TSA Screening Barely Working Better Than Chance 337
rwise2112 writes "The General Accounting Office (GAO) has completed a study of the TSAs SPOT (Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques) program and found the program is only slightly better than chance at finding criminals. Given that the TSA has spent almost a billion dollars on the program, that's a pretty poor record. As a result, the GAO is requesting that both Congress and the president withhold funding from the program until the TSA can demonstrate its effectiveness."
Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck 'em. Disband that shit ASAP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn............
I will say that the TSA will spend a little extra time on males with olive skin....Sure my olive skin is from my Cherokee heritage, but that is besides the point. The fact that they are still below chance suggests that males with olive skin aren't criminals more often than chance.
lolololololololol
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
as a 7' tall man of german descent, I always get "randomly" chosen as well. I assure you it's not so much the "olive skin" as it is the "different" or "standing out for any reason".. which is also deplorable and ineffective for the task at hand.
And yes, no option to opt out of all the still beta FBS
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:4, Interesting)
Really - I mean if your intent is to destroy a plane you're riding on then why *not* just use an internal explosive, whether fluid or surgically implanted. You'll probably still have one of the less painful deaths associated with the destruction.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you can't implant enough to be certain of causing destruction of the plane? It's an interesting question. The fluids thing is actually based on a real threat from binary liquid explosives so the ban on larger bottles is rational. The other thing is that the screening process was developed in Israel and has been found effective in identifying terrorists. It's hard to find an actual terrorist bent on killing in order to test the method but Israeli experience is a good indicator.
The point is that p
That's No Gatorade (Score:3)
They're not banning gatorade because it's dangerous - they're banning it because there are liquid explosives that you can dye unnaturally fluorescent colors and carry in a Gatorade bottle.
On the other hand, even pre-9/11 you couldn't bring an open beer onto a plane at most airports, because the US has silly laws about such things. Even though there's a bar in the airport right across from your gate, that'll give you your beer in a to-go cup so you can drink it at the gate while waiting for your plane.
Re: (Score:3)
No sir. This McDonalds cup is full of coke, not beer. No no no, not that kind of coke...
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Informative)
Fuck 'em. Disband that shit ASAP.
I tend to lean your way on that too. Airlines, buss lines, etc. should be responsible for the security of their own equipment and customers (after said customers are off the street, out of the government airport, and into the airplanes, of course).
In Brendan I. Koerner's The Skies Belong To Us he touched on that trend beginning in 1972, when some airlines were beginning their own security measures. That all went out the window and the feds took over after the threat by hijackers of Southern Airways flight 49 [wikipedia.org] threatened to crash the plane into the reactor building of Oak Ridge National Labs.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, with the addition of locks to cockpit doors and passenger awareness of the problem, we can roll the rest back to pre 9/11 levels. It worked just fine for the most part, and the locks and passengers no longer being instructed to sit quietly and enjoy the stopover in Cuba would have taken care of 9/11 just fine.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
But, this is an accurate assessment. it became obvious within days of the attacks that these two measures were about the only thing that would have made a difference. Every thing else is pure theater.
TSA - sky nazis by any other name... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are suggesting that airport security is an easy problem to solve. I suspect this is very wrong [google.com].
I'm no fan of the TSA, but let's not be stupid here - you have to process millions of almost-all-innocent people in the search of a few actual suspects, who will have taken great steps to evade detection, and who did so in the full knowledge of all your techniques. It's not an "A couple of X should be able to take care of that" problem.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Informative)
They even figured it out on 9/11. Remember there was a 4th plane.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
That plane was full of hero's. They knew they were dead, they called family and said goodbye. They were determined that they would not be used to kill thousands.
As others have said, the TSA hasn't stopped anything. There have been two major incidents since 9/11 where terrorists boarded planes with bombs. Those terrorists weren't stopped by billion dollar security measures, they were stopped by other passengers beating the shit out of them. Between the air marshals and the other passengers I don't believe terrorists could take another plane unless they controlled more than 50% of the seats.
Disband the TSA. It's a terrible waste of money and a downright infringement of rights.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Informative)
Since 2001, the bands used by cell phones have changed and the power requirements of the antennae have changed as well. Due to more concurrent users, you need more cell towers to re-use the frequencies, with the added benefit of a shorter transmission distance and less power required on the cell phone itself to do that transmission. In 2001, cell phones still had the analog bands that stretched city-wide.
You are a conspiracy nut.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you can. Period. You're not supposed to, 'cause it tends to screw up the cell towers, and it may also interfere with the working of the plane's radios. But if nobody stops you from doing it, it works.
Come on, conspiacy nutter, don't let conspiracy sites do your thinking for you. Think for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, with the addition of locks to cockpit doors and passenger awareness of the problem, we can roll the rest back to pre 9/11 levels. It worked just fine for the most part, and the locks and passengers no longer being instructed to sit quietly and enjoy the stopover in Cuba would have taken care of 9/11 just fine.
That was not one mentioned in Skies, but it is one that El Al implemented back around then and, as you say, one of the most effective measures enacted. Arming pilots is another effective layer of security too (mentioned in the book).
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm fine with armed pilots. They should be given frangible bullets suitable for use on aircraft./p
Re: (Score:3)
I am not. Reason: how would the pilots use their guns? In order to use a gun the pilots need to open the cockpit door. Think about what could happen if the cockpit doors were opened during an attempted hijacking.
Willey E coyote, supra-genius (Score:4, Funny)
Ignobel Prize (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, a much simpler solution might be a trap door in front of the door...
I believe you were joking but look at the 2013 winner of the Ignobel prize for safety engineering [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
The gun would be the last line of defense should someone manage to force the door open. They should certainly not unlock the door.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fine with armed pilots. They should be given frangible bullets suitable for use on aircraft./p
Frangible bullets suck. Pilots should be armed with jacketed hollow points, the same thing air marshals and every other sort of law enforcement carries.
Frangible bullets are lousy manstoppers. They tend to make wounds that are wide and shallow. Very ugly, but without enough penetration to reach major blood vessels they have no real effect on an attacker who doesn't decide to helpfully fall down and lie still. And yet they still penetrate walls and such much more than we'd like -- and would have absolutely no trouble blowing through the thin aluminum skin of an airplane.
The bottom line with bullets is that if they have enough penetration to be useful at stopping a person, they're going to be able to pass through a few walls.
But, really, it's not a problem. Airplanes aren't airtight to begin with. They leak air all the time when "pressurized", but continue pumping more in to maintain the desired pressure. Punch a few half-inch holes in the skin and the pumps will just compensate by increasing the flow a bit.
The pilots should be armed with standard defensive handguns and ammunition as a last resort in case the hijackers manage to get through the locked door before the passengers beat them to death. It's unlikely they'll need their guns, but it's better to have them and not need them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
that's mostly what I meant by compliance training.
obey our orders. or else!
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone should watch 'Please Remove Your Shoes' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1600841/ [imdb.com] as the Israelis do it MUCH better
Re: (Score:3)
While that scenario was popular in '70s dramas, it has not actually happened on a jetliner. There is still the copilot and in an emergency, one of the pilots could unlock the door before passing out.
The closest to that was a 2 seater where the pilot suffered a heart attack and the passenger managed a survivable crash on the runway.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, pilots falling asleep at the controls, in some cases both at once, is one of the more genuinely terrifying aspects of modern aviation. It reportedly happens often [reuters.com], and the pilots' unions are vocal about the lack of adequate rest between cockpit hours. The only reason we don't hear more about it is because modern planes are (at the risk of grossly oversimplifying) basically flying themselves for much of their journey, so it's not as if they suddenly fall from the sky if someone dozes off for a couple of minutes mid-journey when there's nothing anywhere nearby.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason we don't hear more about it is because modern planes are (at the risk of grossly oversimplifying) basically flying themselves for much of their journey, so it's not as if they suddenly fall from the sky if someone dozes off for a couple of minutes mid-journey when there's nothing anywhere nearby.
I believe that every part of a commercial flight can now be done by autopilot, and it's just safety regulations that actually require a human pilot on the aircraft.
I also know that they have successfully tested remote flying of an aircraft through takeoff, flight, and landing... they posted about it on Slashdot a few weeks ago. That would also be an option for airlines to reduce the number of pilots required. *most* of a flight is autopilot to begin with, so having somebody there to take the controls for ta
landing difficult, flying easy until something (Score:2)
The cruise portion of the flight can be handled by autopilot, 98% of the time. Landing is a totally different matter. Landing is HARD. During my first flight lesson, I flew figure eights at altitude. I never could manage to learn to land safely. Landing requires a skilled pilot.
Also, while 98% of the cruise can be handled by the autopilot, there's another 2% that can't. Shit happens, just like with any other activity, and when shit happens aboard an airliner you want a good pilot handling the situation.
T
Re:landing difficult, flying easy until something (Score:4, Informative)
Not true.
I won't go into details about Autoland here, as you can read the Wikipedia link below. The takeaway is that Autoland has triple redundancy through the entire control and sensing systems, and will continue to function even if it has lost 2 out of 3 of any device in the workflow.
"During system design, the predicted reliability numbers for the individual equipment which makes up the entire autoland system (sensors, computers, controls, and so forth) are combined and an overall probability of failure is calculated. As the "threat" exists primarily during the flare through roll-out, this "exposure time" is used and the overall failure probability must be less than one in a million.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland#Autoland_for_civil_aviation [wikipedia.org]
With regards to takeoff, I admit, this is the most vulnerable point of the flight (limited or lost forward thrust, extremely limited altitude). This will still be automated in good time though, as software won't panic. It'll be able to determine just how much the aircraft can still travel with limited or no power, and the safest area to put down.
try it, I have. Autoland okay in no wind but fog (Score:3, Insightful)
Autoland is useful when there's little flying to be done because there's little to no wind, little traffic, an uncomplicated approach, but the pilot can't see. That's when radar based systems have the advantage, when visibility is poor.
I've landed a plane a few times, with help from my instructor. You read Wikipedia. You go land a few and then come back and tell us about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if I'd want locked doors on the cockpit. What if the pilots become incapacitated like in the movie "Airplane!"? Imagine being a passenger on a plane that has become pilotless but nobody can do anything about it because the cockpit is barricaded.
Just what do you think anybody could really do? These are jets that we are talking about. It's not that easy with no training whatsoever to just fly and land a plane.
I say have nothing less than a bulkhead between the cockpit and the cabin that is impossible to open during pressurized flight. It would require equalized pressure between the outside of the plane, cockpit, and passenger area to remove the bulkheads.
There is a reason why there is a co-pilot. Plenty of instances in which the pilot had a heart at
Re:yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
Had flight 93 had a lock on the cockpit door (a measure that I DID say is appropriate), it wouldn't have crashed at all. None of the other planes would have crashed either had they had locks. The problem is entirely solvable by a trip to the hardware store.
As for weapons, one of those dinner plate sized belt buckles will mess you up before you can even get close enough to someone to harm them with a box cutter.
So yes, I absolutely positively *DO* advocate a return to pre 9/11 when people were free(ish).
If you like, the cabin crew can have guns.,/p>
Re:yes and no (Score:4, Insightful)
Giving guns to the cabin crew sounds like a terrible idea. Then, instead of having to try to sneak a weapon onto the plane (possibly getting caught, which could ruin any sort of 9/11 style simultaneous multi-plane conspiracy), the terrorists merely need to overpower a crew member to obtain a firearm.
It would also discriminate against pilots who are pacifists, and would refuse to operate a weapon.
Not to mention the risk of a pilot going postal with a gun. And there have been several instances of pilots flipping. They have a high stress job, abnormal sleep patterns, and it's expected that they have a higher risk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A terrorist with brains still has his edged weapon onboard. A piece of broken glass makes a fine weapon and passengers are free to bring laptops, cellphones, and tablets with glass screens aboard. Break the screen, extract a nice glass shard and all you need is a handle.
Airport security is just a big wank. Think how many people that yahoo at LAX could have killed if he really wanted to. Dozens of people trapped like cattle in the security line waiting for be mowed down.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
of course.
but you DO realize that the security theater is not about security; its about compliance training for 'citizens'.
seriously, its what the main unwritten goal is about. that, and pork barreling money to pet projects for lawmakers (kickbacks).
arguing that the TSA does not make us safe is a non-starter. no one with control or power will listen to you.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
the point of TSA screening isn't to search for dangerous items. the point is to intimidate the populace into submission to an autocratic state. I agree with P, fuck 'em.
Mission Accomplished! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. They don't have to catch criminals and terrorists significantly more often than chance, and even catching them less often than chance is just fine, as long as most people submit to the bullies and they can beat up the ones who don't. (Occasionally they fail, like the other week when some loser decided to shoot up the TSA because he had a problem with authority.)
I'm skeptical about the "scientific study", though, because TSA is almost never actually dealing with terrorists; they're much more likely to be dealing with people who are carrying politically incorrect plants and pharmaceuticals, or reading politically incorrect books, or worrying about the TSA thugs rooting through the underwear in their carryon bags.
Re:Fuck the TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we need safety, or do we need the TSA? The correlation is a bit weak.
Magic rock. (Score:5, Insightful)
Purpose of the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither Congress nor the President will withhold funding because the purpose and effectiveness of the TSA is not defined by how many criminals it catches. The purpose, rather, is to condition the American public to accept ever increasing government restrictions on our various freedoms. By that measure, the TSA is reasonably effective.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pfffft...
It's apparent that you and most of the other slashtards don't understand bureaucracy. PAY ATTENTION. No one wants to take away your rights because none of you are important enough and it's too much work. Instead, the people behind the TSA, NSA, and other parts of the runaway government want the same thing that everyone else wants, Republican or Democrat, "Conservative" or "Liberal", they want more money, more power, and more importance.
And none of you fools understand that this is just as bad as
Re: (Score:3)
you know I'm right
And as can be inferred from that statement, able to read minds too. Impressive.
Re:Purpose of the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's not. Don't be stupid. There's no grand conspiracy out to get you. The TSA exists because after 9/11 people demanded that the government do something to make us safer. And so the politicians created this security theater, because it's what the voters wanted.
And they still do want it, as the TSA gets excellent approval ratings [gallup.com]. They don't know or care that it's just theater, they just want to feel safe.
It's as simple as that. The people want to feel safe, so an organization was created to help them feel safe, even if it doesn't actually make them safe. And contrary to the ravings of the conspiracy theorists, this IS a democracy. The people get what they want, for better or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up... TSA is about the appearance of security first. Actual security is a distant second or third priority.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not. Don't be stupid. There's no grand conspiracy out to get you.
You apparently haven't been reading the news.
The TSA exists because after 9/11 people demanded that the government do something to make us safer.
Really?
Who exactly demanded that, other than the usual suspects in government who always want more power?
Re:Purpose of the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
I have read the news, and clearly I pay closer attention than you. I repeat: there is no grand conspiracy out to get you. The US government is run by TENS OF THOUSANDS of people, who are often fighting against each other. You think that's all an act? You think that many people, working over so many decades, could pull something like that off without leaks? No. It's not possible.
People are people. Most people think they have good ideas about how to run things. These aren't wannabe tyrants. They legitimately believe their ideas would make life better. You are probably one of these people.
Now, some of those people don't just daydream, they actually try to put their ideas into action. So they get involved. They get on their local school board, or run for mayor, or whatever. If things go well, they try to move up the ladder, to a position where they could spread their good ideas to more people.
At some point, they run into other people, who have different ideas. They argue, and fight, and try to convince the public to side with them. In order to win over the public, they do things that they might not really believe in. And like all people, when they do something they don't believe in, they rationalize it. They convince themselves that it is for the best. You do this too. We all do.
If you can learn to set aside your hatred, and remind yourself that people are people, not comic book villains, the world will make a lot more sense. There's no big evil conspiracy, except within your own imagination.
Re:Purpose of the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
These aren't wannabe tyrants. They legitimately believe their ideas would make life better.
You may want to take a history lesson at some point. Go read about the fall of the Roman Republic and how it gradually morphed into a dictatorship. Almost every step along the way was a guy trying to "make things better for the common man," and many if not most of them actually had noble intentions. Take a look at the sequence, from Tiberius Gracchus and his brother Gaius, Marius, Sulla, and Cinna all the way to Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Caesar, most of them were "progressive" reformers, trying to help the downcast and improve the plight of people in Rome in general.
Plato knew this too, and placed democracy as just one step away from a dictatorship in his classification of governments. The quest to help people can easily turn to a quest for power (since the downtrodden tend to give away any power they have to someone who will given them anything)... and pretty soon you find yourself with a tyrant or at least a "noble, well-meaning" dictatorship at first.
All through a sequence of people with good intentions and ideas to "make the world better." So was Hitler. Seriously -- this is one place it might actually be appropriate to bring him up, along with just about every other wacko dictator in history. Almost all of them started from a place where they legitimately believed their ideas would make life better.
"Tyrants" don't have to be "wannabe." They just happen when somebody's "good ideas" turn out to be really bad for lots of people.
And like all people, when they do something they don't believe in, they rationalize it. They convince themselves that it is for the best. You do this too. We all do.
Yeah, the issue is that you need to draw the line somewhere. There has to be some action you can't rationalize just to make your vision for the world come true. Unfortunately, I seriously think that most people who have the initiative to get very far up the ladder in government usually are the people who don't have that "line," or at least it's so malleable depending on circumstances that they'll do whatever to maintain their position or power or ability to try out their "good ideas" for the world.
So, no, I don't and cannot rationalize the way "rights" have been rapidly redefined in the U.S. in recent years. Most of our public officials are clearly even embarrassed themselves by what they're doing, since they bury their actions in secret documents and clandestine actions or try to hide things in piles of legislation.
It doesn't take a grand conspiracy to erode rights, and it doesn't take a "wannabe tyrant" to end up with a really, really bad government. It just takes a series of gradual shifts, and people doing what they can to -- as you put it -- "spread their good ideas to more people."
The danger is when people like you fail to see that a sequence of such bad trends can accumulate into something really bad, without necessarily a grand conspiracy of any sort.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is run by TENS OF THOUSANDS of people,
no, it is most certainly NOT run by that many people.
there are a few dozen at the very top who pull the strings.
the rest are pawns.
you may not believe that there is a control element going on (you may be a false flag here, too, btw; you seem to argue pretty strongly in favor of the government...) but everyone else with half a brain seems to understand this pretty clearly.
Re: (Score:3)
These aren't wannabe tyrants. They legitimately believe their ideas would make life better.
They are actually the worst kind. As another comment already pointed out, most of the tyrants in history belong to this category.
And they are bad, really bad. Because they are driven by conviction. They think they are right. Those who know they're only in it for the money/power/pussy also know to get out when the going gets tough. The idealists, on the other hand, would rather see the world burn than step down, because they think they are right.
Re:Purpose of the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. Don't be stupid. There's no grand conspiracy out to get you.
Hmm... can you still say that with a straight face after the Edward Snowden stuff?
Look, I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist. I think the 9/11 "truthers" and the "birthers" and whoever else are mostly lunatics.
But when I first started hearing about all the crap that was loaded into the Patriot Act, it was pretty scary. And little-by-little, over the years, more and more crap about SECRET government power grabs has come out. After all the stuff with Snowden, etc., can you seriously go around calling people "stupid" who suggest that the government is gradually increasing its power grab into our rights?
I agree with you that the TSA is security theatre, and Americans wanted something that made them feel safer about flying. But that doesn't explain SECRET initiatives in the past decade or so created by the government that are intent on gradually eroding the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments (among others).
If these "rights overrides" were supposed to make us all feel better about how the government is protecting us, why the heck aren't they made public knowledge?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting that there is some secret group of government officials planning to take away our rights piece-by-piece. It's nothing so organized and calculated.
Instead, politicians are generally interested in two things: (1) getting re-elected, (2) having personal power.
Politicians are probably just as scared as many Americans are about having another terrorist attack -- at 9/11, it swung in the way of the incumbent administration, which convinced the People that its bungled attempts to be aware of the terrorists should be forgotten. Instead -- "Hey, look over there -- bad guy in Iraq! He must have some bad stuff. Let's go attack them!" Of course, there's oil interests and all sorts of other power/money crap tied up in that, but let's not get into that now.
The point is: the next time something really bad happens, the public could turn against incumbents. So, all the secret crap is a massive attempt at CYA. Hopefully lots of drones attacking apparent "terrorist civilians," the NSA spying on EVERYONE, etc. will be doing something... and if not, at least it's probably paying a lot of government cronies through contracts and such, who probably can help at election time. Even if they don't manage to prevent an attack, they could trot out all the stuff they did do.
And along the way, the government gradually ratchets up the power they're taking and consolidating, which doesn't generally make any government officials unhappy.
It's not a "grand conspiracy." But the power grabs are deliberate and often kept secret, as they erode our rights. So even if it's not an organized attempt to take away our rights, effectively it does condition us to gradually accept more "flexibility" about our rights (as the GP argued)... something which can be helpful at times for people who like to be in power.
And contrary to the ravings of the conspiracy theorists, this IS a democracy. The people get what they want, for better or worse.
Yeah, sort of. Any psychologist would tell you that people often tend to make bad choices for themselves. They may think they "want" something, but they really don't -- nevertheless, they keep making stupid choices.
Hence, Congress has had approval ratings in the toilet for almost as long as anyone can remember (generally excepting wartime, after 9/11, and such, when one has to be "patriotic" and support our Congressmen!). How is it possible that Congress can consistently have approval ratings in the 10-25% range (and even lower), yet incumbents generally keep getting reelected?
All it takes is a little stump speachifying and a little "bacon" to bring home to the district/state, and people say, "Yeah, let's keep this guy!"
Similarly, all it takes is some minor continuo
Re:Purpose of the TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no grand conspiracy out to get you.
Nor does there need to be - this erosion of freedom is far more pernicious than any plot hatched in a back room. The "it's for your own good", or worse, "it's for our own good", is corrosive. Every "security enhancement" for the sake of feelgood eats away at freedom. Every step is justified as being only a minor intrusion, and thought to be worth it because we supposedly live in dangerous times.
Re: (Score:2)
tsa exists largely now not for even security theater but as a jobs program - and like any jobs program the higher up you are in it the better you get paid and the more people are in it the more you get paid higher up in the chain.
and since they're selling a tiger repelling rock, there is no upper limit on the budget from TSA's viewpoint.
if it was just for feelgood, built with that purpose, it wouldn't be costing billions of dollars but rather just millions.
Re:Purpose of the TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131019/02322924936/accidentally-revealed-document-shows-tsa-doesnt-think-terrorists-are-plotting-to-attack-airplanes.shtml [techdirt.com]
Think of an internal and external papers please checkpoint for any other "legal" issues you have with your nation.
TSA's real purpose... (Score:4, Informative)
The TSA was founded to extend the welfare state. Why else would you create an agency that's sole purpose is to stack grey trays. Remember, the original name for the agency was The Tray Stackers of America. At the last minute, they were forced to change the name, but since their spiffy uniforms and badges were already on order they needed to keep with the "TSA" initials.
After all, if the TSA was really supposed to catch weapons, terrorists, etc. at the airports I believe that even the Feds could have set up a better system.
But what about the arts? (Score:5, Funny)
This is just another example of the government cutting funding for the arts. Sure, it may be security theatre but these days that is the only kind of theatre I see to have time for.
Maybe we can get the National Endowment for the Arts to pick up the slack. Or they could move to an NPR model and hold pledge drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Please become a stand-up comedian... No, even better, run for president. The world needs more fine comedy like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the correct response is "I find what you have to say very interesting, how can I sign up for your newsletter?"
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, comments like this are why I haven't given up on Slashdot completely! :)
It works just as well... (Score:2)
What we need (Score:2)
What we need is a serious application of SPOT remover.
Re: (Score:2)
but SPOT is telling us, humans, to "sit, roll over. good boy!"
Gratuitous South Park Clips (Score:3)
Random chance has nothing on the TSA (Score:2)
This was supposed to make the TSA less intrusive (Score:5, Informative)
The report isn't about the nudie machines or the crotch groping. This was a program designed to spot potential problems based on the way people act. If it worked, they'd ditch the zappers and replace it with eagle-eyed security guards.
But it doesn't work. Presumably, they spent a billion dollars because they really wanted it to work. This is, after all, patterned after the program that they use in Israel, which is very familiar with terrorism, and has been widely touted as better alternative. In Israel, though, it amounts largely to racial profiling, which has its own drawbacks (as the report points out).
This isn't about the effectiveness of the security theater, one way or the other. It's about something that was supposed to make the security less theatrical. Except it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
El Al can hire high-end, experienced intelligence operatives for this task. TSA obviously doesn't.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/10/01/elal-usat.htm#more
They can spend 10 minutes asking question to half the passengers of each flight.
Re: (Score:2)
is this again how intelligence doesn't scale with population, being also the reason for ballot machines?
i wish the story weren't bs (Score:5, Informative)
I love a good story about government ineffectiveness.
Unfortunately, this particular story is bull. Their conclusions are based on "meta-analysis of 400 studies over 60 years", not an analysis of the TSA's current procedures. They looked at studies on whether college students can tell when reach other are lying.
The TSA has some problems for sure, but this article doesn't address those.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:i wish you could read (Score:5, Informative)
It looked at the meta-analyses to see if there was any support at all to behavioral detection. It looked at the TSA data to see if the TSA could defend its own assertions. The few positive points were basically nullified by poor data collection.
Half of the GAO summary was devoted to the part of the story you ignored, which was the relevant part. It's like you can read, but chose not to for the middle half. The story you will love is that the TSA is inept at capturing relevant data. The GAO is capable of seeing through that.
Don't bother straining yourself, I'll even paste the words here so you can ignore them more easily.
To be fair to the TSA (Score:2)
Chance has been working pretty hard lately, and from what I hear he is very thorough.
Israel's airlines globally recognized as safest... (Score:3, Interesting)
for decades, and is a nation that much more frequently faces domestic terrorism. What are the chances they have a better, and cheaper method? Oops, they use common sense. Never mind.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.israel/ [cnn.com]
Re:Israel's airlines globally recognized as safest (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you think the Israeli method is cheaper? They spend about 10 times as much per passenger as we do:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/07/would_you_pay_25_for_71_seconds_of_scrutiny_in_an_airport [foreignpolicy.com]
Because they get something for ther money. (Score:3)
Our method doesn't work any better than flipping a coin, so ALL of our money is wasted. Any method that works better is therefore cheaper lol.
Ah, but the real test (Score:4, Insightful)
Random chance? (Score:3)
That means that for each 100 people abused by the TSA [libertymusings.com] or just detained for a deeper inspection, 50 were found guilty of something? Or must be read like it could be random chance throwing 100 dices and that all hit 6?
Anyway, if they are forced to improve numbers, they will find enough victims, after all everyone commits 3 felonies a day [wsj.com]
Why all the suprise? TSA is not about security. (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA is not about providing security, despite the word being in it's name. TSA is about the appearance of security..
If it was about security, they would have never spent a billion on such worthless tripe. They would have spent a billion buying blue gloves for pat downs, doing background checks and buying boat loads of video cameras to watch.
This was somebodies billion dollar boondoggle idea to try and sound like they where doing something.
I can hear them now... (Score:3)
"We have an Accountability Office?? How much does THAT cost??"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TSA Screening Barely Working Better Than Chance... (Score:3, Funny)
At finding criminals? (Score:2)
Good thing they spent a billion! (Score:2)
Imagine if they only spent half a billion; the program wouldn't even be as good as random chance!
Not a chance (Score:2)
yeah, about those 19 terrorists.... (Score:2)
maybe not -those- 19, or not any of those?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylNgK8k2kt8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't trying to kill your relatives. They tried to kill my uncle, my brother, and my foster brother (Boston plane, WTC office, Pentagon office) and failed.
TSA is a farce. Anyone with actual counter-terrorism ops experience knows it. Even the military knows it, but they love the contracts.
Re: How much better than 100% do you have to be? (Score:2)
Look at this rock. This magical anti-tiger rock. It has a 100% success rate at repelling tigers. Do you see any tigers? No. See. That's hie you know it works.
Re: (Score:2)
On the off chance that you're serious, I have a rock to sell to you...
In order to obtain (ok, to actually EARN, sadly they get it regardless) funding, they have to prove that they're doing their job. How? Well, if they have a 100% success rate, they probably have a few terrorists to show, right? Well, show off what you caught!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking of selling strands of hair from my brush to golfers. I have never been struck by lightning.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, the TSA was not created to catch terrorists, it was created to prevent terrorist attacks. And it does that, like nothing would.
Re: (Score:2)
- make work, how many new government employees were trained and hired? That probably required an entire infrastructure to be built out.
- Keep the "security theatre" front and centre. Every time you go to the airport you are reminded of what your gvt is doing to keep you safe.
- See, after all this there are no more bears in the streets (they lack of caught terrorists prove it works).
Re: Yep, put *this* gov't in charge of health care (Score:2)
The NSA spying on the US may be why the TSA results are slightly better than average, instead of abysmally worse than average.
Re:Time to get rid of it (Score:4, Informative)
3. Not harassing American citizens other than domestic terrorists like the Tea Party.
I don't much care for the Tea Party folks myself, but I wouldn't call them domestic terrorists. When was the last time they blew up a building? Refusing to compromise with the broader populace and causing government gridlock are not illegal terrorist actions.
Re: (Score:2)
how is this better than in the 90's?
it's the exact same scenario only thing has changed is that they're taking home 100x the money. where do you think their uniforms come from, who they buy their xray machines from and who went to work for tsa middle management??