Slashdot Mirror


TSA Fails To Find Links To Terrorism of Airport Workers

schwit1 writes: An audit of the TSA has found that the agency failed to uncover the terrorist connections of 73 aviation workers when it did background checks of them. According to a report released Monday, the people were employed by major airlines, airport vendors and other employers, and were not identified because the agency lacked access to terrorism-related information from within the government. The agency's "multi-layered process to vet aviation workers for potential links to terrorism was generally effective. In addition to initially vetting every application for new credentials, TSA recurrently vetted aviation workers with access to secured areas of commercial airports every time the Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist was updated," the report found. "However, our testing showed that TSA did not identify 73 individuals with terrorism-related category codes because TSA is not authorized to receive all terrorism-related information under current interagency watchlisting policy." This report comes on the heels of an internal TSA investigation that found 95% of agents testing airport checkpoints were able to bring weapons through.

37 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Real banner week for the TSA... by erp_consultant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First there was the disastrous results of the audit (95% failure rate). Top dog resigns. Now we find out that the TSA does not even have the proper inter-departmental authority. If this wasn't a serious matter it would absolutely hilarious.

    Cue the Benny Hill theme in 4...3...2...1

    1. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there anything the TSA does right? Aside from being a federal jobs program for tens of thousands of people?

      If conservatives are so in favor of small government and so against welfare, maybe they ought to take a good hard look at the TSA. I'd vote for a presidential candidate who pledged to eliminate this useless boondoggle agency.

    2. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not like the private companies that they replaced were any better. A buddy of mine is the Operations Manager for our little regional airport; in the pre 9/11 days he watched the private outfit miss firearms as they scrolled past on the x-ray machine. In the post 9/11 days it's still a joke; he can get me into the secured area with a simple, "He's with me." statement to the TSA flunkies. Not even a metal detector. That's the gaping hole in airport security, incidentally, insiders. Just buy one off or blackmail them and you're set to do whatever nefarious deed you have in mind. Once you're through the secured area at one airport you're into all of them.

      The bigger problem is that our body politic is incapable of having an adult conversation about risk. We live in a society that won't let kids use playgrounds where they might scrape a knee. Good luck having a conversation about the proper balance between security and liberty in that environment.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by erp_consultant · · Score: 2

      "It's not like the private companies that they replaced were any better" - Agreed - BUT, remember what a big deal was made by the government about how much better they could do than the private companies? Plus, the private companies were paid by the airlines (who admittedly turned around and passed the cost to the traveler). Now, every taxpayer is paying for this fiasco, whether they fly or not. At, I'm certain, many times the cost of the private companies. And every airline ticket has a TSA surcharge to boot.

      If the private company screws up we can replace them. What are we to do with these clowns in the TSA? Does anyone really think that the agency will go away? Like ever?

      "Good luck having a conversation about the proper balance between security and liberty in that environment." - Good point. I would be happy to give up some liberty if there was some assurance that what the TSA is doing is actually yielding positive results. Instead of one embarrassing screw up after another. Just like the VA. And the IRS. The list goes on.

    4. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spot on. The TSA is utterly useless. A complete waste of taxpayer money. Worse than that, it gives Americans a false sense of security where none exists. Let's see if any of the Republican candidates have the guts to sack the entire thing. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are the only two that come to mind.

    5. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bigger problem is that our body politic is incapable of having an adult conversation about risk. We live in a society that won't let kids use playgrounds where they might scrape a knee.

      Yet thinks its perfectly appropriate for people to walk around with loaded firearms.

      You're right that the USA's idea of risk is seriously screwed up. I suspect the ensuing justifications from various gun nuts will only highlight the fact that your society is incapable of having an adult conversation about the subject.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spot on. The TSA is utterly useless. A complete waste of taxpayer money. Worse than that, it gives Americans a false sense of security where none exists.

      People keep forgetting that the TSA is NOT about security, never has been. It is all about training citizens to mindlessly obey a pompous asshole with a semi-official-looking uniform or be punished (being back-roomed to miss your flight).

    7. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      If they start actually paying more than lip service to 'small government' they might actually lure me back to them.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not like the private companies that they replaced were any better.

      In the pre-9/11 days, I never had my scrotum stroked.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right that the USA's idea of risk is seriously screwed up. I suspect the ensuing justifications from various gun nuts will only highlight the fact that your society is incapable of having an adult conversation about the subject.

      I'm of the thought that if kids aren't scrapping themselves up(knees and other parts) on occasion, they're not having enough fun.

      Gun nuts or not, the issue you're seeing is the friction between different types of people. The 'FREEDOM!' gun carrying types tend NOT to be the ones that go apeshit over a scrapped knee in a playground.

      We tend to see the extremes of either on the news.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When you start a discussion by referring to the people you disagree with as "nuts", you've pretty much given up the moral high ground on having an "adult conversation".

      I could point out that "walking around with loaded firearms" doesn't hurt anyone, and those who wish to use a loaded firearm to hurt someone will simply ignore any laws that prevent everyone else from walking around with them. I'd also point out that "hurting someone with a loaded firearm" is also a law that people who wish to hurt others with a loaded firearms are ignoring, so you gain nothing by a prohibition on "walking around" with them.

      It's already illegal to hurt someone with a loaded firearm, so what do you gain by prohibiting law abiding citizens from carrying them. What is the next law that will solve the problem of bad people doing bad things with guns -- a law against THINKING about loaded firearms?

    11. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by ihtoit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is neither useless nor a waste of taxpayer money. It keeps tens of thousands off welfare and more importantly it keeps them from being significantly productive to the point where they might effect the actual labour output of the nation enough that imports of certain commodity items which CAN be produced locally (efficient automobiles, mobile phones and other portable microelectronics, white goods, foodstuffs such as potatoes and sugar) are reduced. It provides security theatre for mass transit and a false sense of security for sardine-tin commuters when what they should REALLY be worried about is disgruntled copilots (yeah whatever). It is called a makework economy, and it's the fast track to fucking up a country without firing a shot.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    12. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Worse than that, it gives Americans a false sense of security where none exists.

      I disagree. Air travel in the United States has never been safer. Exactly none of that safety is due to the TSA, but the sense of safety is (at least in part).

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    13. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I was actually shocked to hear, that in the TSA screenings for employees, that they were NOT able by law to ask for Social Security numbers. I mean, you *DO* have to have one of those to legally work in the US don't you?

      I'm not a big TSA fan at all, but seriously....if this is true WHY would a basic thing for employment on a govt job or government regulated job NOT be asked for?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my neck of the woods the highest group of illegal immigrants are Canadians. They drive pulp trucks. They work in the mills. They chop down trees. They have expired visas and the likes. Oh well. Nobody cares. They are not usually arrested, they are not brown. Nobody notices.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      SSN is required for employees, to file papers for the IRS, but is (arguably/borderline) illegal to ask for for other purposes.

    16. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Right, that's the catch 22. You don't "have" to provide you SS number to companies, you'd just have to live without natural gas, electric, or water service to your residence. All of them pretty much require you to give it to them. I asked if there was an alternative, and was told that if I didn't want to provide my SSN I could come to their office (45 minutes away, longer in traffic) during normal business hours (so like 3 hours off work) and put down a $500 deposit for the account to start service. So yeah, you pretty much have to give them your SSN.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    17. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Personally, I felt safer overall back when I could simply walk through the gates and onto the plane without being run through a wringer by own country on a domestic flight. Hell, it's not like I'm likely to be on more than one flight that gets blown up or whatever. The TSA gets you every time.

      Actually, as has been noted before, if terrorists weren't so obsessed by the airplanes themselves, that massive chokepoint that has replaced the distributed individual waiting areas is prime target material.

    18. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cops are more than four times more likely than ordinary citizens to shoot someone who doesn't deserve it in any given armed altercation and kill citizens at 70 times the rate of other first-world nations, but we still let them carry guns. Sadly, most cops don't train nearly enough — many departments literally have a single monthly firearms training day, or less — so the truth is that the average gun-toting citizen is actually better at putting rounds on target than the average cop. The kind of citizens who carry firearms are also the kind of people who take them to the range regularly.

      If you don't want bystanders injured by stray gunfire, or for that matter rounds deliberately fired at undeserving targets, then take the guns away from the cops. Taking them away from responsible citizens won't help.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Real banner week for the TSA... by DeansOffice · · Score: 2

      You're missing the point. Bad guys (ie gang members, drug dealers, etc) will do what they want no matter what the law says. Take Chicago for example. Until very recently (last year) Illinois had NO carry program meaning it was impossible to legally carry a gun unless you were LE. We all know about all the crime problems Chicago has. The bad guys (gang members, drug dealers, etc) would carry anyway and not only that they would commit crimes too (armed robbery, murder, etc). So the fact that there's laws against carry and in Chicago's case even possession (ie you can have a gun but it must stay locked up at home) didn't stop all the violence there. Now, Illinois was told by the courts that they had to institute a carry program (along with DC). Now we've seen stories like this stating that Chicago's crime rates are starting to drop. It could be a coincidence but I doubt it. Now, carry permit holders are some of if not the most law abiding group/demographic nationwide. Crimeresearch Stats (PDF warning) JustFacts Those are just a few sources from a quick search. As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I remember when Minnesota was debating the passage of the carry law there (I live in MN). There was no shortage of people saying that it was going to be the wild west, normal arguments would turn deadly, there would be bar fights with guns, and that road rage incidents would end in shootings. That has not happened. There's only been a few incidents and MN has more carry permit holders by percentage than Texas (3% TX vs 3.3% MN, my own calculations). Minnesota Carry Permit Holder Crime Stats I'm sorry, but carry permit holders are law abiding citizens. Add to all the supporting evidence the supreme court cases (Heller, McDonald, etc) where the court affirmed the 2nd amendment and it's pretty clear that carry is safe, effective, and legal.

  2. Shocked! I tell you I'm shocked ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... that the Theater Security Agency has failed to discoverer 1 terrorist.

    /sarcasm But let's keep fighting the war on all those inanimate objects like Drugs, Terror, and now Cryptography!

    1. Re:Shocked! I tell you I'm shocked ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is we don't know the nature of these "terror links". Maybe it's the guys third cousin was detected accessing the Anarchists Cookbook three years ago. Maybe it's all just nonsense and there is no need to worry.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. In Other Words by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So in other words. giving every passenger a cudgel on the way to their seat and locking the damned cabin door would be a cheaper, more effective means of on-plane security.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. Re:TSA == ??? by vux984 · · Score: 2

    This.

    And of the 73 on a list somewhere; i bet only a fraction are even slightly a threat; and i hope they don't lose their job simply because some distant uncle who sends them a gift on their birthday attended a rally where some actual terrorists also went...

  5. Patience by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My karma is good, so I think I need to off burn some excess. Mod me as you will.

    What the TSA and every other TLA agency can't protect against: a previously law-abiding person who decides that they must act against America. Their first criminal act may be the one that kills. The 9/11 hijackers did nothing illegal until well after the cabin doors of their aircraft closed.

    The TSA can't do shit against someone who has a brain and patience. Not. a. fucking. thing.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Patience by deadweight · · Score: 2

      commercial pilot here: This is BS. The cabin pressure is set the way it is because it costs money, range, and fuel to make the airplane stronger and thus able to be pressurized to sea level at cruise altitudes.

  6. How close are the ties? by timrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wish the report would go into some detail about how close the ties that these workers have to terrorism were, even if they were anonymized. Were they members or former members of a terrorist group? Is one of their family members or close personal friends a terrorist? It's still a failure to find these people before hiring them, but there's a big difference between "We found that 73 people were former members of a group or groups classified as a terrorist organization" and "We found that 73 people had donated money to the wrong charity or have a distant relative that might be a member of a terrorist organization."

    All the report says is that the 73 people were divided into 5 categories and that the TSA didn't have clearance for all 5 categories.

    1. Re:How close are the ties? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Came here to post this same comment. This is entire article is nothing but vague and potentially misleading information. I like to hate on the TSA Too, but this article is implying that we need to give the TSA *more* powers, because they didn't find something. But it doesn't won't tell us what the TSA didn't find or why they should have found it.

    2. Re:How close are the ties? by houghi · · Score: 2

      The 5 catagories are the ones they talk about. There is one more, but that will be come clear. Think Kevin Bacon.

      Basicaly the 5 cagagories are how far you are linked to a Terrorist. Lowest level is 5 steps/degrees away and that goes all the way to 1 That means you ARE a terrorist. The TSA only has access to levels 1 to 3. Level 4 and 5 (degrees away from a known terrorist) are for the real police.

      The secret level 6 is for the NSA and similar agencies. Those are the names of the people that are 6 degrees away from knowing a terrorist personally.

      The list is secret, but the number of those on 'list 6' is known

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  7. Everyone with CT experience knows TSA is a farce by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that's because we're being kind.

    If anything, it's an expensive waste of time and resources that makes terrorism more likely, especially when combined with unnecessary and counter-productive unconstitutional search and seizure and monitoring of American citizens in America, when the only useful actionable intel we have ever had has been due to intel gathering that started in the Middle East.

    Period.

    Living in Fear is the wrong answer. Americans are made of sterner stuff than that.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  8. Re:Grammar by sjames · · Score: 5, Funny

    "TSA: Fails to Find Airport Workers. Links to Terrorism."

  9. Doesn't it matter what the "link" actually is? by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean, if the workers *are* terrorists then they should be arrested, right? Short of that there are countless ways a non-terrorist can be "linked" with terrorists, and due to the "six degrees of separation" phenomenon it's quite common to have surprising looking connections.

    For example Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan and I happen to have a common common friend. I met the friend through work and Bandar knew him because his family was a neighbor in Aspen where Bandar has a house. And since Bandar is in the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden belonged to a prominent Saudi family, it's almost certain that Bandar knew him from before his Mujahideen days in Afghanistan. So I'm only two two acquaintances removed from Osama bin Laden. That sounds alarming! But in fact I've never *met* Bandar, in fact I've never met any Saudis at all.

    I've been racking my brains for people I've met from the actual Middle East, and it turns out that at one point in my career met the Egyptian-American space researcher Farouk el-Baz (who has a TNG shuttlecraft named after him!). El-Baz comes from a connected family; his brother for example was high up in Hosni Mubarak's government, and Farouk himself was at one time a science adviser to Anwar Sadat. It's a fair bet that he knows somebody from Egypt who later went on to be involved with the Muslim Brotherhood -- it wouldn't reflect on him at all. But if that were true I'd be just one acquaintance away from a direct "connection" with the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Now it also happens that my wife went to graduate school with someone who was the first woman valedictorian of the US Naval academy. Since I know her directly, I have all kinds of one-degree of separation relationships to people in all kinds of sensitive military and national security positions. I also two different one-degree of separation connections to the Clintons and current Secretary of State John Kerry. If you count my "connections" to my college professors at MIT I'm one-degree of separation away from several Manhattan Project scientists.

    If you plotted out my social network to two or three links away it'd look remarkable, in some cases even disturbing. But it's not. "Connection" means almost nothing. There have been cases of people "connected" to terrorists because the frequently called the same number -- a Manhattan pizza restaurant.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. TSA by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    fail

    Suddenly, this isn't so funny any more.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Re:This is why you do background checks by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is pretty much what the security people associated with that audit said. There is a program for "fast tracking" airline passengers, with pre-screening (like CAPPS) and such. Yet very few know about it, and the TSA doesn't really advertise it very well.

    In a somewhat related note, the TSA has almost grounded all flights by not doing proper change management. They repeatedly will begin some server / database maintenance without telling anyone, so we who monitor those systems start getting all sorts of alarms. The last time the TSA pulled down the no-fly database for some maintenance we were about 5 minutes out from alerting the FAA and the whole system going into a lock-down. After some frantic phone calls the TSA was just like "oh yeah, we forgot to tell anyone". From my perspective, they are just as "dangerous" as these "terrorists". Even the terrorists would have a hard time grounding all flights without any violence like has almost happened.

  12. Re:This is why you do background checks by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    There is already a line for people who had background checks.

    Have you not been to an American airport in the last 3 years? You should have seen signs for TSA Pre. It's part of the Trusted Travels program, and you do a little light paperwork for the background check and have your fingerprints taken.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Re:This is why you do background checks by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    It's kind of hard to miss the signs at the three airports I've been to this year.

    If you sign up for a frequent flyer account with most airlines you get a little packet of information, one of them is a TSA Pre brochure. I'm not sure what the online equivalent of such a kit contains, if anything.

    If you are applying for a travel visa from Canada or Mexico, you are told of the program as well. This has all come about in the last two years. If you're not a Canadian or Mexican citizen, then you can't use the program so not much point advertising it to Europeans or anyone like that.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. So what? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Should I care? If so why? They redacted even summary information categorizing what makes these people "suspicious". Is there any public information anyone can use to quantify the risk?

    For all anyone knows "links to terrorism" means TSA employee once delivered a pizza to a network admin who prefers IS-IS to OSPF.

    Have to love in a supposed free society maintenance of secret lists compiled using secret methods and criteria. A list whose names have no opportunity to know what they are even accused of let alone defend themselves.