TSA Bans Toner and Ink Cartridges On Planes 633
Grond writes "The US has banned toner and ink cartridges from passenger aircraft in the wake of last month's bomb plot. 'The printer cartridge ban affects cartridges over 16 ounces.' No word yet on whether that's a weight or volume measurement or whether it's a per-cartridge or per-passenger limit."
The ban comes alongside a prohibition on air cargo originating from Yemen and Somalia. Bruce Schneier's blog points out another potential consequence from the recent bomb plot: the end of in-flight Wi-Fi.
Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice. Its disturbing to see that the TSA is still behind the curve. Honestly, I am surprised that TSA did not ban underpants after the last idiot that tried to smuggle a bomb in his shorts and if they ban Wi-Fi., that is the only thing that makes cross country flights tolerable these days, especially in coach.
What is it going to take for us to realize that the TSA is simply not effective? All this reactionary effort is not helping us to be competitive in the business space and the costs are not insubstantial. My last flight on Thursday to San Jose got me a grope by the TSA agents who now apparently are permitted to do full on frisk-downs. What's next, squat and cough?
Security Theater at its finest (Score:2, Insightful)
/popcorn
The illusion of security (Score:5, Insightful)
If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.
Home Security Theater (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh good! I was wondering when the season premier for Homeland Security Theater was going to be broadcast. This is yet!
In this episode, the knee-jerk reaction is to ban toner and ink cartridges, because like bottled water and cola, some Macgyver type will be able to whip together a fusion bomb in those few hours of flying, without anyone noticing!
Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?
We've Lost (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its becoming increasingly obvious that the TSA is designed to cripple airlines, make comfortable travel nearly impossible, violate privacy all the while doing nothing to stop a real terrorist plot.
Details of the ban make little sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The official announcement is still light on details, but the ban will apply to both carry-on and checked luggage and will affect "domestic and international flights in-bound to the United States." Apparently ink and toner will still be allowed on flights out-bound from the United States.
The distinction between domestic flights and out-bound international flights makes no sense to me. If someone can target a domestic flight by assembling the toner-bomb in the US, why couldn't the same person target an international flight out-bound from the US?
Furthermore, is there any evidence that a toner cartridge and printer were selected for any particular reason? Is there any reason toner cartridges make for a particularly attractive bomb container? If not, this seems worse than useless, since an attacker would simply select a different container while the screeners are busy looking for toner cartridges.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Diminishing returns... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Details of the ban make little sense (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is, you're thinking logically about this. Stop that.
No problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
Install plug-in ethernet ports (alongside laptop power outlets).
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:5, Insightful)
How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?
This would work up until the point terrorists realize they should recruit suicide bombers who don't fit the profile of a terrorist. Actually, indications are that they've already started to do so.
Of course, the TSA can make airplanes more secure by simply expanding the profile to all humans in general. Then you'll have absolute security - sure it's useless, but it'll be secure.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bottles vs cartridges... (Score:5, Insightful)
Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surface (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand about the screaming to ban deadly packages flying by air mail is that for literally 100 YEARS letter bombs have been on the scene. I myself was in Washington DC in about 1975 when a letter bomb posted by the IRA was delivered to the British Embassy. It blew the hand off a secretary who opened it up. Yes, there was an investigation, the police were called, the IRA condemned etc. etc. but nobody suggested banning packages in the mail or removing the rights of anyone who went into a post office. Heck, these devices from Yemen didn't even explode and we're falling apart with fear!
What the hell is going on? Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was a terrorist I would find a way to sneak a bomb into every "normal" item that passengers bring with them
Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?
Re:Diminishing returns... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not diminishing returns for TSA though. Every time a terrorist plot is uncovered they need to do -something- to make it look like they're doing something real. The reality is that if someone is determined enough and not a goddamn idiot, they are going to be able to bring down a plane. Fortunately, the terrorists are idiots for now, but if most people realized how ineffective TSA was, we'd cut their funding dramatically and fire most of them.
Security theater actually works quite well for the actors and a gullible audience, though it does very little towards actually security.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:1, Insightful)
More importantly, in what way is it so painfully obvious to you that the TSA isn't effective? Which recent bombing or hijacking is the evidence?
What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:1, Insightful)
Not only that, when the terrorists manage to recruit a caucasian terrorist, they can then guarantee that he (or she) will get through security by sending a group of young Middle Eastern men through the security checkpoint just before the actual terrorist goes in so that all officers are busy frisking them. The others have tickets to a completely different flight, of course.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
And, by the meaning of "terrorist" (someone who uses fear and terror as a means of coercion), then that means that you have won even if not a single one of your bombs actually goes off.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
Drug the passengers to unconsciousness and transport them in small containers.
But that doesn't help against someone that has made a bomb out of themself and with a timing device inside the body.
And what about the measurements - if this is going to work internationally they need to specify in metric measurements.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, in what way is it so painfully obvious to you that the TSA isn't effective? Which recent bombing or hijacking is the evidence?
Clearly there have been none since I bought my terrorist-repellent rock.
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used? Israel has had great success with passenger profiling, and there's a whole lot more to it than skin color.
Unfortunately you need trained and intelligent security agents to make it work, something we're never likely to be able to commit to. Cheap, poorly-trained TSA agents frisking people down looks more impressive to travelers than a couple relatively-expensive guys highly trained in interrogation techniques and reading facial expressions.
Re:Details of the ban make little sense (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want something with powder and some electronic circuits that looks "normal" to the airport security guy, then a toner cartridge is a perfect choice.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, a lot of the chatter on terrorism in the last 5 years or so has been of the domestic nature. The thinking has been that disgruntled former military and LEO's possess training, probably equipment, and have already secured entry into the country. Add in a dash of motivation and you've got a recipe for a very credible threat.
OTOH credible threats from outside the US are few and far between. The one guy in recent memory that actually succeeded in smuggling equipment onto an airplane only really succeeded in setting his own giblets on fire. Threats from domestic organizations (read: militant militias) have really blown up recently (see what I did there?).
Also, the MIAC report contained no laws to speak of. Mainly it contained suggested methods that LEO's could use to identify probably members of militant militias. Granted, the implication that Ron Paul or Bob Barr were figureheads of violent revolutionary groups was a little offensive. But the concept of identifying common symbols of these organizations does make a some sense.
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Because profiling separates the security line into an "easy" line and a "hard" line, and so the terrorists will just use the "easy" line (by, e.g. hiding the bombs in some white grandmother's wheelchair because you decided not to check them as much as that group of Sikhs that you thought were "teh muslin terrorists!")
Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people are fundamentally unforgivable cowards, and much worse, so goddamned gullible that they actually believe the government can keep them safe in the absolute or near-absolute sense of the word. We in the West all talk the Big Talk about how liberty is worth the risks (and indeed, even at this time of year in many places recount how hundreds of thousands of soldiers went off to fight a couple of world wars to stop totalitarian regimes from making us all Very Safe), but no one really means it.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?
Or when the US Military has provided a number of juicy infidelious targets already conveniently located in the middle east.
Really now that actually taking control of a commercial aircraft is all but impossible, those aircraft are no longer the really high value targets.
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel also had locked cockpit doors back in the 1980s and armed members of law enforcement and/or the military on every flight. Amazingly enough they have managed to secure their airlines without banning bottled water and groping genitalia....
Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel - It takes a lot less effort to severely damage an airplane at altitude (thanks to the stresses of a pressurized cabin) to the point where it will not fly than it does to damage a ship or train to the point where it causes massive loss of life. (Although due to derailment, a train is probably easier.)
So a small bomb can take down a plane, but can't necessarily take out a ship or train, especially if in a cargo area.
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
How about, gee, I dunno, accepting that terrorists are going to do shitty things, like blow up planes, blow up cars, etc? Then terrorists' main weapon, terror (and its cousin, irrational fear), will be gone. Sure, that'll just mean terrorists will try to come up with different things to terrorize people.
But, it's the same thing with shock jocks, blathering political pundits, more "extreme" violent films and sexualized porn, etc: if you stop reacting, you'll start to recognize just how irrelevant they are and how much people overreact. Perhaps that's one reason moderates want either a sane bipartisan legislature or a gridlocked insane legislature. Nothing about the laws to stop violence, porn, terrorism, etc have had much effect because they're either the symptoms of a bigger problem or their prevalence have been overmagnified and broad laws that effect few people are unlikely to actually run into many people committing the crime.
It's no different to the common cold. Yes, doing absolute nothing ever is a bad thing and one should react as appropriate, but overreaction just turns into a situation where the overreaction is the major symptom of the common cold; the cold virus itself does marginal damage at best. It might be hard to actual do, but changing attitudes instead of merely enacting more rules and regulation is sometimes the best course of action.
The key thing is figuring out what is actually a justifiable and appropriate reaction, and that first starts with actually investigating the scope, scale, etc of the problem and a discussion about it. Have we even done that yet? Or has it all been conjecture with a solution trying to find a problem to solve?
Oh noes! (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this mean I shouldn't buy ink cartridges because it might be a bomb? Whose checking those ink cartridges at Best Buy to make sure it doesn't blow up a store full of people? Are Office Depot inspecting ink cartridges before delivering them to government entities?
Seriously....blowing up a plane is a blip on the radar. If 9-11 can't be replicated, meaning they can't take over the plane and fly it into something or cause it to detonate and crash into a target......then I think you've done your job as well as can be expected and at some point in time another incident will occur. If the precautions were taken to prevent plane takeover and targeting, then it's about equivalent to a catastrophic plane malfunction. People seem to be OK with with their chances flying in a plane that could fall out of the sky on a catastrophic failure, so I think they need to come to terms with there being a chance the plane might explode.....due to a bomb or...a fuel leak......or hitting another plane....or whatever.
The rest of this crap is just job security and budget inflation for TSA. Someone with ties to TSA is making a shitload of money on all the tech whether it helps or not. And making money on the "travel friendly bags" and other things the TSA has implemented. The TSA will of course not be held accountable if any of the measures they've inflicted fail to prevent terrorist attacks, it will just be an example as to why they need MORE budget and MORE expensive tech and MORE specifications for bags/clothing/shoes/wallets/belts/glasses/underwear/etc.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:2, Insightful)
And even with all the unpleasantness, one will still explode, and then the TSA will do it's knee jerk monkeydance and we'll all feel safer again, RIGHT?
Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac (Score:3, Insightful)
Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?
People are making a lot of money off the fear industry. Chertoff, the former head of Homland Security, is a consultant for one or more of the companies that make the bomb detection and body scanning equipment that the TSA is mandating be used
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Where was it suggested that racial profiling be used?
When the words "politically incorrect" were used.
Logic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorist: "Well, I had this fancy bomb all put together and I was ready to blow myself and 200 other people out of the sky, but then the damned TSA went and made it illegal to do that. Since I have an instinctive need to obey the laws of the infidels, I suppose my plan is right out the window. Oh well. I guess I'll just walk down to the donut shop and gorge myself. Maybe I'll take up farming. Fava beans, anyone?"
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even ignoring the fact that you are just begging for a "correlation is not causation" lecture, when was the last time you heard about a successfully thwarted attempt? You offer lack of evidence to the contrary as proof, which is utterly absurd.
I've never had someone do a full body X-ray when entering a concert or sporting event, nor have I been frisked. What is it about entering a plane (which, due to changes in cockpit door construction, can no longer feasibly be used to do great harm unless the terrorist has a pilot's license) that you think requires so much less personal freedom than any other location with a comparable number of people?
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
That's ridiculous. We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals. </sarcasm>
Re:It can't be done... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised that they haven't done this yet. All they're proving is that terrorism works. It makes life hell for the entire country. Mission accomplished!
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
...are you really happy with the way that President Obama is handling this issue? His Administration hasn't done jack-shit to halt the growth of the security theater industry.
As a leftie, I have to say that I am dismayed at the rapid disintegration of our individual liberties and freedoms since President Obama came to office, and at the utter lack of discipline of the rest of the party, causing the recent realignment of the House.
The checks seem to keep getting written to the TSA and the companies that supply them with their toys (Smiths, etc.) and there is no end in sight. The Democrats have not made any positive moves in this regard, and seem to rank individual liberties (such as being able to carry my fucking Starbucks through security) below pandering to the fear filled right and left. It all sucks.
The reality, as it has already been stated above, is that passengers now know that their own security is in their hands, and given the proclivity of the average American to "throw down" for very little reason, I feel pretty damn safe on an aircraft, and not an iota of that feeling comes from the TSA.
Re:The illusion of security (Score:5, Insightful)
If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.
I think most (not all, just most) people accept that. I think even most government officials accept that. What nobody accepts is the blame they would get if something goes wrong and they didn't do as much as they possibly could to appear to have tried to prevent that. That's what's driving all this: people in positions of responsibility have an extremely high incentive to propose anything they can think of to reduce their exposure to risk, even if what they're proposing is unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional, because it's what stands between their current lives and being on the front page when the next nogoodnik blows something up. They, individually, see an extremely small cost to reducing our civil liberties compared to the benefit they get from doing so, and as such it is an entirely rational behavior for them to try to pass laws and regulations against everything. So how do we, as a culture, try to fix this?
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along
If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened. Food for thought. We surrendered our 2nd amendment rights and 3,000 people died. Now you think that surrendering our 4th amendment rights are the answer?
Your nickname is telling. How'd you wind up on my friends list anyway if you are that much of a sheep?
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh good! I was wondering when the season premier for Homeland Security Theater was going to be broadcast. This is yet!
In this episode, the knee-jerk reaction is to ban toner and ink cartridges, because like bottled water and cola, some Macgyver type will be able to whip together a fusion bomb in those few hours of flying, without anyone noticing!
Yet another ban for show rather than actual security. How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers? You know, be politically incorrect and actually practice forensic science for a change, and stop harassing and inconveniencing the rest of us?
Israel security is serious security, and not theatre, because it concentrates on the passenger, and not their belongings. When a simple pen can be wielded as a weapon in the right hands (or part of a set of eyeglasses, for that matter, or a screwdriver, or a knife from first class sharpened with a completely inconspicuous sharpening stone) it becomes clear that the belongings carried with a person do not matter nearly as much as the person and their intent. Reading intent can be done. The Israelis do it very, very well. Exceedingly well, actually, as anyone who has flown out of Tel Aviv can relate, especially if they were paying attention.
I am a scientist, one of the very few professions accorded a kind of informal diplomatic special status (when two states are leaning toward establishing diplomatic ties, they typically start with artistic and scientific exchanges). I was given what felt like the third degree when leaving Tel Aviv:
"Why were you in Israel?" ... just a mintute ... here it is."
"I am a scientist, and I was invited to give a lecture."
(looking me up and down:) "You were invited to give a lecture?"
"Yes."
(icy tone) "Why would they invite *you*?"
"Because there was an international seminar in my field, and I do good work."
(continued icily) "Oh, really. Do you have a letter of invitation?"
"Yes, here it is."
"Do you have the program from the seminar?"
"Yes, here."
(getting accusitive) "Why can't I find your name?"
"Um, it's
"What was the topic of your lecture?"
"Computational Neuroscience."
(pointedly) "Please give us the lecture."
"I'm sorry, what?"
(same inflection) "Please give us the lecture."
"OK... " (I start the lecture and am allowed to get quite a few sentences in to it before I'm stopped; they were in fact paying attention to what I was saying, although not distinctly interested in the content.)
"Where did you pack your bags?"
and so on for ten minutes. They wanted to know where I stayed, how I knew about that particular hotel, where I went during my free time, etc. When speaking with other travellers, I've since learned that's pretty standard. Did you notice above when I wrote about paying attention? There were two interrogators performing the interview for each passenger. One doing the talking, and one observing. The one talking said that she was a trainee, and that's why there were two. I've since learned that's standard operating procedure: it works to make the interviewee think of the interviewer in sympathetic light. Damned skilled.
That, my friends, is security. Banning containers of liquid or gel larger than 125 mL isn't. Hiding one's thoughts from skilled interrogation is much, much harder to do than hiding physical contraband.
Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac (Score:5, Insightful)
Why has the US become a nation of panty-wetting idiots?
Yes. It's a consequence of the way we've been brought up, protected from everything bad and even bad thoughts, so once something does actually enter our consciousness it consumes everything. Like someone who's lived in a bubble away from all germs all of a sudden meeting the common cold.
Totally ridiculous, over bogus "toner bomb" plot. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is so stupid.
More security theatre. I think the real terrorists work in DC.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I really HATE flying these days, my lady friend badgered and bullied me into taking a trip with her to Hawaii (I REALLY HATE HAWAII) I was taken by wheelchair to the security area where I was frisked, wiped with swabs (they even wiped the airports own wheelchair) before being pushed the rest of the way to the gate. On my return flight it was the same, they even opened my suitcase and left a card inside saying they had done so!
OK, a 68 year old white American disabled Vietnam Vet, with a 50 year old Hawaiian wife, traveling on a domestic flight has to go through all this BULLSHIT, while everybody knows that TERRORISTS aren't elderly white cripples!
Kinda makes you think that they really don't want people to travel by air, don't it?
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:4, Insightful)
>OK, a 68 year old white American disabled Vietnam Vet,
Yeah, right, we all know you're a 20-year old Asian guy with a Mission Impossible mask [slashdot.org].
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA will never be the KGB. The KGB was competent at what they did, and what they did 'needed' to be done.
The TSA is incompetent at what they do, and what they do is completely superfluous. They are the diametric opposite of the KGB and any organization like the KGB.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, a 68 year old white American disabled Vietnam Vet, with a 50 year old Hawaiian wife, traveling on a domestic flight has to go through all this BULLSHIT, while everybody knows that TERRORISTS aren't elderly white cripples!
Kinda makes you think that they really don't want people to travel by air, don't it?
It's not about profiling or random screening, it's about protection and once you realize that you'll realize a little of their bullshit isn't bullshit. I see pilots with the signature of "Trusted in the air, not on the ground." but what they're overlooking is that it only takes one person who has "a pass" through the line and is willing to sell that access because they're disgruntled and don't care anymore.
You're crippled and you love this country so you should be safe right? But did you pack your bags yourself and always have them in sight? Even if you said yes to all those questions the TSA has no clue if it's really true. Even if it's true for you, what about someone else with your same conditions?
I wouldn't normally defend the TSA because they're awful at the job they do. Prudes in a nanny bible state who want to see you naked but don't want you to take your clothes off. There are tons of things they could be doing better and there are even more ways we could fight terrorism if we were even more facist than we already are. Intelligence gathering requires almost no effort if the burden of proof of innocence is on the flyer. I wouldn't be suprised if they start data mining peoples facebook entries to determine flight status soon.
I don't really care what their excuse is. I think we've given up too much freedom for a little safety. I'd rather see 3000 people die a year than this country eaten up from within by facism under the guise of protecting us from terrorism. I would accept the roll of the dice that I would be one of those people.
So what is my solution to this mess? I would like to see more travel options. More long distance fast train lines (which would take at least 20 years to be effective)
I would accept prison like conditions for transport as long as everyone was subjected to the same rules. Changing into jumpers at the airport, permitted into a controlled area with nothing but your wallet/boarding pass, all your gear flys on a separate cargo jet.
Sure it's even more facism, but if you know what to expect it's less invasive than their current shit and makes it more of a novalty. I would expect airlines to compensate with better amenities (no more baggage means more room).
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, the bad guys can always find ways to do bad things, and to make a (supposedly) free people go through the shit just shows me that the TERRORISTS have already won!
(And yeah I some times do call her my "wife")
Gimme a break, huh!
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a higher security clearance than the guards who are checking me out. Come on guys, [agency] was checking me out for [x] months. They talked to my neighbours and landlords and every employer I've had for the last [x] years. You're looking at my laundry.
If brains were explosives, they couldn't blow their nose.
Right, because it's just unthinkable (Score:3, Insightful)
That a pilot who is sympathetic to the cause, couldn't bring weapons through security and pass them off to his co-conspirators so that they could use said weapons on a different plane. It's just unthinkable, and you're a super-genius.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement implied that evidence is required to show that the TSA is not improving things. I would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and in the absence of evidence that they are actually improving things, the default assumption should be that they are not.
You haven't flown in the past six months, have you? Merry Christmas.
So why haven't we done so? Bomb sniffing dogs at every airport? Solid cockpit doors with a proper airlock design (two sets of doors that aren't open at once)? Background checks on passengers? Interviews for non-regular travelers a la Israeli airlines? Instead of mitigating the risk, we've invested billions of dollars in high tech toys that don't work.
Absolutely nothing. Sometimes the correct response is to not respond, and a prima facie absurd response is always worse than none at all because it just makes you look incompetent. These things were not in carry-on bags, but rather in air cargo (mail or package delivery, I forget which). Odds are good that someone would get a lot of scrutiny if someone had carried a laser printer on board an airplane, making it a very unlikely vector of attack. Not to mention that you'd get close scrutiny if you attempted to take a laser printer down from the overhead compartment during the flight, since there's no feasible way to use one in flight. Also, printer bits were likely chosen because they were large enough to hide enough explosives; anything of similar size could be used just as easily, making the particular object of little consequence. All these factors point towards a single conclusion: that the right answer is to not do anything.
That said, if you really want to do something, then require that printer cartridges be taken out and swabbed appropriately. If the powder is harmful, then it doesn't fly, but if it's just a printer cartridge as one would expect 99.999% of the time, it isn't doing any harm.
Re:Becuase nobody EVER sent anything bad by surfac (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with most of your sentiment, but let's not forget that these bombs were defused minutes before going off, only thanks to a tip-off by a repentant Al-Qaida operative. And each of these devices had enough explosive to significantly damage the fuselage of the aircraft. This one was a close, scary shave.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
See, this is why I love the Tea Party approach. Given sufficient cuts in funding, all of this nonsense would dry up and blow away. The only reason we're saddled with all this security theater is because there are contractors who want our tax dollars. If there weren't anyone trying to sell us body scanners, remodel our airports, and otherwise siphon off our cash, we'd wouldn't be bothering with it.
Cut the funding, and let apathy do the rest.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:4, Insightful)
Judging by how many bullets I've had fly by my head, not to mention how many targets I've seen with nothing behind them to stop bullets, I'd imagine allowing personal weapons on planes would result in a lot more deaths then the terrorists can dream off.
Re:Home Security Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-criminal young Middle Easterners should eject those they have nothing to do with in order to not be lumped together with those they have nothing to do with? Wow, man. That's fucking brilliant!
You're a practical bloke, aren't ya?
Re:The illusion of security (Score:3, Insightful)
If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.
While I generally agree with this, I would like to reflect about how difficult is to find the middle ground... From the Wi-Fi article (emphasis mine):
These systems would mean that passengers would no longer need to illicitly use their cellphones when they come into range of ground masts at low altitudes near airports – a potentially dangerous activity that could interfere with the aircraft's avionics
I mean, WTF? WHO IN THE HELL NEEDS TO USE A CELL PHONE IN A PLANE? Anyone who breaches air security rules because he can't stand a few hours without phone or internet is sick or a moron, or both. Ok, if you can have it, you may enjoy it more than reading, watching a film, sleeping or just thinking. If it is safely available and you don't disturb me, enjoy it. But let's get real, there is neither "need" nor "right" to it, so if you can't have it follow the rules instead of being a danger (*).
So, while I am not clear that banning the WiFi will provide any security measure, the most disturbing thing that I found in the article was the assumption that the flier can do as s/he pleases while in a plane because s/he "needs" to do something... looks like that, together with those that criticise the restrictions of the nanny-state, there's also some group that things that all the restrictions are just theater and they can be "smart" and break them at will... surprise, some of them aren't, and surprise, when things go wrong that same people will be the first to ask for an explanation about what went wrong.
Finally, I want to insist that this post is not so much about one specific measure but I wanted to reflect about the feeling that some people looks only interested in complaining (really... how many of us usually fly ink cartridges/toners?) about everything, and not interested at all in a reasoned argument.
(*) I was in a plane that couldn't take off because someone had left his cell phone on without realising (he was not talking, it was stored) and was interfering with the plane systems. The steward came near his place and began asking passengers to check their phones, once it was found and shut down all worked ok.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't seem to find the article, but I recall an elderly lady in a wheelchair in Cheyenne that was searched by TSA and she had copius amounts of ganja (or maybe something else, don't recall) stuffed inside her chair.
Thank you for your service to our country, but I'm sorry, don't expect any sympathy or exemptions just because you were uncomfortable with the screening process. We're all in the same boat.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:1, Insightful)
What makes you think that the Tea Party wants to cut funding for security or defense? When Conservatives talk about cutting spending, they refer solely to social programs (even though defense significantly shadows any of the other spending categories).
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't tell us, did they find anything bad?
Define "Effective" (Score:5, Insightful)
...when was the last time you heard about a successfully thwarted attempt? You offer lack of evidence to the contrary as proof, which is utterly absurd.
While I agree with your points I think the real issue here is the definition of "effective". In this context it does not simply mean stopping terrorist acts it means stopping them with minimal impact to air travel. After all you could stop all terrorist attacks on planes by banning all commercial air travel - but this is hardly an effective solution. The reason that TSA are ineffective is that they cause a massive inconvenience for travellers and, of all the terrorist plots caught, none (to my knowledge) have been caught by their security measures and all have been caught by better intelligence. This is clear evidence that intelligence is the most effective way to solve the problem since it has close to zero impact on the traveller and has been shown to work.
Re:Disturbing to see TSA still behind the curve. (Score:3, Insightful)
ahh yes weed - i'm sure mythbusters can figure out how to take blow a plane up with that.. question is .. could the old lady?