7 ms·

With no explanation on the change, I will have to assume that taking off our shoes never made us any safer.

by yincrash 1y ago

red-iron-pine 1y ago
and that it took 20+ years to prove that.
haiku2077 1y ago
It's due to new technology: https://youtu.be/nyG8XAmtYeQ https://youtu.be/nyG8XAmtYeQ
- laborcontract 1y ago
  There is not a single thing in this video that addresses shoes. I want my time back. video tldr: 3d x-rays have made bag scanners more effective at screening
djaychela 1y ago
Certainly in the UK it was linked to this attempted attack [1] but seemed very specific like banning laser toner cartridges as they were an attack attempt. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
tw04 1y ago
Let me start by saying I'm no fan of the TSA having been traveling for business for 20 years. But we do know exactly why it was originally enacted. Which is that someone tried to hide a bomb in the base of their shoe to blow up a flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid While we don't know why they've stopped, it could be any number of things: from they have other ways of detecting explosives that don't require your shoes going through a scanner, to they just don't think it's an issue anymore. While a lot of what TSA does appears to be security theater, saying "it never made any of us safer" is a claim you have no way of backing up.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  The problem with this theory is that plenty of times (not just for PreCheck flyers), they arbitrarily decide you don't need to take your shoes off. It's not a technology thing, because they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airport-- I fly enough to know. And whatever they've changed it to, they bark at you for not knowing, as though you could've known about whatever RNG generates TSA policy this week. It's a power play, nothing more.
  - dataflow 1y ago
    > It's not a technology thing, because they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airport Are you of the opinion that unpredictability has zero security value?
    - recursivecaveat 1y ago
      Doing something at random half the time is definitely better than doing it 0% of the time, or predictably half the time. From a security standpoint it's certainly worse than doing it 100% of the time. If you're randomizing day-to-day its pointless though. If you had something in your shoe, you could just walk away once you saw other people taking off their shoes. You're not obligated to continue. If anybody asks then you forgot your phone in your car.
    - unethical_ban 1y ago
      Sure, randomly pulling people over or demanding access to their bank records might reveal patterns, but we supposedly have rights in western countries.
    - ranger207 1y ago
      In general, no. In this specific case, yes
  - haiku2077 1y ago
    > they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airport-- I fly enough to know. Are you using the same scanner machines every time? (They can look similar externally but operate on different principles)
xnyan 1y ago
Until 2017, The DHS Inspector General’s office found that 90% – 95% of dangerous items get through screening checkpoints in testing. What changed in 2017? They stopped publishing the results of the testing.
- jfengel 1y ago
  I don't doubt that the screenings are security theater, but it is impossible to know whether anybody was scared off from even trying. A 10% or even 5% chance of getting caught is deeply concerning. It risks not just you, but everybody else in the plot. It could well be zero: the turrurists aren't dumb and they also know it's security theater. But I have to admit that I genuinely do not (and cannot) know.
Liquix 1y ago
IIRC the modern "raise your arms" scanners had not been rolled out in 2006 when the shoe policy was instituted. perhaps the TSA has realized there's no point in making people take off their shoes when explosives/contraband within are easily picked up by the new scanners.
- greyface- 1y ago
  The article implies that passengers who opt out of the "raise your arms" millimeter wave scanner and go through the magnetometer instead will not have to take their shoes off unless the magnetometer alarms: > Passengers who trigger the alarm at the scanners or magnetometers, however, will be required to take their shoes off for additional screening, according to the memo.
  - saulpw 1y ago
    I have opted out of the scanner at numerous airports over the past 20 years, without fail (dozens of times), and not once have I been asked to go through a 'magnetometer'. It's been a manual pat down every time.
    - greyface- 1y ago
      It's been a few years since I've flown (and opted out of the MMW), but I recall being directed through the magnetometer first, then receiving a pat down on the other side. Maybe that was nonstandard.
      - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
        I have always opted out of the full body scanner and always had to go through the metal detector followed by pat down.
        histriosum 1y ago
        Genuine question not from a judgy space but from an interested one.. what motivates you to do this? I feel like I would find the pat down far more invasive than someone seeing a sort of nude picture of my body.. again, I’m asking because I would like to understand, not because I’m judging the choice. Appreciate your insight!
mc32 1y ago
It’s always risk/reward. The risk isn’t only physical; it can also be intangible. For now at least, it looks like they’ve reassessed and decided it’s not worth the inconvenience.
gryfft 1y ago
The policy began as a direct response to the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt in December 2001 [1]. This was as America was still reeling from 9/11, and full body scanners weren't standard at airports yet. Now they are, and they've improved explosive detectors too [2]. It indeed seems like it was always something of an overreaction, but an understandable one that's now fully overlapped by superior modern scanning. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2... 2. https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/feature-article-next-generation-explosives-trace-detection-here https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/f... Edit: whoa, groupthink.
- privatelypublic 1y ago
  Also, this is from memory, but 'cotton wipe' tests for the compounds used didn't exist for several more years and a few more incidents.
- os2warpman 1y ago
  >Edit: whoa, groupthink. Every time an article about airport security is posted the comments are the same. To prove that I'm sane and my memory has not been corrupted by time or cosmic rays I google "airline hijackings by year", I look at the graphs in google images, and I briefly wonder what happened in early 1970s and 2000s before remembering what happened in early 1970s and 2000s. Then I murmur "that's some fantastically effective theater".
  - reverendsteveii 1y ago
    can you find any stats on yearly hijackings that are limited to only flights where hijackers made it through american security, though? all I can find are global aggregate stats and its a bit unfair to credit TSA with preventing the hijacking of a flight from Heathrow to Dubai
    - os2warpman 1y ago
      I didn't mention TSA. Most TSA, FAA, and airline operator policies and procedures are harmonized with ICAO and IATA policies and procedures. Of course, there are regional variations and differences between international and domestic flights within those regions, but for the most part things are consistent among all of the members of both signatories of Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO members) and IATA members. The whole shoe thing was proposed someone who wasn't the US (I think the UK, but my memory is fuzzy-- damn cosmic rays), submitted to ICAO, voted on, and enacted by the US as a signatory.
dataflow 1y ago
That seems like a childish and unreasonable assumption. In addition to the technology changes everyone mentioned, it could also have to do with other factors, like the actual threats the country faces, or the relative weight the powers-that-be place on the different sides of each tradeoff. It's not like this is a controlled experiment where every other factor is held constant.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Jubijub 1y ago
Case in point : fly from EU to US, no shoes off. Same planes, flying over the same cities.
chrismcb 1y ago
The claim is the old machines had issues with detecting and on the ground. First time I went through Heathrow after the incident. You had to take your shoes off and went to a separate machine. The shoes were scanned then you walked back... Plenty of time to put something back on the shoe.

With no explanation on the change, I will have to assume that taking off our shoes never made us any safer.

red-iron-pine 1y ago

and that it took 20+ years to prove that.

haiku2077 1y ago

It's due to new technology: https://youtu.be/nyG8XAmtYeQ https://youtu.be/nyG8XAmtYeQ

laborcontract 1y ago
There is not a single thing in this video that addresses shoes. I want my time back. video tldr: 3d x-rays have made bag scanners more effective at screening

djaychela 1y ago

Certainly in the UK it was linked to this attempted attack [1] but seemed very specific like banning laser toner cartridges as they were an attack attempt. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

tw04 1y ago

Let me start by saying I'm no fan of the TSA having been traveling for business for 20 years. But we do know exactly why it was originally enacted. Which is that someone tried to hide a bomb in the base of their shoe to blow up a flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid While we don't know why they've stopped, it could be any number of things: from they have other ways of detecting explosives that don't require your shoes going through a scanner, to they just don't think it's an issue anymore. While a lot of what TSA does appears to be security theater, saying "it never made any of us safer" is a claim you have no way of backing up.

Analemma_ 1y ago
The problem with this theory is that plenty of times (not just for PreCheck flyers), they arbitrarily decide you don't need to take your shoes off. It's not a technology thing, because they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airport-- I fly enough to know. And whatever they've changed it to, they bark at you for not knowing, as though you could've known about whatever RNG generates TSA policy this week. It's a power play, nothing more.
- dataflow 1y ago
  > It's not a technology thing, because they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airport Are you of the opinion that unpredictability has zero security value?
  - recursivecaveat 1y ago
    Doing something at random half the time is definitely better than doing it 0% of the time, or predictably half the time. From a security standpoint it's certainly worse than doing it 100% of the time. If you're randomizing day-to-day its pointless though. If you had something in your shoe, you could just walk away once you saw other people taking off their shoes. You're not obligated to continue. If anybody asks then you forgot your phone in your car.
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    Sure, randomly pulling people over or demanding access to their bank records might reveal patterns, but we supposedly have rights in western countries.
  - ranger207 1y ago
    In general, no. In this specific case, yes
- haiku2077 1y ago
  > they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airport-- I fly enough to know. Are you using the same scanner machines every time? (They can look similar externally but operate on different principles)

xnyan 1y ago

Until 2017, The DHS Inspector General’s office found that 90% – 95% of dangerous items get through screening checkpoints in testing. What changed in 2017? They stopped publishing the results of the testing.

jfengel 1y ago
I don't doubt that the screenings are security theater, but it is impossible to know whether anybody was scared off from even trying. A 10% or even 5% chance of getting caught is deeply concerning. It risks not just you, but everybody else in the plot. It could well be zero: the turrurists aren't dumb and they also know it's security theater. But I have to admit that I genuinely do not (and cannot) know.

Liquix 1y ago

IIRC the modern "raise your arms" scanners had not been rolled out in 2006 when the shoe policy was instituted. perhaps the TSA has realized there's no point in making people take off their shoes when explosives/contraband within are easily picked up by the new scanners.

greyface- 1y ago
The article implies that passengers who opt out of the "raise your arms" millimeter wave scanner and go through the magnetometer instead will not have to take their shoes off unless the magnetometer alarms: > Passengers who trigger the alarm at the scanners or magnetometers, however, will be required to take their shoes off for additional screening, according to the memo.
- saulpw 1y ago
  I have opted out of the scanner at numerous airports over the past 20 years, without fail (dozens of times), and not once have I been asked to go through a 'magnetometer'. It's been a manual pat down every time.
  - greyface- 1y ago
    It's been a few years since I've flown (and opted out of the MMW), but I recall being directed through the magnetometer first, then receiving a pat down on the other side. Maybe that was nonstandard.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
      I have always opted out of the full body scanner and always had to go through the metal detector followed by pat down.
      - histriosum 1y ago
        Genuine question not from a judgy space but from an interested one.. what motivates you to do this? I feel like I would find the pat down far more invasive than someone seeing a sort of nude picture of my body.. again, I’m asking because I would like to understand, not because I’m judging the choice. Appreciate your insight!

mc32 1y ago

It’s always risk/reward. The risk isn’t only physical; it can also be intangible. For now at least, it looks like they’ve reassessed and decided it’s not worth the inconvenience.

gryfft 1y ago

The policy began as a direct response to the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt in December 2001 [1]. This was as America was still reeling from 9/11, and full body scanners weren't standard at airports yet. Now they are, and they've improved explosive detectors too [2]. It indeed seems like it was always something of an overreaction, but an understandable one that's now fully overlapped by superior modern scanning. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2... 2. https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/feature-article-next-generation-explosives-trace-detection-here https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/f... Edit: whoa, groupthink.

privatelypublic 1y ago
Also, this is from memory, but 'cotton wipe' tests for the compounds used didn't exist for several more years and a few more incidents.
os2warpman 1y ago
>Edit: whoa, groupthink. Every time an article about airport security is posted the comments are the same. To prove that I'm sane and my memory has not been corrupted by time or cosmic rays I google "airline hijackings by year", I look at the graphs in google images, and I briefly wonder what happened in early 1970s and 2000s before remembering what happened in early 1970s and 2000s. Then I murmur "that's some fantastically effective theater".
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  can you find any stats on yearly hijackings that are limited to only flights where hijackers made it through american security, though? all I can find are global aggregate stats and its a bit unfair to credit TSA with preventing the hijacking of a flight from Heathrow to Dubai
  - os2warpman 1y ago
    I didn't mention TSA. Most TSA, FAA, and airline operator policies and procedures are harmonized with ICAO and IATA policies and procedures. Of course, there are regional variations and differences between international and domestic flights within those regions, but for the most part things are consistent among all of the members of both signatories of Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO members) and IATA members. The whole shoe thing was proposed someone who wasn't the US (I think the UK, but my memory is fuzzy-- damn cosmic rays), submitted to ICAO, voted on, and enacted by the US as a signatory.

dataflow 1y ago

That seems like a childish and unreasonable assumption. In addition to the technology changes everyone mentioned, it could also have to do with other factors, like the actual threats the country faces, or the relative weight the powers-that-be place on the different sides of each tradeoff. It's not like this is a controlled experiment where every other factor is held constant.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Jubijub 1y ago

Case in point : fly from EU to US, no shoes off. Same planes, flying over the same cities.

chrismcb 1y ago

The claim is the old machines had issues with detecting and on the ground. First time I went through Heathrow after the incident. You had to take your shoes off and went to a separate machine. The shoes were scanned then you walked back... Plenty of time to put something back on the shoe.