Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/business/airport-security-lines.html?src=busln&_r=0 <comment><USER3> Here's an awesome TSA story for you:

Late last year while trying to fly out of LAX a TSA employee thought I was carrying a throwing star. They called the police, who correctly identified as a toy in seconds.

I thought the whole ordeal was over until I got a "notice of violation" in the mail from TSA 45 days later.

Now I'm banned from pre-check for three years, even though I have global entry and even though the fine was thrown out. It's a kangaroo court were the only two options are you pay the fine or they convert it to a warning.

Some shit head got a gold star for "finding a weapon" and I get fucked.

Please defund these 0-terrorist-catching losers.

<comment><USER4> They're just as bad at identifying actual "weapons": I flew to South America with a layover in Miami a few years back. Got past TSA without any trouble on the domestic leg, then I had to go through again for the international leg.

The second time through security, they said they saw a blade on the x-ray.. turns out they were right. I forgot I had left a multi-tool in my bag.

Thankfully, they just trashed it and let me continue on my way. The story still flabbergasts me, though.

<comment><USER5> My friend accidentally took a multi-tool through airport screening shortly after 9/11 and had to lawyer up to get the resulting shitstorm to go away (and he's white and an American citizen)

On the other hand, I remember when I was a kid in the 90s and accidentally took my pocket knife (3" blade) through screening, and they found it but let me bring it on the plane...

<comment><USER6> I used to take my CRKT M16-14 knife on the nerd bird SJC<->SEA round trip twice a week. Nobody cared. This was mid-90s until just before 9/11\. I didn't try to hide it - just tossed it in the bin with my keys etc.

[https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum4396.php](https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum4396.php)

<comment><USER7> Well, before 9/11 you didn't have to check your firearms. You could carry them on as long as they were in a case. Things were more reasonable back then.

<comment><USER8> A lot of people wouldn't consider it reasonable to allow people to carry guns around, least of all on a plane.

<comment><USER9> It turns out that many people have silly -yet strongly held- beliefs. :) _shrug_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This, in combination with American airports being completely ignorant to the transit concept must cost American airline companies dozens, if not hundreds of millions a year in lost revenues.

Case in point: if I want to to fly from Zurich to Lima I have essentially two choices: I can connect either in Amsterdam, or in Madrid. Madrids legal connection time is 55 minutes max (on Iberia). In AMS on KLM it's a maximum of 50 minutes.

Another option would be to fly via an US airport. For example Miami. Only that I would have to be crazy.

Start with the fact that I can't check my luggage through to Lima. I must go through immigration in Miami, pick up my luggage, go through customs, re-check my luggage and then endure the security hassle.

Even if the US connection would save me a couple hundred $ I would have to be crazy to chose the hassle, the annoyance and the risk of missing my connection.

And I don't think I'm alone with such thoughts.

Edited: Added actual legal connection times for AMS and MAD

<comment><USER11> Oh come on. I fly through Europe twice to three times a year. The transfer from Charles de Gaulle is a nightmare worse than any major US airport. They literally make you leave the security area and go through security for simple transfers if you're coming from the states. That's shit design right there. A lot of international connections are terrible and knowing which airports/airlines do a good job is important. Its not a US thing.

Also, what a shit prize naming a airport after someone is. No one likes airports. de Gaulle deserves better.

<comment><USER12> Heathrow too. I've made international transfers through terminal 5 and had to go through both immigration and security. And Heathrow is absolutely crazy about liquids. No cough syrup for you, because it's impossible to find bottles of it smaller than 100ml.

<comment> nommm-nommm British Airways scheduled me on a flight from US with an 45 minute layover in Heathrow. I don't know how the heck they expected me to make the connecting flight considering I had to go through customs, then security again, and go halfway across the airport. Their system even flagged me as "showed up too late for the flight" the second time I went through security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Blaming volume? How about 1) the switch from metal detectors to less numerous and slower body scanners? 2) the allocation of employee resources to the "pre check" line leaving less staff for 90% of travelers. 3) still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan? This program has gotten seriously out of hand and is incredibly frustrating. I don't care if it's 3 hours or "75 minutes" anything over 15 minutes is absurd.

<comment><USER14> You don't actually have to take your belt off for the full body scan. I left it on once by accident and wasn't questioned, nor was I the next dozen or so times I've flown.

<comment><USER15> I think it's highly dependent on which airport you're at and the current mood of the people working there.

Last year I was flying home, and there was a sign in the security line saying they we don't need to remove our shoes or belt, I cannot remember which. When I got up to the front of line, I was told, yes, I need to remove both.

<comment><USER16> For CLEAR, PreCheck and airline-specific special class passengers you can skip removing shoes/belt/jacket, depending on the policy, when traveling through US airports. Non-US airports, and certain international destinations, don't require them removed. And sometimes they just don't give a shit and will let you through regardless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem?

Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports, is a laughable idea.

<comment><USER18> If everyone comes a minute before departure, all lose the flight, whereas if everyone comes 24 hours earlier, none will miss the flight, so there is obviously a change. Plus you get people to sit in a huge store without any means to leave. So the airport doesn't have a throughput problem! They don't have a problem at all, as there is also no clear alternative - normally there is only 1 airport to choose from. So people need to take whatever service quality said airport offers.

EDIT: It would be good both for this conversation and HN in general if the downvotes were explained. The parent states several things that in my opinion are not completely true (such as all people arriving earlier don't having effect on anything, or the need to have absolutely no queues at some times for throughput to be improved, or that that never happens) and pointing some things out doesn't seem to me like a punishable action, but if it is, some explanation would be good.

In particular, my experience with for example the Frankfurt airport is that you get lots of security lines but more than half are closed, with up to 8 employees per line. They require that no one starts unpacking and preparing things until the area is cleared. They request a chemicals test if the metal detector jumps on you (?). They do random things like what vincefutr23 points out in another comment: > still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan

The effect of all this is that you get more "latency" than "throughput" problems, as each particular line clogs a lot, and you could open more lines if you wished, and it takes you a lot of time to be serviced even with few people.

But then again: it only is the problem of the airport if they are affected by it - but they don't seem very keen on improving it.

<comment><USER19> Well, the effect is that the airport needs to open earlier in the AM, so anecdotally it just shifts the entire dance an hour earlier. The problem with saying "everyone come 2 hours early", is that now, if you show up 1 hour early, you have traffic from later flights. Anecdotally, when I've flown on evening flights recently, the security line is 2 minutes long (because nobody is showing up early), whereas the 6am line takes an eternity.

<comment><USER20> Shifting it earlier is the point, since the plane will leave on time regardless of when the people get there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If a terrorist wanted to kill a lot of people confined into too small space to run away, what better target than these densely packed zig-zag queues? Really, what's the point of protecting a plane carrying hundreds of people by putting those same people into harm's way like that? It already happened in China - Muslim terrorists killed dozens of people waiting in a ticket hall a couple of years ago.

<comment><USER22> There are a large number of places with densely packed people. The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be used as weapons. (I'm taking a broad view of "weapon" here; even old-school hijack-and-divert is still a political "weapon".) If it weren't for that, they wouldn't be particularly interesting and wouldn't need special security. If someone blows up the line, well, they didn't get control over a plane.

Thoughtful terrorists... and thank goodness, a lot of them really aren't... would not choose an airport line, just because it's an airport.

It's also why when we hear about the TSA claiming they need to secure trains, it's a sign that politics has 100% overtaken their supposedly-core mission; trains don't have any of these characteristics that make them any more dangerous than any other large groups of people.

<comment><USER23> > The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their > capacity to be used as weapons.

That problem was solved on 9/11 the instant the public realized the possibility. Before people wouldn't fight back because they would rather be ransomed than killed. Now that everyone knows their choices are fight or die, every person on the plane would fight to the death to prevent a terrorist from taking control over it, which solves the problem more effectively than anything the TSA could ever hope to do.

It actually makes everything the TSA does entirely counterproductive, because it's no longer possible to hijack a plane using a knife, but allowing all the other passengers to have knives would make it easier for them to fight back. The entire TSA is a farce that should be disbanded and replaced with nothing.

<comment><USER24> It shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. In many cities, you cannot access the driver's portion of a taxicab. Yet airplanes had less separation. Pilots should never give controls over, and there should be strong, locked, doors.

The lack of toilet sorta ruins the whole design. There's still a critical window where the door is open to the cabin, even though blocked by a food cart. But I suppose you'd need to be Bruce Lee to jump over it and get into the cabin while taking out two pilots and a FA.

<comment><USER25> > Pilots should never give controls over, and there should be strong, locked, > doors.

They have that now; it resulted in a pilot deliberately crashing his own plane into the ground while the co-pilot banged futilely on the door outside. [0]

Unintended consequences and all that.

[0] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1149...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11496066/Andreas- Lubitz-Everything-we-know-about-Germanwings-plane-crash-co-pilot.html)

<comment><USER26> It's absolutely unrelated matters. There always was a possibility for one pilot to barricade in the cabin. And in any case, he could just bash his co- pilot with something and do whatever he wants. If you got pilot who wants to crash the plane on board, you already screwed up, good thing it's very rare occasion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems like a perverse incentive to let them slow down the lines so you have to buy a "membership" in their precheck program. "Nice flight you have there...be a shame if you missed it."

<comment><USER28> It's worse than just membership fees. To join a precheck program, you need to submit personal information that they constitutionally can't force American citizens to provide, even at international borders: fingerprints and retina scans. So basically they hold huge amounts of your time hostage in order to force you to provide what ought to be protected info.

It's similar to incentives for long-term contraception. The government can't fine you for not taking contraception -- that would obviously be monstrous -- but they _can_ raise taxes and then offer rebates to people who submit to it. It's lunacy.

[https://www.aclu.org/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential- ab...](https://www.aclu.org/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse)

<comment><USER29> I don't think I'm really paranoid about my personal information. I remember a time when everyone's name, phone number, and address were published in a large white book and distributed to every home in the metro area. I think a lot of the hyperventilation about that stuff is a little over the top.

However, I draw the line at biological data. That is permanent, irrevocable, unchangeable personal information that no one really has a right to. It's not like you can just go unlisted, change your number, or move to avoid the heat. It's a basic component of your being. That data should be closely guarded. It creeps me out that some gyms have started using the little fingerprint scanners to verify access. I don't travel that frequently, but I wouldn't get PreCheck because I want to keep that personal biological information private.

<comment><USER30> Philosophically, I agree, but it's a weak point of agreement.

I've already been fingerprinted multiple times for the armed services, for background checks for financial services jobs, for pilot authorization to fly into the DC SFRA and land at the MD/DC-3 airports, and maybe a few other reasons. My fingerprints are already in multiple databases and I don't have particular concern about giving them one more time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by > about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350 > agents assigned for security checks.

Such a monumentally wasteful jobs program.

<comment><USER32> $7 billion a year just for the TSA budget. That's not counting all the indirect economic losses from the security theatre.

<comment><USER33> Or deaths due to people driving instead of flying.

 _" Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated in one study to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year."_ [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html)

<comment><USER29> It's not really worth it to fly if your destination is < 4 hours away by car. Even the shortest flight is going to take about that long to complete if you're going through a major airport.

Example itinerary:

Flight leaves at 6:00pm, gotta be there bare minimum 1 hour early, preferably 2+, going to split the different and say 90 mins.

Leave home at 4pm, drive 35 min to airport. Wait in line 15 mins to check bag. Allocate generous 20 mins for a quick security scan (this can blow up to 60 mins+ if it's a busy day and/or your airport sucks, but 20 mins is about the fastest you can really get through including time to walk to the checkpoint and be scanned). It's now 5:10. Sit around for 20 mins until your plane starts boarding. It's now 5:30. Sit on horrifyingly uncomfortable plane for 30 mins awaiting takeoff/other passengers to board. It's now 6. Your plane takes 10 mins to taxi and 45 mins to fly from point A to point B. It's now 6:55. Plane takes 10 min to taxi in (though I've waited 45 min+ before, especially at LAX). It takes 10 min for everyone to deplane. It's now 7:15. Once off plane, go wait at bag claim. We'll say it takes 20 mins to get there, wait for your flight to be unloaded, and wait for your bag. Now it's 7:35. Now you have to get from destination airport to actual destination, and you're probably looking at another 30 mins. That's 8:05. 4 hours and 5 minutes since you left your house.

So it takes 4 hours to do a 45 minute flight, and that's assuming everything is running quickly at the airport, which is often not the case. We also didn't include any time involved in arranging rides to/from the airport and/or parking, carefully reviewing your bag to make sure you didn't accidentally pack any liquids or gels that are larger than 3oz, etc.

It's faster to drive than to fly if your destination is within 4 hours' drive, and it's generally a no-brainer to drive due to the greater comfort it provides within 8 hours' drive. Flying is really only necessary once you get past that 8 hour drive barrier, and the only reason we tolerate flying being what it is is because it can turn a 24-hour+ drive into a 3 hour flight.

<comment><USER34> It's 6-7 hours to drive home vs a 1 hour flight for me, and I _still_ sometimes prefer road travel. 7 hours of uninterrupted time is far better than the excruciating start-stop-wait-walk-wait-walk-shut_off_devices of air travel. Especially for a 1 hour flight, there's usually like a 20 minute window where I can actually use my laptop and even reading a book is a pain when you're standing in a line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Security theater, especially since anyone with 1/2 a brain saw what happened in Brussels, and understands that if there actually were any terrorists, the most dangerous part of flying would be the hoard of people packed together in a twisty line waiting to go through security. Frequently either in a contained area, or right next to a public drop-off area. Said theoretical terrorists could just buy an ak47, convert it to full auto, walk into the airport and start spraying bullets into the cluster of people. Or for bonus points, load up a baggage cart with suitcases full of explosives and push them right into the people standing in line. The enclosed area near security at some of the airports would significantly increase the effectiveness, and/or the people escaping would likely trample a few more.

Worse, the general inefficiency of the whole thing pisses me off too. I flew 3 legs on an international trip recently, and had to go through security 4 times even though I either never left the secured area, or in the case of Dallas the international arrival dumps people outside of the terminal rather than into it.

Like really? I'm safe enough to fly a 15 hour leg into the US, but i'm not safe enough to fly a 1/2 hour domestic flight from Dallas to a little town?

two words: "Jobs Program"

Only I wish the result of said jobs program was better infrastructure, even if its just stone bridges on hiking trails ala the WPA/CCC.

</comment><comment><USER28> Why does the NYTimes quote tweets -- essentially publishing the shouts of strangers on the street -- before they report actual data like the change in the number of TSA screeners?

<comment><USER36> Because most people like stories more than data.

<comment><USER34> Yea, and "most people" like racy pictures too. That doesn't mean news organizations like the NY Times that still have some dignity left to shred should start putting racy photos in every article. Just as "most people like stories" doesn't mean they should be quoting random tweets.

<comment><USER37> That's actually a good idea. I vote for racy photos alongside new articles.

<comment><USER38> The Sun along with their Page Three is that way →🇬🇧

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is the part that really ticks me off:

>Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina recently said it had experienced three-hour wait times. [...] (T.S.A. officials denied that the wait had ever been that long, telling local reporters that it had been 75 minutes for a short time.)

Will someone, anyone, please write the simple app that you punch in as you start the line, you punch out as you leave screening, with some simple checks with GPS so we know you are really in one location for that time? Aggregate the data and let people coming to the airport have an idea of how long the wait will be. Use the data as political leverage so the TSA cannot claim "well, the wait wasn't that long". Tell people in line to install the app while they wait, and assure them that their politicians will see the data.

Probably not much money in this, but your app _will_ go viral this summer, apparently...

<comment><USER40> That's pretty much what this app does: [http://gomiflight.com](http://gomiflight.com)

<comment><USER39> Great, thanks! Can they generate press releases and statistics about average and peak wait times per airport? Maybe their penetration isn't hitting a critical mass. I'd love to see a live dashboard that shows "X number of people have been standing in line for Y minutes in city Z", or "the worst lines in the US airport system right now are A, B, and C". Reporters could then just show that display to the TSA press shill and call them out on their bad data in real time.

<comment><USER34> There are plenty of great applications of crowdsourced data but the problem with this stuff is always incentivizing people to contribute instead of just consume. It's a non-trivial marketing trick that products like Waze have managed (a big part of why Google didn't fold them into Maps entirely was to maintain the community), but it's certainly not a surefire thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> How many hours does the security theatre have to take before the number of human lives lost waiting in line equals a plane blown up a month?

<comment><USER42> Is wasting 1 minute for 42,000,000 people equivalent to just killing a newborn baby?

<comment><USER43> It would be more like forcing a baby to spend her whole life going through airport security.

<comment><USER44> Killing them would be altogether kinder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I will usually drive unless it takes more than 12 hours to get to the destination. If I'm bringing my wife and kids I would probably drive anywhere that's on the same continent, rather than fly.

I do not enjoy being treated like cattle at the airport.

</comment><comment><USER46> The list of stuff to check for just keeps getting longer. First were the belt and shoes, then the laptop, then liquids. The latest seems to be portable batteries. Every time a crazy guy hatches a new plot with plans to hide dangerous stuff in everyday items, the list will get longer. Someone needs to work on prioritizing that list or reducing it.

In Asia, where there are more bullet trains, I often pick the trains over flight if it is within 3 hours time difference. (Factor in the wait time and the distance to airport) Bigger seats, leg room and you don't need to off your electronics during "takeoff"!

<comment><USER47> The batteries thing is because cheap Chinese knock-off Lithiums have a habit of randomly catching fire. Its why so-called hoverboards are banned from air travel too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Reasons I've been chosen for extra screening by the TSA: \- They saw something in my bag (I didn't bring a bag) \- They needed to confiscate contraband (granola bar) \- My sweatshirt zipper "interfered with scanning my breasts thoroughly enough" \- They "randomly selected me" 15 times in a row

At this point, I make sure to budget lots of extra time to get through their nonsense procedures in order to make my flight.

</comment><comment><USER49> Why hasn't the TSA reacted to the Brussels Airport bombing and stopped herding passengers together so that they present a big target to terrorists ?

<comment><USER50> Have they stopped doing that at Brussels?

<comment><USER51> Not yet. People were in line for hours today [0], simply waiting to get to the first security checkpoint. Some even missed their flight.

[0]: [http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2645825](http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2645825)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Isn't there a TSA fee on every ticket issued in the US? How are they claiming budget setbacks then claim that more people are flying? Shouldn't more people flying mean more revenue / budget for the TSA?

<comment><USER53> Just because the fee says it's for the TSA doesn't mean that it directly goes to the TSA without legislators getting their grubby hands on it first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> That's a lot of hassle for what is little more than a placebo. In the 40y that terrorists have been targetting planes, I am not aware of a single major terrorist attack that has been stopped by passenger checks.

<comment><USER55> The theory is, because of the checks no further attempts will be made. Its one thing to die for your cause; another to be arrested for your cause and disappear forever anonymously.

<comment><USER54> I can also carry a clown hat all day long and it will keep the pink elephants away. But there are not pink elephant! Then it means my hat is working!

My theory on planes hijacking is rather that if you have a bunch of arabs taking over a plane today (after 9/11, the Paris attacks, etc), the passengers will think that doing nothing will lead to certain death, and therefore it will be impossible for the terrorists to contain the passengers. The only rational reaction for the passengers is to over power the terrorists at all risks.

<comment><USER56> People do occasionally try to blow up airplanes and such. The tactic of hijacking an airplane to crash it into something isn't the only possibility.

If your assertion is that security checks prevent _no_ attacks, then you're implying that no attacker has been discouraged from making an attack due to the presence of security screening. This strikes me as absurd.

There are good arguments to be made that many _aspects_ of security screening are useless, and even that the useful aspects aren't worth what they cost. I would tend to agree with many of those arguments. But to argue that the security screening process as a whole does not prevent any attacks is taking it way too far.

Just look at how incredibly frequent hijackings were in decades past, and how rare they became after basic screening was instituted. It does work to an extent. If you want to attack it, attack it on a cost/benefit basis or attack the more ridiculous bits of it, like banning liquids or screening shoes.

<comment><USER54> I am not arguing that security checks do not prevent any attack. I am arguing that the additional security checks introduced after 9/11 are not preventing more attacks than there were before 9/11, they are just introducing a way to persecute grannies for having a pair of scissors in their bag.

<comment><USER56> Really? That's not at all what you said in your original comment at the top of this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I love how this process was reengineered in London Gatwick airport.

Each scanner has 6 pods where you can pack and unpack your stuff; you've got a dedicated person assigning you to the pod. The process felt much more parallel rather than serial.

Edit: managed to find more info on it [http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting- sma...](http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting-smarter)

<comment><USER58> That sounds like how AMS works since a year or so. I managed 4 minutes from sitting on the train to being after security (I timed it :-P). This includes: getting off the train, walking to security and opening up my backpack (no clue why it went off and they spent maybe 45 secs to verify this).

Unfortunately this is not as quick anymore because more of the security people have now been diverted to do border checks. E.g. Ferry to England, highway checks, etc. Less people, bigger queues.

<comment><USER59> You clearly weren't flying to North America.

Yes, they have that pod system (although it's a glorified serial security scanner so I'm not sure of the benefit), and then they herd you through the full body scanner. The line was as bad as any I've seen on this side of the pond.

<comment><USER30> The secondary screening at D1 for North America bound pax is well after that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I hit this at SeaTac recently. I showed up my normal "1 hour on a Tuesday afternoon should be more than enough" and encountered a nearly 3 hour line. They said it was the new normal.

</comment><comment><USER61> Why not give a 'security line' time (like the current gateline time). If the passenger is there before that time, then the flight waits for them, or they're put on the next flight.

That seems to sidestep the issue neatly. As a passenger, security is not a discrete part of the process. I'm actually surprised that airlines haven't done more to make the security experience more streamlined.

<comment><USER45> Do you know if the airlines pay the TSA for the security?

It seems like adding some direct private funding and influence would help alleviate some of these issues. Of courses that would affect ticket prices, but an extra hundred per passenger wouldn't be such a bad thing if it drastically improved the situation.

<comment><USER62> The airport contracts wee with the TSA. US airports can contract with private security as long as the procedure is TSA-approved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> It's not only TSA personnel (who are, on the whole, so incompetent I wouldn't hire most of the ones I meet to do ANYTHING), it's policy itself. Security policy in much of the world today is reactive and shortsighted - shoe bomber? take off your shoes, Underwear bomber, let's x-ray everyone, etc. etc. - <USER2> just to be able to say they "did something," whether or not is effective or efficient in any way at all.

I remember several years back when the shoe-removal policy has just been relatively new, and I was flying out of Israel. The security personnel there had someone devoted solely to going around telling people NOT to remove their shoes, in order to make sure the lines keep moving.

TSA just could not care less whether people actually make their flights, or whether terrorists get through, as long as they don't get blamed for missing something they should have caught.

</comment><comment><USER64> To this day, I still have "SSSS" (Secondary Security Screening Selection) printed on my boarding pass and have to go through advanced screening every time I go to the U.S (relatively frequently) as a Canadian.

Swab my clothing, dump my backpack, open my laptop up and mess around with it, rub up and down my arms and legs, rough up my privates, the whole shebang.

I can imagine I'm probably on some list somewhere so I have to go through this "random" and time consuming screening every time.

I was once asked why I had a laptop with me, and why such a device was justifiable and necessary for a young male who works in this industry.

Seriously though, it's common knowledge that "SSSS" on your boarding pass means you're going through advanced security screening. What's the point of this if a malicious person can simply see the label and decide not to go through with the flight afterall?

</comment><comment><USER65> The fact that you would spend more time in line than in the air is mind- boggling. I fly from Toronto to Newark on business semi-regularly and it's a 1h15m flight.

I haven't quite experienced a 3-hour wait in Newark but I did have a ~1h30m line earlier this year. I know for a fact a bunch of people in line with me (many who complained about showing up at the airport 2+ hours ahead of time) missed an international flight to India that day.

I immediately signed up for Global Entry after that.

</comment><comment><USER66> What happens when you miss your flight due to screening? I mean if you really had to wait for over 30 minutes for a domestic flight and did not book any expensive ticket which allows rescheduling. Are you allowed to catch the next flight or do you have to buy a new ticket. Furthermore, how do airlines handle your baggage. They won't know that your too late until everybody is in the plane (because you are already checked in). As far as I know, they may not fly with your baggage if you're not in the plane. So if I was late, wouldn't it delay the flight another 20 minutes to find my bags?

<comment><USER67> The airlines usually reschedule you for the next flight. However, your baggage gets sent on the original flight anyway. It is held in the destination airport's baggage office until you get there on the later flight.

<comment><USER68> While this is the general outcome, it should be noted that the airlines are under no legal obligation to help you out.

For the most part they will try to accommodate, but it's not a sure thing and I wouldn't rely on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Story time!

I once wore a glitter sweatshirt through airport security. It made the backscanner machine go crazy and mark my entire shirt area as suspect, back and front. TSA was like "oh, it's the glitter on your shirt." As a result I was subjected to the most ineffective "pat down" ever. The TSA agent ran her hands across my shoulders and clavicle area and that's it. I could have hidden a small arsenal of weapons inside my bra, strapped to my arms, or strapped to my belly. It would be funny if we weren't paying millions for that "security."

<comment><USER29> Yes, I wore a shirt with raised lettering and could clearly see its arc highlighted as red on the machine after I went through. The agents cleared me without further investigation.

High false positive rate can lead to a lot of unsafe situations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I think Trump would abolish the TSA. Cruz has said he would, too. I'd like to see either one get in, though I wonder if the President should be able to just decide on his own to shut down an agency that Congress has approved.

Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them. It affects so many people you could probably get elected just on this issue alone.

<comment><USER10> Ok, the TSA sucks big time and should be abolished. I get that.

But what about the alternatives? In this day and age it's just not thinkable to let people enter a plane without a security check. So you need some entity performing it.

I think one factor on providing successful and to the passenger acceptable (they will never be pleasant) security checks is adequate funding and employing adequately compensated professionals.

It's weird that my wait time on any European airport I ever use is literally always below 10 minutes and usually much less than that. And it's not that checks are less thorough around here.

It really just seems to be a funding issue.

<comment><USER70> I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing screenings. Somehow that got warped into government agents doing the work.

Why is it 'unthinkable' to let people enter a plane without a security check? We let people get on a bus without a security check. If you're worried specifically about someone taking over the plane and crashing it into a building, you can protect the pilots separately from the people.

International flights are a little different, because someone already needs to verify a passport. Even there, I don't think the security checks are actually necessary.

I'm definitely opposed to classifying this as a 'funding issue' and giving the TSA even more money.

<comment><USER10> Then we probably have to agree to disagree.

Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train.

Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high powered rifle, or a - pistol.

In addition I, for one, prefer to take a flight without a bunch of open carry zealots believing that they have a god given rigth to take their guns everywhere and which would surely wind up armed on commercial flights.

But again, we seem to have a completely different opinion here and I have no urge to try to convince you why I don't think it's a good idea to abolish security checks for flights.

<comment><USER71> A normal metal detector will deter the open carry zealots. What's wrong with pre-911 security + reinforced cockpits?

<comment><USER10> Nothing, except that bags where scanned prior to 9/11.

What was essentially added was prohibitions to take a nail clipper onto a plane (which, of course is utterly ludicrous), the rules regarding liquids and the whole cowboy attitude (apparently mostly in the US).

Reinforcing the cockpit doors was actually one of the better ideas. Unless, that is, you have a psychotic, suicidal first officer. But that's a whole different story and anyway couldn't have been caught by airport security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> FWIW, there's a MyTSA app for iPhone & Android that estimates delays, and [http://www.whatsbusy.com/airport](http://www.whatsbusy.com/airport) can also give you a delay heads up.

In my experience flying domestically & internationally every month for the past 6 months, plan to get there 2 hours early for domestic, and 3 hours before for international, and you'll make it on time. This also depends greatly on the time of your flight and the airport, as both have peak times. When flying early, there is no rush. Red-eye, it can be stressful as some people are trying to make the last flight. When flying at more "convenient" times, expect the abbatoir line.

And when you have to make connections and they may be the last flights of the day, remember that the super-cheap internet-deal ticket you got probably does not include any refunds for delays. Certain airports are _constantly_ delayed, so check all your connecting airports and the connection times before you buy.

</comment><comment><USER72> This article (and mainstream discussions, generally) doesn't question the existence of the TSA. The TSA is expensive, ineffective, and anticonstitutional. Yet most people are ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ about it.

<comment><USER73> To be honest, I am ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ about it, because it never takes me as long as everyone on the Internet says it does. I know there are people that get pretty screwed by the system, but for most people, it's not that bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> A highway self-driving car, almost a technological layup at this point, becomes a lot more attractive for short-distance flights.

Would you rather sit in a car and have it drive itself 6 hours to a city while you nap, eat, or read?

Or take two hours at each end of a one-hour flight and deal with the airport.

... and you have your car there to use once you get there if you take the car.

</comment><comment><USER75> Some suggestions for how to improve the situation:

1) Set up a large booth where people can sign up for the TSA pre-check program inside the airport, while they are waiting for their delayed flight, etc.

2) Institute fees for carry-on baggage and reduce fees for checked baggage to reduce the number of bags being screened.

3) Have a separate line for passengers with no carry-on bag that moves 5x faster.

4) Publish statistics about security checkpoint failures, and the overall ineffectiveness of the program. Allow public outrage to result in the TSA being shut down.

5) Offer a free, high throughput lane guaranteed to take under 10 minutes, and a slow lane where passengers are given a $10 meal voucher for putting up with the wait, which could be up to 2 hours.

6) Claim victory over terrorism, and drastically scale back the TSA and the foreign wars/occupations.

<comment><USER41> The best solution is to have everyone go through it. No fast lane, no special categories, just eveyone lined up including those in private jets. If the powerful had to stand in line with the plebes then the TSA would be history before the end of the month.

<comment><USER75> Excellent point. I forgot that private aircraft travelers get to skip it.

<comment><USER76> As much as I despise the whole TSA process, it is ostensibly to prevent terrorists from using an aircraft as a weapon, or destroying it and killing hundreds of passengers. I don't know of any private jets with the amount of chemical or kinetic energy necessary to destroy a skyscraper, nor would the bombing of one result in the deaths of hundreds of passengers.

In other words, private jet passengers are not covered under their mandate because their ability to cause harm is limited by the diminutive size of their aircraft.

<comment><USER75> Some private (corporate) jets are the same size as typical commercial aircraft.

We learned on 9/11 that as soon as word got out about the possibility of terrorists using aircraft as a weapon, the passengers are ready to tackle anyone who appears to be doing this, so the threat was already gone months before the TSA was formed.

Similarly, the military would now shoot down an aircraft in similar circumstances. This does not address the loss-of-life concerns, but does redundantly prevent the use of an aircraft as a weapon.

Also, since it is easy to get weapons through TSA security (it's done often by other government agencies as part of various audits)... There is no reason to believe that the TSA line makes anyone _any_ safer (though the above points do make people safer).

And, as Bruce Schneier points out, one could simply put explosive liquid in a tomato sauce container and attempt to go through security. If it's found, it would be thrown away and the passenger would board without being caught. If it's missed, the system has been thwarted and an attack can occur.

So aside from the initials in TSA reminding of us the concept of security, the agency does little to actually make anyone safer. I'd argue that we have a false sense of security against all but the most unsophisticated attacker.

Also, the main reason the TSA was created was to shield private firms from risk if a banned item got through security and did result in an attack. There was a big restructuring of the terrorism insurance market post 9/11, and the government now "owns" much of the risk. This was thought to be necessary to keep planes flying after 9/11, since the market price of insurance (and flights) would go through the roof if an airline would be held accountable for a 9/11 style attack if one of its minimum wage employees missed a box cutter in someone's bag.

So now we have the TSA and an absurdly regulated public/private partnership that fails in every measurable way and as others have pointed out wastes a tremendous amount of time and resources.

I apologize for the rant, I'm sure you have heard this argument before.

<comment><USER76> No need to apologize, there's great information there for many readers, I'm sure. I myself benefited from the reminder that the TSA serves to deflect liability away from carriers in the event of a dangerous device getting through a security checkpoint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> It would be more efficient if everyone got a little cart as soon as they got in line where they can put their shoes, belts, laptops, etc. Then when you get to the x-ray, the whole cart is inserted. The slow down is always at the point where people are taking out all their stuff. And maybe add some courtesy, unstaffed metal detectors along the route to the checkpoint so you get a heads up metal stuff is in your pockets.

However, I think locked cockpit doors and air marshals have solved most of the airline problems (versus security screening). Also, pre-9/11 most people assumed those hi-jacking planes had some demands and then everyone would be let go without harm. No one thinks that anymore, so passengers will fight.

</comment><comment><USER78> SFO is one of the better TSA operations. The employees of the TSA presence aren't directly employees of DHS; they are employed by a contractor of the TSA. I've found them to be professional and efficient (granted that I have Global Entry). In fact, one of the guards let me keep my Chinese papaya soup with liquid (the papaya cavity was filled with a Chinese birds nest soup). She simply told me that technically she should confiscate my papaya, but that she was going to look the other way, and I left the checkpoint with decent airplane food.

<comment><USER79> Last time I flew (SFO), it took me 25 minutes to get from my car at the South SF Bart station to beyond security. I still hate the TSA, but I've never had the delays that people talk about as commonplace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> It's strange that the security lines are suddenly getting worse everywhere, the last several months. I regularly fly Denver->San Jose. While the lines at Denver can be quite awful, I used to be able to count on getting through San Jose security quickly. Lately, though, even San Jose has been getting backed up, and the airport has resorted to putting signs in the security line encouraging passengers to complain to TSA.

I'm quite nervous about what time I need to get to Denver airport tomorrow morning. :(

<comment><USER81> Same. Early fight out of DEN and am just seeing this (and packing) now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Why is this so much worse state-side though? All the European airports seem fine & I don't think they're significantly less thorough (or effective).

One thing I did notice EU side is that procedures differ wildly not just from airport to airport but also from day to day. e.g. Last flight they took particular interest in my DSLR - switched it on & wanted to look through the viewfinder to make sure the lens is an actual optical lens. Flight before they didn't even make me take it out the bag.

</comment><comment><USER83> And yet every time you wait in the line theres at least 2 TSA agents standing around not doing anything.

Here's an idea why don't we give all Americans a free TSA screening instead of charging $85.00. Then we can reduce their work force even further and actually make some progress in reducing wait times.

What's amazing is that in the 15 years since this agency was created there has been no visible innovation in expediting this process. None. The only innovation I have seen is someone in the agency did took the initiative to sell advertising spots on the inside of the gray bins.

This agency seems to have completely forgotten their mandate. Their job was to look out for us no make us miss our flights and humiliate us.

I also like that they claim its due to an increase in air travelers. Really? Is everyone just flying more because money is just burning a hole in their pocket. The TSA is really the most absurd bit of theater.

</comment><comment><USER84> What's going to finally change this is when there's a particularly bad day, and security lines are likely to make enough people late, that a swarm effect happens and a mass of people just says "no more" and walks through. Just like the fences at outdoor concerts. It takes a few fearless/stupid people to break through, and progressively less fearless/stupid individuals to follow, having watched enough ahead of them follow. Once the video of this gets out, it'll happen again, and again, "like that time in that other airport!", and eventually, we'll end up with sane rules, or no one will fly because it'll become so prohibitively expensive to fund the theater (and then the airlines will get government bailouts)

<comment><USER85> Ugh, i just fat-fingered the downvote button. Now i'll have to unmask myself to show my amusement and almost-wishing-it'd-happen at this idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> At sea-tac the other day, I watched them completely close a screening line so that they could perform a shift change. Really? You have to shut down the ENTIRE LINE in order to change out a few people? These people need lessons in efficiency.

If time were money to them, this crap wouldn't happen.

</comment><comment><USER87> Just had multiple-leg international travel, all the involved airports from different countries ran a set of security and customs checks that were comprehensive enough for real threats (document verification, metal detectors, scanning all luggage, even drug dogs). No security theater though e.g. removal of shoes.

In all cases the process (including queues) took less than 15 minutes. What is the problem in USA? If some of your checking procedures are unreasonably long or require more workforce than you have, then change those procedures.

Arriving for an international trip (either from outside of from another plane) an hour before takeoff is sufficient if airport can organize things properly.

<comment><USER73> For the vast majority of people, it's not actually that bad. I've never spent more than 15 minutes going through security, and that includes international trips. And I come and go primarily through O'Hare, one of the busiest airports in the country.

The Internet allows everyone to see every one of the small percentage of cases that take longer, with nobody noticing how many still aren't that big a deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Horrific. For comparison, when I flew Sydney/Melbourne recently it took me 2 minutes in line and 30 seconds through security, and that's including being singled out for the bomb-residue swab. Never needed to present an ID, either.

</comment><comment><USER89> PSA on "trusted traveller" programs: enroll in NEXUS.

It is the cheapest of the generally available programs at $50 for 5 years, versus $85 for Pre-Check and $100 for Global Entry. It is also the most privileged, affording all of the benefits of Global Entry and Pre-Check, and additionally allows expedited entry into Canada. It is available to citizens and permanent residents of the US and Canada.

The only downside is that the interview must be conducted at one of the enrollment centers that are in US/Canadian border cities (e.g., Seattle, Vancouver, Detroit...) or major Canadian airports, so you'd have to make a trip if you're not nearby.

</comment><comment><USER90> It's only a matter of time until some asshole blows up a security line. If you look at countries with real terrorism problems (eg Israel) they handle their airport security very, very differently.

<comment><USER91> isn't that what they did in brussels?

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I just now completed the online application for TSA PRE, but I am curious about something... I've been VERY, (very) vocally critical of the US government, the DHS, TSA, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc., here, on my blog, on Twitter, on Facebook, etc. I've always wondered if that would affect me if I applied for PRE. So, have any of you experienced any issues getting accepted for PRE, based on your political positions/ statements/whatever? Or even heard of anybody who did?

Just curious about what to expect...

</comment><comment><USER93> Am I the only one who thinks telling an online community about how you managed to sneak X past TSA is a bad idea ?

People at TSA are doing their duty which is essentially completely pointless. Also it is the case everywhere. When I was in India I by mistake carried my wife passport and boarding pass and she carried mine when we entered the security post. The security guard carefully matched the boarding pass name with the passport name and let us pass!

</comment><comment><USER94> I really do wonder how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled by TSA/ security staff.

They seem to just be following guidelines with ZERO common sense. E.g. most screw drivers ok, but not safety scissors. My biggest pet-hate is the ban on liquids over 100ml, anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows that explosives (by their very definition) are volatile and you really do not want to start drinking any.

<comment><USER95> You're completely wrong about explosives. They're not necessarily volatile, and in fact the best ones aren't.

Dynamite will burn slowly and without any explosion. Other materials like C-4 are ridiculously stable under most circumstances to the point where there are stories of troops using it to light fires.

Without a proper initiator most explosives are basically safe. An initiator usually introduces a lot of heat, a large amount of shock, or both, which kicks off the explosion.

Likewise, many liquid explosives are totally harmless until the two components are mixed together, at which point it becomes extremely dangerous. I'm not sure what would happen if you drank either component, but my guess is you might become ill a few hours later. If your goal is more short-term in nature that is probably irrelevant.

My biggest gripe about the liquid limit is that dangerous explosives come in many forms, liquid is just one. You could probably smuggle a kilogram of thermite on the plane and nobody would notice, yet if ignited that would be extremely dangerous.

<comment><USER94> C4 isn't a liquid so it isn't on their radar (luckily dogs & machines can detect it). When travelling back to the UK from France, they wouldn't let me take a bike bottle with 80ml of water in it (for my medication), the bottle had measurements on the side for adding supplements. But, it was ok to carry some cheese for my mother.

The explosive element of C4 is RDX, RDX causes seizures when ingested in small doses. Plus, a key ingredient is Nitric acid - I don't fancy trying any. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX#Toxicity)

Interesting fact: The US produced 15,000 tons of RDX per month during World War 2, gives you some idea of the level of destruction during that period.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> There are two improvements to airline security that have occurred since the world trade center attacks:

1\. Blast-proof cockpit doors 2\. Better passenger awareness

Let's put in perspective why this is: a terrorist with resources can easily get weapons on a plane. You blackmail and bribe a bunch of security people, tell them it's drugs, and you're in.

But then they run into problems. They can threaten passengers, but the passengers know that if they let the terrorists take over the plane they're dying anyway, so they're going to fight to the death: this realization was enough that by itself passenger awareness prevented whatever attack was intended with the plane that went down in central Pennsylvania.

And if somehow the terrorists kill all the passengers, they come up against the blast-proof door. It's probably possible to get past that if they smuggle some truly gigantic fireworks on board, but whatever they do to get through the door is probably going to take down the plane; not exactly a targeted attack.

So at the very worst, you're looking at them killing max 120 people on a plane? Let's be generous and say they kill 300.

Let's do some back-of-the-napkin math here:

There were 9,074,185 revenue departures on planes in 2015[1]. There were no crashes. So even if a terrorist hijiacking happened _every year_ you'd have a 300 in 9,074,185 chance, or about 1 in 30,000 chance, of dying on a plane.

In 2013 there were 10.345 motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 people[2]. So just by living in a society where people drive, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from a car. Not _in_ a car, _from_ a car. If you're _in_ a car, your chances are probably significantly higher.

In other words, we could let a real hijacking attempt get as successful as one can get once a year and planes would be more than three times safer than cars. At that rate, we could probably get rid of TSA security completely and devote all that funding to car safety, and it would make us safer.

[1] [http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

</comment><comment><USER97> I find it absurd that a central agency manages the hiring of tsa agents. In Canada and Australia the airports hire private security to do the checks. They are more competent and friendly than tsa agents.

It's also not obvious how a government run tsa could be trusted any more than regulated private security contractors (overseen and kept accountable by a smaller government agency).

<comment><USER98> Ironic that the "smaller government" party implemented this system after 9/11 then, no?

<comment><USER99> Wait. There's a smaller government party?

<comment><USER100> > Wait. There's a smaller government party?

No, there's a "smaller government" party. The quotes are important, as the reference is to a rhetorical position rather than a substantive one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> I just flew out of Newark, and other family members flew out of LaGuardia, we didn't experience this at all.

In fact, on the way back I had Precheck for reason, and I'm waiting in that line, looking at the completely regular security line wondering if the regular one would have been faster. (and even in precheck I get "randomly selected" to go through the body scanner...)

</comment><comment><USER102> Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for an Absurd Waste of Incompetent Theatrics

^^ Made the title more accurate ^^

</comment><comment><USER103> My cousin just got sent back to Europe this morning for no specified reason and was given 90 seconds to call his family before being ejected from the USA. Just on vacation and going to house sit for my mom.

Still waiting on him landing so I can get more details. What a dumb world.

<comment><USER89> That's Customs and Border Protection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> 73 guns in carry-ons in ONE WEEK and that is only what they found, so at least double that, probably quadruple

wtf is wrong with people

my last plane flight was in 1999, I doubt I am ever flying again, not because of terrorists, but because of the other people flying and the TSA terrorizing people

</comment><comment><USER105> As someone who fly quite often, fuck the TSA.

Seeing that O'Hare picture in the article makes me so angry (as that's when I fly the most to/from). Last times it took 3 hours to pass the border.

Here's an idea: boo people who are in the "TSA pre" lines.

<comment><USER106> > _Here 's an idea: boo people who are in the "TSA pre" lines._

What does that solve?

<comment><USER105> people will top giving their money to the TSA.

<comment><USER79> *People will be glad they spent money to more quickly pass the weird people booing from the normal line.

Doesn't TSA pre cost $80 for 5 years? That's gotta be worth it if you fly even once per year.

<comment><USER105> Out of principles, not giving money to the TSA. Call me weird if you want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> Somehow I automatically got TSA Pre that last time I passed security and moved through the Pre line, which is much faster. I'm thinking to just get Global Entry which covers TSA Pre and lasts five years.

<comment><USER34> You should definitely get Global Entry; it's incredible. It was extremely low- hassle to get and worth 10x the cost. I got it for the TSA Pre but coming off of a 25-hour flight and not having to fill out any form or go through immigration AT ALL is amazing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> Whenever in line for TSA security, there's a little trick that you can try to increase your patience level by a good margin:

Remember the large mass of people in front of you will, more than likely, resemble a bell curve of intelligence. This means some of these people are smarter than average, and shouldn't have much of any trouble with the process. This also means half the people are dumber than average, and will find new and innovative ways to mess things up because they didn't read, plan ahead, or are otherwise obvlivious to higher-level thought.

It doesn't help with the cause of the problem, but certainly helps with the symptoms.

</comment><comment><USER109> Why are Canadians (who are often flying to U.S. cities) not required to take their shoes off in the security line whereas U.S. travellers are required to do so?

<comment><USER64> Canadian here, I most certainly am required to take off my shoes every time I go to the states. Though I don't use NEXUS and always have to go through secondary screening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER110> My global entry interview is in 9 days. It can't come fast enough. It sucks you have to pay $100 to be treated like a human being, but here we are.

</comment><comment><USER111> It's really nice to go through the "premium screening" line. Generally it means that you probably fly too much, but it is still nice.

</comment><comment><USER112> Good. Perhaps the airlines will start fighting to get rid of TSA if they start losing money.

</comment><comment><USER113> $99 for global entry for 5 years, includes tsa-pre was such a no brainer.

I've noticed in MIA airport, one security line might be packed , then you walk 4 minutes to the next one and its nearly empty (same staff at both).

Toronto security heading back to the US is fascinating, tons of passengers, but the screening process is broken up into multiple human touch points. Felt more fluid.

</comment><comment><USER76> I have PreCheck, first due to my frequent traveler status with my (at the time) favored airline (which, as I understand it, PreCheck doesn't offer any longer) and then as a paid member, when I noticed that over ten consecutive entries, I was redirected to the non-PreCheck screening side 8 times (it now happens much less).

When I fly out of Houston's IAH (Terminal A), I routinely get mixed into the same screening area as non-PreCheck travelers (after a shorter line for the travel document checks). I show my boarding pass on my phone or my watch with the little check mark when I enter the screening area to an agent that never scanned my boarding pass, nor have they been in communication to the agent who did scan my boarding pass. They _visually_ check that the checkmark logo is there, then orally call out to the machine operators that I'm PreCheck, and I don't have to take out my laptop or take off my shoes/jacket.

I also got grandfathered with a tiny membership rate into the CLEAR program in its current (second) generation, a program that doesn't hide its commercial status at all, and says clearly "pay for this and you'll have zero wait". I get to IAH Terminal A, tell the CLEAR agent I'm a member, and they _quickly_ computer-scan my pass and verify my fingerprint. They walk me to the TSA podium, flash their CLEAR ID badge, and tell them my identity and boarding pass was verified (and that I'm PreCheck, since my known traveler number is associated with my CLEAR account as well). One more quick scan of my pass and I'm through the longest part of the wait: waiting for them to check my ID. I'm through security even on the busiest of days in about 15 minutes, mostly in 5 minutes. I know the wait time would grow again if everyone had CLEAR, but the ID verification part would be super fast.

Security lines themselves only seem clogged up by people who don't follow the rules (because they aren't frequent travelers) or who object to them. I don't agree with the rules, I write my congressperson to object to them, and I'm embarrassed by them when I'm speaking with people who don't live in this country. But until my letters to my congressperson (the method by which "We The People" can actually influence our government) are joined with millions more, security theater will remain.

CLEAR showed me that ID verification with PreCheck (since they have your fingerprints anyway) could be quick and efficient. It isn't. Some US airports have security lines that move quickly even in the busiest times, because agents are helping passengers comply in advance with rules with which many travelers are unfamiliar. So it can be better there, too.

But to effect change in our government, we have to participate in our government, which goes beyond voting every four years; it means writing to the representatives you or your neighbors have voted into office.

</comment><comment><USER114> I fly out of ewr often, security is fast and easy. What sucks is flight delays.

</comment><comment><USER115> Inevitably I find the behavior of my fellow passengers much more insufferable than the TSA.

</comment><comment><USER116> I rarely fly, so consider my statement in that context.

I actually approve of the TSA making flying more onerous. Flying comes at a very high environmental and economic cost to society. We need more trains, more hyperloops, and more VR.

<comment><USER117> Not going to work in low density regions like all of the USA aside from the coasts. Flying is less polluting per mile than driving btw. Also, why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices?

<comment><USER118> > Flying is less polluting per mile than driving

Flying emits less CO2 per passenger mile than a person driving a car without any passengers, but more than a car with one passenger in addition to the driver[1]. But if people can't fly then they probably just won't travel very far, which is even better.

> why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices?

Perhaps you should, in cases where the GP's choices impose a significant cost on you. In general, it is absolutely in everyone's best interest for everyone else to fly less often.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport)</comment></comment></comment>


Hacked hacking company: Terrorists could be using our tools right now - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/07/08/hacked-hacking-company-terrorists-could-be-using-our-tools-right-now/

<comment><USER2> You should've thought of that before making those spying tools - no?

I mean, you're building malware, and then when that malware is stolen from you, you're going to say "oh no - what if the terrorists get it!" \- When "you" is a company that has had absolutely no problem selling those tools to help oppressive governments spy on journalists and human rights activists.

So excuse me while I don't believe your feigned worry.

<comment><USER3> Don't fall for it. The goal here is to blame the leak, make people believe that because of this leak terrorists now have more power. Associate leak with terror increasing their power. Pretend that the software is a "natural cause" that had to happen anyway, and only this irresponsible leak is the problem.

<comment><USER4> This. It's the nature of profit-oriented business and "insurance".

Before anti-virus companies started to spring up, in the early days of computer virii, AV software was free and trustworthy. It's in the best interest of the AV companies to make a bad situation worse to the degree they can get away with it.</comment></comment></comment>


User script to improve readability and night mode for hackers news - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/beenotung/f282dd39376b042841751f3536e616d6 <comment><AUTHOR> A simple script[0] to inject custom CSS rules into the website with tampermonkey[1] or userscript[2]

[0] [https://gist.github.com/beenotung/f282dd39376b042841751f3536...](https://gist.github.com/beenotung/f282dd39376b042841751f3536e616d6)

[1] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/tampermonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/tampermonkey)

[2] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user- script](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-script)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly, on most sites, simply applying an invert filter and set max width on the body already done most of the work.</comment>


US politicians told: beware geeks bearing gifts - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/aug/28/fbi-laptop-investigation <comment><USER2> Seems like the logical extension of another cute trick: Dropping a trojan'd USB key in the office parking lot and waiting for a curious employee to find it.</comment>


From Stanford to Startup: Instagram Co-Founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger  - wh-uws http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2735

<comment><AUTHOR> Added notes from the talk here: [https://github.com/prakhar1989/Stanford- Etalks/blob/master/i...](https://github.com/prakhar1989/Stanford- Etalks/blob/master/instagram.markdown)

</comment><comment><USER2> All else aside, this story is an inspiration to people like me that are in the US on restrictive H1B visas, like Krieger was.

All I need to do now is find out how the hell he did it. Well, that is to say, who he got to help him with it...

</comment><comment><USER3> I really enjoyed Kevin's response to the question about work-life balance. It really goes to show that you don't need to sleep 20 hours a week and stay up till 3am coding every night to "make it."

</comment><comment><USER4> That's really a great example against the Dropout myth. Shows that's it success is more random than many thinks.</comment>


Mt Everest in 3D: Everest Avalanche Tragedy - <AUTHOR> http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/mt-everest-journey.html <comment><USER3> This is the thing that I was wishing existed a couple of months ago when I read "Into Thin Air". It's a fantastic read about the 1996 Mount Everest disaster where eight climbers died, but I often had difficulty visualising what was going on. (There's also a film, Everest, due out next year.)

To be better convey what it's like to climb Everest, I think this visualisation would be improved if it had more annotations about what makes climbing difficult and the dangers involved. For example, the Khumbu Icefall is a fast moving glacier with many crevasses and ice towers, and has a habit of hosting avalanches and falling ice towers. Climbers try to limit the amount of time they spent here due to the danger, although Sherpa guides tend to cross it many times to stock Camp 1 in preparation for their clients.

<comment><USER4> I'd like to recommmend Touching the Void, an amazing mountaineering/survival story. Was also made into a movie that the author of the book seems to have favorable opinion of.

<comment><USER5> There's a documentary also called "Touching The Void", which has fairly in- depth interviews with both climbers involved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am deeply frustrated that there is absolutely zero sense of scale in this visualization. How big are people? How big are the camps? I have no idea.

<comment><USER7> One crazy way to think about it, looking down at base camp at ~17,000 feet you're looking at a spot that's higher than almost all the mountains in the US.

<comment><USER8> Driving into Colorado from the west, I drove over a mountain pass that was something like 12000 ft high. When I got to my destination, I thought I'd convert that into meters and compare to the mountains back home in Australia. 12000' is 3600m... and the tallest mountain back home is Kosciuszko, which is 2200m high. I'd just driven over a pass 50% higher than the peak of the tallest mountain back home...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I know it is a sign of the amazing times we live in, but that managed to be less than I expected. It's not at a 3D model, but 'just' a panorama.

And yes, the times are amazing. Look at [http://www.everest3d.de/en/everest- in-3d/everest-3d-app.html](http://www.everest3d.de/en/everest- in-3d/everest-3d-app.html). It looks like somebody thinks he can make money by selling an app that allows those on Everest to browse a 3D model of the mountain (what else is the GPS option for?)

</comment><comment><USER10> On a related note, the other huge resolution photo tour of everest seems to have a bunch of clickable links, which take you to more detailed up close photo tours.. this is truly cool as a companion: [http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167621313/a-billion-pixel- tour...](http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167621313/a-billion-pixel-tour-of- mount-everest)

</comment><comment><USER11> It would be nice to me able to switch the elevation to meters

</comment><comment><USER12> Kinda puts into perspective how it's just a bunch of tall, snowy rocks.

</comment><comment><USER13> The problem with ALL of these images, virtual 3d tours, interactive maps - <USER2> just does NOT show scale! What does a person look like in these images? I have never been there, but I have no sense of scale of these images. Can a person be seen from these?

<comment><USER14> I believe a large tree would barely be visible at this scale.

(Of course, there are no trees because this is far, far above treeline)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've never seen a photo or visualization that gives a feel for the size of the area at the summit of Everest. There are thousands of photos taken at summit of course, but it's always someone standing on the summit himself, so you don't know how much space is behind the photographer.

According to this source [http://www.alanarnette.com/everest/everestsouthroutes.php](http://www.alanarnette.com/everest/everestsouthroutes.php) the summit is 30 square feet (or 3 square meters). I'd still love to see an close-up aerial photo from a helicopter or plane directly overhead.

<comment><USER16> You won't find helicopter - air is too thin (one of the reasons why rescues are hard). But maybe a plane could give you one.

<comment><USER17> [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/h...](http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Would be better if it had meters and showing where people slept, and how many days you have to stay in each camp etc.

<comment><USER19> The camps where people sleep are marked approximately.

Here's an example acclimatization schedule from one expedition company: [http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/accli.htm](http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/accli.htm) The schedule doesn't mention camp 4 because you ideally only stay there the night before a summit attempt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's nice to see the Sherpa getting some acknowledgement.

I never understood why, when a rich white dude pays tens of thousands of dollars for a bunch of other dudes to scout a path, clear out obstacles, set up camps and caches, and carefully escort him up a mountain, it's the rich white dude who gets the credit and glory. I mean, it's still a pretty impressive achievement, but it's not half so impressive as the guys who do it day in, day out for a simple living.

<comment><USER8> I imagine that amongst the Sherpa, it's the guides that get the recognition, and one rich white is much the same as another. Cultures tend to lionise their own members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm still mesmerized - the technology behind the site and the the beauty of nature. I will never make it there in my life - but being able to appreciate it almost in first person, makes me so happy. The sound of the wind adds another dimension.

Would have been so cool if I could send this to my Geography teacher in my school 15 years back. She is probably still drawing bergschrund, crevasses, gorges in a blackboard with chalk.

</comment><comment><USER22> Turn off your Adblock if you have problems with loading

</comment><comment><USER23> Really enjoyed the visualization, even if it was a little hard to get a sense of the scale.

With no flat area, Camp 3 looks like a bear to stay at. If anyone is curious, wind speeds get up to an estimated 175 mph (78 m/s) at the summit [1]. I would be worried about being whisked off of the top of the summit.

[1] [http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/extreme- we...](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/extreme-weather-the- weather-of-the-summit-of-mt-everest)

</comment><comment><USER24> I tried this on an iPad and 3d viewing works with the gyroscope. I got a 360 view on the summit just by spinning around on my chair sitting at home. Very cool!

<comment><USER10> Yes this is seriously cool effect. Showed it to my five year old and she got dizzy :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is it me or is this the first time we have seen an MP4 working in tandem with javascript? Does anyone have any other examples of this? Looks great.

<comment><USER26> Nope, seen many examples of this recently (but I'm a web developer, and we usually pass around links to the latest and greatest). Of course, I can't think of one off the top of my head now...

<comment><USER25> If you remember them, please post here... I am surprised there is so little interactive HTML5-MP4 examples right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So, I posted before the "billion pixel tour" from NPR, but the guys who actually created it have a far cooler narrative which shows the whole trek, not just one vantage point.. start here: [http://explore.glacierworks.org/en/](http://explore.glacierworks.org/en/)

</comment><comment><USER27> These guys have video of a lot of that climb. www.trekvisions.com

</comment><comment><USER28> Never loaded on Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER29> Never loaded..

<comment><USER30> Same here. I don't see why privacy invading JS bloat from facebook, twitter, google analytics or scorecardresearch should be critical for its operation.

<comment><USER26> I contract for a media company that handles (and cleanses) PII ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_inform...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information)). We take this information very seriously. We could give a shit about who you are, we just want you to become the same anonymous number for tracking reasons. Why is this such a big deal? AT WORST you'd get ads actually targeted to your interests instead of bullshit ads you can't click through (see: YouTube). Perhaps I'm sort of less sensitive to this since my first name and last name is a primary key to me (there is nobody else with my name combo on the planet, meaning I'm horribly googleable already).

<comment><USER20> > _We could give a shit about who you are, we just want you to become the same > anonymous number for tracking reasons._

Maybe I don't want to become an anonymous number for tracking reasons.

Anyway, maybe your particular company is all nice and responsible, but if so you're hardly representative.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Rackspace versus EC2, is it worth it for support? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a big EC2 fan. It's incredibly inexpensive and being somewhat comfortable with the command line, it's a good fit for small projects.
A friend of mine is launching a new product and chose Rackspace for the support options they offer. He's not a server guy, and to him having someone available to help fix or scale his servers is worth the little extra he pays.
I have zero experience in load balancing and scaling. My question is: how hard is to learn or at least muddle through if I expect rapid growth? Or is it worth it to have support on hand if I need it? <comment><USER2> I've tested both Rackspace Cloud Servers and Amazon EC2, and am currently using Rackspace Cloud Servers in production for my site. There are a number of factors that influenced this decision: \- Support is definitely a factor. I've found the support reps at Rackspace to be really helpful, and in cases, depending who you speak to there, they sometimes go above the call of duty. I had a rep help me setup configure haproxy for load balancing while on their standard support (not managed). \- I've found setup to be simpler. I feel this is an entirely subjective area, but in setting up a new server, I typically just want a clean Ubuntu box. Having community made instances are nice, but not something I need or use, so selecting an AMI just seems to make it more confusing.

Overall, I'd say it's very much based on what you're doing. My site is quite simple, so the additional services Amazon offers just complicate the setup, and Rackspace wins in ease of use. If you're startup requires high amounts of memory, cpu or disk space, then Amazon's the winner. I've found scaling Rackspace also to be a lot simpler. When my site's been featured on Mashable, Fast Company, GigaOm, etc., in a couple clicks (even from my iPhone), I can scale to a bigger box.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing my application will probably require lots of memory. I plan on eventually implementing memcached because of the number of database reads that I will require.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's my 2 cents for what is worth. I have managed several large scale installations at Rackspace, and I have to say that there is a huge disparity between their advertised support, and the quality of support you actually get. I was constantly unimpressed with the overall knowledge of their staff, and had numerous issues with them doing maintenance at the wrong time on our servers. For instance I would open a ticket saying to do it at 2AM PST, and notice that 2PM that day my server is being restarted by some incompetent sysadmin.

In all honesty I wouldn't trust Rackspace to host any of my servers anymore, and would either colo something somewhere else, use MediaTemple, or continue using EC2.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been a Rackspace customer on and off for about six years. In that time, I've definitely seen a drop in the overall quality of support. Their managed mail product is less much mature than Noteworthy used to be (it blows my mind that I have to submit support tickets to cancel mailboxes), and it's a roll of the dice every time I submit a support ticket. Still, I made a six-month detour to another 'premium' provider last year, and that was an absolute nightmare. I had something like thirty hours of downtime with this other host, and that experience was enough to send me back to Rackspace.

</comment><comment><USER5> In my experience, it is usually possible to get through periods of rapid growth without pre-existing support or knowledge. Sometimes you learn fast enough to manage on your own; sometimes you have to bring in experts after- the-fact, and pay through the nose. But there's no rule that says you need to ask for help now. If you want to "muddle through", you will probably manage.

Paradoxically, technology companies are rarely killed by a lack of _technical_ know-how.

That said, there's also no shame in having support in place. If you already know that high scalability is not your core competency, and if you aren't intensely interested in making it be, having pre-existing support can be very helpful. I don't know how good Rackspace support is in particular, but I've often had very helpful conversations and planning sessions with support (mostly ISVs). Not to mention, it may be more cost-effective to consult them now than try to put out the fire later.

<comment><AUTHOR> After reading the other comments and yours, it looks like it might be better not to worry too much up front about "what ifs", especially considering that I'm technical and could learn on the fly if needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> probably not the answer you're looking for but I've been very happy since moving to MediaTemple

24 hour support and they've been able to help me every single time I've called them.

Their GridService scales with traffic bursts so you don't have to worry about a whole lot. My site was featured on Mashable and brought in about 12K hits in a few hours and it handled it just fine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I was under the impression that MediaTemple was only for web hosting.

<comment><USER7> You can run anything you want on their VPSes, just like any other VPS provider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I used to use RimuHosting before I switched totally over to AWS because that is what customers wanted to use, so I wanted to be on the same platform for my own projects.

RimuHosting always provided very good support, and I think that they are much less expensive than Rackspace, so you might want to check them out.</comment>


Bug 647959 – Add Honest Achmed's root certificate - <AUTHOR> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959 <comment><USER2> The problem is that we are forced to trust a particular CA because the company we are dealing with chose to buy their certificate from that particular CA.

Whilst PKI provides solutions for this [1], they are not really practical in SSL.

In any case, that's not how it works in the real world.

In the real world, Achmed's uncles do trust Achmed, and might well trust him to validate the identity of a business partner.

In essence, that's the logic behind PGP.

What if SSL could be enhanced to allow PGP verification of counterparties? That way anyone could become the equivalent of a root CA, but your value would only be as good as your reputation / integrity.

Trusted entities, like the governments, could vouch for the keys of their agencies - or other governments.

Friends and Family could vouch for each others keys, businesses for their partners... etc etc.

Unlike PKI, PGP would enable counterparties to establish their identiy by having many validating partners (paid and unpaid), as opposed to the one single root CA that is available.

As well as bringing the source of trust closer to the relying party (really, I live in Australia, who the hell is Comodo anyway?), the network of trust that would result could be articulated in the browser in many different ways.

eg: 25 of your friends and 600 businesses agree that this is the identity of Visa.

Twenty years ago this wouldn't have worked. But today, we could use the root CA SSL system to bootstrap a network of trust that becomes independent of the old hierarchy.

I hope all that makes sense.

[1] eg: certificate revocation, or even the user removing the root CA from her own key store.

<comment><USER3> Your proposition is indeed interesting, but let's not forget about the herd mentality. If a more technical savvy user will vouch for a certificate, tens of less technical users might follow and then you'll have the wrong impression about that certificate.

<comment><USER4> You mean like Madoff?

<comment><USER2> More like LinkedIn

<comment><USER4> Interesting. What's your objection to LinkedIn? Or are you just making a reference to the herd?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For the curious, the procedure for applying to be included as a CA : <https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:How_to_apply> and <https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Recommended_Practices>

and the list of included certificate with their audit "certificate: <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/certs/included/> or the pending list: <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/certs/pending/>

As long as Mr. Honest Achmed is able to provide the appropriate audit certificate...

<comment><USER6> which will be provided by Honest Achmed's Auto Insurance and Audits

<comment><USER7> It's turtles all the way down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Achmed is honest. He even says so.

Give him a root cert, certainly errors won't happen more than once, and anyway it would be an honest slip-up.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, and it sounds like it will be better than Comodo, I mean, "who knows", let's give it a chance...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> All of this talk reminds me of Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge, a near future novel set in a future where augmented reality is ubiquitous. As part of the climax of the book there is talk of revoking a root certificate which would cause most of European commerce to grid to a halt.

Vinge is a computer scientist so the whole thing reads very well from a hacker's perspective. Also it won the Hugo & Locus awards in 2007. Am a big fan.

Wikipedia Entry: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End>

Buy it: [http://www.amazon.com/Rainbows-End-Vernor- Vinge/dp/081253636...](http://www.amazon.com/Rainbows-End-Vernor- Vinge/dp/0812536363)

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this a satirical response to something Mozilla did?

<comment><USER12> Not just Mozilla, really the entire CA hierarchy is broken. Everyone's kind of known it for a while, but nothing went majorly wrong until last month: [http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2011/03/how-the- comodo-...](http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2011/03/how-the-comodo- certificate-fraud-calls-ca-trust-into-question.ars)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> TLDR for this HN thread: The problem posed by the mix of technical issues and ethnic prejudices in this "bug report" is apparently more complex than what the HN community can deal with. This is a low point for the quality of discussions on HN.

<comment><USER14> When I looked (2 hours after your comment), the top comments were pretty sensible. Looks like downvoting works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _www.honestachmed.dyndns.org_

Brilliant.

<comment><USER16> I tried going there, but the site was down. Damn hackers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is kind of racist.

<comment><USER18> I'm Middle Eastern, and I think this is hilarious. Anyone who is offended by this, can you please unplug your internet cables so the rest of us can stop being all touchy?

In Turkish there is a very fitting proverb which loosely translates to "Whoever has a scar will take offense" meaning if you say something, and someone overreacts to it, it's not your fault and probably just because _they_ have some hidden problem or feeling of inadequacy (the "scar").

If everyone can take themselves a little less seriously, we'd all be a little less pissed. Thank you for listening. </rant>

Edit: Okay, here comes Pandora's Box again. The way I see it, what is so offensive about racist speech (or any generalization for that matter) is the presumption that all members of that group are equally <insert derogatory adjective here>. Once you realize how absurd, dumb and wrong that is, I don't see how anyone could possibly take racism seriously and be offended by it. At most, you should conclude that the person who is making the remarks is probably not intelligent, and not worth your time.

Heck, perhaps I have some sort of emotional deficiency or something, but I don't even see how people can get so angry about _words_. For example, I have seen people taunting each other with stuff like "your mother was amazing in bed last night", and the other person getting gradually angrier up to the point that they start physically fighting. I think it's a very curious thing about the human psyche that I can make up something absurd, blabber about it, and get another human to the point of total lack of self control. I think it's all just a dumb made up social convention that we're better off without.

<comment><USER19> "Lighten up, will ya? Why can't we all enjoy a little racist caricature?"

Everyone deserves a presumption of respect and dignity. I don't make bigoted caricatures at the expense of others just to make some point about trust and certificates, and I don't expect other people to enjoy and defend it when someone is ignorant enough to resort to racist caricature.

It's the whole Ruby sexism debate all over again, I guess.

link for Ruby sexism debate reference: [http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/04/gender-and- sex-...](http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/04/gender-and-sex-at- gogaruco/)

<comment><USER20> Yes, you know who also deserves respect and dignity and the benefit of any doubt you can come up with? The author of the OP.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Keyloggers Injected in Web Trust Seal Supply Chain Attack - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/keyloggers-injected-in-web-trust-seal-supply-chain-attack/ <comment><USER2> Third-party Javascript considered harmful. Use SRI!

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity)

</comment><comment><USER3> Another in the growing line of supply chain attacks. It's inevitable that as primary sites improve their security, attackers will seek to exploit other elements in the chain that might present easier targets.

Given the number of 3rd party JavaScript files that commonly get loaded for things like tracking and analytics, it seems likely we'll see more of these kinds of sites getting targeted.

</comment><comment> ga-vu Only 100 sites impacted: [https://publicwww.com/websites/%22d20iczrsxk7wft.cloudfront....](https://publicwww.com/websites/%22d20iczrsxk7wft.cloudfront.net%2Fbotwverified%2Fbadge.js%22/)

Appears these seals have died out.

<comment><USER3> Glad to see they're dying out, they really did seem to me like an example of Security Theatre.

<comment><USER4> These particular ones are $29.95/month, and don't appear to include any sort of scanning, verification, etc. So there's not even a "theater level" attempt to relate to security.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use dnscrypt and log all my DNS queries, I'm pretty relieved to see that I've never looked up the domain used to exfiltrate the data! Gist of the unobfuscated code is here: [https://gist.github.com/gwillem/4403a9caf6877d6276cf6fe834a0...](https://gist.github.com/gwillem/4403a9caf6877d6276cf6fe834a0b48a)

</comment><comment><USER6> Trust seals are easily faked and train users to trust in band signaling (eg images of locks etc to mimic HTTPS, logos etc) instead of paying attention to the URL bar.

They should be considered harmful with or without malicious javascript.

</comment><comment><USER7> Isn't it ironic, dontcha think?</comment>


Ask HN: Anxiety of learning Python and Devops (Kubernetes)? - <AUTHOR> When I go to industry events and meetups I meet a lot of younger devs and more senior people re-tooling their skills. They express frustration that it is not enough to simply update with python, but that you also have to have the devops mindset as well.
They feel like the workload is 2x or 3x because the responsibilities have expanded beyond code alone. The anxiety they express is that the goal posts keep moving, and they feel left behind.
Question to the group -- have you experienced this, or do you see it among your peers? <comment><USER2> I'm in a position where my responsibilities have expanded from just coding to doing a bunch of "devops" things, containers, CICD, clusters (we're using ECS rather than Kubernetes). It's extremely daunting to think about mastering all of these things. My advice is to focus on solving problems. Learn what you need to solve the problem at hand, and then move on. For me, it's the only way I survive. I'd never get anything done if I had to master Kubernetes before actually accomplishing anything.

<comment><USER3> +1 for this. Gives you immense satisfaction. Learn tools in the process.

"focus on solving problems"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Software architecture has changed a lot with the advent of "the cloud" \- which IMO, is just a marketing term for the hybrid of the pre-existing internet and distributed computing. This sort of highly distributed and complex architecture (i.e. microservices) has seemingly become a standard for or at least a mild-expectation of all new applications. In order to wrangle the complexity introduced by an architecture built for 99.9999% uptime and infinite scalability you'll need to learn some tools to help you along the way.

Now, do you need all those things for your app? I think you'll definitely need to know UNIX to a reasonable degree, but all the other stuff (Docker, Ansible, Terraform, CircleCI, Kubernetes, etc. etc.) are just specialized tools for helping alleviate some effort in deployment and infrastructure management.

Start small and use what you want / need.

devops is important because developers tend to know best the requirements / quirks of their application. If you have it running on your laptop it shouldn't be too hard to get it running on a remote server. I'd assert, much easier for the developer of the app than for an ops specialist with no knowledge of the app that they're deploying.

devops can be as simple as a bash script.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've experienced this in a job interview for a software dev/data scientist position. The hiring manager asked about devops experience (probably specifically docker) and I honestly told them what my experience was (related, but not 'docker'). Their interest in me clearly ended with that and I didn't really care because _if_ devops had been mentioned in the position description I would not have applied.

I find the expectation for devops experience to be rather hilarious because if devops was a priority for the company then they would have worked it out and it would be a service available to developers rather than a job responsibility.

</comment><comment><USER6> I worked with some folks who Dockerized most things and were expecting to get it working with Kube but were secretly hoping to put it off as long as they could.</comment>