Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Transportation Idle

Anti Terror Honor System 74

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the yeah-that'll-work-out-fine dept.
Fortunately for us, the FAA has imposed the honor system as our next best defense against terrorism. Hopefully this will allow them to increase the volume of non-bladder liquid I'm allowed to take on planes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti Terror Honor System

Comments Filter:
  • Uhm.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:47PM (#31146124)
    This is a link to College Humor... did Taco even mouse over? Why is this on the front page? Quit wasting my time while I'm wasting my employer's time!
    • I was just thinking the same thing... Surely this is something for idle?
    • Quit wasting my time while I'm wasting my employer's time!

      I guess this is why it is tagged "Idle"...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bsDaemon (87307)
        yeah, i just noticed that, but typically idle crap is under the idle heading and i don't have to look at tags i usually ignore anyway. i guess that's what i get for trying to read the article.
        • Well, some Idle stories make it to the main page. But I agree that usually, they're worth it, not like this one which is total garbage...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I'm pretty sure this is actually an accurate representation of South Carolina's advice [slashdot.org] for the TSA.
    • I read news, and I also do read humor, but I agree, I like it when they're correctly labelled as to which is which.

    • I agree. The collegehumor.com video wasn't all the funny either. Colbert could pull stuff better than that out of his hat before he's had his coffee.
    • by dugeen (1224138)
      We aren't wasting our employers' time. We're keeping abreast of developments in the industry. In fact, I'm using my break time to do so, so really I'm entitled to credit rather than reproach.
  • by Gopal.V (532678) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:49PM (#31146146) Homepage Journal

    I find that a hilarious option on my US entry form. Because you see if I was actually there to do something illegal, I'd be declaring it when I enter. Yeah, right.

    But it makes sense as a sort of "But ... but ... but ... he said so!" legal CYA move. (Wait, CYA ... that sounds like something else).

    I think from what I've heard, Israel does the most ardous security check ever and they do it without being dicks about it. They have intelligent agents, who ask the right questions and do not invade your personal space to intimidate you. And it seems to work for them, especially since they back it up with the kind of stuff Mossad did at Entebe (despite the international legalities of doing so),

    The video is actually fairly funny, heh the "never do it again".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The MAZZTer (911996)
      Similar checkboxes were on my security clearance application. The way I see it, it's so they can charge you with lying on a gov't form later if it turns out you are a terr'ist.
      • by vlm (69642)

        The way I see it, it's so they can charge you with lying on a gov't form later if it turns out you are a terr'ist.

        Nahh, charging someone with lying on a form doesn't get the DA promoted.

        Its a reading comprehension test. Some cultures always respond affirmatively to someone superior to them. Thus the hilarity of some outsourced customer service interactions. Those forms will figure out if you can read English well enough to intelligently provide the "correct" answer.

      • Similar checkboxes were on my security clearance application. The way I see it, it's so they can charge you with lying on a gov't form later if it turns out you are a terr'ist.

        Actually, it is probably perjury. And that probably is the reason. They might not be able to prove the terrorism charge, but they'll convict you on the perjury charge.

        • by itsdapead (734413)

          Actually, it is probably perjury. And that probably is the reason. They might not be able to prove the terrorism charge, but they'll convict you on the perjury charge.

          IANAL but I think that to convict you of perjury for saying you weren't a terrorist they'd still have to prove that you were a terrorist.

          On the other hand, deporting your arse out of the US (or firing you from your security-cleared job) for lying on a form probably only requires "reasonable suspicion" (the main thing you're doing on those nice green forms is waiving your right to appeal deportation or refusal of entry).

          • They convicted Martha Stewart of lying about insider trading, but they never proved that she did any insider trading. They never even charged her with insider trading.
    • I think from what I've heard, Israel does the most ardous security check ever and they do it without being dicks about it. They have intelligent agents, who ask the right questions and do not invade your personal space to intimidate you. And it seems to work for them, especially since they back it up with the kind of stuff Mossad did at Entebe (despite the international legalities of doing so),

      Have you read "The Pillars of Hercules" by Paul Theroux? There are some passages in there about entering Israel and the procedures involved.

    • by jfenwick (961674)

      I think from what I've heard, Israel does the most ardous security check ever and they do it without being dicks about it.

      http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135243.html [haaretz.com]

      Yes, Israeli security never invades anyone's personal space.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        What the Israeli security services do is far above and beyond anything we've seen in the US. With the possible exception of torture, I'm not really familiar enough on Israeli policy there, I certainly haven't ever heard their head of state saying that it was OK to torture.

        In the US we've got a few armed air marshal's on a number of flights, and if I understand correctly, the Israelis have a pair of obviously armed security officers there with automatic weapons to take down anybody that tries to get into
    • I find that a hilarious option on my US entry form. Because you see if I was actually there to do something illegal, I'd be declaring it when I enter. Yeah, right.

      Out of these [google.com] US Customs forms, can you point to the one that said that.

      I looked at a few of them, and couldn't find the entry you mentioned.

      I think from what I've heard, Israel does the most ardous security check ever and they do it without being dicks about it.

      Not according to one plaintiff on Judge Judy (not a big sample I know, but I've never heard anyone else other than him describe their experience with Israeli Airport guards). The guy sued EL AL (Air Israel), the guards basically had diplomatic immunity -- so he couldn't sue them directly, but the guards were real dickheads to him (because supposedly, he had brown skin

    • I think from what I've heard, Israel does the most ardous security check ever and they do it without being dicks about it. They have intelligent agents, who ask the right questions and do not invade your personal space to intimidate you.

      I'm guessing you've never gone through this security check as a young Arab male.

    • The video is actually fairly funny, heh the "never do it again".

      "Also, you'll still have to take off your shoes."

      That's ridiculous! What am I going to do with my shoes, attack the President of the United States? Don't be absurd!

      • by hedwards (940851)
        I take it you don't recall the name Richard Reid, AKA the shoe bomber. Had he managed to light his shoes that entire flight would've probably crashed, or at least suffered a serious decompression incident. Which was mind boggling since at that time you could legitimately take lighters with you one US flights.
        • Nope, I don't remember that. Might have something to do with the fact that I had pretty much just turned 12 and I was still in 7th grade at the time.

    • My big problem with that form is that you can't change your mind later. I mean, what if I am visiting the US on holiday, and I have only good intentions when I arrive, so I don't tick the box. But when I get there, I realise that the arrogant running imperial dogs must all die and decide to martyr myself for the cause.

      Who do I see to get my form back to change the option? There are no contact details on the form and it seems to me that your government make it as hard as possible to update my details. So you

  • The following URL is a petition for permanent residence in the United States of America.

    http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-485.pdf [uscis.gov]

    Part 3 is the part that catches terrorists.

    • by BSAtHome (455370)
      3.fa Are you too stupid to commit a crime? [] yes [] no
      3.fb Are you planning to have fun? [] yes [] no
      3.fc Have you ever been party to a party where the party went on a party? [] yes [] no
      3.fd Do you plan to insult our national pride? [] yes [] no
      3.fe Do you feel welcome in this country? [] yes [] no
      ...
      3.xi How many pennies are there in a pound? [] yes [] no
      ...
      3.zz Did you wish you'd never seen this form? [] yes [] no
    • by JWSmythe (446288)

          So does an "Yes" Part 3 Item 3a get hot chicks into the country? It seems like a good filter. "She's hot. She's worked as a prostitute. We can ask for a few "favors" to make her paperwork move easier."

            I'd do Part 3 Item 14, except having one at a time is bad enough.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I suspect it's more that revoking citizenship is not a simple matter, but if it turns out you lied on the application form, and were therefore granted citizenship on false grounds, it can be revoked much more easily.
  • Based on their experience with the finger-crosser, I'd say this is a stunningly effective anti-terror mechanism

  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Velorium (1068080) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:54PM (#31146224)
    Put this in Idle, not in Tech where I expect actual news.
    • by DynaSoar (714234)

      Put this in Idle, not in Tech where I expect actual news.

      That's very brave of you, admitting in front of God and everybody that if you happen to read a summary and tags that indicate that the post is intended to be funny, if it happens to be posted with a heading that normally means the subject matter is news, that you have such poor control over your own behavior that you have to read the whole thing in case it has some real news embedded in it somewhere. Most people who exhibit such compulsions are too ashamed to admit it much less insist others adapt their beh

  • oh well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fëanáro (130986) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:55PM (#31146242)

    Well, that is a minute of my life I won't get back.

  • by Suzuran (163234) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:57PM (#31146264)
    DHS is responsible for the Security Circus, not the FAA. Please put the blame where it belongs!
    • See, I thought it was TSA.
      • by mayko (1630637)
        DHS is the umbrella of many agencies that take part in the security theater games, as well as violate our privacy without warrant.

        Picture DHS as the conductor, and TSA the train... which is about to drive straight up your ass, or just take away your shampoo and nail clippers.
        • DHS has varying levels of uselessness. The acting and silly security theater is almost all concentrated int he 4billion USD waste that's called TSA.

          Anyway, the OP was talking about the FAA. FAA is to DOT as TSA is to DHS.

      • by oodaloop (1229816)
        TSA is under DHS, so you're both right.
  • Quality (Score:1, Informative)

    by xbeefsupreme (1690182)
    The video wasn't even that funny.
  • Y'know... (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot@@@uberm00...net> on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:08PM (#31146404) Homepage Journal

    I'm OK with the idle section, so long as articles that belong there are categorized as such.

  • by dotfile (536191) on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:11PM (#31146444)
    Is it such a slow tech news day that we're going to see links to 4chan and xkcd all day?

    Jeebus.
    • Yes, yes it is.
      So get the fuck out there and make something!
      brb, tubing carbons to the moon...
  • Ironically... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by epp_b (944299) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:14PM (#31147206)
    As humorous as that was, this is exactly the sort of security that actually works: looking people in the eyes, asking questions, being trained to skillfully detect what constitutes an honest response.

    The general stupid masses of the western world see the fancy x-ray machines, silvery conveyor tables and shiny rent-a-cop badges and think this somehow translates to better security. But this is not security, this is an illusion of security. This is just put on for show so that your representatives in government (hahahaha... I know) can appear to be doing something about those dern terrrrists.

    Security is not a product or a technology. Security, in the case of an airport, is an active process of identifying risks through layers of highly-trained intelligence personel; not high school drop-outs hired to press buttons.

    Wait, why does that sound familiar? [thestar.com]
    • Reminds me of a business trip to Canada I took a few years ago. Not a lot of high tech geegaws to deal with, the the Customs & Immigration officer at Winnipeg had eyes that could look right through a person, and I'm really, really sure that if somebody were BSing him about why they were coming to Canada, he'd be all over it and have them right off to secondary inspection. We need more of that ourselves, and a lot less of what we've got.

    • by DeVilla (4563)

      As humorous as that was, this is exactly the sort of security that actually works: looking people in the eyes, asking questions, being trained to skillfully detect what constitutes an honest response.

      Once you do that you are using judgment. You are on the verge of profiling, or even worse racism.

  • Judging by the stories I've read here and there, a straight look in the eye, asking more than twice and their gut feelings could actually work better than the current system. :)
  • You ever try to pick up some woman in a bar and have her ask you, "You're not a rapist or an axe murderer, are you?" This makes exactly as much sense as that question... I always want to respond "No I'm not... which is exactly the same answer a rapist or axe murderer would give you!" Or perhaps "No... but I am a pathological liar!" However, since those snarky answers would reduce the chances of my actually getting laid, I always just smiled and answered "No, of course not!" Which is exactly the same answer
    • by LtGordon (1421725) on Monday February 15, 2010 @04:31PM (#31148862)
      "A few years ago, I was moving a new bed into my apartment, and this woman who lived in the building opened the front door for me with her key. She said, 'I'm not worried because a rapist wouldn't have a bed like that.' That's how she started the conversation. Now, what I should have said was nothing. What I did say was 'You'd be surprised.' '
    • By responding "No, of course not!" you are supplicating to the woman, making yourself seem like a less-attractive man. You need to take control of the frame and not let her dictate the conversation. Untrained people will most likely direct the conversation to boring subjects. You must stop that from happening if she is to like you.
  • Sure, we can moderate individuals posts, but how about stupid ass submissions like this?

    While I like you Captain Chimichanga, I come here for news. that was not news. I expect better of you.

    • by TheSpoom (715771)

      They have that, it's called the firehose [slashdot.org].

      Whether articles are actually posted based on their votes is still at the discretion of the editors though.

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...