Source
r/IAmA•
tsahenchman

By Request, IAMA TSA Supervisor. AMAA

Obviously a throw away, since this kind of thing is generally frowned on by the organization. Not to mention the organization is sort of frowned on by reddit, and I like my Karma score where it is. There are some things I cannot talk about, things that have been deemed SSI. These are generally things that would allow you to bypass our procedures, so I hope you might understand why I will not reveal those things.

Other questions that may reveal where I work I will try to answer in spirit, but may change some details.

Aside from that, ask away. Some details to get you started, I am a supervisor at a smallish airport, we handle maybe 20 flights a day. I've worked for TSA for about 5 year now, and it's been a mostly tolerable experience. We have just recently received our Advanced Imaging Technology systems, which are backscatter imaging systems. I've had the training on them, but only a couple hours operating them.

Edit Ok, so seven hours is about my limit. There's been some real good discussion, some folks have definitely given me some things to think over. I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer every question, but at 1700 comments it was starting to get hard to sort through them all. Gnight reddit.

Posted Nov 10, 2010, 10:30 PM UTC · edited

1K2.7K
dutchguilder2•

When will the TSA finally ban all passengers, luggage, and cargo from airplanes?

439
tsahenchmanOP•

Tomorrow.

281
digifreak642•

Good. We need to go back to the days of horse and buggy.

71
stroud•

All aboard the Stagecoach to Dry Fork, Apache Wells, Lee's Ferry and Lordsburg!

7
tortiousconduct•

Well that certainly makes this prescient.

Follow up question: How long has TSA policy been governed by Slashdot polls?

3
dutchguilder2•

Slashdot -> Reddit -> Digg -> Slashdot. Its the circle of life.

3
TopDillin•

Good list, but they left off not giving passengers water and not feeding them after midnight. Better safe than sorry.

1
ghostchamber•

Until they ban horses.

2
[deleted]•

time to dust off the old pegasus

1
Nessie•

How come you never call my buggy?

1
mintyice•

I want to go on a horse and buggy ride.

1
rpgmaker•

To be a throw away account you sound very talking-point oriented.

2
no-mad•

Can I fly nude and avoid restrictions?

2
emergentproperty•

Haahaa, you think the whole thing is silly too. C'mon now, be honest, don't be diplomatic; you can't be both with this issue.

1
RommelTJ•

You are missing the point. It's the airplanes that are a real danger. When will the TSA ban all the airplanes?

77
murphylaw•

Fuck it, let's just ban the plane too. It can EXPLODE!!!

14
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Quantumnight•

Just wait until some guy decides to smuggle a bomb up his bum. Then the real fun will begin, and standard procedure asks everyone to drop their pants and bend over.

You know, for security.

5
flabbergasted1•

SHUT.

1
coolstorybroham•

This should be an Onion article.

1
imcool6•

ever ran into these guys?:

http://i.imgur.com/rteGB.png

256
tsahenchmanOP•

Not yet, but that actually seems kind of tame compared to some people I've had to pat down. Slime mold shouldn't grow between fat folds.

211
Deadpixel1221•

Life will find away.

347
Rubin0•

"You saved that emo band from committing suicide. Thanks Captain Life!"

"You're welcome but I am needed elsewhere. LIFE AWAYYYYYYYYYYYY"

57
bioskope•

Life uhhh finds a way.

NTTBADAIBFTFY

13
kujustin•

I give up.

Now that the bad ass dinosaurs are inexplicably breeding FTFY is my best shot.

14
FlintGrey•

What does that acronym even mean?

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
daversa•

Dino DNA!

3
[deleted]•

I didn't think of that. Do screeners actually have to lift them up and get their hands in there?

44
[deleted]•

[deleted]

32
murphylaw•

No, actually I'd like to see an answer for it. Out of curiosity.

24
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
REInvestor•

No me gusta.

26
[deleted]•

Good god, man!

2
imcool6•

me gusta

2
skarface6•

Tell some stories? Not necessarily about that, just in general.

1
Atheist101•

Do checked in bags get scanned? What if I put a bomb in there, does it go straight to the plane or would the bag get scanned before going in the plane. Ive always wondered how they allow stuff thats not allowed in carry on, in the check in

1
tsahenchmanOP•

All checked baggage gets screened.

2
LoggingBro•

Not only are you on a list now but you should start checking your car for a GPS tracker.

1
Atheist101•

Dont worry, you are on it too. Everyone who posted in this thread is on their list

1
asimovfan1•

I'm wondering about

people I've had to pat down.

had to pat down because of what? Is there some sort of random number generator in your pocket determining who to pat down? I'm confused as to why pilots, for instance, are being patted down. Young middle class American victims. Nuns. Why has common sense been thrown out the window? Is it for fear of discrimination law suits?

Honest question. Thanks for your time. Hope you find a better job somewhere.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
[deleted]•

Why can I not view my body scan images? I have asked several times but I get told to move along, I think I should at least get a wallet sized keepsake picture.

235
mousewithacookie•

I'd like to know this too. I truly would not want a wallet-sized keepsake picture, but I would like to know what the TSA agent saw when they looked at me in the scanner.

74
myotheralt•

They should display to the subject as well as the security.

55
PaiTrakt•

I propose a slideshow at the end of the security area where all the pictures are shown. Just like at amusement parks!

228
MonsieurA•

Great memories for the whole family!

37
LoudmouthedBitch•

"Greetings from the TSA!"

Of course, you'd have to deal with girls flashing their boobs. Oh… wait… 

19
zerd•

And then you can buy a copy for $20!

Only, you're probably going to buy a picture of the hot chick instead.

5
[deleted]•

Except at amusement parks, if you show your genitals, they block the picture.

3
cyborg_selkie•

Can I get it on a keychain?

1
crackyJsquirrel•

Will they block out the ones where people are giving the bird?

1
russellvt•

Neat idea, but it's the same reason they shield the xray scanners from direct view... it could allow someone with a nefarious idea to perform trial and error attacks to see what passed or how they can better conceal certain types of items.

25
hcice•

Wouldn't the first error get them arrested?

5
mousewithacookie•

You mean privately, though, right? I don't know how they could display it to the subject without everyone else in line seeing it, too =/

3
Adrestea•

I think the half the point of these scanners is that it's easy to think they're just a funny looking metal detector. I bet a lot of people going through don't know what's being done to them. People won't get upset about what they don't know is happening.

1
catcher6250•

I like showing off my large penis.

1
wrongnumber•

I abruptly found myself in front of a scanner on my flight home from Vegas, I did the subtle body shift during scan to distort my body for shits and giggles.

1
Kimano•

The scan is much too fast for you to distort it significantly by shifting. It's a total guess, but you'd basically have to sprint through the thing to make it appear blurred, since the machine captures the image in fractions of a second.

3
darkrom•

And that is exactly why you can't see. They don't want you to know how violated you just were. Plus that would hold people up, unlike the mandatory peepshow or groping.

1
yergi•

Because if people saw that their genitals were being displayed, they might actually get fed up with the system and push back or something. That's not allowable.

Think of all of the stimulus jobs involved here. /sarcasm

0
ampersandrec•

Because if they did show people no one would ever consent to having it done again. That and right now extremely few people know they're being photographed nude. It would ruin the hiding game they're playing.

48
funk_king•

You're assuming they're actively consenting now; they are not.

2
ampersandrec•

I assume nothing of the sort. In fact, I specifically stated that they're hiding it from us.

Still your point is valid. Not refusing to do something you're not aware you're doing is not tacit consent.

2
sedo1800•

I think the hiding game is over. :)

1
briarios•

I'm going to pick on you, even though your sentiment is everywhere on reddit these days: what is the big fucking deal about being seen naked? Get over it.

0
ampersandrec•

Because there isn't anything more personal than nudity. It gets to the very core of privacy issues and freedom. The government has no right to my body.

Choosing to go nude - great, it's your choice and your body.

Being forced to be seen nude or touched inappropriately - totally invasive and offensive.

You're right, nudity is no big deal, but the distinction is whose choice the nudity is.

4
briarios•

You can also choose not to fly.

-1
tsahenchmanOP•

Because we don't have the ability to save, print, or transfer those pictures. Also the level of detail the picture provides is SSI. In case you hide a gun between the pixels.

4
cheald•

Because we don't have the ability to save, print, or transfer those pictures.

Bull. Shit.

"Shouldn't be able to" and "don't" are very, very different things. At the end of the day, I can't know that your machine isn't storing images - I just have to trust that the right configuration switch has been flipped.

159
tsahenchmanOP•

I believe those machines were all in use by the US Marshalls. Which may have had them ordered to a different specification. I'm not certain. The machines I've worked with don't have the capability to save that I've seen.

1
mrpunman•

In other words, you don't know the capabilities of your scanning machines

42
[deleted]•

Read the articles he linked to before making claims like that.

The TSA recently acknowledged that it requires that all checkpoint scanners be able to save images, but said the feature was only for “testing, training and evaluation purposes."

So when can we be expecting you to cry out publicly against these measures, as you said you would below?

5
anonymous_hero•

If you don't know, you can just assume that every scan gets saved somewhere automatically. HDD space is pretty cheap.

0
AimlessArrow•

Because we don't have the ability to save....those pictures

This is patently false. Do not lie to the internet. We have Google at our command.

41
angelozdark•

Ahh good ol' Google! Mothership of the Intrawebz!

-1
walesmd•

Except that it can save/transfer the pictures, otherwise the recent leaks would be impossible.

22
Kilbourne•

If it cannot save or transfer images, how would it gather evidence for admission to a court, if there was a case of a crime being revealed using the AIT?

For example, if someone went through with a weapon, the AIT would have no evidence of the crime that could be admitted to a court.

16
arkcos•

If it was visible on the monitor, he would be stopped, and the weapon found. If it wasn't, then the video wouldn't be useful to begin with.

15
gloths•

I'm pretty sure the weapon itself would count as evidence.

6
andash•

But... If someone went through with a weapon, wouldn't they get arrested at the spot, with the weapon on them?

Or do you mean like if they observe the weapon, but do not interfere because of.. gathering evidence for a case? Err no they're at an airport, sorry I didn't think that one through. But I'm still not sure what you mean.

Edit: OP wrote this a bit further down:

Once an decision is made on the image, it is deleted.

So I guess they can press the terrorist button on detection, and then it saves the image perhaps. Note, only speculating here obviously.

2
tsahenchmanOP•

Nope, no saving, at all.

2
ex_ample•

Presumably they would just search people and actually look at whatever it was they saw on the screen.

2
[deleted]•

I actually don't care about the keepsake that much, but I would still like to have the right to see the image. I can watch the images of my, and other peoples, carry ons go through the baggage scanners, but I am not allowed to see a picture of myself, what is the problem?

10
jlbraun•

Because we don't have the ability to save, print, or transfer those pictures.

Yes, you do. Or at least the system can be configured that way, even if yours isn't.

5
tsahenchmanOP•

I suppose that could be accurate, someone linked earlier an incident where a federal office using the AIT was saving the images. I can't verify if we are using the same device, but from what I'm told and I've seen, the systems we've had installed can't do that.

-1
gehzumteufel•

Can you seriously stop parroting this? We get it, you are told that combining bleach with chlorine doesn't kill you, and you believe that, but there is evidence to the contrary, or at least the POSSIBILITY, that all your information is bogus and fed to you with the intention and hope that people believe you. If you want to continue to parrot this, just say "We are told x, but I personally do not know the extent or truth to that statement". Not hard. At all.

5
ittech•

It's probably only secured by some lame programming, like a windows Kiosk machine. Every IT guy knows if you're on a kiosk there are literally hundreds of ways of getting out of the locked in browser and getting access to files on the hard drive, running other programs, etc. The guys writing the software are only as thorough as they need to be and miss things. If you can jailbreak an iPhone, you can get images from that machine.

2
saw2239•

Hahaha if you really believe that then maybe you really are a TSA thug. Only they'd be dumb enough.

1
pyrrh0•

There was plenty of press recently that this party line was false. You can so save and transfer them. Whether that lie is being put forth for security or PR, who knows.

5
grammar_test•

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muYh8d70yow&feature=player_embedded

2
paddybedouin•

So if you think you found something but you didn't in the end, there is no proof that you saw something on the picture when you get sued?

2
Assumer•

The fact of the matter is if the picture is shown, it can be saved or transferred in some way(even if that means through another external camera). And they aren't asking for a "transfer" just a mirror image monitor that the scanned person can see.

2
shadowblade•

I myself have not yet been in an airport with one of these scanners and thus have not seen one personally. However, based on a couple of images of the scanners I have seen online, there is ample space to place a second monitor where only the scanee could see it and it would not interfere with the scanning process.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
AnomalyNexus•

In case you hide a gun between the pixels. Haha. Thats awesome.

0
sidewalkchalked•

Liar.

-1
ideas-man•

Why should I believe you?

-2
theotherredeavanger•

You have no reason not to.

1
donttreadonmike•

The default position when dealing with cops and TSA agents etc. should be distrust. They aren't your friends.

2
[deleted]•

I've seen the backend on those machines, because im in the security biz. You're lying absolutely. So you're a lying sack of shit TSA employee because what… mcdonalds wasnt hiring?

Long walk, short plank. Go.

-2
yellownumberfive•

Make sure to raise your arms and yell "wheeeeee!" like you do on the log ride at Six Flags.

2
[deleted]•

Because it holds up the line, most likely

2
[deleted]•

Not as much as a manual body search/pat down, they see it right away can't they give me 10 seconds to check it out pat downs take minutes.

2
[deleted]•

Yeah but there's a very compelling reason to allow patdowns, in my opinion. I prefer them to offer that option.

1
bdunderscore•

Because if the TSA folks can print a copy for you, they can print a copy for themselves too. I highly doubt they'd leave such a feature in, at least not where the average grunt can access it.

As for not seeing the screen, well, you're holding up the line. It's slow enough already.

2
TheDentite•

I feel like I'll be a little disappointed if the tsa agent doesn't masturbate to my scan.

1
dclowd9901•

Or to include in your headshots.

1
DiggingNoMore•

So, I'm a guy. And a cross-dresser. If I were to wear a skirt when I opt out of the body scanner, would that get me a pat down from a female rather than a male or would I need to say that I'm a MTF pre-op transexual? I'm not sure if I'd want a man or a woman patting me down, but I thought I'd look at all my options. Also, if I wore a skirt (loose, a-line skirt) would the pat down include them running their hands up my leg on the inside of my skirt, because I'd want to avoid that completely. Also, would my wearing of a skirt cause more problems than just that? Would I be looked upon as a security risk because of my unusual attire?

181
tsahenchmanOP•

It's not actually that uncommon to have people fly who view themselves as a gender they weren't born as. Policy is to screen the individual as the gender they present themselves as. If for some reason they don't recognize you as the gender you identify as, let them know.

As for skirts, if the fabric is loose enough, they are just going to sort of wrap it around the leg and pat it down. If the skirt is tight enough that fabric can't be wrapped around the inner leg, you might be looking at something a bit more thorough. If at any time a TSA officer is placing their hand up your skirt, and you are not dating them, then they are performing the search incorrectly. Notify their supervisor, it shouldn't be allowed.

253
awap•

Policy is to screen the individual as the gender they present themselves as. If for some reason they don't recognize you as the gender you identify as, let them know.

As much as people like to rag on the TSA, this is a very understanding policy. Good job guys.

245
NastyBigPointyTeeth•

sees a hot TSA agent lady

"Oh, I actually identify myself as a female, can she do it?"

152
ChingShih•

I'm pretty sure your Cheeto cheese-coated erection would quickly give you away as a heterosexual. ;P

124
YoungCleanLegitSon•

I think we just stumbled upon a new way to screw with the system.

7
[deleted]•

Ohh yes she can! But she won't.

5
mnemy•

Don't forget to wear a skimpy skirt. Should make the ball cup a bit more interesting.

2
skarface6•

That's when they pull Helga out of the back room to do the thorough search.

2
tsahenchmanOP•

We try, we really do try.

12
Malfeasant•

no try. do, or do not.

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
ChaosMotor•

What, to inconvenience and embarrass as many innocent grandmothers as possible? Cuz you guys do a bang up job at that!

-8
beautify•

That's most federal and state search policies, is that the case in all events? Not often enough.

1
[deleted]•

Policies are written by highly educated people sitting in little offices. What actually happens in airports is not what this policy dictates.

1
ltjboy03•

Notice, he said "policy". I don't put much trust in that word anymore.

0
[deleted]•

What if a man is wearing a kilt?

51
tsahenchmanOP•

Then he's a doubly manly man, so two male officers are needed to screen him.

Same deal, if the Kilts not a tight fit, then they'd just fold the fabric in to pat down the leg without touching bare skin.

202
terevos2•

So if the Kilt is a tight fit, is the man still a manly man? Or just a cross-dresser?

13
SoFisticate•

What if I think I am a horse?

13
ricemilk•

what about the gloves they use... do they change gloves between inner thigh pat downs in cases where they've had to touch bare skin? frankly, id like them to use new gloves on me no matter what.

also, i 'get' the gender distinctions for the purposes of the pat downs, but, does TSA discern, on their end, between straight and gay TSA officers? if im straight and wind up with a male officer doing my pat down YET he's actually gay, doesnt that defeat the intended purpose of people getting patted down by 'the correct gendered officer'? or, do we just have to kinda put all that out of mind and assume all TSA officers are straight...?

7
kiltboy•

I'm flying in a month. I'll have to try this out.

1
moarroidsplz•

Dude, you're fucking hilarious.

1
carbonbased•

I read "fight tit"...

-10
[deleted]•

By all the internets, I'm going to opt for a pat-down and identify as female. In reality, my gender is male.

40
elnerdo•

I see no reason not to do this.

27
argv_minus_one•

Risk of arrest?

1
Not_Reddit•

I would suggest a pastel colored chiffon scarf in order to help pull this off....

1
[deleted]•

Noted.

1
ychromosome•

Ugh, not to sound shallow, but have you seen most women who work for TSA?

1
[deleted]•

Have you seen me? :.(

4
argv_minus_one•

Most of the women I saw working for them (which is to say about three—I don't fly very often) were pretty good looking. Being patted down by them would be slightly awkward but not entirely unpleasant. ;)

1
lilzilla•

So what if the skirt is not loose enough to wrap around the leg? How can the "more thorough" search not involve putting a hand up the skirt in that case?

39
marshmallowhug•

Someone in another thread claimed that they take people into a private room, give them a blanket or sheet, and ask them to remove or lift the skirt. (Alternatively, they might ask if you have pants in your carry-on, and request that you change.)

7
andash•

He probably meant that in those cases, a hand up the skirt is a neccesary evil. It's not like there's many options... I guess apart from the person lifting their skirt up and rotating or whatever, they probably have to pat you down though :p

0
Korbit•

I would think they would take you into the side room and have you remove the skirt to do an visual inspection.

2
Proeliata•

It seems that he also said, "If at any time a TSA officer is placing their hand up your skirt, and you are not dating them, then they are performing the search incorrectly." That doesn't seem to jibe with your interpretation.

2
Chicken-n-Waffles•

There is absolutely no probable cause to search there in the United States of America. That is heinous sexual molesting.

You (as in the agency) don't care what this does to the psychology of those who have been sexually molested and you don't care. All you do spew lies about probability and imagination or 'terrorist threats' and you believe the propaganda the sell you during training.

The airlines could hire seasoned bouncers and be more effective than the 'trained' staff hired by the government.

13
argv_minus_one•

When all it takes is a few ounces of liquid explosive tucked in one's anus to turn an airliner into a fireball, and there are tens of thousands of people that routinely get off on doing precisely that, how much damn probable cause do you really need?

Seasoned bouncers are good at dealing with angry drunks. Sophisticated terrorists attempting to suicide-bomb an airliner in flight, not so much.

1
Chicken-n-Waffles•

Seasoned bouncers are good at people profiling and knowing how to diffuse a kinetic situation before it gets out of hand.

You're buying into a situation that got the imagination of every scare monger. The story you're referring to relates to a contact solution container that had elements of a liquid explosive in it. It got diffused because the perpetrators were not that intelligent and they were on a watch list to begin with.

If any terrorist wanted to see something, they'd put in a brick of potassium in the lavatory and bye bye plane.

You have to stop watching FOX news.

1
DigitalMindShadow•

If at any time a TSA officer is placing their hand up your skirt, and you are not dating them, then they are performing the search incorrectly. Notify their supervisor, it shouldn't be allowed.

Doesn't this run the risk that a would-be hijacker might wear a miniskirt and conceal a weapon in their crotch?

8
tsahenchmanOP•

That would be a very unsuccessful attempt. I didn't say we don't have ways to search a mini-skirt. Details are SSI in this case, but I'll say that I don't recommend flying in a miniskirt.

26
ZnellKeebler•

Not trying to be a dick here, but I just don't understand how that is classified. Wouldn't anyone who has ever been screened while wearing a miniskirt be aware of this information?

Like I said I am not trying to coerce information. I guess that mine is a new question. What constitutes classified information?

27
walesmd•

They make you go into a private area and use a blanket/sheet/something of this nature to cover your genitals so they can't see them as they grope them.

2
gritx•

Look up the skirt? This is SSI? Isn't that already covered by full naked scans?

1
sunshinedaze•

so essentially what you're saying is, your comment saying that if a TSA officer put their hand up your skirt, they're incorrect, was bullshit?

Ironically, I'm actually on the TSA's side for most things, because I don't particularly want to be blown up, either. If y'all wanna see my fat ass naked, whatever. But I do think I should be free to wear whatever the fuck I want to, and that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MOLEST ME EVER PERIOD.

Shit. Such fucking gray area. Let a bunch of horny fucks (can you comment on the McCall situation? The girl that tried to opt out and was essentially treated like a terrorist, but who was extremely hot...and picked "randomly" >.>) view you naked (again, I'm a fat chick, who the fuck's gonna wanna see that, for srs), or let them fucking molest you.

It's kind of disgusting, when you think about it. Ew.

tl;dr - you just contradicted yourself, and do you sincerely think that molesting strangers is a respectable way to make a living?

1
friednoodles•

They also still have portable metal detectors....

1
rironin•

They're supposed to stop when they encounter "resistance." So yeah. They probably could. That weapon would basically have to be explosives though, and that brings up a lot of other issues.

0
DigitalMindShadow•

Why would the weapon "have to be explosives"? All the 9/11 guys had were boxcutters. If your goal is to generate fear, successfully smuggling any weapon onto an airplane and using it would work, even if you don't actually succeed in hijacking the plane or even injuring anyone.

1
phidel_kashflow•

If at any time a TSA officer is placing their hand up your skirt, and you are not dating them, then they are performing the search incorrectly. Notify their supervisor, it shouldn't be allowed.

SSI?

2
tsahenchmanOP•

Don't think so in this case. If I said how we'd screen a skirt with tight fabric it might be. So I won't. PM me a good counter argument and I'll remove it though.

3
Frothyleet•

So, this is SSI, but it's information I could discover by flying in a skirt with tight fabric? Doesn't that sound like security theater to you? Do you really think anything you are doing is actually sensitive information?

I mean, if there were some metal alloy that didn't show up on backscatter scanners than maybe I could imagine that being sensitive. But if you have a patdown technique that nay person, Al Qaeda Operative or otherwise, can simply experience, than that's not really top secret info.

7
LiptonCB•

It doesn't mean they wouldn't check by other means.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

Uh, no. Call the fucking cops, call a fucking lawyer, and ruin that motherfucker's LIFE for grabbing you like that. His or her entire life. Don't forget to make sure theres no money for their kids college either.

1
allergic•

I hope you're still around to answer. Is this true?

Be careful - new reports are that a tight pencil skirt means that the TSO cannot get between your legs, and that you will be sent to a private screening to remove your skirt and change into a paper gown for a further search.

1
Not_Reddit•

it's OK if you are dating them though ? this seems strange...

0
argv_minus_one•

Roleplaying TSA agent and passenger… Kinky.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-6
[deleted]•

he didn't say what the consequences would be.

6
buttcheaQ•

never the same.

8
fidelcastro1926•

If you had to choose, would you prefer being searched by a male or female?

1
DiggingNoMore•

Tough call, but I'm leaning toward male.

1
danmickla•

Why do people assume that sex A prefers to be searched by sex A?

  1. all kinds of preferences and combinations of attractions exist
  2. for non-sexophobic people, isn't it just as bad either way?

srsly. I see this so much that I can't help but wonder at the red-herringness of it.

1
ProximaC•

How do you personally feel about these new searches?

The way I see it, anything that could be hidden underneath a boob or behind the ballsack could easily be pushed up into the anus or vag and would be missed by either the xray or the hand search, so do you really feel this search makes us more "safe"?

You already have machines that can detect micro amounts of explosives or propellants without having to cup my balls, and without cavity searches, you're not going to find the next set of box cutters real terrorists are going to smuggle on board.

I, and many others see these new systems as theater, albeit expensive and invasive theater, that doesn't really keep us safe from someone determined to get something on board a plane.

How do you feel these new measures keep us more safe than what we had last year?

179
tsahenchmanOP•

The new searches are faster, easier for us to remember, and cover some areas that were not covered before. This makes them more effective for security purposes. They obviously cannot check by feel alone for a pound of C4 in your colon.

As you pointed out, we do have machines to detect explosive particulate, very accurately. Individuals who have hidden explosives inside themselves will probably set those machines off if we test them. Which the new procedures include. So yes, they are effective searches in that matter. Could we stop a military team with access to proper resources and training? Maybe not. Could we stop a guy who had shoved some explosives down his pants? I am confident that at my airport we could have. Probably at most airports in this country. Which is why the attack was launched from a foreign country, with less thorough security measures.

Does it keep you safe? I'm not really qualified to judge. I don't have access to intelligence to determine if any attacks planned were stopped by the presence of our procedures. I've seen a nutjob that tried to sneak a handgun on board caught, but that's really all as far as serious weaponry.

Is it too invasive? That's something thats going to have to be decided by consensus. I don't think it is, but that's one opinion out of a population of millions.

67
kleinbl00•

Is it too invasive? That's something thats going to have to be decided by consensus.

###WE WEREN'T ASKED FOR A CONCENSUS.

YOU JUST ROLLED THAT SHIT OUT.

772
CunningAllusionment•

Invade privacy first, ask questions later.

99
jaredharley•

Ah, I see you've ready the Patriot Act as well

20
arkanus•

Two steps forward. Grudgingly agree to take one back. Rinse and repeat.

1
zuperxtreme•

Like a TSA officer. ಠ_ಠ

0
billyblaze•

It is rather refreshing to see you rage once in a while, kleinbl00. Carry on.

85
Vitalstatistix•

Agreed. Klein has enough respect from me to just say fuck it, fuck you TSA.

3
Redebo•

I'm digging it too. He's normally just well spoken but tonight he's pissed off as well and it for the right reasons.

1
anyletter•

If reddit had a voice it'd probably be yours.

26
[deleted]•

LOUD NOISES

3
steelfrog•

Somehow I don't think the OP was personally responsible for the decision.

23
TheLobotomizer•

Obviously, but I think klienbl00's anger is directed more toward the fact the OP thinks these procedures are supported by the majority of people, when in fact, they're clearly not.

62
orbitur•

Well, now that they've rolled that shit out, it's up to you to show them the majority of people aren't willing to fly in these conditions.

11
mightycow•

It's easier to not ask for forgiveness than to not ask for permission.

3
AZL94•

Disregard privacy, aquire airport porn

3
[deleted]•

I want to bestof this, but I feel I would be stealing your thunder.

So I want you to bestof yourself. Or something.

2
sidewalkchalked•

Don't forget man, the new searches are easier for them to remember.

2
johnnybluejeans•

I don't think the OP rolled the new rules out. Kind of like how the cashier at McDonalds doesn't set the price of a Big Mac.

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
sje46•

You rock man. Really. First youngluck, and telling this creep what's up. Keep on keeping on, man.

-1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
Stones420•

I don't know, why does the public seem to think it has the right to decide this kind of thing? Air travel is a privilege, not a right. Sure some company made a buttload of money selling these machines, but if everyone just got on with it, accepted that someone will get to see a shitty 3D rendition of their tits/junk, it would make it alot easier (and hopefully safer) than otherwise. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a TSA officer see my cherries (and thousands of other peoples) and feel a little bit safer.

-2
tepidpond•

The government has no duty to make you feel good. Not one single terrorist has EVER been caught by the TSA, but they've been molesting harmless grandmas and toddlers for years.

And you, spineless quisling that you are, desire that these brownshirted goons should force every single traveler to undergo a virtual public strip search? Fuck you, get out of my country.

2
thilehoffer•

Yes, but anyone with explosives in his ass is going to opt out of the machine, thus making the entire experience nothing more than theater. It has nothing to do with safety. Some company made a shit ton of money selling these machines to the TSA, that is what this is about.

108
[deleted]•

[deleted]

4
marshmallowhug•

Except that the health issues associated with the radiation are exploding into public consciousness.

9
cyancynic•

No - I'd opt in for the machine if I had explosives in my ass. It won't reveal explosives in the ass and the overconfidence in the machines seems to imply that if you get the machine they don't do anything else.

4
lateral_us•

THIS

2
[deleted]•

You don't opt out of the explosive detection machine, it's not the same thing as the new naked image scanners.

I have a friend who used to do defense work and would always set off the explosive detector when he went through airports. I'm pretty sure they actually work.

Not that that necessarily means they're making us safer, but the explosives detection is not exactly invasive.

[edit: forgot a word ]

1
[deleted]•

Actually, a bomb in your colon would not show up on the backscatter machines, unless the power has been turned significantly up beyond the FDA regulated setting, which would be really unsafe for everyone walking through. In fact, I guess I'll ask that as my question: Can you see anything in people's colons? That would raise serious health concerns and you should alert the FDA if your airport is doing that.

Further, no one has ever managed to successfully set off an explosive in their pants because terrorists are incompetent, not because TSA security screening has been effective.

64
tsahenchmanOP•

You are correct, the colon bomb doesn't appear on the backscatter or millimeter wave screen. That wasn't the procedure I was referring to.

And yes, terrorists have shown themselves to be frequently quite incompetent. Except when they aren't, then people die.

59
nailz1000•

Except when they aren't, then people die.

Thus the paradox of the TSA being useless.

251
[deleted]•

Except when they aren't, then people die.

When, exactly?

I can't think of a single instance that a competent terrorist attack has afflicted airplanes that would not have been prevented solely by the steel reinforced cockpit doors now found on every airplane.

Further, why can I still have a laptop battery on a plane? Those things can get hot enough to melt through the floor of an airplane, for a simple attack, and have enough energy to excite electromagnetic resonances in a plane to fuck with a plane's electronics enough to bring the plane down, for a more complicated but equally effective attack, concealable entirely within completely innocuous electronics.

My point is that every TSA policy is only designed to stop the incompetent attacks, which won't succeed anyway, and competent attacks will have no trouble getting by our shitty but invasive security.

49
smalltownjeremy•

terrorists have shown themselves to be frequently quite incompetent. Except when they aren't, then people die.

They don't have to be competent to succeed. Every time they fuck up you erode our rights further and make our traveling lives more miserable. It's easier and cheaper for them to get a dummy to screw up than a marginally intelligent person to succeed in the system we've devised.

13
tehForce•

old guy in a monks robe: "That wasn't the procedure you were referring to."

tsa guy: "That's not the procedure I was referring to."

old guy in a monks robe: "You can go about your business."

tsa guy: "You can go about your business."

old guy in a monks robe: "Move along."

tsa guy: "Move along. Move along."

2
Dunceiam•

Colonoscopy?

Shit sounds fun.

1
[deleted]•

Another question:

I have noticed that at large airports, the "no liquids or gels" policy is not really strictly enforced. I am frequently able to bring toothpaste, shampoo, and always deodorant through security. How much discretion do the agents have in deciding when to enforce this?

Am I getting through with these materials because I am not a threat, or because the TSA screeners aren't very good at their jobs?

1
seanbyram•

There are specialized devices for detecting explosive materials at the PPM level.

8
[deleted]•

I'm not sure such a device is applicable to C4, at least not yet.

1
LoggingBro•

I once had to go in this booth type thing that sent s puff of air through it. I think it was checking for explosive residue. Funny thing is, I was flying down south as part of the Red Cross for hurricane relief.

1
xb4r7x•

They're already unsafe

5
[deleted]•

I've read that. There's an FDA response letter that I felt adequately addressed the concerns raised by that letter.

However, there is still the issue of misuse by TSA agents. You are supposed to only be exposed in bursts of a few milliseconds, but if you get anything longer than that nonlinear resonances in your cells could be excited and it could unravel your DNA instantly.

Also unaddressed is the fact that anything metal on you will absorb a significantly greater amount of energy than you do, and the energy absorbed by things like keys, buttons, etc. has to discharge through something, i.e. you.

2
thilehoffer•

It doesn't matter because you can opt out of the machine.

1
[deleted]•

It does matter, because everyone who walks through that machine is going to get cancer.

2
mnemy•

I think his point is that there's no point in these invasive procedures if there's a simple way to circumvent it. Shove the explosives up your ass. If your methods of "sniffing" out the explosives are as effective as you think, then that adds to the point that these naked scans / invasive pat downs are unnecessary.

Basically, answer this straight up: What are these new security policies gaining us? How am I in any way safer by getting my balls cupped or my non-existent girlfriend getting groped when there's a very simple alternative hiding place?

You say you've seen someone try to sneak a handgun on board. Well, that's what the x-ray machine and metal detector are for. And hey, it'll even catch it if someone tries to smuggle a gun up their ass!

30
[deleted]•

[deleted]

28
gregable•

At the top of the thread, you replied to a question of "Do you feel like all these security measures are markedly increasing our safety from terrorists?" with an unqualified "Yes".

Here you turn around and pose the same question and a different reply:

Does it keep you safe? I'm not really qualified to judge.

Which is it?

11
guriboysf•

Could we stop a guy who had shoved some explosives down his pants? I am confident that at my airport we could have. Probably at most airports in this country. Which is why the attack was launched from a foreign country, with less thorough security measures.

Why then should the USA ramp up screenings? He didn't breach our security.

Edit: formatting

3
hardchargerxxx•

Actually, constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, are not "decided by consensus." These are rights are not granted based on consensus, or the approval of a majority.

3
ChaosMotor•

Your particulate machines are "very accurate" but have been plagued by false alarms such as being set off by swabbing regular clothing. SOOOO secure, I'm impressed.

2
Quady•

False Positive is better than False Negative. Obviously the best would be a perfectly accurate scan, but if you can't have that, better to be oversensitive.

(Before anyone gets pissed at me, I'm not trying to defend these newer security measures, i'm just pointing out an issue with the idea of a false alarm)

1
draebor•

Here is my issue with the TSA's ever-tightening security policies:

Every time the TSA institutes a new screening procedure, a determined bomber is going to find a way around it. If you add measures to counter the new technique, they will find another way around it. This is a well-documented phenomenon and each the cycle progresses, all of us innocent citizens have to suffer yet another indignity in the name of protecting us from the spectre of terrorism.

2
[deleted]•

Suffering indignities builds character. Seriously, "preserving dignity" is a pernicious concept. As for the arms race thing, you have a point, but planes are valuable targets, so the optimum level of protection isn't 0. In a sane society, we would do the following calculation: Expected number of deaths and disabilities per year due to cancer from scanners vs expected number of deaths and disabilities per year due to terrorist activity. You might also like to check the cost of the scanners vs the expected cost of terrorist attacks. Depending on the economic value assigned to a human life, you could even combine these calculations. I would assign the cost of "loss of dignity" a big oval zero in this evaluation.

-2
draebor•

I guess we define and calculate 'costs' differently. To me, losing the right to presumption of innocence is a cost. Losing the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure is a cost (warrantless searches of person and belongings). Losing a lot of freedom for a little protection is a cost. I'm not advocating a 'zero' level of security and my concerns are not of a medical nature (thought that is a valid concern) - I am opposing a security policy that assumes every one of your customers is a criminal until proven otherwise.

Suffering indignities builds character.

Spoken like a person who's never suffered an indignity. Ask a rape victim if it builds character. Ask a torture victim if it builds character. Am I exaggerating the nature of the indignity to make a point? It depends on how you feel about security guards groping your loved ones and having their bodies digitally imaged through their clothes.

1
pantadon•

The security should go away. I feel safer from the random chance of some guy blowing up one in 10,000,000 flights then my government controlling myself, my family and my loved ones for ever single move they make. I have a fiancee I love and I don't want her hoo-hoo being oggle'd at by TSA. We're going to opt-out while we still can, I would honestly feel more comfortable on flights if passengers were allowed to carry on firearms. You are a "henchman" of a government that is overstepping its bounds (placed on it by the constitution(for our safety)).

1
Aegean•

Has there been reports of explosives being smuggled in this way?

1
albino_wino•

Backscatter x-ray won't reveal a pound of C4 in the colon. Nor will a pat-down. Oh shit I just gave TSA an excuse to require cavity searches for all flights!

1
peekdasneaks•

The new searches are faster, easier for us to remember, and cover some areas that were not covered before. This makes them more effective for security purposes.

Yes, this may be completely true. As would mandatory strip searches for everyone. Imagine how easy that would be for you guys! No more metal detectors, no more Advanced Pornography Technology, no more pat downs. Just have them wipe their ass with your explosive detection sheets and send them on their way! This way it's super easy for you guys, and it pretty much covers EVERYTHING. Is that the ultimate goal for you guys?

No, because in the end, any of you who have not yet quit TSA out of disgust for your organizations systematic sexual molestation and pornography (the scanners do, by the way, save EVERY photo), are simply a bunch of perverted, socially disturbed, sexual deviants who only want the job so you can ILLEGALLY sexually molest children and/or anyone you find attractive.

In the end, the matter of it being to invasive does not have to be decided by consensus. As hardchargerxxx pointed out, our Federal Government has fortunately had the foresight to grant us citizens certain rights. Among those include the right to safety from unreasonable search and seizure. Sexual molestation and pornographic photos are not reasonable methods of searching. Nevermind the fact that sexual assault is illegal and in my mind (as well as any other rational persons') ought to land each and every one of you in prison and a sex offender label, your explosive detection machine could....well...detect explosives much more efficiently than someone who wants to play with little kid's genitals.

If I stuck c4 in my ass, rubbing my balls is not going to save anybody. I implore you use your mind (as opposed to blindly following directions from the top) and your position of authority within the TSA to organize some sort of discussion within the line employees about the malicious sexual assault being prescribed by your organization. Please try to find a more suitable alternative that doesn't require radioactive pornographic scanners (which aren't operated by personnel trained in radiology) or rampant sexual exploitation of children and adults. Oh wait, why would you want to do that you sick perverted fuck?

1
[deleted]•

wow really nice post i read all of it reddits maturity is awsome i think ill fit in here...as for me im 13 and im a DARK sonic/knuckles libertarian hybrid so im very mature

0
[deleted]•

Just wanted to say Fuck You for willingly being part of the problem. How you manage to humiliate people in direct violation of their rights on a daily basis underlines the apparent flaw in your character. You sir are no better than the East German Stasi. I honestly hope someday you are tried for your crimes or at least subjected to vigilante justice.

-1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
halfbeak•

I don't have access to intelligence

You already said you work for TSA; this was assumed.

-3
Smashure•

I Could be mistaken, but I believe the 9/11 attackers were all outbound from american airports.

-4
[deleted]•

I think he's referring to the Christmas bomber from last year.

21
ChaosMotor•

Oh, you mean the guy who was able to bypass airport security because some wealthy dude talked him in? Yeah, okay.

1
Clown_Shoe•

He was too busy unwrapping presents

0
rironin•

This discussion seems to be centered on explosives. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that 9/11 style attacks will never happen again. The absolute best a terrorist can do would be to bring the plane down, and to do that he would have to fight all of the passengers and crew to make it to the cockpit.

Everyone knows now that you can't give a hijacker control of the plane. The next best weapon is therefore explosives. Which begs the question, as others have asked: if the hijacked-plane-turned-steerable-missile type of attack used on 9/11 is now obsolete, and air terrorism is reduced to simple suicide bombings, why on earth would terrorists bother to carry them out? There are innumerable places that they could bomb with similarly scary, deadly results, and without any security issues. I suppose there is the thought of transportation disruption, and the echoes of 9/11 to help make it seem scarier, but other than that, a plane is no better than a mall, and quite likely worse, from a terrorist's point of view.

EDIT: Typo.

16
ICantSeeIt•

Agreed. I believe that crowded train/subway/metro/tube stations and the like would be much easier and more effective targets. Near zero security, people use it daily, lots of people standing in wait, etc.

4
giantnakedrei•

He was mentioning the much more recent "underwear" bomber, whose flew from Yemen, through the Netherlands to Detroit. And the Printer Bombs, which were routed from Somalia? or Yemen through Somalia or something of the sort to Europe and then on to the US.

6
tsahenchmanOP•

The printer cartridge plot was to my knowledge all cargo and shipping. These are areas I have no experience in, so can't really say too much about it. If someone had brought that through a passenger checkpoint or baggage checkpoint here though, it would have been caught. I have no doubt on that issue.

7
ltjboy03•

So wait, they can see my tiny penis when I walk through those things?

NNNNOOOOOOOO!

1
[deleted]•

No, because <bloodhound gang> you're hung like Planet Pluto, hard to see with the naked eye </bloodhound gang>

1
partyhat•

Do you feel like all these security measures are markedly increasing our safety from terrorists?

163
1upFireFlower•

They are molesting children in front of their parents.

Men are forced to watch as their wifes are humiliated by having other men take and look at naked photos of their bodies.

What the fuck has happened to this country?

230
[deleted]•

molesting children

You know, for a community that cries "foul" pretty loudly at women calling false rape, reddit sure is quick to claim "think of the children" in this case.

78
netcrusher88•

Take allies wherever you can get them. You can always discard them later.

Also, under no sane definition are the new TSA "pat-down" procedures not sexual assault.

67
[deleted]•

Except the definition where sexual assault requires sexual intent. Then not so much.

3
Nessie•

It's not assault if they know you want it.

-3
wh44•

Excuse me, but:

a) what do false rape accusations have to do with children being molested? The first thing that springs to my mind, is that both are injustices, not that men "should" be on different sides of those issues.

b) even if you do accept that false dichotomy, and I don't, reddit is not homogeneous.

c) This is a general problem in reddit: last time I tried to bring some reason to a circlejerk, I lost a bunch of karma, so now I try to avoid obvious circlejerks (which means my karma grows rather slowly).

7
[deleted]•

I'm saying that children are not, in fact, being molested. I hate overactive security too, but I don't see any form of sexual assault in the new methods.

2
Japeth•

I agree with you, but keep in mind reddit is more than one person.

3
theNicky•

I've been mislead...

2
[deleted]•

community

2
sidewalkchalked•

That's because in this case unlike most cases in which that argument is used, children are actually at risk

3
[deleted]•

What exactly are they at risk of, though? Is it likely that your kid will be scarred for life from this? Or are you worried that TSA agents are all pedophiles you are just doing this so that they can grab some kid's junk?

1
greenRiverThriller•

I'm thinking of the children.

Right now in fact.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
topherotica•

You know, for a community that cries "foul" pretty loudly at women calling false rape

  1. You are a part of us too

  2. Generalizations are always wrong

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
CRoswell•

So you teach your kids that "no one can touch you there ever without calling for another grown up" then you either send them through for high dose radiation or have an adult feel them up.

I don't have kids (yet) but I'm not a fan. We'll be taking family road trips if they keep this shit up.

1
1338h4x•

This is real.

0
Grantzer0•

Touch my kid and I will fuck you up. I am not a violent person but that is the truth.

9
1upFireFlower•

Good! This is one quality that makes a person a decent human being.

8
[deleted]•

Yes, getting arrested at the airport is good parenting in a bottle.

18
[deleted]•

Touche.

2
phrakture•

Have you ever done this at an airport? I imagine it wouldn't go over well. People likely feel too helpless to say anything.

2
PterydactylPr0n•

I can't answer your question but I can tell you that I have no desire to ever go there. Not that I ever did really, well, maybe NYC, Seattle, LA/SF but none of the rest. Now I am happy to miss out on the dubious "privilege" of ever attending the good ol' US of A.

1
1upFireFlower•

There are a lot of really nice people here too.

The government is so far away from the people anymore...

Arrrggghh.

Best of luck out there.

1
bearsthatdance•

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

1
nchammer326•

They are molesting children in front of their parents.

Source?

0
Vitalstatistix•

Sight.

1
gdog05•

The source would be the TSA guidelines. Also, plenty of other sources are out there.

0
nchammer326•

First off, infowars is bullshit.

Second, I've read the TSA guidelines and I can't find where it talks about children regarding the pat-down procedures.

3
angelozdark•

Hey bro ! I don't know much about politics an' all' and I'm an Arab an' alll ya know? BUT - maybe I think if you look deeper into sara-MOTHERFUCKING-PALIN, you'll understand what happened to "this" country.

just sayin' bro

0
1upFireFlower•

It is baffling,

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-2
[deleted]•

I think you left your tinfoil hat in the washing machine. You seem to have a very twisted view of frisking and full-body scanners if you think it's molestation.

PS: The plural of "wife" isn't "wifes".

-2
flynomore•

Having naked pictures taken of you against your will or alternately getting groped against your will is molestation in any other situation.

Your only choices are to possibly be stranded, lose tons of money on travel plans, etc by not flying or submitting, so it doesn't make it a true "choice."

1
tsahenchmanOP•

Yes. Whether that's a suitable trade off for for the sacrifice in privacy they involve is a very complicated discussion though. I won't even pretend to have a definitive answer on that.

151
kleinbl00•

...why not detonate a bomb at the TSA checkpoint? There are very few occasions when the number of people standing in line is smaller than the number of people on the average aircraft.

188
Poromenos•

Remember the guy who found an FBI GPS transmitter in his car? They bugged it because he posted something on reddit about a mall being a good target. I expect the FBI to be horribly busy after this thread.

139
[deleted]•

Aw man, that thread was THE BOMB. that shit was so FLY it's PLANE to see that we were gonna BRING DOWN THE WHOLE HOUSE with some old school tracks, golden age hip hop knawmsayn hi TIA agents love your work!

173
happybadger•

Mind you he had a brown person name. I'm sure that played a large role in his run-in with the FBI, as I've discussed many questionable things and nothi

15
[deleted]•

[deleted]

6
charlesviper•

While he did have a comment that said 'I'm probably bugged now', I believe he was the son of a Muslim leader believed to be an extremist, right? That seems like a much more likely trigger than saying 'I'm going to blow up the Pentagon!' on Reddit.

2
Bluesuiter•

I thought he was bugged because he had an uncle that was a community leader in Egypt or some shit?

2
[deleted]•

Canadian, thus to protect you all:

Washington, Bush, 9/11, Terrorists, IED, firearm, knife, gun, machete, Screeners, checkpoint, hijack, operation, osama, mass terror, goat porn, collab, meth, crack, plane, shooting, anal probe, C4, explosives, jihad

FUCK YOU SPIDER BOTS.

2
poubelle•

I remember that thread but not that conclusion coming out of it. Do you have linksies for where someone provided that reason?

1
rospaya•

The nearest FBI office is a couple of thousand kilometers from where I live, so if they want to waste more time, energy and money than usually, let them.

1
RobinBennett•

Yeah, but he had an arabic sounding name and brown skin ;-)

1
r-ice•

where was that link again?

1
moarroidsplz•

Link? :O

1
GustoGaiden•

Terrorism usually targets ideology instead of going for sheer number of people killed. The World Trade Center isn't just a place where the most Americans are concentrated, it was attacked because it was a symbol of western culture. It was a place where the infidels went to do their dirtywork. Similarly, the pentagon was probably attacked because it was a symbol of western aggression. The guy who flew the plane into the IRS building was the same way. The buildings, and what they represent were the target. The people killed was just a bonus. An aircraft is packed with explosive fuel, has a LOT of mass, and travel at high speeds. It is basically a missile. Any bomb you come up that is small enough to be carried into a public place by a single person with is going to be MUCH less powerful than an airplane. The next best option is a car bomb, but those are better at killing people than structures, and most places in the US, cars and people are kept fairly far apart.

Attacking a TSA checkpoint would be a pretty bad move. I hate characterizations like this, but "The Terrorists" are probably pretty happy with the TSA. It is a boldfaced manifestation of our fear of being attacked. It kind of validates their existence and solidifies their presence in the American psyche. This is one of the reasons I dislike the TSA so much.

62
captainhotpants•

I always thought it was because the Twin Towers were really fucking tall and the easiest things to hit with an airplane.

8
kleinbl00•

...which is why the PLO used to blow up Sbarro all the time, right?

6
SoCalDan•

The theory is the terrorist attacked the twin towers because they were the symbol of economic power. The pentagon because it is the symbol of military power. The last plane was suspected of being headed towards the white house or the capitol building as symbols of political power.

2
redalastor•

Attacking a TSA checkpoint would be a pretty bad move. I hate characterizations like this, but "The Terrorists" are probably pretty happy with the TSA. It is a boldfaced manifestation of our fear of being attacked. It kind of validates their existence and solidifies their presence in the American psyche. This is one of the reasons I dislike the TSA so much.

Quite the contrary, that'd be a very good move for the terrorists. Just imagine how hard it would be for the government to invent new security theater that'd convince people they are safe after that.

1
phantom784•

I agree that the only advantage of targeting planes rather than a crowded place like a mall, or the security line, is the ability to use the plane as a giant missile. However, the locked and reinforced cockpit doors, as well as passenger and crew awareness, would make an attack like 9/11 impossible to pull off, regardless of what you can and can't get past security.

1
ProbablyHittingOnYou•

Seriously. I've been at large airports during busy periods, and the security lines wrap around for like a mile. There's got to be 1,000 people, tightly packed into lines.

38
HardlyOriginal•

Oh shit! We need security screening outside the airports now too!

17
CrayolaS7•

I don't know about where you guys live but I live in Sydney which has 4.5 million people and at 530pm on a weekday afternoon there are easily ~2000-5000 people in one of the major train stations, which are underground, at any one time. I'd be much more worried about an attack there like in London than I am about flying.

1
Raaaargh•

Who will watch the watchers?

1
rhiesa•

That's a good idea right there...

2
[deleted]•

FBI Agent here, replying to remember later to check you out.

6
elnerdo•

The philosophy is that airplanes are a bigger concern because airplanes can be turned into weapons.

The philosophy might be wrong, but that's what it is.

1
kleinbl00•

TSA: 1 step behind.

16
[deleted]•

Yeah, that's why they just let pilots through security with only an id check, since they're pretty much flying huge missiles.

Oh wait..

1
xb4r7x•

Errr... put a thicker door on the cockpit and train the pilots to use a gun. Done deal.

1
Korbit•

airplanes can be turned into weapons

Not if you blow them up. Really, bombs on planes is a stupid idea. Woot! I got my bomb through the terminal packed with thousands of people to blow up tens of people in the air!

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
drytree•

I've wondered this myself. The only reasons I can think of are, many people are already scared of flying so a little more fear can make a big difference and contain-ability - if you blow up an airplane, everyone dies. If you blow up a checkpoint some may make it out alive.

1
murphylaw•

...and now somebody's going to try that within the week.

EDIT: Not to call you an asshole for saying it. That was actually a good observation.

1
suprdave•

I guarantee you the FBI is now writing up a letter to reddit to get your IP address.

Sorry bro :(

1
[deleted]•

I've wondered that as well. By making airplanes a hard target airports have become much softer.

1
mrrp•

All this TSA crap only makes sense if you believe that the terrorists are fixated on bringing down airplanes. Anyone know of any reason to think this is the case?

1
voiceinthedesert•

I honestly don't think terrorism is about killing people. Killing people is easy and could be done in a lot of places easier than an airport. Terrorism is about power and influence for the guys at the top, just like our own politics. Killing people frequently gets them hunted, doing enough to stay in the news keeps them comfy.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
JayhawkCSC•

Cause it's just kind of a dick thing to do.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

Truth of the matter? Bomber in line ~50 dead another 100 wounded maybe? Hijack an airliner and you could do far more, depending on the size of the plane.

1
kleinbl00•

Try and hijack a plane these days.

1
llehsadam•

kleinbl00, you're gonna get yourself in trouble! Continue!

1
[deleted]•

I've been saying this for a while. Or, fill a suitcase with high explosives, and hook the detonator up to an X-ray power detector. There goes all your expensive screening equipment plus a whole bunch of TSA employees.

1
Tailslide•

You wouldn't even need a bomb...

0
kuhawk5•

Say hi to Jan for me!

0
super6logan•

Do you think we should setup TSA check points at malls and other crowded areas, given that these places hold as many or more people than an airplane?

153
sakabako•

It's pretty hard to fly a mall into a building.

406
super6logan•

Do you think the prospect of terrorists taking a plane over is realistic at present? The reason they successfully took over 3 planes on 9/11 was because everyone on board thought it would be like the movies where they would land the plane and hold them for ransom. When the people on flight 93 found out this was not the case they stopped the plane from hitting a building. Likewise, any terrorists seeking to fly a plane into a building at present would have to do more than brandish box cutters, they would be facing physical resistance from passengers, unlike the terrorists on the 3 planes that hit their targets on 9/11.

edit: grammar

203
ramp_tram•

But it's not hard to use a suicide bomb to take out a gigantic black friday crowd.

I live in a county that has less than 100,000 people, but you could kill 1500 people by going to Best Buy on black friday and setting off a medium sized bomb.

63
[deleted]•

See? All the added security is working

13
Googler1•

Unless you are in the A380 mall.

5
UsingYourWifi•

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

3
dtzitz•

It's pretty hard to open a new cockpit door if the Pilot doesn't want you in there.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
NekoIan•

All the new security measures are pretty much in response to the more recent threats of blowing up planes.

1
capriceragtop•

But not impossible! Hold on, let me go get my aviators.

Now the Mall of America Across America begins!

1
[deleted]•

Oh, I thought we were trying to prevent civilian deaths.

1
Shmexy•

Gave me a good laugh. Also gave the Apple support guy I'm on the line with (who I just found out is a fellow redditor) a good laugh too after he asked what was so funny.

1
Atheist101•

thats obviously not what super6logan was talking about but upvote for humor

1
[deleted]•

SkyMall, man.

1
[deleted]•

It's pretty impossible to get into a cockpit uninvited nowadays.

And no, you're damn sure not getting an invitation there either.

Oh, and if you are the pilot... how are any of the measures going to stop you from flying the plane?

1
ex_ample•

Yeah well, post 9/11 it's going to be pretty hard to take over an airplane.

1
RufusMcCoot•

Not to mention the synchronization of multiple malls flying into buildings

1
idiotthethird•

Yeah, but it would do more damage if you did, so it balances out.

1
ferballz•

I just can't imagine that terrorists would ever fly another plane into a building again. I'm surprised that they'd still even use bombs on planes. I wonder why they aren't going for malls or sport stadiums or other places that contain massive amounts of people. You don't have to pass through a metal detector at a mall, and at every ball game I've ever been to, all the security guards have done was take a quick glance in my purse. It's gonna get to the point that the terrorists cannot terrorize our planes any more so they are going to terrorize our freedoms to shop or enjoy a concert.

1
c_nt•

I need to let you know that this comment made me laugh.

A lot.

On the bus.

:|

1
tsahenchmanOP•

Hopefully not. I don't think I'd want to live in a country where the danger of terrorist attacks was so prevalent a shopping mall needed that kind of security. What would it say about us if people wanted to attack us that badly?

38
[deleted]•

I don't think you understood the question. Provided that a terrorist wants to kill N people, why do you think his first choice would be hijacking a plane whereas he could just walk into a mall (and blow up his backpack)?

Hence why so much emphasis on air transportation?

116
200iso•

Yet you feel that the danger of terrorist attacks are "so prevalent" on airliners that they warrant extra security? How would you define "so prevalent?"

8
SkiCaradhras•

ah, so you've been shopping in jerusalem.

2
megamoze•

I don't think I'd want to live in a country where the danger of terrorist attacks is so prevalent that an airport needs this kind of security.

1
Not_Reddit•

I don't think I'd want to live in a country where the danger of terrorist attacks was so prevalent an airport needed that kind of security.

-- doesn't sound much different to me.....

1
Malkav1379•

But having that kind of security for airplanes is just fine... Why shouldn't all citizens be treated as potential criminals for going to the mall, but should for riding on an airplane?

1
Loovian•

Hopefully not. I don't think I'd want to live in a country where the danger of terrorist attacks was so prevalent a plane needed that kind of security. What would it say about us if people wanted to attack us that badly?

Ftfy

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

I don't think I'd want to live in a country where the danger of terrorist attacks was so prevalent a shopping mall needed that kind of security.

Considering that there is the a greater chance of more death at Malls would you not feel safer knowing that terrorists are unable to bring death and destruction to them? Considering the job you do it seems you would be all for more safety at the cost of freedom...

1
imanimpostor•

Then don't go to Israel

1
greenconspiracy•

It would say we're Americans.

1
kingkilr•

Transportation Security Administration

Not sure what they'd be doing at the mall.

33
[deleted]•

Skymall?

113
tsahenchmanOP•

Bath and Body shop had a sale, and I had a lunch break.

98
supersaw•

Bus stops and random roads?

3
super6logan•

How's "TSA-style" work for you?

1
smalltownjeremy•

But they were in a major rail hub last week on my way home from work randomly checking bags. How long until I have to go through a body scanner on a daily basis to get on my train home? How long until body scanners are common place in large office buildings the way badge activated gates are? A little radiation here a little there. No big deal right? I don't like the prospects of that future if we let them win at the airport.

1
aardvarkious•

Malls may hold more people. But you need a much smaller bomb to kill a few hundred people on an airplane than you do to kill a few hundred in a mall.

3
super6logan•

There is 0 security a mall or a subway station. At an airport, even if we got to keep our shoes on and didn't get groped/radiated it'd be pretty hard to get a bomb on board that was good enough to kill everyone, much harder than I assume it would be to get one in a mall/metro station/etc. The point of this is that if someone's goal is to kill people there are easier ways than via airplane, so why, other than security theatre, are we so freaked out about airborne terrorism?

10
mikeash•

It's also much easier to get a large bomb into a mall. It takes some smarts to smuggle just a couple of pounds of explosives into a plane, but it takes few smarts to smuggle a couple hundred pounds of explosives into a mall. (Stick it all in a crate, stick the crate on a cart, don a uniform, and you're done.)

1
accidental_snot•

I was in the Philippines 2 years ago, and there were security checkpoints at the mall parking lot, and at the mall entrance, and the parking lot of my hotel. The guards carried assault rifles. I was glad too see them. I should add that none of them touched my junk or exposed me to radiation. They just peeked into bags and ran mirrors under the car and looked in the trunk. They also had a really effective explosive detection device. They called it a dog.

2
beautify•

The issue isn't the people on the plane, while that does have some effects, a plane is a gigantic weapon in itself. Trigger a bomb over the ocean, you kill 50-300 people. Do the same over say...Midtown atlanta mid day, you could kill thousands.

1
choosetango•

remember right after 911 when a plane went down in NY after takeoff? Not that many died, an airplane is not a bomb. As far as I know there has never been anything near the size of a city block taken out by an airplane crash, and there have been pleny of crashes in this world.

1
Zilka•

They have this in India.

1
ghostchamber•

Good question, and brings up an excellent point. I wouldn't be surprised if, after ten years of us hemorrhaging money into airports, there will be a series of attacks on public malls (or some similar public place). Suddenly we have to increase our security there as well.

1
Imsomniland•

How can you say that when you guys haven't even caught one terrorist?

64
prophetfxb•

Terrorism is nearing myth status in terms of how actually relevant it is. Im amazed how many people on a day to day basis buy into this shit. Terrorism at best is exactly what drugs are to the USA. Its a money laundering, freedom depriving, method of control installed by Bush &Co. 10 years ago. Why is this such a hard thing to grasp? Hell there havent even been any incidents of notable worth SINCE 9/11.

14
Imsomniland•

You are preaching...to a preacher.

2
Kimano•

The method itself is sound though, just the TSA seems to suck at it. Israeli airports heavily use behavior analysis to weed out suspicious individuals.

6
Wanderlustfull•

I think perhaps it's designed more as a deterrent than a method to catch.

5
[deleted]•

It's a shame OP didn't respond to this. They may not have seen it in the zillion other posts.

2
ShozOvr•

say but how do you know nobody has been deterred from trying to fuck shit up?

1
truthHIPS•

Because the numbers before TSA are no better than before TSA, so why would suddenly assume that after 9/11 there have been thousands of terrorists that didn't exist before who wish they could blow us up but are now deterred.

3
Imsomniland•

That's for the TSA to prove to justify their own spending.

1
Reese268•

Do you REALLY think that? How many people have been caught as a result of these new procedures? Is there any quantifiable evidence that they do ANYTHING other than victimize innocent people?

53
Raaaargh•

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...

I've worn my seatbelt or worn my motorcycle gear every time that I've driven a car or ridden a motorcycle. It hasn't done ANYTHING for me. It hasn't saved my life once! I'm not putting that shit on any more!

2
Reese268•

It hasn't done anything for you personally, but it has done something for lots of people who have been in accidents. There is quantifiable evidence that wearing a seatbelt has saved lives. There is no such evidence for these TSA policies, as well as other ridiculous policies they have instituted over the years. The fact is, they can not and will never make it 100% impossible for terrorist attacks to occur. What they are doing now is absolutely ridiculous. It will greatly sadden me if they general public is so cowed that they will allow TSA agents to molest them in the guise of public safety.

1
[deleted]•

We don't really expect a definitive answer just your opinion as an insider. Will you please offer it?

45
tsahenchmanOP•

Fair enough. I don't feel violated when I fly. I'm very comfortable with being touched, as long as I know what to expect. When I'm flying through a different airport and an officer does something wrong and unexpected, that does bother me. It's the surprise and confusion I think that really gets me, and I think it upsets most people when they fly too. Especially if they are unfamiliar with our procedures. Better communication I think would help people feel more comfortable with what we do. It's part of why I decided to do this AMA.

46
kleinbl00•

Yeah, you are most assuredly a TSA cog. Let me take this opportunity to say FUCK YOU. Not for doing this AMA, but for being a part of a thuggish bureaucracy for five years. I used to cheer you guys - but that stopped about January 2002 when it became clear that the only people left on the job were dead-enders. According to you, you didn't even sign up for this shit until 2005 - at which point any evidence you were doing any good whatsoever was wholly and completely missing.

You're comfortable being touched? Good for you. I'm not. I'm not comfortable with you touching my wife. I'm not comfortable with you touching my mother. I'm really not comfortable with the heaped stack of bullshit you infantile fuckwits level on my wife's friends, one of whom is a naturalized Iranian, one of which is a naturalized Moroccan, both of whom have doctoral degrees. Nothing makes me as ashamed as watching you fuckwits treat them differently than you do me.

You're bothered when officers react differently in different airports? You think we're unfamiliar with your procedures? YOU HAVE NO PROCEDURES. I fly out of SEA and I don't have a little baggy, TSA SEA gives me a little baggy. I fly out of LAS and I don't have a little baggy, TSA points me to the back of the line where they'll mutherfucking sell me one for fifty cents. I fly out of SFO and I don't have a little baggy, TSA rolls their eyes and lets me on. I fly out of PHX and I don't have a little baggy, I get pulled for secondary search. Do you really think this is somehow a communications issue?

You use that word "officer." You haven't earned that word "officer." "officer" presumes that you actually have some executive power - yet every time you thugs want to make shit hard for someone, you say "they aren't my rules." You're marching, armband-wearing bureaucrats with small dick complexes and I firmly believe the world would be a better place if you all suddenly expired.

You mutherfuckers are the reason I now drive anything under 1500 miles.

495
[deleted]•

Do you have children? If you do/did would you feel comfortable with them being observed through the scanner or patted down with the new procedure?

50
dVnt•

It's the surprise and confusion I think that really gets me, and I think it upsets most people when they fly too. Especially if they are unfamiliar with our procedures. Better communication I think would help people feel more comfortable with what we do.

This seems antithetical to your pursuit though. If your procedures are known then they can be compensated for. Isn't this somewhat axiomatic to the security "community" or whatever?

24
[deleted]•

Have you ever been taken out of line and made to stand in a public situated plexiglass box? Are you aware that an airport official has flatly stated that TSA does racial profiling re: picking certain types of people out of the line and making them stand in a publicly placed plexiglass box pending questioning when the TSA deems it available to their schedule at which time the target person is told to leave the plexiglass box so that they may be searched and or questioned?

21
[deleted]•

Are you ok with your wife or mother being groped by agents in a security line (because groping is the only way to describe the new procedures)?

Do you seriously believe a terrorist wouldn't simply cram an explosive up their ass if that's what it took to blow up a plane?

8
wtmh•

You don't feel violated. I don't either.

But what about a woman who was sexually molested and the search makes her incredibly uncomfortable?

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
okheresthedeal•

When an officer does something wrong and unexpected, do you point it out to him/her? Do you just let it go and accept the infringement? Do you attempt to correct the situation?

1
[deleted]•

Maybe if you hadnt lied about not being able to save or transfer images from the backscatter machines, you'd have a tiny chance of helping things.

But you did, you're just another fucking TSA grunt who cant get a better job in fast food. Enjoy your shit life, assbag.

1
danxmason•

Do you have a rough idea of how many people with explosives or dangerous weapons are caught by TSA per year?

21
Imsomniland•

The TSA has caught exactly ZERO terrorists

103
SashimiX•

The article didn't say the TSA, it said the TSA's "behavior detection" program.

6
luuletaja•

this should be the top voted post.

0
pHreaksYcle•

...that they reported.

0
tsahenchmanOP•

Not a lot of bombs, but it has happened. Dangerous weapons, actually a fair amount. It's hard to tell intent in those cases, other times not so hard. When a guys ex-wife is taking the kids to another state and we find a handgun in a teddy bear, intent is kind of clear there. (Didn't happen where I work, came through the grapevine)

34
[deleted]•

[deleted]

145
ramp_tram•

Dangerous weapons, actually a fair amount.

You're including knitting needles, nail files, fingernail clippers, the small knives guys forget they have in their pockets, and probably water bottles.

A dangerous weapon on a plane isn't dangerous unless a bad guy has it.

Taking my 90 year old Grandmother's knitting needles isn't preventing 9/11*2. It's just fucking with people because you can.

62
Imsomniland•

Not a lot of bombs, but it has happened.

Source?

The GAO has reported that guys have caught ZERO terrorists. Finding a bomb would mean guys have, and of course it would be reported.

Who should we believe, an anonymous stranger who claims to be a TSA agent or the GAO?

52
tosss•

What about the 80% of tests that TSA fails? How can you possibly argue that you are helping stop attacks?

6
commodore84•

Why wouldn't he just check it? It's legal to check handguns.

2
shadowblade•

We'll I guess its a good thing that you TSA guys get to play judge and jury for everyone in the airport.

People making statements like that ("intent is kind of clear there") are why the US Constitution guarantees your right to a trial by jury of your peers. Not trial by TSA-guy in the 7th hour of his shift.

You need a reality check.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
BitRex•

When a guys ex-wife is taking the kids to another state and we find a handgun in a teddy bear, intent is kind of clear there.

It is? What's the intent?

1
walesmd•

When a guys ex-wife is taking the kids to another state and we find a handgun in a teddy bear, intent is kind of clear there.

Intent to me sounds like she is trying to protect her family from a dangerous situation, not plot an attack on our nation. No crime here...

0
phidel_kashflow•

Might get the "SSI" reply on this one.

2
danxmason•

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/19/eveningnews/main6500349.shtml

2
vermithraxPejorative•

As an American, do you personally feel that the newest TSA procedures abridge our rights to privacy and unreasonable search, outside of security concerns?

9
TwoDeuces•

Security is an illusion. I'm going to wind up with a tracking device on my truck for saying this but... during heavy flying times (holidays especially) at major airports the backlog of people waiting in the terminal to pass through security has got to be close to the same amount of people that died in the Trade Tower incident.

I won't paint a picture but come on... do the math. If someone really truly wants to do us harm there is truthfully very very little anyone else can do to stop them.

The natural response for this kind of thing, of course, is to do what we're doing. Tighten security, make an effort to protect ourselves. But logic tells us that this is a farce. This won't get better until we start respecting the very people we're scared shitless of.

8
yergi•

it's called security theater. Its intent is simply to make people feel better about flying.

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

1
rasteri•

Yes.

So how many would-be bombers have you intercepted, then?

6
tsahenchmanOP•

Every one that has flown through my airport. ...none.

11
Sir_Wobblecoque•

Would you be made aware if a government inspector had smuggled something through, or otherwise bypassed your security checks, in order to test the system?

9
pipocaQuemada•

Do you think that these measures are an effective way of spending our security dollars? That is to say, do you think that there aren't other, cheaper alternatives that would end up making us more secure?

Also, what is your response to Bruce Schneier? Admittedly, Scheier's original field was computer security and cryptography rather than terrorist attacks, but the general principles of attacking systems remains the same. In particular, he claims that the most effective means of security are general intelligence efforts (e.g. the CIA) and general disaster preparedness, since these work against non-specific threats (i.e. they work independent of the particular terrorist tactics) rather than "movie-plot" threats.

http://www.schneier.com/essays-terrorism.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-314.html

2
cfuse•

This is AMA, give it a shot.

You seem to understand (and be ok with) the fact that your job is ethically dubious at best (ie. it's taking a shit on the 4th amendment - regardless of whether that makes anyone safer or not), and you sound like you are in it for personal gain (wage/health benefits). So my question to you is quite simple: How do you justify putting your personal gain ahead of others' 4th amendment rights?

Also, in relation to invasive body searches, as I don't see it asked elsewhere, I'm wondering if you have children? I wouldn't travel to the States because I wouldn't place any child in my care in a situation where they are essentially being molested. How do you justify this treatment of minors and other vulnerable individuals?

Finally, I'd like to thank you for doing this AMA. Even if some of what you've already said worries me greatly. Debate and discourse is always better than silence.

2
xb4r7x•

Do you have any scientific, statistical, or any testable data to make the assumption that we're more safe than we are before? Or are you falling for the 'it looks more secure therefore it is' thing that the whole country did shortly after 9/11?

So far, statistics have actually shown no increase or decrease in the number of security threats stopped at airports. None at all...

1
samcbar•

Name one terrorist the TSA has caught?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Nessie•

Are you really not pretending, or are you just pretending to not pretend?

1
fross•

Why do you believe that? Given the TSA program has never caught a terrorist, that the new scanners do not detect liquid explosives (more here), I would ask not "Do you think we should have some security measures?", which obviously we must have something, but "Do you think the measures we have are effective?"

Additionally, what do you think of the emphasis on not being able to take through nail scissors, clippers and accessories like that, when you can easily pick up another set once you get to duty free?

Anecdotally, I was flying out of Chicago in November 2001, probably the height of the paranoia. Passengers were barely able to take anything with metal or an edge on the plane (knitting needles, nailfiles...). Once I got through security, directly opposite the gate, a store was selling litre-sized, GLASS bottles of mineral water. Which you could take on the plane. So I did. Two of them. What is the point in picking out someone's nailfile, when something like this can be taken on the plane directly? Hell, almost anything can be made into a weapon if you want to enough, so what is the point?

1
[deleted]•

What specifically do you think is safer for everyone?

Also, do you realize how many hours your organization wastes? It is about 500 lifetimes down the drain per year. Thus, your organization is probably "killing" more people, in terms of lifetimes, than a potential terror threats (your organization has caught 0 terrorists so far). So civil rights issues aside (which are a big deal as well), I'd argue that you organization is very bad.

Why do you choose to work for a bad organization?

1
[deleted]•

Youve already been shown in this AMA to be a liar. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

1
ramp_tram•

Are you so slow that you think terrorists would attempt to use passenger flights as weapons again?

If you're the average TSA supervisor, I feel a lot less safe knowing that.

-2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
FastOCR18•

Seems like a pretty easy way of checking people would be to search any arabs and let the others pass through. But since thats for some reason unacceptable(political correctness>safety), they had to put in the body scanners and violate everyone's privacy instead.

-55
diggv4blows•

I wish reddit had a scanner that could prevent stupid people such as yourself from thinking posting a comment such as this is a good idea.

23
Malfeasant•

i don't. i'd rather encourage stupid people to voluntarily identify themselves. then we know not to trust them with anything important.

1
acidwinter•

A lot of Muslim people are not Arabs.

8
MetricSuperstar•

I like that you insinuate that only Muslims are terrorists and get upvotes, but when the troll says it's only Arabs, it gets downvotes.

5
acidwinter•

I totally agree with your sentiment but there didn't seem like a better way to point out super-smallmindedness without resorting to average small mindedness.

2
tsahenchmanOP•

No.

5
SenatorStuartSmalley•

Until the "Arabs" take a page from the book of America and outsource to China and India, what then?

1
s73v3r•

Because Ted Kaczynski was Arab. The Oklahoma City building bomber was Arab.

1
[deleted]•

He's a troll guys, look at his comment karma. He makes new accounts after a while, presumably after the other one is banned.

0
PrivacyProTip•

Yes, because the U.S. would never have Domestic Terrorism.

It's not like there are multiple instances of successful acts of domestic terrorism that ended in death that I can think of, versus one major success for foreign terrorists on U.S. (non-embassy) soil.

0
[deleted]•

The Underwear Bomber: http://www.nigeriamasterweb.com/Etc/AbdulMudalladonLondonSchoolTrip.jpg

Well, I guess it's back to the bigot drawing board, huh?

0
mellowgreen•

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/12/30/cia-sat-on-underwear-bomber-report-blame-game-erupts/attachment/dec-28-0005/ Cause that guy looks arab...

0
flaming_toasters•

Do the TSA officers have any understanding of how traumatizing this kind of thing can be to a survivor of sexual assault and/or abuse? Both the body scanner and the pat-down can be equally disturbing to someone in that kind of situation.

163
tsahenchmanOP•

It's not something we really have much training in. To be honest, it wasn't something I'd even really considered. It's not a pleasant epiphany.

118
rvabdn•

I upvoted this so more people would see it but I want you to know that the fact that you hadn't considered this is a disgrace.

You say your a supervisor which means your at least on the second rung of the ladder and you've had no sensitivity training. I can only assume that the people you supervise have had less training than you.

You're given more powers than police when it comes to searching innocent people and you don't even understand what those powers are.

72
phrakture•

You're. It means "you are". "Your" is possessive

4
You_know_THAT_guy•

Because rvabdn didn't already know that...

-2
seanbyram•

Despite whatever training they could receive (or possibility they could consider), the procedure wouldn't change. I'm not condoning it, just stating that if he was aware of the bad thing it doesn't mean the bad thing would go away.

1
Dr_Seuss•

If a child breaks down when being searched, I would hope someone would at least think to contact child services.

1
flynomore•

This is a total F-up. One thing that is very important to survivors is having control over their body again. Being forced to be viewed naked by a stranger or being groped by a stranger only brings back those feelings where control was lost. And for what? To give little &^%& like valek005 a false sense of security? Bend over valek, cause some guy already stuck a small IED up his rectum (which these machines won't see, nor will a patdown). But you'd do anything for safety, right? If you want to feel safer, let's just turn our whole country into a police state.

As for security, I regularly bring water bottles in my carry-on because I find the liquid policy stupid and inconvenient, and guess what? I get to keep it most of the time. I have friends that have inadvertently left knives in their carry-ons - and guess what - it gets through. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that people need to re-live a terrible experience and give up their 4th Amendment so we can pretend it makes us safer.

And no, not all people who've been molested in someway will jump & overreact when you touch their shoulder, but seriously, touching the breasts & genitals is too much.

40
[deleted]•

Forced? FORCED??? No one is forcing you to fucking fly. Jesus Fucking Christ, go get raped again.

1
neoumlaut•

Great, so you're completely clueless. Did you even consider the impact that these scanning machines might have?

6
albino_wino•

Try not to dwell on it; you have a full day of grabbing ball sacks ahead of you.

4
darien_gap•

I take it you don't watch Dexter, then?

2
miseleigh•

I know I'm late to the party, and I don't expect a reply, but I wanted to point to you also that for someone who's been through that, the gender of the person committing the assault doesn't necessarily matter, either. PTSD (or something like it) can be triggered even by a same-sex pat down or viewing.

Perhaps this area is one of the ones you can work on changing within your organization. Push for sensitivity training.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
1upFireFlower•

In a radio interview a female rape survivor telling a story about being patted down by a female TSA officer. She said that the more she became troubled and was shaking the larger the smile on the TSA agent's face became. She was enjoying the power she had over her victim.

It's pretty easy to get these jobs, about as hard as becoming a mall cop. Do you think that the perverts and pedos aren't lining up around the block?

It's a shame what has been allowed to happen here..

99
tsahenchmanOP•

In a radio interview a female rape survivor telling a story about being patted down by a female TSA officer. She said that the more she became troubled and was shaking the larger the smile on the TSA agent's face became. She was enjoying the power she had over her victim.

That's pretty fucked up if true.

61
HenkPoley•

Given the Stanford Prison Experiment such behavior is to be expected.

40
arkanus•

The Stanford people were not in public, the program was being run by a madman and was also a small sample size. While interesting I don't think that it was exactly the key to understanding humans acting in authority positions.

0
phrakture•

Given the average IQ of TSA employees such behavior is to be expected.

And before I get sniped at for over-generalizing, I know 4 TSA agents at Chicago O'Hare. They're fucktarded stoners.

-1
Quantumnight•

And this surprises you in the least?

In the choice between imaginary terrorists and the real criminals in the TSA uniform, I'll take the figment of your imagination any time.

Just looking at a TSA agent makes me sick to my stomach, bunch of sexual predators and power hungry morons.

35
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
russellvt•

It's pretty easy to get these jobs, about as hard as becoming a mall cop.

It's not quite that easy, and the process is pretty long and drawn out... so, that alone may frighten people off.

I'm still wondering why, for example, viewing images of kids through the security process isn't also considered "child pr0n." (though imagine it has something to do with a law that states (vaguely / highly-paraphrased) that the investigator can't be prosecuted for viewing those images within the process of their investigation)

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
russellvt•

It's actually not quite that clear-cut... "sexually suggesting" is somewhat subjective. Some would say there needs to be "obvious sexual suggestion" involved (which are obvious posses, or just a bed in the picture).

However, there have been cases where it's simply "naked photos" that have resulted in a conviction (or, at least that's what the media has conveyed... or, what the authorities want you to believe). Literally cases where couples have had pictures of their (toddler aged) kids naked in a bathtub (obviously taking a bath). It all makes me want to try to find some of those old 8mm family movies with me (about 4 or 5 years old) bare-assed in the woods (family camping trip) and burn them.

5
1upFireFlower•

I heard about some kids in Texas being put on sex offenders lists because they "sexted" (sending naked pictures of each other over the phone), each other.

It seems that when a federal employee photographs children in the nude, they get away.

The pervs will apply to these jobs. They became fucking priests! Does anyone think the type won't go for this easier-to-obtain job with more throughput?

2
argv_minus_one•

Priests are not only not subjected to background checks at all, they also aren't audited or monitored or trained or anything in regards to sexual abuse. Apples and oranges.

2
russellvt•

some kids in Texas being put on sex offenders lists because they "sexted"

This isn't just Texas, it's a large percentage of the Mid-West (and the rest of the US, for that matter). There have been several cases where girls have sent naked pictures of themselves to other boys (both under 18)... generally, the boy gets pegged for a sexual offender.

This is why we have decided that both kids (girl and boy) have Internet access (including all MMS (ie. picture sending)) turned off on their phones.

1
skarface6•

Some people smile or laugh when they are uncomfortable. We're missing a lot of context on this one (was it the officer's first day, had she just heard a joke, etc).

3
honest_tea•

I was with you until you said "had she just heard a joke." Seriously? If someone is crying in front of you while you're touching them, you don't recall a funny joke you just heard! I can understand if she were trying to smile to be reassuring, but come on. She's not laughing at a knock knock joke while another woman is crying.

1
skarface6•

Does it say the person being frisked was crying? Frisker could have been oblivious or something.

3
[deleted]•

Maybe the TSA officer was uncomfortable and felt awkward because of how troubled and shaking the woman was, so she freaked out and just smiled as a panicked reaction.

It really seems plausible that she might have just misinterpreted it, even on accident.

2
[deleted]•

Is it possible she was smiling in a calm comforting way, and maybe just maybe, this rape victim who had suffered emotional damage was overreacting and seeing the situation differently in her head???

1
1upFireFlower•

It seemed to be a sneer.

1
[deleted]•

It seemed to by the emotionally damaged unstable paranoid rape victim.

DUCY her opinion is not exactly valid?

I could probably touch her on the shoulder and she would say i was staring at her getting off...

-1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
FrankManic•

I haven't seen this addressed anywhere. I too would like an answer to this question.

Also, how are you instructed to react when a rape survivor or a child breaks down crying because you're touching their genitals?

39
mr_jellyneck•

According to yet another TSA post from yesterday, one woman was told to stop crying or she would be arrested. She wasn't a rape victim though but obviously these procedures can be traumatizing.

5
StonedSmurf•

If youve been reading these thread and their accounts, they arn't trained in the slightest. They have absolutely no clue how to react when confronted with a breakdown. Their reactions seem to have ranged from telling them to stop crying (while continuing) to getting 12 cops.

It is clear that the TSA has become jaded to the emotions of travelers. They see passengers as potential terrorists, not people. While this might help them do their job, it has combined with the new escalated procedures and created a zone where you are cattle at the farm auction- inspected for "defects" in the quickest way possible (cows don't have rights, just grab 'em and search 'em) then shucked through the check point ignoring those annoying sounds that cattle make.

4
pocketjunkie•

you just touch harder

-2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

I'm not a sexual abuse survivor or a rape victim but at a very introverted, shy, not touchey-feely 13, I was taking my first flight and got pulled for a "random screening". I had never had anybody touch me the way the TSA agent did. My face was beat red and I was crying while my mom, and if I recall correctly anyone in line as it was a clear box, watched. Definitely one of the more disturbing moments of my life and literally one of my worst fears as I felt like I was on display to everyone.

3
[deleted]•

Cry me a river. There are children starving, beaten and raped every day and you're bitching about a pat down before you hop in a vehicle that will carry you thousands of miles in a matter of hours. Get over it.

0
[deleted]•

Do you have any understanding of how traumatizing it is to die in a plane crash, or to have a loved one die in a plane crash/explosion?

1
valek005•

Then don't fly. I'm not insensitive to victims of sexual assault, but it bears no relevance to my security.

-41
lecadavredemort•

Ah yes. I shall take a two week boat trip to Europe just to go home for Christmas, spending about 6 times more money than I would on a plane ticket, all because somebody fucked me against my wishes.

25
valek005•

Security isn't in place to make you comfortable. It's to make you safe. A personal traumatic experience is not justification for risking the safety of others.

-21
rmstrjim•

except for the niggling little fact that the security theatre you believe is designed to make you safer is actually doing nothing of the sort.

12
flaming_toasters•

I'm not saying that they'd have to go through no security, I'm just wondering if there are alternative methods that could be considered that wouldn't traumatize an already traumatized person. It's not a safety risk if they implement alternative methods. It's decency and consideration for the suffering of others.

3
ajani57•

Then don't fly. I'm not insensitive to victims of sexual assault...

~shaking my head sadly

10
phrees•

Could we please have a fast track system for those willing to check in naked who don't want to be irradiated or groped.

152
LoudmouthedBitch•

They already have different lanes for the more experienced flyers. Why not just add a naked lane? Or a whole naked airline? With free booze and no babies.

39
zeppelin4491•

no babies

Well, at least not immediately.

67
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

And black jack, and hookers. Second thoughts, scratch the airline.

1
ch00f•

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Mq9HAE62Y

1
Duh_Ambalamps•

Orgy Atlantic! Come Fly the Sticky skies!

1
UndercoverFratBoy•

This is what I want. I'm not shy or proud. I'll drop my bags and pants on the conveyor belt.

15
[deleted]•

Very much agree here. Nothing to prove or lose at the airport. Too many people seem to be getting wrapped up thinking that if someone sees their penis or vagina or breasts that somehow they will be eternally judged. Not true. I don't care about other people that much to judge so intensely.

edit: clarity of thought

3
footstepsfading•

FUCK YEAH!! HELLO TSA, LOOK AT MY SEXY SIXPACK!!!

Also:

groped?

FTFY

7
AimlessArrow•

This is the funniest thing I have read this week, thank you phrees <3

5
spectraline•

Seriously. I'd rather just walk through nude and show them I don't have any contraband on me.

4
mr_burdell•

I would do this if it was allowed. Then I wouldn't even have to take my wallet, cell phone, keys, and belt out of my pants... I could just take it all off, stuff it in my bag, and go through the metal detector.

3
im_already_naked•

go naked anyway.

3
banelos•

They need to just add flights for those of us who are willing to take the risk and board the plane without any checks. I'd do it.

2
rdiss•

I wish Hooters Airlines was still in business.

1
[deleted]•

do males look through the advanced imaging device for both sexes?

Do you guys get pissed when someone opts to be groped instead?

111
tsahenchmanOP•

All genders of officers can view all genders of individuals going the the AIT. Before you go through, you are allowed to ask the gender of the person who will be making you decision, and you can use that information to decide whether to go through or not.

I don't get angry when someone declines AIT screening. It's their choice, which isn't a very unreasonable one. Privacy and a persons body can be very sensitive subjects, it doesn't surprise or alarm me that someone would rather be screened a different way. I have heard that other airports try to embarrass people who opt out into "complying". I've made it very clear to the officers that work under me that this is unacceptable, and will be punished.

145
ProbablyHittingOnYou•

This is a serious question: what if the man has an erection, or a bulge in that general area? Does that need to be checked in any way, or is that too sensitive of a topic?

If not, wouldn't that be the easiest way to conceal a weapon?

97
tsahenchmanOP•

Despite what I've seen written on reddit, I doubt your erect penis can be considered a weapon. (I couldn't resist, I've never had a famous account send me an oranged before)

It does show though, and it looks nothing like a weapon. At all. If the operator of the machine notices an anomaly in the region they can't clear, the region must be searched. So far, the only thing I've seen require this was a money pouch/belt thing, that they were wearing very low slung.

103
ProbablyHittingOnYou•

Oh, I meant if a person opts out of being scanned by the machine and chooses to be groped. How would the person's genital area be treated? If that bulge would be expressly off limits, could a person hide a weapon there?

55
nicolauz•

The fact this is even being discussed is a major factor in why I love Reddit.

17
caboose1123•

I see that going kind of like this.

5
[deleted]•

I think he means during the patdown. If you have a noticeable erection-like buldge in your pants, does the TSA have to check to make sure it's an erection and not a grenade in your pants?

1
JamesDelgado•

What about a penis shaped tube that concealed an edged weapon? Like a mini version of those giant, fake black penises that spew fountains of cum on blond girls?

1
Teekoo•

I've never had a famous account send me an oranged before

That is the lamest comment ever.

1
zeldadah•

This looks like the right place for this

1
kleinbl00•

Senior citizens wearing Depends?

35
ProbablyHittingOnYou•

= Chemical warfare

49
highwebl•

Depends on how much liquid they contain.

1
darjeelingdarling•

Yes, this is a serious question. I hope that you get an answer. I've been thinking about this too. Also for women wearing maxi pads. That would make a suspicious bulge. Would that be checked as well?

31
tsahenchmanOP•

I can't get too much into specifics here. Narrowing down what gets searched and what doesn't is too specific.

19
jamhandy•

re: maxi pads....I'm particularly interested in how this would be handled if the "container" exceeded the 3oz. or 100mL limit for liquids.

11
dm86•

A suspicious bulge from a maxi pad? Maxi pads aren't diapers. They're practically just a folded paper towel.

8
Orbixx•

There you are again! Darjeeling is still fucking tasty!

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
frnak•

wouldn't that be the easiest way to conceal a weapon?

Inside one's erect penis?

16
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
commodore84•

This cop found out the hard way.

1
thirdlip32•

Are you hitting on tsahenchman?

1
albino_wino•

This is a serious question: what if the man has an erection, or a bulge in that general area? Does that need to be checked in any way?

According to the TSA field handbook, in that situation the subject must be manually stimulated to completion by the TSA agent, then he can proceed to his gate. His DNA sample will of course be kept on file.

1
musical_hog•

You know, I just came to this thread to say that the next time I fly, I'm going to get the most impressive erection I can muster before passing through the machine. Not to prove a point, mind you, but because I want to shoot a suggestive glance at whomever is using the machine, male or female. I figure it's worth some laughs.

1
xerexerex•

Can I be creepy and point to an individual TSA officer and say "I want that one to watch!" ?

Oh and have you ever arrested anyone for makin a joke about the security procedures? Or seen/heard of it happening? They play a recording at the Houston airport (and others I think) that says if you joke about it you can be arrested.

64
tsahenchmanOP•

We have signs that say the same thing. In most cases I can just ಠ_ಠ

50
keebiejeebie•

See, I find this to be the most annoying part. We're being forced into very uncomfortable situations and aren't even allowed the salve of a little gallows humor? I think declaring laughter off-limits means that the terrorists have won.

79
papajohn56•

What happens if I opt for the pat-down, then say "Do I get to pat you down next?" or "I feel like a cigarette after that"

2
JayTS•

I really want an answer to this. I'm flying to Japan in a few months, and if I'm going to have to go through this bullshit, I want to make them as uncomfortable as they're making me.

8
mikedaul•

I flew to Japan about 5 years ago. The contrast will blow your mind. The security folks are courteous and polite. The lines move quickly.

I forgot I had a water bottle in my backpack when we were flying back to the USA. A polite gentleman let me know that he needed to test it, did so very quickly, and then gave it back to me.

The best part will be when you get back to the states and go through customs and remember how awful the system here is...

15
crusoe•

Wear a kilt, make them grope you in public.

1
decavolt•

So I can be arrested for SPEAKING while at a TSA checkpoint? WTF.

6
PageFault•

Wait, arrested for making a joke? Doesn't that go against freedom of speech? Is this really true? I believe you, but I can't find a source, Google has failed me.

Are you sure that it's not meant to prohibit the TSA agents from making jokes about the examination? Google search did bring up a few "penis size" joke links.

4
xerexerex•

Dead serious, heard it last time I was there 3-4 years ago and had heard it a couple times before then. The OP said they have a sign up that says the same thing.

2
frozenflame•

I heard that announcement somewhere too and I've never wanted to joke about something more...

3
[deleted]•

You can be arrested for joking? Seriously?

3
tangbaba•

Really? Wow. Papers, citizen? Joking is not an authorized mode of speech.

3
[deleted]•

Do you believe that the present TSA procedures violate the 4th Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

34
captaintrips420•

You purchased a plane ticket. To the United States and the TSA after 9/11, that is their probable cause.

17
oingoboingorama•

There are plenty of legitimate uses for a plane ticket, and they are far more probable than the illegitimate ones...

6
[deleted]•

It used to be that fourth amendment had no bearing on airport screening, as they were private citizens with no police powers screening you. Now, they're federal employees (agents of the State) but without Federal Law Enforcement Officer certification.

As long as you can say "I do not consent," and not be thrown in jail for it, the fourth amendment won't really come into play. You are consenting to the searches by walking up to the checkpoint and submitting. If you decide to revoke your consent, they can deny you access to the private property.

In that regard, its no different than going to a concert and the event security patting you down. If you refuse, they tell you to leave and you get your ticket back at the gate.

So long as you can say "no," and you are removed or allowed to leave, its not fourth amendment. Now, if you can't leave without being searched? Then fuck yes they need reasonable suspicion under terry stop laws, and "no I don't consent" is not reasonable suspicion.

tl;dr: The day we can't say no is the day 4th amendment comes into play. We can always say no.

13
warfangle•

Apparently once you begin the screening procedure, you must complete it - or face huge fines for leaving the security screening area. You cannot decline the screening once any part of it has begun: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

2
tsahenchmanOP•

I believe the legal ruling is that by approaching the checkpoint with intent to travel through it, you are implying assent to a search. It's been to court a couple times too. I don't think you can rule what we do as unconstitutional. You could rule it as excessive or against the spirit of the constitution, but those are interpretations that others might disagree with.

10
zmann•

What about in relation to the right of Freedom of Movement

16
playace•

My general experience is that the small airport TSA people are much friendlier than the ones at the major airports. I feel it's the same reason small towns seem friendlier than New York City or LA... you deal with fewer people so you have more time to unwind from the stress.

I remember this one TSA lady at Minneapolis airport. She was in a line that rechecks the international arrivals, and it is constantly filled with people, going slowly through only two metal detectors. She would shout the same thing over and over again. "REMEMBER FOLKS, COATS AND BUCKLES OFF. IT WILL ONLY MAKE THIS GO FASTER"

18
samunder•

Absolutely not true. I fly out of SAV and JAX regularly and get harassed without fail. I guess it doesn't help that I'm a naturalized Pakistani born in Saudi Arabia (double whammy) and my place of birth is right there on my US passport. The TSA goons (AND the local DMV) point and pass around my ID like it's some kind of novelty. Once it got so bad at the Jacksonville airport, I was worn down to angry tears. When I asked the supervising officer for his name, he held my boarding pass and said I could either choose to get on my flight and not file a complaint about him or I could choose to miss my flight, he can just hold onto my pass and "make this ugly" for me. PHL and LGA, in comparison, were cakewalks. The whole process across the board is wildly erratic and I'm subject to the whims of whoever is having a great day or not, at best.

35
Undertoad•

sigh Look, deep South, we've had discussions about this before. I thought we had an agreement. You keep your guns but you have to stop being assholes. Do you need to go on time out again? We can remove Jeff Foxworthy from Comedy Central again. Do I have to make a call?

5
Sunnnshine•

Fuck that guy. What total trash. If there is ever a terrorist attack, I hope he's right in the middle.

4
tsahenchmanOP•

It's true, I'd never want to work in a Cat X airport for that very reason.

5
Sheeps•

It also kind of makes your perspective a little less valuable however. Your rosy colored view of all this may be the case at your small airport (20 flights a day is pretty small), but I want to know the dirt on how all this shit goes down at airports I actually fly into and out of, like EWR.

15
glassdirigible•

Schedule flights at times that aren't busy, if you can. Most people are still friendly in Boston if you don't come at a busy time.

I imagine that's harder in NYC or LA though.

1
livejamie•

The TSA lady in Baltimore was saying the same thing over and over when I flew back from the rally, I wonder if they're trained to do that.

1
Lhyzz•

Not in my experience. I used to fly out of the tiny Stewart Int'l Airport in Newburgh, NY. While I never personally had problems, my father dislikes the TSA a lot and has a hard time keeping his mouth shut. He was a bit of a wise-ass, nothing terrible, just a grumble. They tried to detain him long enough so that he missed his plane. Thankfully, the airport was small enough that the pilot heard about what was going on and held the gate for us.

BTW, they searched his luggage (of course), and when we got to the hotel, all of his stuff was thoroughly fucked up, including grease stains on his clothes.

1
Hindu_Wardrobe•

I fucking HATE MSP. I have never seen security lines that long in my life, at fucking 6 AM.

1
jumpinconclusions•

If this is true thank you for enforcing what little dignity we are allowed.

17
phidel_kashflow•

Apply for a higher position -> retain credibility/humanity/humility -> make evidence-based, rational changes to procedure the norm -> profit.

12
wallabyyy•

If I'm a female and opt out of having a male screen me through the AIT, would that guarantee that a female would then be doing the alternative screening?

4
tsahenchmanOP•

Yes it should. All patdowns should be performed by an officer of the same gender you present yourself as.

5
nailz1000•

This makes being gay awesome.

10
fec2455•

yes

1
dontforgetpants•

not necessarily... if you've read any of the reddit links or been to r/tsa you'll see that male TSO's can pat down females opting out of the scanner.

1
[deleted]•

Can you give me any official citation that I won’t be beaten/arrested/tased/added to no fly list/disappeared if I do decline the AIT machine?

2
CaroKhan•

If I opt out, do I have the right to decide whether I want the pat down to be in a private room or out in front of everyone? (I actually prefer the latter.)

2
tsahenchmanOP•

Yes you do.

2
TrainOfThought6•

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if I opted for the pat-down, but also opted to wear a cup that day? Two parts to this question...what would protocol dictate, and what would you think of said protocol?

Edit- Sorry if I seem like a troll, but I'm seriously wondering.

1
alle0441•

That was not my experience in my latest body scanning exposure. I was told the viewing agent was "in a place far, far from here. We don't even know who they are." Please confirm that he wasn't lying through his teeth.

1
Kimano•

That has to be bullshit, because how else would they be able to contact the officers at the line and tell them what/where he saw something.

1
Chauncey_freak•

I would refuse the x-ray scan on health grounds, not so much on privacy. Has this been raised at all by your superiors?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

I did not know that, as I recall it wasn't even on the TSA website.

1
nerkidner•

Totally want to know the answer to this one. I'm not sure they would care after so many gropings. I will opt out because of potential health reasons which are still rumors as far as I know right now.

1
[deleted]•

Do you personally consider the fact that Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and advocate of full body scanners, now consults for Rapiscan Systems, one of the two manufacturers of full body scanners, is a conflict of interest?

98
tsahenchmanOP•

Yes.

70
petit_mal•

we need to start calling them rapescan systems

63
mindloss•

That's how I read it in the first place. Worst name ever.

3
[deleted]•

adopted

2
mr_jellyneck•

Rapiscan

Rapey scan?

6
[deleted]•

WTF?! I seriously am speechless by this whole debacle. Everybody in the TSA should be ashamed of what they are a part of. Just how I could no longer in good conscious participate in military action in the middle east, anybody with even a remote grasp of the moral issues here would remove themselves from the TSA as soon as possible. Where do we stop? Where is the line? There will always be a new way for a malicious person to circumvent the current measures, so do we just continue to strip freedoms as this methods are discovered? Fuck no I say, if safety and liberty are at odds, liberty should always, and I mean all fucking ways, get the benefit of the doubt. Revolting and hideously disgusting. Grope my sister or mother and watch me go to jail for ripping someones throat out. At least I would be willing to take the responsibility for my action, as for the TSA, it's Nuremberg all the way down.

3
Nick4753•

Do you personally consider the fact that your sentence, the one you posted to reddit, and one that I did infact read, includes far to many, unnecessary, commas?

2
Dragonskies•

First of all, thanks for doing this AMA. Here's something I've always wondered: no liquids/gels over 3 ounces, how much of this is "real" security and how much of it is just security theater? I mean, if TSA was really concerned that I could use a tube of toothpaste to blow up a plane, why is it alright for that toothpaste to be thrown into a public wastebin right at the security checkpoint?

This seems more like an illusion of security than anything else. I recognize that TSA serves a vital purpose, but something seems very wrong with infringing on personal freedom to provide an illusion of security.

95
tsahenchmanOP•

Liquid explosives do exist. They are ridiculously unstable, but apparently not enough to discourage people from attempting to use them. We could test every single liquid that comes through a checkpoint. All we need is either thousands of more employees to handle the additional workload, or thousands of laser spectrometers(I vote laser). From what I understand, a cost benefit decision was made, and the snap decision the ban liquids after the threat was made clear was extended.

So we're not throwing your liquids away because we think your listerine is explosive. We're throwing it away so that people don't even try to bring liquid explosives through, since no liquids go. The upside is no terrorist is going to try to bring liquid explosives through a TSA checkpoint. The downside is the breath of the guy snoring next to you on the redeye to JFK.

Supposedly, x-ray systems are being developed that could target liquids with similar properties to liquid explosives. When those are implemented we could just test those few liquids that alarm, and the rest would never even have to be touched. Any day now...

58
Calvin_the_Bold•

You can't bring anything over 3 oz. So you and 5 of your friends each bring 2 oz. Hooray, you've just successfully smuggled in a liquid explosive.

Having 2oz of an explosive liquid is just as bad as 3oz of an explosive liquid.

139
[deleted]•

That was a bold move, enjoy your name's arrival to the watch list...Calvin

104
billyblaze•

...if that is, in fact, his real name.

11
Gudeldar•

You joke, but a redditor had their car tracked by the FBI for something they said on Reddit.

4
tsahenchmanOP•

That's 5 extra people that bring along their own risks of getting caught. Have any of them been caught before and are being watched? Are any of them informants? Larger operations are easier for Law Enforcement to catch, and stop preemptively.

Also it's 3.4 oz or 100 ml.

61
Baron_von_Retard•

I love how it's a nice round number, indicating that there wasn't really anything done other than picking a number out of someone's ass.

85
VasterVaster•

So maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought I could bring as many different items as I wanted so long as they were all under 3oz. Can I not just bring 10 3oz containers, or is there a hard limit on the overall amount of liquid I can bring onto a plane?

Also, someone made a joke about bringing a frozen water bottle through security a while back. I realize that the wait times we generally face makes this largely irrelevant, but what's the policy on stuff like this? Is it "3oz of anything that is generally a liquid at room temperature"?

6
StvYzerman•

Well seeing as the 9/11 hijackers all got on together, I find this answer pretty week. Granted, security is tighter now, but if a group of 5 people want to get on a flight together, I don't see it being a difficult proposition.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
bzn•

I fly 2-3 times every week and for the past 6 months I have left my contact solution and shaving cream (both travel sized) in my backpack as it goes through the scanner. I've even stopped putting them in a ziplock. I have never been asked to remove it... is the rule about putting the liquids in a separate bag and removing them from luggage still enforced?

2
scottcmu•

What if it's a 5 oz. container with only 1 oz. remaining in it. Is that allowed? What if the tube is marked "3 oz." but clearly has 10 oz. in it?

2
Auram•

Why couldn't one person just bring on 5 bottles, each 3.4 oz, of liquid explosive. Combine on the plan and you have 17oz of liquid explosive.

You don't need 5 friends to bring that much stuff on, you just need a funnel.

2
revenantae•

Still sounds silly, 3.4 ounces of Astrolite is a fearsome amount of explosive.

2
MySonIsCaleb•

but what if they brought an explosive liquid to be left at the check point? is the tsa just not concerned about that because it's unlikely that a terrorist would do that?

1
yardglass•

How about five different things carried by three same person, each 99ml?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Duh_Ambalamps•

i jizz that much!!

1
captainhotpants•

Besides, each of the 9/11 hijackers acted alone, and was not part of a coordinated terrorist group. Getting an accomplice to smuggle extra shampoo explosives for you is just laughable.

0
CrasyMike•

HELLLOOOO NO FLY LIST.

Unfortunately, I'd rather have my 2oz than no oz. I think it's way crazier that flight on planes is SO strict, but going to a packed stadium is not. At this point I wish the TSA would decide 'Okay, we are secure enough. Let's focus on efficiency rather than get them totally naked'

19
Calvin_the_Bold•

My point is is that 2.5 oz of explosives is pretty similar to 3oz of explosives, so arbitrarily saying that 3oz or more is more dangerous than less than 3 oz is ridiculous and that the work around for the limitation is another $100 plane ticket.

17
jevon•

Soon you will be tied down naked for the entire flight with no baggage and only C-grade movies you are forced to watch.

2
murphylaw•

WE're probably never going to be completely secure. Somebody will always figure out a new way to cause mayhem...

1
3lephan7•

but then you need 6 terrorists instead of one

1
dVnt•

The 3oz. figure is probably a calculation based on the explosive potential of known liquid explosives.

If you remember, it is said that if Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's (underwear bomber) bomb actually detonated it would not have actually breached the plane's airframe. looking for citation

Related: http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/more-on-liquid-rules-why-we-do-things.html

1
glassuser•

So carry three or four 3.4 oz bottles. Durr.

1
iKnife•

Presumably, the 3 oz is overly cautious to work against this sort of thing.

1
[deleted]•

Honestly i'm just thankful you can purchase energy drinks in the stores after the checkpoint. Hallelujah.

1
Kasseev•

This point has been rebutted the tsa publicly in their blog - I'm pretty sure it's linked in this thread somewhere. The general thrust of the argument is that the specific liquid explosives they are defending us against cannot be simply mixed together an expected to ignite- they require complex priming or high concentration at such low volumes - by forcing terrorists to do either of the above to get them through re TSa makes it much easier to notice suspicious bomb mixing behavior and also increases the effectiveness of detection machines by forcing the explosives to be packed within concentrated bottles and baggies.

1
[deleted]•

Step 1) Put liquid explosives in several diabetic insulin viles. Step 2) explode

1
mnemy•

In addition to that, the friends don't even have to be on the same flight, so they can live to smuggle another day. This rule is retarded.

-1
mnemy•

Not sure why I got downvoted. Your friends can get through security with tickets to other flights. Meet in the secure part of the airport and pool your explosives. So the person who's gonna detonate will do it on his plane alone, and the others live to pull the trick again next time around.

1
disposably_yours•

Explosives expert here. Disposable account for obvious reasons.

Many years ago (late 1990s), we were already working on machines to scan water bottles, etc. for airline security. One of the big names (EG&G, I think it was) even had one that had a conveyor belt. We tested them with tens of different compounds- maybe over a hundred all told. I don't know why they're not out there already.

As for the liquid explosives- I have some firsthand experience with this and (in some small way) am responsible for the current regulations. Most of the concern revolves around a single compound, one that is readily prepared with a liquid-liquid synthesis. The resulting compound itself is not a liquid, so the "liquid explosive" term is inaccurate.

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether it could even be prepared in a plane in flight; most of the pundits (who wouldn't know the working end of a test tube if they were shown it) say it's not possible. However, the experiment has been done (one of my colleagues at Sandia did it), and I am confident that I could prepare it in a similar fashion. Whether some bomber-wannabe would be as effective- I don't know. But the threat is real.

Anyway- long divested from the industry. I have no financial ties, and I don't care for the regulations any more than the next guy; I simply don't fly.

68
luuletaja•

if you want to make ama, anytime, I would be happy to read it.

33
disposably_yours•

Er. Okay.

2
jlbraun•

Most of the concern revolves around a single compound, one that is readily prepared with a liquid-liquid synthesis. The resulting compound itself is not a liquid, so the "liquid explosive" term is inaccurate.

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

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether it could even be prepared in a plane in flight; most of the pundits (who wouldn't know the working end of a test tube if they were shown it) say it's not possible. However, the experiment has been done (one of my colleagues at Sandia did it), and I am confident that I could prepare it in a similar fashion. Whether some bomber-wannabe would be as effective- I don't know. But the threat is real.

The real problem is the ice bath.

One of the big names (EG&G, I think it was)

EG&G's analog front end design has always been a bit off, EM radiated immunity is consistently a problem for them - perhaps that's why we don't use it now.

In any case, I don't see what the big deal is with answering people's questions, this is the internet and info on all the dangerous shit is out there a click away anyway, no need to be mysterious about it - and besides, if anyone tries any of the reactions and does it wrong they remove themselves from the gene pool.

16
solareon•

They give you ice with your soda.

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
jargoone•

Thanks for the answer. I was going to reply to ask what the compound was, but refreshed before I did. Have an upboat.

1
lemurosity•

WTF is with Denmark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#Terrorist_incidents

1
Micode•

I don't see what the big deal is with answering people's questions

Sandia indicates government work, which probably means security clearance. Even if the information can be found elsewhere, he's still bound by that agreement with the government not to discuss sensitive information.

1
cyancynic•

I don't know why they're not out there already.

Because the budget went for machines that let pervs look at naked children instead. Its just more fun.

2
LordZodd•

We've had some Redditors here who have ostomy bags - they are probably more common in the population than most lay people would think. What is the TSA policy on how full an ostomy bag can be before an individual is turned away for trying to bring too much 'fluid' through security?
It's not like a TSA agent can force an individual to remove their bag while in line and throw it in the garbage with the other confiscated liquids - that would be wrong on so many levels. I assume they would have to be instructed to go take care of it themselves and then reenter the security line.

52
tsahenchmanOP•

Sorry I missed this one, it's a good question. Individuals with an ostomy bag do not have to remove or empty the bag. They get a bit more screening, and that's all.

15
[deleted]•

I've seen my dad's ostomy bag, and you could fit a fair amount of semtex in there. Maybe not enough to do huge damage if you set it off in the cabin, but if you flushed it down the toilet, you could probably bring down a plane.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Baron_von_Retard•

No reply to this? :(

3
bobindashadows•

You posted "no reply to this" 4 minutes after the question was asked. Don't you think that was a bit impatient?

18
kleinbl00•

...so rather than force me to use my "ridiculously unstable" liquid explosives, now I can just shove a bunch of Semtex up my ass.

Why are all of your procedures designed to thwart the most abjectly stupid ploys?

42
tsahenchmanOP•

Those appear to be the one's used most often.

11
TheLobotomizer•

So, what you're basically saying is that TSA procedures are only designed to stop small-time wackjobs.

In other words large terrorist organization, such as...I don't know...Al Qeada, can still breeze through your checkpoints just fine.

4
albino_wino•

Because this is actually a TBS afternoon thriller, not real life.

3
stacecom•

Here's the problem -- there is no penalty for trying to bring on liquid explosives. People can keep trying and trying. Some will get removed, and some will get through. It's a no-cost operation to try. If you try to bring a gun or a knife onto a plane, they won't just throw it out. This means that liquids are not actually viewed as a threat. If they were, there would be penalties for trying.

Extra bonus question - what if I opt for the crotch massage, but I'm wearing an athletic cup?

39
tsahenchmanOP•

The first question makes some assumptions that aren't based on complete information. Unfortunately, I can't give you the complete information there. Some I don't have, and some would compromise security.

Bonus question! You don't get to fly until you go back outside to the public area, remove the cup, and come back through. Or the police or airline may just deny you boarding for being difficult. TSA officers don't have that authority, but we can deny immediate access to anyone with a region or property we cannot clear.

12
jessie1983•

Or the police or airline may just deny you boarding for being difficult.

What does that mean?
*Why would the airline have any interest in denying me boarding if I wore a cup?

*What legal authority does a police officer deny me boarding? Especially if the only reason is that I wore a cup?

*How would the airline or the police find out about anything the TSA found under my clothes? Unless it was a weapon, isn't that private?

5
stacecom•

Thanks for the answers. I trust you on the second and disagree with you on the first. Or, at least, say that you're admitting that you're not making air travel safer by disallowing liquids on the plane. If you can determine without testing whether a bottle that looks like a bottle of liquor is dangerous or not, then just making everyone toss large bottles is an inconvenience and security theater.

4
DucoNihilum•

I actually (Accidentally) /tried/ to bring a knife on board once.

I was opening packages with a paring knife, instinctively put it in my back pocket, and left for the airport.

When I emptied my pockets for screening, I just happened to have a 4 inch orange knife. Oops.

I didn't get any additional screening, and the screeners were more upset that they'd have to fill out paperwork than anything else.

1
stacecom•

I have lost two Leatherman tools to the TSA because I forgot to take them off my belt. In each case, there was no paperwork, they just took it. Or offered me the opportunity to put it in my checked luggage.

1
crusoe•

That is true, they simply throw it away, and don't test it. So they don't even know if they succeded in thrawting an attack, or if someone got through.

1
[deleted]•

The penalty does exist. Wait until the liquid nitroglycerin is thrown in the garbage can and it blows up, I don't think they'll let the guy go on his way.

-1
ajani57•

So we're not throwing your liquids away because we think your listerine is explosive. We're throwing it away so that people don't even try to bring liquid explosives through, since no liquids go. The upside is no terrorist is going to try to bring liquid explosives through a TSA checkpoint. The downside is the breath of the guy snoring next to you on the redeye to JFK.

I don't know how to put into words how much I resent the way you just trivialized our concerns. So, here's a question for you: When you are with other TSA folks, do you guys complain to each other about how much we complain?

15
tsahenchmanOP•

Yes, that happens. Most recently when someone tried to bring a bottle of Jack Daniels through, then accused us of being Nazis. The average person complaining that they don't appreciate the pat down or that they don't like that they can't bring a bottle of water through, those we don't really comment too much on.

1
MoogleGunner•

Nazi used the somewhat real illusion of an outside threat (Treaty that totally fucked up the economy) to justify the removal of fundamental human rights (life).

The TSA uses the somewhat real illusion of an outside threat ("terrorism") to justify the removal of fundamental human rights (freedom of movement).

Totally different.

5
[deleted]•

I used to love bring my own alcohol on flights. I know I as never officially supposed to drink it during the flight but it sure did make long flight less fucking boring.

2
[deleted]•

Liquid explosives do exist, but any competent terrorist wouldn't fuck with those.

A competent terrorist and his terrorist cohorts would quietly short circuit laptop batteries and sit back as they melt through the floor of the plane, taking down the entire flight.

Why doesn't this happen already? Terrorism just isn't the problem it's made out to be.

You are not making us safer.

8
jared555•

As someone else posted already, the concern isn't just liquid explosives, it is explosives that can be made by mixing multiple liquids or a liquid and something allowed onto the plane.

1
rmstrjim•

your scheme sounds pretty haphazard and ineffective... that's probably one of the reasons it hasn't happened...

0
[deleted]•

It's not really complicated. You short circuit a laptop battery, it gets hot enough to melt through the floor of the airplane.

If you want a more complicated way to take down a plane, design an electronic component that will excite electromagnetic resonances in a plane to sufficiently interfere with a plane's electronic systems so that, for instance, the fuel injection stops functioning. Hook it up to your laptop battery and watch the plane fall out of the sky. This isn't actually that hard to do, since the plane acts like a waveguide with an open circuit on one end (cockpit) and a short circuit on the other end, you just need to figure out the cutoff for TM10 mode and then pump a lot of power into it in a short amount of time (very possible to do with only a laptop battery as your input energy). The TM waves will induce current on a bunch of important electronic systems, like, for instance, the fuel injection system.

Remember, though, complicated doesn't mean better. Both of these will knock a plane out of the sky. Well, the second one definitely will, the first one probably depends on where in the plane you are melting through the floor.

2
rmstrjim•

A "competent" terrorist would rather attempt to melt 12 laptops through the floor of an airplane, hopefully damaging enough avionics in the meantime to... perhaps, cause an airplane to crash.

Right.

Gotcha.

0
[deleted]•

It would really only take 1 or 2.

But yes, that would work.

In fact, the UPS plane that crashed recently went down because its lithium cargo caught on fire (which is less violent than overcharging the batteries)

2
whatshisnuts•

But it's not real security - I have watched on numerous occasions employees at the airport send cases of water through x-ray machine. What stops someone from changing out a few of the bottles with something bad and then giving it to another person who flies through security.

I realize some level of checks need to be made, but it's asinine to think that the level of intrusion is really going to stop anyone.

6
pineapplepaul•

The upside is no terrorist is going to try to bring liquid explosives through a TSA checkpoint.

That's quite the assumption. Since you're not testing liquids, I don't see what would stop someone from putting the requisite liquids into enough 3oz containers like everyone else.

This is the same false argument for gun control. Banning something only means the law-abiding folks will adhere. Criminals/terrorists are still going to do what they want to do.

3
commentastic•

We're throwing it away so people don't even try to bring liquid explosives through...

So in your mind, is reactive security effective security? Do you feel that system is effective in deterring security threats, or does it simply encourage them to pick another means of smuggling weapons?

And if reactive security is effective, what, in your opinion, constitutes a threat worthy of reaction? No shoes after shoe bomber, liquids after that was shown possible, backscatter after underwear bomber - I guess what I'm asking here is, where's the line for reactive security?

(These aren't meant to be leading or accusatory questions, but I realize they're kinda written that way).

3
randomorder•

What's in place to stop would-be bombers using powders?

Isn't it likely that someone with enough know-how to make or give instructions on making liquid explosives would also be able to bundle together a thermite mix?

2
Oppis•

Does this:

The upside is no terrorist is going to try to bring liquid explosives through a TSA checkpoint

really outweigh this:

The downside is the breath of the guy snoring next to you on the redeye to JFK.

What are your thoughts on this? How often does the serious problem occur?

Wait, let me rephrase:

Do terrorist incidents happen (and get caught) often enough for this to be worth it? This process lowers morale of the American people, as we are meant to feel like animals. And the American people don't need low morale right now. And is the high risk scenario commonly reproduced? Because I know from experience the low risk scenario (bad breath) happens often.

Thoughts?

2
alienangel2•

I hate that you've got as many downvotes as upvotes for trying to make this point. Any time you make this argument, people think you're being flippant or ruthless, without understanding the concepts of Risk Assesment or Expected Value.

Oppis' point is that if:

  • thing A has a miniscule likelihood of happening, but is very bad when it happens

  • thing B is very likely to happen but is only slightly bad when it happens

Then it's not at all a clear-cut choice that you should try to eliminate A and make B more likely instead. Depending on the probabilities, at some point it absolutely becomes preferable to do things like increase passenger comfort significantly at a minutely increased risk of passenger death. It's a choice we make EVERY SINGLE DAY in just about every aspect of life (walking on a sidewalk, eating a burger, riding an elevator, touching a lightswitch, licking your finger...).

Everything has a risk of killing you. At some point we decide the risk is low enough that we can risk it to enjoy doing the thing anyway.

3
keebiejeebie•

Right. What bothers me most about this guy's responses is that they show such a deep dedication to safety. Quality of life is not measured only by how you die, it's the sum total of the situations that you find yourself in every day. Getting naked to get on a plane isn't worth the very slightly decreased chance of hijacking if it makes millions of lives very much more miserable. This man's answers, while fascinating and generous, do not show an understanding of the complexity of human experiences.

2
morkskogen•

You can buy litres of over-proof alcohol and a lighter in the duty free section.

Airport shops are undeniably benefiting so my bet is that if they involved a decrease in trade these ridiculous rules would never have got off the ground (pardon the pun.)

Anyone can walk into a subway/metro station without meeting any security and with bags full of anything at all, and potentially shut down the metro system if they so wished. This could grind a major city to a standstill. immediately after 9/11 air travel was still the safest means from A to B. It is completely unjustifiable.

2
glassuser•

Hell I regularly carry overproof alcohol all the time. It's a nice multipurpose liquid - mouthwash, disinfectant, sedative, etc.

Oh and a few weeks ago, I was cleaning out my travel pack and realized I'd lost a book of matches in there. That book of matches has flown two to five times a week for the past three months, and wasn't caught once.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
Spaceman_Spliff•

Here's the problem, medications are exempt. I've flown many times with liquids over 3 ounces, I just had to tell them it was medication. So place your liquid explosives in a medical type container (I had a big tube of poision ivy cream, and a large bottle of saline solution for my contacts) and nothing will stop you. Additionally, you guys are shitty at spotting liquid containers. I fly 2 to 4 times a month for work and decided to play a game. I stopped pulling my liquids out of my carry on at the security check point and just left them in to see if you guys find them. Around 60% of the time no one even notices the liquids in my bag.

2
redalastor•

Liquid explosives do exist. They are ridiculously unstable, but apparently not enough to discourage people from attempting to use them. We could test every single liquid that comes through a checkpoint. All we need is either thousands of more employees to handle the additional workload, or thousands of laser spectrometers(I vote laser). From what I understand, a cost benefit decision was made, and the snap decision the ban liquids after the threat was made clear was extended.

I call bullshit, if you thought there was even a small chance they might explode, you wouldn't throw them all in the same fucking trashcan.

2
danglingmodifier•

I think its a ploy for us to buy more toothpaste when the airline loses our luggage, but we aren't allowed to put it in our carry on.

1
aussiegeek•

Going off second/third hand info because I'm smart enough to have never visited the USA, but don't you just throw these away in a non bomb-proof container?

Isn't that just a bit risky?

1
DontTreadOnMeDonkeys•

Does TSA also check all of the liquids that are brought in by the stores and restaurants which are located beyond the checkpoints? Seems to me like a few terrorists could get jobs working at one of these places and a couple other guys get jobs at the distributors who ship their products to them and easily get contraband past the TSA.

1
[deleted]•

We're throwing it away so that people don't even try to bring liquid explosives through, since no liquids go.

There are more solid explosives than liquid explosives. Why don't you throw away my solid things?

1
MertsA•

lrn2 binary explosives. Astrolite G is plenty stable as far as explosives go, the unstable part is the blasting cap needed to initiate it.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
endari•

I know that liquids aren't allowed over 3oz, but I bought a water bottle and a coffee after the security checkpoint. My drinks were then checked for liquid explosives with a vapor test at SFO. Why is this necessary?!?!

1
Proeliata•

I always feel like if you're bringing in a drink, they should just make you take a swig and swallow it. If it's something that you're going to be making explosives from in an hour, you probably won't be in any condition to do so by that point anyway.

1
dahlhana•

The last 6 flights I have taken (domestic and international), I've had a full (large) bottle of saline in my backpack. I've never bagged it (not that it would fit in the 4oz bag anyway) nor handed it over to an agent, yet only once was I questioned and when I told him it was saline, he did not even check it out. How is this "security measure" anything but theater?

1
[deleted]•

There is nothing to stop someone buying any amount of liquids after the security checkpoint. To me it seems less about security and more about sales in the airport. Nothing makes sense from a security standpoint, for example you allow gas lighters on the plane (2 per person IIRC)

1
mre5765•

So we're not throwing your liquids away because we think your listerine is explosive. We're throwing it away so that people don't even try to bring liquid explosives through, since no liquids go. The upside is no terrorist is going to try to bring liquid explosives through a TSA checkpoint.

Since there is no penalty for bringing liquids in containers that exceed 100 mL, why do you think a no terrorist will try to bring liquid explosives through a TSA checkpoint?

1
crusoe•

3 Ounces of any liquid explosive is a big enough danger on any plane, the limits do nothing for safety.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
Baron_von_Retard•

Instead of deleting it, you edited it?

2
stacecom•

Yeah, I was using Alien Blue on the iPad, which lets you edit posts but, as far as I can tell, doesn't let you delete.

1
RedForty•

no liquids/gels over 3 ounces

This is the most herp-derp "rule" I've ever seen in my life.

30
[deleted]•

[deleted]

11
phyzome•

A professor of mine chatted with the woman who came up with that rule. She apparently experimented with various volumes of liquid explosives and determined that while 3 oz could make a mess, it was very unlikely to bring down a plane. No word on what would happen if multiple people got together and combined their individual 3 oz bottles...

1
stoplight•

Oh it very much is. My wife and I were flying to Hawaii for our honeymoon and she forgot to put her $60 worth of hair products into her checked luggage and the TSA agent made her throw it out; even after explaining that it was really expensive. When we got into the actual waiting area we walked right by a Bath & Body works that sold the exact same hair products.

It's the most ridiculous rule ever. Especially since there isn't any limit (to my knowledge) of how many bags you can take. So you could just divide up all your liquids among many 3oz bags.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

91
[deleted]•

[deleted]

12
thehemanchronicles•

With an Arab name

1
casiopt10•

Well it is technically a type of bomb, so I'm guessing they would have to handle it and dispose of it.

troll face

problem?

4
[deleted]•

You sir have won what's behind curtain number #2 - The Internets.

1
[deleted]•

You also accidentally a word.

-17
[deleted]•

[deleted]

9
[deleted]•

it's better than accidentally an entire battleshit, isn't it?

ftfy

12
[deleted]•

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWL

-9
Derkek•

I don't see why you got several downgoatses. I laughed when noticed he a whole word too.

-2
cl3ft•

  • Have you ever stopped someone trying to smuggle something dangerous onto a plane (gun or explosives)?

  • Have your staff?

  • When they do the tests where they try and sneak through a weapon do your guys pass?

  • Is racial profiling part of the procedure or just overzealous agents?

  • Do you feel considerably safer flying now you have the new scanners?

  • From personal experience security screeners have missed my knife on 48 flights, does this concern you?

  • Have you ever had the explosives swab lead back to real explosives instead of false positives (ie. someone who works with explosives etc.)?

80
tsahenchmanOP•

Have you ever stopped someone trying to smuggle something dangerous onto a plane (gun or explosives)?

Firearms, yes. Possibly with intent to do harm. Explosives due only to the passengers incompetence.

When they do the tests where they try and sneak through a weapon do your guys pass?

Almost always. Sometimes we fail on a technical point, but usually in those cases the item would have been caught at a later point in our procedures. We're consistently rated as one of the best airports in the country on this point.

Is racial profiling part of the procedure or just overzealous agents?

It's just part of some people being assholes. We take it very seriously, at no point have I ever heard someone condone it. I've seen it occur once, and I made sure the individual responsible was fired.

Do you feel considerably safer flying now you have the new scanners?

I didn't feel all that unsafe before. I think the people who most appreciate the new scanners are those with artificial joints. Those don't alarm the AIT so they don't have to get extra screening every time they fly now. At large airports where the officers have a lot of pressure to operate quickly, I think the AIT will help them do that and be more secure.

From personal experience security screeners have missed my knife on 48 flights, does this concern you?

Anytime a knife makes it through it concerns me. Not necessarily because that knife is dangerous (yours probably isn't), but because it means we should be being more attentive to our x-rays. As for that knife, does it surprise me? No.

Have you ever had the explosives swab lead back to real explosives instead of false positives (ie. someone who works with explosives etc.)?

The latter is far more common. Sometimes you get a piece of equipment that has explosive components that the owner didn't know about. Some survival gear, automobile air bags, and parachutes. I've yet to find an IED, I hope never to.

75
nomerde•

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who puts an automobile air bag in his carry-on.

87
chriszuma•

What the fuck else are you going to do when you're hurtling towards the ground at 600 mph?

5
glennerooo•

Why? What good will that do if it goes off while you're packed tightly like sardines in your seats, other than crush you more?

1
TimeAwayFromHome•

I'm glad I'm not the only one who worries about the cut-rate flotation devices in the plane seats.

1
dustinbarbour•

Oh man, thankfully we're looking out for that giant population of people with artificial joints. Fuck all those people with regular joints... their privacy should be invaded so we can find metal joints.

13
toadthetoad•

I didn't feel all that unsafe before.

This says it all. Thanks for telling us that your intrusive procedures are as unnecessary and useless as we all knew.

9
cl3ft•

Thanks for your answers.

6
billyblaze•

Explosives due only to the passengers incompetence.

Can you elaborate? Because if you chalk having a can of Axe, or something like that, in one's luggage up to "incompetence" you need to have a look at how you stealth-deploying new policies every other month or so is a mite confusing for fucking everyone.

2
tsahenchmanOP•

You'd be amazed at what someone involved in demolitions can forget in their bag.

7
[deleted]•

[deleted]

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
fatnino•

he was talking about water bottles and other such dangerous explosives

6
AlrightThen•

I have an artificial joint and would much rather go through the scanner than get the pat down procedure. So, I guess I am biased. Also, I don't really give a shit if some poor SOB has to see my junk in black and white, or if it saved in a file somewhere. Really, why would you care? No one is jerking it to my out of shape body anyway. And if they were? I still don't care.

EDIT: And if I do have to have a pat down I feel worse for the poor slobs that have to touch all around and not piss people off while still doing a shit job that keeps them in food and beer. All this said, I do agree that this is theater to impress the masses with our 'awesome' security. Ok, fine. It takes a couple minutes and done. Seriously, why does everybody have their panties in a bunch about this? I get more pissed that I have to take my damn shoes off....

1
gehzumteufel•

What's your view on the whole "if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't be averse to a search" mantra?

4
videogamechamp•

Seriously, why does everybody have their panties in a bunch about this?

Because it is an invasion of privacy that is unnecessary. Do people really need to see my naked body and pat me down to find nothing they didn't find before with a metal detector and explosive sniffer? There is nothing these do better except for give you questionable doses of radiation and invade my pricacy.

2
moarroidsplz•

Awww, thanks for firing the person over racial profiling. :D If I may ask, what exactly was said that spurred you to get him/her fired?

1
cudderisback•

Is racial profiling part of the procedure or just overzealous agents?

seriously im iranian and when i go to the airport random checks are inevitable....and its not like im a single 23 year old male....we are a family of 4...

36
dynamicweight•

Ah confirmation bias, I missed you.

8
[deleted]•

I've gotten the extra pat-down every single time I've gone through security since 2002. I am small and brown, and had hair almost to my knees (though now it's quite short). It's easy to think that they're profiling when it happens every single fucking time.

8
ahundredplus•

When I was 13 I was stopped at the San Francisco airport right before boarding my plane and ordered to take off my shoes and hat and undo my belt. I am white, this happened 8 years ago, and it was in front of everyone boarding the plane. I don't know why.

3
neoumlaut•

Don't be ridiculous. I've flown ~450 times and I've never been stopped once for more screening. I'm white.

7
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
ummuhammad•

We're a family of 5, but my husband is Saudi. We're checked every single time. Random, sure.

7
OliveDiPace•

i'm iranian and i validate this statement. i have a sure-tell muslim last name and somehow the TSA never fails to note that.

3
559•

I'm Perisan and I fly about 10x a year and I've never been randomly selected. I've flown out of airports all over the country the last few years.

2
HyzerFlip•

I'm a white guy and I get it every time I travel with or without the family. I 100% believe you're being selected based on racial profiling. I just think I'm selected for being a big bald dude...maybe they think I'm a russian wrestler?

1
hyperkinetic•

Interesting. I'm white (mostly) and bald, and I seem to get singled out quite a bit.

1
packetguy•

im iranian

That's your problem right there buddy.

1
[deleted]•

Have you ever had the explosives swab lead back to real explosives instead of false positives (ie. someone who works with explosives etc.)?

I question the sensitivity of these machines. I was messing around with fireworks a few 4th of July's ago...had gunpowder all over my hands, just brushed them off. Went to the airport later that night. They used one of the vacuum systems to get a sample from the handle of my luggage...nothing.

21
Tailslide•

I remember reading somewhere that a huge percentage of the luggage that shows up positive for explosive materials belongs to veterans coming home from a deployment.

14
tsahenchmanOP•

I'm not familiar with a vacuum system. Details please?

5
[deleted]•

You know, actually it was probably 8 years ago. It was literally a little vacuum that they ran across the handle area of my bag. Then, after some time, the person sitting behind a screen said I could go.

If you don't know about it...then I guess it wasn't very effective and got the boot!

4
nkrlsn•

He's probably talking about a puffer machine. I went through one of those a couple of years ago at Logan and thought it was pretty cool.

3
MertsA•

They aren't looking for gunpowder with those things. There's a big difference between gunpowder and high explosives.

1
flying_pigs•

You know what would work to deter terrorists? Swabbing people with a piece of bacon

1
punkypoet•

have they missed this knife of yours since the new procedures were implemented?

5
cl3ft•

I haven't travelled since then, but as it looks like a key and is on my keychain with about 7 keys I bet they will continue to miss it. I have never seen anyone check my keychain or anyone else's ever.

10
dynamicweight•

Ive flown internationally and all around the US with my small knife. It does not look like a key but is only 2.5 inches long. I am not impressed by airport security.

4
cl3ft•

agreed.

1
mkosmo•

One of those swiss multitool keys? I made it through 4 flights with one, and finally a TSA agent caught it. Key ring with 7 keys and a flashlight and they caught it :(

2
cl3ft•

your TSA agents are better than mine. Not that I am worried for $9. I don't have a flashlight on mine so maybe it doesn't get that 2nd glance.

1
rmstrjim•

those things are barely knives...

1
bobwalsue•

They took mine. I forgot to take my swiss army knife off my keychain and they took it away. I was heartbroken because it had sentimental value to me, but they told me there was nothing I could do. I never saw it again.

5
cl3ft•

As knifey as a box cutter used to hijack a plane. specially if you sharpen it up.

But that is not the point, it passes through security as if it didn't exist, so could a scalpel if it was laid inside a laptop. Body scans don't stop blades.

3
trollpimp•

Kinda sounds like you are trying to see what you could get away with... scary.

2
cl3ft•

The first 3 months (8 flights) I forgot it was on my keyring, after that I knew it was a complete non issue. This is the first time I've thought about it in a year.

2
tmnz•

Heh, I have the exact same knife on my keyring. Flew with it (including an international arrival in the US) just a few months ago with no issues. To be fair, it's not a knife that's gonna do a whole lot of damage. About as effective as a ballpoint pen or another key.

2
cl3ft•

I beg to differ on the damage, sharpened it would be as effective as a box cutter in holding someone hostage.

1
jerseylina•

Please note that I am not trying to be mean while asking this:

Why is it that your organization seems to make being an insufferable prick a job requirement? Yes, I understand that many travelers are insufferable pricks themselves, but why does this so often translate into TSAgents treating ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE like garbage?

I have a job in which people treat me like crap more often than not, but, being in public safety/customer service I know for a fact that if I treated half the people half as badly as I have been treated by your agency's agents, I would have been fired a long time ago.

78
fedthrowaway•

Using a throwaway for obvious reasons...

They have treated me like total garbage AND I AM A FEDERAL INSPECTOR IN THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY (Railroads). Seems every time I have to fly out somewhere to do an investigation on a derailment or train related fatality, these fucking rent-a-goons try to give me shit. I have no issues with police, or other feds; but the TSA ALWAYS tries to give me shit no matter what.

83
[deleted]•

You should do an AMA. What's the most common cause of a railway accident? What's the most common cause of a railway fatality?

79
allholy1•

This would be interesting!

7
cubanjew•

I third this!

6
jameson•

Who wants to bet neither answer is a 3.5 oz bottle of liquid?

4
staplesgowhere•

And how full of crap is the new Tony Scott movie about the runaway freight train?

3
MachoGeek•

As an employee for a large commuter railroad I can tell you that a vast majority of all our fatalities are from suicides. From what I understand, Engineers can expect to witness this more than once in their career. There is a mandatory counselling period when one is involved in a fatality.

I wish I could provide citations, but I don't have any links to any official documentation, and if I did, I'd rather not directly reveal which railroad I work for (not ashamed, just don't want to take any chances on my employent status). In IT we are aware of each incident that occurs, as we have systems used to track relevant updates regarding all significant activity and I like to keep a browser tab on it because there is usually something interesting going on. I myself, was on a train that was involved in a suicide. Talking to the crew while waiting for the police to investigate, it turns out the person actually brought a fake gun along. The assumption was that the gun was to ward off anyone that might attempt to stop him.

EDIT: I just remembered another incident for contrast: A passenger was killed while standing at the edge of the platform with their back to the track and for some unknown reason leaned back slightly at the worst possible moment.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
LoudmouthedBitch•

Is it wrong that I read this in the FATALITY voice?

2
Foxley•

I fourth this!

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

Currently living in Europe, I've heard a lot of trains are delayed because someone has jumped in front of one. My friend said the entire train must stop, and even though there is hardly anything left, the conductor has to get out and identify it as a person, call 911, etc. I think that has to be one of the worst parts of a job ever...

2
[deleted]•

Why would you being an FRA inspector make them treat you any differently?

3
Acewrap•

It's a long running and bloody struggle between the two organizations.

9
politicalbath•

I think it's kind of a grade-school-logic "even though I'm on their same team!"

1
tymyshoe91•

Airplanes VS Trains

2
starrychloe•

Why not take a train?

1
packetguy•

NTSB?

1
tsahenchmanOP•

I don't know. We're aware it's a problem. We try to fix it. It can be hard, there's a lot of antagonism towards us and our jobs, that starts to mess with people. In a large airport you might be one of thousands of faceless officers, so there's no accountability to hold you to a higher standard. The one that worries me the most is when people develop an Us vs. Them attitude. They start to think of the traveling public not as people they should be serving, but as their antagonist. I do my best to squash these feelings.

We should be better, we owe you better. We're trying, I promise.

11
[deleted]•

Perhaps you have a complaints department or some sort of accountability?

15
politicalbath•

some sort of accountability

Exactly. I mean "We're trying, I promise" is nice, but a transparent system of accountability would actually make me believe that it was true outside of OP's small airport.

17
tsahenchmanOP•

We probably need something like that, yes. An agency shouldn't police itself, that's just not gonna work.

6
milesquareroads•

What a new and exciting idea!

3
glassuser•

there's a lot of antagonism towards us and our jobs

Maybe you should consider why that is.

Are you really the person that wants to be universally hated for regularly harassing your fellow citizens?

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
invincibubble•

I have to say, I've flown about 30-40 times in the last three years, and — perhaps I'm lucky — I've never encountered a dick in the TSA. Some surly or tired people, sure, but no one has been out-of-line rude to me.

I tend to fly back and forth between NYC and the south. The LGA/JFK airport people just seem to want to keep things moving along efficiently, and everything's fine. The southern airport security people are often even friendly and smiling.

I realize that all sounds like a raging generalization, but that's pretty much been my experience. Of course, I also smile and am polite, so that might also help. I haven't encountered the new scanners yet, but I'm not fond of the idea. I haven't decided if I'll opt out if they have them when I fly out in a couple weeks. However, I do appreciate the AMA, even if you're a plant, and I did want to say that while I don't doubt those here that have dealt with major dicks in the TSA, there are some of us who travel often that have had a vast majority of pleasant experiences.

1
fig89•

maybe its because your kind of job is really attractive to pedophiles and people with inferiority complexes.

1
neoumlaut•

So what exactly are you doing to try and fix it? Can you tell us 1 actual thing you have done to combat this?

1
saw2239•

It seems like the only thing you guys are "trying" to do is make the use of aerial travel unappetizing. I can tell you that I certainly won't be making a flight until these ridiculous measures are removed. Oh well it isn't like the economy needs everyone to be as productive as possible.

It's cute that you think that forcing either groping or full body nude imagining (which can be saved, idiot!) in order to have freedom of movement is ok. Glad to see those history classes rubbed in.

1
Theropissed•

You're not trying to be mean but is this really necissary?

A common thought on reddit is that TSA workers are "not much better than minimum wage employees".

Exactly how many assholes have you dealt with at a Sears, Mcdonalds, movie theater, toll booth, parking violation officer, etc etc?

Some people work just to work, TSA is so new that no one really grew up wanting to be in airport security. And the people that do work there, are selected at how well they can preform the job, now their manners.

(I went through the TSA hiring process up till the interview. The process included filling out a bunch of information about yourself and your family, and a test on how to spot stuff in an Xray machine and what not. There was nothing about customer service, because there are no customers.)

3
Baron_von_Retard•

That's a very interesting perspective. TSAhenchman, do you think that many of your employees (not you, as a supervisor), view their line of work as having no customers?

2
tsahenchmanOP•

Yes. Us vs. Them is an attitude that develops far too quickly among my officers, where they view passengers as antagonists, not as their employers. We're supposed to be public servants, but too often we think of the traveling public as getting in the way of our work.

4
gliscameria•

People tend to mirror your actions. A friendly 'hello' goes a long way. I rarely get treated rudely by TSA.

1
[deleted]•

Border guards (Canadian Border) are also giant pricks. after awhile I think the power gets to em.

meh.

1
rmstrjim•

shockingly enough, either group of border guards being nicer depends on your flavor of passport.

2
[deleted]•

IAMAn American, but the US guys are always pricks to me, the mounties are all, eh, we don't have anything to blow up here anyway.

2
maxwell_smart•

Just for another opinion, my personal experience has been that the TSA agents themselves have been excellent.

I am surprised that you have had so many negative experiences.

1
RommelTJ•

The TSA isn't nearly as bad as the Border Patrol.

0
Theropissed•

You're not trying to be mean but is this really necissary?

A common thought on reddit is that TSA workers are "not much better than minimum wage employees".

Exactly how many assholes have you dealt with at a Sears, Mcdonalds, movie theater, toll booth, parking violation officer, etc etc?

Some people work just to work, TSA is so new that no one really grew up wanting to be in airport security. And the people that do work there, are selected at how well they can preform the job, now their manners.

(I went through the TSA hiring process up till the interview. The process included filling out a bunch of information about yourself and your family, and a test on how to spot stuff in an Xray machine and what not. There was nothing about customer service, because there are no customers.)

-3
SenatorStuartSmalley•

http://xkcd.com/651/

I know that the TSA officially commented on this cartoon, but this really sums up how I feel. Why is it that certain everyday items that are really dangerous are allowed but everyday items that may look like something that can be dangerous are not? I can't think that it would be due to public backlash, given some other decisions.

Also, I'm not against you or any individual doing their jobs, but I think the current policies go too far to keep us safe at the price of personal freedom and liberties. Can you comment (I know you mentioned that you didn't have an answer, can you elaborate on your personal opinion)?

78
tsahenchmanOP•

That's a good point. I'll talk to our explosives guy, see if we can replicate it in the field, and we can write a proposal to have them all banned.

My god, I'm just imagining the bloodbath if we tried to actually do this. Business travelers frothing at the mouth, throttling officers left and right, one being beaten to death by her own handwand.

43
Baron_von_Retard•

At the rate the TSA is going at, you guys are going to get beaten to death by regular passengers.

134
[deleted]•

Is it wrong that that thought just filled me with delight :)

51
jakeb89•

No, it's perfectly normal.

Also, that image seems like a strange combination of XKCD and Rejected.

4
fuelle•

Nope join the club. This thread fills me with so much rage. I think most of us will be in line to grab a nightstick off a fallen TSA agent when the rebellion against the TSA happens. Maybe we should be like France and just start taking over cities with mobs until airport security is more reasonable.

2
Ag-E•

Please go through with that suggestion. Perhaps then enough people would get angry enough with y'alls bullshit that something would get done.

5
Alives•

I tried to take 6 LiIon laptop batteries with me in my carryon during a 26 hour flight once. They gave me a warning, and told me the rule was some specific weight of the battery that was the threshold. Maybe they already know and have considered that a non-issue with that specific amount.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/batteries.shtm As of January 1, 2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT) through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) no longer allows loose lithium batteries in checked baggage.

Thats funny, I always have a spare battery with me. I will be pissed if I get it taken away and my flight doesn't have power under the seat though, especially if there is in-flight wifi.

2
jameson•

So you acknowledge there is a point at which inconveniencing travelers to thwart a theoretically possible threat is going too far?

2
bbibber•

Of course. Security is all about the compromise between it and convenience.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
SenatorStuartSmalley•

Agreed. I do know that there would be a backlash. I just question the validity of one ban over the other since both scenarios are equally viable and dangerous.

BTW: are magnetic hand wands banned on planes trollface

1
[deleted]•

If this was actually about safety, then they would already be banned, popular decision or not.

1
captainhotpants•

Don't worry, hoss, it'll never happen. Remember when lighters were banned, and matches weren't, as long as you had four books or less? Yay tobacco lobby.

1
Kalium•

TRAtroll.

Do it! I think it would be hilarious and awesome.

1
gotnate•

speaking of handwands, I have heard that they are no longer in use by the TSA in favor of grabbing my balls. Care to comment?

1
starrychloe•

Here's a Youtube video of one I saw from another comment. I didn't believe it until I saw it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS2hGoJVmlA#t=45

1
Imsomniland•

I know that the TSA officially commented on this cartoon

They commented, but they never really refuted what XKCD was saying.

You can still use lithium batters in a computer as weapon.

33
SenatorStuartSmalley•

oh yeah, not to mention the bludgeon affect of the physical device... forgot about that one.

1
cyborg_selkie•

I think what he meant was that a bottle of liquid explosives is more powerful than an exploding lithium battery:

The batteries may be more dangerous than a bottle of water, but they are not more dangerous than a water bottle filled with liquid explosives.

I think the OP touched on another reason why laptops aren't banned: passengers would go apeshit.

1
Imsomniland•

The batteries may be more dangerous than a bottle of water, but they are not more dangerous than a water bottle filled with liquid explosives.

A good point, but how many laptop batteries would be required to equal the damage of a water bottle filled with liquid explosives? Three laptops?

I think the OP touched on another reason why laptops aren't banned: passengers would go apeshit.

Precisely...hence the usual accusation of much of the TSA being a theatre.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

You can still use lithium batters in a computer as weapon.

Maybe if you hit someone over the head with it. Randall's got this one wrong. It's just about impossible to make a factory lithium ion battery explode. Catch fire? Sure. Explode? No. Sure, you could modify it to the point where it would explode, but by then you're better off just hollowing out the battery and hd case and filling them with semtex. Sure, it'll look different on the x-ray, but I highly doubt the person manning the monitor would be able to spot the difference without them being side by side.

1
Imsomniland•

Wut, dude you'd just need to short out the battery and it'd explode. That's why there's been all those news articles about Dell/Apply computers exploding because of their batteries. They aren't huge explosions, but use a couple of them and it could cause a fire that you can't put out.

2
[deleted]•

"Exploding" in those cases is a misnomer. It will expand and catch fire, but a hand grenade it is not.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

22
levitas•

http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoon.html

34
[deleted]•

From the comments:

You said: "When you show us a bottle of liquid, we can’t tell if it’s a sports drink or liquid explosives without doing a time consuming test on it."

How about a non-time-consuming test: Let the passenger DRINK SOME.

Edit: The concerns brought up by the people responding to this are obviously valid, I think most of us are simply addicted to what we perceive to be intelligent, snarky come backs.

32
tsahenchmanOP•

There is an embarrassing answer to this. Picture in your mind that one TSA officer who really just seemed really dumb. All airports have at least one. Now imagine him with a bottle of saline telling the passenger they can keep it if they can drink some of it. The rule is for your own protection, from us.

52
rampantdissonance•

I'm not a doctor, but I can imagine that if one was on a suicide mission, they wouldn't mind if they ingested harmful chemicals as long as they could remain coherent for at least a couple of hours. Any long term damage would not matter.

32
bdunderscore•

You assume that all materials that can be used to make explosives are immediately toxic. There's rumors that the TSA is worried about acetone peroxide - acetone isn't very toxic, even at high concentrations. Hydrogen peroxide is dangerous at high concentrations, but if you could get away with using a lower concentration you might survive a small sip (it might not be very pleasant, though...). And you only need to survive long enough to pass the peroxide to someone on the inside...

2
truthHIPS•

I hate all this nonsense but if terrorists actually did exist and actually did want to blow up planes, having them drink the liquid wouldn't help. I mean they plan to die anyway, what could it possibly hurt to drink a little poison so long as you'll live long enough for the plane to get up in the air?

1
[deleted]•

I don't understand the difference between a plane taken down with a laptop battery and a plane taken down with a water bottle filled with explosives.

Pretty sure you would have a downed plane in both scenarios.

Fuck, TSA makes my blood boil. If this shit is still going on in 2012, I'm voting Palin. If our society is going to be all fucked up we may as well try to fuck it up to the point where enough people care about fixing it.

10
xkcd651•

Randall Munroe (author of xkcd) commented on that post, CTRL+F to find it. TSA completely missed the point of the cartoon in their response, and he calls them on it.

8
alienangel2•

Since it actually took me a while to dig out his reply, here it is:

Randall Munroe said...

Hey! I'm the author of that cartoon, and was delighted to see your reply. Thanks!

Certainly, a bottle of water is harmless, but I was actually assuming the water bottle was also an explosive.

Laptop batteries have relatively high energy density. The two batteries I travel with (which I've never had anyone object to, contrary to your stated policy) combine to hold roughly the same energy in a 6-oz bottle of pure nitroglycerine. This energy cannot all be released quite as rapidly, but my friends have made laptop batteries explode with enough violence to, in one test, take the top off a small tree (when nestled in a fork of the trunk).

I understand that practicality plays into the decision of what to ban, and the joke of the comic was mainly how silly it would be to explain to a security guard how you could make a bomb with the expectation that it would have a good outcome. The laptop battery is a borderline case at best.

But I really do think there are some pretty serious problems with our approach to airport security, and that the rules we've come up with are more the result of a desire to do something than out of a practical assessment of what would make us safer. Articles like this one make the point better than I could: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security

I mean, when liquids are confiscated, what happens to them? Are they destroyed with explosives, tested, or just thrown away? If they're just thrown away (or set aside until days later), what's the point of confiscating them at all? The terrorist can just try to sneak some through again the next day, since there are no consequences to failing.

Yet if you don't put on the show, I suppose the airline industry might collapse. I really don't know what the solution is, but I get frustrated dealing with restrictive security procedures whose practical intentions are simply to reassure me.

16
cartola•

Yeah, he has a good response, but this...

Yet if you don't put on the show, I suppose the airline industry might collapse.

...isn't likely. The whole security theater has done nothing for the airline industry and there's little reason to believe people would want more security if it wasn't for the media constantly reminding them of terrorist "threats". I'm pretty sure you're statistically more likely to die from a plane malfunction than from plane terrorism. Other countries have saner security policies and it hasn't affected their industries. The absence of an event like 9/11 isn't the reason for that, it's the absence of media indoctrination.

The whole security fiasco is nothing but a response to 9/11 that, after proven very profitable, was pushed up to 11 so every drop of money could be made off of it. As many people said it doesn't prevent terrorism any more than it did before. Terrorists can still do what they please in many other areas and planes wouldn't be special if not for 9/11. Anyone who can get their hands on liquid explosives can use it effectively to kill everyone on a bus, for instance, yet there's no security check there.

5
FrankManic•

I have yet to see evidence that manufacturing TATP in an airline bathroom is a legitimate threat to anyone.

1
footstepsfading•

Happy Birthday!

2
walesmd•

I will say, although I don't agree with many of the TSA's policies and I believe they are a theater organization, I do admire their transparency.

Their administration realizes what they do has a significant impact on the average Americans life, they realize places like reddit and Ars Technica have the followers to seriously cause a shit-storm and they aren't very worried about responding to concerns as openly/honestly as possible.

1
Ivebeenfurthereven•

Me neither... I was sufficiently curious to break out ze Google

here you go :)

2
SenatorStuartSmalley•

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=46966

1
cglass•

I want to know how many different people it would take with laptops and a few spare batteries 'packaged properly' in carry-on luggage to make a bomb able to take down a plane.

How hard could it be to get on a southwest plane and sit next to your cohort and make the bomb quietly while nobody is the wiser.

Seriously, I want some numbers.

Then I want to know why we are looking at people naked in radiation machines.

Explain this to me.

2
SenatorStuartSmalley•

one. That's how many.

I am not an engineer, and wouldn't know how to actually do it but I do know that it would theoretically be possible to make it all software/firmware/some kind of electronic switch that way there is no neighbor suspicions like the shoe/underwear bombers. Just boom. And it could look like a laptop and boot into a laptop's OS (think android/ubuntu netbook -- very small, but would fool anyone).

The things that we use everyday that are more dangerous than liquid is astounding.

1
saranagati•

it's actually going to be a lot worse than that soon. although it hasn't been released yet people (at least one person [not me, i just saw him give a talk at a conference]) is working on backdooring embedded controllers on laptops which would allow other people to make your laptop explode (at least catch fire). So now you have to worry about causing a plane to blow up because you got a virus on your shitty windows laptop. But at least you'll be thirsty while you blow everyone up.

2
Proeliata•

So... WHY is he doing this?

1
AnUrbanite•

I'll tell you why, money. Everything about this has to do with money. Airlines make most of their money from businessmen. When your boss says "Oh you got a meeting in NYC next week, get a flight." the ticket is going to cost a lot more than a ticket you purchased 6 months in advanced. So if laptops and electronics were not allowed on the plane, businessmen would stop flying because it may not be profitable to do so.

1
SenatorStuartSmalley•

I guess it was a rhetorical question. I know that nothing happens that doesn't involve money. The whole reason the liquid is allowed to be confiscated is because you can buy more inside the gate, etc... If there were people unwilling to fly because of this and it hit the bottom line, then it would quickly be changed.

1
Proeliata•

They wouldn't stop flying because even without a laptop for 2 hours there's still no faster way to get to where you're going.

1
klui•

This is a very good point. If people can't bring their laptops on planes, the airlines would go bankrupt as businesses stop sending people on trips. Real money is lost so Li-Ion batteries will be ignored by the TSA.

1
MayoFetish•

There should be discount "Less Security" flights as a cheaper and faster option. The people getting on the plane can get past security but they also know they are at a higher risk of shit going down.

72
cali141•

To play the devil's advocate:

Horrible idea. So you want to put some people, namely those who are less affluent than others, at more risk than others? First off, there'll be a shitstorm over how you have to pay more if you want to secure your own well-being. Second, all planes are equal in the eyes of a terrorist if they're packed with people and can make it to a major city - guess which one they'll go for, the more or less guarded option?

Again, I agree to some extent, but there are huge flaws with that proposition.

4
[deleted]•

I think the point was that those of us who don't want to put up with TSA bullshit can just skip it, knowing the risks. The point was not that lower security flights would have to be cheaper.

8
captainhotpants•

If I was allowed to run LessSecure Air, I would charge a 10% premium over other airlines, and the business travelers would eat it up. Sadly, the FAA prohibits airlines and airports from competing on the basis of security.

11
neoumlaut•

Then let's do the opposite. Pay more for less security. I know I would pay more.

2
ch00f•

First off, there'll be a shitstorm over how you have to pay more if you want to secure your own well-being.

So...Healthcare then.

2
thedailynathan•

Because a hijacked plane has the potential to harm more than just the people who are on the plane?

3
Sporke•

There's a problem. If somebody wants to crash a plane into a building, they're going to go to the one with lower security. And that building they just crashed into? The people in that building did not volunteer for the "Less Security".

1
lftl•

How do you hijack a plane nowadays? The cabin door would still be locked. It 's not like the "Less Security" would have to mean "No Security".

2
[deleted]•

That's an interesting idea. The problem though is that in an instance like the 9/11 attacks, the planes were used as weapons. This danger is what is known in behavioral economics as a negative externality. I like the idea of putting a market in security though, if only we could think of a better implementation

0
AuntieSocial•

Yeah, but in reality, how often would that be? I'd sign up for that airline in a heartbeat, pay any extra out of my own pocket if work wouldn't cover it and accept that added risk. Real, honest-to-goodness terrorist attacks (as opposed to, say, some drunk passenger freaking out) are so rare and the risk of dying as a result of a terrorist attack is so small that it amounts little more than a rounding error on the risk of dying in plane crash that I'm already accepting by flying.

3
[deleted]•

Totally - I'd be the first one in line for that airline. I guess I didn't explain my point very well. I am perfectly fine with allowing consumers to trade personal risk for lower prices. The problem lies in the fact that they are trading not only their own risk, but that of others as well.

1
AuntieSocial•

But that's just it - they're not at more risk from terrorist attacks than they are just flying, period, regardless of the level of security provided. Such attacks just aren't that common.

If we dropped all security back to pre-9/11 levels, it's possible attacks would go up. But even then, when your risk of death by crash is 1 in 10 million or so, and your risk of death by terrorist attack is 1 in 20-30 million (for any and all types of attack, not just plane), you really have to step up the attacks to a "just not going to happen" level just to match what you're already agreeing to just by hopping on board.

1
kingkilr•

Can I (a male) request to be given a pat down by a female officer?

60
[deleted]•

Preferably the blond over there?

14
Skitrel•

blonde* !!!!

5
[deleted]•

Are they not interchangeable? What is the difference?

1
Skitrel•

Blond is masculine, blonde is feminine. It's one of the only words we use that have gender rules.

Commonly blonde is being used for either gender these days though and blond is falling out of use entirely.

1
nchammer326•

No. Pat-downs are conducted by someone of the same gender.

3
Sir_D_Chicken-Caesar•

If you present yourself as a female. I'm not sure if just saying 'I consider myself female' would work.. but it should do AFAICT.

2
[deleted]•

ANSWER THIS!

2
PolarTX•

Upvote to get an answer!

1
[deleted]•

I'd like an answer to this as well. Not because I want an opportunity to get felt up, but because I think I'd feel more comfortable if it was a woman.

1
simonsarris•

I've definitely been patted down by a female officer, but not in the US.

It was in the Frankfurt Airport, maybe two years after 9/11.

1
[deleted]•

I've had a digital prostate exam by a young female doctor (and I'm in my late 20's) - AMAA!!!

1
godsfire•

I'm male and I've spent a fair amount of time in our local county lock up. I can attest being patted down by a female guard as the highlight of the day.

1
drinkmorecoffee•

You confiscated my dignity on a recent flight. Apparently I'd forgotten to place it into a quart-sized ziplock bag. What is the procedure for reclaiming it?

57
Taibo•

Should've checked it in, along with the rest of your privacy.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Zlatko10•

How do you search children? What if children were used to hide weapons. How would the TSA proceed.

52
[deleted]•

[deleted]

28
roadkillzombie•

that's a verb now?

3
[deleted]•

Tell her never to fly then. I was 13 and hella shy both about being touched and crying in front of people. Both of which happened.

2
punkypoet•

wow, I hadn't thought about this, and now I feel like a tool for not thinking about it.

11
1upFireFlower•

Yep, they are molesting the kids at the airport, humiliating them in front of their parents.

If they don't do the pat down then they look at their naked body in the image scanner.

These disgusting pedophiles have won.

Welcome to America!

36
klui•

I think I will tell my kids to punch people in the face who touch their privates.

3
videogamechamp•

Have them aim for the privates, they are closer and more damaging.

2
RageKage•

Also, the naked body scanners expose kids to a very unhealthy dose of radiation when they are still developing. Uh, childhood cancer anyone?

2
[deleted]•

They might be assholes, but calling them pedophiles is just silly.

1
UristMcInternet•

Fuck you, guy. Let's talk about this reasonably, without this emotional bullshit.

-3
tsahenchmanOP•

Carefully. We want the parents present, we want everyone involved to know whats going to happen before it happens. We realize no one will ever be comfortable with a stranger searching their child, so we try to be as sensitive to this as we can, while still doing our jobs.

7
smalltownjeremy•

while still doing our jobs

With all due respect, you're not doing your job. Your touching a kid in the areas that society vilifies people for doing. You're committing a crime, plain and simple. Justify it however you need to, but because your boss tells you to do it and your boss happens to be the government, doesn't make it legal. I'm not a lawyer but I've discussed this exact scenario with a lawyer knowing that I'm flying with an infant very soon and its possible you could be prosecuted in the event I want to be an asshole and press charges against you for improperly touching my kid. Can I prove the touch was improper? Maybe, maybe not, but do you want to take your chances with a jury full of mothers?

All I'm saying is, I don't think you and your colleagues have really thought through the implications of "just doing our jobs". It's certainly not a job I'd want to do.

39
binarycatalyst•

TSA agents aren't medical personnel. They shouldn't have the right to touch a child's genitals.

28
sillybluestarr•

Any public school teacher would be fired immediately if this every happened. Why should TSA be different?

30
habarnam•

OP said it's not OK to touch the genitals of adults either. So if they do it, they should be prosecuted.

6
HaroldHood•

Nazis were "just doing their jobs"

3
saw2239•

TSA where priest go to retire.

12
Derkek•

What if a kid is wearing skinny jeans, the kind that forbid any resistance caused by testicles. What would happen then?

2
corybidan•

This needs to be answered. This is the more serious question I think.

To be honest, I'd never thought of it, but it's a great question.

6
TheOneGaffer•

What's the most egregious thing you've seen a fellow TSA employee do? Were they reported and/or reprimanded for their actions?

51
tsahenchmanOP•

The one that offended me the most personally was when an officer screened someone improperly for reasons that were most certainly racist. I am pleased to say they no longer have a job. Well, I think I saw him at home depot, so he has a job, just not the one he had before we found out he was an asshole. I will say it took too long to make it happen though, that's something we should be better at. We want to be able to take pride in our jobs, and for a lot of us that means those that cannot uphold the standards we are meant to should go. Most offenses are reported the same day they occur, and the floors under our rugs are squeaky clean.

72
TheOneGaffer•

So as a follow up, in your opinion would it be in the best interest of all parties to establish an independent agency to oversee the TSA to allow individuals harmed (either knowingly or unknowingly) by TSA agents the ability to get some recourse?

It seems that one of the issues facing the TSA today is that it's grown so fast and with so little oversight or control that it seems beyond the reach of any existing agency to really oversee it, govern it, or punish it when it does wrong. This is especially so with some other existing agencies being afraid of rebuke ('we need them to be safe!').

13
zeppelin4491•

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

19
TheOneGaffer•

The GAO/OMB.

4
guttertothestars•

nemo scit.

1
CustosCustodum•

I do.

1
tsahenchmanOP•

I have no problem with accountability, so long as it doesn't interfere with us doing our jobs properly.

And you're probably right on that last issue. As an agency we're still finding our place, establishing boundaries, and figuring a lot of things out.

3
Skitrel•

The police have accountability, they don't do their jobs properly, they just back each other up when shit hits the fan and nothing happens to them.

Accountability solves nothing, the problems have to be fixed at the source, they can't be fixed by adding another link in the chain.

4
Robstailey•

"take pride in our jobs"

right. to be honest i wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if i had your job, regardless of how professional i was about it. the TSA is a joke.

5
Zlatko10•

This is probably the cutest thing I read and proof that you may be mentally unstable and or an idiot, perfect for your current job.

-56
lady_jaye•

Nice try, ex-TSA Home Depot racist.

41
Heavenfall•

It is not uncommon for organizations to have such harsh rules when employees constantly have to make decisions that make the organization liable. While it is true that firing employees over what could be seen as a mistake sounds harsh, in some occupations it is necessary.

Hell, you'd be surprised how easy it is to get fired for a single offense if you asked around.

3
tsahenchmanOP•

In this case the idiot told me he had initiated additional measures because of their race. It was pretty cut and dry.

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1