If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Former TSA screener testifies to how they are an impenetrable force, not to be messed with. HA....just kidding....he says pretty much what we already know   (nypost.com) divider line 139
    More: Obvious, Newark TSA, John Pistole, TSA, Janet Napolitano  
•       •       •

15419 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-10 08:43:58 AM
I'm shocked.

digitaljournal.com
 
2013-03-10 08:48:59 AM
But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?
 
2013-03-10 08:52:58 AM
www.examiner.com

Remember: "You can't professionalize unless you federalize,"
 
2013-03-10 08:53:54 AM
KIDding meaning. child pornography??
 
2013-03-10 08:55:16 AM
America will be bled white under the sucking lampreys of the boondoggle.
 
2013-03-10 09:00:58 AM
Sounds like a good job to me.
 
2013-03-10 09:03:42 AM

Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?


I think what most people are advocating for is a common-sense approach to security.

Cases in point:
a2.img.mobypicture.com

images.nymag.com
 
2013-03-10 09:05:24 AM

Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?


I read that more as a show of how useless the whole process was, and not so much that a more invasive search would be better. He just compared it to how cops search people: By actually, ya know, searching. It's like trying to equate me jacking off while looking at a picture of you to actually having deep, sexual intercourse with you. Deep.
 
2013-03-10 09:08:34 AM
Lest we forget, the author was a member of the group he's trashing.  So what makes him so much better than the others if they're all so bad?  Except, of course, that he's telling you all what you think you already know.
 
2013-03-10 09:10:03 AM
Yes, let's all get in a twist over an agency that not only is not going away any time soon but likely will be continually and incrementally expanded as time goes on.

Useless or not they're here to stay. Because, of course, 9/11. And the children.

Oh, and money.
 
2013-03-10 09:17:09 AM
FTA- "But since most TSA supervisors are too daft to actually supervise"

         "we can check under their buttocks"

While I pretty much agree with the sentiment of the article, can we at least get an actual american to criticize the agency? I've about had it with people from a turd of a country like the uk pissing and moaning about my country.

Go back home, limey.
 
2013-03-10 09:17:25 AM
Always take the pat-down. Tyrone has the softest hands.
 
2013-03-10 09:21:13 AM
I dunno, while I'm not fond of the TSA and its weirding ways, and despite all the flack they get in the media over the horror stories, I've never had any problems when travelling. And I'm talking places like Dulles and Reagan National. You know, the armpit of the nation. TSA was always at a minimum attentive and helpful in spite of the rules they have to follow and the cancer-machines they have to employ. I can't just have been lucky each time I went through an airport all these years.
 
2013-03-10 09:22:12 AM
As much as you all scream how completely useless and invasive the TSA is, I bet the moment they stop and someone blows up a plane in transit or flys it into another building, you twats will be screaming "WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO STOP THIS!"
 
2013-03-10 09:22:52 AM

MrHelpful: Lest we forget, the author was a member of the group he's trashing.  So what makes him so much better than the others if they're all so bad?  Except, of course, that he's telling you all what you think you already know.


He makes $15/hour with federal benefits during a time where employment is hard to come by. I don't begrudge anyone paying their rent. The problem, as he outlined, isn't individual people being bad or good - it's a system set-up for failure. And he's in a good position to call attention to that.
 
2013-03-10 09:24:01 AM
I run a metal detector and bag inspection checkpoint where I work. I can definetly confirm that most "security" is theater. The only thing that is actually kepping you safe feom hijacking 10, 000 in the air is the armed sky marshall sitting in row 12A. Assuming he's there...and armed.
 
2013-03-10 09:24:48 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: MrHelpful: Lest we forget, the author was a member of the group he's trashing.  So what makes him so much better than the others if they're all so bad?  Except, of course, that he's telling you all what you think you already know.

He makes $15/hour with federal benefits during a time where employment is hard to come by. I don't begrudge anyone paying their rent. The problem, as he outlined, isn't individual people being bad or good - it's a system set-up for failure. And he's in a good position to call attention to that.


he could live in a Ted Kaczinski mansion in the hills for free
 
2013-03-10 09:25:47 AM

arbitterm: I run a metal detector and bag inspection checkpoint where I work. I can definetly confirm that most "security" is theater. The only thing that is actually kepping you safe feom hijacking 10, 000 in the air is the armed sky marshall sitting in row 12A. Assuming he's there...and armed.


I hope he is not armed, guns are scary and are only used for killing, not protection. He needs to ask a hijacker nicely to stop what he is doing and put himself in handcuffs.
 
2013-03-10 09:26:06 AM

Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?


I'm advocating for abolishment without replacement.
 
2013-03-10 09:29:44 AM

Hotdog453: Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?

I read that more as a show of how useless the whole process was, and not so much that a more invasive search would be better. He just compared it to how cops search people: By actually, ya know, searching. It's like trying to equate me jacking off while looking at a picture of you to actually having deep, sexual intercourse with you. Deep.


Here's my problem.  I enjoy bashing the TSA too because it struck me as such a reactionary response to 9-11.  But let's be honest.  Airport security and screening procedures pre-911 were pretty lax and obsolete in this day and age of more sophisticated attacks and motives for hijacking.

Now that the TSA is here, what alternative do we have but to keep it in place and try to make screening process more efficient and yet more comprehensive.  There is always going to be a trade-off between efficiency and accuracy.  If you want higher detection rates, you either have to make the searches more invasive and therefore longer.  Or you have to employ technology like full-body scanners which piss off libertarian college students on Facebook.  And I would argue that exempting old people and children from searches sends entirely the wrong message.  Because where do you stop at making exemptions?  People in wheelchairs?  Blind people?  None of them could possibly be carrying explosives, right?

If the TSA went away tomorrow, the airline industry would probably experience an immediate 50-60% drop in business.  As annoying as TSA security is, passengers have come to accept it's presence as a sign that at least some measure of prevention against terrorism is being employed.  Take that away, and a good portion of the casual traveling public would stop flying.
 
2013-03-10 09:31:05 AM

Hotdog453: Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?

I read that more as a show of how useless the whole process was, and not so much that a more invasive search would be better. He just compared it to how cops search people: By actually, ya know, searching. It's like trying to equate me jacking off while looking at a picture of you to actually having deep, sexual intercourse with you. Deep.


Go on...
 
2013-03-10 09:33:27 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: MrHelpful: Lest we forget, the author was a member of the group he's trashing.  So what makes him so much better than the others if they're all so bad?  Except, of course, that he's telling you all what you think you already know.

He makes $15/hour with federal benefits during a time where employment is hard to come by. I don't begrudge anyone paying their rent. The problem, as he outlined, isn't individual people being bad or good - it's a system set-up for failure. And he's in a good position to call attention to that.


What the hell are you talking about?  I didnt begrudge him paying his rent.  I do begrudge him going to a tabloid and biatching about his fellow employees and, yes, he is talking about individual people being bad or good...reread the article.  For all we know, he was the worst offender - we see that all the time from burn out losers - they complain about how they're the only one who cares and how everyone else is wrong yet they can't see their own abhorrent behavior.  Contrary to what the subby claims, the ex-TSA screener isn't "testifying" to anything...he's just biatching to a reporter.  That, alone, knocks his credibility down a few thousand notches in my book.
 
2013-03-10 09:35:48 AM

Close2TheEdge: But let's be honest.  Airport security and screening procedures pre-911 were pretty lax and obsolete in this day and age of more sophisticated attacks and motives for hijacking.


What sort of "more sophisticated attacks" are we worried about? The last major attack was built around the hard-to-access technology of  box cutters. We've had a few incompetents try and set plastique on fire, but the last major  successful attack used box cutters.

Which, having accidentally snuck plenty of contraband past the TSA checkpoint myself, including through body scanners, I sincerely doubt any of the techniques in play would actually help with that. There is only  one thing which has improved airline security, and that's the new cockpit doors and cabin procedures. Well, that and the fact that everyone knows to respond to hijacking attempts with violence, not by sitting still and waiting for it to be over, which was the pre-9/11 approach.

Honestly, we could revert to pre-9/11 security screening and have no increased risk. Spend all the TSA money on intelligence and catch the bad guys before they get to the airport.
 
2013-03-10 09:39:05 AM

Close2TheEdge: Now that the TSA is here, what alternative do we have but to keep it in place and try to make screening process more efficient and yet more comprehensive.


Get rid of it completely.  If any airlines or airports want to do it on their own, they can try.

If the TSA went away tomorrow, the airline industry would probably experience an immediate 50-60% drop in business.  As annoying as TSA security is, passengers have come to accept it's presence as a sign that at least some measure of prevention against terrorism is being employed.  Take that away, and a good portion of the casual traveling public would stop flying.

A high majorty of travelers are on business who would be thrilled by it.  For every person who didn't fly because of the lack of TSA, there'd be a person who isn't flying now because of TSA.
 
2013-03-10 09:39:58 AM

arbitterm: I run a metal detector and bag inspection checkpoint where I work. I can definetly confirm that most "security" is theater. The only thing that is actually kepping you safe feom hijacking 10, 000 in the air is the armed sky marshall sitting in row 12A. Assuming he's there...and armed.

I'dI'd



I'd say what's keeping the plane safe are the passengers who would open a can of whoop ass on anyone who tried to hijack it.
 
2013-03-10 09:40:05 AM

Close2TheEdge: Now that the TSA is here, what alternative do we have but to keep it in place and try to make screening process more efficient and yet more comprehensive.


First, get rid of the notion that the TSA will catch any terrorists.  It's the folks at the NSA, CIA, FBI and other alphabet soup agencies that are going to catch Johnny Jihad before one of these guys will.

bonanza36.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-10 09:41:41 AM
Until this movie is made we'll never understand the TSA culture.

www.ballerstatus.com
 
2013-03-10 09:42:16 AM
Wasn't this guy's blog linked to Fark like a month or two ago? I wonder if the NYP even had his permission to run it. I don't see any "reprinted with permission"... Ah, hell. None of my bloody business.
 
2013-03-10 09:44:02 AM
4 Hrs vac + Sick for every 80 hrs worked not 40.
 
2013-03-10 09:51:32 AM

atomicmask: As much as you all scream how completely useless and invasive the TSA is, I bet the moment they stop and someone blows up a plane in transit or flys it into another building, you twats will be screaming "WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO STOP THIS!"


Or we understand basic statistics and realize one incident in millions is not worth the cost or hassle.
 
2013-03-10 09:53:03 AM

arbitterm: I run a metal detector and bag inspection checkpoint where I work. I can definetly confirm that most "security" is theater. The only thing that is actually kepping you safe feom hijacking 10, 000 in the air is the armed sky marshall sitting in row 12A. Assuming he's there...and armed.


I would like to think at least half of americans wouldn't be pussies and attempt to stop the hijackers. At least since 9/11.
 
2013-03-10 09:54:27 AM

Close2TheEdge: Hotdog453: Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?

I read that more as a show of how useless the whole process was, and not so much that a more invasive search would be better. He just compared it to how cops search people: By actually, ya know, searching. It's like trying to equate me jacking off while looking at a picture of you to actually having deep, sexual intercourse with you. Deep.

Here's my problem.  I enjoy bashing the TSA too because it struck me as such a reactionary response to 9-11.  But let's be honest.  Airport security and screening procedures pre-911 were pretty lax and obsolete in this day and age of more sophisticated attacks and motives for hijacking.

Now that the TSA is here, what alternative do we have but to keep it in place and try to make screening process more efficient and yet more comprehensive.  There is always going to be a trade-off between efficiency and accuracy.  If you want higher detection rates, you either have to make the searches more invasive and therefore longer.  Or you have to employ technology like full-body scanners which piss off libertarian college students on Facebook.  And I would argue that exempting old people and children from searches sends entirely the wrong message.  Because where do you stop at making exemptions?  People in wheelchairs?  Blind people?  None of them could possibly be carrying explosives, right?

If the TSA went away tomorrow, the airline industry would probably experience an immediate 50-60% drop in business.  As annoying as TSA security is, passengers have come to accept it's presence as a sign that at least some measure of prevention against terrorism is being employed.  Take that away, and a good portion of the casual traveling public would stop flying.


Alternative is common sense screening using behavioral analysis like Israel does.
 
2013-03-10 09:58:43 AM

MyRandomName: Or we understand basic statistics and realize one incident in millions is not worth the cost or hassle.


Or that nothing the government is doing would have prevented it.
 
2013-03-10 10:02:01 AM
my guess is 98% of it is show & tell providing a cover excuse to pull aside specific people based on their features and dress. that's when they really go to town.
 
2013-03-10 10:03:24 AM

atomicmask: As much as you all scream how completely useless and invasive the TSA is, I bet the moment they stop and someone blows up a plane in transit or flys it into another building, you twats will be screaming "WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO STOP THIS!"


Nope. When it happens I will be screaming "Why didn't you employ the proven over time security policies used by the Israelis for years instead of a system designed to hand out large contracts to potential future donors".

Easy error to make I suppose.
 
2013-03-10 10:05:51 AM

t3knomanser: Close2TheEdge: But let's be honest.  Airport security and screening procedures pre-911 were pretty lax and obsolete in this day and age of more sophisticated attacks and motives for hijacking.

What sort of "more sophisticated attacks" are we worried about? The last major attack was built around the hard-to-access technology of  box cutters. We've had a few incompetents try and set plastique on fire, but the last major  successful attack used box cutters.

Which, having accidentally snuck plenty of contraband past the TSA checkpoint myself, including through body scanners, I sincerely doubt any of the techniques in play would actually help with that. There is only  one thing which has improved airline security, and that's the new cockpit doors and cabin procedures. Well, that and the fact that everyone knows to respond to hijacking attempts with violence, not by sitting still and waiting for it to be over, which was the pre-9/11 approach.

Honestly, we could revert to pre-9/11 security screening and have no increased risk. Spend all the TSA money on intelligence and catch the bad guys before they get to the airport.


I'm curious what people think about a standing "shoot on sight" policy.  In other words, we focus security entirely on the perimeter.  After all, what are we concerned about when a plane gets hijacked?  It's not the well-being of the individual passengers, although we don't want anybody to die needlessly.  No, it's the plane being turned into a missile and cause widespread death and destruction by the terrorists.  We already have plain-clothes Sky Marshalls and enhanced cabin door and flight deck procedures that make a successful cabin takeover less likely.  But what if a hijacking does take place?  Should the military maintain a standing order of, you get one warning and then we shoot the plane down with no negotiation?  In theory, we could eliminate all TSA screening because if you haven't already caught the bad guys through intelligence and surveillance, our ultimate fallback option is to destroy the threat, and deny the terrorists the victory of a mass attack.
 
2013-03-10 10:07:31 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: KIDding meaning. child pornography??


Serious question: were you sexually abused as a child?  You seem to be quite obsessed with the subject.
 
2013-03-10 10:12:26 AM
From TFA: There is also a lot of ogling of female passengers by the male screeners. So, ladies, cover up when you get to the airport. These guys are checking you out constantly.

I always wondered what was behind the TSA's insistence that bras should not be allowed on aircraft and female passengers should all wear yoga pants.  Really really tight yoga pants.
 
2013-03-10 10:12:26 AM
Wow, simply wow. It is really sad that Americans are this scared to allow this to continue to go on. I will ask why are you so scared America. Terroism is not new and America was not the first country to be the target of terrorism. For some reason we walk around acting like we are the only ones to ever suffer such a thing. I thought you were badazzes not afraid of shiat.  Do you really believe terrorism in our country is that bad to warrant dropouts, deadbeats, theives, pedofiles, to be our first line of security. America you have set the bar pretty high. Then to sit there and say well we have no choice, wow the terrorist and politicians won, they have single handedly turn this country in to blithering panty wastes.
 
2013-03-10 10:12:47 AM

Ilmarinen: Jon iz teh kewl: KIDding meaning. child pornography??

Serious question: were you sexually abused as a child?  You seem to be quite obsessed with the subject.


it's a fascianting subject.  cause we as americans delve into people's lives to find out "YOU had sex with a child!"
like how was it
did it hit the spot
 
2013-03-10 10:12:49 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-10 10:15:28 AM

atomicmask: As much as you all scream how completely useless and invasive the TSA is, I bet the moment they stop and someone blows up a plane in transit or flys it into another building, you twats will be screaming "WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO STOP THIS!"


Actually, I think the phrase that will be getting screamed will be, "WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT THINK THAT SECURITY THEATER WOULD STOP THIS?"
 
2013-03-10 10:26:16 AM
FTA: There is also a lot of ogling of female passengers by the male screeners. So, ladies, cover up when you get to the airport. These guys are checking you out constantly.

FTFY
 
2013-03-10 10:33:11 AM

atomicmask: As much as you all scream how completely useless and invasive the TSA is, I bet the moment they stop and someone blows up a plane in transit or flys it into another building, you twats will be screaming "WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO STOP THIS!"


They should be doing something. The right thing.

Feeling up granny in her wheelchair isn't the right thing.
 
2013-03-10 10:44:21 AM
I love it! What a perfectly detailed report of the obvious. TSA should be dismantled and save us billions in administrator fees. I would much rather have local police officers in rotation at the Airports like every other beat officers have.  That way you have actual law enforcement on site and not someone with less training than a phone sanitizer.
 
2013-03-10 10:45:25 AM
Observed security issues at TSA checkpoints

Critical:
Chokepoints in corridors designed to focus blastwaves through those corridors.  I've seen several locations over the years where 100+ people are focused into a tight hallway with no prescreening for explosives.   I've seen some of these chokepoints move into open areas in the last 5ish years, but its still an issue.

Lack of defense in depth.   Once you are past the checkpoint you are done, and there is nothing before that point, giving a single point of failure.

Lack of explosives detection.   Occasionally the TSA will do a swab test on your bags when random selected, and there are the larger scanners for bags (and I think the current bag scanning machines are all reinforced with some sort of detector?), but the expensive puff machines never worked and I've never seen a single dog in an airport, especially pre-checkpoint.

Serious:
Poorly designed checkpoints.   If they do turn up a bomb or gunman at the checkpoint I don't see anywhere to dispose of those items safely (or It could be really well done and I missed it, but I'm not giving them credit).   I also haven't seen or heard of access for an armed rapid response team close to the checkpoints.

Problematic:
Distracting targets.   Waterbottles and shoebombs? Seriously?  I think I mentioned bomb detection above, and unless you have cleanroom manufacturing dogs shouldn't miss these configurations of explosives.   3oz of any modern explosive should get you cockpit access.   Why can't I keep my 1.5" knife on me now that the doors have been fixed?

Apparent lack of preparedness.  I do not believe that the agents that staff the checkpoints drill for scenarios and threats with any regularity, especially since I constantly read about missing gun parts in the scanners.   What happens if someone actually finds a real explosive? Does everyone just panic or follow muscle memory that has been drilled into them.

Suggestions:
Everyone knows the only line of defense on a plane is the passengers.  Instructional videos on how to "safely" swarm a target, control all limbs and content, and allow search by air marshal or trained flight attendant.

Final canine search of all passengers and crew prior to boarding.  A brief final sweep after ground personnel is finished in the cabin and cockpit, then allow crew to enter past with the canine team at the entrance.
 
2013-03-10 10:45:29 AM
All I can say is that I know which airport I'm flying out of next time.
 
2013-03-10 10:47:26 AM

Close2TheEdge: But a good portion of TFA makes the case for MORE invasive search procedures than exist now.  Is that really what people are advocating for?


Yeah, anytime these stories come from insiders its always used in "give us more power" requests.
 
2013-03-10 10:53:17 AM
MDMA
 
2013-03-10 10:54:46 AM

A Shambling Mound: Yes, let's all get in a twist over an agency that not only is not going away any time soon but likely will be continually and incrementally expanded as time goes on.

Useless or not they're here to stay. Because, of course, 9/11. And the children.

Oh, and money.


Is that you Clayton Williams?

/for those who don't know who he is or why I referenced him, he ran for governor of Texas in 1990 (and lost to Ann Richards) He is famous for saying "If you're going to get raped you should relax and enjoy it"
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report