Contacting Corporate
 

I'm feeling particularly bitter today. Here is the latest TSA travel story which has made me resolve to never fly unless absolutely necessary. I'm convinced the only way this nonsense will end is if the airlines themselves intervene and I'd like to put my Lewis Black writing skills on display.

Is there a site, similar to gethuman for phone numbers, that lists contact information for CEOs and corporate officers? It's one of those links that would be really nice to have.

Thanks in advance.

Seems like a law officer and TSA thing, not sure what the airlines can do about it. This happens probably 10-20 times per day in many airports, maybe not to this exact degree, but siliness nonetheless. I was detained in Chicago because I had a bottle that was like 3.3 oz or something stupid. They called over 3 TSA dudes and a cop while they searched my entire bag. The took out everything, unfolded it, went into my pockets of each of my pants, then told me all clear, go ahead and re-pack but not to block anyone.

Write your letter to your congressman asking them to better train TSA people, or subject people they hire to more oversight. The airlines aren't going to do a thing.

Sorry, I'm just not feeling the outrage on this one.

I'd much prefer TSA err (and it does indeed look like some errors were made in phrasing if nothing else) on the side of caution a million times than be wrong the one time it was life threatening.

err on the side of caution? sounds like a typical case of of law enforcement being complete dicks just for the heck of it to me.

The employees were definitely over the top here, but c'mon, you can avoid 99% of travel security headaches if you just do two things:

1. Know the rules of air security - what you can take and what you can't. Follow these rules

2. Don't give the TSA employees an attitude, as I'm sure this woman did.

Problem solved

This article only presents one side of the story.

That said, if it is true, then the officers there did more to harm security than help it in the long term. Public trust in and respect for law enforcement is an essential part of preventing crime. Actions like the ones alleged in this story erode that trust and respect and end up thwarting law enforcement efforts.

I think its pretty easy to make yourself out to be the victim, especially in regards to airport security. As others have said, this is one side of the story and one I'll take with a grain of salt.

I remember reading a story quite awhile back about a woman getting upset during a flight because some middle eastern men were getting up and going to the restroom. She made her story out to sound like all the passengers were scared to death and the flight attendents weren't doing anything about it. If I remember correctly, several passengers ended up saying the women had overreacted and was disruptive throughout the flight.

Just from reading this particular incident, it could easily be picked apart for things that just don't sound right. If its true, then yes, they went way overboard with the whole situation. However, I've flown quite a bit and my personal experiences have been that if they ask you to do something and you are calm and cooperative there isn't a problem.

In the days and months right after 9/11 people were willing to do anything to make sure their flights were safe. No one really complained about the 2 hour waits in line or the security screening. Now people are finding these things more and more of an annoyance and they like to think that since they themselves aren't a terrorist then there's no reason for security to ask them to do things out of the ordinary.

For some reason the page isn't opening for me. I'll echo what Molson said.

I took 20 trips last year. Between connecting flights and some of the two/three city trips, I've probably had more than 70 individual flights in the last 12 months. I can tell you more than a few airline horror stories. From having multiple flights canceled, to a TSA agent not stamping my ticket that ended up forcing me to miss a flight in Seattle, to having a kid look like Linda Blair from the Exorcist in the seat next to me blowing chunks all over my slacks. The worst trip through security involved them finding my computer bag to contain an "explosive" substance. It caused a half hour delay while they asked me a ton of questions and searched through my bag.

Despite all of that, it's really not that bad. Just follow a few simple rules and most of your flights are going to be just fine:

1) Show the hell up on time. That means a couple of hours early. Yes, most of the time you'll get through quick and sit at your gate for an hour. But if problems arise with a ticket, a problem at the security gate, parking or anything else, you aren't rushing to get there. Anyone who flies a ton understands there are multiple things that can happen at an airport to delay you 30 to 45 mintues. Be smart. You also aren't shoving your way through lines, pissing people off.

2) Be polite. Period. It's not exactly a wonderful experience for anyone, so stop pretending you are the only person who is having a difficult time.

3) This is ESPECIALLY true for the TSA agents at the security gate. I don't care if you don't know the rules. Most every TSA agent I've seen is nice enough to deal with if you aren't acting like a total tool. When you start to act like an idiot, everyone in the line suffers for it. I was in line one time when a guy told the TSA agent to F Off because he didn't want to take off his shoes. He was cuffed and taken away.

4) Don't give moms nasty looks becaus their 4 year olds are crying in the airport. Airports suck, I'd cry if I could. The mom has enough to deal with trying to calm the kid down, she doesn't need you leering at her acting as though your life is ruined because of her child.

Dola,

I just read the story.

I'm going to look at this in two ways. First, I'll assume everything in the story is true: (in other words, the fairy tale version)

The TSA acted horribly. She deserves a free flight somewhere for her trouble. She can also chalk it up as a learning experience to better understand the rules next time and to show up a little early so a 30-40 minute delay doesn't cause her to miss her flight.

Now I'll look at it from the way I thought of it while reading the story:

Is it possible a a bunch of TSA agents took a polite mom with her kid in the stroller and singled her out for public humiliation for the hell of it? I guess. It flies in the face of everything I've seen while traveling, but I suppose it's possible.

There are countless things I have issues with in the story though. The security checkpoints are incredibly loose after you go through the checkpoint. They are set up that way so people can run back for forgotten laptops or put on their shoes without holding up the entire line. It's not like you walk through another set of glass doors and are trapped waiting for your friends to get through. I went through Reagan Airport 1 1/2 years ago and it was open ended.

That makes it tough for me to believe the fiance was forced away. At the very least he could have positioned himself within 5 feet of the kid and the guards.

My guess is she started copping a major attitude with them before this escalated. I have a tough time taking her story at face value when there are things in it that don't add up.

YMMV.

Sounds like a case of RTFM. Woman loses. And probably deserves a beat down.

The issue I have is most definitely not with the actions of any of the people in this story. My issue is with the rules and regulations themselves which are expensive, time consuming, and incredibly ineffective.

QFT:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...han_10_wa.html

"Despite what you see in the movies and on television, it’s actually very difficult to execute a major terrorist act. It’s hard to organize, plan, and execute an attack, and it’s all too easy to slip up and get caught. Combine that with our intelligence work tracking terrorist cells and interdicting terrorist funding, and you have a climate where major attacks are rare. In many ways, the success of 9/11 was an anomaly; there were many points where it could have failed. The main reason we haven’t seen another 9/11 is that it isn’t as easy as it looks. Much of our counterterrorist efforts are nothing more than security theater: ineffectual measures that look good. Forget the “war on terror”; the difficulty isn’t killing or arresting the terrorists, it’s finding them. Terrorism is a law enforcement problem, and needs to be treated as such. For example, none of our post-9/11 airline security measures would have stopped the London shampoo bombers. The lesson of London is that our best defense is intelligence and investigation. Rather than spending money on airline security, or sports stadium security -- measures that require us to guess the plot correctly in order to be effective -- we’re better off spending money on measures that are effective regardless of the plot.

Intelligence and investigation have kept us safe from terrorism in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. If the CIA and FBI had done a better job of coordinating and sharing data in 2001, 9/11 would have been another failed attempt. Coordination has gotten better, and those agencies are better funded -- but it’s still not enough. Whenever you read about the billions being spent on national ID cards or massive data mining programs or new airport security measures, think about the number of intelligence agents that the same money could buy. That’s where we’re going to see the greatest return on our security investment."


I want those rules changed for all those reasons, and the fact that nothing pisses me off quicker than authority and stupidity combined. Congress is too chickenshit to change anything, so I'd like to write some of the American airliner CEOs and make the point that I'm flying much MUCH less than I used to because I'm sick of this nonsense and it's costing them $$$.

Again, if anyone knows of a resource that lists contact info en masse it would be appreciated.

I heart skype.

Actually, it sounds like the fiance just walked away.

All the intelligence in the world won't prevent a guy who gets past security with explosives in his shoes from blowing up a plane.

But at least the security lines will be a little lighter without you in them.

And nothing short of full body cavity searches of every single person getting onto a plane will stop all possible means of smuggling weapons or explosives on board. But more effort put into intelligence would increase the chance of stopping a terrorist attack before it happens.

Just for some context here, I've flown round-trip, every week, from Chicago to San Francisco since October, so I've seen my share of TSA/security-line BS. From TSA agents who were clearly having a bad day and were determined to take it out on anyone all the way to idiots who had no inkling of the rules and wanted to make life difficult for themselves.

In all this time, I have never been stopped/harassed by the TSA, because I know all the rules and follow them to the letter. So I'm not harboring any outrage about a TSA agent who "wronged" me.

Having said that, I have little respect for many agents I've seen, and have almost no respect for the entire process. Details below.


Except that the whole security line ordeal is really more about giving people the impression that they're going to be safer than actually making them safer. I'd estimate about 5% of the time I go through the line, the agent looking at the bags on the screen doesn't even look at my bag at the screen, because he or she is talking with a co-worker, for instance.

Plus, no one's sufficiently explained to me:

1. What kind of explosive is someone going to concoct with less than 3oz of liquids/gels, especially given that those liquids/gels aren't volatile enough to get through the bumping of the conveyer belt?

2. You know all of that stuff you can buy after security? How does it get there? How does it get screened?


Exactly. Now, while I'm sure it's possible the woman in the story wasn't exactly polite, I've seen plenty of agents who are just looking for a fight in the security line.


It seems possible for me that the agent noticed the water and started in on the "nursery water" semantics, the woman didn't understand what the heck he was talking about and got snippy, and things escalated from there. The agent could have taken the cup, dumped out the water (there's always a trashcan next to the line) and given it back, but noooooo, he can't be talked back to in public, can he? And I'm supposed to believe that this guy, with his fragile ego, is going to be able to keep me safe?

Yes, let's make a scene and heighten the tension in an already tense security line. That'll help. Tell you what, TSA-man, if I was a terrorist and I wanted to take something through security, I might hire a woman like this to make a scene with one of your agents while I went through another line. Sheesh, what do they teach these guys?


The checkpoints I go through at O'Hare (Terminal 3) are actually pretty crowded and the agents really push people through after they clear security, so I guess it depends on the layout. Now, I'm sure it's possible a guy could come back closer to the metal detector to coax the kid through, but...


At both ORD & SFO I've seen this exact scenario play out, multiple times, and a good number of the times I've seen agents tell the already-cleared parent to step away from the metal detector, or have even escorted them out past the security area.

i didn't buy her "ooops, i accidentally spilled the water, my bad" defense. i wasn't even there and i saw right through it. anytime someone says "it happened cuz i was in a confused state of mind and was frazzled" that's just BS for "i did it on purpose".

still, the security portion of her story is what pisses me off. that sounds like a blatant misuse of authority and if left alone can eventually become the norm or become worse. just because we live in some difficult times doesn't give those in positions of authority to go over the top. we're going to have a time when authority thinks it's ok to use a bazooka to topple an ant hill.

True, you can never make it 100%, but I'm just saying that airport security isn't this huge laborious process that people make it out to be, as long as you know the rules.

The actual security process, after the line, takes about 5 minutes if you know the rules and don't mouth off. Time spent in lines vary greatly by city and date/time. But it's been pretty rare for me to spend anything longer than 15-20 minutes in line (flying mostly out of Boise, Portland, Boston, Seattle, Providence) and that's at the high end.

I don't buy the assumption that we're somehow sacrificing investment or effort in intellgience in order to beef up airport security. I'm not seeing this whole expensive production at the airport - if anything, staff is undertrained.

It actually seems like the same people that are complaining about undertrained workers are the same people complainng about spending too much for "wastefull" airport security at the expense of intelligence.

The last time I flew they wouldn't let me take my belt on the plane. They said I could pick it up when I came back.

It was a simple leather belt, and they wouldn't explain why I couldn't take it on an airplane.

1) As someone else said, contacting the airlines will get you nowhere. They didn't put these rules into place, the government did. A letter to your senator and congressman is your best bet for getting heard on this issue.

2) Keeping your money away from the airlines because of the security checkpoints WILL hurt the airlines (if enough people do it), but it WON'T change the TSA, of which the airlines have nothing to do with.

3) Assuming the airlines do get hurt when enough people do it, guess what happens? The government bails them out. A successful boycott doesn't change the TSA measures, but it would increase the amount of government funding that goes to the airlines.

4) So we come full circle. If at some point you turn your blame to the government, tell me how keeping your money away from them works out for you. (I'm serious there, if you find an effective way to do it, I'm all ears)

5) The below website has a link to file a complaint with the TSA and the DOT. For individual airlines, I don't know of any list, but all have web links for contact. For example, United Airlines would be a click on the customer service tab, followed by a click on "contact United" I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but it's my experience that contacting or emailing any corporate office simply involves going ot the website and clicking a few buttons.

Here is the website: http://www.airsafe.com/complain/complain.htm

Good luck.

Sorry, forgot something in my above post: No airline carrier is going to the TSA with anything at the moment. People are flying more than they ever have and airlines have been jacking up prices and are still having no issues filling planes. At the moment, they'll look at your mail and can it. If there is a downturn at some point, you'll have a better shot at getting your point across. (though I still don't think it'd make a difference)

Yeah, this is where I find I have a fundamental disagreement- I'll try to make it short and sweet and to the point since I've ranted on this before. It's a false choice "Either we do all this silly stuff or horrible things happen". We don't stay in bed every day because something bad *might* happen. All of this is window dressing of the "closing the barn door after the horse is out" mentality.

Realistically, this is closer to what it looks like (mostly from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_385745.html)
* Odds of being on plane with a drunken pilot: 1 in 117
* Odds that Earth will experience a catastrophic collision with an asteroid in the next 100 years: 1 in 5,560
* Odds of dying from a car accident: 1 in 18,585
* Odds of dating a supermodel: 1 in 88,000
* Odds of dying in an airplane accident: 1 in 354,319
* Odds of dying from choking on food: 1 in 370,035
* Odds of being struck by lightning: 1 in 576,000
* Odds of getting a royal flush in poker on first five cards dealt: 1 in 649,740
* Odds of you being alive on 9/11 and dying that day of the terrorist attack: 1 in 2,000,000
* Odds of being killed by lightning: 1 in 2,320,000
* Odds of dying from contact with a venomous animal or plant: 1 in 3,441,325
* Odds of dying from legal execution: 1 in 3,441,325
* Odds of becoming president: 1 in 10,000,000
* Odds of contracting the human version of mad cow disease: 1 in 40,000,000
* Odds of winning Powerball: 1 in 146,107,962
* Odds of dying from a shark attack: 1 in 300,000,000
* Odds of a meteor landing on your house: 1 in 182,138,880,000,000

I'm going to pull some numbers out of my behind, but to at least give some scale to this, the difference between the following:
* Blow'd up by terrorists with only metal detectors in airports
* Blow'd up by terrorists with metal detectors and shoes off in airport
* Blow'd up by terrorists with metal detectors and shoes off and confiscating liquids, gels, and whatever in airport
...is probably less than 1% and it's probably something on the order of 1 in 30,000,000 vs 1 in 30,005,000 vs 1 in 30,010,000 or maybe 1 in 1,000,000 vs 1 in 1,005,000 vs 1 in 1,010,000.

And you know what, I'm perfectly willing to "risk" that little margin to avoid the crap that traveling by plane has become.

So, let's dispense with the stupid ones which slow everyone down 20 minutes (I want a list of these airports where it's 5 minutes to get through security), require us to walk around the airport in socks (We've raised your chance of dying from disease at the airport from 0.00005% to 0.00008% while reducing terrorism threats from 0.0000003% to 0.0000002%; Where's the outrage?!?), and make us get to airports earlier (dying in car accident while speeding odds for 200, Alex).

Again, give me the airline where I can get there an hour ahead of time, be thrown through a quick metal detector for guns and knives and that's it, (call it Southwest), and I'll pay an extra $50 every single effing time. This whole "It's protecting us from the terrorists" like it's a binary "either we get blow'd up or we don't" reasoning is just ludicrous and people on a message board swimming with statistics should know better.

SI

sterlingice-

You really think the shoes thing and the liquid thing are such a big deal?

And 5 minutes to get through security (once you get in front of the line) is a HIGH estimate. I take out my laptop, take the stuff out of my pockets, take off my shoes, go through the metal detector (just once, since I'm prepared), put my shoes on, take my stuff, and I'm done. Average time is probably about 90 seconds.

Is there anything else you would cut back on, other than liquids and shoes? Because I'll go ahead and assume that we've received intelligence regarding both (not to mention an actual shoe-bomb that got through security before the days of mandatory shoe removal).

All the people having these horrible experiences with airline security are doing something WAY different than I am, because I've just never seen it (except in terms of others being idiots or mouthing off).

On average it takes me 15 minutes to go through security. I'm talking from teh time I get in the back of the line to the time I have my shoes back on and am walking down the hall.

For a lot of that time period I was carrying two laptops in my case. It's become so automatic now that I don't even think of it. Take off my belt and shoes. One container for the laptop, the other container for my shoes, keys, and phone. Another container for my jacket if necessary. It's under a minute to do all of that. It's about a minute or so to put everything in my pockets,throw the laptop where it belongs and walk to a chair close by to put on my shoes.

The longest I've had to wait in line is 35 minutes (during Christmas season) I also had the time they thought they'd found the traces of explosives on my bag. I've never taken liquids. (they do just fine in the suitcase). And I even check a bag on short trips. Most baggage claims are a ten minute or less ordeal now, it's worth it to me to check the bag rather than carrying it around the entire time I'm in the airport.

Maybe I'm just an incredibly lucky guy. I've been through Denver, Portland, Seattle, Spokane, Pasco, Boise, Helena, Washington D.C., Chicago O'Hare, Eugene, Reno, Santa Barbara, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tulsa and Oklahoma City in the last year. And I haven't seen the cases of ridiculously rude TSA's that others are speaking of here. Have I had bad experiences? Sure, read above. A TSA screwed up and didn't stamp a ticket causing me to miss a flight. A coworker was on the plane and got my bags for me and I got home 3 hours late. I lived.

I must be living a blessed life. :) I fly from Denver to Portland to Spokane to Denver in two weeks. I'll time it for kicks and be on the lookout for vile TSA's. Hopefully my luck holds out.

The worst I've ever seen with TSA is that they can be a little rude, but no more than, say, a bad checker at a grocery store or something like that. No real abuse of power or anything. So, I'm not among those complaining about the few bad TSA incidents. My contention is that we shouldn't have to have this at that airport. It's a philisophical difference.

Also, the "5 minutes to get through security (once you get in front of the line)" misses the point entirely. The whole point is that you have to wait in line for quite a while in almost any airport. Kansas City is actually better than most because of how it's laid out.

(note for clarity: The thing is, I'm not much of an impatient person by nature. I'm not a horribly patient person but I'm not horribly impatient either. I don't speed much in my car, I don't press the elevator button more than once, but I don't like people who cut in lines. This isn't an "I'm just an impatient person" thing.)

This is where I have a real point of contention and what I pointed out in my initial post: "Is there anything else you would cut back on, other than liquids and shoes? Because I'll go ahead and assume that we've received intelligence regarding both (not to mention an actual shoe-bomb that got through security before the days of mandatory shoe removal)."

Again, it's a "we'll guard against it now that we already caught the person" mentality. There was an alleged shoe bomber back in 2001- the plot didn't work at all but we're still "guarding against it". Same with the gel thing which was foiled last year. Yes, there were plots. But, they're done and gone. We just guard against them to placate paranoids.

SI

It really all boils down to the false sense of entitlement that so many people in this country seem to be afflicted with.

Newsflash: There's no inalienable right for anyone to get on a plane.
Either cowboy up & deal with what few rules & safeguards are in place or don't fucking fly. I give less than a rat's ass which anybody chooses. But if I end up dead because some egocentric bitch who couldn't get her sorry ass to the airport with adequate time fucks around with security, I'm going to be more than a little bit pissed.

In other surprising news: Lance Bass is gay.

dude....kudos to TSA for manning up and putting that video & incident report up on the website.

I look forward to the day when the most common method of transportation is teleportation.

TBH...after viewing the incident report, I think she will be in as much trouble for this: " stated the female passenger became upset and stated she was an officer and flashed her Secret Service badge and credentials and said that she should be exempt from all this and this was a stupid policy and this whole thing was BLEEP," as she will for anything else. Somehow I got the impression that Secret Service Agents weren't supposed to go around flashing their badges like a "get out of jail free" card. And she ought to have known this was coming too, as a government security agent.

and it sure looks to me like she spilled the liquid intentionally on the floor. Zero sympathy here. Whining moron. Move along.

Someone actually married that bitch. She must be a delight at home.

Airports have become the scapegoat and favorite target of the anti-government folks. I'm sure this article will live on in their cause despite the video.

Is Fighter of Foo ending his boycott?

I <3 TSA.

EDIT: Geez, she didn't even bother to pretend to drink it as she dumped it on the floor. That couldn't have been more obvious.

albion for the win in post 6! And Troy for the assist by not letting anyone forget.

My understanding is that she left the Secret Service to have a baby. As in, no longer employed by.

Wouldn't that then become 'impersonating a federal agent,' which is a felony?

ding ding!:eek::eek::eek:

That would just be too awesome if they actually got her on a felony as a result of her trying to be a sob-story celebrity.

QFT again:

"In this instance, the TSA is clearly in the right.


But there's a larger lesson here. Remember the Princeton professor who was put on the watch list for criticizing Bush? That was also untrue. Why is it that we all -- myself included -- believe these stories? Why are we so quick to assume that the TSA is a bunch of jack-booted thugs, officious and arbitrary and drunk with power?
It's because everything seems so arbitrary, because there's no accountability or transparency in the DHS. Rules and regulations change all the time, without any explanation or justification. Of course this kind of thing induces paranoia. It’s the sort of thing you read about in history books about East Germany and other police states. It's not what we expect out of 21st century America."






Read the summary report. "A female passenger traveIing with a child in a stroller had entered the checkpoint with a 16 ounce bottle of Deer Park water and a plastic children's drink cup with approx. 6 to 8 ounces of fluid inside."




That's what we are talking about here. How can anyone not recognize that regulation prohibiting taking a bottle of water through a metal detector is deeply and profoundly retarded? For frequent fliers, think about how much money you have spent on the what's merely the illusion of safety. I think the security tax is 3-5% of all tickets. Even though air traver is MUCH safer than travelling by car. Factor in the other asinine regulations that do very, very little, if anything towards making air travel safer and you have one of the government's biggest wastes of time and cash that affects the most amount of people.




I've significantly cut back my flying since 2003 or so. This is simply the straw on the camel.

There is an assumption here that without these security measures, there would also not have been another terrorist incident. Would flying still be safer than travelling by car without all the investment in TSA?

I know very little about liquid explosives (not as much as you, apparently), but I DO know that it's unbelievably retarded to walk up to airline security with 8 ounces of water with the rules that are currently in place.

I'm glad you're not flying, that's one less person that's going to start an argument with a TSA employee about their procedures (as if they have some disrection in implementing them), and one less person to hold everyone else up.

Again with the "all these security measures". Taking off shoes, not bringing water, and a metal detector? It takes less than 2 minutes. The only delay is people arguing with TSA about their rules.

Mrs. A and I flew this weekend and apparently did not RTFM.

We put our liquids in a gallon zip-loc bag (only quart size is allowed). And, Mrs. A had a bottle of sunscreen in the bottom of her carry-on suitcase that we had forgotten about (one of those things that just lives in the suitcase and didn't really enter our thoughts at all).

We were very apologetic, and the TSA woman was very nice. She inspected our stuff, let us keep our toiletries (sp?) in the gallon bag, and confiscated our sunblock.

A rational and proper result, IMO, all things considered.

Yes. The numbers are not even close. Good intelligence, investigation and communication stop terrorists. Does having everyone take off their shoes remove the threat of a shoe bomb? Well yeah, but at what cost? All the time/effort/money that gets wasted on preventing another shoe bomber means we don't spend it on something useful.

And sunblock is a threat how? How is this rational?????????? You can add the cost of a new bottle to your personal security theater tab.

I'll stop now.

When I say rational and proper, I mean "rational and proper considering the rules that are in place."

You are arguing that the rules themselves end up hurting us because they focus limited resources on areas that are not as important vis a vis keeping us safe as other areas.

So, I am not really disagreeing with you, just making a different point.

As for whether the rules make sense, I am still not sure.

I don't get the hang-up on the liquid thing. Isn't the concern liquid explosives, which can't be detected by metal detectors, of which there was specific intelligence about?

I realize it's an inconvience, and it's not a fool-proof system. But is the argument that banning liquids is not enough, or is that it's too much?

(All I know is that I don't need shampoo or sunscreen on my carry-on for in-flight use).

Sorry, Albion, for being overly pissy. You're right of course.

On liquids:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/

Longer writing here.

Short version: That's unpossible.

"We've given extraordinary credit to a collection of jihadist wannabes with an exceptionally poor grasp of the mechanics of attacking a plane, whose only hope of success would have been a pure accident. They would have had to succeed in spite of their own ignorance and incompetence, and in spite of being under police surveillance for a year.

But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot. Liquids are now banned in aircraft cabins (while crystalline white powders would be banned instead, if anyone in charge were serious about security). Nearly everything must now go into the hold, where adequate amounts of explosives can easily be detonated from the cabin with cell phones, which are generally not banned."

"So far as I can tell, for the pragmatic terrorist, the whole thingsounds really impractical. Why not just smuggle pre-made explosives onboard?"

You could make the argument this makes us less safe, though I'm not sure I want to go there.

Whoever would write that response to the article and then share the views of it, I find 100% insane.

Why do we choose to belive BS stories? I don't know. It's a really good question as to why a lot of people believe anything told to them on first blush, espcecially in he said/she said instances.

The simple solution would be to judge every case on its own merit, get both sides or at least wait and see if both versions of the event come out and make a decision.

Instead, people choose to believe the first thing they read on a blog, find out it's garbage and then try to rationalize why it's ok they had that belief. Forget the hundreds of thousands of travelers a month who have little/no issues. They don't count.

There are solid arguements to be made that the security isn't helping a lot. I don't think there is a case for it making us less safe, but that's for you to decide. What I know is that when I'm traveling, I'm going to make the best option for me financially and safety wise. I'm not scheduling a 600 mile car trip in December that takes me through the mountains when the cost of airfare is going to be about $40-$60 more than I'd pay in gas.

Flying is safer than driving, more conveniant, and usually just as cheap or close to it. The 15 minutes I'm forced to spend in line at security changes none of those things.

By all means, don't fly if you want. That's a personal choice and you have every right to make it. But don't try to justify why you fell hook, line and sinker for a psycho's story. Sorry, I find that ridiculous.

To each his/her own.

Yeah, I just can't leave these responses alone and this one certainly isn't the first in the thread but it's the latest of the "you're a moron, you should know better". And thankfully there is some sense at least in these threads as, for instance, TroyF, is putting in well thought out responses. I'm not asking for agreement, just some thought on a level above that.

By pretty all measures, I'm not a brave person so I'm not one to impugn someone on this lightly. But the above line of reasoning is born almost completely about cowardice. I will contend that people were so shaken by the powerful events of 9/11 that they will act irrationally. Yes, there's a chance that when I get on a plane that I might die. But it would take terrorist attacks every week for it to be statisically less safe than getting out of my bed and driving to work every morning.

The above thoughts are the same line of reasoning that turned Dennis Miller from a raving liberal into a Bush lover overnight. Isn't that just a little strange? It's turned people into single issue voters like abortion activists on both sides of the line. I just can't imagine going into a voting booth and saying "well, I agree with this candidate on a lot more issues that are important but I'm going to vote for the other guy because I disagree so strongly on one issue". But people are doing that about terrorism both with their voting and with their consumer choices (i.e. choosing not to fly).

Back on topic, there are principles at work here. Most of us who disagree feel there is something wrong with the idea of this security. And I'm sure many who read this will say "well, enjoy your priciples when you are going down in a flaming plane wreck". My counter to that is, of course, the above where I'll contend the likelyhood of another catastropic terrorist hit are pretty small and, even more importantly, the differences in chance between one happening with and without our security measures is minute. And we may just disagree.

But please, just stop with all the posturing about how we're all petulant children who can't stand in line for 5 minutes, particularly when it comes from overcompensating out of irrational fear.

SI

Hell, I'm not even debating the security measures.

My attitude is, "What's the point?"

Really. You can get pissed off about it, choose not to fly, act like a jerk in line, or just shut up and go through the metal detector.

Yes, it's insanity that you can't take nail clippers on a flight, but a ring of keys is just fine. Anyone with half a brain can do a lot of damage with some keys. Hell, my Saturn key could be used as a shank with little problems. It's also insane a grandma is as likely to be singled out for special search as a 25 year old Muslim from the Israeli settlements.

You can make well thought out, passionate responses as to why our security sucks. Yet at the end of the day you have to realize that it really is coming down to waiting in line for about 15 minutes that this particular fight is about.

And you always had to stand in that same line and do many of the same things anyway. We aren't even talking the full 15 minutes here. You always had to go through the metal detector, you always had to put your bags through the xray machine. You always had to take your keys and cell phone off.

We add shoes, a different bin for a computer, and the fact that nail clippers/lighters/liquid can't be taken through and it's a disaster that's cause for not flying and worthy of this passion?

If it is to you, that's good. Complain to the airlines. Complain to the TSA.

But please, for the love of God, don't believe every psycho who has a nasty story about TSA agents. Don't take the one story that happens to be true and paint the entire system as a failure. Don't try to make it sound like going through security is going to strip you of all your dignity and that going through Dante's stages of Hell would be a more enjoyable experience.

Be realistic in your concerns and fair in your criticisms. Is that to much to ask?

I'm curious, what's your idea of reasonable airport security? If you were in charge of TSA, what would be the security procedure?

We already have screeners with only a high school education, we screen only a small number of checked bags for explosives, and use metal detectors from the 1970s. Where do you want to cut back?

The reason you do sound like petulant children to me is that, as someone said above, you're talking as though you have some kind of entitlement to travel with the least possible amount of inconvience to meet YOUR desired saftey risk (which is a pretty impressive calculation you're able to come up without any access to classified government intellligence information). This sense of privlege comes out when you're essentially demanding an explanation of every little thing you're asked to do.

So people should just stop whining, take their damn shoes off, and if they don't like it, take Amtrack. This isn't the government searching your house or listening to your phone calls