FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
I'd call this a "link-discuss" thread, but the text you PotHoled the link to is self-explanatory and I'm fairly sure it's all we need to know about that article. No, wait: you need to define the "black list," in case people don't know what it means in this context. Put that definition in the OP.
I'm gonna change the name of this thread, though; I don't want a bitching thread.
Wow, total writer's block with the thread title. Anyone wanna suggest an improvement?
edited 10th May '12 1:27:56 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
NOT THE BEES
Firing the DHS management sounds like a good step. Granted we were too lax before 9/11, but the only feasible steps we could have taken were the ones we did in like a month, and pretty much everything after the fact has been a complete ineffectual waste of funds and flagrant invasion of privacy.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The no-fly list is basically what happens when our various shady security agencies narrow down their database of potential suspicious terrorist suspects to the most likely candidates and then don't let them on planes. I forget how many steps they go through, but in essence that's all it is.
edited 10th May '12 1:30:37 PM by Pykrete
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
Solutions Thread: Airport Security is my suggestion.
And yeah, it's been out of hand for a while.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
TSA is really going to take it on the chin for this one, even though it obviously isn't their fault.
What the hell was the Airline thinking?
@Pykrete
Look, I hate DHS, I think they are a waste of money, but this one wasn't on them. If you look at the article TSA specifically said those people were good to go and it was the Airline that gave them the boot.
Personally, I think we should just train stewardesses on using a tazer and equip them all with them. Problem solved.
edited 10th May '12 1:33:32 PM by Barkey
scratching at .8, just hopin'
OP changed: that okay Best Of?
Barkey: The TSA is saying it was an airline issue and are refusing to investigate.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
Yeah, the OP is fine now.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
V
Well, this is related, but I'm not sure what you'll make of this: Gatwick Airport searches 'unjustified'
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found 71% of passenger searches, including strip searches, were unjustified. And some people were arrested despite searches not revealing illicit goods.
White passengers were also routinely stopped and searched to ensure the right racial "mix", it said. The report found customs staff selected white passengers to balance the numbers against other ethnic minorities they suspected to help avoid race discrimination complaints, particularly on flights arriving from the Caribbean.
Discriminatory practice
John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, also found that one in seven people allowed into the UK on temporary visas either did not comply with the conditions imposed or absconded.
However, he said at the time of inspection a number of things were working well, such as "soundly based decisions to refuse entry to the UK, 100% passport swiping against the Home Office Warnings Index and good joint working with stakeholders".
But he said searches in a high percentage of the cases sampled were found to be "neither justified nor proportionate".
"I was also very concerned to learn of discriminatory practice in the conduct of detection activity," Mr Vine said.
"The extent of any discriminatory practices should be investigated and action taken to ensure officers understand and comply with the agency's duties under the Equality Act 2010.
"Finally, the agency should find out why one in seven people temporarily admitted to the UK from Gatwick North did not comply with the conditions imposed or absconded altogether."
The immigration minister, Damian Green, admitted there had been problems but said the government was working hard to ensure things improved.
Mind you, we've also got problems here since we haven't got enough Border Staff (As You Know), due to Budget Cuts.
Keep Rolling On
Who Am I?
Correctly used behavioral profiling techniques would do more to keep airports safe and secure while reducing our dependence on lines and checkpoints within airports. The Israelis have been doing it that way for decades.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
^
Agreed. Modeling our airport security practices after Israel would be cheaper and more effective.
Raven Wilder
Why not just make airplanes nudist? Have all passengers get completely naked before stepping on the plane, and have them remain that way until they get off. You'd still have to worry about weapons being stuffed up orifices, but between the required size limits and the difficulty in extracting them, hijacking/destroying a plane that way would be an incredible long shot.
Sure, it'd be awkward at first, but if all airlines did it, eventually people would come to accept airplanes as a place where it's okay to be naked. Like how women who'd never dream of walking down the street in just their bras and panties see nothing wrong with wearing a bikini at the beach.
edited 11th May '12 3:57:33 AM by RavenWilder
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
Yeah, and then we'd never have to worry about fat people taking up more than their fair share of space because they wouldn't fly at all! Two birds one stone.
Is that cake frosting?
Simply handcuff the passengers to their chairs. And give them electronic bracelets that can administer non-lethal but debilitating shocks if they ever try to do something cute.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
I'm for nudity, as well.
Maybe there should be a legal representative on permanent standby at airports to make sure that everything about a personal security check is legally justified and above board?
Maybe that's impractical.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
You think the situation can actually get better by adding Lawyers?! 
Who Am I?
I'm surprised we dont let rich people pay their way on board. Oh wait...
[Sarcasm Mode On]
Well, its not as if rich people are more likely to be terrorists right?
What are the odds that a RICH terrorist master mind named Osama would find a way to use security check free access to a plane to commit heinous acts?
[Sarcasm Mode Off, Face Palming On]
Hopefully this just means free from Security Checks to get on their own Private Jets or some such.
Who Am I?
Nope, its for commercial flights.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
I find myself unable to come up with a profanity strong enough accurately describe how I feel about that.....
The original incident here does strike me as something that could be avoided by using a little thing called common sense.
Although according to one LA Policeman: "You don't need common sense when you've got laws."
edited 11th May '12 10:23:49 AM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."
It seems that a lot of people are getting bent out of shape about this whole issue, especially since this type of scenario made news because of how uncommon it is. So you're gonna get asked to remove all metallic and plastic items, body searched, have your luggage scanned, and then finally wait in line to board a boring several-hour flight... so what? It'll be all over once you arrive at your destination. At worst you'll have a contraband item on you at the checkpoint and be told to either dispose of it or put it someplace safer. Annoying, but even that can be planned around by simply packing smart.
I suppose if you're female and being subjected to a body search by a man it could be a sensitive issue, but even that point is moot since they're legally required to have female inspectors in (almost) all locations.
Who Am I?
The thing we dont like about it is that it's mostly theater- they confiscate tooth paste but cant check for explosives. Here is another article on the subject.
"Meanwhile, here at home, TSA’s one-size-fits-all approach, in which every single person who flies is seen as a potential threat, is simply unsustainable in a country where close to 2 million people fly daily. Things like taking snow globes from children, haggling over tiny container sizes, or confiscating a dessert fork from a uniformed, on-duty airline pilot (it happened to me) serve no useful purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, they divert valuable time and resources away from the things that could make us safer."
All of which would be bad enough, but now they've added insult to injury- anyone rich enough to afford the $100 fee can avoid the wait and get to the plane. Enough already.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!!??!!
That is how little it costs to legitimately bypass airport "security"?!
I would wail at the cheap price of (my potential airline communiting) life were I able to pick up my jaw.
18-month-old toddler taken off airplane by TSA officials; child was flagged on a no-fly list.
For those who don't know, these are lists maintained by security organizations that contain the name of suspected terrorists, threats to airline security, smugglers, etc. Good luck if you happen to have the same name as someone who tried jumping the border with a backpack full of weed.
This has to stop. Seriously. Anybody got better ideas for organizing airport security? Anybody? Besides Bruce Schneier
, who you should be reading anyways if you're at all interested in the topic, his blog is great.
edited 10th May '12 1:30:58 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.