Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Security Transportation

TSA: Confiscating Aluminum Foil and Watching Out For Solar Powered Bombs 289

Posted by samzenpus
from the that's-some-good-work-there-lou dept.
schwit1 writes "If you think confiscating aluminum foil to prevent a solar powered bomb attack on a plane is a waste of time, don't blame the TSA agent. According to a former employee most of the security people agree with you. Instead, we need to hold accountable the people sending down such ridiculous orders. From the article: 'Ridiculous restrictions and the TSA have become nearly synonymous in the post-9/11 airport, and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules. But our best bet is to take the frustration toward the TSA agent confiscating our over-sized liquids, and re-direct it to the people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules — the ones who make the call as to whether our toothpaste is verboten and whether our shoes will need extra screening.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA: Confiscating Aluminum Foil and Watching Out For Solar Powered Bombs

Comments Filter:
  • by mattventura (1408229) on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:37AM (#46302023) Homepage

    Oh wait....

    (Cue tinfoil vs aluminum foil pedants)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrbester (200927)

      *Aluminium*

      • Don't they know you're supposed to grind it to dust with your nail file and burn it to melt the frame?

        What are they teaching you kids in school these days?

  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:41AM (#46302039)

    The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

    It's all security theatre.

    • by tlambert (566799) on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:44AM (#46302045)

      The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

      It's all security theatre.

      The've all been married?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Of course they've caught terrorist!

      You just don't hear about it.... because.... because it's classified.

      It's classified because... if the terrorist planners knew that their plot had failed then they would try again. If you just get rid of the ones doing it, then the plane is safe, the planners assume it's a successful mission, and everyone goes home safe and sound. Do you want the terrorists to make a new plot instead? Why do you hate freedom and democracy?
    • Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

      The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

      The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

      Both s

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Your sprinklers, smoke detectors, and airbags don't cost billions per year and have been proven to work in other cases in the past.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jhol13 (1087781)

        WTF?

        All the "TSA's" of the world have cought exactly zero terrorists.
        Can you make same claim about sprinklers, smoke detectors, insurances, airbags? Even USA wide? Even in your city? Your block?

      • by ray-auch (454705)

        The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

        Boston marathon bombs were not terrorists then?

      • by DarkOx (621550) on Friday February 21, 2014 @06:38AM (#46302725) Journal

        No your counter argument is incorrect. All of those things are there to protect you from a statistical existent risk. Perhaps your smoke detector has never detected smoke but there are many houses and some have caught fire. The same for air bags we know lots people of car accidents every day and those airbags deployed saving lives. Thing is there lots of flights every day to the TSA is never caught a terrorist. I really only been a handful of incense in the last decade all them gotten past the TSA. Which demonstrates the TSA is both ineffective as a detective control and unneeded as the statistical risk is vanishingly small.

        • by gtall (79522)

          Your argument presumes terrorists have been trying to get onto planes. Now you could argue they aren't trying so there's no need to protect. Do ya feel lucky, punk?

      • by reboot246 (623534) on Friday February 21, 2014 @06:47AM (#46302759) Homepage
        Your smoke alarm, sprinkler system, seat belts, airbags, helmets, life insurance, condoms, life preserver, safety vest, and Depends have not violated anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.

        I bet your Depends have kept your bed dry.

        THIS is the question you need to ponder, "Has the U.S. government violated our rights in the name of (perceived) safety?"
      • How much do your sprinkler, your fire detectors, your insurance, your helmets or your airbags inconvenience you, how much do they cost every month, how much of an invasion in your privacy are they?

        Do I really have to point out the difference between the TSA and your examples? These things not only proved that they worked (something the TSA still has to do), their cost/benefit ratio is also much more favorable. That smoke detector is sitting there quietly and doesn't bother you in the least way, so NOT using

      • Sorry, the problem with your examples is that they merely represent the TSA agents at a single airport (if that). The correct comparison, to use just one of your examples, is to sprinkler systems in every office in the country. In that case one finds that many of them have put out fires. On the other hand, the TSA agents throughout the country have NOT caught a single terrorist.
      • Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

        The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke.

        And that's where your analogy just crashed and burned. Has there been a fire at your office?

        There's been a shoe bomber. There's been Smokey the Terrorist who set his underwear on fire (yeah, not from here, but we're spreading our stupidity around the globe).

        See, we've had the fires, it's just that our "smoke detector" - the one that costs us billions of dollars while violating our rights, that smoke detector - has demonstrably failed. While they were patting down old ladies and little kids in wheel chair

      • by stenvar (2789879)

        Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

        You're putting up a straw man. He said that they "have not caught a single terrorist". You can catch terrorists without having a terrorist attack.

        Both statements are true. And totally irrelevant.

        They are quite relevant: the fact that the TSA hasn't even caught a significant number of potential terrorists suggests that the threat is, in fact, low.

      • While your sprinkler system might not have put out a fire, other ones have. While your smoke detector hasn't detected smoke, others have. Same for life insurance, airbags, and helmets. Just because yours haven't been "put to the test" doesn't mean others haven't.

        The equivalent with the TSA would be if the TSA at my local airport has never caught a terrorist but TSA agents in Laguardia, LAX, or some other airport did. However, no TSA agent has *EVER* caught a terrorist. You could place "special rocks th

      • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

        The devices you mention have a 1:100 chance of needing to operate in a 25-year timeframe for a single instance, roughly. They each add less than 1% to the cost of doing business.

        The TSA installation for a single checkpoint process on average 30,000 passengers per year, and has an annual operating cost of (roughly) $600,000, or say $40/round-trip ticket. That is closer to 10% average airfare. It's probability of detecting a "terrorist" (let's go ahead and take a liberal interpretation of the term to inclu

      • The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

        The problem is that the above statement is a bare faced lie.

        The TSA's method of preventing terrorism is to stop terrorists before they board a plane with a weapon. The terrorist's goal is to get weapons past the TSA checks and onto the plane.

        The Richard Reid successfully carried bombs onto a plane in his shoes. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully carried a bomb onto an airplane in his underwear. The TSA failed to stop them.

        The fact that they were stopped by passengers afterwards does not change the fa

    • by paziek (1329929)
      Maybe that's because terrorist would know that he would be caught, so he is sitting on his ass figuring out any other way to get around current security?
      • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Friday February 21, 2014 @05:30AM (#46302495) Homepage

        Why doesn't he just suicide-bomb the TSA line? Wouldn't that cause enough terror?

        • ...wow. You're right. The TSA line is relatively vulnerable, and is a more effective target in the first place. There's no reason why a bomber intending to cause terror would even want to get on the plane itself. Hijackers would certainly want to get on the plane, but they wouldn't be using bombs.

          • Since 9/11 the fear is less about what terrorist will do to the plane and more about what they will do with the plane.
        • by kasperd (592156)

          Why doesn't he just suicide-bomb the TSA line? Wouldn't that cause enough terror?

          In Russia suicide terrorists bomb airports [wikipedia.org].

        • Considering how many people are usually lined up there because that's the chokepoint of the whole ordeal... yeah, that would be a pretty good (and quite soft) target.

        • by Chelloveck (14643)

          I've been saying for a decade now that the very fact that there hasn't been a bombing of a security checkpoint line demonstrates that there certainly isn't a legion of crazed bombers trying to take down the country. Hit one security line and you'll bring American passenger travel to a screaming halt for a few days. Hit two lines and you'll shut it down for weeks. We'll piss ourselves trying to figure out how to check people for bombs before getting to the checkpoint. Don't just hit big, juicy targets like

  • by Firethorn (177587) on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:45AM (#46302047) Homepage Journal

    Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

    Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

    Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost
    Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

    • Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.

      • by Firethorn (177587) on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:34AM (#46302173) Homepage Journal

        It can't just be the media though, as the media has been lambasting the TSA as too expensive for negligible effect for quite some time now.

        I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.

        • Yes, but while it is a good idea, it could also be political suicide. If a politician is the reason that the security/safety rules became more reasonable, and if an accident happens soon after (no matter how unlikely), that will immediately be blamed on that politician.

          While it is incredibly annoying (and expensive!) to have these TSA screenings, it is better for the political careers of all those in charge to steer away from the topic, or to make the rules even more strict. Better safe than sorry.

          Btw, in r

        • I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.

          The problem is that any President or other politician who steps forward to oppose the TSA will be labeled as "soft on terrorism." If another terrorist attack happens, they would then be held responsible and voted out of office. (If they hadn't voted against X, we might have stopped it.) They might even give their future opponents ammo against them without any attack. ("D

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hedgemage (934558)
      Its time to privatize the TSA. If it were up to the airlines to contract with security firms, you'd have logical risk management made through the lens of monetary cost. Make the airlines assume the risk for liability if their security is crap, and they will find a good happy medium between the extremes. I'm not normally a small-government guy, but in this area, it simply makes sense.
      • by CaptQuark (2706165) on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:34AM (#46302175)
        This has been an option since 2003. The TSA was put into place after 9/11 but airports were supposed to be allowed to return to private screening after two years. New legislation passed last year supposedly makes it easier to replace TSA agents with private contractors although few airports have done so.

        Currently sixteen airports use private contractors instead of TSA agents. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03... [nytimes.com]

        ~~
        • That's not really the same thing. Airports can hire their own screening personnel, but they still "have to follow T.S.A. guidelines and fall under its supervision". All the policy decisions continue to be made by the TSA; the only difference is that they are carried out by private contractors rather than federal employees.

          The GP's proposal was to leave all the security decisions up to the airlines, which would assume full liability in the event of a breach. The TSA wouldn't be involved at any point in the p

        • by rahvin112 (446269)

          Actually, they have to receive permission from the TSA to do so. As soon as it appeared that there was going to be a trend of many airports requesting permission the TSA suspended the ability to ask for permission to "study" the issue. Since that point it's been impossible for any airport to request permission for private screening. Until Congress removes the requirement that the TSA must approve an airport switching to private screening I can guarantee they won't approve anyone switching regardless of the

  • by NixieBunny (859050) on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:50AM (#46302065) Homepage
    Story: I walked into the Detroit airport a couple years ago while wearing the Video Coat. The nice TSA people marked my entire family's boarding passes SSSS. They inspected us thoroughly, including the eight 5 AH Chinese LiPo battery packs used to power the coat. These are the no-protection-board version with the factory connectors that let you plug two batteries together like BIG 9V batteries. They will happily put out 100 amps.

    Had we been 'the type', we could have started four fires in the cabin that day.
    • Well, here's the catch: In theory, every laptop has everything you need to blow shit up with its battery. But you can't outlaw laptops since it would bother the people that matter.

  • by IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) on Friday February 21, 2014 @02:51AM (#46302067) Homepage

    Within the US you can take Amtrak [amtrak.com]. (No "c" in "Amtrak".)

    Don't believe the prices on the Amtrak website. It's a rather lo-budge operation, so they don't have advance purchase pricing available from the site. The site does work correctly for determining where and when you can go, but then go down to the station for your ticket purchase. If you purchase so much as one day in advance, quite likely you can get a discount.

    For example, last I checked, to fly one-way between San Jose, California and Portland, Oregon is about $250. Last Summer I took the Coast Starlight from Diridon Station in San Jose to Union Station in Portland, one day advance purchase for about $80.00.

    My Aunt just recently paid about $250.00 for a round-trip from Spokane, Washington to Portland. With two-week advance purchase, that's $86.00 on Amtrack.

    The trains don't go everywhere they really need to, so there is some chance you'll make part of your trip on an Amtrak bus. That was the case when I travelled from LA to San Jose. Rather oddly, I took a bus from the HUGE train station in downtown LA to Bakersfield, then the train from there to San Jose. However the busses are quite nice.

    Their only "security" is that they want to see your ID when you purchase a ticket. You don't need to show ID when you board the train. There is no X-Ray, no metal detector.

    The seats are spacious, there are lots of 110 VAC power sockets. Most but not all trains have WiFi, however the train itself gets onine via a 3G connection that's shared by the whole train, so they limit downloads to 10 MB and do not permit streaming video at all.

    Because 3G is a cell phone protocol, you can only get online when the train is within range of a cell tower. Sometimes the trains are way out in the sticks so you cannot get online.

    My only gripe is that the food is scanty and very expensive, although it is quite tasty. Pack some sandwiches.

    • by stoploss (2842505) on Friday February 21, 2014 @05:02AM (#46302417)

      Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).

      $1100+, one way, from the middle of the country (say, Omaha) to an endpoint on a different route (say, Miami). Takes about 3 full days to get there, if you're lucky enough to avoid being hit with a 12+ hour stopover someplace. Yes, that price includes roomettes, but like I said: who wants to spend three solid days (again, one way) confined & sleeping in a coach seat? BTW, this is the advance price.

      It would be faster, cheaper, and more relaxing to drive, even if one had to rent a vehicle. Oh, and you can leave whenever you want and stop wherever you want, too.

      Passenger rail in this country is a half-baked solution in search of a problem. This makes me sad, because I would prefer to use rail in order to avoid the TSA. I just can't take a week of additional travel time to do it.

    • Same is true for most of Europe. Trains here get a big boost lately, though it's less for the TSA bull (there's actually little security theater over here unless you plan to go to the US), it's simply convenience.

      Instead of a seat where you feel sardines in a tin, you get seats like those in first class on a plane, you can actually move around as you feel, you can use your phone, your laptop, your ... anything whenever you please, you get internet connection and a power outlet, you actually get to see a bit

    • Seriously, the train takes FOREVER in the mid-atlantic/northeast corridor. In fact, it takes longer to take the train than it does to drive. And it costs the same as gas if you're going solo, much more if you have 2 or more people travelling together.

      Ex: fly to NY, INCLUDING arriving 1.5h before departure to allow for parking/TSA/etc. takes about 3.5 hrs from my town in S/W Virginia to NYC (6 if you have a connecting flight). The drive is 7 hours. The "direct" train is just shy of 9 hours if I count parkin

  • All I have to say (for now at least) is that these fuckers have earned the Epic Facepalm [cooltuna.com].

  • by thephydes (727739) on Friday February 21, 2014 @03:45AM (#46302217)
    That makes me wonder why I would ever want to visit the USA. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful places to go to and enjoy, but why would I want a semi-educated thug feeling me up and confiscating shit because I might be a bomber. Come to think of it I'm probably on the "fuck this guy over" list because of this and similar comments on other forums. Fuck you NSA, you've cost your country a potential tourist spending several thousand dollars travelling, eating, drinking, visiting places .........
    • by michelcolman (1208008) on Friday February 21, 2014 @04:46AM (#46302373)

      Sadly though, most european airports are exactly the same. I'm a pilot, and I've actually seen them take a bottle of after shave from a captain, not even apologising for their idiocy, as if it was the most normal and logical thing in the world. Never mind the giant crash axe behind the first officer's seat, we must not allow them to bring nail clippers on board! Back when I was flying private jets, they wanted to pass my passengers' cat through the X-ray machine. They might try to hijack their own private plane with a weapon hidden in the plastic cat container! We had to take the cat out, fortunately it didn't run away or they would no doubt have closed the airport. Idiots.

    • That makes me wonder why I would ever want to visit the USA. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful places to go to and enjoy,

      It's a nice place to visit or even live, an area of diverse peoples (the melting pot), and some very unique sites to gander at.

      The sad fact is if your not European, you have to run the gauntlet making it here.

      At the same time if Canada wasn't so cold I'd have a dual residence, spending most of my time in Canada. I live just a few hundred miles south of Canada as it is.

    • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Friday February 21, 2014 @06:44AM (#46302743) Homepage

      We're talking about the TSA, not the NSA. Do try to keep up.

      Somehow, with your hostile attitude, I think you made the decision quite a long time ago to never visit America. And yet you feel the need to get up and talk shit in front of everyone, acting like this is the last straw that cost America a shit-ton of money. Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people. But I have found in my life that closed-minded bigots will not do this, and instead spend time bitching and moaning to others like themselves. Like the people who modded you +5 Insightful.

      • by martas (1439879)

        We're talking about the TSA, not the NSA. Do try to keep up.

        The TSA is (typically) not the one putting people on no-fly lists or "requires additional probing" lists, that's the intelligence agencies. Keep up yourself.

        Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people.

        A lot of good it does him when he ends up with all his possessions confiscated, sitting in some detention area for days praying that they'll let him go back home soon. If you weren't so hyper-sensitive (the reasons for which I can only speculate on), you may have noticed OP wasn't saying anything about Americans, only your government.

    • Come to think of it I'm probably on the "fuck this guy over" list because of this and similar comments on other forums.

      Don't sweat it - if there were such a list I'd be the first name on it. They don't seem to pay any attention to me at the airport.

  • The people who profit from making all these inane rules are ultimately the manufacturers of the screening equipment, the people training security staff, et cetera. In other words, the military-industrial-security complex. It is with them (and the politicians who sell us out to them) that we must start redressing our grievances. We must also stop sensationalising every one-in-a-million occurrence (terrorism, being struck twice by lightning) and start mitigating the effects of problems that will likely impact
  • Everyone knows solar powered bombs are green and good for the environment.

    • Everyone knows solar powered bombs are green and good for the environment.

      Now you've given them the idea for post-meal bean-based explosive fart weapons. Stop feeding them ideas!

  • We need better screening to stop drugs making it through to TSA management.
  • Last month I flew from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The security people stole my fingernail scizzors. I am still looking for a replacement. They also took a bottle of Vasaline Lotion purchased in 7/11. Warnings talk about "less than 100 ml" and "more than 100 ml" but nobody knows what happens if the bottle is exactly 100 ml.

    I give up - no more flying. There is an overland route from Bangkok through Laos and China to Hong Kong. Actually there is an overland route from Bangkok to damned near anywhere in the world.

  • Can someone just fly a bomb into every TSA HQ and end this idiocy already?

    • My crystal ball is working and I can predict your future:

      You will be talking to a Federal Law Enforcement agent very soon

  • by Tom (822)

    Nothing the TSA does has anything to do with security.

    We know that, the story was old years ago. The real question I don't see asked often enough and answered even less is: What does it have to do with? Why do they do this bullshit, and why does it get more transparent? Why have we reached the part where even regular people begin to understand the TSA is full of it?

    Is it just stupidity? Really? While you shouldn't always look for malice, there's also a point where stupidity ceases to be the most likely expl

    • Nothing the TSA does has anything to do with security.

      We know that, the story was old years ago. The real question I don't see asked often enough and answered even less is: What does it have to do with? Why do they do this bullshit, and why does it get more transparent? Why have we reached the part where even regular people begin to understand the TSA is full of it?

      Is it just stupidity? Really? While you shouldn't always look for malice, there's also a point where stupidity ceases to be the most likely explanation.

      They're creating jobs, right? So it's a good thing..... right??

      *face-palm*

  • The simple fact that a discussion like this comes up proves that the terrorists have already won, big time. The hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on "preventing" terrorist attacks is much more than the terrorists could have hoped for. They damage the economy, not by destroying buildings or killing people, but by making us spend an obscene amount of money in useless "anti-terrorist" measures.

    We should stop all this. We should just hop on a plane and fly. Fuck the terrorists.

    • The simple fact that a discussion like this comes up proves that the terrorists have already won, big time. The hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on "preventing" terrorist attacks is much more than the terrorists could have hoped for. They damage the economy, not by destroying buildings or killing people, but by making us spend an obscene amount of money in useless "anti-terrorist" measures.

      We should stop all this. We should just hop on a plane and fly. Fuck the terrorists.

      You're right; and because the biggest terrorist attack in this country involved planes, all future attacks have to involve planes, right? TSA has a stupid fear quelling operation that makes them look really dumb, not one that protects. And you're right with your first statement. They FEEL they have won, which only strengthens their feelings of superiority.

      • by gtall (79522)

        I see, so the terrorists successfully using planes, and not protecting aviation, would lead them to what, precisely? Declare victory and go back to bothering the locals? Hold news conferences showing their superiority and stating there's no need to use planes again? What exactly do you propose to do when a hole is found in security? State unequivocally that this was an isolated incident and the American people can feel confident that their government is not worried?

  • What would the conspiracy theorists interpret it when they start confiscating tin foil?

    • What would the conspiracy theorists interpret it when they start confiscating tin foil?

      My first thought is, "...an idea they didn't think of."

  • Since according to Monty Python, someone might attack you with a banana.

  • To ever-so-slightly reduce exposure of their camera sensors to Fantastic Four-creating cosmic rays.

  • by poofmeisterp (650750) on Friday February 21, 2014 @09:18AM (#46303187) Journal

    Let me make a quick edit here...

    "...and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules."

    ...and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, they won't be on airlines...

    Unless you have a disconnected, completely stupid terrorist, they will not use the same mechanism after it has been substantially controlled. They'll just move on to the next thing.

  • And how exactly should we "re-direct" our frustration to the "people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules"? Should we all go down there and invite them to lunch? The TSA agents ARE the face of the TSA. They are the only part of the TSA agency that most people will ever come into contact with. If the TSA agents don't like being the face of an organization with absurd rules, then they should ALL quit. Maybe that would cause some kind of change to those absurd rules.

  • What else would you expect from the TSA? Their #1 job is to justify their existence and the only way they can is by finding more "restricted items". When passengers start complying with the current set of rules, the amount of restricted items goes down. To counter this downward trend, it is TSA HQ's job to issue more directives that are designed to increase the number of confiscations and therefore increase the justification for the TSA.

    Who else would keep these "dangerous" items off the plane?

  • It's not just the TSA management though - It's also the people.

    A year or so ago, TSA management announced that some sharps would be allowed back on planes. Makes sense - With post 9/11 policies in place it's not like you're going to take down a plane with a pen knife. The outcry from the flying public, flight attendants & the media forced the TSA to back pedal back to banning them.

    ...so if you want non-stupid policies we the people have to loudly applaud when their are tiny steps in that directio
  • Most front-line TSA agents despise the absurd rules they are ordered to enforce just as much as the public whose items are confiscated due to the rules. Ask almost any TSA employee what his or her least favorite part about the job is, and the answer will usually include a long list of managers, federal security directors, and other higher-ups.

    Yes most people hate their jobs. The difference is, most people's jobs actually have some kind of point other than providing something for politicians to cover their a

  • by ledow (319597)

    If your job is stupid, then YOU need to tell your boss.

    We already are. And we're hassling you because it's so stupid. The next step in the chain is for you to hassle your boss.

    I've yet to hear, say, the TSA go on strike over the ridiculous things they are being asked to do, and getting complaints from the public over.

    You can't just say "We think it's stupid too, but we haven't told anyone." It's up to you to feedback to the appropriate management what a huge waste of time this is, and how much negative f

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Working...