TSA explains MacBook Air grounding: just doing its job

What, you don't read the official Transportation Security Administration blog? No worries, we've got your back on this one with the TSA's official reaction to Michael Nygard's missed flight as a result of its incredulous MacBook Air inspection. TSA agents are in fact trained to look for anomalies. So along come the MBA laptop. It's new (thus, rarely seen), ridiculously thin, and lacks a mechanical hard drive and any visible ports. Requesting further inspection is exactly what Mr. Nygard should have expected. As surly and detached as TSA officers tend to be, in this case they were doing their job just as they were trained. Of course, knowing this isn't going to prevent any of us from bitching and moaning every time we have to remove our shoes now is it?

[rumblerjon @ Mar 13th 2008 6:38AM]

I am willing to take the risk of my plane exploding, just let us all on with no security checks so I can sit down faster!

[phoomp @ Mar 13th 2008 8:42AM]

The purpose of the security checks isn't to stop planes from exploding. It's been proven that if someone really wants to, they can still take down a plane.

The purpose (IMHO) of security checks is to discourage rational people from flying, until the only people left flying are the *irrational* ones ... the ones more likely to try and take down a plane, thus making it easier to spot the terrorists.

[BuddyBoy @ Mar 13th 2008 9:23AM]

If the MBA was a bomb it would been the worlds thinnest, and so probably wouldn't have done much damage. :)

[Chris @ Mar 13th 2008 11:25AM]

Modern airline security is there just as much to protect people on the ground/in skyscrapers as it is there to protect the fliers. I likewise don't care if you die while flying but I do care if innocent third parties on the ground do.

[rumblerjon @ Mar 13th 2008 11:27AM]

alright grumpy chops. jeez....

[macserv @ Mar 13th 2008 12:56PM]

@ BuddyBoy:

Not to mention that it would have be the most beautifully designed bomb ever. Are terrorists really creating all new, impossibly miniaturized laptop industrial designs when they make bombs these days? Seems like a good old Dell Latitude 610 would be a lot easier to get explosives into, and would attract a lot less attention. Not to mention that most 610 owners would probably like to blow theirs to bits.

If I were a TSA agent, I would find it VERY hard to believe that this device was a bomb, regardless of the presence or lack of a hard drive. I'm sure he turned it on, operated it, demonstrated the flip-down ports...

At that point, if you're still thinking, "BOMB," you're just an asshole.

[Steve Jobs @ Mar 13th 2008 2:57PM]

@Buddy - A Macbook-Air sized sheet of C4 would do quite a bit of damage, certainly enough to take down a plane.

@Macserv - Most beautifully designed bomb ever? I'm just not sure about that, but I can assure you of this, it'd be the only bomb ever with only one USB port.

[thef1re @ Mar 13th 2008 6:37AM]

i really dont think any cares anymore.......

[Mark @ Mar 13th 2008 8:05AM]

You care enough to post.

[z @ Mar 13th 2008 8:39AM]

It is just one more case that shows how lame the security check protocol is. If they can't even recognize one of the most media-exposed machine in some times how do you want them to recognize a real threat?

[mushrooshi @ Mar 13th 2008 8:43AM]

Don;t click Soviet's link:

Rickrolling and nasty Java.

Damn script kiddies.

[Zeus.:God @ Mar 13th 2008 9:59AM]

How is he a "script kiddie" for posting a fake link?

The Rick Roll with the moving window- not new, and he didn't make it, and it's not even a hack or exploit, so how is he a "script kiddie"?

[OneLove @ Mar 13th 2008 10:46AM]

They gangstaz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AWw7t5zj0

[mike @ Mar 13th 2008 11:51AM]

@soviet_vexer: You are a fuck

[russwilliams @ Mar 13th 2008 6:39AM]

If the dipshit was doing his job he'd be up to speed on current technology such as laptops so he could spot oddities.

[Chris Blow @ Mar 13th 2008 6:46AM]

If the dipshit wasn't still working on getting his G.E.D. so that he can move up the chain to Sr. dipshit, then maybe he'd be able to do that. The TSA is the ultimate breeding ground for mouth-breathers.

[wazzup @ Mar 13th 2008 7:15AM]

@Chris: "Sr Dipshit"! ROTFL!!! good one.

[John Stracke @ Mar 13th 2008 7:28AM]

For what they get paid, it's not reasonable to expect TSA screeners to spend their personal time reading up on gadgetry they can't afford.

However, it *is* reasonable to expect the TSA to have procedures in place to let them verify that some new gadget is legitimate. Say, some sort of hotline they can call.

[Miranda Kali @ Mar 13th 2008 9:03AM]

No, they shouldn't have to spend their personal time brushing up on the latest tech...
It's part of their JOB. They should be trained on the clock. You can't possibly tell me that these guys can't take half an hour out of a week, to be briefed on new gadgets that passengers might be carrying.
Hell, it even works both ways. They should need to know this stuff not only to make inspections more efficient, but to have a better understanding of what may be out of place. If you're acquainted with an iPod, or MBA, or Kindle, or whatever, not only do you know what it is, you know what's out of place on it if it's been modified.

[Paul @ Mar 13th 2008 9:44AM]

Like many others i'm completely suprised they didn't recognise the most media hyped laptop on the market.
Its like if they stopped iphone users and said apple doesn't make phones, and this isn't a phone it doesn't have buttons!!
I mean how obivious is it that it was a laptop when they decided to look at it!!
I personally think this is just them being completely paranoid now.
A few years ago I was travelling round with my sony X505, I didn't have any problems at all.

[Onan @ Mar 13th 2008 10:43AM]

What is more amazing is that you guys can't understand that someone may have a worldview or experience that differs from yours. It is actually possible to go through your life and have no idea what is the latest news from Apple or Microsoft. There are all sorts of "Media" and just because this was hyped in the Media that you are exposed to doesn't mean that everyone else knows about it.

[john @ Mar 13th 2008 3:35PM]

Until the MBA is much more common -- it IS an anomaly! It is still rare enough that not many people have seen one. I cheer for this TSA agent. He did exactly the right thing! There are devastating explosives available out there that can be hidden in something like this and easily triggered by turning the thing on. If I was a TSA supervisor and the agent didn't check this out, I would have fired his ass. His job is not to study up on the latest geek technology, it is to protect people. If you think its a hassle to be protected, then don't fly, or take a train, or a bus, or drive over a bridge, or walk down the street. As a matter of fact, don't do anything. Someone may be out there implementing things to try to protect you.

[Marshall @ Mar 13th 2008 11:58AM]

It has a big apple on the lid. How hard would it be for them to go to the Apple website and see if this was legit? Even if you aren't up on the latest tech, you should still be able to find it on the intertubes.

[Oinquer @ Mar 13th 2008 6:41AM]

...yeah now you know why you need ethernet and all that USB ports...

[Bernhard @ Mar 13th 2008 6:44AM]

Passenger: But its a laptop!
Security Check: Can't be sure about that, must inspect it completely first.
Passenger: You have been "inspecting" that thing for almost half an hour!
Security Check: ...my presssiouzzz...
Passenger: Huh?

[ClaMs @ Mar 13th 2008 1:46PM]

"Hey TSA, this middle finger? Just doing its job!!"

[Miranda Kali @ Mar 13th 2008 6:48AM]

..."Just doing their job." What a freakin cop out. That's been the tagline for some of the most heinous acts in history.
You want to do your job? How about you you require your goon squad to stay abreast of common technological developments. You know, seeing as personal tech gear is one of the things they inspect on a daily basis.

[nh @ Mar 13th 2008 7:21AM]

I dont think this is up there with the most heinous acts in history.

[soviet_vexxer @ Mar 13th 2008 7:26AM]

i guess you can say hitler was "just doing his job"

[Phil @ Mar 13th 2008 7:43PM]

Damnit, you had to go and invoke godwin's law, didn't you?

[pundit @ Mar 13th 2008 6:50AM]

"So along come the MBA laptop." Shouldn't that say "So along comes the MBA laptop" or "So along come MBA laptops"?

I think this whole story is really starting to beat a dead horse into the ground.

[Oinquer @ Mar 13th 2008 7:02AM]

so "Along Comes Mary"......

[Kyle @ Mar 13th 2008 7:03AM]

People always complain about security officials over reacting to stuff like this. Then when something does happen they complain that they don’t do enough.


Let’s say there was no Mac Book Air. The security guy checks a bag and sees something he thinks looks weird. The Bag’s owner says “Don’t worry it just this really cool new laptop.” The security guy doesn’t really think that a computer could be that small but he doesn’t what to hold up the line so he lets the guy though.


Two hours later a plane blows up or gets flown in to a building and everyone one this web site is complaining that the security guy is a moron and everyone should know they can’t make computers that small.

[Kelmon @ Mar 13th 2008 7:32AM]

Surely it's normal to just turn the thing on and prove that it's a working laptop? Some airports even swab the thing for traces of explosives - you feel somewhat self-conscious the first time that happens. Regardless, all security needs to do is check that its a laptop by seeing it booted up.

[soviet_vexxer @ Mar 13th 2008 7:34AM]

shut up

[benny franklin @ Mar 13th 2008 7:38AM]

the TSA has never- i repeat, NEVER- done anything at all to prevent a plane from going down. all those crazy, draconian security measures are totally and completely useless, because they have utterly failed to prevent even a single plane from getting hijacked or blown up. this isn't debatable- it's an indisputable fact. if you think the TSA is "just doing their job", you're so fundamentally stupid that you should be taken out behind the garage and shot twice in the head: they're degrading you and encouraging a culture of fear, because that's the best way to control people.

the downside of freedom is that there's no benevolent overlord to prevent anything bad from happening to you. your dog will never have to worry about terrorists, or getting run over by cars, because you keep it locked up. as soon as you set it free, it has to contend with any number of unpleasant things. personally, i'd rather be free than spend my life chained up under the pretenses that it's "for my own good". that's what america used to symbolize. sadly, the majority of this country has been all too willing to trade their freedom for nothing more than fascism under the weak guise of security.

the simple reality is that your plane is exponentially more likely to fall out of the sky due to shoddy construction/maintenance than it is because some fruitcake in a ski-mask blew it up. for that matter, you're exponentially more likely to die in a car accident- maybe the TSA should focus on making the roads safer next....

[Dodo @ Mar 13th 2008 8:06AM]

There is absolutely zero value in turning on a piece of electronic equipment to "prove" it is real or not a bomb. It is a trivial matter (from an engineering perspective) to make a device which functions enough to pass any degree of functionality examination. The TSA does not keep us safe, it gives people the impressiona of being safe. The state security forces which train El Al screeners have proven time and time again that the effectiveness of a screener drops an average of 50% for every minute that they are looking at the scope. TSA personel spend a minimum of 15 minutes at a busy heavily staffed airport and up to 2 hours at a smaller airport staring at the screen. It should be considered criminally negligent behavior on the part of TSA leadership and our own government that does not take security seriously. Afterall, the watchers have to be "lucky" every single time. The terrorists only have to be lucky once and have shown time and time again that they have the will to win the battle of hearts and minds.

[Chip @ Mar 13th 2008 8:25AM]

"the TSA has never- i repeat, NEVER- done anything at all to prevent a plane from going down."

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. I fly pretty frequently and would agree that I don't think I'd have too hard of a time circumventing TSA security. However, you have no idea how many plans for hijacking were foiled simply because the TSA security is there. So what you're saying is no numbnut tried sneaking a backback through security and TSA snagged him.

[Randy @ Mar 13th 2008 9:51AM]

@Chip

Name ONE real credible threat that was foiled by the TSA. Go ahead and Google around for it, I'll be here when you get back.

The only effective measure that has prevented bad people from flying another plane into a building has been to barricade the cockpit door. And the TSA was not responsible for that.

[Dan S. @ Mar 13th 2008 10:34AM]

@Chip:

There's been a number of high profile instances of GAO, FAA and DoE "Red Teams" clearing TSA checkpoints with firearms, simulated explosives, suicide vests and even radioactive materials, without so much as a raised eyebrow from the "expert" screeners.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=67166
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/28/tsa.bombtest/index.html
http://www.airportsecurityblog.com/?p=38

Furthermore, as someone who's worked in counter- and anti-terrorism for more than a decade, with the military, federal and local law enforcement and international counter-terrorism experts, exactly NONE of the current procedures (removing shoes, presenting "certified" ID, liquid ban, etc) have any realistic effect on airline security, nor do they represent realistic threat scenarios.

Richard Reed, the "shoe bomber," is a mentally ill man whose "insider" details of Al-Qaeda do not at all jive with known facts -- which most likely means that they are made up -- and who was so bright that he tried to ignite a copper wire to set off his explosive-filled tennis shoe.

The liquid explosive threat was first identified in 1995, when Ramzi Yousef was captured, but the threat was deemed unlikely due to the difficulty in handling the components and the quantities needed to pose a realistic threat to an airliner.

Last, despite the laughable REAL ID Act, it's disappointingly easy to fake most "acceptable" forms of ID -- comparing the name on a boarding pass to a presented ID is about as effective as asking if a stranger asked you to carry a bomb onto the plane (which, I will remind you was a very "real" security measure up until five years ago). A better approach would be to adopt the Israeli technique of asking specific probing questions before you arrive at check-in and pulling anyone out of line who raises specific flags with their answers. It's worked very well in Israel, but it requires specialized training and therefore money and higher-grade screeners, which the TSA/DHS has no interest in spending/hiring for.

[benny franklin @ Mar 13th 2008 10:48AM]

i don't need to name one- the TSA would have. they've been taking a lot of flak (some would call it a "PR nightmare") because their measures have been proven to be completely ineffectual time and time again. if they had ever managed to stop anything even vaguely resembling a credible threat, you'd be hearing about it on all the major news networks because the TSA would *love* to defend it's absurd practices.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=603693&category=OPINION&newsdate=7/6/2007

here's a newspaper article- from my hometown- where the TSA failed to detect a bomb being smuggled onto a plane. this is just the first thing that came to mind, because it happened where i live; try googling "tsa fail security test" some time- the results are nothing short of appalling. if they REGULARLY AND FREQUENTLY fail ever security test we throw at them, it's logical to conclude that the real deal wouldn't have too difficult a time smuggling a nasty payload aboard a plane.

technically, you're correct that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- but this is the real world, and if the TSA had a way to justify it's ridiculous policies and gross abuses of power, they would. you're probably thinking of the FBI/CIA, whose main claim to fame (other than ignoring reports about 9/11) is hearing something through a terrorist network about binary liquid explosives (hi-tech stuff- straight out of "die hard 2"!). the TSA's response? let's ban all liquids!

i hope someone figures out how to make a bomb out of a boarding pass; kip hawley's head would probably implode.

[bot @ Mar 13th 2008 7:01AM]

Couldn't they, uh, turn on the laptop to make sure it was actually a laptop? It would have taken a grand total of maybe 2 minutes to realize this thing was an actual computer, no matter how many anomalies it has.

[Kelmon @ Mar 13th 2008 7:30AM]

This is what gets me about the whole story. Having my laptop checked by airport security is normal, at least on international flights, and wherever security wants to check more they ask for it to be turned on. This is a 30-second job since the thing is being scanned separately (a pain to take out of the bag and put back, I grant you) so I really don't see why it took so long to resolve. Was he already late for his flight? If so, tough...

[DagMX @ Mar 13th 2008 8:31AM]

It's easy enough to rig up a device that will boot into a small OS that displays on the screen and allows minimal user interaction, yet the system could carry some other payload within it.

[Rynth @ Mar 13th 2008 9:23AM]

Had it been a bomb, trying to turn it on would be the last thing I'd try...

[PSM @ Mar 13th 2008 10:46AM]

Yeah, what happened to the days when if you had an electronic device they just ask you to turn it on and use it for a few seconds. Sure you could probably fake something, but if you had the means to do that you could also probably build a bomb that they wouldn't detect unless they took the whole thing apart, which obviously they didn't do.

Anyway, a poor excuse for not only being oblivious to the MBA in particular, but also to the general concept of ultra-small laptops and solid-state drives, which have been around a bit longer than the MBA and would be especially popular among people who have to travel a lot.

[mike @ Mar 13th 2008 11:56AM]

Turning on the laptop would have caused the bomb to be detonated, obviously.

[trumpton @ Mar 13th 2008 7:09AM]

It's the non story that keeps on giving!

[David @ Mar 13th 2008 7:13AM]

I have a hard time believing this story is even real. I had a TSA encounter with my Eee when they first came out.

The one TSA screener lady said "It looks like a laptop. But it CAN'T be a laptop. It's too small! Bill?" "Umm...looks like a laptop to me". "Well, Iiiiii'll be."

THE END

I did not miss my flight!

[blurry @ Mar 13th 2008 8:21AM]

two thoughts:

1. This is a relevant story. If you travel every week it serves as a good warning that TSA doesn't educate their dipshit staff about new technology.

2. If you think their reaction to the MBA is sad, you should have been there when I went thru with an Apple //c last year! The power supply is a monsterously heavy brick containing a large, dense transformer. Not to mention the old clunky 5.25 drive and no harddrive. Wow did they freak right out. I didn't miss my flight though. They swabbed it for the 5sec explosive check. That was it.

Makes me wonder if the dude with the MBA was really just running late...