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

[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

[griffjon]

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

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.

inconvenient but reassuring

[God'sDuck]

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

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

[rewinn]

... that is cannot be implemented badly.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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).

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.

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.