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.

18 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: 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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).

    6. 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."
    7. 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?

    8. 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.........
    9. 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.'"
  2. 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
  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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! --
  6. Re:Grammar by sjames · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.