Slashdot Mirror
US Airport Screeners Missed 95% of Weapons, Explosives In Undercover Tests
An anonymous reader writes: An internal investigation by the TSA found that 95% of agents testing airport checkpoints were able to bring weapons through. In one case, an alarm sounded, but during the pat down, the screener failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to the undercover agent's back. ABC reports: "Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was apparently so frustrated by the findings he sought a detailed briefing on them last week at TSA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, according to sources. U.S. officials insisted changes have already been made at airports to address vulnerabilities identified by the latest tests. 'Upon learning the initial findings of the Office of Inspector General's report, Secretary Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of actions, several of which are now in place, to address the issues raised in the report,' the DHS said in a written statement to ABC News."
Sometimes I think the governments are simply trying to spend themselves into the kind of debt that breaks the banking system. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
...Steve
It was about creating another welfare program.
Cheese and rice!
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
All this means is that they failed to find FAKE plastic explosives and the like, not that they wouldn't find real stuff.
Do a real test!
But they did manage to grope 8 out of 10 Grandmas and 5 out of 10 toddlers.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I've seen various comments/analysis on other sites about how unsafe this makes people feel. My response was completely the opposite: security is completely ineffective yet it's quite rare for terrorists to blow up airliners. Conclusion: terrorists don't pose a massive threat to our safety and we can do away with all the infringements of our liberties made in the name of safety from terrorists.
Although, no doubt, the government will see it as an excuse to make airport security fondle your bollocks for a minimum of 30 seconds; after all, we've got to stop all those terrorists that aren't blowing up planes from blowing up planes!
On a positive note: in 5% of the times it worked all the time.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
List the vulnerabilities at a company that fails penetration tests, watch the IT department fill out the checklist saying "we fixed that", lather, rinse, repeat.
I've been in the IT group that was carefully banned from securing things because the architect and the CTO just found it a lot easier to be able to do anything they wanted, to any system they wanted, any time they wanted, without a paper trail or traceable history. It took me a while to figure out it was deliberate: then I found where the architect had SSH tunnels running from the finance company internal network to his home box, with passphrase free SSH keys with root access on both ends, with the keys on NFS shares on both ends.
When I found that, and as the security consultant I was allowed to do nothing, I knew to make sure my checks were cashed *fast* and my resume already out elsewhere.
nothing happened ...
In their defense, they did find 100% of the water bottles being smuggled through. At least we are protected from that threat.
My point is that the methods (and level of "fake enemy") on those "friendly" security checks are very different from what most people (most "bad guys" included) will ever use.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Given what I have inadvertently brought through over the years:
About a dozen 3" 12 gauge shot gun shells (magnum goose loads)
An almost full box of 20 7.62x54r rifle ammunition
A 4"lock blade knife with a brass handle (multiple times), A small 2.5" folding knife
This really doesn't come as a surprise, and I wasn't even trying to sneak the stuff past them. The ammo was in coat pockets the went through the X-ray machine at different times and the pocket knives were just left in my pocket as I went through their metal detector. But every time I bring my camera, a Pentax Spotmatic F with assorted lenses, it is off to the extra screening area for a pat down, explosives check, a game of 20 questions, and for them to dig through my stuff. Also the bulb cable really confuses them and I get accused of bringing a weapon onto a plane as they push the button and the cable extends out the other end a bit
Time to offend someone
It's in the testers' interests to beat the system, and they know what all of the protocols and technologies involved are. Unlike a terrorist, they also don't need to use real munitions, or carry anything that would be practical for the previous or next phase of their plan. The testers also are just devising the hardest tests they can, instead of trying to imitate the methods utilized by the people they're supposed to be training the checkpoints to spot. They're specifically targeting known weaknesses. A high failure rate is their objective!
It's a possibly a good process but we can't write off the system as ineffective because of this result. It's just clickbait. "You're not safe!!! Monsters lurk behind every door!!!"
You stop terrorists by first knowing who is getting on the planes in the first place. This is how Israel secures its airports. They know who you are before you even show up at the airport. They have multiple layers of people that are trained to spot suspicious behavior and act upon it.
The second thing you do is give the plane an ability to defend itself when it is attacked. Let us just assume the terrorists get on the plane with whatever. What is the plane going to do to defend itself. I refer to the passengers, the flight attendants, the pilots, etc. What can they do to shut it down when it happens?
The funniest thing that has come out of 9/11 is that the government was actually totally useless and that people... just people are far more useful. Because what is actually stopping terrorist attacks is that you cannot take over a plane like they did on 9/11 anymore. What allowed that to happen was that passengers didn't know what the terrorists were going to do. They thought the plane was going to Cuba or something. They didn't know they were going to be murdered en mass to murder thousands of other people. If you tried to do 9/11 today... the passengers would rip the terrorists apart. No government agency required.
The TSA is at most stopping Richard Reed type attacks where someone just wants to blow the plane up. But you can't fly those planes into anything anymore because the passengers will just kill you.
Here is my solution:
1. Require a special ID to use commercial airplanes. The ID would require that you are on a list and they know who you are... transport on the system is not a right. If you're a suspicious person then the system might just say "take a bus". By all means open the system up to due process so if you think you're on a ban list then you can fight that in court. The system might also flag certain people out for more security when they show up at the security gate. So you'd still get to be on the plane but you personally would be going through extra security because the system doesn't trust you.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
3. Upgrade the computer security on those planes. You shouldn't be able to control the auto pilot through the entertainment network accessed by wifi. That was fucking pathetic.
4. The actual gate security can probably go back to what it was before 9/11 with the addition of checking special IDs and subjecting people to additional security if they're on a list. The vast majority of people would have much less to worry about.
Things that would cause someone to get flagged... non-citizens might be inherently less trustworthy. Various age brackets and genders... if you're an old woman then you're just less likely to be a problem. That sort of thing. Of course this should link to the FBI and the NSA and the CIA so that if any of those groups had an issue with someone, then they could independently flag someone for the TSA.
My objective here is to keep as many people safe as possible while maintaining the effiency of the transport network. Some people might say "this will lead to profiling and profiling is wrong"... profiling is a basic aspect of criminal investigation and intelligence work. Ever see Silence of the Lambs? It was about an FBI serial killer PROFILER. Profiling is fine so long as it isn't stupid. Profiling on the basis of race for example is stupid especially when that is the only variable. It can BE a variable so long as there is a reason for it. I'm not sure what reason you could use to justify it... but I'm open
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's impossible to stop all terrorists. We're simply reacting to the last attack, because there's no realistic way to stop the next one.
Profiling might be somewhat useful, but it's doubtful. Disallowing large/serious weapons on a plane is a good thing simply because, without some amplification of strength, the numbers are wildly against any single attacker. Simple security is sufficient.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Easy, because too many people in the general population thing it is a good thing that they are "At least trying to do something", and "What ever it takes to keep us safe". There is also a running theme where if a politician speak out about these things they get questioned in the media about how would they feel if a terror attack happened and it is implied that the blame would be placed on them. Love Rand Paul or hate him at least he has had the spine to provide a retort to these kind of accusations when they were leveled at him after his actions on Sunday over the PATRIOT act.
The solution is to make it so that the politicians know that this is unacceptable. This can be done by contacting them by mail, e-mail, and phone, writing letters to the editor, talking to their campaign people and letting them know when they are out glad handing for votes, but all of this requires effort. Also even if the majority of people don't hold the position most are still apathetic so all that is needed is to give the impression that the majority (a very vocal minority) is against this and things will change, probably slower than we want. It helps if a few get bounced out of office in very public ways like getting primaried out in a safe seat. This requires more effort as one has to get enough people to show up a a prescient level to get a candidate on the ballot, and then get enough people out in the primary to get rid of the incumbent. The TEA Party did this with a number of republicans so it could be done again, but should be done in both parties so they both get the picture.
Time to offend someone
What you're saying is that most criminals are dumb, and that's why security manages to catch them. Smart criminals are unlikely to get caught.
If we accept that as true, and if we are willing to accept that life is never totally risk free, then all of TSA and Homeland Security could be abolished. Then the rest of the world could also stop complying with the idiotic restrictions (liquids, etc.) initiated by the US.
Anyway, there is absolutely no evidence that security today is any better than it was pre-9/11. Without the security theater, we would save such huge amounts of time. I still remember fondly being able to show up at the airport 30 minutes before flight departure, show my ticket, walk onto the airplane. That's the way is was, and the way it should be again.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
According to this poll http://www.harrisinteractive.c..., about 57% of frequent flyers believe the current TSA procedures are making it safer to fly. The other 43% recognize them for the theatrics that they are.
Sure, they find their fair share of fake novelty hand grenades and medieval weaponry in checked baggage. They even once saved a plane from the pudding cup my daughter left in her backpack (which naturally earned her a pat-down). But what the TSA was really doing was keeping a major mode of transportation operational for a brief time of uncertainty. As with all things government, the project's scope began to creep and pockets got lined while we stood in a line to have our pockets felt by a creep.
57% think the TSA is money well spent. That is the metric by which the TSA measures itself.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
What would it achieve? No worse than what we have no with overall superior efficiency of the existing transport network.
My idea is superior to what we have now. That's all.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Something doesn't have to be perfect to be a good idea just because there is another system that is possibly better that NO ONE is going to implement.
1. The point is to track people and give the TSA some real control over who is even allowed to buy a ticket.
2. As to pilots flying something into a building etc... whatever dude. If you think the pilot isn't dangerous then I don't know what to tell you. The second pilot/flight attendant in the cockpit reduces risk but the pilot is quite dangerous if he wants to do something nasty.
3. Yes it did happen. He pushed the throttle forward on one of the engines three times during the flight. Very slightly. Not enough that the pilot even noticed. Just enough to test it.
As to better security versus airgap... in what way is an airgap not better security? Obviously it is... you're presuming to know specifically what I'd recommend when I didn't get specific enough for you to correct me by suggesting an airgap.
I actually would prefer these systems be airgapped. Ask me next time instead of making an ass out of yourself and assuming. ;)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
In billions. Total=$61B
Departmental Operations 748,024
Analysis and Operations(A&O) 302,268
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 145,457
U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) 12,764,835
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) 5,359,065
Transportation Security Administration(TSA) 7,305,098
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 9,796,995
U.S. Secret Service (USSS) 1,895,905
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 2,857,666
Office of Health Affairs (OHA) 125,767
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 12,496,517
FEMA: Grant Programs 2,225,469
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) 3,259,885
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 259,595
Science &Technology Directorate (S&T) 1,071,818
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 304,423
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, they use a Surface to Air Missile from just outside the airport.
If they want to hijack a plane, it won't work anymore because the doors are heavily locked - any explosive capable of opening the cockpit door will crash the plane.
The routinely miss liquids - water, suntan lotion, etc. I traveled with someone that packed suntan lotion in a carry on bag and they missed it. They found and took the blade out of his safety razor, but missed the suntan lotion.
Even their own original studies claim that any benefit is far exceeded by the cost. The basic rule for MOST government agencies is if the cost exceeds $1 million per life saved, don't bother - smoke detectors cost $210,000 per life saved. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/interventions.pdf
But the TSA argues they should be allowed to spend $10 million per life saved - and admit they actually cost $180 million per life saved. https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
Their budget should be cut to 1% of what it currently is, that way we will only be spending twice what we spend on other industries to save lives.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
..which is NOT to detect weapons.
They're trained to detect common tools, water bottles, and other harmless items to harass people. This performance is what is incentivized and reinforced, so that's what is optimized.
Security theatre doesn't work. Security that works offends people.
C'est la vie. Shoes off!
..don't panic
So do CEOs and politicians.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The illusion of effectiveness was the only real deterrent the TSA had to keeping terrorists from bringing explosives onto planes. Now that the illusion is gone, what's stopping them?
I would have thought that the terrorists would have been doing dry runs with disposable assets like (Richard Reid, shoe bomber) and would know exactly how vulnerable the system is. Reids shoes did have real explosives in them but they were (apparently deliberately) configured so as to be inert. There was no threat to the airplane (you don't set off plastic explosives by igniting it with a match).
This was likely part of a larger scheme to map out the vulnerabilities in the air transit system. You can bet that the terrorists have known for a long time just how ineffective the TSA is.
The larger question is why haven't planes been falling out of the sky all this time? My guess is they are saving it for something really big, something special and memorable.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
From publicized "tests" of the TSA to real world situations where people sneak onto a flight without a ticket, I question whether the TSA process is even really about stopping threats or whether it's really about conditioning people to accept a heavy-handed, intrusive "security" as a normal party of daily life.
Just as we are discussing the renewal of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, just like the TSA, has been absolutely worthless in stopping any terrorist attacks. I knew that the TSA was doing a poor job but a 95% failure rate is laughable. Basically that means that they are only doing 5% better than if there were no security whatsoever.
I remember back when this whole farce was unfolding and how the government was going on about how we shouldn't trust the airlines and their subcontracted security folks and how Uncle Sam can do it so much better.
Well, 7 billion a year later this is what we have to show for it. 95% failure rate. Numerous scandals within the TSA. Not a single potential terrorist attack foiled by the TSA. And every single airline passenger is inconvenienced as a result of it.
Those subcontracted rent-a-cops that the airlines used to hire are looking pretty good right now.
So the conclusion is that no matter how many rights you remove, and privacy you invade (they can strip you naked if they suspect anything) the bad guys will still find a way to do their stuff? Hmm...I never would have guessed.
After my last airport screening, I'm now fairly confident that I don't have colon cancer.
USA citizens killed by terrorists in 2011? 17 ( http://www.theatlantic.com/int... ). About the same number killed by furniture.
USA citizens killed by automobiles in 2011? 32,479 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... )
We're coming for you, GM...
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Physical security (standing watch) is one of the most monotonous, thankless, and just plain boring jobs. At best you may be have spurts of attentiveness, but the rest of the time you're faking it. Fake badges (as tests) would get through at least 90% of the time, unless you saw someone coming who you knew was likely to test your attentiveness, or it happened to be during a spurt of attentiveness. The toughest physical security is going to be a bouncer, because he knows with 100% certainty that multiple underage patrons are going to try to sneak in on his watch, but even then dozens will, even without a bribe.
The most unrealistic aspect of first person shooters isn't the shitty AI, it's the AI's hypervigilance and flawless ability to instantly identify a threat on sight.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Look, the TSA has never worked.
It never will work.
As someone with extensive counter-terrorism experience and who started off as a combat field engineer, I can tell you that it is a total farce and waste of time and money.
Anyone with even a minor bit of experience or training can get through them. Just for fun I've usually put forbidden items during half of my trips, knowing they'd never spot them, due to their methods.
The full body scans are even more useless.
Just end it and stop wasting our scarce tax dollars which should be used overseas by nuking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with extreme prejudice. Neither of which is our ally.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...and whenever anyone attempts to raise awareness to these issues (Snowden, for example), we just throw them to the wolves.