TSA to end shoes-off policy for airport security screening
78 points by avonmach 5 days ago | 66 comments- yincrash 5 days agoWith no explanation on the change, I will have to assume that taking off our shoes never made us any safer.
- gryfft 5 days agoThe 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_(2...
2. https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/f...
Edit: whoa, groupthink.
- os2warpman 5 days 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 5 days agocan 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
- reverendsteveii 5 days ago
- privatelypublic 5 days agoAlso, 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 5 days ago
- xnyan 5 days agoUntil 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 4 days agoI 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.
- jfengel 4 days ago
- djaychela 5 days agoCertainly 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.
- Liquix 5 days agoIIRC 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- 5 days agoThe 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 5 days agoI 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.
- privatelypublic 5 days agoMost of them arent mmwave.
- saulpw 5 days ago
- greyface- 5 days ago
- tw04 5 days agoLet 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
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_ 5 days agoThe 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.
- haiku2077 5 days 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)
- tw04 5 days 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.
At what airport? How do you know it's "arbitrary" - do you have some additional information the rest of us don't?
>It's not a technology thing, because they change it back and forth at the same gate at the same airpor
What airport? Because I fly enough to know they don't do that at LAX, SFO, SJC, or ORD.
>It's a power play, nothing more.
By WHO? The guy who implemented the policy hasn't worked in government since GWBs term. The random TSA worker has literally 0 say in the policy of taking your shoes off.
- dataflow 5 days 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?
- haiku2077 5 days ago
- Analemma_ 5 days ago
- chrismcb 4 days agoThe 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.
- Jubijub 4 days agoCase in point : fly from EU to US, no shoes off. Same planes, flying over the same cities.
- mc32 5 days agoIt’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.
- haiku2077 5 days agoIt's due to new technology: https://youtu.be/nyG8XAmtYeQ
- laborcontract 5 days agoThere 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
- laborcontract 5 days ago
- 5 days ago
- red-iron-pine 5 days agoand that it took 20+ years to prove that.
- dataflow 5 days agoThat 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.
- gryfft 5 days ago
- nsypteras 5 days ago> The transportation agency has spent years looking for an innovative way to allow passengers to move faster through the security checkpoints.
I think the writer had some fun with this one
- bediger4000 5 days agoI think we'll live to regret this rollback. Think of all the horrific shoe-bombings that were prevented by merely forcing everyone who boarded an airplane for 24 years to take off their footwear and have it X-rayed. Thousands of lives saved.
- red-iron-pine 5 days agoat least thousands. probably billions.
- red-iron-pine 5 days ago
- michaelcampbell 4 days agoTSA Pre-check was worth it just for this alone (and not having to unpack my laptop).
I'll keep it since in Atlanta at least the lines are still way shorter, but yay regardless.
- burnt-resistor 4 days agoPre check is not about security, it's about monetizing misery and giving elites pay-to-play treats.
- michaelcampbell 1 day ago> Pre check is not about security,
I never asserted that. In fact I said something quite supporting what you said, at least for my context.
> giving elites pay-to-play treats
Ok, edge-lord.
- michaelcampbell 1 day ago
- burnt-resistor 4 days ago
- RyJones 5 days agoI hope this spreads to the EU; Warsaw security is so slow: everyone taking off belts and handing them through the metal detector, taking off shoes.
- jltsiren 5 days agoThe EU already allowed keeping your shoes on in 2016. It's up to each individual airport / authority to decide if they want to invest in a more convenient screening process.
Metal belt buckles probably trigger false alarms in every screening device in existence. Even metal buttons and zippers may do that if the device is sensitive enough (such as those at SFO).
- jcotton42 5 days agoYeah, I have TSA PreCheck and I still take off my belt, it's just easier.
- AStonesThrow 4 days ago[dead]
- AStonesThrow 4 days ago
- jcotton42 5 days ago
- tpm 4 days agoTaking off shoes is not a thing in most EU airports I have been through.
- jltsiren 5 days ago
- Aardwolf 5 days agoHmm, this seems to not have been necessary on flights within Europe, but I saw some people remove them every now and then, maybe out of habit
- Cortex5936 5 days agoDepends where in Europe. I had to do it with my boots in Romania
- Cortex5936 5 days ago
- BrandoElFollito 4 days agoIt's been years I have not taken my shoes off in a European airport (10 years, maybe more?)
Now it's time to end the laptop off the bag circus
- josefritzishere 5 days agoLess theatre in the security theatre?
- kelseyfrog 5 days agoCan you still opt-in?
- IAmBroom 4 days agoI demand to have a manual pat-down!
- kelseyfrog 4 days agoThis should be normalized. It's not my problem if they make it weird.
- kelseyfrog 4 days ago
- IAmBroom 4 days ago
- bluetidepro 5 days agoI will believe it when I see it. Most TSA agents don’t follow the official rules, and seem to just do whatever they feel like on any given day. I’ve had to take my shoes off for even TSA Pre which shouldn’t even happen already.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 5 days agoWhat gets me is the inconsistency of everything. Do I need just my ID? Boarding pass? Both? Then you get annoyance from the agent because you do not know today’s policy.
- Sohcahtoa82 5 days agoI typically found that it's consistent at individual airports, but that each airport could be different.
But the fact that TSA agents refused to acknowledge that it can work differently at each airport was certainly obnoxious.
For years, every time I went to Las Vegas from my home in Portland, the PDX TSA would have to tell everyone to take off their shoes, while the LAS TSA would tell everyone to keep their shoes on. Occasionally, someone would be like "Huh, that's different from $OTHER_AIRPORT" and the TSA agent would be like "Sir, it's the same everywhere".
Of course, PDX recently got a remodel and with it, new scanners, so now shoes can stay on.
- Sohcahtoa82 5 days ago
- 0cf8612b2e1e 5 days ago
- buyucu 5 days agoshoes-off policy at airports was probably the longest running snake-oil of all time.
- sceadu 5 days agotrickle down economics?
- sceadu 5 days ago
- 9337throwaway 5 days ago[dead]
- reverendsteveii 5 days ago[flagged]
- leereeves 4 days ago> However, he also said that he told agents about legally consuming cannabis in Germany and New Mexico, in places where it was legal to do so, after they extensively questioned him about drug smuggling, terrorism and extremism. He was also taken to a guarded room and asked to surrender his shoes, phone and backpack.
It was only then that they unlocked his phone and saw the meme. I won't speculate about whether they might have overlooked his drug use if he hadn't had that meme, but by his own account, he got in trouble for admitting to drug use.
The article says marijuana is legal in New Mexico, but it's still illegal under federal law.
- thegrim33 5 days ago[flagged]
- reverendsteveii 5 days ago>Why did you conveniently forget to mention that context?
He smoked marijuana where it was legal and he didn't get interviewed about drug use until after they spotted the meme, which they called "very clearly a piece of dangerous extremist propaganda". So, because it obviously didn't matter.
- msgodel 4 days agoIt's not legal anywhere in the US. Most people don't need to care because they don't have to normally interact with the federal government, if you know you're going to have to do that then you don't smoke it.
- normalaccess 4 days agoThe Border is controlled on the federal level by federal immigration officers (CBP) where Marijuana is still illegal. And immigration officers have the right to search anyone entering the country for any reason and deny them access for crimes involving moral turpitude.
Ergo, CBP was operating within their authority.
8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) Authorizes federal immigration officers (e.g., CBP) to search vehicles, vessels, and persons within 100 miles of a border for immigration enforcement purposes without a warrant. 21 U.S.C. § 844 Makes possession of controlled substances (like marijuana, LSD, cocaine, etc.) federally illegal unless prescribed or legally obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) – Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) Any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense)... is inadmissible.
- msgodel 4 days ago
- reverendsteveii 5 days ago
- leereeves 4 days ago