Feeds

back to article TSA seizes pre-flight terrorist screening

The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will soon take control of screening airline passengers against the country's terrorist watch list in a much-delayed bid to net less infants, Senators, and other innocent travelers. Department of Homeland Security officials today unveiled a revised program for pre-departure …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Down

looks like i will never fly again

These idiots can't even tie their shoes, much less handle security and I wouldn't trust them with my name, much less with my name, address, phone, birthdate, SSN, and you name it just so I can climb onto an aerial cattle-car and shuffle myself off to Buffalo.

Idiots. Govtards. TSAtards. BAStards.

0
0
Thumb Down

"... a critical tool that will further improve aviation security ..."

Given that every single one of the worthless, stupid, repressive measures they have introduced so far has been claimed to "further improve" airline security, it should surely have been improved so much furtherer by now that it should be as near as goddam perfect.

IOW, they have an ulterior motive.

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

Match names and date of birth

So they know the names and birthdays of all these terrorists but still can't catch them?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Effective??

Am I to understand that a terrorist only has to give a fictitious birthday and/or Social Security Number and he (or she)'s on the flight? That's what it sounds like anyway.

0
0
Silver badge

195 pages??

Look, if a policy/procedure is this long, it is bound to be terrible.

All of this is in the category of "window dressing" which does nothing to "enhance" the safety of the flying public. All it does is make $$$ for those who "speed up" the clearing process (the "clear card" people), and cost everyone else added fees (look at your ticket!).

USELESS!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Just out of interest

What happens to you if you ARE on the list? Do they just execute you a check-in or something?

0
0
CJ
Thumb Down

Grammar...

Okay, I know I'm being picky. But "in a much-delayed bid to net less infants, Senators, and other innocent travelers" - fewer, not less!

If it's something you can count, like people, it's fewer. If it's something you can't count, like water, it's less.

Bugs me no end...

0
0
Black Helicopters

The beginning of the end...

of mass air travel, at least in the US.

Congratulations to the US authorities. You are successfully completing what must surely be one of the 'terrorists' primary objectives. Cause maximum disruption to the freedom of the citizens of the *enemy* to go about their lawful business.

But, as you pretty much regard everyone as a potential *enemy*, including your own citizens...

0
0
Ash
Flame

This is a great idea!

BECAUSE TERRORISTS WOULD NEVER USE FALSE CREDENTIALS.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

@Grammar...

Haha, you started a sentence with 'But'!

Seriously, though - it annoys me too, almost as much as people who can't tell the difference between 'lose' and 'loose'.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Ash
Thumb Up

I'm probably on the list

I don't care, though. I'm not going to America :)

0
0
Thumb Up

The point is being missed

Many of the comments on this topic are missing the point.

The purpose of overreaction by the Government is a technique to Manufacture Consent and increase Social Compliance.

The intention is to show that the Gvt. can perform indefensible actions without consequence. Senators/childrens and other people were deliberately barred to show that they can do it and no action can be taken to redress the injustice.

This is why Gitmo was done. To show it can be done in full view without any repurcussions.

Coming soon to a country near you.

0
0
Unhappy

TSA wants YOU!!!!!!

I read the article behind the link Infants and it was the airlines own No Fly List that caused the young child to be refused a seat on the flight .I know that some 2 year olds can be a right pain but to call him a terrorist not once but twice (they did it again when he was 4) is a bit much.If they did it to me or mine they would be facing such an expensive law suit that it would be safer for all concerned just to shut up shop and walk away.

0
0

John Dougald McCallum

is a bit much.If they did it to me or mine they would be facing such an expensive law suit that it would be safer for all concerned just to shut up shop and walk away.

One big problem. Its mandate by the gov there for the air lines will be protected. Well two , if you want to sue the US gov you need permission from the US gov to sue the US gov

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.