Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

The TSA already gets to harass, molest and assault people all they want. We've had nearly a decade of videos of crazy invasive and disturbing pat-downs of both adults and children. It's pretty obvious if you want to touch people inappropriately and legally, the TSA is the career choice you should be looking at.

I rarely fly anywhere unless I absolutely have to. I've flown a lot outside the country and no other country is anywhere near as bad as the US/TSA. No other country makes you take off your shoes.

I feel like early on, Americans fought hard against TSA security theatre and nothing changed and people kept flying, so it's just stayed pretty much the same.

It's gotten a little better. TSA agent can't harass people as much and have to be nicer since everyone is recording, but everything they do is still worthless. Millimetre wave machines are filled with so many false positives you should just have people roll a six-sided die.

View on HN

It is literally less hassle to fly internationally from one country to another than it is to fly from one state to another in the US.

Try flying to usa from pretty much anywhere else, but especially from middle east.

I have not been everywhere, but Ben Gurion in Israel was worse than TSA. There’s some valid reason for that, but it can indeed be more intense than what TSA currently does.

I think it’s theatre too, but too many people are comforted by the theatre and believe that the more that there is, the safer that they’ll be.

I wish more people would feel unsafe when flying and stop doing it as often. Might help put a dent in climate change.

Isn't flying significantly better for the environment than most other forms of travel? Especially over longer distances.

Last I read, flying takes twice as much energy as driving, which takes twice as much energy as taking a train.

Maybe there are other considerations?

So there's a Wikipedia page about this, but it seems to have conflicting information or I'm reading it wrong...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran...

The table seems to agree with you, however the text below it doesn't (at least not entirely).

After trying to decipher how they keep switching units (kg/km per passenger vs kg/mile per passenger), it seems as if the text shows .18 for long flights, .35 for average cars, .08 for long distance busses, and .19 for long distance trains (all units I put here are kg of CO2 emissions per passenger per mile).

And that doesn't take into account manufacturing or the impact of roads, but I don't necessarily think that changes the discussion at all.

I'm also not sure if those numbers are average capacity or peak capacity (planes are very often mostly full in my experience, while trains are not, and busses even less so, but that's all based on my own memory).

So I'm leaving this discussion with more questions than I started with, but my first statement was absolutely wrong!

> planes are very often mostly full in my experience, while trains are not, and busses even less so.

This is going to be very dependent on the route/times. I've flown transatlantic flights where I've had entire rows to myself (on multiple occasions). Trains are regularly running at capacity, especially on commuter lines.

Vietnam makes you take off your shoes, I think last time I flew through Malaysia it was the same, and Australia sometimes requires you to take off your shoes (I think maybe some airports, like Gold Coast?).

It's annoyingly common, especially since I tend to wear boots, so it's a real hassle to take my boots off and then put them on again.

You know this, and you've apparently experienced this several times. So maybe stop wearing boots when flying? I always carry a pocket knife, but not when flying. Not just because I want to avoid anal probing, but also out of courtesy towards everyone who is behind me in the security theatre queue.

You are assuming they don't need or want the boots for any reason.

I've flow places with 4 laptops before, not because I think it's fun to inconvenience everyone in line, but because I needed them for where I was going.

If I was flying somewhere that I needed boots, I'd probably try to wear them to avoid having them pretty much take up most of my carry on space...

The major difference is that one is basic clothing and the other is something you just have with you. I shouldn't have to buy special clothes to fly. (I happen to own a pair of athletic shoes as well as boots, however, my spouse only owns boots. We don't invest much in clothing).

On the other hand, I don't really find it to be much of a bother. My boots stay on decently without tying the laces and I can usually do a proper lacing when I'm out of the way.

I think only if you have steel caps in Australia as they trigger the metal detectors. I've flown into and out of every major airport in Australia (including OOL) and have only had to remove my shoes when I'm wearing work boots.

I'm pretty sure I didn't take my shoes off when exiting Vietnam. And definitely didn't when traveling from Saigon to Hanoi.

They just turned it into a shakedown: pay for Precheck and you will be harassed less.

Yup. Same tactic as economy plus and biz class... misery to sell upgrades

> They just turned it into a shakedown: pay for Precheck and you will be harassed less.

OTOH I've seen days where the precheck line was slower moving/longer if it's a time when lots of business travelers fly.

One of these days I’m just going to give up and wear this T-shirt I have that says “I made it to second base with the TSA screener“

That T-shirt might qualify you for third base^w^w additional screening in a small, private room.

> No other country makes you take off your shoes.

No offence, but that is simply not true.

At European airports one is not always, but regularly, asked to take off his shoes.

It happens in asia occasionally as well but you can usually leave them on.

I would say occasionally, not regularly. I don't think I've had to take off my shoes flying through European airports in at least 5 years, and even then it's generally because you set off the metal detector.

I'll chime in to add Thailand to the list of countries which require your shoes to be off as you pass through security.

Philippines too. Hong Kong sometimes. Japan never.

I fly quite a bit. I signed up for TSA pre. It typically takes me about 5m to get through a security lane and usually involves a walk through a metal detector. Shoes on; laptop in bag; no need to remove toiletries. It is a fast, efficient, and polite experience. I'm sure others have different experiences - or aren't willing/able to pay for the TSA pre program. But in general, I prefer my experience traveling domestically to passing through security internationally.

According to the TSA website, that means you submitted to "a 10 minute, in person appointment that includes a background check and fingerprinting." [0]

There is no reason why that should be required in order to fly without "harassment".

[0] https://www.tsa.gov/precheck

> There is no reason why that should be required in order to fly without "harassment".

Can you explain why you think this way exactly? How does taking out your laptop and taking off your shoes count as harassment, exactly?

I submitted to a 10 minute in person appointment that included fingerprinting and answering questions about my criminal status (I'm not). That's it. It was super easy.

I have tsa pre-check, and I mostly enjoy it because travelers who have tsa precheck tend to pack efficiently and aren't surprised and hung up at various checkpoints during the security intake process. It's an added bonus that I don't have to take my laptop out or take my shoes off, but it's not that big of a deal.

I'm not a fan of the TSA but I have a hard time understanding why someone would be upset with the TSA precheck process.

I believe their point is that the 10 minute interview has no real world effect and so everyone should get the PreCheck treatment at security.

> or aren't willing/able to pay for the TSA pre program

Or are not eligible for any of the various 'pay more to be treated as a human' programs due to having the wrong citizenship (which is most citizenships).

Guess now we’re just waiting for the first TSA Pre-approved person to commit a terrorist attack.

Putting mafia style protection racket arguments aside (pretty soon TSA will not need money from taxpayers, they’ll just extort for convenience sake) - per the press release you have now been forced into a full scale biometrics ID program (reminder: TSA also has jurisdiction in metro rail and bus areas). How does that make you feel? Do you know what information sharing agreements they have with local law enforcement? Intel agencies? Other federal agencies? License plate metadata vendors?

Good luck out there! Glad you could save the 30 minutes, but I’d love a world where it wouldn’t require payment.

Fly to Vietnam, take off your shoes for screening.

I have seen people being asked to take off their boots at Toronto Pearson.

That's because US bound flights have separate security, which operates with different standards.

Nope. This was for within Canada flights. Its also only for people wearing large boots in the winter.

This is a regular occurrence in European airports.

No it's not. I fly regularly intra-EU and maybe once (?) have had to take my shoes off in the last 5+yrs....can't even remember. I don't know which airports you transit/use but I go throw most of the major ones across EU pretty regularly.

All major ones.

Usually I see it happening to those lucky ones carrying boots or shoes with thick sole.

Maybe I haven't been paying that much attention. I travel wearing a mix of dress/ converse/ boots type shoes but no issues so far. Neither has my GF had any issues (that I know of).

Naturally it is all anecdote data, I am not asserting that it is always like that.

Not my experience, at least flying from PT to ES, CH, DE.

Try wearing boots or shoes with thick soles.

I had to take off my shoes in Chile...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com