backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by jbwhite99.. on Sep 11 at 7:58 AM

Travelers, brace yourselves for the latest indignity

Thinking about flying?  Well, in addition to "enhanced" searches and the risk that your privates may be photographed and stored by Transportation Safety Administration screeners, travelers now have one more woe to add to their litany of complaints.

According to the Daily Mail TSA agents at the Columbus, Ohio Airport have been subjecting travelers to random seizures/inspections of their drinks at the gate to "check for explosives".  

Of course, these drinks all were presumably were sold by the airport vendors, as any drink-size liquid containers are supposed to be seized by the bag screeners at the security checkpoint -- a policy that has been in place since 2006.  So at first blush it's somewhat unclear exactly why the TSA agents felt it necessary to screen passengers' Starbucks and soft drinks.

The incident has been leaked onto YouTube (of course):



Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst, told the Daily Mail, "They're worried someone could bring an ingredient past security and then mix it with a drink that turns into something else - a poison or something else."

TSA drink screening
Airport screeners test passenger's Starbucks coffee to make sure he isn't a terrorist.
[Image Source: YouTube]

In June, the U.S. reportedly thwarted an attempt to blow up an airliner by a Yemen-trained, Norwegian citizen who was a member of the militant fundamentalist Islamic group al Qaeda.  Despite the potential terrorist's plot failing, national security officials are reportedly alarmed about the fact that his spotless record and lack of inclusion on no-fly lists could have allowed him to escape scrutiny, were it not for the tips.

In a statement the TSA confirmed it might now be seizing people's drinks as a precautionary measure, commenting, "TSA employs multiple layers of security throughout the airport where passengers may be randomly selected for additional screening.  One measure may include testing liquids that are in a passenger's possession."

I
Is that a coconut water or a bomb?  Let's find out. [Image Source: YouTube]

TSA agents "examine" the beverages using a special security screen, which appears to involve taking a small dropper or swab sample of the beverage, then testing it on a slide with some sort of reagent mix.

Some say that the policy goes to far, though.  The person who captured the incident on video told the Daily Mail:

I couldn't help but notice the two TSA women that were 'testing' any and all liquids that people had in their hands.  Now remember that this is inside the terminal, well beyond the security check and purchased inside the terminal ... just people waiting to get on the plane. 

My wife and son came back from a coffee shop just around the corner, then we were approached. I asked them what they were doing. One of the TSA ladies said that they were checking for explosive chemicals (as we are drinking them). I said 'really..inside the terminal? You have got to be kidding me.'

I asked them if they wanted to swab us all. She responded with something like, yes sometimes we need to do that. I then asked if she wanted a urine sample.

The TSA is way out of control. I understand that my ranting to one of these $11.00 per hour TSA goons probably does nothing, but you have to say something. Whats next...perhaps the TSA will come to your home prior to your drive to the airport? The police state of the U.S. is OUT OF CONTROL!

Indeed, as the list of indignities grows at a pace proportional to the would-be terrorists' increasingly imaginative plots, one has to wonder where the line must be drawn.

Sources: YouTube, Daily Mail



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/2012 12:53:58 PM , Rating: 5
If you watch the video closely, you'll understand this has nothing to do with chemicals, explosives, poisons or whatnot. Because what strikes me the most about the whole thing, is everybody is actually agreeing to this. Not only that, but with a smile!

This is merely to have you get used to having everything on you checked at all times. It's not substances they're after, it's compliance. And i have to say the people in the video are pretty well trained.




RE: Not about chemicals
By mocyd on 9/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not about chemicals
By SPOOFE on 9/5/2012 1:32:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If the government didn't make you submit to scans/searches- the commercial entities would likely make it a part of the contract of sale for the ticket that you submit to their own screenings.

No, because if that were true, we'd see it manifest in countries where the security is not as draconian (the same companies that operate here also operate there).

The truth is even simpler: It's a clumsy attempt to use massive amounts of completely unskilled labor to create the impression of a robust security force.


RE: Not about chemicals
By mocyd on 9/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 1:56:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In my argument- I actually suggested a practical alternative to critiquing drink testing- challenging the no fly lists.


How is that an alternative? They are different issues entirely. Trying to distract form an issue by saying "look over there!" is not a valid form of argument; you are simply sidestepping the case under discussion.

Remember that
quote:
Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, airport screening was provided by private companies which were contracted with the airline or airport.


And was it liquid vendor sold drinks that caused 9/11? No, it was physical people with physical box cutters who physically controlled the planes to fly into things. A very different security issue than liquids sold by security screened vendors behind security gates!


RE: Not about chemicals
By mocyd on 9/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 2:31:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Given that it is fairly easy to create explosives from household cleaning products (that are likely located at airports by the vendors themselves, along with other staff), it is not inconceivable that a maniac might try to assemble one after they've passed the gate, concealed in regular containers.


Mocyd, you are forgetting what we are even talking about. No one is going to be hiding liquids in containers; those are screened at the security gates. The liquids under discussion here were BOUGHT by the people at the vendors inside the terminal (vendors do not sell household cleaning agents, or anything of the type needed to make explosives). There's no household cleaning agents, there's no explosives, there's no personally brought liquids beyond the 3 ounces allowed and already screened for explosives or explosive combination potential by the TSA at the gate.

The commercial airlines didn't fail to look at security aspects that lead to 9/11; they were not aspects of security in anyone's mind at the time. It wasn't as if someone knew and then it wasn't done. The entire culture was naive.

But there comes a point of diminishing returns, where the invasion of privacy far outweighs any damage that could be done through exploiting that privacy. Not only is this current drink swabbing irrational, redundant to the extreme, and unnecessary (nothing liquid a passenger is drinking that made it into an airport could explode a plane; if it was a liquid explosive, it would kill/harm that person to drink, would give off tell tail chemical scents which would be immediately detected, and what would be the source of ignition?), but it distracts from legitimate security concerns. Why are those TSA officers not paying attention to the real security points they need to be evaluating?

quote:
We live in a day where a person will gun down several people and shoot themselves in the head after they're done. There's no telling what a crazy person might try next, let alone a terrorist.


No, we don't. We don't live in a day where suddenly that is a thing. It has -always- been a thing. Are we cowards, who live our lives trembling in fear over what "might be done", or are we the land of the brave?

Argument from Probability ("that something could happen means it will happen") is a logical fallacy, by the way.


RE: Not about chemicals
By x10Unit1 on 9/5/2012 4:43:37 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry dude, there is no guarantee to life regardless of how many restrictions and/or safe guards you put into place.

I would like you to look at it from a different perspective:

What are you willing to give up to be safe? We are basically being told, "You will be safe if you are willing to give up xxxxxxx" That list of what you give up keeps growing and will continue to grow. It also cost lots of money(which is wasted) and expands government power(which is abused).

They are testing drinks now, so when are they going to start testing food in the airport? I am sure someone could figure out how to hide some c4 in a snickers bar. *rolls eyes*

And your "we live in a day" statement shows how naive and/or scared you are and I can't tell which is worse. If using fear to manipulate is terrorism then let me ask you this...who is the terrorist(s)?


RE: Not about chemicals
By jeffkro on 9/6/2012 12:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yup even with terrorist trying to blow up planes the plane trip is still far safer than the car trip to the airport


RE: Not about chemicals
By tastyratz on 9/6/2012 8:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yup even with terrorist trying to blow up planes

But really they aren't, that's the thing. The media would like you to believe anyone evil wants to target a plane - so much so that it's become a self fulfilling prophecy even with the relatively small number of attempts. Consider the number of people who have actually attempted to stage an attack. Then compare that number to gunmen in theater/mall/school/etc. settings. Let's be honest - the point for many is really doing the most damage to large crowds. You can't protect every group of people from every risk, and a plane is just another group of people. It's also incredibly hard even with basic security never mind draconian. in "risk vs reward" it's far easier for someone to just go to a concert/mall/gathering of some sort.

"terrorism" is the most misunderstood media sensationalism in the usa and it's crap. Osama bin ladin did NOT do what he did to make us live in fear of flying, he did it to make the American people question "why me?" and investigate further, educating themselves on the usa's involvement in foreign policy and doing things like helping Israel where the casualties are their women and children over there. I by no means am siding with him or anything like that - but understand his goal was to reduce our military force and involvement in the middle east - it backfired as we heavily increased our presence. The terrorists did not "win" with their goals. The tsa and government sure does like to terrorize us and capitalize on the situation though.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Digimonkey on 9/6/2012 6:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorists do like to target planes. It's not about the people inside of them, it's about the dangerous weapon they become when full of fuel. Terrorists don't need to completely blow up a plane, and they in fact probably have no desire to do that. They want to incapacitate and have it crash in a heavily populated area.


RE: Not about chemicals
By tastyratz on 9/7/2012 9:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
consider statistics. I bet the number of actual plane hostile takeover and true threads stopped is under a dozen. Terrorists have a good reason to target planes for their goals, but they are far more likely to be successful by other means. If your house has a dog and an alarm, it's easier to rob the neighbors.

It's kind of like shark attacks. Everyone is afraid but the number of them that happens every year can probably be counted on your hands.


RE: Not about chemicals
By MrBlastman on 9/5/2012 2:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer a personal attempt. Let me pack heat like I do elsewhere. Let the people protect themselves. If we see something wrong, let us do what we the people do best.

quote:
"An armed society is a polite society.


- Robert A. Heinlein.

I have no desire to sacrifice any more liberties. Enough is enough. Time to stop living in fear, people.


RE: Not about chemicals
By croc on 9/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals
By tastyratz on 9/6/2012 8:10:28 AM , Rating: 3
"your kind" ?
A gun owner?
Sometimes someone ccw could save your life. Regular citizens with a firearm are hardly a security risk because the bad guys can always get and find guns. You want that man who carries for self protection in your house, your city, country, because someday he might save YOUR ass.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Ahnilated on 9/6/2012 11:39:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by croc on September 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM

I might point out that R.A.H. was a writer of science-fiction, not a philosopher, not a statesman...

As long as you keep your 'heat' off of any transportation that I am on, we're cool. And please don't even THINK about bringing it into my house, my city, my country... As a matter of fact, just stay away. We don't need your kind around here.


You are kidding me, right? It is NOT your city or YOUR country nor is it your transportation if you don't own it. Get a clue and stop spreading this type of crap. If someone carries heat into a theater where some whack job goes into try and murder everyone they could take him out before he kills everyone in the place. Most people that get permits to carry concealed weapons also learn how to use them correctly and can hit what they shoot at.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Dorkyman on 9/6/2012 12:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, Croc, I usually carry a small .22 in my pocket when out and about. If/when you ever get to Portland, look me up. You'll be far safer walking around with me than with someone else. If you'd look up the stats you'd see that.


RE: Not about chemicals
By bull2760 on 9/7/2012 8:11:16 AM , Rating: 1
Unless you live outside the US, and with the exception of a few states, we can bring out damn guns anywhere we want. As long as your are licensed there is no problem. It's also the second amendment that gives us the right to bare arms. So if you don't like it pack up and move out! Let's get this straight GUNS don't kill, people kill. So weather some crazy nut has a gun, knife, pipe, whatever it maybe in his hands, they are all at that point in time a weapon. Now should that nut come into my area while I'm packin god help him cause I'll put a bullet right between his/her fucking eyes!


RE: Not about chemicals
By Natch on 9/6/2012 8:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just pass out stun guns to every passenger, as they board the plane?

"Welcome on board, here's your stun gun, your seat is 22F."

First fool to start something gets lit up like a Christmas tree! Win!!

Let's face it....the DHS (Department of Homeland "Security"), and it's obnoxious little brother, the TSA, have learned how to assure their own job security.....by coming up with new security "threats", that they then have to "protect" us from. The more they cow the average Joe into thinking that he's "safe", the more likely they are to continue getting massive funding, year after year.

And the sheeple keep going along for the ride!


RE: Not about chemicals
By SPOOFE on 9/5/2012 5:02:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Demonstrate specifics to me. If you're talking about a country where security is already undermined for other reasons (ie- it doesn't make sense to enhance security at the gate because the airfield is accessible and unprotected), or it's not a country as threatened by terrorism as the US, then you don't really have a point.

Israel. Their security measures are A: not nearly as all-encompassing, B: far more effective, and C: not crippled by the need to satisfy political correctness.

Unless you think Israel isn't threatened by terrorism...?

quote:
So you prefer no attempt?

Yes, because then at least people will be aware of how insecure they are and can then make an educated choice about flying or not. Why do you prefer absurdist theater instead?


RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 1:36:25 PM , Rating: 3
I think you are forgetting what life was like before 2001, before the TSA. Commercial screening was not any of the things are you trying to claim it would be, history already disproves your point.

This isn't a meaningless slippery slope. We've been plummeting off this TSA built cliff for awhile now; not so subtly and not so slippery. The 4th amendment still exists.


RE: Not about chemicals
By mocyd on 9/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 2:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Inadequate commercial screening resulted in airplanes crashing into buildings.


But that wasn't the claims you were making about commercial screening. Suddenly changing your tune to the exact opposite of your claims is invalid. And once again, it wasn't inadequate screening of liquids; box cutters slipped through since their blades were so small, but it turns out people could use them to intimidate anyways. Why? Because back in that day, hijacking meant ransom, not being converted into a missile. As soon as the fourth plane knew the real purpose of the hijacking, they revolted. The passengers of the other three allowed it to happen, more or less, again because back then hijacking was just a ransom deal, and people were told to deal with it no differently than they would a mugger.

It was a mindset of the day, and in accordance with that mindset, commercial screening was exactly as expected. The changes that happened immediately after 9/11 were all that were necessary to prevent that exact situation from happening again. But we've gone so, so much farther after that.

Sure, southwest is being arbitrary there, but there are other airlines, and that is simple commercial competition. That has nothing to do with what the TSA is doing nor commercial security screening. Again, you are distracting from the topic at hand, which is not a valid argument strategy.

Drink testing is not arbitrary. These are not arbitrary drinks. They are already TSA approved drinks already screened before vendors can even sell them. This is a humiliation, a contamination of the drinks by the TSA handlers, and an invasion of legally bought property in the name of... what? What security is being enhanced when you buy something already screened by the TSA from vendors behind the security gates? If an airline wants a dress code more or less, fine, get another airline; but to be forced to have your drink screened (on the punishment of what, if you refuse?) is not "less arbitrary" nor is it not as important -- it is way more so as it is a direct invasion and tampering with your property.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Solandri on 9/5/2012 6:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Inadequate commercial screening resulted in airplanes crashing into buildings.

Airport security is security theater. Even taking into account 9/11, you're more likely to die on your drive to the airport (due to random accident), than you are at the airport or on a plane (due to terrorism or random accident).

People just have a skewed sense of the risk from terrorism due to disproportionate media coverage (which BTW is exactly what terrorists want). The TSA, for all its critics, is doing the correct thing with highly public and visible displays of security (aka security theater), regardless of how ineffectual they are.

The problem is, some people at the TSA take their jobs too seriously. They actually think they're providing real security instead of security theater. And consequently trample over our 4th Amendment rights in the process.

quote:
Meanwhile, airlines are kicking passengers off for this: today: http://now.msn.com/airline-claims-this-traveler-is...

Air travel is a bit archaic. Like in the old days of sailing ships, the captain is still the master of his ship. If a captain makes a decision to fly/not fly or to take or refuse certain cargo or passengers, the airlines and even the FAA are very reluctant to overrule him/her. The thinking is that the captain knows his ship best having inspected it personally before the flight, and is putting his life at stake by being aboard and piloting it. If he thinks something is dangerous or inappropriate, his decision carries more weight than some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk who was never on board the plane.


RE: Not about chemicals
By wookie1 on 9/6/2012 1:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
You've failed to support any argument that the TSA screening would have done any better that commercial screening. Remember that the FBI failed as well, since they had all of the information they needed to stop the attacks before they happened. Why do you think that government screening is more effective? The only motivation of government employees is to avoid embarrasing their bosses. Effectiveness is not important, they just need to look like they're really throwing the kitchen sink at the problem. Once it's a government controlled monopoly, there's much less accountability and recourse.

With commercial screening, the company that has poor screening practices will probably go bankrupt if there is an issue that damages their credibility which would drive customers to other competitors. The government does not face this pressure, as the only consequence is a bit of a PR problem that gets solved by throwing more of our money at it and progressively making us all do more crazy stuff where there may not be any additional effectiveness.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Manch on 9/5/2012 3:41:35 PM , Rating: 1
Well, as a God Damn tax payer, they're wasting my hard earned fucking money paying these useless fucks to go around swabbing peoples starbucks that they bought within the fucking gate.

If you like the government having one common set of guidelines, how bout you ask them for recommendations on what to eat, drive, sleep on, live in, and fuck.

What demonstrably worse alternative? If a standard was defined and the commercial airlines ran security, I'd bet money it would be cheaper, quicker, and far more effective than hiring a bunch of job corp fucktards at union inflated price.

Seriously? Have you ever seen the government run anything that wasnt a huge cluster fuck and a waste of tax payer money? How do you expect this to be any different.

Pull your head out of your ass!


RE: Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/2012 3:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
So the government owns you as soon as you step on government property?

Yeah let's not talk slippery slopes. Seems you're pretty much down the hole already.

I'll spell it out for you, since you don't seem to understand. The terrorist watch lists where the *first* step on the slippery slope. This article is just about an event that occurs further down the slope. As with the watchlists at the time i will bitch about this at this time. Because bitching about the watchlists now would be akin to falling out of a tree and trying to reach for a branch at the top. You need to stop your fall first.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2012 4:28:11 PM , Rating: 4

You're stepping into a government owned facility (paid by taxpayer funds) and walking on to a commercially (privately owned) method of transport.

The government has to protect taxpayer funds invested in the facility, and the commercial entity must protect their private investment in extremely expensive modes of transit.


So when I step into a bestbuy does the store have the right to strip me down naked and feel around in my ass to make sure I didn't put an SD card in there?


RE: Not about chemicals
By ClownPuncher on 9/5/2012 4:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
Buy an added warranty for your bum when you walk in/out and bypass that line


RE: Not about chemicals
By tecknurd on 9/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals
By GotThumbs on 9/5/2012 1:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well the fact that you do not own the plane is important to remember.

Also, ever think someone might place a caustic liquid like acid or who knows what, to sabotage the flight in some way?

Personally, my one single goal when I do choose to fly is arrive alive. I could care less about some whiny persons personal freedoms. Go buy your own plane if you have a problem with it. Don't be too naive to think something can't happen to you....I'm sure a few passengers on the planes on 9/11 thought the same thing.


RE: Not about chemicals
By max_payne on 9/5/2012 1:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you sir for allowing us to do preventive cavities search on yourself as you enter the airport. You are a model flyer !


RE: Not about chemicals
By MrBlastman on 9/5/2012 3:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
He does have thumbs...


RE: Not about chemicals
By SPOOFE on 9/5/2012 1:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, ever think someone might place a caustic liquid like acid or who knows what, to sabotage the flight in some way?

Mercury.

Mercury doesn't play very well with aluminum, at all.

Just a tiny amount of mercury in just the right spot on an airplane and you can take the sucker down.


RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 1:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are overexaggerating.

While mercury reacts thoroughly with exposed aluminum, which does not have an oxide layer (aluminum oxide does not react with mercury, so you have to cut the surface to get down to the metal and add the mercury before it re-oxidizes), it takes a lot of mercury. Nor would it make the aircraft explode unless reacting with aluminum on the fuel tanks or engine. Nor is any aluminum exposed in the cabin of the aircraft, and remember you have to find exposed aluminum and cut it enough to get to the metal; so just spilling mercury in the cabin isn't disastrous.

Mercury in large quantities has been spilled on aircraft before, so at least the results are not an unknown. Note, composite craft like the 787 should be immune to this anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_amalgam


RE: Not about chemicals
By ClownPuncher on 9/5/2012 4:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Mercury?! Are you serious? A bigger threat would be a crate of motherfucking SNAKES on a plane!


RE: Not about chemicals
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2012 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 4
Caustic liquid like acid they got from terminal vendors? I don't think so...

Remember, all your liquids are already check when you go through security; anything people have liquid wise now was picked up from the airport vendors, who are already screened. Furthermore, it takes -a lot more- to bring down an aircraft than a little cup of liquid acid or mercury; from the inside anyways.

Now if you could slip something to the maintenance crew and sabotage the plane on the ground... but the normal flight checks should discovery such a problem before it even left the terminal.

People need to not be so cowardly; it's a type of ignorance and naivety of its own. The planes of 9/11 were brought down by hijackers that flew them manually into objects; not by a cup of vendor sold liquid.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Ammohunt on 9/5/2012 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 3
wow! i now understand the problem with America people like you. Willing to give up any and all rights for the illusion of safety(there is no suck thing as true safety). You are the same people that refuse profile those that would truly threaten us; the most apt analogy would be the scene from the movie Scary Movie when Carmen is running from the bad guy and presented with a knife,hand grenade or a banana she chose the banana just like you.


RE: Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not about chemicals
By Invane on 9/5/2012 4:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
And what good do you think checking your drinks is going to do to help you arrive alive? If they were to pass security with some dangerous liquid, do you really think they have to put it in their cup to bring it on the plane? They could just release it into a crowded gate terminal and do as much or more damage. They could place it into a body cavity and bring it onto the plane that way.

If you actually believe that the TSA screening drinks is somehow keeping you safer, you need to do a little bit of critical thinking. Allow me to point out a few facts for you:
1) Your odds of dieing from cancer is 1 in 7.
2) Your odds of dieing from a motor vehicle accident is 1 in 100.
3) Your odds of dieing from *falling down* is 1 in 236.
4) Your odds of dieing from fire/smoke is 1 in 1100.
5) Your odds of dieing in an air travel accident? 1 in 20000. And that's including mechanical/maintenance/technical failures.
6) Your odds of dieing by a TERRORIST? Let's try 1 in 20000000.
http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-o...

The number of US citizens that have died from terrorist incidents in total in the last hundred years is just over 3000, nearly all of which were from 9/11 (I researched this some time back, but don't have my link handy at the moment). The number of people killed JUST IN DECEMBER of 2010 from motor vehicle accidents (including pedestrians): nearly 6000. How much safer does having your drink tested make you feel now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle...

Yet here we are, passing crazy government power expanding laws like the NDAA and the Patriot Act. Here we are, more than willing to give up our constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure for a little perceived safety. Here we are, spending billions and billions on the TSA. Here we are practically soiling ourselves every time the government says 'terrorist'.

If you are scared enough of dieing in air travel to allow the government to drastically curtail our hard fought rights and freedoms, you have bought into the government bogey-man propaganda engine.

Not only that, but you should seriously do a little research into the safety of the body scanners they're currently shoving you sheep types through. Let's just say the approval process was a little shady.

I do NOT fear dieing in an air travel accident in the slightest. I do NOT fear dieing by a terrorist. I DO fear losing my constitutionally granted rights piece by piece due to ignorant, easily manipulated, and under educated people in this country allowing it to happen.


RE: Not about chemicals
By NullSubroutine on 9/5/2012 2:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually this is the exact same test given to medically exempt liquids at the checkpoint. And is specifically looking for one type of liquid explosive. Because the test is not being done at the, it would be part of random screening, that each airport does differently (as this type of policy is set by Federal Security Director at the regional hub).

I would say more but it can be difficult to know what specifics are considered SSI (Sensitive Security Information) and that is unfortunate as the TSA clearly seems to be failing at communicating with the public about what the TSA procedures are (within limit on details) and what they are not.

From everything I see in the news 90% of the misinformation that is spread could be eliminated if TSA simply shared 2 paragraphs of factual information to the public and it wouldn't reduce security at all.


RE: Not about chemicals
By TSS on 9/5/2012 3:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why would they test for one paticular type of explosive? Why would they test everybody on that paticular type of explosives? Why would they test regular folks with approved bought beverages on one paticular type of explosive?

I'm sorry but it doesn't add up. It doesn't make logical or reasonable sense, the gain is far too small (read: not there) in order to have this test conducted in the name of safety. You can tell those people aren't a threat just by looking at them. So why test them? Everything humans do happens for a reason, though we might not always understand it.

It's clear those TSA people aren't at fault. Belive it or not, everybody can be brainwashed to turn on their fellow man as long as it happens gradually enough, and affects only a few at once (the nazi's started with putting jews in ghetto's before deportation, removing them from the general populace and thus their impact on them). This might also be training for them. They might not actually be testing anything. After all, the possibility of a positive is negligibly small.

Strange as it might seem, but if you've been testing people for years and you hit a positive, you're much more likely to just follow the rules and not listen to what they say, because so far the test has always been right. If you're the new kid on the block you might question the test by looking at the people who clearly aren't a threat. Of course if a terrorist attack ever does happen with liquid explosives, conveniently, they wheren't tested at all.

Now i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've seen all the documentairies sure but i like to make up my own mind, and the entire world controlled completly by <300 people is insane. There is no master plot. They know as little about what they're doing as we are. That said, conspiracies have happened, and do exist (just not on a grand scale). And if we substitute the explanation "sasfety from terrorism" to "controlling the people", suddenly what they're doing makes alot more sense. So i tend to belive that's the real reason why they are doing what they are doing. Not the actual looking for explosives.


RE: Not about chemicals
By NullSubroutine on 9/5/2012 8:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would they test for one paticular type of explosive? Why would they test everybody on that paticular type of explosives? Why would they test regular folks with approved bought beverages on one paticular type of explosive?

Testing (presumably in the sterile area) is done randomly and the tests they do are also random (meaning different types of tests are done). When this specific test is used in the checkpoint it is to make sure the medically exempt liquids do not contain that specific type of explosive. However, random selects "regular folk" as well as other types of suspicious people. That's why its called random.

The general reason why this test is done is to have interaction with the passengers. Interaction with the public is a way to engage them for intelligence.

It doesn't matter if you work for the TSA, the CIA, or the Secret Service, all departments working with security have to use human intelligence to mitigate security threats. People and their behaviors are something that is watched. It isn't about profiling or anything like that, even the American public is aware of how people normally act when traveling and can sense when something is out of place.

No security in place is perfect, there are hundreds of ways that explosives, weapons, and other threats could make it on board and aircraft and threaten peoples lives. You can throw all the money you want at the problem and it won't change. The way to address the issue is to have different layers of security, so that even if one does fail, then another layer could in theory catch it. It isn't perfect, but when there are limited resources then choices have to be made.

Interacting with the public is a very cheap (fiscally) of detecting abnormal behavior that may be an indicator of someone who is a threat to the passengers and the aircraft, remember they don't have to be terrorists. There are plenty of "regular" crazy people out there.

quote:
I'm sorry but it doesn't add up. It doesn't make logical or reasonable sense, the gain is far too small (read: not there) in order to have this test conducted in the name of safety. You can tell those people aren't a threat just by looking at them. So why test them? Everything humans do happens for a reason, though we might not always understand it.


Again, its random, even low risk people are screened randomly. It is the interaction with the people that help determine what risk they are.

quote:
It's clear those TSA people aren't at fault. Belive it or not, everybody can be brainwashed to turn on their fellow man as long as it happens gradually enough, and affects only a few at once (the nazi's started with putting jews in ghetto's before deportation, removing them from the general populace and thus their impact on them). This might also be training for them. They might not actually be testing anything. After all, the possibility of a positive is negligibly small.

I am someone very concerned about personal liberty and freedom. However, I don't see the link between the Nazi's and holding a test strip above a cup for 4 seconds then placing a drop on it is evidence of a slippery slope to genocide.

Please remember, for starter, all airports (those who own the airports) can choose to have private contractors or the TSA as in charge of security. Whether contractors or TSA, neither have any authority to do anything to you. (The only people who can are actual sworn law enforcement that usually work for the local municipality of the airport, but they are regular LEOs, not TSA). They can't detain you, they can't arrest you, they can't even search you without your consent. You choose to fly on a publicly funded airline or not(airlines take federal money) and you can choose not be subjected to any screening.

If you don't want to undergo any screening private charter flights are available that to do not undergo any screening.

Far as the rest of your post. Liberty is not something that should be sacrificed for safety. However, there are threats that must be addressed. In my opinion so long as there is a choice of air travel of public with security screening or private with no screening liberty is at stake. As for the limits and types of screening it is important for the public (and the courts) to engage law makers about what they feel is legit and what is not acceptable. It is my opinion though that the TSA is not doing a good enough job explaining the processes and all it leads to are a bunch of misinformation. Instead of the public and law makers dealing with actual problems, they are often dealing with the misinformation.


RE: Not about chemicals
By ian80 on 9/5/2012 10:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
So basically - there's no evidence of wrongdoing even after passing existing barriers but what the hey, you're still a suspect. Ideally we're just here to be seen to be doing something on the massively remote chance someone somewhere may do something remotely suspicious just because of the way they look.

I know, it's cheap and hasn't actually yielded results compared to actual intelligence (even rendition and torture's more effective than this crap) but something's better than nothing - at least as long as it's random because that will stump any organised terrorist organisation. Let's just hope they don't realise their plan of drinking the lethal explosive as they pass through the Starbucks outlet they've infiltrated with operatives despite TSA screening already - JUST. WONT. WORK.

Oh, and for the love of god don't let those terrorists figure out they could bring our train, bus and car networks to their knees because god forbid the nasty men realise that in actuality muppets just like us will crucify our transport capacity by demanding anyone who gets in a car submit to a full gastro-endoscopical exam in case they drive their cars loaded with explosives into major freeways (or am I just giving them commonsensical ideas). Perhaps I'm wrong, everyone submit to an exam before they get into their cars.

But I digress, this is not nazi-esque so must be alright - consequently ignore any other connotations involved, after all it's all random and involves private companies (using airspace belonging to and in all probability funded by you).

Liberty should not be sacrificed except... for the fact that maybe we're not explaining ourselves very well but trust us it's scary out there.


RE: Not about chemicals
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2012 4:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
When are Americans going to finally decide this is to much? How's this for a protest idea. Americans should choose one airline at a time to boycott until TSA brings things down to an acceptable level. If it looks like passengers will put one airline out of business at a time I think the airlines will bring immediate pressure on Congress.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki