TSA @ train stations

[PRR 60]

With minimal preparation, the screening is nothing.

And that,sir, is my whole issue with TSA summed up. It's ompletely ineffective.

I don't get your leap from doing some preparation to make the screening less time consuming to assuming it is, therefore, ineffective. I prep to ensure that all the stuff that has to be screened is ready to be placed with little wasted motion, and that I have nothing left on me that will trip the metal detector. That way, my stuff rolls right through the x-ray, and I walk through the detector with no issues. I'm not standing at the screening area fumbling with luggage, rooting through pockets, and tripping the detector because I have keys or change I forgot about. That does not have any bearing on whether the screening done by TSA is effective. Since I never carry anything that is banned, the fact that I go through with no problems proves nothing in that regard. Try carrying a butcher knife through security (as I saw a guy try to do one time), and things will get a little dicier. He, by the way, insisted that he should be allowed to carry his knives with him because he was a "renowned chef." I guess the TSA people were not Food Network fans.

My point, however, has nothing to do with whether TSA security is effective or not. It was in response to the "dread" of going through airport security. I don't "dread" it or even mind it, maybe because I take a couple of easy steps ahead of time to make it a non-issue for me. Maybe they do a great job, or maybe they are useless. I don't know, and to a point, I don't care. They do nothing that significantly impacts me. I can still travel where I want, when I want, and that's what matters to me. I'll save my energy for things that adversely affect me.

By the way, have you gone to a major league baseball game lately? Be prepared to be patted-down and have all bags searched. That's the way things are, today.

 

[Ryan]

By the way, have you gone to a major league baseball game lately? Be prepared to be patted-down and have all bags searched. That's the way things are, today.

I have (in DC, this past season) and have never been patted down.

That aside, the fact that you haven't had any issues with the TSA doesn't mean that there aren't issues. For people that don't do it frequently, it's a royal pain in the arse.

 

[PRR 60]

By the way, have you gone to a major league baseball game lately? Be prepared to be patted-down and have all bags searched. That's the way things are, today.

I have (in DC, this past season) and have never been patted down.

That aside, the fact that you haven't had any issues with the TSA doesn't mean that there aren't issues. For people that don't do it frequently, it's a royal pain in the arse.

I guess I should have said a major league game in Philadelphia. Maybe Philadelphia's the issue.

 

[D T Nelson]

http://www.infowars.com/congress-to-fund-massive-expansion-of-tsa-checkpoints/

TSA "may" be coming to a station near you.

THANK YOU, George Bush !!!

NAVYBLUE

Actually, Bush opposed the creation of the TSA. He wanted to continue with the existing system of government-required airport security screenings conducted by private security hired by the airlines, albeit with increased post-9/11 security requirements. But Congress demanded that the federal government take over airport security. Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina wrote the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that created the TSA, and Congress passed the bill, and Bush signed it (he almost never vetoed anything).

The law Hollings wrote talks mostly about aviation security but did give the new agency responsibility for the security of all forms of transportation.

 

[trainman74]

By the way, have you gone to a major league baseball game lately? Be prepared to be patted-down and have all bags searched.

I've been patted down at a football game, but never at a MLB game.

Incidentally, bag searching was fairly common at sporting events even before 9/11; they'd be looking for things such as glass containers and alcoholic beverages.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Oh, goody. More 'good" news from the Kabucki theater called TSA.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story

Thank you, Big Sis. may I have another.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I fail to grasp the dread some people have of TSA at airports. I find the screeners are professional and courteous. It's rare for me to take more then 10 minutes through airport security, most of which is in line being held up by idiot travellers who have no clue what they are doing. With minimal preparation, the screening is nothing.

Do you think the TSA is a wise use of our time and money?

Because just being confused as to why other people care about something you apparently couldn't care less about is not an actual position.

 

[Anderson]

I lost a big post on this when my internet died at CUS right before my train departure (the Chicago Metropolitan Lounge's wireless was, as usual, awful...it was comparable with the Acela's, actually, only worse).

Long story short, I've got a couple of issues with these screenings:

(1) They're not terribly effective (how many stories of guns, etc. getting through the screening because of desensitized screeners have we heard? And I recall reading stories that "red team" penetration rates ran so high that the tests were stopped. Finally, remind me how often we hear of "X was picked up at the airport" vs. "X was tackled by passengers"?) ;

(2) They create soft targets in and of themselves (you can't tell me that a couple hundred people packed in a line like that wouldn't be a juicy target for a terrorist, particularly considering the relatively restricted entry into the screening line areas); and

(3) They keep getting worse (it seems like we've got a new measure every year or two) without a discernible impact on these attempts.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I lost a big post on this when my internet died at CUS right before my train departure (the Chicago Metropolitan Lounge's wireless was, as usual, awful...it was comparable with the Acela's, actually, only worse).

That's actually why I still use Firefox. I hate losing things like long form entries and forum posts and Firefox can usually bring them back from the dead even if something so bad happens that it crashes the computer.

(1) They're not terribly effective (how many stories of guns, etc. getting through the screening because of desensitized screeners have we heard? And I recall reading stories that "red team" penetration rates ran so high that the tests were stopped. Finally, remind me how often we hear of "X was picked up at the airport" vs. "X was tackled by passengers"?)

I read that about the (former) test penetration teams as well. What a joke.

(2) They create soft targets in and of themselves (you can't tell me that a couple hundred people packed in a line like that wouldn't be a juicy target for a terrorist, particularly considering the relatively restricted entry into the screening line areas);

Absolutely, as the folks in Iraq and other occupied nations have been seeing first hand for nearly a decade.

(3) They keep getting worse (it seems like we've got a new measure every year or two) without a discernible impact on these attempts.

Absolutely. It's not even a left vs. right thing. Like most actual issues it's an average citizen vs. elite establishment thing. Some folks call it a 99% vs. 1% thing. Either way it's proof positive that it doesn't really matter which of the two establishment parties you vote for since they're both feeding from the same funding trough. I believe it's quite likely that Ross Perot was a bit of a nutcase, but I also believe that his original goal of expanding our voting options is an inherently healthy one. I've basically sworn off any future D's and R's as they have proven themselves completely incompetent at this point. A vote for "the lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil and I'm damn tired of voting for evil.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

http://www.infowars....sa-checkpoints/

TSA "may" be coming to a station near you.

THANK YOU, George Bush !!!

NAVYBLUE

Actually, Bush opposed the creation of the TSA. He wanted to continue with the existing system of government-required airport security screenings conducted by private security hired by the airlines, albeit with increased post-9/11 security requirements. But Congress demanded that the federal government take over airport security. Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina wrote the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that created the TSA, and Congress passed the bill, and Bush signed it (he almost never vetoed anything).

The law Hollings wrote talks mostly about aviation security but did give the new agency responsibility for the security of all forms of transportation.

Bush signed it (he almost never vetoed anything).

You made my point. Thank you.

NAVYBLUE

 

[rrdude]

Is is (still) true though, that at non-airport screenings, you can get out of line, go around the corner, or somehow avoid (or evade) the VIPER screening, and even if they are yelling and screaming at you, that they cannot really "do" anything to you? (assuming you are innocent, and not carrying anything or traces of anything)

Hmmm, get's me thinking, maybe I should be taking along little containers of fertilizer, and sprinkling them liberally around the ticket counters and TSA agents shoes........could be fun.........

 

[PRR 60]

I fail to grasp the dread some people have of TSA at airports. I find the screeners are professional and courteous. It's rare for me to take more then 10 minutes through airport security, most of which is in line being held up by idiot travellers who have no clue what they are doing. With minimal preparation, the screening is nothing.

Do you think the TSA is a wise use of our time and money?

Because just being confused as to why other people care about something you apparently couldn't care less about is not an actual position.

Who said it was? I was only responding to a statement that someone was dreading the screening. That's it. Sorry to disappoint you.

So, do I have a position on the value of the TSA? Maybe. Will I express it here? Nope.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Who said it was? I was only responding to a statement that someone was dreading the screening. That's it. Sorry to disappoint you. So, do I have a position on the value of the TSA? Maybe. Will I express it here? Nope.

I was just curious. It's one thing to challenge the assumptions of others with your own alternative conclusions. But to show up simply to express some sort of smug indifference to the topic at hand seems rather pointless to me. That's how I saw it anyway.

 

[Anderson]

Is is (still) true though, that at non-airport screenings, you can get out of line, go around the corner, or somehow avoid (or evade) the VIPER screening, and even if they are yelling and screaming at you, that they cannot really "do" anything to you? (assuming you are innocent, and not carrying anything or traces of anything)

I know that with the subway/metro screenings, you can just simply not board. Technically, I think the rule is that they can only screen you if you're going to board, and if you decline carriage at that time, they can't force you through the line.

Now, I'm not sure about "walking around the line" such as the technical situation surrounding the Savannah mess. It probably depends on how the platform is set up (i.e. whether it is more or less unsecured, like in NPN, FLG, or about a thousand other stations, or if it's internally contained, such as at NYP/LAX/CHI/a few other big ones).

 

[SP&S]

Perhaps "dread" is a charged word. And a good part of that dread was that the day after Christmas was poised to be a big travel day with the attendant hassles. As it turns out, the lines were short and the wife and I breezed through security at PDX; but that's not the point. "They" even tell me the new scanner - turn 90 degrees, spread your feet, hands above your head, woosh woosh, OK you've passed - has no harmful effects. Yeah, and Camels are good for you too. But that's not even the point.

It's the theater of fear and control, that's the point. It's the little by little, erosion of liberty; that's the point. It's the waste of money, with reactive rather than proactive security, that's the point. It's the big show, even though both the wife and I forgot to take our little baggies of liquid out of our carry-ons and nobody noticed. It's the time I went through without so much as a hiccup even though I'd foolishly forgotten and still had a Swiss army knife in my pocket.

And any points about the screening you may have to go through before entering some pro game, that's specious. That's private enterprise, and they can restrict entry - anyway they have to screen folks trying to avoid high priced stadium beer.

Make no mistake, I want security. But I want real security, the type that's quiet, unobtrusive, and works.

Enjoying time with friends and family here in San Clemente, looking forward to the trip back home on the Starlight.

 

[JoeBas]

By the way, have you gone to a major league baseball game lately? Be prepared to be patted-down and have all bags searched. That's the way things are, today.

I have (in DC, this past season) and have never been patted down.

That aside, the fact that you haven't had any issues with the TSA doesn't mean that there aren't issues. For people that don't do it frequently, it's a royal pain in the arse.

I guess I should have said a major league game in Philadelphia. Maybe Philadelphia's the issue.

The patdown going into Phillies games is perfunctory, at best.

Let's put it this way - I have never had a hand shoved so far down my pants that the "screener" encountered Mr. Winky while going to a Phils game. I cannot, sadly, say the same about the TSA.

 

[JoeBas]

Perhaps "dread" is a charged word. And a good part of that dread was that the day after Christmas was poised to be a big travel day with the attendant hassles. As it turns out, the lines were short and the wife and I breezed through security at PDX; but that's not the point.

Actually, it kinda is.

Because a lot of people have sworn OFF flying until the TSA is reigned in.

Don't believe me? Try and find a news story about "larger than expected crowds at airports this holiday season".

And yet Amtrak, despite higher fares and a slower trip, had a record year.

How interesting.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Because a lot of people have sworn OFF flying until the TSA is reigned in.

Too bad that's not how things actually work. Turning tail and running away from a problem as fast as you can is the best way I know to ensure it will not be addressed.

 

[the_traveler]

I have sworn off air travel, unless I have to be there yesterday, for just that reason!

Even though I have over 250k FFM! (I transfered all but 24 FFM from CO/UA to AGR!

)

 

[JoeBas]

Because a lot of people have sworn OFF flying until the TSA is reigned in.

Too bad that's not how things actually work. Turning tail and running away from a problem as fast as you can is the best way I know to ensure it will not be addressed.

In some ways, yes. If that's all you're doing on the issue (which it's not).

In others, not so much.

As an example, every trip I take where I drove instead of flying, I make a point of copying receipts, along with copies of my flight information for the same trip I took years previous by air, and send them to the airline, telling them that their cowardice when it comes to the TSA cost them my business, and proof that I went by other means.

Likewise, some annual trips which I no longer take (such as Spring Training baseball) get the same treatment - copies of multiple receipts from multiple years previous, with a note regretting that I will not be attending this year due to the dog and pony show at the checkpoint.

Does it have an effect? Probably not. I get a lot sniveling "we wish you would come back" canned PR responses and vouchers/etc, but will not use them - if I'm not already using frequent flyer miles with enough miles for free tickets, why would I use a voucher for a discounted one? But I digress.

But at another level, I have to hope that the aggregate if everyone were to do this it would make one of the financial poindexters at the airlines or Chambers of Commerces wake up and realize that they're losing VAST SUMS of money, and thereby put their consderably more powerful than mine lobbying power in Washington to work on the problem.

To extend this to AMTK and keep it on topic, if permanent TSA goonpoints are set up in the terminals, well then I start using the smaller stations - making sure to copy the hotels in the terminal cities with copies of receipts and AMTK tickets from years past, and receipts and AMTK tickets from the new smaller stations, and letting them know how the gov't is costing them their $149/night hotel stay each way...

 

[Anderson]

I think the guest just hit something on the head: I think I said it elsewhere, but I work to actively deny any American-based air carrier my business whenever possible. When I went to the Caymans a while back, I took Amtrak to Florida and then took Cayman Airways from Tampa. Coming back, doing that was going to be too much of a hassle (I'd have dragged that friend back across the state to pick me up), so I dealt with USAirways. And don't think I didn't look at alternatives first...that just happened to be the flight a friend was coming back on (into Richmond), so I was able to grab a ride back to the Richmond Amtrak station to pick up my car. Also don't think I enjoyed the air segments...though the Cayman Airways one was pretty nice.

Anyhow...I think there have been some studies suggesting that, controlling for other major variables (such as the economy), the airlines lose something like 2% of their business every time another security circus breaks out. When you get right down to it, I'm actually surprised that the airline unions haven't seen this as a job security problem (since those 2% hits start endangering frequencies on smaller routes). As to what you've said...that's a good point. If WAS were to get to be too messy (security-wise), I could also take Amtrak into ALX and using the Metro to get to Rockville (if traveling on the Cap) or use some entertaining mixes of public transit to get from Newark Penn Station to Croton-on-Harmon. Chicago is probably the only unavoidable hub for me unless I want to experience the South Shore Line in all its glory...but at least for now, there's a nice first class lounge workaround to be had there.

 

[Shortline]

Sorry if I was mis-understood, I don't really mind the screenings, and as a VERY frequent flier, I rarely have to go through much of a line, using the First Class/Sky Priority lanes. I have it down to a science, and haven't set off the beeper in years. I'm a pro at getting through, and have my own little system that works for me. That said, my main problem with it, is that in my opinion, it's a huge waste of tax dollars in it's current form, does very little to secure much of anything, and has so many loopholes and problems, that I really don't think it would be all that hard to work around. Hell, a few years ago, I DID mistakenly carried a pocket knife from OKC-Chicago. Apparently it didn't set off the metal detector, and I forgot it was in my pocket. Wasn't until I got off the plane that I noticed it was even there. Was that an anomoly? Probably, and I probably wouldn't be able to do it again, but, at least once it happened. That tells me it's not as effective as it needs to be. I am a fan of security-What we have now, is anything but. The Government can't secure the congressional washroom, much less airports across the country. So, no, I don't dread the airport security. I deal with it nearly every week, in cities across the country. What I dread, is what this dog and pony show is costing, versus the benefit it's providing.

With minimal preparation, the screening is nothing.

And that,sir, is my whole issue with TSA summed up. It's ompletely ineffective.

I don't get your leap from doing some preparation to make the screening less time consuming to assuming it is, therefore, ineffective. I prep to ensure that all the stuff that has to be screened is ready to be placed with little wasted motion, and that I have nothing left on me that will trip the metal detector. That way, my stuff rolls right through the x-ray, and I walk through the detector with no issues. I'm not standing at the screening area fumbling with luggage, rooting through pockets, and tripping the detector because I have keys or change I forgot about. That does not have any bearing on whether the screening done by TSA is effective. Since I never carry anything that is banned, the fact that I go through with no problems proves nothing in that regard. Try carrying a butcher knife through security (as I saw a guy try to do one time), and things will get a little dicier. He, by the way, insisted that he should be allowed to carry his knives with him because he was a "renowned chef." I guess the TSA people were not Food Network fans.

My point, however, has nothing to do with whether TSA security is effective or not. It was in response to the "dread" of going through airport security. I don't "dread" it or even mind it, maybe because I take a couple of easy steps ahead of time to make it a non-issue for me. Maybe they do a great job, or maybe they are useless. I don't know, and to a point, I don't care. They do nothing that significantly impacts me. I can still travel where I want, when I want, and that's what matters to me. I'll save my energy for things that adversely affect me.

By the way, have you gone to a major league baseball game lately? Be prepared to be patted-down and have all bags searched. That's the way things are, today.