Slashdot Mirror
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."
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:
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
better than the parallel-universe headline: study shows screeners oblivious to obvious bombs in test images...
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."
... that is cannot be implemented badly.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
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?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
[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.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
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.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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.
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.
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).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Was Diebold involved with this software, by any chance?
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
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.
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
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.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer