New TSA rule: Everybody goes naked on airline flights

Just kidding. There's no such rule. Too bad, because that makes more sense than the new ban on Wi-Fi.

By Mike Elgan  22 comments

Terrorist groups commit acts of terror not to kill people, but to create unreasonable fear. That's why they call it terror.

The fear is unreasonable because your chances of dying from a terrorist attack essentially rounds to zero. According to Bureau of Transportation Statistics, your chances of being victimized by a "terrorist incident" when you board an airplane are about 1 in 10,408,947. The risk of death from a car accident during the drive to the airport, the airplane meal and the exposure to pathogens in the cabin are all far higher than the risk of dying from a terrorist attack.

Unless you've been hiding from terrorists under a rock, you'll know that a Nigerian dipwad named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab succeeded in lighting his pants on fire while attempting an act of "terrorism" on Christmas Day. Allegedly.

Abdulmutallab apparently used neither TV nor Wi-Fi while committing this act. As a result, authorities are cracking down on in-flight entertainment and Wi-Fi. Wait, what?

According to a new TSA security directive distributed to airlines on Saturday, airlines are to "disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight." Also: all passenger access to carry-on luggage, getting up from seats and having anything on laps is banned one hour before all landings.

The only result from this idiotic policy directive will be to increase passenger fear. Essentially, one hour before your flight lands, cabin crews will communicate that you are now at a heightened risk of being killed by some sociopathic maniac. The terrorists themselves will know that the detonation of lap-bombs should take place one hour and fifteen minutes before landing.

There. Feel safer now?

Abdulmutallab almost detonated a bomb because of multiple failures by the TSA. Passengers, on the other hand, did everything right, and prevented the attack. So let's punish passengers!

The TSA sometimes acts like it's taking direct orders from Bin Laden. All this fear and inconvenience is exactly what terrorists are aiming for. Why do we oblige them? After all, without fear there can be no terrorism. Why does the government work so hard to keep us scared over such a minuscule risk?

Anyway, I have a better idea. Let's ban all clothing from all flights. Both the shoe bomber and Abdulmutallab used clothing -- not Wi-Fi and not live TV -- to make their failed attempts. In addition to taking away the possibility of hiding incendiary devices, a total ban on all clothes will also have the following positive results:

1. Terrorists will have a further disincentive from targeting flights, because religious extremists tend to be squeamish about naked people.

2. It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions because shy people wouldn't fly, thus reducing the number of flights overall.

3. I don't know why, but I think people would be more courteous. Talk about friendly skies!

Of course, I'm not serious about the clothing ban. But it makes a lot more sense than the TSA's new ban on Wi-Fi and in-flight TV.

22 comments

    Anonymous 48 weeks ago
    This is definitely making me laugh so much. I think the idea will work in the future. brain injury lawyers orlando
    Anonymous 1 year ago
    In the end, TSA will determine that the only way to make aviation safe is to ban flight altogether. This will also lower stress levels for TSA inspectors, who can just hang at the airport and play with the naked picture machines or each other. Maybe even both at the same time.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    DARN! And I was hoping for a sign up Site.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Interesting idea about flying naked, but I have what I believe may be an even BETTER idea. (And I'm no more serious about this than you are about the flying naked thing, Mike.)I live not far from Connecticut's two Indian casinos, and the women who work on the casino floor, if they carry a purse, must carry a transparent purse. So, how about airline passengers wearing transparent clothing. It would accomplish the same purpose as nudity; it would just be a lot more sanitary.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Damn. I was hoping for photos... :-)
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    for several years I've been telling people that disposable Tyvek garments and booties should be sold in all sizes so that you would change into them & mail your street clothes to your destination; weapons would be harder or impossible to hide.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    I've just become aware of this directive via Mike's List No. 107, received 22 January '10.The first thing I noticed when viewing the text of the directive is that it came into force on 25 Dec. with an expiry date of 30 Dec. '09, i.e., it was to remain in force for only five days.Now, ridiculous as the measures may have seemed, isn't it just possible that the DHS/TSA had received credible intelligence - perhaps from the unsuccessful bomber - that one or more further attempts might occur within that time frame?Geo.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Naked Airlines appears highly unlikely, BUT what about Bathrobe Airlines?? In lieu of the screening men and women would go to gender separated locker room style dressing room. There they would have to undress put their clothing into plastic bags and then put on supplied bathrobes...
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    A little incident and everybody is scrambling for cover and always screaming for more ridiculous safety precautionary measures, the authorities that is. Frankly, all measures are not going to catch the determined terrorist(s). Just like random gun shooting incidents, why don't the authorities screen all homes for unlicensed or suspected mentally unbalanced person(s) with illegal weapons ? Why don't the authorities screen bus passengers ? The real reason ultimately is about money; money that the airports can fleece from airline passengers, airlines wanting to protect their investments in planes, security companies making more bucks without providing any more protection and insurance companies earning more premiums. These are all the expense of the airline passenger. It's time the airline consumer association or fair trading commission looks into how airlines customers are fleeced and have not received any any quantifiable protection despite paying more charges.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Passengers must remain seated during the last hour of an international flight? Better ban coffee, tea and caffeinated soft drinks two hours before landing. And lay off that highly subversive water, too!Yeesh! Wish I could catch a bus from London to NYC.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    It's fine to have a little fun with this topic, but seriously, it is best to consider what terrorist organizations hope to accomplish and its cost to them.It costs millions of dollars and many months to recruit, train, arm and deploy terrorist actors. Terrorist organizations want their attempts rewarded by extreme notoriety. They cannot afford interception. They don't particularly care if their actors are killed; they are going to blow up themselves anyway. It's strictly economics: Bang for the buck.Therefore, if you would harden a target, reduce the apparent probability of success against that target and improve probability of interception. Random (i.e. non-politically correct) search is powerful deterrent. So is covert surveillance (e.g. air marshals embedded in flights). So is configuring the target so that a team of conspiring actors is necessary for them to succeed, since detection of any one of them would cause mission failure and loss of all of them. So is merely the rumor of a new detection modality (e.g., real time gas chromatography or passive millimeter-wave scanning) that terrorist organization(s) cannot evaluate.The bad news? (1) The bad guys don't disband. They shift from harder to softer targets. (2) No defensive system is perfect. Defense likewise reduces to a cost / benefit calculus. Unfortunately for threatened democracies, much of that calculus is political.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    You know just about anybody could come up with the same idiocy as the person making up these rules. In fact we might do better with anybody other than the one doing it.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong but, weren't cell phones actually helpful on at least one of the planes during the 911 attack? I'm not sure how this would help.For the shy folks, maybe we could have anesthesia air... put everyone to sleep for the entire flight.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Why not get rid of TSA since they cannot seem to get their act together after 7 years as Tirants of the Airways. We should also get rid of Homeland Security since as Zsars of Security are a total failure in every respect.These people are costing the American people billions per year and we are not any safer today than in 9/11. The lulls in attacks are due to terrorists sitting and thinking of new ways they can attack us while HSA, TSA, and NSA sit on their butts doing nothing since they have secure jobs.Guess what? I just figured it out. That is what "Security" stands for in all these agency names. "Job Security".Between these agencies and congress. We are totally screwed.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Unfortunately, TSA is in a no win situation. If they do nothing and something happens, they're at fault. If they do anything and something happens, they did the wrong thing and they're at fault. If they do something and nothing happens, it's not necessarily because of what they did. It's the kind of job where failure is the only outcome.I can't comment on the latest rules because I don't know what went into the decision process.I wish there was a good answer to the problem but there isn't. If someone does have an answer, I'd love to hear it and so would everyone else.(And no, I don't work for TSA or their contractors.)
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Terrorists are having a great laugh now. An attack does not even have to be successful in order to impact the whole of western society and cost millions of dollars in time and resources.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Naked and standing up, to improve capacity. Probablyunconscious too. Baggage flies on a separate aircraft.This still is not enough protection. There is stillthe possibility of explosives hidden internally. Cavitysearches can only go so far. Binary liquids in containersthat can be dissolved by stomach acids anyone? What about redesigning aircraft so that people are transported in pods designed to direct the explosion through the skin of the aircraft with minimal damage?A lot of the TSA rules are reactive in nature and appearto be more closely related to CYA and the appearances ofdoing something rather than effective deterrence.Between the TSA rules and most airlines being on the verge of bankrupcy most of the time, flying has become a miserable experience.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    While we're suggesting new rules that the TSA can implement to protect us, why don't we limit flights to only those people over 40, or perhaps 50? Of course, those people permitted to fly would have to fly naked. The reason for limiting passengers to a certain age group is that most of the terrorists seem to be young men in their twenties. If this group were banned from flying entirely, the remaining passengers should be much safer than we are now.As a person now in my sixties, I would welcome the relief I would feel by flying with similarly aged naked people. I think that the TSA could then begin to give some thought to rules that might actually have some relationship to reality -- or is that asking too much from this esteemed Federal agency?
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    The trouble with flying naked is that the TSA would then go in for vaginal and rectal searches.Flying naked wouldn't bother me or many of my friends, seriously. But I do like the jokes.This article is the best analysis I've read yet of recent bullying by the Transportation Stupidity Agency. Bravo.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    If you read the TSA security directive, it applies to flights originating at airports outside the U.S. with destinations inside the U.S. Therefore, air carriers like Virgin America and American that offer in-flight WiFi on domestic flights are probably not affected. I have 5 flights in the next 10 days, so I guess I'll find out then if I'm reading the TSA security directive wrong or not.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Well, it would lead to a lot more passengers flying United.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    mike lgan should run the TSA - and kick out those ass people who run it now. Thanks Mike...

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      Mobile & WirelessWhite Papers & Webcasts

      White Paper

      Ten Steps to an Enterprise Mobility Strategy

      Enterprise employees are more mobile, relishing the ability to work productively anywhere, at any time. They may use any means to get connected, often creating financial and security risks for your company. Discover how to get control of your enterprise mobility strategy and ensure mobile worker productivity with these ten steps.

      White Paper

      What You Need to Know About the Costs of Mobility

      Mobile workers want to get connected anywhere, at any time, often at any cost. Enterprise mobility is often a hidden "black" budget in your company. Ensure that your traveling employees are productive everywhere, even while you control cost and security, through an enterprise mobility strategy.

      White Paper

      The 2011 iPass Mobile Enterprise Report

      This industry survey covers trends, recommendations and a policy guide on managing Enterprise Mobility for IT management and CIOs. Get data on employee device liability, as well as smartphone/tablet penetration, budget control and provisioning. Find out how your organization compares, how to ensure mobile worker productivity, and control costs.

      Webcast On Demand

      Managing Enterprise Mobility Costs

      Mobile employees, especially those traveling internationally, were spending time and resources finding and making connections. Roaming costs were out of control. The IT Administrator at The Hay Group tells you how he got more control over these costs, providing management with predictable budgets and insights while ensuring employee productivity.

      Sponsor: iPass

      White Paper

      Digital Transformation: Creating New Business Models Where Digital Meets Physical

      Individuals and businesses alike are embracing the digital revolution. Social networks and digital devices are being used to engage government, businesses and civil society, as well as friends and family.

      See more White Papers | Webcasts

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question