TSA Pays Blogger to Mock People Harassed by TSA | Hacker News Reader

TSA Pays Blogger to Mock People Harassed by TSA

reason.com

63 pointscwan33 comments

The title is pretty misleading. It makes it sound like the TSA was paying "third party" bloggers to shill for them on their behalf, under a false pretense.

In fact, this was just on the TSA blog. Doesn't make it okay, but let's try to keep sensationalist, misleading titles off of HN.

Agreed, title is misleading. Still, an interesting, if outrageous, article.

The article content was interesting, but the title is highly link-bait. I don't cwan though, because it is the exact title of the actual article.

[EDIT] I'll make the additional comment that claiming that "there are no children on the No-Fly List" is dodging the issue. Just because terrorist "John Smith" is on the No-Fly List and isn't a child doesn't mean that a child named "John Smith" won't be hassled because the name "John Smith" is on the No-Fly List.

It's disturbing to think that these people are responsible for the safety of our flights.

I highly doubt that the blogger in question has responsibilities that large.

They aren't. Not in any useful way. You are always responsible for yourself, and flying is risky. Not as risky as driving a car, or showering, but there is a risk at putting yourself in a tin can 30k feet up etc...

But yes, the TSA is a mockery of actual security, and the general american public is the one being laughed at.

True that you're responsible for yourself, but would you rather go to an airport with no metal detectors, no X-ray machines or armed personnel?

You mean a train station? Yes I would.

Blowing up a plane/train/stadium/airport security waiting line/etc... is easy. The "real" risk I guess is people using jets full of fuel as flying missiles. However, post-9-11, no passengers will permit that use. Hijacking planes is over.

So the scenario you describe: getting onto a rapidly moving tube of metal with a couple hundred people who haven't gone through metal detectors or x-ray machines is exactly what happens every time I take the train. In fact, the lack of hour long security lines, having to remove my coat, belt, shoes, etc... is one of the reasons I strongly prefer the train.

On top of the passengers and crew not permitting another hijack, there's also the sadly-new lock on the cabin door.

You mean a train station? Yes I would.

Get on L'Eurostar at StP and you'll get your bag X-rayed. Get off at GdN and there are soldiers with assault rifles guarding the place.

The least-hassle way to cross a border is usually by sea. It'll just take much longer.

Here in the US, the land of the TSA, I've taken trains both domestically and internationally (Canada) and never been x-rayed, metal detected, told to remove my shoes, or seen anyone with a gun other than the occasional cop. Even the border crossings are super easy when you're on a train.

I wonder if that's true on the Mexican border...

Honestly, yes.

If someone wants to kill lots of people, they'll find a way. There are no metal detectors in a train station, but a bomb on a speeding subway car is just as lethal. There are no metal detectors in the mall, yet it'd be trivially easy for terrorists to fire off a couple shots in a mall and then mow down people with submachine guns at the exits. There used to be no metal detectors in schools, but then some teenagers found out it was trivially easy to kill lots of people there too.

The only reason I can think of why planes are any different is that a plane crash is much more sensational. "300 killed in mall shootout" would make headlines, but it doesn't inspire the same fear as "300 killed in downed airliner", particularly since it's virtually certain you'll die if your plane blows up in midair.

"300 killed in mall shootout" would be at least as big a story as an airline crash, probably dramatically bigger. The numbers killed in shootouts before the gunman is killed or otherwise disabled is usually in the single digits or double digits in extreme cases. As far as I know, there's never been a shooting incident in a first world nation with more than a few dozen killed or injured.

Those shootouts are usually poorly planned suicide/attention attempts. With a couple of trained guys with good weapons, armor and tactics it would be pretty easy to rack up a serious death toll in a crowded mall.

A few dynamite and ball bearing bombs dropped in trash cans in the food court could probably get you into the hundreds pretty quick.

> With a couple of trained guys with good weapons, armor and tactics it would be pretty easy to rack up a serious death toll

Indeed, the 2008 siege of Mumbai by about 10 terrorists lasted 3 days and brought the city to a halt. Death toll was somewhere near 200, with 300 wounded.

> A few dynamite and ball bearing bombs dropped in trash cans in the food court could probably get you into the hundreds pretty quick.

Indeed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Nor...

Why is it "disturbing to think that these people are responsible for the safety of our flights"? Did something about the blog-post in question disturb you, or just what you know in general about the TSA? I'm not being sarcastic. I just want to know what prompted your comment.

The TSA is apparently working on a fix for this sort of situation. I fly a lot, and recently on Southwest's booking system, I've started to see a form field for entering a special "I am not a terrorist" ID for people with coincidental identifying information. I don't know what it takes to get one, but I'll copy-paste the help file:

> The Redress # is a unique number issued by the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) that is used to facilitate passenger clearance for persons who have the same name as someone on the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) watch list.

> For more information about the Secure Flight program, visit TSA's Secure Flight Web site: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm

And to be fair, the blog that does poke fun at the media's sensationalism does point out that a) children under 8 should be automatically de-selected, and b) there is a redress option in place for those that are afraid they may have a similar name. It's obvious this TSA guy just doesn't have anyone proof reading his post for air-headed comments. The rest of his post was informative.

> children under 8 should be automatically de-selected

"should" doesn't matter if SOP is that they are.

> there is a redress option in place for those that are afraid they may have a similar name.

That's the claim, but the folks involved say that the redress option doesn't actually work.

The title is very misleading. It almost sounds like TSA paid some random blogger who was anonymously mocking people stopped by TSA. (which is not the case). The guy is an official TSA blogger. And I sense more exasperation in his entry, than mocking. Also "harassed" is a little harsh. The Airport security screening system is far from perfect. But the actual agents at the airport have no choice but to screen a person, when there is a match, or a near match on someone's name. They have been told to err on the side of caution (after the Underwear bomber security breach).

I request the person who posted this entry to edit the title and make it less sensational.

What I've never understood about this situation is the fact that the list, apparently, only contains names to identify people. Someone would have thought that in a country of 300m and a world of 6b, there would be multiple people with the same name.

Atleast the last 4 digits in the SSN or the passport/visa number should be used to identify people when needed.

When traveling from Canada, you're required to give your name, gender and birthdate. You would think the birthdate would actually be significant, but apparently not.

If there are no children on the list - why do they check children against the list ?

Given the attitudes of the previous administration who set this up I would think it likely that there is a correlation between being on the list and being as it were 'left-wing'.

The suggestion that the list was set up to hassle lefties rather than stop terror is not untenable.

Be interesting to see if in fact this list is not a great danger to America by subverting its advertised purpose for political ends.

A nice mashup perhaps would be party membership of those on the list.

People are prepared to give up liberty in emergencies - the abuse of such powers to harass pacifists, enviromentalists in the UK anyway puts us all in danger for when a real emergency requires fast action.

Similar to the fable of the boy crying wolf (but a more sinister young fellow with political ambitions).

Ugh, talk about sensationalism. The mother who is "appalled" at this is more annoying than the slightly insensitive TSA blogger.

She even made a Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Get-Mikey-OFF-The-List/2971719...

What would you do if it were your kid?

I would hope not overreact. She's taking it personally, acting as if her kid is being insulted by being on the watch list. I too am sometimes flagged as being on some kind of list for no apparent reason, and can't check in online. I do not take it as an insult.

If it happened more often I might take the time to file the paper work, which is sounds like she finally just did.

I know I'd take it very personally if I had to watch my little girl get frisked every time we boarded a plane, and I think most parents would feel the same.

I agree with your point about filing the paperwork, but if the TSA maintains that no kids are on the watch list, why are agents subjecting kids to the process?

I missed the part about him getting frisked... that is pretty ridiculous.

Yeah the reason.com article didn't highlight that as much as it could have. I can definitely see how you missed it.

The original NY Times article has more detail. In particular:

The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.

After years of long delays and waits for supervisors at every airport ticket counter, this year’s vacation to the Bahamas badly shook up the family. Mikey was frisked on the way there, then more aggressively on the way home.

"Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch - someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal," Mrs. Hicks recounted. "A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html

With that context, its a lot easier to understand her frustration.

More people taking injustices personally, no matter how small, is a very good thing. It may be the only way to make a serious dent in them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com