Slashdot Mirror


Major Security Vulnerabilities Uncovered At Frankfurt Airport

jones_supa writes "According to a report published in this Sunday's edition of the mass-circulation Bild am Sonntag newspaper, investigators sent by the European Commission found it surprisingly easy to smuggle banned items past security at Frankfurt Airport. It said undercover investigators posing as passengers were able to smuggle weapons or other dangerous items through security every second time they tried to do so. One of the biggest problems was improperly trained staff, who were often not able to recognize dangerous items when viewing the screens they use to look at x-ray images of baggage. The staff is sourced via a privately owned service provider. Germany's Federal Police said they introduced new measures immediately after learning of the security deficits to ensure that passenger safety was guaranteed. Fraport AG, the company that operates the Germany's biggest airport, also took the findings seriously and begun an operation to retrain a total of 2,500 workers."

11 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Security at FRA by geogob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only at Frankfurt, but in general in German Airports, I've always been surprised by the use of private security agencies to screen passengers. I have nothing about these private security providers, but just like for anything else, I recognise that their are activities well suited for them; other not so much.

    I have no doubt that private security firm could do that task adequately, but I seriously doubt they could do it well and in a cost effective manner at the same time. There is a lot of pressure to reduce costs at large airports in order to further reduce fares. That's the reason why they have those private firms there at the first place. In turn, these firms offer the service at lower cost... salaries and overtime rules are definitely one reasons for these lower costs, but lower training and selection standards as well.

    1. Re:Security at FRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You assume that "lower quality" isn't in fact the intention.
      Companies like airport operators are well aware that it's all useless theater, if it weren't for these annoying checks they'd more than welcome lax security!

    2. Re:Security at FRA by geogob · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't assume anything... I just observe.
      What I observe is that pretty much the same people (from the same security firm) screen my luggage at the airport and my bag before I get into a night club. I don't like it a clubs, but accept it. But I find it close to unacceptable at airports. I've seen a lot of incompetence, lack of respect and abuse of power at German airports (especially at FRA).

      In Canadian airports, the pre-boarding screening is also partly done by private firms. The situation is hardly better. I've seen a huge difference in handling there as well. Most of the time its is very professional and the standards of CATSA at obviously higher than by the Bundespolizei. I think that a major difference, is the the on-site oversight remains under the control of the CATSA in Canada, whereas in Germany, the Bundespolizei is only there for show. They just stand there (if at all), but don't seem to supervise the screening activities. This observation may be wrong, as we, as passenger, hardly know what goes on behind the curtain, but it would explain the service quality in both countries although but employ private firms.

      I couldn't care less about the screening itself; it beings little more than the feeling something is done for security for those who somehow need that feeling. What I do care about is how my belongings and myself are handled in the screening process, what ever that process may be.

  2. In other news: by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, so according to that so called "newspaper" (I read TFA there yesterday) 50% of dangerous items were not recognized during security screening. But even with this terrible performance, no related incidents have been reported. In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:In other news: by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are ~30 million commercial flights and around 2 hijackings per year, so that nobody's tried at Frankfurt might be just statistics. None of the confirmed hijackings since 2001 has casualties, though I suppose there's mysteries like MH370. Even if you assume the worst though, statistically you're far more likely to die from technical malfunction or pilot error. Or external causes like being shot down by a missile like MH17, but I guess that's location dependent. Unless you can bring a bomb on board to take down the plane yourself there's no way people will let you cease control of the craft anymore, so hijacking as we knew it is a past era. Most of it is just preventing a stabbing that could just as well have happened on the bus or tram or subway, it just happens to be up on a plane.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Real terrorist threat level by Aethedor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the fact that security at airports is not very good and nothing really bad has happened in the last decade, what does this tell us about the real terrorist threat level in Europe?

    Don't let yourself get scared by politicians who rule by using fear. Learn from the hard facts!

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
  4. Re:You'd think they'd have learned by Aethedor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, they did. They learned that that was just an incident, that it is impossible to guarantee 100% security, that even if 100% security was possible it would make flying very unpleasant, that you should not give in to terrorist threats and that driving a car is far more dangerous than flying and everybody accepts the risk of traveling by car. The last 25 years proof that they are right.

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
  5. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You might recall that the TSA got started by taking sackloads of private company-employed rent-a-cops and making them federal employees, thus unfirable. This ensured and still ensures a nice base level of incompetence as well as arrogance, and costs you more tax dollars than the private situation did. You also get less oversight due to all the petty secrecy, down to being forbidden from knowing which rules apply to you today, and you have less recourse since they're judge and jury too. What do you think that closed-off-from-the-world pervy scanner's peeping box is for, hm?

    The real problem, however, is that it's all security theatre. It doesn't do anything worthwhile. The hassle does the same thing that comfort noise does for voip and cellular phone connections. It assures you that "something is being done" without having the slightest connection as to whether something is actually being done or not.

    There is, however, very real damage to some unlucky if otherwise innocent victims. This makes the whole thing a net drain on the economy and on society. Moreover, the very few things that have happened since the theatre began and that actually have improved security turn out to be among the absolute cheapest things to happen in the space. This makes value-for-money overall very poor. Spectacularly so, in fact.

    So the correct lesson to draw from this is not to do what is always being done in such cases, to "beef up security. Instead what should, nay must, happen now, finally, it's long overdue, is to review what we really want out of our "security investments" and implement just that.

    This would mean that quite a lot of measures can go, and quite a lot of manpower will no longer be allowed to harass travelers, and quite a lot of amazing pervy scanning equipment will turn out to have no further purpose except maybe as a gimmick in kinky clubs. It'd mean the end of numerous databases and that we no longer need those chips in our passports, and a host of "data-sharing" peepery that really didn't bought us anything would have to be stopped too. Which all in turn means that it'll never happen before the current world order collapses under its own obesity. But that is what the correct course of action would mean.

    1. Re:Missing the point by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is some truth in what you say. Airport security is and will always be not perfect, as it is not possible to realize total security, as long as objects (people and luggage) are allowed to get on board. However, real police officers would be better at the job. They are carefully selected and get years of training before they are policemen (maybe this is different in the US, I don't know.). They are better paid (even though I think they do not get enough for the task they have to perform) and they cannot be pushed around like those rent-a-cop people at the airport. Their only obligation is to do their job right.

      On the other side, the private companies try to make a fortune and they must compete with each other. Therefore, they try to become cheaper. In that business this is only possible by buying cheaper equipment, but there are limits to that as minimal standards are applied in that area. Therefore, the only option is in pay and training. The result is obvious.

      If you pay peanuts you get monkey.

    2. Re: Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to understand the point of the TSA to understand why the party of allegedly small government so enthusiastically created them. Making employees "unfirable" (whatever that means) had nothing to do with it.

      - Conservatives in the US are largely authoritarians and authoritarian followers. The TSA is very authoritarian. This sits well with that particular mental weakness.

      - Since this is about theater, whether they succeed or fail is irrelevant. The point to an authoritarian is to have power. Why do conservatives support thuglike cops almost universally? You'd think that 'rugged individualists' would't support wholesale rights violations, wouldn't you?

      But here's the real reason for the TSA:

      - Before the TSA, security at airports was paid for by the AIRLINES. The TSA is corporate welfare on a grand scale. By federalizing security they not only took that cost away from the people who take your legroom away and charge you for bags now, but they also removed any legal liability the airlines might have for a large scale security screening failure.

      Here's an interesting question: if the TSA is all nice and federalized and stuff and not run by airlines now, why do they have fast lanes for first class passengers? Has the idea of equality before our government (and it before us) in this country been so thoroughly erased by corporate propaganda that nobody even questions that?

  6. Was nice while it lasted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fuck.

    I fly out of FRA almost weekly & have been really enjoying how quick, easy, & efficient getting through security there is (especially as compared to US or UK). Oh well... bring on the needlessly long lines, taking off shoes, & porno scanners.