Got statistics on that? Cause I used to fly a lot and any one with anything of the sort would check it into luggage because they specifically knew they'd be going through security that would find their knife or box cutter on their person.
And if the TSA caught a terrorist, they'd be plastering that shit on buses and billboards around the nation to try and turn public perception of them around. They work on reaction, they never catch any one unless the person themselves fuck up. Shoot, the few failed attacks were first discovered by other passangers and not the TSA.
My brain hurts from reading that. How is either option supposed to be a good thing?
If i remember correctly Some Israeli security minister has been bragging for years that he can get anything past airport security easily and every time I've heard of anyone testing said security at the airport it usually fails.
That much does happen. They even stop people with firearms in their checked luggage or what not quite a bit, excuses range from they forgot it to they want to be able to protect themselves. The fact is that was happening before, it's just now they can see how many people were doing it.
That is more or less what I'm getting at. The deterrence argument doesn't work for me just because it is not possible to tell for certain. Deterrence doesn't even work normal people, why should it work on fanaticals? If it solved problems, our prisons wouldn't be overcrowded. It's like every once in a while you see a story about a plane crashing into a house. I start selling people these magnets that they put on their roof and tell them that it will stop airplanes from hitting their house. They start wondering if they even work, and I go, 'You haven't had one crash into your house yet, it is working.' If they do get hit by a plane, 'Well, you needed another magnet.'
Everything that is put into place really only gives the majority of people the illusion of safety, and for some that's enough. Especially when if you would believe what other people are telling you when they say that there's a line of terrorists waiting to get on every plane.
I call bullshit on this. Faux threats issue aside, the absence of proof situation is a really weak one. People jump all over that shit in religious threads about the existence of god with good reason, but it's going to fly for the TSA in this thread? 'You cannot prove that the TSA is a total waste of fucking time and money because no serious terrorist attacks have happened on a plane since they starting hoarding 4+ ounce shampoo bottles!' Really? Really?
Locked doors for the cockpit. The rest is all for show.
I think I missed this the first time around, but apparently it was big news. Blogger Totally Defeats TSA's Full-Body Scanners with a Simple Trick:
http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/3/...a+Simple+Trick
And Israel's airport security has a more holistic approach to stopping terrorists. They profile the behavior of everyone entering the airport, as opposed to ignoring the people and checking items off on a list. They screen for explosives before you get into the middle of the highly populated areas. They look you in the eyes, and test your story, gauge your reaction to being approached by security. They don't go, "well one guy had a shoe bomb, so we better ban shoes. Job well done, team." Spending a bunch of resources to stop one very specific plot isn't very effective, when what the enemy is doing is analyzing your defenses and then choosing an approach that gets around them.The hack works by exploiting the way that full-body scanners project images. When travelers walk through the machines their bodies are projected as white images on a black background. The problem is that suspicious objects are also projected in black. So if the black metallic object is on the side of the white body projected against the black background, it will just blend in. Since there are human eyeballs looking at the screen that's obviously a problem. The blogger, Jonathan Corbett, ran the trial at two different airports and got through both times.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...-little-bother
True, the enemy has been smoking our TSA defenses for years now.
The sherrifs office I work for is contracted by the port of oakland for airport security. In the monthly meeting which only goes over highlights for the month there is 1-2 guns and sometimes a blade being caught. I'd estimate that last year we had about 70 arrests for trying to bring a gun past security. Last year an airport in Cincinnati I believe lead the nation in over a hundred guns confiscated in 2012.
Exactly. Tech we have been using for decades, tech that is proven, tech that works. Simple, obvious, and effective security isn't the problem. However, what benefit to the passengers do all these new bullshit procedures provide again? The only answer I can come up with is the illusion of enhanced safety.
Well, the shoe bomber and underwear bomber weren't caught with a metal detector.
But they also failed at their missions, which obviously would've been easier if they could've used metal.
Apparently we should keep the machines around in case they start using plastic guns.
This is a no win scenario.
The public will bitch about the TSA scanners and the TSA in general because a terrorist attack hasn't happened but if something did go down everyone would be up in arms that the machines weren't there to "save lives".
The shoe bomber failed because he was too stupid to bring a lighter or go to the bathroom for privacy when it was time to set off the bomb. I forget the details of the underwear dude getting caught so no comment there. Terrorist attacks over the last few years i've seen that get stopped aren't twarted due to security measures so much as the terrorists being stupid.
Ceramic knife < locked cockpit.