Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...but TSA is running amok yet AGAIN.

Per CBS-13 in Sac, they inspected a traveller's 80's style big hair. How much power do these schmucks have to have before the people stand up?!?

Oh, I just saw something from last Nov. I can't remember if we discussed it or not (we probably did), but they confiscated a pair of nail clippers and a Gerber from National Guard Soldiers returning from the war zone. They were carrying conventional weaponry (i.e. rifles) that had been cleared TWICE, but TSA says that a pair of nail clippers and a Gerber can take over a plane.

SuperHornet wrote:...but TSA is running amok yet AGAIN.

Per CBS-13 in Sac, they inspected a traveller's 80's style big hair. How much power do these schmucks have to have before the people stand up?!?

Oh, I just saw something from last Nov. I can't remember if we discussed it or not (we probably did), but they confiscated a pair of nail clippers and a Gerber from National Guard Soldiers returning from the war zone. They were carrying conventional weaponry (i.e. rifles) that had been cleared TWICE, but TSA says that a pair of nail clippers and a Gerber can take over a plane.

TSA is out of control, there is nothing wrong with big hair.

Hornet,
You are a douchebag.

TSA is an annoyance, but TSA is not the problem.

TSA is just the tool.

BlueHen86 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:...but TSA is running amok yet AGAIN.

Per CBS-13 in Sac, they inspected a traveller's 80's style big hair. How much power do these schmucks have to have before the people stand up?!?

Oh, I just saw something from last Nov. I can't remember if we discussed it or not (we probably did), but they confiscated a pair of nail clippers and a Gerber from National Guard Soldiers returning from the war zone. They were carrying conventional weaponry (i.e. rifles) that had been cleared TWICE, but TSA says that a pair of nail clippers and a Gerber can take over a plane.

TSA is out of control, there is nothing wrong with big hair.

It's all part of placing too high a premium on security; placing too high a premium on risk reduction. This is just one aspect of it. It extends into a lot of other aspects of our lives. Driving cars. Eating food. So on and so forth. The United States has what I think is an irrational obsession with risk reduction.

It's not the government's fault per se. It's the People. If ANYTHING happens a bunch of people say government should've done something to prevent it. We complain about what the TSA does. But then if something happens we say the TSA didn't do enough; as though zero risk is possible.

JohnStOnge wrote:It's all part of placing too high a premium on security; placing too high a premium on risk reduction. This is just one aspect of it. It extends into a lot of other aspects of our lives. Driving cars. Eating food. So on and so forth. The United States has what I think is an irrational obsession with risk reduction.

It's not the government's fault per se. It's the People. If ANYTHING happens a bunch of people say government should've done something to prevent it. We complain about what the TSA does. But then if something happens we say the TSA didn't do enough; as though zero risk is possible.

+1


(I had typed out something lengthy along these lines but got tired and just went with the Reader's Digest version.)

The worst part of TSA is two-fold.

1. It's "security theater" - most of what they do is for show - and does very little to ACTUALLY enhance security. Every time there is an incident, they react by making a big show of whatever the latest fear is (removing your shoes in the wake of the shoe bomber, etc)

2. Rather than create a climate where travelers are thinking about security - they create an environment of resentment and hostility. Unfortunately - it carries over on to flights - where passengers are bigger and bigger assholes to everyone working at the airport as though TSA is also their fault...

People still love big hair out here in the land of the LDS.

There ought to be a law.

So to recap, TSA can't seem to screen out suspicious-looking stowaways (and we're not talking about Grandma from the Airport movie)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
but is safely protecting us from those dangerous 6-year-olds...
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-vid ... 74814.html

Rob Iola wrote:So to recap, TSA can't seem to screen out suspicious-looking stowaways (and we're not talking about Grandma from the Airport movie)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
but is safely protecting us from those dangerous 6-year-olds...
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-vid ... 74814.html

The stowaway case is proof that it's theater...

however - i disagree about not screening kids and the elderly... they should be screened as well.

I've travelled quite a bit & don't have an issue with TSA. If it's for making my experience safer then so be it. Most of the clowns that complain are the casual to once-in-however many years travellers that don't know the drill.

bluehenbillk wrote:I've travelled quite a bit & don't have an issue with TSA. If it's for making my experience safer then so be it. Most of the clowns that complain are the casual to once-in-however many years travellers that don't know the drill.

I've heard that... most business travelers know the drill and are ready to go... the ones who bitch are the family of six who stood in the security line and didn't think to remove their shoes - have their id's and boarding passes out and remove all their metal...

i've learned way more than i ever wanted to about air travel since i've been dating a flight attendant... like when they walk past the security line - they can tell who the PITA's are going to be already...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:So to recap, TSA can't seem to screen out suspicious-looking stowaways (and we're not talking about Grandma from the Airport movie)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
but is safely protecting us from those dangerous 6-year-olds...
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-vid ... 74814.html

The stowaway case is proof that it's theater...

however - i disagree about not screening kids and the elderly... they should be screened as well.

If it's theater then what's the point? To make the travelling pubic, er, public feel safer? The only thing we're feeling is gloved fingers...

Look, if you want to truly be secure you have to ask yourself why was the last El Al hijacking/bombing incident over 40 years ago? And why such a clean record?

Rob Iola wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
The stowaway case is proof that it's theater...

however - i disagree about not screening kids and the elderly... they should be screened as well.

If it's theater then what's the point? To make the travelling pubic, er, public feel safer? The only thing we're feeling is gloved fingers...

I see the contradiction in my post - my point is if we are going to do effective screening - we can't be excluding kids or the elderly...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:So to recap, TSA can't seem to screen out suspicious-looking stowaways (and we're not talking about Grandma from the Airport movie)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
but is safely protecting us from those dangerous 6-year-olds...
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-vid ... 74814.html

The stowaway case is proof that it's theater...

however - i disagree about not screening kids and the elderly... they should be screened as well.

No! we should simply do good intelligence and conduct behavioral profiling.

Rob Iola wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
The stowaway case is proof that it's theater...

however - i disagree about not screening kids and the elderly... they should be screened as well.

If it's theater then what's the point? To make the travelling pubic, er, public feel safer? The only thing we're feeling is gloved fingers...

Look, if you want to truly be secure you have to ask yourself why was the last El Al hijacking/bombing incident over 40 years ago? And why such a clean record?

That "gloved finger"is hiding an iron fist.

It's not a grope.....it's a freedom pat.

El Al PROFILES and the ARAB SCUM know it.


Girls of the IDF




for Ursus













for Z

citdog wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: If it's theater then what's the point? To make the travelling pubic, er, public feel safer? The only thing we're feeling is gloved fingers...

Look, if you want to truly be secure you have to ask yourself why was the last El Al hijacking/bombing incident over 40 years ago? And why such a clean record?

That "gloved finger"is hiding an iron fist.

It's not a grope.....it's a freedom pat.

El Al PROFILES and the ARAB SCUM know it.


Girls of the IDF




for Ursus













for Z

Oy!

No! we should simply do good intelligence and conduct behavioral profiling.

I agree...at least in the context of what I understand. As I understand it they rely pretty heavily on random selection of passengers for increased scrutiny. I think that is nuts and I can't believe they're doing it.

Random sampling is a good way to get an unbiased estimate of a population parameter. It is not a good way to detect a problem that has a low frequency of occurence. And if those who wish to do harm are aware of its shortcomings it is not going to be nearly as good a deterrent as something like behavioral profiling would be.

It's such a bad idea in terms of probability of detecting a problem that I'm cautious about talking about it because it's hard for me to believe that the TSA doesn't know how bad an idea it is and I wonder if what I've heard is correct.

If they're doing it, I don't think they should be using random selection of passengers for further scrutiny. I don't think it's an effective use of time and effort.

It's kind of like if you go fishing. Are you going to pull out a map of the lake and randomly select points at which to go make casts? Or are you going to focus your efforts on locations you judge are likely to be holding fish given the conditions, time of year, etc.?

I know some people say that random selection would deter potential attackers because they don't know if they're gonig to be selected. But if they really do probe things in order to find weaknesses they're going to learn pretty quickly that there is almost no chance that they're going to get caught by a random selection strategy.

I always get "randomly" selected for extra-screening...6 straight flights now. And the two times I had non-carry on luggage, when I opened them, there were notes by the TSA that my luggage had been opened and inspected as part of a routine and "random" luggage inspection they do for each flight (I still have the notes somewhere). For all the people bitching they don't profile, they do. Random my ass.

ps. It's not inconvenient. I mean it takes an extra 1 or 2 minutes unless you decide to make a big deal out of it.

∞∞∞ wrote:I always get "randomly" selected for extra-screening...6 straight flights now. And the two times I had non-carry on luggage, when I opened them, there were notes by the TSA that my luggage had been opened and inspected as part of a routine and "random" luggage inspection they do for each flight (I still have the notes somewhere). For all the people bitching they don't profile, they do. Random my ass.

ps. It's not inconvenient. I mean it takes an extra 1 or 2 minutes unless you decide to make a big deal out of it.

Well, if you got randomly selected six straight times maybe what I'm missing is that they are selecting a very large sample size. I mean, even if they randomly selected one out of every two passengers there would only be a 0.015625 probability, or one chance in 64, that a person would get selected six times in six trips. Of course that can happen. Something that has only one chance in 64 of happening is going to happen at times if the number of repetitions is very large.

But, still, it could be that you're right in thinking you're not really being randomly selected.

Anyway, I don't know the percentage of passengers they're selecting randomly if they're really doing it. But people who want to probe the system could figure that out simply by sending people to take flights and make observations. They could get a pretty good estimate of the percentage of passengers being selected and estimate their probability of being caught. In fact, if it's really true that random selection is being practiced, they can get a much better line on their odds of being caught than they could if a more subjective, profiling type of approach is being used.

And remember, these people don't care if some of them get caught. If they figure they can send 10 people and odds are good that no more than 2 will get caught that would be fine with them. If you know random selection is being used and you're willing to take some "casualties" you should be very confident in your ability to defeat it.

∞∞∞ wrote:I always get "randomly" selected for extra-screening...6 straight flights now. And the two times I had non-carry on luggage, when I opened them, there were notes by the TSA that my luggage had been opened and inspected as part of a routine and "random" luggage inspection they do for each flight (I still have the notes somewhere). For all the people bitching they don't profile, they do. Random my ass.

ps. It's not inconvenient. I mean it takes an extra 1 or 2 minutes unless you decide to make a big deal out of it.

well when you drive trucks into Marine Barracks you suffer the consequences. you should get a pig's foot shoved up your ass hourly just to make sure you're not toting a bomb up there.

∞∞∞ wrote:I always get "randomly" selected for extra-screening...6 straight flights now. And the two times I had non-carry on luggage, when I opened them, there were notes by the TSA that my luggage had been opened and inspected as part of a routine and "random" luggage inspection they do for each flight (I still have the notes somewhere). For all the people bitching they don't profile, they do. Random my ass.

ps. It's not inconvenient. I mean it takes an extra 1 or 2 minutes unless you decide to make a big deal out of it.

Maybe it's the Axe Body Wash you're wearing (irresistable, you know)...


Or the soiled adult diaper...

JohnStOnge wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I always get "randomly" selected for extra-screening...6 straight flights now. And the two times I had non-carry on luggage, when I opened them, there were notes by the TSA that my luggage had been opened and inspected as part of a routine and "random" luggage inspection they do for each flight (I still have the notes somewhere). For all the people bitching they don't profile, they do. Random my ass.

ps. It's not inconvenient. I mean it takes an extra 1 or 2 minutes unless you decide to make a big deal out of it.

Well, if you got randomly selected six straight times maybe what I'm missing is that they are selecting a very large sample size. I mean, even if they randomly selected one out of every two passengers there would only be a 0.015625 probability, or one chance in 64, that a person would get selected six times in six trips. Of course that can happen. Something that has only one chance in 64 of happening is going to happen at times if the number of repetitions is very large.

But, still, it could be that you're right in thinking you're not really being randomly selected.

Anyway, I don't know the percentage of passengers they're selecting randomly if they're really doing it. But people who want to probe the system could figure that out simply by sending people to take flights and make observations. They could get a pretty good estimate of the percentage of passengers being selected and estimate their probability of being caught. In fact, if it's really true that random selection is being practiced, they can get a much better line on their odds of being caught than they could if a more subjective, profiling type of approach is being used.

And remember, these people don't care if some of them get caught. If they figure they can send 10 people and odds are good that no more than 2 will get caught that would be fine with them. If you know random selection is being used and you're willing to take some "casualties" you should be very confident in your ability to defeat it.

In case you don't know, Trip is Muslim - one of "them"

Rob Iola wrote:Maybe it's the Axe Body Wash you're wearing (irresistable, you know)...

They promised:


But all I got was:


Sir Duke Dr. Opie of Baltimore, Esquire...do I have a case?