Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security Transportation Technology

TSA Investigates... People Who Complain About TSA 379

Posted by Soulskill
from the stay-classy-guys dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 'behavioral indicators' that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially 'high risk' passengers at the nation's airports, and report that arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator TSA officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists. When combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny. 'Expressing your contempt about airport procedures — that's a First Amendment-protected right,' says Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. 'It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate.' Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Investigates... People Who Complain About TSA

Comments Filter:
  • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Friday April 15, 2011 @04:56PM (#35834038) Journal

    ...and it's getting boring to have to read things which imply it.

    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:05PM (#35834138) Homepage

      Depends on your point of view.
      Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.

      • by ackthpt (218170)

        Depends on your point of view.
        Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.

        As evidenced throughout North Africa, Middle East and even China, at the moment. Yup. Those tyrants are very wary of anyone who so much as utters a disparaging wort about their cousin having a bad go with the local constabulary.

        I'll take two lumps, please. Sweets to the sweet I always say.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HermMunster (972336)

        This is the government attacking it's citizens over their opinions and beliefs, nearly making it an illegal act. That's fascism.

        • by judoguy (534886) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:35PM (#35834492) Homepage

          This is the government attacking it's citizens over their opinions and beliefs, nearly making it an illegal act. That's fascism.

          There's nothing specifically fascist about this. The same could be said for Socialist or Communist. Rather, it's generic totalitarianism.

          I wish people would stop using "Fascist" for "Evil". It's only one of several evil forms of government.

          • Fascists don't like dissenters. But not every system that has a problem with dissenters is fascism.

            Complaining too much? Denying that witches exist? - That was one of the things listed as indicators for being a witch.

            The Spanish Inquisition (TSI) used to have some extra questions for them.

      • Like Chechneya... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:56PM (#35834750)

        > Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.

        Not for the most part. Mostly they just find it annoying and respond by being authoritarian because they're pissed off. When reporters report on torture in Chechneya by the local strongman, they get killed because they're a pain to him. Not because the guy who tortures people every day is somehow afraid of them. He *should* be afraid of them. But mostly he's pissed at them. And he runs the apparatus of the state. He's not afraid of them--at most he's afraid that his bosses will replace him if anybody cares about new public knowledge that Russia sponsors terrorism.

        Similarly (and obviously very differently, since most TSA employees are good people who are not actively torturing lots of innocent civilians, but similarly for the point about whether terror is inspired), TSA employees, like cops, are generally not terrified by dissident speech. They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.

        • by element-o.p. (939033) on Friday April 15, 2011 @07:26PM (#35835696) Homepage

          ...since most TSA employees are good people...

          Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess. I just can't see how a "good person" could fondle people in an airport without puking.

          They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.

          Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.

          • by Tablizer (95088)

            Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.

            They should have Groping and Non-Groping flights so peo

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:57PM (#35834776)

      the TSA's purpose is not stopping terrorists...

      Q: How many terrorists has the TSA caught?
      A: ZERO

      Q: How many terrorist attacks has the TSA stopped?
      A: ZERO

      For proof, the answer is obvious - a terrorist doesn't just decide that airplanes are too well protected so they are going to give up on the idea of causing mayhem, they will just look for easier targets like shopping malls, movie theaters, concerts, etc. Since we have had zero attacks on alternate targets, its clear the TSA isn't protecting airplanes from anyone.

      The worst we've seen have been run-of-the-mill lone gunmen type like the Ft Hood shooter and the DC sniper. Everybody else, like the Times Square bomber have been so incompetent they couldn't even build a working bomb and most of those convicted have been guilty of nothing more than talking trash within the earshot of a snitch looking to get criminal charges dropped in exchange for narcing out someone, anyone.

      • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @01:30AM (#35837538) Homepage

        It's even worse than that. Of the several attempted airline bombings that occured since 9/11, not a single one was stopped because the would be terrorist was caught during pre-flight screening. In every single case, they managed to get the bomb past the TSA and were only foiled due to the intervention of other passengers on the flight.

  • So ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Friday April 15, 2011 @04:56PM (#35834042)
    So all I need to do to get felt up by a guy who's clearly as unhappy about it as I am is to bitch about the lines at the airport and how poorly the TSA's uniforms fit? Where do I sign up again?
    • Pick the line with cutest guy, *then* complain ;)
    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      I wouldn't bother. Those guys rarely call the next day.

    • Re:So ... (Score:4, Funny)

      by thegarbz (1787294) on Friday April 15, 2011 @06:03PM (#35834866)

      Wait you need to bitch about the guy to get felt up? I though that you get felt up unless you follow their very specific guidlines:

      - Don't look TSA agents in the eye
      - Don't talk to TSA agents
      - Don't slouch or walk too upright
      - Don't have a beard
      - Don't be cleanly shaven
      - Don't breath deeply or sigh
      - Don't let your heartrate exceed 70bpm

      And pray to god that dime in your pocket doesn't set off the metal detector or it's straight into the room with the rubber glove for you.

      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        No different from being in a prison then - except that in a prison the guards don't give a crap if your heartrate exceeds 70bpm.

        And there is nothing to stop the terrorists from sending in a few decoy people that has a very annoying behavior just to numb the minds of the TSA people. In a chaotic situation it's a lot easier to slip under the radar.

        One person complaining loudly about the scan/pat-down, another messing up the metal detector by acting very distracted a third with a weird bag that gives suspect s

  • Yep... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 15, 2011 @04:57PM (#35834048)

    One could assume from this that the TSA is here to teach us to not talk back to the Authority, rather than to actually catch terrorists.

    • Re:Yep... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Caradoc (15903) on Friday April 15, 2011 @06:01PM (#35834840) Homepage
      If you ask a TSA employee, their job is not catching terrorists. Their job is preventing "dangerous items" from getting onto an aircraft. The problem is that if that really is their job, they're horrifically bad at it. They've missed box cutters, knives, a brick of primers for handloading, multiple handguns, Jamie Hyneman's 12" razor blades, and assorted other items I'd consider far more threatening than the leather bookmarks and silver cake servers they've been confiscating and fining people for. They're awfully quick to claim "success" when they find someone with a doobie tucked into their shorts, though. My guess is that their publicly stated mission of "Transportation Safety" has taken a back seat to their new unstated mission of "drug interdictment." Additionally, looking at pure statistics, in any interaction between the TSA and a single passenger it is almost infinitely more likely that the TSA employee is a thief, rapist, kidnapper, or bully than that the passenger is an actual terrorist bent on mayhem during the flight. They don't actually contribute measurably to "transportation safety." So why should we put up with their theatre?
      • TSA jobs (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday April 15, 2011 @08:49PM (#35836220)

        If you ask a TSA employee, their job is not catching terrorists. Their job is preventing "dangerous items" from getting onto an aircraft. The problem is that if that really is their job, they're horrifically bad at it.

        That's not their job.

        TSA was founded for several purposes:
        1. To shift the power over airport security to the federal government (several subpurposes to this -- among them shifting responsibility in the case of another failure, and creating a single point of influence for contractors to target.)
        2. To, simply by being created, be a visible act of "doing something", regardless of substantive effectiveness or lack thereof, in the immediate, wake of a major terrorist attack, and
        3. To condition the public to accept greater arbitrary intrusions on personal liberty.

        #2 was a short term goal and was probably reasonably successful (it was a political measure, and there were lots of others at the same time, so its pretty hard to isolate its effectiveness); #1 was obviously successful in general (and its subpurposes seem to have been achieved effectively). Despite some pushback over some measures, #3 seems to have been successful at least in the context in which TSA operates (though its less clear how successful it has been at conditioning the public to except more intrusion generally.)

    • Re:Yep... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drooling-dog (189103) on Friday April 15, 2011 @07:37PM (#35835770)

      In case any of us hadn't noticed, all of this authoritarian war-on-terrorism crap is taking place at a time when the rights and economic well-being of everyone in the middle class on down is under attack. It doesn't require a big stretch of the imagination to realize that this may all be in anticipation of the civil unrest and disobedience that often accompanies this kind of class warfare from above.

  • by Dutchmaan (442553) on Friday April 15, 2011 @04:57PM (#35834054) Homepage
    If you're not guilty then you won't have anything to hide. ( which, ironically, I think we should apply generously to politicians/corporations )
    • Ah, but if you believe in, and use the sociolegal concepts of privacy you CAN'T have NOTHING to hide whatsoever, since privacy is a form of concealment.
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Friday April 15, 2011 @04:59PM (#35834060)
    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength...
    • Facecrime (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength...

      Wrong quote.

      "Facecrime: An indication that a person is guilty of thoughtcrime based on their facial expression."

      The article isn't about surveillance, it's about BDOs and SPOT [flyertalk.com] agents on the lookout for facecriminals.

      "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of mutt

  • Poke the tiger with a stick, and you get bitten.
    • Tiger yes. a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" no.

      See, you're giving the government more power than it deserves. But alas, we get the government we deserve.

      • by sumdumass (711423)

        You realize that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" didn't even come around until 100 years after the country was founded and it was in a speech commemorating the dead in a battle during the civil war right? You know, the war where one side was fighting to remove themselves from the ruling of the federal government who wasn't listening to them and the other side was fighting to keep them under control of it?

        It's no wonder that one liners get so much attention, but I don't think it mea

    • Ignore the tiger, and you get eaten.
  • by ticketswapz (1974628) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:00PM (#35834074) Homepage
    Please Remove Your Shoes In this documentary, it shows the agreement between the FAA and airlines industries to put security at a low priority while getting passengers on planes as quickly as possible was the highest priority. A "red team" agent who audits security put a bomb in a suitcase, threw clothes on it and put a water bottle on top of the clothes. The screener detected the bag, opened it up, confiscated the water bottle and allowed the bag to go through. TSA agents complained because he "thought outside the box" and invalidated the test because it was "unfair" to their procedures on how to audit security. This documentary is from ex/current TSA, FAA, and air marshal agents. Did you know the TSA was more interested in having an air marshal dress code than actually "blending in" on the plane? The guy in a suit and tie sitting on the plane to Hawaii was a dead giveaway when everyone else was dressed appropriately.
    • by JWSmythe (446288) <.jwsmythe. .at. .jwsmythe.com.> on Friday April 15, 2011 @06:08PM (#35834932) Homepage Journal

          Actually, I've had the pleasure of sitting by a few air marshals. It didn't come up in conversation, but when they're using a government issued computer, and looking at training photos, or reading documents that have a security clearance, it becomes more obvious. And ya, the sports coat and ankle holster are dead giveaways.

          Hmmm.. Thinking about it, half the time I dress for business. Those trips, I'm getting off the plane and then to a meeting of some sort. When dressed like that, I'm treated very well and expedited through the line. t-shirt and jeans usually gets me a secondary screening.

          I guess a crew cut and business dress clothes are a dead giveaway that I'm an agent of some sort.

          I was doing some traveling with a coworker for a while. I started to play a game with him. It was "watch their behavior" game. Dress clothes? No problem. Casual clothes, problems. I only wore casual when we had plenty of time for the flight, as it'd add about 15 minutes for me at the checkpoint. Hey, for every minute they're harassing me, that's another minute they aren't harassing someone else. I can deal with verbal abuse, obtuse questioning, and a bit of molestation. If you close your eyes, it's like being at a massage parlor, except without the happy ending.

      • I went to Thailand for about two months last summer. I was just off a 36-hour flight (including a long layover) so I looked terrible, and I was wearing casual clothes. That, combined with that I apparently didn't have a good reason for going there according to them (I was just on vacation after finishing school and told them as such; I don't drink, use drugs or use prostitutes, I'm about the cleanest person possible coming off the plane from Thailand but they don't know that...) meant I was sent to secondar

  • Well duh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:01PM (#35834088) Homepage
    Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in.

    This seems like the most obvious flaw in reasoning, and probably didn't require expert research to predict. What nefarious character is going to draw attention to themselves when trying to get away with something evil? This didn't stand out as a "duh" to the folks crafting this list? That scares me too... assuming the goal of these criteria was to catch the bad guys, of course.
    • Sure it does 'cause no one believes amateurs right?
      All the experts have to do is look at what the amateurs are doing and replicate what works but with their aura of authority.

    • Actually, consider how magic tricks are pulled off. Through distraction. If you intentionally draw attention to something, you can oftentimes slip something else by unnoticed. Not, that I think this is the reasoning the TSA used.
    • Re:Well duh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:54PM (#35834720)

      If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective. Then they can move the security check points outside the terminal, then those get blown up. Then move them off property and check all the people before allowing them in to the airport, then car bomb gets that.

      The worst thing we ever did was change our behavior and way of life after the hijackings in the 70's and obviously after 9/11. We showed the people who would do such things that we will modify our behavior in a predicable fashion based on their actions - a very bad idea. We are now in a reactive posture. The thing that's even worse is listening to the morons who travel talk about how the "security" measures make them feel safe. Really? I have a tiger repelling rock I'd like to sell you...

      I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.

      The preceding is a real quote, many of you know who said it, but if not, Google it...

      And for the record, fuck the TSA. By all means, investigate me. I have the ACLU's phone number right here ready to go... I've said as much directly to my congressman and senators

      • by digitig (1056110)

        If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective.

        I work a lot at airports, and the security for staff can be tougher than the security for passengers (although the lines tend to be shorter). It's a real pain in the backside when you really do have to take tools through.

  • The real terrorists. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Who are the real terrorists? I'm not sure about you, but I'm almost afraid to fly.

    As for "rights" ... you don't have any "rights" when it comes to the TSA.

    • by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:56PM (#35834748)
      I don't fly any longer, because I'm almost certain that I'd get picked for screening and I refuse to submit to the machine or a manual search, and I would assert my 4th amendment rights if they attempted such and probably end up in jail for doing so. The fucking bastards.
  • So if you RTFA, you'll notice that the '20th Hijacker' (Mohammed al-Qahtani) was caught because the TSA agent became suspicious (for whatever reason, probably profiling if I had my guess), asked why he didn't have a return flight ticket, and the hijacker became very angry and confrontational about it.

    Ten years later, getting angry about security is now on the list of things to look out for. From a pencil-pusher's standpoint it seems an almost reasonable thing to add to the list, but I still don't like it.
    • Re:Misguided Rules (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sangreal66 (740295) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:30PM (#35834412)

      The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.

      The AAPD asked numerous questions concerning the case. I explained that apart from not having a return ticket and possibly not having sufficient funds, the subject appeared to be malafide. I further explained to the AAPD that when the subject looked at me, I felt a bone chilling cold effect. The bottom line is, “He gave me the creeps”.

      Full Testimony: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_melendez.htm [9-11commission.gov]

    • Anything that cannot be separated from revenge-by-cop is something that I question in the utmost terms.

      I.e., if it resembles someone complaining about the IRS and then getting audited, I call it a likely government abuse, no matter the "justification".

      C//

  • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:03PM (#35834118) Homepage Journal

    >_>

    Well, this is certainly the finest pat-down, X-Ray scan, cavity search and bowl of hot grits down the shorts I've ever experienced at SFO! I feel like flying every week!

    Terror Alert Elevated from Plaid to Paisley

    nab scuffle throw-down hammer-lock vulcan-death-grip

    Ahhh, nooooooo! I was sincere! Really!

  • X not intended to be a factual statement.
  • Does this report honestly surprise anybody?

    You have idiot politicians supervising idiot bureaucrats who supervise idiot workers carrying out idiot policies upon idiot people who accept it without question. Anybody who does question it is a real threat to the idiots who are only smart enough to protect their own jobs, not the country.

  • The TSA is positively Orwellian. They behave as if they are playing out lines from 1984
  • by pz (113803) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:16PM (#35834226) Journal

    Interestingly enough, some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."

    No kidding. As someone trying to evade detection in a crowd I could (a) do something that draws attention, or (b) try to be as unremarkable as possible and take steps to make any interaction dull and quickly forgotten. The first is more likely to bring the authorities my way, and the second is less likely. So ... let's see ... I'm going to ... wait, wait, don't tell me ... I'll pick ... um ...

    (Warning, this post contains high concentrations of sarcasm. Use with appropriate caution.)

  • Everybody I know who flies complains about the TSA.

    So the TSA investigates everybody? Now we're back to the same absurdity as "everybody does something embarassing on FaceBook, so don't hire anybody".

    Oh nevermind. Keep on with the taxpayer funded elephant repellant...

    • by espiesp (1251084)

      Good one but in truth virtually nobody complains at the actual checkpoint, to TSA people. I fly a lot more than most people, generally at least twice a month. My experience is in general everybody falls in line, does what they are told and gets the hell out of there as fast as possible. Rare is the case when somebody is outwardly angry. Even people who have to dump out entire bags of over 3.4oz size toiletries do so with a smile and only complain once they've made it through.

      So yes, somebody who is bitching

  • by NovaHorizon (1300173) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:18PM (#35834250)

    This is the United States of America. Anyone who doesn't complain about even the slightest inconvenience obviously is not from here. So why would they check the people who do complain when that's the American way?

  • in soviet Russia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:21PM (#35834290)

    Complaining got you send to gulag.

  • by jasonwc (939262) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:27PM (#35834364)

    According to CNN, the TSA is actually more ineffective than I initially thought:

    False Positives-

    Members of Congress also expressed concern about the number of "false positives" -- people flagged for additional screening that resulted in nothing being found. For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified, Willis said. At random screening, for every person correctly identified, 794 were misidentified.

    Effectiveness at detecting terrorists-

    Experts agree that the fact that there is an extremely small number of terrorists makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral observation programs. The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified. But it is not known if the behavior detection officers were working at the time, the agency said.

    So, in the best case scenario, for every person ultimately charged with a crime (not necessarily convicted) 86 are misidentified. And that is using "trained" behavioral analysts. Most TSA searches are random, which results in one charge for every 794 false positives. Note also that nearly 40% of the charges are immigration related. Most of the rest are probably drug related.

    The TSA can't point to a single incident where its random searches or behavioral analysis actually has prevented a terrorist attack. Despite their utter failure, the TSA plans to spend another $1.2 billion over the course of five years on behavior analysis techniques.

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/index.html?hpt=C1 [cnn.com]

    • by jasonwc (939262)

      Just to be clear, the paragraphs starting with "Members of Congress" and "Experts agree" are direct quotations from CNN. The remainder of the post contains my opinion. Sorry for any confusion.

  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:31PM (#35834436)

    "saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in."

    Why did you have to tell them that? Now they'll consider everyone blending in to be potential al-Qaeda terrorists.

  • saying an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in

    Can I haz the ISBN?

  • by stimpleton (732392) on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:50PM (#35834678)
    Interesting. I know first hand that detective instruction and manuals state that one should focus on those in an investigation that are overly compliant when searching for suspects.

    It is common sense anyway? When you cold call a neigborhood, those that have nothing to hide, invariably people are hostile to anything beyond "have you seen anyone suspicious out on the street."

    "Where were you on x date?" and things go rapidly downhill. Normal people get upset and start making a fuss.
  • Dear America: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neoevans (179332) <neoevans AT gmail DOT com> on Friday April 15, 2011 @05:51PM (#35834680) Homepage

    1984 was not an instruction manual.

    Sincerely,

    The rest of the World.

  • ...who never cause any trouble: until they blow the place uP!

    That's how you can tell them from the Americans -- they always bitch.
  • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Friday April 15, 2011 @06:37PM (#35835258) Homepage Journal

    He's a TSA agent, airport annoyance specialist style.
    A relative by marriage, I hasten to point out.

    He's a fat lazy idiot and was incompetent at his other jobs. And he's now a TSA agent.

    I'm not saying these two things are related, necessarily.

  • by Vitriol+Angst (458300) on Friday April 15, 2011 @09:11PM (#35836318)

    Instead of the Million-dollar scanner, I choose to get the "pat down." I don't complain, in fact -- just the opposite.

    I'm not sure if I get on the security list or not, but my involuntary groans of pleasure, sure seem to BOTHER them a lot.

    Try going back through security, and if questioned, say, "I'm not sure if I was searched well enough the first time." Get some friends with torn clothing, and whisper to each other about your "favorite" inspector.

    Ask them if they are coming out with a "Hunks of TSA" calendar.

    If we don't let terrorists on the plane -- they'll just be blowing us up in the parking lot anyway. /sarcasm

  • by Caradoc (15903) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:21AM (#35840010) Homepage
    I've often wondered why the TSA's "Behavioral Detection" crap can't detect thieves like Brown, [gadling.com] Burton, Simmons, [nydailynews.com] Defelis, Noukeo, [nbcmiami.com] Burley, [fox16.com] German, [commercialappeal.com] Persad, Webb, [channel6newsonline.com] Pepper, [nwsource.com] and Arato, [go.com] or actual sex offenders like Sean Shanahan [myfoxboston.com] and Charles Henry Bennett [nydailynews.com], or complete suicidal whackjobs like Diego Gonzales [kob.com] who was an actual TSA BDO. Shouldn't his fellow BDOs have noticed... I don't know... something wrong?

Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...