TSA Moves On From Your Underwear to Your Starbucks

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/tsa-moves-on-from-your-underwear-to-your-starbucks/

by spathak • 14 years ago

114 109 14 years ago

ck24• 14 years ago

So what happens when we hit two decades later, billions of tax dollars completely wasted and the TSA has not caught a single "terrorist" ?

Even worse all that and they MISS another terrorist?

Will they then get more funding or less? Move the searches into our homes?

Tell me where exactly we draw the line.

indiecore• 14 years ago

>Will they then get more funding or less? Move the searches into our homes?

More and yes. See the War on Drugs.

ctdonath4• 14 years ago

The line was drawn some 225 years ago: 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.

It's not about drawing the line, it's about holding an uncooperative government to it. They're willing to go so far as shoot you if you don't let them cross that line and examine your coffee; you're not willing to pursue similar means to hold them to that line.

ck24• 14 years ago

Try quoting that line while they are beating and arresting you for not allowing them to search your car within 100 miles of a border:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...

Some states are considered to lie completely within a "constitution-free zone": Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

kalleboo• 14 years ago

As long as there are people making money off it it, it'll just keep expanding. Probably not to our homes, but expect to see the TSA with naked body scanners at sports arenas, train and subway stations, shopping malls, office buildings...

bluedanieru2• 14 years ago

In 20 years the TSA will be a fond memory.

danielweber3• 14 years ago

and the TSA has not caught a single "terrorist" ?

There's a lot of TSA crap and the whole agency should probably be zero'd out, but this isn't the right measure.

If a metal detector at an airport never stopped a gun, that wouldn't mean the metal detector is useless for keeping guns off planes.

bdunbar9• 14 years ago

It would if guns have slipped by the metal detector. Which they have.

DanBC• 14 years ago

The TSA stops guns getting onto planes every week.

We have no idea if they miss any guns, nor if the guns they stopped were going to be used on the plane.

But TSA will point to the 20 or so guns they fund each week as evidence of effectiveness.

EDIT (after a bunch of comments): I should make it clear that I'm not defending TSA, I think they're mostly lousy and pointless security theatre.

GFKjunior2• 14 years ago

And yet no terrorist attacks have occurred.

So either people got more violent after 9/11 and therefore brought more weapons, or people were always bringing guns onto planes. I’d bet on the latter, and yet how many terror attacks occurred? Hmmm…

sswezey• 14 years ago

You don't TSA for that, metal detectors and security checks existed before TSA. Of course, beforehand there weren't kids trying to smuggle guns on. end sarcasm

Turing_Machine3• 14 years ago

"We have no idea if they miss any guns"

Actually we know for a fact that they miss guns.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+misses+gun

tomasquintero• 14 years ago

These floors are too clean, we should fire some of these janitors.

isleyaardvark• 14 years ago

> We have no idea if they miss any guns, 1) nor if the guns they stopped were going to be used on the plane. 2) But TSA will point to the 20 or so guns they fund each week as evidence of effectiveness.

2) suggests 1) is not the case. If the TSA knew or even suspected the guns were going to be used on the plane, wouldn't they point that out alongside the "number of guns confiscated per week" number? There seem to be a lot of dogs not barking.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

The same thing that happened to the failed war on drugs after 4 decades. It will carry on.

As for your other question, it will keep getting bigger budgets, because "mission creep". What do you think this, and those cases where they went to subway and bus stops was? They are testing the waters to see how the people are reacting to them expanding their scope. If no one says anything or the outrage is not big enough, they'll most likely propose the Government to allow them to set-up check-ins in other places as well, and of course increase their budget.

blktiger• 14 years ago

<sarcasm>The TSA is in BIG trouble when they start messing with citizens' Starbucks!</sarcasm>

bluetidepro• 14 years ago

Articles like this just make me so mad that the TSA can just be bullies and do such ridiculous things.

Does anyone know the current state of the TSA, as far as upcoming funding, plans, or improvement goes? Is it Homeland Security making these things mandatory or what?

I just constantly hear insane stories like this and never hear any good coming from the TSA. How do we change this? Or is that even an option?

wj• 14 years ago

I dislike the TSA as much as the next guy but some of their employees are good people. My father-in-law commutes weekly from Austin. Once he left his laptop at the screening and remembered it the next day. He called and they had it waiting for him when he flew back through a couple of days later.

cobrausn• 14 years ago

This is obviously true, and ultimately meaningless. All organizations are composed of people, and I guarantee you that within even the most 'evil' organization is quite a few 'good people'. It doesn't make the organization any less 'evil'.

Karunamon3• 14 years ago

If I had the money and time to spare, I'd create a group who's job it would be to just buy random travel to random places and do nothing but screw with the TSA. We're talking millionaire levels here. I'd buy people tickets, walk them through how to jam the entire process start to finish (quoting the constitution works exceedingly well if the stories I'm reading mean anything), and hire lawyers to deal with fighting the inevitable legal challenges.

Call me childish, but I would like nothing better to but to make this system such a cost drain that it's dropped. Once airlines have to start rebooking people due to flights being missed by many, many paying passengers, en masse, the corporate pressure that makes the government wheels turn will do the rest.

Most people put up with this fucktardery only because they have somewhere to be and don't want to miss their flight. And the security theater actors know this.

thedrbrian• 14 years ago

The TSA would probably arrest you andyour collaborators for obstructing the law or inciting fear or something. Either way you wouldn't be able to operate for long before something happened.

hosh2• 14 years ago

I thought the TSA has no arrest powers... ?

jfoutz• 14 years ago

I don't know. Going in the out door in any major airport is a huge expense. Talking someone into doing that for a few hundred dollars does not seem that difficult, or traceable.

MattRogish• 14 years ago

The TSA can't arrest or detain anyone (let's hope this stays this way - http://www.popehat.com/2012/01/03/my-theory-of-tsa-arrest-po...); they have to call the police for that. And then, yes, the police could arrest or detain you for breaking the law.

malandrew• 14 years ago

Yeah, unfortunately this would be one of those civil disobediance acts that would get lumped in with yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. You'll probably lose on the grounds that your behavior presents a "clear and present danger to the United States". Seeing as there are plenty of idiots that believe in the security theatre, that is how your behavior would likely be interpreted.

wheels• 14 years ago

You might get more schadenfreude that way, but it'd be much more effective to spend that money on lobbyists and organization that worked on changing the law.

firichapo• 14 years ago

I wonder how effective something like Kick Starter would be if it was applied to lobbyists? I mean, at some point it was supposed to be that whoever got elected represented the people. But now it is obvious that the elected just represent who ever gave them the largest amount of money. Could crowd Funding compete with big Co. and wealthy individuals?

Yes, the idealist in me wants to believe the system can be changed. But I am getting close to 30 and I haven't bought any new Bad Religion CD/MP3 since I was 22 to fuel the idealist in me.

fghh45sdfhr32• 14 years ago

but it'd be much more effective to spend that money on lobbyists

Maybe, maybe not.

Lobbying is very expensive, I suspect some times it would be cheaper to lobby, other times it would be cheaper to sabotage the system.

Which is cheaper could depend on many things, like is anyone lobbying against you, vs. is the system designed in such a way that it could potentially adjust itself to defends itself or not.

untog• 14 years ago

Most people put up with this fucktardery only because they have somewhere to be and don't want to miss their flight.

I wish this were true, but it isn't. I know a number of people who genuinely believe that the TSA procedures are necessary to make sure a terrorist is not going to blow up the plane they are boarding.

bdunbar9• 14 years ago

He knows people, you know people .. do either one of you have actual data?

mtgx2• 14 years ago

You should probably ask them to pass naked through the checkpoint. A Court has just recently declared that as free speech.

http://www.inquisitr.com/281009/naked-guy-wins-court-case-af...

megablast• 14 years ago

I am all for it, but you are just frustrating the ground staff. High level decision people will not be affected by this, and those are the ones you really want to go after. Maybe getting their names put on the extra-hassle list.

wkdown3• 14 years ago

The "ground staff" need to get real jobs. No matter how hard up for work I am, I will not sacrifice my morals and common sense by working for an organization as pointless and invading as the TSA.

caseysoftware2• 14 years ago

I opt out every single time and as a Developer Evangelist, I travel quite a bit.. upwards of 30 flights so far this year. It's to the point when I travel with other people, I explicitly tell them to go through lines separate from me and don't associate with or acknowledge me.

Almost every time through, there are no more than 1-2 other people opting out at the same time. And usually prior to my opt out, there aren't any at all.

It appears that "most people put up with this fucktardery" because they don't know/care otherwise.. none even question it.

I document my experiences via Twitter using the #fuTSA tag if you'd like to follow along. ;)

scrumper• 14 years ago

Are you talking about opting out of the full-body backscatter X ray machine, or some other opt out? Thanks

ctdonath4• 14 years ago

Some of us with medical implants don't have a choice. Straight to the pat-down for me.

I opt out by not flying any more. Can get just about anywhere I want to in one day of driving (with the convenience of my own impromptu schedule, take as much as I want, and have a car when I get there).

Am surprised 4A suits haven't been filed en masse. Would be great for rights restoration if some lawyer could whip up a "filing suit over right X violations without a lawyer" guidebook, keeping it simple & cheap and leveraging sheer numbers in doing so (rather than trying to concoct the perfect case, just overwhelm the system with enough conflicting verdicts that the Supreme Court has to resolve it, with enough range in cases that nuanced narrow verdicts are impossible).

kintamanimatt5• 14 years ago

This is possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read.

The complaints about security theater are loud and frequent, but aside from bitching and moaning, what can be done?

bluedanieru2• 14 years ago

Nothing, and that's fine. America has been voting itself into a police state for at least the last 30 years, arguably even since the start of the Cold War. Enjoy it, you've have earned it.

kintamanimatt5• 14 years ago

Here's the thing: this affects non-citizens too who have had no part in the voting process, particularly tourists and business travelers who have to endure this absurdity. These ridiculous practices spread to other countries too; it's a global issue.

ck24• 14 years ago

Speaking of the TSA, I am not sure how this didn't make national news:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/politica...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331811

HN completely bans his name being mentioned in topic titles apparently.

mcantelon• 14 years ago

At least one of his colleagues claims to have had their luggage tampered with as well, so this might have been done in conjunction with someone tipping off the TSA about planted items.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TsFVmZBAWI

thornofmight• 14 years ago

"HN completely bans his name being mentioned in topic titles apparently."

Is this actually true?

strmpnk• 14 years ago

Given other common things I've seen filtered, I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think the intent is to sensor as much as it is to keep the news a little more focussed. Still, I wish there was a bit a transparency with a viewable list of what is and isn't filtered.

toomuchcoffee2• 14 years ago

Really now? Let's try a little experiment:

http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4487628

toomuchcoffee2• 14 years ago

Apparently the auto-kill filtering is source-, rather than pattern-based. For example this article seems to have made it through:

http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4487658

Even though its title also mentions the Unnameable Politician.

poulsbohemian• 14 years ago

It's not surprising this is at Columbus. I've had top-tier frequent flyer status for the past 5 years and Columbus is the worst airport in the country in terms of violation of your civil rights. The problem isn't the security checkpoint, it's stuff like this nonsense - they regularly do additional screening at the gate or as people are getting onto the planes themselves. There's no way this is constitutional, even in light of past rulings favorable to the TSA. I can't think of any other airport either in the US or abroad that has taken things to the extreme they have in Columbus. Perhaps the state of Ohio has forgotten what happened at Kent State? Must be something in the water.

pedalpete• 14 years ago

Or it could be a funding thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt Columbus is one of the major airports in the US. However, I suspect that the more 'work' they do and people they employ, the more money they are given to operate in that airport.

smutticus• 14 years ago

I wonder what would happen if I just politely refused. On most occasions I would be willing to go to jail over this.

tantalor• 14 years ago

FTA, "passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening checkpoint entrance."

More likely, you can refuse, but you'll be escorted out of the terminal (and refused reentry).

I doubt you'll "go to jail" unless you assault the TSA agent, become disorderly, etc.

ibejoeb2• 14 years ago

TSA can't arrest or detain, but they can call the police. I'm quite sure you'd be detained. I don't know on what grounds an arrest could be made, so you're probably right that you'd be removed from the premises after some holding period.

ibejoeb2• 14 years ago

What if I were to quickly drink the coffee? Felony obstruction? This is a serious question; I'm not being sarcastic.

rglover• 14 years ago

The TSA is certainly going way beyond logic with this, but honestly, passengers need to start speaking up (specifically I'm referencing the placidity of the people having their drinks checked in the video).

Realize that while they may have a badge and a fun little uniform, these agents are people just like you and I. Sadly, in most cases, they're of a lesser intelligence too (yes that's mean and discriminatory but it's true). When something is wrong, call it out. Otherwise this sort of absurdity will continue to get worse. Civil liberties are more important than your meeting.

Don't be afraid of this crap.

jfischer• 14 years ago

This is just the tip of the iceberg - for some time now, many international flights inbound to the U.S. have had a secondary screening of your carry-on bags at the gate. They won't let you take any liquids into the gate (beyond the 3 oz bottles) and go through your bags. They had this last month when I traveled from HKG to SFO. Other international flights not going to the U.S. did not have this screening. I think I remember an at-gate screening at Frankfurt as well, but my memory is fuzzy.

At least there were no X-rays or pat-downs...

h1srf• 14 years ago

That(screening at the gate) has been going on forever though and most people (international travelers) are used to it by now. Most international flights to the US will have additional security screening for liquids/whatever since most destinations don't require the whole liquids/take shoes off/turn on your laptop crap.

Not saying it's right, just that it's been going on forever.

joezydeco• 14 years ago

I just flew out of FRA to the states last month and they don't screen at the gate (or just before) anymore. But they have reconfigured terminal 1 so that all US-bound flights leave through section "Z", which used to be section "A". Everyone leaving through Z (since it's non EU/Schengen) gets a heavier screen than domestic flights leaving out of the other gates.

Matt_Mickiewicz• 14 years ago

... and this is why I'm Canadian.

catenate• 14 years ago

If I encountered this (I usually fly up to six times a month) I would simply not buy the supposedly-offending food item at that airport ever again. If enough people do this, the businesses there will be less able to pay their expensive airport concession fees, and complain to the airport, or just close up shop. The airport has a lot more leverage with the Thousands Standing Around than I do.

chimeracoder2• 14 years ago

> While TSA agents lack the authority to arrest or detain anyone, passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening checkpoint entrance.

What does this mean, then - will they just throw you out if you refuse? Or will they illegally detain you? My bet is on the latter.

IanDrake• 14 years ago

So, I smuggled explosives into the terminal and now I'm going to take it out of my premo hiding spot and put it in a cup? Sure...that's what I'd do.

Glad we got that scenario covered.

adrr2• 14 years ago

"While TSA agents lack the authority to arrest or detain anyone, passengers cannot refuse screening once they have proceeded beyond the screening checkpoint entrance."

How does that work? You can't just waive your rights. I wonder what would happen if you said no. They may not let you on your flight but if you just landed and buying coffee there's noting they can do if you refuse.

ctdonath4• 14 years ago

You can't waive your rights, except for situations where they decide you can just by being there.

wkdown3• 14 years ago

I think we should refuse to acknowledge their authority. Obviously, when REAL law enforcement comes, you recognize theirs. When the TSA tries to touch you, you press assault charges.

genwin• 14 years ago

The law as I understand it is, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at and beyond the security checkpoint. You could be arrested (by police) for saying no. And of course you'll end up on the no-fly list and have to move to another country if you want to fly again. Not that I'm supporting any of this.

adrr2• 14 years ago

I hate that "no fly" list. Its a clear restriction on constitutional right on freedom of movement(article 4).

peeters• 14 years ago

> But the TSA says the practice isn’t new — it’s been going on since 2007 — and is part of random screening techniques designed to catch liquid explosives that might slip through initial screening.

Wow, who are these people trying to convince? A random sampling make absolutely no sense here. To have a 95% chance of catching the offending substance, you'd have to "randomly screen" 95% of passengers.

And that's assuming that the screening technique would actually catch a determined individual, which it won't, because he's a terrorist and he's thought things through.

MrMember• 14 years ago

>And that's assuming that the screening technique would actually catch a determined individual, which it won't, because he's a terrorist and he's thought things through.

This is the real head scratcher. Say someone did get an explosive liquid through the initial security screening. Why would they then be drinking it later while waiting for their flight?

gshakir• 14 years ago

We are all living in a heightened sense of fear. It was apparent as I was waiting to board a plane over the Labor day weekend, one of the airline representative came over on the mic and said: "Calling Mr..Err Hmm..I rather not say this passenger name aloud, so I will spell it out..Will Mr. G..U...N please come forward? "

wkdown3• 14 years ago

We need to stand up against this shit. This is absolutely ridiculous. The TSA and DoHS as a whole are a fucking joke.

/soapbox

TSA Moves On From Your Underwear to Your Starbucks

Related Stories