisted, by keeping things
in their laps, by getting sick and having to run to the bathroom in the last
hour of the flight, etc. Seriously, how are flight attendants supposed to
enforce this stuff, and what are they to do about unruly passengers? An
airplane is not exactly a high-security area.

~~~
mrduncan
The security on an airplane is the other passengers (and air marshals). I can
guarantee that if you start resisting commands from the flight attendants
you're going to attract attention from other passengers. Like it or not, the
first thing that's going to pop into their heads is that you're planning on
bringing their plane down.

Hypothetically, lets say that all passengers coordinate such an event - I'd
imagine that's a really easy way to gain admittance to the no-fly list.

~~~
henrikschroder
Seriously, if another passenger was arguing with the flight attendants about
wanting to use the bathroom, the first thing that would pop into my head is
that the guy probably really needed to go to the bathroom.

~~~
mrduncan
I wasn't necessarily thinking of the bathroom situation (although you
certainly make a valid point).

My point I suppose was that flight attendants are in a lot of cases not going
to be able to physically enforce their will on passengers. This is where other
passengers step in, they are the ones who will come to the aid of the flight
attendant to restore the peace. This doesn't mean that everyone will be
throwing their own judgement out the window if someone has to use the restroom
or complains about having to put their book away.

It should go without saying though that reactions will seriously depend on the
situation.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I pitty the middle-eastern man wearing a turban with a suden case of the runs
arguning the bathroom policy.

------
lssndrdn
It's true that these security directives don't seem to make much sense, but
what is the alternative? I think what they are tring to accomplish is to
simply reduce the risk of a repeat "accident" along the same line of the one
that happened on Dec 25. After an incident like that, the TSA just cannot
afford to have someone else pull a similar stunt, it would only further ruin
their already low credibility.

The challenge is about striking a balance between having passengers bring
whatever they want on a plane and having them fly naked and anesthetized, just
like if they were cargo.

~~~
trafficlight
Nobody is going to pull the same stunt. The people building these devices
aren't stupid. Kneejerk reactions never solved anything.

------
mortenjorck
The TSA has now officially become like an abusive, paranoid husband. Every
event that has happened thus far has made him more suspicious and less
rational, but the "lap burner" has at last pushed him over the edge into
raging paranoia, doubling down with fevered lists of arbitrary, bizarre
restrictions that make sense only to his unhinged mind.

And there's nothing we can do. We depend on him. We can't just walk out; where
would we go?

------
jsz0
It sounds like these directives are based on specific intelligence of
currently planned attacks and not meant to be broader long term regulations.
What if there is good intelligence to suggest there are a dozen other
attackers known to be trained and ready for this mission? If they are already
in-transit and have a communication black-out from the leaders it seems
entirely possible they would attempt it despite the failures.

------
elblanco
I've noticed though, that ever sense the TSA got their new dark blue uniforms
(from the old white ones), they seem to be quite a bit more respectful at
least.

------
jparise
The liquids aspect of this sounds like a pain to enforce. At least in the US,
the initial security screening (before you get to the gates) is supposed to
filter out all liquids (over 3oz.), but once you're through security, you can
buy gallons of drinks, etc. from the stores in the terminal. Thoroughly
inspecting those liquids at the gate without advanced equipment sounds really
difficult.

~~~
apgwoz
What's interesting to note is that I've found box cutters in the stores within
the gates of one airport before. I wonder what the regulations are for airport
merchants?

~~~
steveklabnik
Often, restaurants 'on the inside' will give you knives with your steak.

~~~
imajes
Right, one large argument against the 'sterile area' joke is that it's very
easy to acquire weapons - anything from workmen's tools to steak knives are
easily accessible.

------
waterlesscloud
"Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services
(phone, internet access services, live television programming, global
positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight."

Because you can't blow up the plane if you don't know where you are.

~~~
jm4
I think you're missing the point. The idea is to make it more difficult to
stage an attack around a specific location, such as a heavily populated area
or landmark.

~~~
icey
I didn't notice anything requiring that window blinds must be closed though;
it doesn't really seem to me that it would be too hard to just look out the
window and figure it out.

~~~
jm4
Personally, I find it impossible to even venture a guess as to what my
location is just by looking out the window at cruising altitude. It becomes
much easier during final descent, but it still requires familiarity with the
location. In any case, an attacker will have nowhere near the precision
provided by GPS.

Passengers, beyond curiosity, have very little use for GPS during a flight.
When I'm on a plane I could really care less what my location is. I'm more
concerned with how much longer I have to wait before arriving at my
destination.

The parts of the security directive that bother me most are the restrictions
on access to carry-on belongings and items on your lap and not being able to
get up from the seat.

~~~
wendroid
Maybe he'll just use a chronometer.

------
pmorici
Notice how the thing is signed,

"Gale Rossides Acting Administrator"

In other words the TSA still doesn't have a permanent head even though the new
administration has now been in office for a year.

------
cjoh
Keep in mind this is only about flights originating in non-US airports with
destinations in the US. None of this stuff applies to your flight back home to
New York from Kansas next week.

~~~
mixmax
Not all of us are from the US.

~~~
cjoh
No America-Centric implication was intended and I apologize if I came across
that way. Just seemed important to bring up since the lead comment as of this
writing is about using high-speed trains as an alternative. And unless there's
something happening that I don't know about, there isn't a high-speed
transatlantic train in the worls.

~~~
mixmax
No worries mate :-)

------
zandorg
2.1. All people wishing to fly must flap their wings. Airplanes are banned for
being unsafe.

