TSA Software Bug Creates Airport Bomb Scare

192939495969798999 writes "An article at CNN's website reports on a serious software bug at the Atlanta airport." From the article: "TSA screeners are given tests around the clock to check their alertness. Images of bombs and other suspicious devices that are hard to detect are put up on the X-ray machine, followed after a brief delay by an alert that reads, 'This is a test.' After reviewing a tape of the images, Hawley said the software failed to alert the screener of the test."

Comments

Fun with false images

[TripMaster Monkey]

I didn't know the TSA employed such software to test their screeners. This incident raises the possibility of tampering with the software to either:

1. purposely display an image of a dangerous item where none exists, inciting a scare like the one witnessed Wednesday, disrupting thousands of lives and paralyzing a major terminal, or:
   
2. display an image of an innocuous item instead of the actual image of the luggage containing a dangerous item, allowing terrorists to smuggle said items onto aircraft. Obviously, this scenario will require far more sophisticated timing of the false image than the previous scenario, but it should still be possible.
   

Given these possibilities, and given the fact that Wednesday's incident proves that such a thing is possible, I'm betting the TSA is currently debating whether or not the decision to make the scanners capable of displaying false images in the first place was a wise one.

Re:Fun with false images

[Ihlosi]

This incident raises the possibility of tampering with the software to either

3. Display "This is a test" right after Mr. Terrorists luggage containing dangerous items has passed through the X-Ray machine.

Re:Fun with false images

[apoc.famine]

Worse than that, it shouldn't be too hard to display the "that was just a test" message on a more and more frequent basis. As the screeners are already familiar with this notice, they'll probably start to become desensitized to it. Then it becomes pretty easy to slip stuff past them.

This is very, very similiar to the "click ok to continue" problem which plagues Windows, and is really the root cause of many spyware installs. If warnings are too frequent, users treat them as irritations that they need to get around rather than important info that they need to read, understand, and pass judgement on. In this case, all that needs to be done is to up the frequency, something that shouldn't be too hard to do.

Re:Fun with false images

[Daniel_Staal]

It is a wise one: it keeps the screeners from getting to bored with their jobs. Since something they have to react to comes up moderately often, they will stay alert enough to react to it. If it didn't the fact that months go by without them having to actually react to any of the bags will mean they stop expecting to react, and then stop noticing what's actually in them.

This is all standard psychology: People aren't good at finding rare exceptions in repetative data. That is one of the reasons we invented computers. Unfortunately, a computer can't spot a weird bomb, so we need an actual intelegnce manning it. That means a human. So, we play these tricks on ourselves to keep those humans working at an acceptable level.

Re:Fun with false images

[C10H14N2]

capable of displaying false images in the first place was a wise one.

I've had design meetings practically come to blows when similarly asinine suggestions were made in the context of things that by comparison were about as critical as a recipe database. Yes, you would think in "system to positively identify bombs" the flowchart box labeled "automatically and without further inquiry disregard positive image of bomb" would raise a few eyebrows. Geezuz.

Re:Fun with false images

[maxwell demon]

purposely display an image of a dangerous item where none exists, inciting a scare like the one witnessed Wednesday, disrupting thousands of lives and paralyzing a major terminal

More importantly: After enough false alarms, the screeners will more likely not react should a real bomb appear. "Oh well, surely just another software fault, just like the three we've had earlier this week. We better don't scare our passengers again ..."

Re:Fun with false images

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA screeners' raises are based on how many hits/misses they get. It makes sense, because this is the only way to get someone to pay attention.

Re:Fun with false images

[Illserve]

It is not only a wise decision, it is essential.

The TSA funds fundamental research in sustaining human performance in search tests to ensure that these baggage screeners are performing well.

One thing that has been found is that the human brain cannot keep searching efficiently for something that never appears, you just tend to zone out. We're not robots after all, and searching day in and day out for a 1 in a million event that may not occur for months or years is not a task we're equipped to do.

By giving the visual system periodic targets, it stays frosty. So some kind of periodic fake bomb is necessary.

Now you can do this in two ways: with real fake bombs, or images of bombs. One of these options is going to cost about 100 times as much to implement as the other and at the end of the day, if properly implemented, both will serve the same purpose. It all comes down to how much security can we get for our dollar, and paying actors to play dress up terrorists and slip fake-bombs through the baggage system is hugely inefficient compared to a software solution.

So you ca argue that the software solution is too vulnerable... but your suggestion is going to need to be accompanied by a list of other systems that can be scrapped to pay for the more costly alternative because it has to come from somewhere.

Re:Fun with false images

[advocate_one]

It is a wise one: it keeps the screeners from getting to bored with their jobs. Since something they have to react to comes up moderately often, they will stay alert enough to react to it.

does it heck... they'll still be bored to tears...just petrified of missing one of the random tests... can you imagine driving along the highway minding your own business when software in the car does an awareness check on you by popping up an image of a kid running across the road??? well this is similar...

they've got devices coming out for cars and trucks that test driver awareness far more subtly than just popping up a test picture at random... the software actually monitors the drivers eye movements and other parameters... so there shouldn't be anything stopping them from doing something similar for this x-ray scanner application...

Then again, perhaps it would be better to dump the human out of the loop altogether and rely on AI to determine if an item of luggage warrants further attention... but these days it's still cheaper to use people to do it and pay them peanuts at the same time...

Re:Fun with false images

[maddash1946]

I disagree. Do you know how many false alarms fire departments respond to? A heck of a lot more than real fires, I can tell you that. A local building may have a faultily alarm system and a unit may be called out to it on a nightly basis. Speaking from experience, those kinds of continuous false alarms very rarely have a negative effect on response time.

Certainly, you could say that screeners may not take their job as seriously as a firefighters - I'm doubtful it's as exciting, but it's definitely as important to the safety of civilians and they should be held to the same standards. False alarms should never affect their performance... if it does they should be fired on the spot.

Re:Fun with false images

[homer_ca]

How are the letters supposed to show up on an xray? Write it in glitter pen?

Re:Fun with false images

[nacturation]

How are the letters supposed to show up on an xray? Write it in glitter pen?

Letters made out of the stuff that shows up in xrays such as... I dunno... metal?

Re:Fun with false images

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Let's play these two scenarios out, then see what changes in the asessment:

False image is displayed. System does not notify user that the image is false:
As we have seen, the terminal grinds to a halt until a programmer can validate that ther really is no bomb.

Actor hired by the TSA, carrying proper ID, passes a false bomb:
The actor and bomb, both easily verified by the use of ID and a trained bomb responder, are taken aside and safely dealt with. The terminal continues on business as usual in a matter of minutes.

The cost of the actor disappears in the lost revenue from the terminal shutdown.

Just a business perspective on it, which the TSA seems to lack.

Re:Fun with false images

[Illserve]

Those are just to catch poor performers and weed them out, but they aren't frequent enough to keep people on their toes. You would need hundreds of such actors working at airports day and night for this purpose.

Here's some research.

http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/pdf/WolfePrevalenceN ature05.pdf

Re:Fun with false images

[Illserve]

This has happened one time.

To do the job of this software hack you would need actors working every airport in the country, day and night. The costs would be staggering.

Re:Fun with false images

[Reality Master 101]

Then again, perhaps it would be better to dump the human out of the loop altogether and rely on AI to determine if an item of luggage warrants further attention...

We need a science of AI first before we can do that.

but these days it's still cheaper to use people to do it and pay them peanuts at the same time.

A machine is (almost) always cheaper than a human. It can work 24 hours a day, doesn't need health insurance, doesn't need days off, etc, etc. The problem is that some jobs can only be done by humans.

Re:Fun with false images

[Daniel_Staal]

they've got devices coming out for cars and trucks that test driver awareness far more subtly than just popping up a test picture at random... the software actually monitors the drivers eye movements and other parameters... so there shouldn't be anything stopping them from doing something similar for this x-ray scanner application...

Those can tell you if the driver is awake, but not if they are paying attention. Fortunatly, someone driving a car has to pay attention fairly routinely just to stay in the lane and on the road, so 'awake == aware' (generally) in that situation.

For the this screening application, it is quite possible to be awake while not being aware. They can be fully focused on the screen and just not notice because their brain didn't realize that it had to notice. As I said; this is a well-known failing of the human mind. You are likely to see what you expect to see in a situation that closely resembles a common situation.

Oh, and yes, a good AI would be perfect for this job. Unfortunately, we don't have one good enough for it yet. An AI can spot a known weapon, but not an unknown one. A human can spot an unknown weapon. If they are awake and aware.

Re:Fun with false images

[ehrichweiss]

Horrifying but probably true. I guess the idea of having "mystery shoppers" with "suspicious devices" passing through their checkpoints instead is a little too simplistic. This breakdown of grey matter and safety when we're supposed to be experiencing *enhanced* security is the main reason I don't fly.

Re:Fun with false images

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

To get full time checking, you are right, the software hack is capable of being everywhere all the time. On the other hand, it has a failure rate, as does the actor solution, as does any system. Provable correctness is an inverse function of complexity.

Another possibility is to have the software notify the supervision prior to the image and require acknowledgement, and notify the screener after. That way, false alarms are minimized since the management should be aware, and no test is conducted without human intervention.

Obviously, the Click to Install issue arises here, but one screw up from a person means one less lazy person supervising this.

The thing that the designers of the software apparently had trouble with was failure modes for items with seemingly low priority, like test images.

  Oh well, another day another downtime.

Re:Fun with false images

[FireFury03]

Those can tell you if the driver is awake, but not if they are paying attention.

I'm not familiar with the devices in question, but I imagine it's fairly easy to tell if the driver is aware - when you're driving your eyes are constantly moving to scan the road for hazards. If you stop concentrating it's reasonable to think that you'll probably stop moving your eyes (so much) or at least the pattern of eye movement would change.

Fortunatly, someone driving a car has to pay attention fairly routinely just to stay in the lane and on the road, so 'awake == aware' (generally) in that situation.

I'm afraid I think you're probably wrong here - you don't have to really be paying a lot of attention to stay in a lane since most roads are pretty predictable - the road isn't going to change between the time you first saw it on the horizon and the time you get to that point. The real problem is that you can be driving along for a very long time whilest not really paying attention and then something you weren't expecting happens like the guy infront of you stamps on his brakes.

I think the fact that people can stay on the road whilest quite drunk is proof that staying in lane isn't a lot of effort - but drunk drivers can't deal with the unexpected.

Re:Fun with false images

[jmnormand]

it is true that constant training on this is needed to keep the screeners alert, however using an active terminal does not seem like the best solutioin. software failure such as this is just one example. supose the test image actualy covers up something that the screen should have seen, or supose they get so use to the test images that they just asume it was a test when it wasnt (even more plausible now that the test has been proven inacurate). i would think having screen spend 15 min 3 or 4 times a day, on a test machine may be a better way to keep them alert and aware of these situations. simply install a test scanner close by the real scaners and cycle through employees on duty, if lines start to back up the employee is there ready to go. as for the extra cost i think it would be small compaired to the possible consiquences.

Re:Fun with false images

[maxwell demon]

What you miss is the damage done by a false alarm. If a fire brigade comes to a building which doesn't burn, well, that's just the cost of the fire brigade going to that building. Not a big deal. However, look at the effect this false bomb alarm had. A false alarm with such drastic consequences several times in a row will surely cause much damage in itself. Add to that that true bomb alarms are much more rare than true fire alarms, and you have the big risk of the alarm being ignored, based on the expected damage of not ignoring it being higher than the expected damage of ignoring it.

Re:Fun with false images

[geekoid]

I suspect they would become suspicious when some one starts taking apart the machine to get at the system.

Re:Fun with false images

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's nothing like the Windows "Click OK" problem at all.

With "Click OK", you are expected to respond to a warning/message box. You become desensitized to the warning and just click "OK". The system provides no feedback about this whatsoever. Click OK, and you're finished, you don't learn the repercussions of your act until weeks later (if ever).

With the airport software, the screener has to respond to images of contraband on the screen. In theory, after each test image appears, there will be a message, saying "That was just a test", providing valuable feedback, not only for the screener, but also for his/her boss, who will likely reprimand the screener if they miss any test cases.

No feedback=no learning
Feedback=learning

Re:Fun with false images

[Daniel_Staal]

I'm not familiar with the devices in question, but I imagine it's fairly easy to tell if the driver is aware - when you're driving your eyes are constantly moving to scan the road for hazards. If you stop concentrating it's reasonable to think that you'll probably stop moving your eyes (so much) or at least the pattern of eye movement would change.

And all of that looks much like looking around at the scenery, or looking for animals in the fields, or... None of which is concentrating on the road.

A sufficiantly subtle AI might be able to tell the difference. Of course, if it were that subtle it might as well drive the car for you.

I'm afraid I think you're probably wrong here - you don't have to really be paying a lot of attention to stay in a lane since most roads are pretty predictable - the road isn't going to change between the time you first saw it on the horizon and the time you get to that point. The real problem is that you can be driving along for a very long time whilest not really paying attention and then something you weren't expecting happens like the guy infront of you stamps on his brakes.

Find an empty road and try it, I dare you. Close your eyes and see how long it is before you hit the rumble strips. (And please, use a road with rumble strips!)

Yes, the road doesn't change much since you saw it on the horizon. At normal driving speeds that is 10-30 seconds away. But even that is irrelevent: how often does the road change, period, is the relevent question. How often does something come up that you have to react to?

You have to react to every turn in the road, every drift of your steering alignment, every strong gust of wind, every obsticle in the road, every other car on the road... It is a constantly changing environment, where you have to react to just about everything in it. (Somehow.)

Contrast this to baggage security: You are in the same chair, looking at the same monitor, looking at bags that basically have the same items in them: clothes, books, electronics, toleiteries. If you are really unlucky, once in a blue moon you'll have something real that you need to actually react to. In the meantime you've looked at millions of closely similar items that you don't have to react to. This is a basically static environment, where you must react to occasional (probably hard-to-see) differences.

As I said: this is proven hard for humans. We don't do it well. We get bored, our brain lies to us, and we get restless. We miss things.

Re:Fun with false images

[aevan]

False positives don't necessarily mean that; all it means is that it occassionally detects something wrong.

To use a broken analogy, it's like saying the police system catches all the bad guys because they occassionally arrest an innocent.

...unless of course by 'working' you mean it at least does SOMETHING and isn't totally broken, then yes, it does mean that :P

Re:Fun with false images

[carlos92]

Actor hired by the TSA, carrying proper ID, passes a false bomb:

The actor and bomb, not so easily identified as a fake threat because of a misunderstanding, are considered a real threat, the actor is shot down by a police officer and the airport is closed three days for an extensive investigation.

Re:Fun with false images

[ConceptJunkie]

Fortunatly (sic), someone driving a car has to pay attention fairly routinely just to stay in the lane and on the road, so 'awake == aware' (generally) in that situation.

You obviously don't drive very much, do you?

Re:Fun with false images

[Buran]

And the "mystery shopper" system has worked fine for years. You were saying?

Re:Fun with false images

[Moofie]

"People would buy OSX w/o Apple hardware. The reverse isn't true. Therefore, Apple is a software company."

You're getting awful good at this proof by assertion thing.

Re:Fun with false images

[muhgcee]

Wait...you don't fly for safety reasons? I am assuming you drive a car?

Re:Fun with false images

[smoker2]

Heh heh heh...

And on the conveyer belt tonight !
We have...
A cuddly toy
A coffee pot
A complete dining set
Handheld fission device (with lifetime warranty)
A years subscription to National Geographic
A Lava Lamp
An AK47
President Bush
goatse
etc...

Re:Fun with false images

[Illserve]

It's not about testing humans for alertness, you misunderstand the purpose of the lures.

The fake bomb images are there to IMPROVE performance.

The DHS & TSA fund research into optimizing human search. This implementation is a practical application of very recent research.

I refer you to
http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/pdf/WolfePrevalenceN ature05.pdf

which is part of the research of Jeremy Wolfe's lab
http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/

Just read the first the first few paragraphs of the Nature paper I linked to understand the point.

Re:Fun with false images

[griffjon]

Or, more fun, write "this is a test" in lead on your luggage :)

Re:Fun with false images

[bcattwoo]

Worse than that, it shouldn't be too hard to display the "that was just a test" message on a more and more frequent basis.

And you say this should be easy based on ... what? You and some of the other posters make it sound like someone could just pop a floppy into the machine while the guard isn't looking and change the software.

I'm sure we are much more likely to see a well-disguised bomb, etc, snuck through security or bypassing via some kind of social engineering before they would go to the trouble of trying to modify the software on the x-ray machines.

For that matter it would probably be a lot easier to turn down the sensitivity on the metal detectors. Wasn't there an incident last year where a terminal had to be reprocessed after they discovered a metal detector had actually been turned off for like an hour?

Re:Fun with false images

[starman97]

so, it's better to have a random passenger shot over the same thing
because the x-ray box decided to put a fake gun image in their carry-on
and the programmer forgot to put the disclaimer screen up afterwards?

Re:Fun with false images

[electronym]

Wasn't there an incident last year where a terminal had to be reprocessed after they discovered a metal detector had actually been turned off for like an hour?

Yes. Originally they reported that it wasn't even plugged in. Then they decided it was just "out of calibration." As in, "The plug was out of calibration with the electrical socket."

Re:Fun with false images

[shawn(at)fsu]

People that browse at +1 really miss out on some of the most insightfull comments every posted on /. This is one of them.

Re:Fun with false images

[scherrey]

Actually they do the "mystery shopper" thing too. Recently something like 21 airports were testing in this manner and 100% of them failed.

Honestly I'm not terribly concerned about safety. The ONLY reason the 911 terrorists succeeded was because of our policy of cooperating with hi-jackers which was based on the presumption that they wanted to survive the effort themselves. That policy is no more. Frankly I feel we'd be better off if everyone came on board armed with knives or sidearms (if properly trained). Regardless, any terrorist taking on a plane full of passengers these days knows he's going to be instantly attacked from all directions and shot down if necessary. We're putting way too much emphasis on things that have no measurable effect on our safety at serious detriment to our own freedoms, convenience, and financial situations.

Re:Fun with false images

[shotfeel]

I understand your pont, but remember all work in said building stops as it is evacuated due to the alarm. People are only allowed back in after the firefighters have gone through every floor to make sure.

FWIW, a friend of mine brought her 4 year old along when she stopped by work after hours to check a couple things. The kid pulled the fire alarm in the hall while messing around. She immediately called the fire department to tell them it was a false alarm, but they still had to come out and manually check every level of the building to ensure there wasn't coincidently another fire somewhere else in the building with anyone seeing it thinking it had already been reported.

Oh, in the mean time, everyone is still required to leave the building...

Re:Fun with false images

[shotfeel]

No, it most certainly has not for airport security. Which is why we are where we are...

Re:Fun with false images

[Moofie]

Again with the proof by assertion. Keep going! I'm sure somebody will believe you someday.

Re:Fun with false images

[Reality Master 101]

Isn't part of OSX's appeal that it runs flawlessly?

Well, let's not get crazy. But anyway...

And isn't that because OSX is specifically tuned for its hardware?

No. Apple people believe this for some reason, but Apple hardware was mostly identical to everyone else's hardware in this past, and that's even more true now that it's Intel. The difference is really the Unix core.

How well would it run on generic hardware?

Identical.

Sure, if you go out and buy a crappy hardware card, it could potentially cause some problems, the same as the Windows world. But if you stuck to mainstream hardware, you'd have exactly the same experience.

Re:Fun with false images

[Reality Master 101]

Again with the proof by assertion. Keep going! I'm sure somebody will believe you someday.

Here's another "proof by assertion": you have zero sense of humor. -rolls eyes-

Re:Fun with false images

[Firehed]

discovered a metal detector had actually been turned off for like an hour?

Shouldn't it be a bit of a tip-off when nobody sets off the thing for over an hour? I doubt something like that could just come from caring and curteous, not to mention not-forgetful passengers.

Re:Fun with false images

[Gordonjcp]

You know what you have to do now is make a cast lead sculpture of goatse just to put in your luggage.

Re:Fun with false images

[Moofie]

An alternative explanation is that you're just not funny. But you're the Reality Master. What do I know?

Re:Fun with false images

[Reality Master 101]

An alternative explanation is that you're just not funny. But you're the Reality Master. What do I know?

Actually, no. That alternative explanation doesn't work in this case. There's recognizing a joke, and then there's evaluating the joke. My joke may or may not have been funny (it was, actually, but that's tangential to the point), but you failed to even recognize that an attempt at humor was involved.

The distinction is subtle, I admit, but that's what the Reality Master does. He tries to lift and educate the masses. No need to thank me.

Re:Fun with false images

[Moofie]

I stand corrected. You're a barrel of laughs. (how are you with sarcasm?)

Re:Fun with false images

[einhverfr]

I am perfectly OK with the weapons ban. Terrorists would kill fewer individuals than crazy people with air rage.

Re:Fun with false images

[stephelton]

atlanta set us up the bomb!

Re:Fun with false images

[GSloop]

Frankly, anyone with even something as little as a fork will decimate any hijacker.

Honestly, they could rip off the cockpit doors and I pretty much guarantee that NO airliner would get successfully hijacked again.

The passengers would rip the hijacker to death with toothpicks if need be.

The whole boondoggle about "airport" security is a huge ruse. Simply said, no one will get hijacked again.
Someone crazy might stab or attempt to harm a pilot, but there wouldn't be another hijacking in any case.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to see a terrorist feed on the massive reaction to actually use our own reaction to bring down a plane - not from their action, but the over-reaction of the passengers and security. (The rules of fighting - to use the force of the attacker against them tend to re-enforce this idea.)

Note: This is a post speculating about theory. Please NSA leave the black helicopters at home. I'm certainly not the only guy to think this.

-Greg

Re:Fun with false images

[Zakabog]

does it heck... they'll still be bored to tears...just petrified of missing one of the random tests... can you imagine driving along the highway minding your own business when software in the car does an awareness check on you by popping up an image of a kid running across the road??? well this is similar...

So your natural reaction to a child running across a highway while you're driving is boredom? I would be more alert after seeing that (even if it was just a test.) Ok that would probably cause an accident though (I'd swerve to miss the child, hit another car) but I'd deffinitely be more alert. And sure, if this happened all the time I wouldn't want to drive, but I would react much quicker (and better) if a child actually did run across the road.

Re:Fun with false images

[ScrewMaster]

I'm betting the TSA is currently debating whether or not the decision to make the scanners capable of displaying false images in the first place was a wise one.

I'm betting they aren't. This is acceptable collateral damage, just like all the other stupid invasive things they've done. For an outfit supposedly charged with maintaining our personal safety, they don't seem to care all that much about what actually happens to us. But what the hell ... it's all for the greater good, right?

Re:Fun with false images

[sgt_doom]

Jeepers!!!! I hope the firm that does the security software for TSA isn't affiliated with that old Marvin Bush (George Bush's little known brother)firm, Stratesec...you know, the same firm that did the "high tech" security systems for United Airlines, the former World Trade Center, and various airports. Since they dissolved that firm a little while after 9/11/01, I wonder what became of those boys????

Re:Fun with false images

[Torham]

On modern X-Ray equipment, virtually everything shows up in an X-Ray, yes even a plastic weapon would. But you would want to use lead for the best result should anyone be planning this ;)

Re:Fun with false images

[nytmare]

Why are all of your punctuation marks tripled?

Re:Fun with false images

[FireFury03]

Find an empty road and try it, I dare you. Close your eyes and see how long it is before you hit the rumble strips. (And please, use a road with rumble strips!)

Awareness isn't just a boolean "aware / not aware" property - there are different levels of awareness. You can be aware enough to keep the car on the road but not aware enough to deal with a sudden change in the circumstances (you only have to look at accidents caused by very tired drivers to see this, you can drive for a long distance while tired but you won't be aware enough to deal with something unexpected).

Re:Fun with false images

[jrumney]

Exactly what I thought after reading the article. The risk of a real threat coinciding with a random test is surely enough to warrant a hand search of any luggage that shows up with suspicious items whether it was a test or not. Also, the tests should be images of something less alarming than a bomb - knives or something is still enough of a test to make sure the operator is paying attention, but isn't going to cause an evacuation of the airport.

Re:Fun with false images

[Stauf]

Oh, and yes, a good AI would be perfect for this job. Unfortunately, we don't have one good enough for it yet. An AI can spot a known weapon, but not an unknown one. A human can spot an unknown weapon. If they are awake and aware.

I wouldn't think, if something doesn't look enough like a gun/bomb to trigger an AI, a human would fare any better.

I think that we don't use AIs for almost the opposite reason -- an AI may falsely report a hair dryer as a gun, and would probably do so often enough so the security folks quit paying attention to the alert.

Re:Fun with false images

[ehrichweiss]

I figured they did the mystery shopper thing, I was just wondering why they didn't use it instead of that idiotic program. That was asking for trouble. I agree about allowing knives, guns, etc. onboard an airplane. We can bring knives and guns along with us when we travel by car, boat, bus(well to some degree...Greyhound ain't happy about it to be certain) but for some reason we have to disarm ourselves of anything that could be considered a weapon when we board an airplane. Next thing I expect is that they're gonna ask about my 31+ years of martial arts experience and they'll create some new policy requiring handcuffs. I wonder if it'd be considered a violation of the un-Patriot Act to spread flyers around an airport telling people how to improvise weapons in the event of a hijacking. At least if the power were back in the MAJORITY's hands, I'd feel much safer.

The good news....

[tverbeek]

Fortunately the innocent traveler whom TSA employees gunned down on suspicion of being a terrorist had no immediate family, so the chances of a wrongful death lawsuit are slim.

Re:The good news....

[sjwest]

Remember if somebody you know never turned up - There probably

a. dead
b. wearing orange at a free us military cuban holiday resort

Its one way to find terrorists.

Re:The good news....

[autOmato]

There probably
Where probably?

Re:The good news....

[955301]

No no, this happened in the US, not in the UK.

The US security would have gunned down the people around the suspicious traveler and missed him entirely.

Besides, the flight attendents for Delta pass out weapons during the flight. They come by with a cart full of aluminum soda cans which make very effective shanks. Just flatten the center of the can, give it a twist and voila! A metal cutting edge.You can even serrate it with a diamond hole puncher:

http://www.onlineriver.com/doorway/holepunchworld. cfm

Re:The good news....

[operagost]

Yay for Club Gitmo!

inconvenient but reassuring

[God'sDuck]

better than the parallel-universe headline: study shows screeners oblivious to obvious bombs in test images...

Re:inconvenient but reassuring

[AKAImBatman]

better than the parallel-universe headline

Well, it wasn't exactly a "parallel-universe" as much as this chick from the future who took back her gun parts before this scientist dude put them back together and accidently killed himself, thereby sending shockwaves into the future, and creating the destruction of all mankind. Then there were lots of cool explosions around the time gate just before the brains in a bottle blew up. It's quite simply, really.

Re:inconvenient but reassuring

[NaDrew]

Well, it wasn't exactly a "parallel-universe" as much as this chick from the future who took back her gun parts before this scientist dude put them back together and accidently killed himself, thereby sending shockwaves into the future, and creating the destruction of all mankind. Then there were lots of cool explosions around the time gate just before the brains in a bottle blew up. It's quite simply, really.

Great, great book. Awful, awful movie.

Re:ROFL!

[ceejayoz]

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzbusiest airport.htm

"Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport is the world's busiest passenger airport, with 77,939,536 arrivals, departures, and transfers in 1999. Atlanta bypassed #2 Chicago-O'Hare in 1998 to become the world's busiest."

There is No Software Design That Is So Good ...

[rewinn]

... that is cannot be implemented badly.

Re:There is No Software Design That Is So Good ...

[That's Unpossible!]

You sound like a Perl wizard.

(I'M KIDDING!!! I love Perl.)

Re:ROFL!

[AKAImBatman]

I don't know where you've been looking, but Atlanta is currently handling more traffic than even Chicago O'Hare. Which sucks for the pilots, because the ground crews are apparently quite slow.

Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

That's insane. Images to test their alertness sure, but images of bombs? That's just plain crazy. All you're doing is desensitising them and guaranteeing that even if they're alert they won't get the adrenaline rush they should. What brainiac thought this one up?

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[GreyPoopon]

Images to test their alertness sure, but images of bombs? That's just plain crazy. All you're doing is desensitising them and guaranteeing that even if they're alert they won't get the adrenaline rush they should.

It depends on what they do with the tests. If there are severe consequences for the operator if they miss one of the test images, then I doubt they'll be desensitized. On the other hand, if there's no consequence for being a slacker, you'll see a group of operators hudding around the display laughing at the "fake" bomb image while a terrorist walks right on through.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[hey!]

Yes, instead of a "serious" scare, they should go for a humorous scare, for example trying to slip bizarre marital aids through the x-ray.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[rayde]

should they get an adrenaline rush? wouldn't that lead to potential panic? I think i'd rather if they were able to calmly react to such situations, knowing that most often it will be a test. i think they'll more likely play by the book in those situations, than do something more emotionally driven.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[moop]

I think it can be beneficial. I think it causes the TSA's to be more alert all of the time because they they are being measured by these tests. Thousands of people will go through the screening before a red flag item goes through. This could lull the TSA's into complacency and they could miss a real item.

I'm sure if they miss several of the test images they could get fired or reprimanded. Just like any job, once you are monitered people are forced to work better, for example my job, if a copy of my desktop was captured and sent to my boss at a random interval I would not be making this post.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[TrappedByMyself]

That's insane. Images to test their alertness sure, but images of bombs? That's just plain crazy. All you're doing is desensitising them and guaranteeing that even if they're alert they won't get the adrenaline rush they should. What brainiac thought this one up?

That doesn't even make any sense. This is training, you WANT people to see these things. You WANT them to have experience reacting to stuff they think is real. How do you expect them to identify bombs in suticases if they've never seen examples, especially in real world situations. Watching films in a classroom is nice and all, but not real enough. That "desensitising" comment is out of touch. You would rather them get an adrenaline rush and panic as opposed to getting maybe less of a rush, but have the experience to handle the situation?
You need to learn the difference between education and training. Education is a good start, but "first responder" types need training to know how to apply their education to a crisis situation.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[regen]

You don't want them to have an adrenaline rush. You want them to react as trained not to panic and put peoples lives at risk. Anyone trained to use deadly force goes through this procedure. You drill and drill and drill so that finally when faced with an stressful situation, you don't panic but rather can rely upon your instinct to allow you to do the right thing.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

No, it's you that's not making sense. You're saying that in order to train someone to react to an extreme situation you have to constantly bombard them with false examples of that situation?

It's one thing to learn to identify a bomb on an X-ray machine. It's quite another to have them randomly flash the image through when you're actually doing the work then a "just kidding" message.

Hell that's like always training with live ammo. Sure you'll get soldiers who are use to the pressure but expect to send a few home in body bags.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[menace3society]

This is sort of symptomatic of the Bush bureaucracy's approach to accountability: find a way to hold everyone accountable for his performance, but only do it in meaningless ways (in terms of philosophy, it's of a feather with No Child Left Behind). This way, if anyone asks, "Yes, the TSA has found a way to make sure that employees pay attention to security screens," and no one bothers to follow up with, "Does it actually work?" or "Does it help them spot real terrorists?" A better solution, to my mind, would be to send someone in for a dry-run test periodically (like a secret shopper, but with a suitcase bomb). That way, if people are trigger-happy, don't pay attention, or insufficiently cautious they can be tested in a realistic fashion.

It would be important not to do it more often once a month for a given group of people, though, otherwise they still may become desensitized.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Let me get this straight. You're saying people working like robots is a good thing???

Hope you're never my boss! By the way my bosses would never question a little personal web browsing so long as it doesn't interfeer with getting my work done.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[honkycat]

There's no indication of how often these false images are injected, so it's not clear they're being "bombarded" with false events. If it's too many and there's no penalty for missing a few, then it's a bad move. However, 99.99% or more of all airport screeners will never see a real event. It's not something you're going to get experience seeing or handling if there are not drills.

The only way to test the screeners and keep them alert is to give them events to respond to. The problem with the system as described in the article is that it sounds like only the machine knows that a fake event was generated until an audit later. Really, the people who the screener would call should be notified ahead of time that there is a fake event. That would prevent escalation. If this is done, though, there must also be an identifier of some sort attached to every image so that they don't mistake a real event report for an anticipated false one.

As long as the screeners are seriously penalized for failing to respond to any false event, this is not a bad thing. It's absolutely nothing like your "live ammo" analogy. A false positive event like that which occurred is acceptable. A few people were inconvenienced by an airport shutdown and nobody gets hurt. Imagine the consequences of a false negative.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[evil_Tak]

Agreed. Instead the software should insert pornographic images at random intervals; give those poor, underpaid saps something they actually want to watch for!

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Okay if you were on a plane, and an inflight emergency was declared because an engine had died, and you later found out it was just a drill would you argue that it's okay that you thought you were going to die because most pilots and passengers will never see a real event? Now what would happen if a loved one died because a drill like this went wrong? I bet you'd sue the company black and blue

You do realise they shoot suspected terrorist bombers and ask questions later don't you?

Come on. There's a flaw in your thinking here!

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[TrappedByMyself]

You do realise they shoot suspected terrorist bombers and ask questions later don't you?

Now you're just getting wacky.
Your original argument concerned training methods. Now you're tossing out the overgeneralized propaganda arguments. Just because an unfortunate even happened in the UK, you don't employ less effective training as a solution.

We better nip this one, otherwise the "think of the children" arguments will come out :)

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[HermanAB]

Hmm, I once saw the effect on a screener when my wife walked into a most secure government building with her handgun in her purse. The poor guy almost had a heart attack and was still shaking when we left the building a couple hours later and collected the handgun from his safe again. The worst is that this old guy with his X-ray machine was the last one in the chain - we already passed through two previous check points without incident...

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[RobertLTux]

Of course all it would take is NutJob having his device inside something else (shaving cream bottle? part of a PDA kit?) What is very suprising is how easy it would be to "fail the airframe" esp if you had a wing seat.

1 you punch a hole in the fuse (decompress the cabin)
2 you damage the wing (impair flight or snap the wing off)
3 bonus round you ignite the wing tanks (extra points is #name is on board)

and what makes you think that some geek doesn't have his laptop rigged with enough juice to do any of these??????

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Go tell the realtives I'm "Just getting wacky". Those were standing orders to shoot first and ask questions later, not some random "unfortunate" incident.

"Think of the children" my left nut. If you can't argue the point instead of getting personal or insulting don't post. You're just annoyed someone can have an opinion that doesn't agree with yours.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

I agree with most of what you've said, but I don't think the secret shopper idea is a good one. I think something that can't be mistaken for a bomb but that's emphasised as being just as important to spot if you want to keep your job is the way to go. For example keep your eyes out for a certain rare type of boom box (stereo). Something along those lines

There are 2 advantages with this technique:

1) Secret shopper doesn't get a bullet in the head for their trouble if things go wrong.
2) Security staff still alert but not to bombs.

The only disadvantage I can think of is if it's overemphasised the real threat of a bomb might be ignored. ie. You'd have to allow the occassional missed boom box before you threatened to fire someone or they'd be so focused on finding boom boxes that they might miss the real bombs. Of course you'd also follow up with training on bomb identification as a separate excercise.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[menace3society]

People die working for government (mostly the military, but also people like firefighters and police officers) for stupid reasons all the time. Just offer a nice life insurance policy to someone with five kids that lives in Alabama and you'll find plenty of takers.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[rapidweather]

if a copy of my desktop was captured and sent to my boss at a random interval I would not be making this post.

You must be using Windows, with no virtual desktops!
I have 4 in IceWM in my knoppix remaster, so if you were using that, you could somehow get the "spy software" to focus on a desktop where you are doing some work, while you actually use another desktop to do something more interesting.
This sounds like a case where lots of software is made for Windows, "boss spyware", and none for linux! Good thing.
Could also be the real reason bosses like Windows.
Can't have the employees using Linux, where they could actually modify the applications, etc. to their needs.
I think it's worse than that.
Do you suppose bosses see "computers" as a "necessary evil" in the workplace? Undoubtedly then, they would not want "Linux" to be used at all, gives all the control over to the employees.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[Achromatic1978]

Okay if you were on a plane, and an inflight emergency was declared because an engine had died, and you later found out it was just a drill would you argue that it's okay that you thought you were going to die because most pilots and passengers will never see a real event?

This is a bad analogy. You are aware of the hundreds of hours every year commercial pilots spend in simulators, above and beyond training and recertification, for this very reason?

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[honkycat]

Wow, it's amazing what logical leaps you can accomplish if you don't limit yourself to valid or appropriate analogies.

This is a drill that, if misinterpreted, causes part of the airport to be evacuated and closed down for a couple hours. An appropriate analogy is an unexpected fire drill. I've been in plenty of those and I'm sometimes annoyed at the inconvenience, but happy to know that the building has a functioning safety system that gives an unnecessary alarm rather than silently ignoring a real emergency situation.

They shot a suspected terrorist who was acting in a threatening manner after being warned of the threat of force. If you've got a reference to someone being shot while cooperatively waiting for their bag at a security checkpoint, then maybe you've got a point.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Great idea! Just what the world needs! More jobs where people die needlessly, but hey that's okay because they pay well. Disgusting attitude.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

ARRRRGHHHHH! That's my goddamn point! You don't use a real dangerous operational situation for training purposes! You use a simulator for pilot training when it comes to abnormal operations. Similarly you should have a separate training situation for these airport security inspectors, not just random testing during normal operations. Read the rest of the thread before you judge what I said!

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

You are ignorant, your attitude is dangerous and foolish.

Drills (fire and other) have their risks when they're not represented as such. People are not going to be c calm and rational if they think their lives are in danger. People can get trampled, have arms or legs broken, equipment can be damaged etc. That's why usually you're told that a fire drill is just a drill.

As for people being gunned down, how about the man in britain who was just trying to catch a train, but happened to come out of the same building as some terrorist suspect. They thought he might be a suicide bomber so plain clothed police gunned him down. (Six or more bullets to the head) without identifying themselves and without taking pause to work out what's happening.

If you think someone's got the ability to set off a bomb immediately do you think they're just going to be politely questioned? What planet do you live on????

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[honkycat]

So because a drill might not be properly identified, we shouldn't have them? That is what you are suggesting, and that's absurd.

These people need to be able to do their job in a situation where it's *not* a drill. What do you suggest, they flash a little sign "this image is a test and contains a bomb" over the test images?

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

So because a drill might not be properly identified, we shouldn't have them? That is what you are suggesting, and that's absurd.

That is not what I'm suggesting so you're either failing to understand what I'm saying or misrepresenting it on purpose. Which is it? What I said is that drills do need to be identified as such IN ADVANCE, and that normal operations should not be used for a drill.

These people need to be able to do their job in a situation where it's *not* a drill.

Exactly. Which is why the drill should be separate to the job. It should not interfeer with normal operations.

What do you suggest, they flash a little sign "this image is a test and contains a bomb" over the test images?

Now what you're saying is ridiculous because it's basically what was done but the message flashed afterwards. It's just as prone to error.

No I suggest one day every set period of time the staff are taken somewhere for a half day or a day or so and tested. This shouldn't be at their usual station.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[honkycat]

Ok, maybe you're not advocating no drilling at all, but what I meant is you're suggesting no effective drilling. I don't believe that a pre-arranged drill achieves the necessary goal here.

In a job where you're staring at a monitor for hours at a time with nothing to find, you are going to lose your concentration if every single bag you ever look at in your entire life doesn't contain a bomb. If you always know when you're in a drill situation, then whether you like it or not, you will pay more attention when you're in the drills. The only way to be sure you're checking every package thoroughly and correctly is to have a real non-negligible chance that any package contains something you need to identify. That way, it's a game for every package -- you have to play it correctly or you'll lose.

I am not trying to be rhetorical here, I really believe that live drills like this are a good, necessary practice. I would not advocate live practice involving armed personnel -- and it seems evident to me (and now, I'm sure, everyone who's involved in this program) that this system needs additional safeguards to prevent escalation to a point where they are involved. Still, given a 99.9% chance that an overlooked bomb kills 150 people and a 0.1% chance that someone is killed in a false attack, I think it's wise to err on the side of safety.

Finally, getting rid of these drills won't get rid of these false alarms. The fact that people called in to deal with these situations can make mistakes should be considered, but not blown out of proportion.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Ok, maybe you're not advocating no drilling at all, but what I meant is you're suggesting no effective drilling.

Keep on moving the goal posts then. You have no interest in the argument, and are just trying to get me to react.

Once again I refer you to the airline transport pilot example. You do not just cut an engine out on a real 747 full of passengers in mid air. You simulate an engine failure on a simulator where no one can get hurt. This isn't ineffective and doesn't make the 747 pilot lazy when it comes to the real thing. Something similar can be arranged for these baggage inspectors.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[honkycat]

Ok, if you're going to accuse me of trolling, try to remember which of us called the other "ignorant."

I still think your airline pilot analogy is completely inappropriate to this situation. When an airplane engine fails, it's a massive event that you can't possibly miss. Lights go off, the plane goes crazy, and the pilot knows that he's got to go into emergency mode. He can switch into emergency mode and save the day using the experience from the simulators.

How do you use an offline drill to prepare someone for an event that will be silently slipped in among countless monotonous hours staring at image after image? How do you train them, day in, day out, not to zone out. I honestly don't believe it can be done. Really, I'm not trolling, I simply disagree with you very strongly.

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Ok, if you're going to accuse me of trolling, try to remember which of us called the other "ignorant."

I called you ignorant because you are ignorant: You've proven you're totally ignorant of the fact that it's not a good idea to use an operational situation for training. Training should be there so that when things go wrong, you can learn and move on WITHOUT affecting the operational situation adversely. Ignorant is not an insult. We're all ignorant of various things. However ignorance can be dangerous and a person should take steps to inform themself when possible. Had I wished to insult or abuse you I'd have picked a stronger form of abuse.

I still think your airline pilot analogy is completely inappropriate to this situation.

Good for you. I still think it's completely appropriate - it's exaggerated to make the point, but it's very easy to understand. You've got to be able to understand it's not a direct 1:1 comparison. It simply makes the point.

How do you use an offline drill to prepare someone for an event that will be silently slipped in among countless monotonous hours staring at image after image?

You use an offline drill by simulating a sufficient period that the person is caught off guard if they're not paying attention. Guess what though - it costs more.

What's more you can train them not to zone out in an operational situation by giving them an incentive for paying attention. eg. Every time you see a stuffed toy with "Department of Homeland Security" on it, you earn an extra $10. Miss 3 of them and you're given a warning, 10 and you might be put on probabtion or shifted to other duties. It still interfeers twith operations but it's preferable instead of planting fake bomb images in the stream because you can't mistake the situation for a dangerous one.

Look you're entitled to disagree with me, which you've already done, but what gives you the right to tell me what analogy I should be allowed to use in an argument? What gives you the right to dismiss what I've said off hand repeatedly and insist you're right without actually countering my arguments. (If all you wanted to do was deny they're valid you've done that several posts ago).

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[honkycat]

Good for you. I still think it's completely appropriate - it's exaggerated to make the point, but it's very easy to understand. You've got to be able to understand it's not a direct 1:1 comparison. It simply makes the point.

Yeah, thanks, I know what an analogy is. I'm not saying you can't use it, just that it doesn't sway me because I don't think it's a valid reductio ad absurdum of the position I'm taking. I don't think it makes the point at all.

I challenge your analogy because it is materially different from the case at hand. It is more than just exaggerating the specifics, and I contend it is so different that it leads to false conclusions. And, actually, I did spend a paragraph in that last post trying to explain why I think it's invalid, and identified a material difference (the pilot knows when he needs to use his specialized emergency training, whereas the screener has no way to know that the next bag is the one that can't possibly be let through). Here are a couple more.

If you cut the power to an engine, you are directly putting the passengers at risk. You have created a SERIOUS emergency situation from which you're hoping that the pilot can recover and save these people. The pilot (or, if he fails, the automated system) must now rescue these people from otherwise certain death. He can do everything by the book and the plane may still go down. Further, note that no failures of any of the systems controlling the drill are required. As soon as the drill begins, the lives of these passengers are SERIOUSLY at risk, according to the plan.

Now consider the actual situation in a security check line. First of all, if all goes according to plan, the operator is alerted that it was a drill before any armed personnel are even brought into the situation (the TSA guy watching the screen is not armed). So unless there's a system failure or protocol is breached, there is never any direct risk to any travelers. That's a material difference from your analogy.

Further, suppose that the system DOES fail and armed personnel are brought in to contain the situation. These people have been trained NOT to kill people. If they do their jobs, no one is placed in danger. Now there is risk to the travelers that someone with a gun makes a lethal error, that's true. However, these armed personnel are not in a position where they need to save people from a system failure. They just have to not shoot them. That is another material difference.

You use an offline drill by simulating a sufficient period that the person is caught off guard if they're not paying attention. Guess what though - it costs more.

If you know you're going to lose your job if you fail a test, you will focus really hard and find a way to pass. Despite your (just as baseless as mine) assertions to the contrary, I still don't think you can train offline to stay focussed at the real job. You've got to have something to keep you alert in real time. Your brain is just too good at blocking out monotonous stimuli and monotony causes accidents and errors. That fact is well documented.

Using some other object as a drill target won't work very well either, since you'll just spend your time looking for stuffed animals instead of bombs.

I don't disagree with you that it's bad to bring armed personnel into a situation where they're not required because, obviously, that increases the risk of an accident. However, I don't think that risk elevation is so great that it will always outweigh the benefit of increasing the risk that that risk elevation occurs. Obviously you should minimize the chance that these people are brought in -- if you go back to my first post on this thread (I think, it was so long ago... it's in there somewhere), I suggested a few ways to do this. The operator should not be the only one who gets notice in real-time that a drill event occurred. There should be coordination with people higher in t

Re:Not clever to desensitise them

[syousef]

Yeah, thanks, I know what an analogy is. I'm not saying you can't use it, just that it doesn't sway me because I don't think it's a valid reductio ad absurdum of the position I'm taking. I don't think it makes the point at all.

You know what if you refuse to acknowledge that it's valid that's fine. Others out there will understand it.

First of all, if all goes according to plan, the operator is alerted that it was a drill before any armed personnel are even brought into the situation

Well obviously the whole reason there was a story on /. is that everything didn't go to plan now did it? Who's using a less than valid argument there?

Further, suppose that the system DOES fail and armed personnel are brought in to contain the situation. These people have been trained NOT to kill people

And again you're just burying your head in the sand and saying things that are factually untrue. We have a situation where armed police and security have, due to 9/11 and the London bombings, received instruction to shoot first and ask questions later when they believe the suspect is capable of detonating a bomb. You just refuse to acknowledge this. That's your problem.

Ignorant of the fact? Thanks for handing these facts down to us from on high. It is absolutely not a fact that online operational training is uniformly always a bad idea. It's an opinion you hold.

I'm not handing this down from on high. I damn well provided a situation where it would be unthinkable to conduct training in an operational setting due to danger (the pilot emergency analogy). You promptly stated that this was invalid and refuse to accept it. You further refuse to acknowledge that there is a danger in this circumstance even when I demonstrate one.

Here's another closer analogy for you. At least in Sydney, when police conduct anti-terrorism training (eg. preparing for the Olympics in 2000, and they did do something again last year if I recall), they will set up a training scenario and actually shut down the terrorist target (last year it was a train station). Everyone will know well in advance there's no real terrorist. Everyone will know what's expected of them and under what circumstances to abort the training.

I'm willing to bet that even if I were to dig up hard evidence that this form of training was not considered appropriate by some other airport security force, you'd malign their logic and tell me that's what makes US security the best. You've basically made up your mind beforehand, regardless of any evidence to the point that you're claiming armed security with guns are not likely to use them if you they believe someone's about to detonate a bomb - a statement which I find naive and absurd. Hence I'm not about to waste my time doing research to try to change your mind. You can add stubborn to ignorant.

Enjoy living in your wonderful fantasy world where security thinking there's a real bomb at an airport is not a dangerous situation.

quote from big trouble:

[Keruo]

[At the Airport Security Walk-through]
Airport Security Checker: What is this?
Snake: A garbage disposal.
Airport Security Checker: A garbage disposal?
Snake: Portable.
Airport Security Checker: You'll have to turn it on.
Snake: It's got a timer.
[turns the switches of the bomb on]
Snake: Grounds up your garbage, while you're out.

Re:quote from big trouble:

[pilgrim23]

Snakes on a Plane?

Re:quote from big trouble:

[NaDrew]

Snake: Grounds up your garbage, while you're out.

I heard he was dead.

Sounds pretty good to me

[Billosaur]

While screening carry-on luggage, a TSA employee identified the image of a suspicious device but did not realize it was part of routine testing for security screeners because the software failed to indicate such a test was under way, Hawley said.

Willie Williams, the airport's federal security director, said the screener saw something suspicious and notified a supervisor. The two manually rechecked all the bags on the conveyor belt but could not find anything resembling what was seen on the screen, Williams said.

Put aside the software failure and I'd say this was a more successful test than the actual test. I mean, if screeners know this kind of thing is going to happen every so often and they see something suspicious, they may become a bit jaded after a while and assume it's a test, even if the indication doesn't appear. This screener took no chances and called a supervisor and then went about trying to find the device. I believe that's how the system is supposed to work.

So the software failed, but in the end it didn't really fail, because it showed someone was doing their job as they were supposed to be.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[tomstdenis]

They're supposed to report all incidents to the higher ups.

So if they become jaded and just let anything pass assuming it's a "test" then they would fail the test.

So I don't think this will result in them letting bombs and weapons through because they assume it's a test.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Billosaur]

So if they become jaded and just let anything pass assuming it's a "test" then they would fail the test.

Well, the supervisor didn't seem to know it was a test, or he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to stop the conveyor and search for the bag. So in essence it tested not just the screener, but the screener's supervisor as well.

So I don't think this will result in them letting bombs and weapons through because they assume it's a test.

Maybe not, but never underestimate the apathetic state of the government-hired drone. I know they say they say they're picking the best people for these jobs, but in my many recent trips I've discovered a "lack of urgency" in some screeners and an "I'm in charge" attitude in a few too many for my liking.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[tomstdenis]

Oh don't get me wrong. I largely think security is moot. I just don't think this test will cause problems.

For instance, I flew to Ottawa [from Toronto] a few weeks back. I had a motherboard with me. I told the security guy "please don't open that box it's static sensitive". So he didn't.

That right there should be a red flag.

Often I carry dozens of adapters and cables and boxes and such in my knapsack. Sometimes they actually take their time looking at the mess [occasionally sending it through a 2nd time] but most of the time they do a cursory glance at it and let it through.

The real trick for better security is to stop letting people take so much fucking carry-on. I always check my clothing and I never wait more than 20 mins to get it from the pickup point.

Oh big whoop. I have to wait 20 mins... NO WAY!!!

I use that time to make calls, get shit setup and also just stretch. Usually it's plane => car => meeting so even just 20 mins to wander around and stretch is a good thing.

Not to forget to mention that also the less carry-on the quicker we'd get underway as everyone takes their SWEET FUCKING TIME packing stuff overhead. They bitch the flights are late but then have no problem taking 10 mins to get seated and then spend another 15 mins standing up on the plane while the attendants are trying to get everyone seated. /rant

Tom

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[01101101]

It does sound quite succesful. The article isn't very clear on how they make use of the test images. I am assuming there is some sort of review to see if the operator reacted appropriately. I'd be glad to know that they knew their job security depended on recognizing the images be they real or test.

I flew a couple years ago with some SCSI cards and SCSI cables in my carry on luggage. My bag got pulled aside and they ran a bomb sniffer on it, but nobody asked me to open it or asked me about the contents. I've also had them do the bomb sniffer at other times when I didn't have anything interesting so I'm not sure if it was just coincidence or not. I should have asked if it was random or not, but at those moments, the desire to not irritate the people with the power to make your day go badly overrides my curiosity.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Bueller_007]

Yes, but you're counting the hits, and not the misses.

The truth is, we don't know how many times this bug has occurred before and gone undetected. I haven't read the article (this is Slashdot, after all--there'll be a dupe of it tomorrow I can check out), but I can't see any reason this bug would be a one-time thing. Isn't it more likely that it's persistent?

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Billosaur]

...but I can't see any reason this bug would be a one-time thing. Isn't it more likely that it's persistent?

Perhaps. And perhaps in the past someone has let something pass they shouldn't have precisely because this happened and they made the assumption it was a test. It's hard to say. That's the problem -- we're going on one report about one incident and the article isn't too clear on how many times this may have happened in the past.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[slashname3]

Tell that to the 10 people that recieved full body cavity searches that just happened to be in line at the time.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[darkmeridian]

Except for the fact that the entire airport shut off and hundreds if not thousands of people fled in fear and confusion. Aside from that, the play was fine.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Peyna]

So the software failed, but in the end it didn't really fail, because it showed someone was doing their job as they were supposed to be.

Actually, the sad thing is that it was the software that failed and the human factor that did the right thing. I always thought the opposite was more likely to happen.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Peyna]

It's especially annoying on smaller jets like an ERJ where there is barely enough room in the overhead for each passenger to stow a briefcase and people are carrying full size suitcase with them. So the airliner just makes them leave their luggage by the door and then they load it right before we take off and unload it right after we land, which means everyone that was smart enough to check their 50 lb bag at the counter has to wait twice as long to get it.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[tomstdenis]

The way I look at it is like this.

These "self-important" folk who put off everyone else for their own selfish needs... well if they were so important the meetings would wait for them. Or if they were so professional they'd be smart enough to book flights with enough time to get where they need on time.

I like that while I fly I don't need to be replying to emails or that I can take a 20 minute "tom time" break between events and shit.

And really, I don't dress up and talk all MBA'ish but I still work at the same fancy offices the "self importants" work at. I also make roughly the same amount of money too. So really who's doing well? Those who have talents to sell or those who have to impostor talent?

Tom

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[HardCase]

I should have asked if it was random or not, but at those moments, the desire to not irritate the people with the power to make your day go badly overrides my curiosity.

I asked - I couldn't help myself. It's both random and if there's suspicion of funny business. I travel with some medical equipment in a small case. It almost always gets the sniffer treatment because it looks a little suspicious. Now and then my briefcase gets the same treatment. After a couple of times of that, I asked. They pick every X number of bags to sniff, plus anything that the X-ray screener flags.

-h-

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[That's Unpossible!]

So you feel a successful test is one that shuts down the entire airport?

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[statusbar]

I think that most people that I have seen recently using their laptops at the airport or on the plane were trying to watch a movie or playing solitaire!

--jeffk++

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Billosaur]

So you feel a successful test is one that shuts down the entire airport?

Put it this way: I'd rather they shut down an airport for two hours for a false alarm than have several hundred people killed because some screener actually missed a bomb.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[tomstdenis]

Having read the intro slides to one too many defense contractor presentations [ya I snoop, big whoop, what wanna fight about it?] I'd say it's a mix.

The amount of cells and crackberries though...

I whip out my cell phone if I'm late or change of plans. They whip it out because they think that acting all busy like that shows off how good a worker they are. Like things have changed that fucking much.

I work amongst companies that do billions of dollars a year in sales. I know for a fact that shit all happens in short order let alone in the time it takes to fly from one corner of the US to another.

That's why I call them self-important. They figure if they can whip out a fancy looking cell in public and start yammering about Q3 sales projections that everyone will be impressed. That was cool in the 80s. Now even the fucking mexican gardeners at my Holiday Inn have fancier cell phones than I do.

Besides, gameboys [the SP kind] are much better for traveling. Specially with flash carts. I fly around the world with an SP and four 256Mbit flash carts [two loaded with NES and GB games]. It's not only smaller and cheaper but the batteries last four times longer.

But no, you should power on your 1500$ laptop to play solitaire. I mean you're rich and powerful... you can waste things like that [e.g. wear on the device, battery, etc]. There is a difference between having cool gadgets and swag, the actual need or use of them and the flaunting them. I too have a fancy laptop but you don't see me turning it on to play solitaire. I too have a fancy cell phone but I don't make yammering idiot calls from inside the cabin, etc, etc, etc.

More ranting ...

I dunno I just have traveling. Not because of the planes. I don't really care for them but they're not the biggest annoyance. It's the "my shit don't think look at me" bullshit. Like you're cramped in and the guy in front insists on pushing the seat back even after he knows it digs into your knees. Then he takes his sweet ass time getting out, even though you checked your bags. He's the type who has "elite double gold status" just so he can butt in front of you after waiting 25 mins to get a fucking eticket, etc, etc, etc.

At the point where you have to act like a snob for your self-esteem because being thrown around the world like a puppet is demoralizing ... you've been owned.

I'd much rather not have to falsely prop up my status and just have a self-respecting employment.

Tom

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[dubbreak]

So the software failed, but in the end it didn't really fail, because it showed someone was doing their job as they were supposed to be.

So in your opinion it didn't fail, and it's a reasonable arguement but what about from the traveller's perspective? I have been on the recieving end of a mistaken item in my bags.

airportsecurity: "What do you have in your bag that is a metal coil?!"
Me:"Nothing."
airportsecurity:"Tell us what you have in your bag that is a metal coil before we check it or we will be forced to detain you!"
Me:The only things that have any metal in that bag are a cd player and some cd's.. maybe the stack of cd's looks like a coil to you guys?
airportsecurity:"The item is NOT CD's what is it?"
airportsecurity2:"--glares-- You inisist there isn't something 12 to 14 inches long that is a metal coil in your bag? About 2 inches in diameter? Have you left your bag anywhere?"
ME"No, I mean yes I insist there isn't anything like that and no I haven't left my bag anywhere.. it was on my back!"
...

To make a long story short they surrounded me in security only to find out that they mistook which bag the "item" was in. Oh the "item", it was a candle holder, pretty cool one at that in the short time I saw it (it was a coil so that the base could be spun to bring the candle height up to keep it consistent).

The security did not even chastise the guy for bringing a large metalic item on the flight, they didn't even make him check it. This was before 911 though, back when large heavy blunt objects were safe on a plane (It was Colonel Mustard in the 737 with the candle stick!).

I did not recieve and appology. Instead I recieved a reprimand for having a keychain which was a mini-supersoaker (which I thought nothing of since it had been there a year). Yes, it could shoot water (a thimble full reserve that would get you 3-4 shots of half a meter or so), but it really was not dangerous, not as dangerours as candle holder in my opinion. I guess I could have filled it with a thimble of bleach and threatened a stewardess to get me another beer, or I'd make her blind, if she would be kind enough to stand within 50 centimeters of me and hold very still as the aim is not very accurate on a TOY WATERGUN KEYCHAIN!

Security doesn't like reason, they took my keychain.

Moral of the story: I bet it sucked for the people with the "bomb" in their suitcase.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Requiem Aristos]

He's the type who has "elite double gold status" just so he can butt in front of you after waiting 25 mins to get a fucking eticket, etc, etc, etc.

That's why I /hate/ Delta. I've never seen an airline that spent so much effort pushing its class system.

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[tomstdenis]

I dunno about delta, but united, air canada and AA all have their own "reward programs". Each of them equally annoying in my books.

I don't see why people fall for that shit. They just raise the price to cover it. Just like air-miles and other point clubs.

People then say "well if they're giving them out anyways" but the point is they only do it because people fall for it. Then they raise the price. So after spending two trillion dollars you get a $10 gift certificate you actually paid a 10% markup on all purchases to get it.

Which brings me to another question. Why do first class people board first? I'd rather minimize the time spent on the plane, not maximize. So for me it should be all the poor saps on first then first class.

Just makes sense to me...

Oh yeah I get it... part of the "me first" self-esteem boosters...

Well fortunately I make sure I "accidentally" knock into at least one first class'er on every flight.

Tom

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[That's Unpossible!]

What if this false alarm happened every other week at every other airport? Still a reasonable trade-off?

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Requiem Aristos]

I've flown United and at least one other and they weren't nearly as bad as Delta.

"Here are the meals we offer. Remember, if you had flown our 'elite class', we wouldn't be charging you for your meal."

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[tomstdenis]

Yeah meals on planes suck. They're no cheaper in airports though.

Though I'd rather have a salad or sub than some crap on a plane... :-)

I remember the days of "bistro meals" on the cross-continent flights. Now it's like "consider yourself lucky the pilot is bipedal!".

Tom

Re:Sounds pretty good to me

[Kanasta]

How about if it was this:

Willie Williams, the airport's federal security director, said the screener saw something suspicious and notified a supervisor. The two manually rechecked all the bags on the conveyor belt but could not find anything. The suspect was escorted to another room in handcuffs for a full cavity search and finally released just in time to board their plane.

Can I have a luggage sticker that says I refuse to be used in airport tests?

Race conditions...

[GillBates0]

TSA screeners are given tests around the clock to check their alertness.

How frequent are these "tests" given? Once every 10 minutes...30 minutes? What are the chances that they coincide with an actual suspicious device, which the screener would then assume was part of the "test" which happened to occur simultaneously.

Re:Race conditions...

[Kjella]

How frequent are these "tests" given? Once every 10 minutes...30 minutes? What are the chances that they coincide with an actual suspicious device, which the screener would then assume was part of the "test" which happened to occur simultaneously.

I assume they "cut in" these test on the conveyor belt, meaning you see n+1 suitcases instead of n real ones. So if you see two suspicious devices and one "this is a test" message, you'll know that message doesn't cover both of them. I suppose it could happen that you saw the real one and missed the fake one, thus letting the real one pass but that already means you missed a suspicious device! And if that's already a significant problem, you already have issues without this testing.

Re:Race conditions...

[Jeremi]

What are the chances that they coincide with an actual
suspicious device, which the screener would then assume was part of the "test" which happened to occur simultaneously

What difference would that make? Whether it's assumed to be part of a test or not, sole acceptable action is the same: report it and don't let the luggage through until the issue is resolved.

Re:Race conditions...

[einhverfr]

This is the thing though--- if it was this obvious, I doubt an evacuation would have occurred. Instead you had an evacuation. So I am not sure what is up with this, whether it is at the X-ray terminal, or whether it displays a suspicious abandoned package somewhere for a while in the CCTV system, or what.

The X-ray terminal would represent a very limited target area and would be pretty simple to verify on the spot. CCTV might not be-- i.e. you could see a package from a video camera, look back and it is gone and now you don't know where it is. Is it a real bomb? A test?

This gets back to a theory I have had for a while that our economy would be very sensitive to these sort of false positives and terrorists could exploit them (perhapse serially at different airports) to cause massive fear and economic disruption.

Uber weakness

[jesusfingchrist]

Shouldn't said software be tested to something just shy of infinity ?

People supposedly really care about airport/national security but then you get stories like this...

Re:Uber weakness

[YrWrstNtmr]

Shouldn't said software be tested to something just shy of infinity ?

Then it would never be implemented. You can only test so long before you have to put it in the field.
And then, how do you test new people on the line? By running a test exactly like this one.

Good!

[AntiTuX]

To be honest, I think it's a great thing. Least I know that they're following protocol. The guy did exactly what he was supposed to do.

As for the software, all software has bugs. I'm just glad that someone found out that it wasn't something terrible getting on a plane.

Re:Good!

[slashname3]

How do we really know a bomb did not get on a plane? They could be spreading the "it was a software bug" story to cover the fact that they detected a freakin bomb but lost it before the guy reading the machine could react.

Guess we will have to wait a few days to see if one goes down.

Re:Good!

[Peyna]

I think your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight.

Re:Good!

[stm2]

Least I know that they're following protocol. The guy did exactly what he was supposed to do

I think that is the main problem. As you said, all software has bugs. That is why humans should not work like a robot following protocols, without using their brains (this way you are using the brain of the guy who designed the protocol, who may not forecast all possibilities). I'll bet the next big strike against US will be done by someone who will find a glitch on a security protocol and will exploit it, the same way as software bugs are exploited today.

Brazil....

[ronfar]

JACK: Well, your A. Buttle has been confused with T47/215, an A. Tuttle. I mean, it's a joke! Somebody should be shot for that. So B58/732 was pulled in by mistake.

SAM: You got the wrong man.

JACK: (a little heated) I did not get the wrong man. I got the right man. The wrong man was delivered to me as the right man! I accepted him, on trust, as the right man. Was I wrong? Anyway, to add to the confusion, he died on us. Which, had he been the right man, he wouldn't have done.

SAM: You killed him?

JACK: (annoyed) Sam, there are very rigid parameters laid down to avoid that event but Buttle's heart condition did not appear on Tuttle's file. Don't think I'm dismissing this business, Sam. I've lost a week's sleep over it already.

SAM: I'm sure you have

JACK: There are some real bastards in this department who don't mind breaking a few eggs to make an omelette, but thank God there are the new boys like me who want to maintain decent civilized standards of terrorist eradication. We've got the upper hand for the moment, but they're waiting for us to slip up, and a little slip- up like this is just the chance they're looking for.

--- Brazil

This is NOT a test

[digitaldc]

Or, is it?

Oh well, guess we'll shut it all down.

Okay haven't they already thought of this scenario? Isn't there an alternate verification process that doesn't involve computers?
Oh well, I learned to give up worrying altogether when flying.

Oceanic Airlines has a very good safety record, I think I will fly them next time.
I feel safer already.

Re:This is NOT a test

[Xytheril]

There is a protocol which involves searching all of the bags by hand (which is only used in the case an X Ray machine goes down), but it requires permission from the airline manager.

bwahahahahah!

[Thud457]

Gee, maybe printing a picture of a bomb with lead-based paint in the skymalls catalog was a bad idea...

Re:bwahahahahah!

[wiremind]

ha ha ha

Audio also revealing

[FerretFrottage]

The TSA screener terminal can also be heard producing the sounds "Would you like to play a game?" as the image appeared on screen.

subtle 9/11 humor

[Thud457]

This is just pre-re-release publicity for some damn Dave Barry movie that flopped the first time at the box office. (This would be almost as bad as "Flight 93" for the inflight movie.)

Re:subtle 9/11 humor

[Pope]

It may have flopped at the box office, but I saw it on first release and laughed my ass off.

Re:subtle 9/11 humor

[Will_Malverson]

In fairness, the original release date for this comedy about terrorists sneaking bombs onto airplanes was going to be 9/14/01...

This is only a test...

[__aaclcg7560]

A real bomb wouldn't explode until it got into the luggage handling system. After all, how do you explain all the luggage that disappears from the airports?

Why malicious items?

[VxJasonxV]

Why put in images of bombs and such? Someone eyeballing that that isn't a screener would blow a gasket if they saw it.

How about pictures of assorted dildos/vibrators? No, I'm serious. That'll catch your eye, male or female.
How about 'to scale' midgets (wow, that sounds awful... as much of a joke as it is) fighting in a mini suitcase?
Or a very carefully and perfectly laid out bra of panty?

Seriously, give these people something they wouldn't mind seeing (well, sans the dildo/vibrator) and you'll get (1) a chuckle and (2) some extra energy for productivity.

You know, on second thought, I'm going to patent the concept, brb.

Re:Why malicious items?

[akozakie]

Even better: a nice, well laid out bra, a large dildo, and... a less exposed pipe bomb, or something like that. Now that is a test! Plus, it's likely to happen - if you're going to risk getting a suspicious item on the plane this way, the least you can do to raise your chances is provide a distraction.

Re:Why malicious items?

[LnxAddct]

You wouldn't recognize a bomb in a screening device if it was slapping you on your face. You have to be trained to pick these things out, they are usually hidden very well and shaped to look like they belong with everything else. It isn't like a cartoon, you don't see 8 sticks of dynamite tied together with an alarm clock on top. Some explosive devices I guess you might recognize just by shear suspicion and it appearing to be out of place, but a good chunk of them are much harder to decipher, especially using screening equipment. And to counter you're other point, people shouldn't be in a position to be peeking at the screening device anyway. Maybe a quick glance, but if someone is standing at the edge of the security area glaring at the screen, I think that'd be something more worth being concerned about.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Why malicious items?

[VxJasonxV]

Regarding "And to counter you're other point, people shouldn't be in a position to be peeking at the screening device anyway. Maybe a quick glance, but if someone is standing at the edge of the security area glaring at the screen, I think that'd be something more worth being concerned about."

Phoenix Sky Harbor (as with many other airports) has very makeshift 'secondary screening' zones.
I'm escorted right behind screens that are all easily viewable, and the table you wait at (where they inspect your carryons in detail) is not all that far away from the screens.

I mean, *I'm* not going to sit there and stare and other people's luggage x-ray'ed on screen, but truth be told, I do look. I kill time by eyeballing around the surrounding area. The screens just happen to be inbetween me and the art they place in the waiting area.

Re:Why malicious items?

[IHC Navistar]

You could do a few mroe things, such as:

1) The well-known sex toys.

2) A medium sized, metal, cylindrical item packed inside a bag full of assorted springs. On the viewscreen, all the screener would see is an image tha looks like some kind of elementary school puzzle thing. While trying to figure out just what the heck IS actualy in the bag, he would take up time, and then bea the resulting heat from many many many irritated travelers.

3)Insert a metal plate with the words "Get A Real Job" cut out of it. Or, if you want, you could insert your own message.....

4) Spend 15 bucks at RadioShack and build something that emits an audible beep and blinks and stuff it in your bags. Nothing illegal, just irritating and kind of unnerving. Great for carry-on luggage, along with fart machines.

5) For those that REALLY are into practical jokes, and want a guaranteed immediate reaction, you could buy a surplus military stuff sack and fill it full of *CLEAN* bones (sans skull, or you could include a replica one if you are a die-hard prankster).

----------

A full case of beer, a full box of shells, and an empty schedule.

Re:Why malicious items?

[Danny Rathjens]

I think jokes like that will get you strip-searched. :) Not because they have no sense of humor, but because their guidelines and training likely say "anything" out of the ordinary should be investigated further.

Re:Why malicious items?

[IHC Navistar]

Well, The Jackson Family, and most Senators don't get harassed the way we do, and they are even farther out of the ordinary than most of the general population is. And I don't mean extrodinary.....

"calm" is not "desensitized"

[ScentCone]

That's insane. Images to test their alertness sure, but images of bombs? That's just plain crazy. All you're doing is desensitising them and guaranteeing that even if they're alert they won't get the adrenaline rush they should. What brainiac thought this one up?

The same ones that know that combat simulations help cops and soldier generally make more level-headed decisions. The same ones that know that simulating in-flight emergencies in flight simulators takes the "holy crap!" out of handling such things. There are VERY good reasons that you want your bag screeners to be able to react calmly or subtly to what they see on the screen in front of them. They may need to be able to signal armed support, depending on their assesment of the person in line, without Freaking Out while they're looking at their equipment. These are supposed to be professionals, and it sounds like the person involved acted like one (absent the "this is a test" message).

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[syousef]

*shakes head* I can't believe lots of people are saying things like this. No offence but you have no idea what you're talking about.

To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights. You do it in a controlled environment usually in a simulator. If you don't have access to that or want to do more realistic simulations you're very careful about recovery conditions (eg. you simulate an engine failure by throttling back to idle, but you don't actually cut your engine).

Similarly its only in the movies that you train soldiers and police by making them think their friend's just really been shot. In the real world you do controlled excercises that are separate to normal day to day operations to avoid psychological trauma and desensitization.

In the case of these baggage handlers they should be able to identify the bomb and calmly deal with the situation but the adrenaline should be flowing nonetheless.

I do agree with you on one thing. Yes the person did the right thing given the circumstances.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[HardCase]

To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights. You do it in a controlled environment usually in a simulator. If you don't have access to that or want to do more realistic simulations you're very careful about recovery conditions (eg. you simulate an engine failure by throttling back to idle, but you don't actually cut your engine).

Unfortunately, there are plenty of situations where training has to occur in situ for it to be realistic. Obviously you're not going to perform in situ training that creates a life or death situation and this case wasn't one. At worst, it has the potential to create a very inconvenient situation and I guess that this case turned out to be just that.

As an example of in situ training, when I served in the US Navy, we had the capability of injecting simulated sensor data into the real-time sensor stream of our sonar system. The data is indistinguishable from the real thing, so the potential exists for that information to go out over the world-wide tactical data system. It was an excellent tool for training and to make sure that operators were actually paying attention to the screen - generally speaking, on a surface ship sonar watches are brutally boring, unless there is an actual target to prosecute. The downside to the tool is that if it's not used properly, a whole lot of panic can ensue for a short time (and, since shit rolls downhill...)

That particular training tool was very successful, by the way. It increased the proficiency of the operators significantly.

-h-

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[syousef]

I don't know. If a situation where you suspect someone of carrying a bomb is not life or death what is? You realise suspected terrorists have been shot dead on less don't you? It's 3am here so I can't be bothered linking.

There's another thing to be mindful of here and that is that military applications are different to civilian (or at least should be). Your average citizen should not expect to be put in a life or death situation, whereas that is what the military is paid to do - defend even at the cost of their lives.

I would argue that there are ways of increasing proficiency to the same level that don't involve the brazen risks I believe are taken here. A false positive on finding a bomb is certainly not something to brush off.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[plague3106]

To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights.

Because failure to handle the situation a flight would probably lead to loss of life.

In this case however, a fake image was put up without the test message. The result is that the terminal was closed, but that didn't cause any loss of life. There are only two reasons an image of a bomb would appear; either its a real bomb, or its a test. In either event, you need to follow the same procedures.

That the terminal was closed because the test message didn't appear is perfectly acceptable; indeed, it shows that the security personnal do indeed have it together should the real event ever come to pass.

Analogies are almost always awful, and should be avoided whenever possible.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[Maximum Prophet]

adrenaline should be flowing

Adrenaline is not your friend. Sure, when we where hunter/gatherers it could help put a little pep in your step when the tiger charged, but in modern times, adrenaline almost always makes you make bad decisions in emergency situations. The point of having drills over and over is to get you to keep your head level and not freak out and run. There are many more proper responses to emergencies than fight or flight.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[syousef]

In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard.

As for analogies being awful and always being avoided that's a very extreme point of view. There are literally millions of learned men throughout the ages that would disagree with you, but since they don't count I'm not so arrogant I think my point of view will sway you. However I will point out I didn't start with the analogies and that you only attacked the analogies that didn't support your point of view.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[swillden]

In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard.

When has the TSA shot someone for just being suspected of having a bomb?

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[Achromatic1978]

That reminds me of the joke about the three prospective CIA agents, given a (unbeknownst to them, unloaded) gun and told that their final recruitment exercise is to shoot their wives.

The first can't do it, and quits. The second goes and pulls the trigger, comes out and mentions this. The third, the trainers stand and wait. Eventually banging and thumping noises and screaming comes from the room, and the man eventually comes out, bloodied. "What happened?!?" "I tried to shoot her, but the gun must have jammed! So I had to beat her to death with the handle!"

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[Achromatic1978]

The TSA may not have, but you may wish to remind yourself of this little incident in London, following their bombings, where the police, wielding automatic weapons, in plain clothes no less, ran down and shot a man as a suspected terrorist. I'm not sure what you would do when people dressed ordinarily, carrying automatic weapons started chasing you, and I'm not sure what I would do, but it more than likely wouldn't be the calm and measured response that might save my life.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[plague3106]

In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard.

Name one such incident that occured here in the US (since this bug only applies to US screeners).

As for analogies being awful and always being avoided that's a very extreme point of view.

Agreed, and thats not what I said, is it? I never said they were always awful, nor did I say they should always be avoided.

There are literally millions of learned men throughout the ages that would disagree with you, but since they don't count I'm not so arrogant I think my point of view will sway you.

Your argument won't say me because you didn't even comprehend what I had said. Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote; it just makes you look like an ass, because my actual statements are there for everyone else to read.

However I will point out I didn't start with the analogies and that you only attacked the analogies that didn't support your point of view.

You did however continue you with them. I don't respond to every single post everyone makes on this site; I picked your analogy because it was an exceptionally poor one.

First, your the hypothetical situtation you propose is fundamentally different than the one the article discusses. The difference is the risk involved with having a false bomb image come up in a screening vs. simulating an emergency on a real flight. had you picked an analogy with similar risks, it would have been more valid.

Second, you purposefully chose 'emergency on a plane in flight' to provoke emotions of fear and panic. You want those same emotions to apply to what really happened in the article. What you are really trying to do is sway people by emotion rather than a logical argument, hoping that people won't notice that the danger of similating an emergency on a real flight is actually much greater than doing so in the events the article describes.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[syousef]

Name one such incident that occured here in the US (since this bug only applies to US screeners).

Name one incident where someone was wrongfully shot in the US? You're joking right?

Or are you saying that since no US screener ever shot anyone, this is irrelevant. Nice technique: define a group or situation small enough and then put the onus on me to go dig up information for you on anything similar because you know it's not worth that much of my time, and because it's not an exact match the argument is artificially weakened.
Agreed, and thats not what I said, is it? I never said they were always awful, nor did I say they should always be avoided.

Your exact words were: "Analogies are almost always awful, and should be avoided whenever possible.". You're either thick, or you don't remember what you say, or you're trying to be clever with semantics when you know perfectly well that was the intent of what you said. Any way I look at it I see a troll.

Your argument won't say me because you didn't even comprehend what I had said. Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote; it just makes you look like an ass, because my actual statements are there for everyone else to read.

I comprehend your argument, it's just ridiculous and ill thought out. Now you can add abusive to troll.

You did however continue you with them. I don't respond to every single post everyone makes on this site; I picked your analogy because it was an exceptionally poor one.

My analogy was made in the context of another post where I detailed exactly how pilots are drilled using a simulator. If you could be bothered to read the rest of what I'd written you'd have understood that and the analogy would have made more sense. Instead you didn't even read my other posts to understand the concepts. Remarkable for someone who repeatedly accuses me of not understanding their own posts. What's next "I know I am but what are you"? How old are you? 3?

First, your the hypothetical situtation you propose is fundamentally different than the one the article discusses. The difference is the risk involved with having a false bomb image come up in a screening vs. simulating an emergency on a real flight. had you picked an analogy with similar risks, it would have been more valid.

How do I argue this with you when you refuse to accept a risk that's obvious? Security at airports isn't equiped with firearms just for show. If they think you've got a bomb and you may be in a position to set it off your life isn't worth a thing.

Second, you purposefully chose 'emergency on a plane in flight' to provoke emotions of fear and panic.

Now you're telling me why I chose something as if you could presume to read my mind you arrogant troll. You don't know me and you don't know my motives so don't presume to. Once again read the rest of what I wrote before you jump to unjustified reactionary and childish conclusions.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[plague3106]

Name one incident where someone was wrongfully shot in the US? You're joking right?

Notice I said one such incident, which anyone with any reading comprehension at all would understand to mean 'name one incident where someone was shot by US TSA personal because of a false positive for explosives detection.'

Or are you saying that since no US screener ever shot anyone, this is irrelevant. Nice technique: define a group or situation small enough and then put the onus on me to go dig up information for you on anything similar because you know it's not worth that much of my time, and because it's not an exact match the argument is artificially weakened.

Its completely relevent. You do remember this line from your previous post, right? "In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard." Which was an attempt to say that your analogy of mock emergencies on a plane being equivelent to a false test positive given to screeners was valid. You're wrongly assuming they would just shoot someone for suspeicion that they were a bomber in the airport, but that assumtion has no basis in reality.

My analogy was made in the context of another post where I detailed exactly how pilots are drilled using a simulator. If you could be bothered to read the rest of what I'd written you'd have understood that and the analogy would have made more sense. Instead you didn't even read my other posts to understand the concepts. Remarkable for someone who repeatedly accuses me of not understanding their own posts. What's next "I know I am but what are you"? How old are you? 3?

From the post I responded to: To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights. You do it in a controlled environment usually in a simulator. If you don't have access to that or want to do more realistic simulations you're very careful about recovery conditions (eg. you simulate an engine failure by throttling back to idle, but you don't actually cut your engine).

Sounds very much to me like you think there shouldn't be any tests in the 'real' screening, given that statement and the ones you made preceeding it. Since I'm apparently stupid, can you please explain the relevence of the above statement, if its intent is NOT to say that they shouldn't be doing testing of screeners in a live system? Because the only purpose of that statement that I can think of would seem to an attempt to back up your belief that screeners shouldn't have fake bomb images to keep them on their toes.

How do I argue this with you when you refuse to accept a risk that's obvious? Security at airports isn't equiped with firearms just for show.

Why do you assume the first response of all screens would be to shoot the suspected bomber? Do cops always shot first? Or do they attempt other methods of stopping a suspect first?

If they think you've got a bomb and you may be in a position to set it off your life isn't worth a thing.

Ah, so you do think that they would just shoot first without attempting to get the suspect to stand down. What evidence do you have that this is how they would proceed? I provide the article as a counterpoint to prove my statement; that they would attempt other methods to control the situtation before attempting to shoot anyone.

Now you're telling me why I chose something as if you could presume to read my mind you arrogant troll.

Take a look how you're coming off. You seem to think there's so much danger in the situation in the article that they'd just shoot first all the time. Yet you present NO facts whatsoever to support that fear. You keep mentioning how dangerous it is to put in fake bomb images, yet provide nothing to back up that it is dangerous. You instead say that they don't fake emgergencies on an actual flight to backup your argument. Its pretty clear you're trying to say its just as dangerous to have the test imagines during screening as it would be

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[syousef]

Notice I said one such incident, which anyone with any reading comprehension at all would understand to mean 'name one incident where someone was shot by US TSA personal because of a false positive for explosives detection.'

Go and re-read what you wrote. It was intentionally vague. Turning around and being insulting doesn't suddenly make it clear.

Its completely relevent. You do remember this line from your previous post, right? "In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard."

Why do you assume the first response of all screens would be to shoot the suspected bomber? Do cops always shot first? Or do they attempt other methods of stopping a suspect first?

Things go wrong when people think their lives are in jeapoardy and the powers that be have decided that a shoot first and ask questions later approach to terrorism is for the greater good. That's on record. Go look it up. That's exactly what the orders were for the London plain clothes police that shot man in the London underground. Six or seven bullets to the head. It's not impossible. It's not unheard of. It has happened. Now it hasn't happened in a US airport and baggage handlers haven't been involved. But add enough situations where it's got the potential to occur and it eventually will.

In this case I didn't mean baggage handlers do, but rather that airport security and the authorities are inclined to do so. If you're suspected of having a bomb, the baggage inspectors don't have to be the ones to shoot you. Try airport security or the FBI or an air marshall - you're just as dead.

I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. I read everything you wrote up the thread.

Well you certainly didn't read about my pilot analogy because you attacked me with a clarification I'd already made elsewhere. Maybe not directly up this particular line but definitely in response to my own grandparent post.

Take a look how you're coming off. You seem to think there's so much danger in the situation in the article that they'd just shoot first all the time. Yet you present NO facts whatsoever to support that fear. You keep mentioning how dangerous it is to put in fake bomb images, yet provide nothing to back up that it is dangerous. You instead say that they don't fake emgergencies on an actual flight to backup your argument. Its pretty clear you're trying to say its just as dangerous to have the test imagines during screening as it would be to have a mock emergency on an actual flight.

I didn't say it's JUST as dangerous. I just said it's dangerous and presented another situation where you don't want to make the drills part of real operations. I was making a point. You're the one that's blown it out of proportion and decided to be literal about it.

You're right about one thing though; I don't know you, so I can only infur your motives from what you posted. You never provided any other way to interperate your posts either, you just attempt to bash me.

That's very funny - _I_ just bashed _you_. You didn't even take the time to read what I wrote and just decided my point of view was invalid and had to be ridiculued. You never bothered to try to understand what I was saying and there are other ways to interpret (sorry interperate) what you said.

Have a nice life.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[plague3106]

Go and re-read what you wrote. It was intentionally vague. Turning around and being insulting doesn't suddenly make it clear.

Its not vague within the context of the discussion. You seem to have a problem keeping to the discussion at hand. Oh, may want to take your own advice by the way.

Things go wrong when people think their lives are in jeapoardy and the powers that be have decided that a shoot first and ask questions later approach to terrorism is for the greater good. That's on record. Go look it up.

Instead of telling me to look it up, how about you site your source? The article seems to suggest that shoot first ISN'T the policy. Or are you claiming that the security guards didn't follow thier instructions?

That's exactly what the orders were for the London plain clothes police that shot man in the London underground. Six or seven bullets to the head. It's not impossible. It's not unheard of. It has happened.

What happened in London isn't relevent here. They have different procedures, different culture, etc. Just because it can happen in London doesn't prove that it will happen here.

Now it hasn't happened in a US airport and baggage handlers haven't been involved. But add enough situations where it's got the potential to occur and it eventually will.
In this case I didn't mean baggage handlers do, but rather that airport security and the authorities are inclined to do so. If you're suspected of having a bomb, the baggage inspectors don't have to be the ones to shoot you. Try airport security or the FBI or an air marshall - you're just as dead.

Thank you, you finally are admitting that your fear is baseless.

Well you certainly didn't read about my pilot analogy because you attacked me with a clarification I'd already made elsewhere. Maybe not directly up this particular line but definitely in response to my own grandparent post.

Sorry, didn't go down that line. Your analogy sucks, and the fact that you had to clarify proves it.

I didn't say it's JUST as dangerous. I just said it's dangerous and presented another situation where you don't want to make the drills part of real operations. I was making a point. You're the one that's blown it out of proportion and decided to be literal about it.

Then why did you pick that analogy? Why didn't you pick one that was more appropriate? You said something was dangerous and to prove it you point out another situation which actually has more risk? Which is actually my point; YOUR ANALOGY SUCKED.

That's very funny - _I_ just bashed _you_. You didn't even take the time to read what I wrote and just decided my point of view was invalid and had to be ridiculued. You never bothered to try to understand what I was saying and there are other ways to interpret (sorry interperate) what you said.

Calling out your bad analogy is a far cry from accusing you of being a stupid troll wouldn't you say? You're still trying to bash me too; big fucking deal, i was typing fast and didn't get interpret correct. At least I'm not trying to argue in favor of a baseless fear using poor analogies.

Just admit that you don't really have a point and move on with your life. Since we've been responding you still have never presented on shread of evidence relevent to this topic that gives your fear any ground in reality.

Re:"calm" is not "desensitized"

[syousef]

What happened in London isn't relevent here. They have different procedures, different culture, etc. Just because it can happen in London doesn't prove that it will happen here...Just admit that you don't really have a point and move on with your life.

You're in denial, and you're coming across as unbalanced. If I argue the point you tell me it's not relevant. If I point out your personal attacks don't add to the argument, or flaws in your logic you attack me for not sticking to the point. The reason I don't have a point in your view is that you've got your hands over your ears and are shouting "la la la" at the top of your voice.

Go away troll.

Speaking as an Ex-TSA-Screener

[erroneus]

I must say I am greatly amused. Those jackasses are just there to collect a government paycheck for doing next to nothing. So invariably they are caught with their pants down each and every time something unexpected happens.

maybe this explains the past 5 years

[subtropolis]

Was Diebold involved with this software, by any chance?

Re:maybe this explains the past 5 years

[Aqua_boy17]

"Was Diebold involved with this software, by any chance?"

I think we can safely say No to this question. If Diebold had been involved, there would have been like 30,000 bombs on the screen when there actually wee none. Take it from me, I live in Florida. We know about these things.

Re:maybe this explains the past 5 years

[subtropolis]

I was making a joke about the possibility that junior's "wins" were actually just ... that the US public failed to realise that it was only ...

Never mind.

Virtual vs. physical tests

[PTBarnum]

Way back in 1986 I had a summer job as an airport screener. Back then it was all private companies, of course, and we all got minimum wage. We didn't have the fancy computerized tests, but the supervisors (and occasionally FAA inspectors), had a collection of fake weapons/bombs that they could slip onto somebody's x-ray machine.

The operator would observe the item, stop the machine, look up, and the supervisor would then inform them it was a test. If you failed the test, you'd be disciplined. Fail too many, and you'd be fired.

You might think that this test would be too easy because you would see the supervisor approaching, but most of the time the operator is so focused on their screen that they don't look at the passengers. Still, there were only a limited number of fake items so you got good at recognizing them. It seems like these new electronic tests have the advantage of offering a much larger variety of images.

On the plus side, if you actually caught somebody trying to smuggle a bomb onto a plane, you were eligible for a massive $100 reward. I always thought the risk/reward ratio of X-ray work was too low, so I preferred to do less stressful jobs like escorting children and disabled passengers.

Exactly, they have tons of misses

[skiingyac]

There have been tons of news stories about the high number of misses. I remember recently that the FBI or sometplace had tested whether suspicious objects were detected by the TSA and none were. Plus, you've got stories about fake bombs that were missed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11863165/ and http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is _2004_Dec_16/ai_n8577062

From personal experience, 2 weeks ago I flew from PHL to LAS, and on the *return* trip, the screener at LAS noticed my carry-on had a leatherman in it (which I had mistakenly had in the bag the entire trip!). When I got on the plane, I hear the guy in the row in front of me telling the guy sitting next to him about how the same thing had just happened to him!

Very reassuring indeed.

Re:Exactly, they have tons of misses

[skiingyac]

They didn't let me take it (on the way back home), I had to mail it to myself from the LAS airport post office, then go back thru the security line (which took ~20 mins).

Read the book

[fallungus]

I read the book "Big Trouble" before seeing the movie. I would recommend that, as it goes into a lot of details that couldn't be covered in the movie. The screen adaptation was quite well done, though. There were a number of twists from the book to the movie that made for a more enjoyable screen experience.

The Real Explanation?

[buckhead_buddy]

Having lived within broadcast of the metro Atlanta news for decades, I find the explanation that this was just a software glitch to be somewhat suspicious.

Blaming technology is an easy thing to do, and very common in Atlanta. It is an explanation that makes people laugh with frustration and lose interest quickly in the story. Even better, there's no one that has to take the fall and take the blame for the problem. It's a common tactic that's been used a lot. In a city that doesn't want to scare or blame any person or corporation, technology is an easy scapegoat.

Certainly the situation could have been a technology failure. The problem is that it took so long for them to let the public know what the cause was. The security lines were opened, what?, two hours or so after the panic that caused them to be closed. But no explanation then. No explanation came forth until the next day in fact. Either they opened up the security lines when they were unsure of what was on those screens (gleep!) or they knew what the explanation was and knew there was no real security risk. But why keep the cause secret for so long afterward if it was a simple technology error? My opinion was that they needed to find a better scapegoat; and concocting a plausible way to blame technology (as usual) took a bit of time.

While the baggage screeners might not know when random tests are run, their supervisors damn well should. If baggage inspection is a real time operation it'd be tragic if a "test" image with a fake bomb appeared over baggage with a real bomb. While the screeners are in the dark as to when the tests are run, the security system itself should clearly know when the tests are run.

Hey, here's an idea. Cut some metal words out of old scrap metal and make the phrase "This is a test" and put it inside your luggage. I wonder what kinds of things you could get through the screening system :-)

Re:The Real Explanation?

[buddahfool]

Hey, here's an idea. Cut some metal words out of old scrap metal and make the phrase "This is a test" and put it inside your luggage. I wonder what kinds of things you could get through the screening system :-)

Except that the this-is-just-a-test screen appears "after a brief delay".

It would not be much of a test if all they had to look for was the words instead of the actual bomb in the luggage....

This Braniac did

[Illserve]

What brainiac thought this one up?

Jeremy Wolfe, possibly the world's foremost expert on human performance in visual search tasks did.

You can read about his research on his publications page here.

http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/recent_publications. htm

Check out the one called "Rare items often missed in visual searches. " This research, among others in the field, is funded by the DHS for precisely this purpose. May I add that the turnaround time from primary research to application is excellent. Jeremy and his lab are to be commended as an example of how pure research can contribute directly to the public good.

And why would you want an adrenaline rush anyway?

Re:This Braniac did

[Illserve]

Yea, stupid academics don't know nothin.

By the way, you used a computer to type this post didn't you?

Re:This Braniac did

[syousef]

Academics often have a certain narrow point of view.

You do realise it takes both practical people and academics to make the world go round right? Just as you realise that being condescending isn't going to make you any friends? Or perhaps you fit a different stereotype...

Great, I can see it now

[hypergreatthing]

A terrorist places a briefcase with a bomb inside on an x-ray machine, then places a plastic box with letters that spell out "This is a test" made out of lead.

How retarded can we get?

Worked for TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for the TSA for a year and it was important to see the images of bombs and knives and grenades to keep people on their toes. In case you're wondering about the machine itself it's a german machine running linux and is updated by zip disks. So if you want to put new images in, which they do quite often, then it is put in through there.

The bombs by the machine are often obvious and are placed in funny spots where normal packing wouldn't be, so it's usually fairly easy to identify them.

Re:ROFL!

[pete6677]

Ahh Atlanta, where northern friendliness meets southern efficiency.

I lost 24 hours of my life for this

[Renegade88]

I was in fayetteville arkansas en route to Amsterdam. Delta was already an hour late getting off the ground because they seem to be incapable of leaving either Fayetteville or Atlanta on time. Due to this scare, we were grounded an additional 2 hours. No flights were allowed to depart. Of course, the international flights were in another terminal and they left on time. Cross-Atlantic flights only leave once a day, so this bug caused me to stay in atlanta for 24 hours. My wife and I were lucky to get on the next flight the next day. To add insult to injury, Delta wouldn't cover the cost of the hotel because the delay was caused by TSA (never mind that had they left on time, I would have probably made the flight). There were hundreds of international travellers in the same boat. Ultimately this probably affected tens of thousands of passengers. The flight after mine in Fayetteville was cancelled outright immediately. TSA really screwed the pooch on this one.

Re:I lost 24 hours of my life for this

[Lordofohio]

Delta was already an hour late getting off the ground because they seem to be incapable of leaving either Fayetteville or Atlanta on time.

Actually Delta is one of the higher performing airlines in terms of on time performance, beating out JetBlue, Continental, AirTran, ASA, and United, among others.

Re:I lost 24 hours of my life for this

[AceyMan]

Funny you should exlicitly mention ASA, because his flight leg was on ASA -- DAL doesn't serve the ATL-XNA route itself, its run by its Connection Carrier®, in this case, ASA. If you reverse engineer my nick handle, you'll know I speak from experience.

Re:ROFL!

[Pofy]

Depends on what you mean by "bussiest". If by passangers, then yes, it is ATlanta. If you mean by "moevements", that is landings and take-offs, the it is Chicago O'Hare.

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci/display/main/aci_c ontent.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-7-46^6865_9_2__

How to sneak stuff into luggage

[jridley]

So I can put some handguns into luggage, but I need to cut out the words "this is a test" out of lead sheet and put it in the liner of my suitcase, so it'll show up on the x-ray.

Sounds like good training...NOT

[MyNameIsFred]

Let me get this straight - you propose to train TSA inspectors to find bombs and weapons by showing them pictures of dildos and vibrators? [sarcasm] Clearly showing them pictures of the things they are suppose to find is a bad idea.[/sarcasm]

Meanwhile, at the Hall of Doom...

[misfit815]

...the Legion of Doom, secure in their belief that they've jacked with our system of air travel enough, are moving on with their plans to scare the heebie-jeebies out of another segment of the western world's infrastructure.

Anyone else see this coming?

I see the parody now:

[griffjon]

baggage,baggage,baggage,baggage,baggage,baggage,ba ggage,baggage, laptop laptop! baggage,baggage,baggage,baggage,baggage,baggage,ba ggage,baggage, laptop laptop!
snake! snake (this is a test)

And repeat.

Does Anyone Find this a Bit Psychologically Sick?

[eno2001]

Keeping people alert by trying to "test" them by potentially scaring them? Regardless as to whether the "this is a test" message shows up or not, this is basically someone poking an employee with a sharp stick every so often. Why not, instead of having to keep your staff interested by frightening them, hire people who actually live for this sort of thing? There are plenty of people out there who could concentrate on this sort of task and never miss. Of course they might not be too socially skilled either. But if it's really that important that we look for this sort of thing (which I really don't agree with) should't we be employing people more suited to the task and paying them well for their abilities?

For some Clintonesque definition of "good"

[joe_n_bloe]

Least I know that they're following protocol. The guy did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Riiiiiiight.

You know, maybe my memory has failed me since I turned 40, but the times I remember someone being stopped by security with a prohibited device - other than nail scissors or human breast milk - were in the days before 9/11. You know, football players forgetting about their pistols ....

Anyway, thank you so much TSA for the line that wraps 300 yards around into the handicapped ramp in San Jose Minetta Airport and the parking cluster fuck and for turning what used to be a small convenient airport into shit. I fly out of Oakland and SFO now. If a friend flies in there I tell him to enjoy the $125 taxi ride to SF.

What qualifies as 'bomb-shaped'?

[MrNougat]

From CNN:

Images of bombs and other suspicious devices that are hard to detect are put up on the X-ray machine ...

So what qualifies as "bomb-shaped" anyway? In any event, I'm sure that terrorists are too stupid to make their bombs shaped like cute harmless puppy dogs, which would certainly be rushed right into the cockpit.

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[joe_n_bloe]

I fly a inimum of 80 flights a year and I have no worries. And that's not just beause of all the free drinks in first class. I just amke it a point to only fly airlines that a have a good pilot's union and try to only use government supplied TSA workers.

I have no idea what you mean by "good pilot's union." One that admits only good pilots? One that strikes whenever flight attendants and mechanics do? One that makes sure pilots have plenty of down time for golf and strippers during their layovers? You have me flummoxed.

ALso remember, the 9/11 terrorists did NOTHING illegal (until hijacking the plane, of course). All their backage was properly screened and contained nothing but allowable substances at the time. The security screeners- even at the small New England airport they passed through, did stop most of them for additional screening. Airport security followed every step of the rules. Heck, you can even argue they went overboard if you are an extreme "anti-profiling" type of person.

99.9% of the success in the prevention of hijackings and other terrorist activities since 9/11 has been due to the preventive (and heavy-handed) efforts of law enforcement, despite the massive disorganization and incompetence that continues to prevail in the FBI, CIA, and DHS - especially in its databases and computer systems. "Agents," regardless of whatever profound ignorance of software and database technology they possess and actively employ, are still a ruling elite in the FBI. Non-agent specialists - with Ph.Ds in computer science and 10s of years of experience in security and information technology - are considered to occupy the same tier as file clerks.

Apparently locking up Americans with unpatriotic mindsets (you know, critical of the government) works great as long as 2-3% of them turn out to be actual "terrists." Yay team America. And by the way, as we all know, if the FBI hadn't had its head up its bureacratic ass leading up to the hijackings (a position it still regularly assumes), Osama bin Laden would've been working on Plan B, or C, or D, or whatever.

Whatever dude.

Meanwhile, in the airport...

[chamilto0516]

I was there when this happened. They first closed down main security but still had security for the T-Gates open which is like trying to drain an oil tanker with a straw but I think they shut those down as well soon after. Here was the crappy part: they didn't tell you what was really going on. You entered the airport and everyone was standing around and had a different story. About an hour and a half into this, some airport cop (not a whiteshirt) comes up on his Segway with a bullhorn and reads a paragraph that said basically that there was a security incident and thanked us for our patience. That is as specific as they got! They didn't SAY anything. There was no mention of a suspicious device and when they went to open it up, they just dropped the ropes and gave us an "enjoy your flight" look.

They were real good about opening up all the security lanes to clear the backlog. Actually, I had subscribed via web to the airport line monitor service. My first page before I left to the airport was 10 minutes and this was after a buddy at the airport told me to get my butt down there for my flight early. The second page said "over 2 hours", the third was 30-45 minutes and the last said 1.5 hours to get through security. Seems like this is based on wild ass guess rather than more industrial engineering means.

Re:Meanwhile, in the airport...

[spx]

Airports seem to always tell you something other than the truth to avoid panic of public. When they broke the hydraulics on a brand new plane in 00. :) Fun times always.

Blame It on Rio

[Doc Ruby]

It was a terrorist attack.

Wesley Crusher would beg to differ.

[chocolatetrumpet]

Wait... Star Trek's not real?

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[sfjoe]

99.9% of the success in the prevention of hijackings and other terrorist activities since 9/11 has been due to the preventive (and heavy-handed) efforts of law enforcement,

If you're going to invent statistics, you should limit your significant digits.

User Error

[aqfire]

I'm guessing that the baggage checker didn't really notice the "This is a test" and called in to report the bomb. He'd be too embarrassed to admit it's his fault rather than the software, and it's so much easier to blame the software and get away with it, because most people don't know how it works.

Guess I'm not getting it...

[ishepherd]

If real things are scrolling through a machine on a belt, how do you insert a fake image?

Wouldn't you have to stop the belt while the fake image scrolls by?

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[joe_n_bloe]

And your point?

100% of the statistics on this topic are invented. Meanwhile, feel free to come up with a single example of a guy successfully boarding an aircraft with any sort of terroristic intent and a weapon more sophisticated than a Swiss Army knife.

You can find isolated incidents like the man who made it through a security checkpoint with a handgun which he then fired - in Lihue Hawaii. I've been to that airport numerous times and it's more like a bus stop than an airport.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world /airportinsecurity/breaches/

Meanwhile the vast majority of screening incidents are a) people apparently bringing largely innocuous items through security by accident resulting in b) terminal closures for up to several hours ending in c) no passenger or weapon ever found.

El Al does this ... for real

[mikeage]

They occasionally plant disabled (i.e., blocked firing pin) guns in people's suitcases to test their screeners. There was a small flap a few months back -- they missed one, and they guy found it in his luggage when he arrived.

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[THESuperShawn]

"I have no idea what you mean by a good pilots union"

Yet you reply negatively anyway. You must 'not' be new here.

A good pilots union lets a pilot make the final decision whether or not a flight takes off without the fear of losing his job. Pilots without this type of union are fored to fly if the airline ays so, no matter what they think or feel about the flight, pasengers, weather, etc.

Research, then reply. You won't look like such an idiot next time.

At least you did admit you didn't know what you were talking about before you posted....I hear thats the first step ro rehabilitation.

Trust me, I know exactly what the TSA, DHS, etc are doing to protect us. I spend several years wotking with and training many of them up until a few weeks ago.

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[joe_n_bloe]

No pilot is ever forced to fly. You're regurgitating union bullshit. Friends of mine who are commercial pilots have all kinds of stories to tell.

I know enough about the laughable inner rot in DHS and FBI. Meanwhile, you go ahead being an apologist for a system that puts paranoia first, bureacratic inertia second, ingrained incompetence third, civil liberties fourth, and common sense dead last.

The only thing I find truly reassuring about DHS and the burgeoning "federal police force" is that they are so disorganized, stovepiped, and territorial that they will never form any kind of coherent, effective whole.

Re:ROFL!

[MrHeartbreak]

I think every big international airport in the world claims to be the busiest passenger airport in the world. And depending on how you calculate it, most of them are probably right.

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[THESuperShawn]

Yes, I am regurgitaing BS. My father is a pilot for USAir (20+ years). My grandfather was a commercial pilot for 20+ years. There are actually 6 commercial pilots in my immediate family (Delta, USAir,and others).

I have had my private pilots license since I was 16 years old. My sister, and several other members of my family have their pilots licenses as well.

No wonder I do not know what I am talking about.

Non-unionized pilots who refust to fly a flight they do not feel "comfortable" with, even if it has passed gate check and ground check, are faced with a very good chance of demotion or terminiation. The pilots tend to be younger pilots who fly non-unionized airlines to build airtime and seniority.

The EU has in fact blacklisted several international non-unioized airlines over safety factors for just this reason. Maybe your friend will tell you about a site called Google where you can "research it yourself". And, as the concept of "research" seems to elude you, you can always look it up on a site called Wikipedia.

Is your "friend" the same one that knows the guy that went to Taco Bell and got the cockroach eggs in his gums right after he got bit by that rare spider on the airport toilet seat?

Maybe you really should try again to "research before you post".

I don't think desensitization is an issue

[p3d0]

If they don't get that "this is a test" message after a few seconds, I bet that gets their heart pumping.

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[joe_n_bloe]

Is your "friend" the same one that knows the guy that went to Taco Bell and got the cockroach eggs in his gums right after he got bit by that rare spider on the airport toilet seat?
More like left seats for Northwest/America West/Southwest, but whatever.

Nice jab but...

[maillemaker]

>Then again, perhaps it would be better to dump the human out of the loop
>altogether and rely on AI to determine if an item of luggage warrants further
>attention... but these days it's still cheaper to use people to do it and pay
>them peanuts at the same time...

So how many peanuts do you think those people will get when your AI replaces them?

Steve

What happens to the ACTUAL x-ray images?

[Fazlazen]

If the screen contents are replaced by a "fake" scan of an item with a bomb or whatever in it, then what is happening to the actual images of what is really being scanned? If this is poorly timed, it could cause masking of something bad actually going through the scanner.

Is the overlay a whole-screen replacement, or just putting up a picture of a bomb or whatever overlayed with the real image? The article didn't seem to mention that...

New Terrorist Luggage Set

[tk2x]

First bag contains: a bomb

Second bag contains: "This is a test." in metal letters, sewn into the bag.

For how long to put up with inferior languages?

[master_p]

This post is not flamebait...I am just wondering for how long will humanity have to put up with inferior programming languages.

Of course the story does not tell what kind of bug it was, or even if it was really a programming bug, but in the case it was, all I want to say is that software malfunction should not be acceptable...and software problems are largely due to inferior programming languages.

so...for how long should we put up with inferior programming languages?

Our security is a joke

[einhverfr]

No, I mean it. I don't worry because if I did, I would honestly have to give up driving a car too which is far more dangerous. But let us see it as it is:

1) Security perimeter for screening of checked baggage is put in the wrong place. Ideally, all bags should be x-rayed in the presence of the passenger before being alloed into the airport or into the baggage check areas. This is the way it is in many parts of the world and with a system like this one can actually lock baggage for international flights and so forth so you don't have to worry as much about items disappearing. The screening process is therefore more universal and transparent.

2) Our system makes us way too susceptible to false positives. Of someone wished us harm they could widely disrupt our economy by shutting down our airports. Implementing #3 below would help a great deal in this area, but a large part of the problem is that nobody looks at false positives as a risk.

3) Our system does not fail gracefully. Ideally a security breach in one part ought not to compromise every other part and ought to be containable without widespread disruption. We should have smaller terminals each of which has a defensible security perimeter.

4) We have a few airport terminals (the international terminal of JFK Airport in NYC, for example) that seem to be insecure by design. Nothing short of tearing down the building and rebuilding the terminal will be sufficient to solve their security problems.

Ashame that movie flopped

[SonicSpike]

I am from Florida and have spent some time in Miami.

Damn that movie was hilarious. Not the typical Tim Allen humor, but funny nontheless. Good writing in how everything was tied together.

And it was funny, even partly in a sexual way, but not so much that it was perverse. I would like to se a sequal or something in a similar vein of humor.

"if this is Miami, they can keep it... We've spent enough time in this garden spot...Weirdsville, USA...Miami isn't that great, but the cops are kind of nice!"

Screensaver dud

[Tablizer]

No wonder the airport didn't like my nukebomb x-ray screensaver.

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[THESuperShawn]

Just to explain my point a little more, here is a snipped from an article published by a 25+ year commercial flight captain that now does flight safety seminars.
"Does the airline have a pilots' union? If the captain knows he has a union to back up safety decisions, the captain does not need to worry about being fired due to refusing to fly a plane with questionable maintenance or refusing to fly with too fatigued to fly safely.

The importance of this can hardly be overemphasized. Though we could think that surely the captain will make the right decision in such important matters as safety, safety matters are often not black-and-white. This means, to really be sure of safety, you must err on the side of safety. You should not have to be able to prove the plane will crash if this maintenance is not done, but only that there is an increased risk if the maintenance is not done. But at a non-union airline, erring on the side of safety can cost your job.

Regarding fatigue, a recent study show that after only 17 hours of continuous wakefulness, humans are able to perform with the same level of skill asa person with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 percent (0.04 is - according to FAA regulations - illegal for a pilot).

This is another good reason for meeting the captain when you board. Find out how long the crew has been on duty today. Also ask how many days the crew has been on duty, and how much rest they had at the hotel. If the duty time is excessive or the rest insufficient you may want to take another flight, depending upon how challenging the weather is at the other end and how long it will take to get there.

Also, ask how long the crew will be on duty by the end of the day. That will help you decide whether to use this airline in the future.

Do not fly an airline - if you want to maximize your safety - unless it has a pilots' union. When it comes to major European airlines which are connected with the government such as British Airways, Air France, etc., these all have strong pilots' unions."

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[Achromatic1978]

refusing to fly a plane with questionable maintenance

If said pilot is fired for doing so, methinks a whole shitstorm might rain down when same said pilot then contacts 'the appropriate authorities' who regulate aircraft maintenance.

refusing to fly with too fatigued to fly safely ... a recent study show that after only 17 hours of continuous wakefulness, humans are able to perform with the same level of skill asa person with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 percent (0.04 is - according to FAA regulations - illegal for a pilot).

Funny that you mention that, but no pilot in the world flies more than eight hours, allowing several hours either side of that. Hence this novel concept, "backup crew". Funny, I seem to see them quite a bit when flying transpacific. I won't bother mentioning the numerous legal regulations on this same issue.

This is another good reason for meeting the captain when you board.

I'm guessing this is all pre 9/11. I'd like to see your chances, even in first, of meeting the captain while the aircraft is still being prepared, i.e. pre - pushback.

A lot of this just sounds like paranoia. Does he ask his cabby the same, equally valid questions? Or the bus driver doing the airline staff shuttle run from the airport to the hotel? Does he ask his wife when she picks him up from the airport? "Honey, have you been driving around all day? Because if you have, without a break, I think I'd like to take another car / driver home."

Re:More Secure Than You Think

[THESuperShawn]

Sorry, you guessed wrong.

Before the cabin dorr is closed, you are more than welcome to "meet" the captain. It is done all the time.

I have volunteered for a lot of "fear of flying" classes over the past several years and this is still taught to this day.

Yes, 9/11 changed our procedure. he recommened policy now is to hand a note to the flight attendant while you are explaining that you are a "fearful flyer". The flight attendant will hand the captain the note. Unless he is a complete a-hole, he )or she) will most always come out and talk to the student. We have had many students who have even recieved visits from the pilot mid-flight just to "see how they were making out".

I just don't understand how so many people in the thread make such quick negative and "I doubt it" comments when they readily admit they have no knowledge.

I have worked hand in hand with the TSA training air marshalls since 9/11. I am not pulling this crap out of my ass.

While I am limited in what proof I can provide due to sensitivity, I think I have provied you with plenty of examples and quotes backing up my points.

You want to know the truth? Next time you fly, ask the pilots (yes, you can talk to them as long as the door is open)if they have a union. If they answer yes, ask them if they would fly without one. If they answer no, well, I'd get off the plane.

JetBlue does not have a union. Take a look at the pilots next time you get on. Do they look younger than you? Wonder why? Because they have to take non-unionized jobs to gain hours and status. Ask one if he'd prefer to be with a different (unionized) airline and see what he says.

I know /. is famous for people talking out of their ass, but this thread takes the cake. I have never seen so many people willing to argue about a subject they know absolutely nothing about.

fun with false images

[garmo]

here's a little insight from the other side of the checkpoint: that test has been going on since before TSA took over from the woefully inadequate system run to death by the airlines an x-ray image is an x-ray image, and no amount of finageling with the software can alter what a trained screener sees on the monitor as far as real objects are concerned when a test object identifies as such and clears (which didn't work this time), a record is generated regarding the pass/fail status of the screener's reaction and the screener STILL has to look for any real threats in the bag in summary: 1. projecting innocuous items won't hide real threat items -- opaque items generate an automatic bag check 2. we are not allowed to become innured to test objects -- too many failures get a screener repremanded personally, I regard the test software to be merely harassment by management to appear to be doing something about terrorism

Re:maybe this explains my post

[Aqua_boy17]

Your post tickled me, but did you only read the first line of mine? I actually did get the joke and was attempting some humor of my own about the numbers...being bogus...from Diebold machines?
*sigh* Yeah, maybe it wasn't funny after all. That will teach me to PBGMC (post before getting my coffee).

Re:maybe this explains my post

[subtropolis]

eh... i oughta've just left well enough alone. I only just found your other reply because the /. mail got sent to my spam limbo.

So... think they'll get away with it again in the mid-terms? I'm sort of counting on angry mobs, with torches and pitchforks, to keep things on the up & up.

But, then again - i was sort of counting on that in '04, too :-(

Hard to say...

[Aqua_boy17]

I just don't know what to think anymore and it's very easy to become cynical. The problem as I see it is that there seems to be so much corruption in government at all levels that it makes you think we will never recover.

As to the angry mobs, I'd welcome them but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. There will be some backlash in the next elections, but it won't amount to much. It is sad to say but more people care about who is on American Idol than who is running the government.