Slashdot Mirror


TSA Screeners Can't Detect Weapons (and They Never Could) (arstechnica.com)

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: TSA screeners' ability to detect weapons in luggage is "pitiful," according to classified reports on the security administration's ongoing story of failure and fear. "In looking at the number of times people got through with guns or bombs in these covert testing exercises it really was pathetic. When I say that I mean pitiful," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), speaking Tuesday during a House Oversight hearing concerning classified reports (PDF) from federal watchdogs (PDF). "Just thinking about the breaches there, it's horrific," he added. A leaked classified report this summer found that as much as 95 percent of contraband, like weapons and explosives, got through during clandestine testings. Lynch's comments were in response to the classified report's findings.

32 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by loony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... giving you the feeling that your government cares and reacted to 9/11 and other threats is.

    Peter.

    1. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by whitroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yup. As Bruce Schneir refers to it, "security theater".

      Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then, and they got them on in other ways.

                      mark

    2. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Security Theater is nothing more than the Wizard of Oz. The problem is, nobody learned that lesson, in spite of nearly universal knowledge of that movie's pivotal scene.

      The problem is, the security theater only makes it more difficult, and now we're finding out it actually doesn't make it all much more difficult.

      IMHO the chances of hijacking a plane became much less likely to be successful after 9/11, because they broke the cardinal rule of hijacking, and turned the plane into a weapon. People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over, and will respond accordingly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Note that the weapons the hijackers allegedly used were ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON PLANES before then, and they got them on in other ways."

      Are you sure about that? I was able to bring my pocket knife through security before 9/11 as long as the blade was just a few inches.

      Wikipedia confirms this as well:

      "Box cutters and similar small knives were allowed onboard aircraft at the time."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    4. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Informative

      This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.

      The TSA has not stopped ANY attempts at bombing or hijacking airliners since 9/11. Various other methods have, but the TSA has been singularly useless.

    5. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problems are that there are vast swaths of the population that believe that the TSA is actually doing something to keep them safe. I have a cousin who is 13 years younger than I am who is a weekend warrior (MN national guard reserves) and he fully believes the line that all of this is necessary and prevents terrorist attacks. He is too young to really remember before 9/11/01 and so doesn't really know what has changed. Pointing out that the 3 things that have actually prevented another 9/11 doesn't register with him and he insists that our foreign adventurism has helped the most. He may very well be correct as he may be privy to information that I am not but I have yet to see any evidence showing this to be the case.Then you have people like my mother who will openly state that "At least they are trying to do something". Then add in the "if you have nothing to hide", and "so long as it keeps us safe" groups and this won't change for a very long time.

      As I have pointed out here before I have accidentally brought banned items through security without any real effort in concealing them, they were left in coat pockets, and the TSA never once found them. Yet every time I bring my camera through I get to play 20 questions with the otherwise unemployable.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.
      The TSA has not stopped ANY attempts at bombing or hijacking airliners since 9/11. Various other methods have, but the TSA has been singularly useless.

      Reinforced cockpit doors do sod all. Even without a reinforced cockpit door the crew could have kept them out of the cockpit if they wanted to using a co-pilots foot .

      What has made us tons safer after 9-11 is that now there would be reasonable quantity of the passengers who would challenge the hijackers, as recently shown on a French train. Previously most air hijackings were about taking hostages and using them to plead for some worthless chum of yours to be released, as soon as it became clear that the hijackers were never interested in your survival or their own it made trying to subdue them the safest option, no matter how dangerous that seemed.

      If you wanted to fly a plane into a building now you would have to steal an empty one first.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    7. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by random+coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      This, and also the fact that they reinforced and lock the cockpit doors from now on.

      Which also is a major contributing factor to a certain airline suicide crash in Europe.

    8. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government knows damn well that the TSA is security theater -- someone just forgot to tell this particular elected official.

      Security theater can be great as a deterrent, but once everybody starts shouting about how it's not real, then its deterrent effect is decreased. So we can either tell people to shut up about it, or eliminate the facade, but increased security isn't an option, for two reasons:

      1) Nobody can be vigilant against mostly non-existent threats for hours and days and years on end, except the most paranoid, OCD people, who aren't hireable anyway. That's why bouncers are effective -- people are constantly trying to sneak in, and bouncers know they're going to catch people. Most other security guards know they'll never, ever catch anyone, because nobody ever tries, and their attention suffers as a result. It's not that they don't want to do their job; it's that the reality of their job is incredibly tedious. It becomes about going through the motions most of the time, and maybe making an effort every so often.

      2) Real security takes time, and that pisses people off. Maybe not in the immediate wake of a catastrophic security failure, but days or weeks later, it will. Patience will run thin. Moreover, the biggest advantage of flying is convenience -- it's fast. Once that convenience goes away, its popularity will decline.

      Honestly, it doesn't matter though. Security has diminishing returns, like anything else, and no target can be fully protected. We can't, even collectively, control all of the variables. And when the risks are infinitesimal to begin with, then taking steps to lower them even more is usually a wasted effort. Better to focus on having procedures in place to handle things when the worst case happens.

    9. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's never going to go back to the way it was. Too many people make too much money from the new way. No politician is ever going to get rid of the TSA; whenever the next attack happens, they'll get blamed.

    10. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes you can.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    11. Re: Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, I don't always start reading a comment from the subject line either ;-)

      Putting half of the first sentence of your post in the subject line should be a capital offense. If you oppose the death penalty for religious or moral reasons, then you should mod them down instead.

    12. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Before 9/11 I had a service call. Took an 18 inch mechanics toolbox as carry one. Appologiezed for forgetting to remove a box cutter in screening and mentioned for them to take it as it would be easly replaced. They let me keep it but was more concerned with the screwdrivers at the time. I assuered them it would be kept under the seat and remain closed for the trip. They let me keep the box cutter.

      Post 911 is more difficult to travel with tools.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    13. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, .22 casings would make sense. Think of the nailgun used to put a nail in concrete, not your typical wood nailgun.

      http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ram...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thats me too, last time I flew was in Sept 2004. In 2005, I turned down a pretty good job that I'd actually gotten a tentative offer on. The job entailed about 25% travel, and after much thought, I told them, "Thanks but no thanks...". The manager I'd have been working for told me they were having trouble filling the position, as I was the 3rd offer they'd made where the potential employee turned them down because of the travel... Really glad I turned them down as I found a MUCH better job about a month later with ZERO need to interface with the TSA....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    15. Re:Detecting weapons is NOT the purpose of TSA... by chihowa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I have pointed out here before I have accidentally brought banned items through security without any real effort in concealing them, they were left in coat pockets, and the TSA never once found them. Yet every time I bring my camera through I get to play 20 questions with the otherwise unemployable.

      It's funny that you use that example because the last time I flew they pulled me aside to explain the extra camera battery that was literally right next to a pocket knife that they didn't notice. After being grilled (bumblingly questioned, really) for five minutes, they finally accepted my explanation for the battery, put it back next to the knife and let me go.

      On the way back, they didn't seem to notice either the knife or the battery.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  2. And yet..... by clifwlkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing happened. No hijackings, no downed planes, absolutely nothing. Maybe we don't need all of this security theater after all and could just leave our shoes on and take some water with us through the gate then? Save a few tax dollars?

    Of course it will go the other way and will be a huge call for more strict rules and procedures. Sigh.....

    1. Re:And yet..... by rlp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nothing happened ...

      because the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber" were stopped by alert passengers.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:And yet..... by trout007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The passengers on the 4th plane on 9/11 are the first. Planes are done. Crews and Passengers were taught to cooperate with hijackers. That's all over. To stop 9/11 all that would have been required is a declaration not to cooperate with terrorists.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  3. Anecdotal evidence by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My sister watched the supervisor run her backpack through the xray 3 times before the screener notice the pen knife in it, and my mother actually succeeded in getting a small pen knife onto a plane by "forgetting" it was in her makeup kit. These incidents were years ago. And, they don't really matter; post 9/11, a knife would not be an effective weapon for highjacking a plane. When every passenger makes the assumption they are going to die anyway if they don't take out the highjacker, pretty much every passenger is going to attempt to jump the highjacker and take him out. Even with a knife, you'd be hard pressed to be 100 to 1 odds - people don't die fast enough.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prior to 9/11, past hijackings were primarily of the "Take this plane to Havana!" type. People believed that if they complied, they' go home safely. 9/11 changed that forever. When you have no expectation that the plane is going anywhere but into the side of a building, you're not going to sit still and wait for it to happen, pen knife or no penknife. And the handful of incidents since have proven that completely. The passengers will tear a hijacker limb from limb with their bare hands if they have to.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Anecdotal evidence by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't fly very often, and as such I don't think about things like the fact that I carry a pocket knife ... all the time ... including every time I go through the airport security circus ... including those retarded back scatter machines that apparently suck so much they can't detect a pocket knife with a 2 inch blade. 2 inches is pretty short (ask your wife) but certainly something they should have detected.

      The TSA and airport security is a joke.

      Planes haven't been used effectively as a weapon again because as you say, we'll fucking kill anyone that tries even at the cost of our own lives because the alternative may be not only does the plane crash, but so do 5000 other people not on the plane ...

      And also ... their really aren't that many nut jobs out there that are truly willing to kill themselves. I'd bet you a good chunk of change that only the pilots during 9/11 even knew it was a suicide mission if we really knew what was going on.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  4. That's good to know by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's good to know that when they gently stroke my private parts, it is literally for nothing........

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:That's good to know by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just do what I do: look the TSA guy straight in the eyes, and in a high-pitched voice, say "Don't you wanna check my PACKAGE?!?" while thrusting your hips forward... nine out of ten times, they wave you through. One out of ten times, they caress you slowly and gently...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. 95% of Contraband... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look, I hate the TSA as much as (if not more than) the next guy, but can we be clear about the numbers?

    95% of contraband, which **includes, but is not limited to** weapons got through.

    What percentage of weapons, then?

    They might just be terrible at detecting forbidden fruits and vegetables.

  6. Oh god this ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now, I've never tried to bring a weapon on a plane ... but I've had one screener flag my suitcase in the security line, only to have another screener ask me "what did he see in your suitcase to flag you?", followed by me saying "if I knew that I wouldn't have put it in that suitcase".

    Then I asked if he'd show me the xray and I'd try to tell him what it was, he said I wasn't allowed. OK sir, shall I just stare at you as you demonstrate you have no idea of your own job? Or can I go now?

    And, on several occasions I've realized my laptop bag still had toothpaste, a Tide stick, and mouthwash in it -- and nobody noticed.

    TSA are inept, expensive, and annoying. And I very much doubt they can provably demonstrate they've ever actually stopped anything from happening.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Who's Surprised By This? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Number of people surprised that the TSA is completely ineffective: 0.

    Not coincidentally, that's also the number of terrorists that the TSA has caught.

    They have saved us from the scourge of water bottles and decent sized toothpaste tubes, though.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  8. The TSA boondoggle needs to be terminated by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since their inception the TSA has been repeatedly proven to be almost completely ineffective at prevention, yet there has been no US planes hijacked or blown up since their inception anyway.
    This alone proves that any benefit to the TSA's existence is entirely imaginary because the threat is not real.
    The TSA were originally created as a perhaps understandable but nevertheless paranoid and ill-informed kneejerk overreaction to 9/11. We need to simply fix that mistake now.
    There is clearly no rational reason for the TSA to continue to exist, especially since they cost the taxpayer 7.9 Billion USD every year that could be spent elsewhere solving problems that actually exist.

  9. Guns not needed for security by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How will people respond accordingly if it's illegal to carry a gun into a flight?

    Newsflash. There are ways of dealing with Bad Guys other than shooting them. It doesn't even matter if the Bad Guys are armed themselves if the number of passengers is greater than the number of bullets. Anyone trying to hijack a plane today will get beaten down almost immediately by the passengers. No point in sitting quietly if you think you are going to die anyway.

    Is there an officer in each flight?

    Not relevant. Nobody is going to wait for the police. Anyone starts some shit on a plan now and half the passengers will curb stomp them and tie them up until the plane can land.

  10. Having the information out there is better. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other, I'd hate to give inept dummy terrorists the idea that they should give this stuff a try since we're catching so little.

    Having the information out there is better.

    The effectiveness of a terrorist attack is proportional to how much people believe they are protected from a terrorist attack. In other words, the attack effect is amplified by the idea that the attack is impossible or unlikely to be successful.

    One of the reasons for using a commercial jetliner, rather than simply using the money, which these groups has in abundance, and buying or leasing business jets, and filling them with explosives, and then using those to crash into the targets instead was obviously to prove that the screening at airports was not enough to keep the public safe from such attacks.

    How much worse would the public overreaction to a subsequent attack, if the public had the perception that the security theater was in fact actually security, and terrorists were able to penetrate it anyway? How much more would the public be unlikely and unwilling to trust government reassurances that they are protected from terrorists?

    I can think of about 15 ways to crash the U.S. economy, and I can thing of at least 9 ways to crash the economy of the Western world, and I can think of about 11 more ways to crash things using domino attacks vs. European only targets, or a specific nexus or set of nexuses that don't look like they'd need protecting.

    It's pretty obvious that the attacks were not intended to crash the economy.

    In fact, if you think about it some more, the fact that there have not been subsequent large scale attacks... the terrorists must feel that they have achieved the goals they intended to achieve through them: massive losses of civil liberties, civil unrest relative to that, and so on.

    Security theater in the form of the TSA -- the inability to take bottled water not purchased at the on the other side of the security checkpoint aboard a plane, the inability to see friends and family off at the gate at departure, or greet them at arrival -- merely serves to rearm the weapon of a public perception of security where none actually exists.

    Once again: Having the information out there is better.

  11. Re:Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel by barbariccow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why are you so angry? And also your garbage is constantly wasting screen space and resources. Can your hosts-file tool block your comments? Or does that require something special to block portions of a page from the same origin...

  12. Re:How do they miss the guns? by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the body scanner, put it on your sides. The plane of the scanner field only rotates across your front and back; it will miss anything directly on your sides. Wear slightly loose clothes and you can strap a weapon (or other object) a number of places outside the areas that the scanner "sees". Upper arms near your elbows (well out to the sides in "scanner pose"), sides of your torso unless you're super skinny, outsides of your legs if it doesn't show through your pants, insides of your legs (especially near the ankle) if you keep your feet a little wider than you should, etc.

    For the baggage X-ray, just put "safe" stuff around the prohibited item. Tablet computers are great here; for some reason they're considered safe despite usually having plenty of metals, including potentially-dangerous lithium, in their chassis. Laptop power bricks and external hard drives are pretty hard to scan through; I've seen what they look like on the screens. Small items like pens, mint tins, coins, keys, flashdrives, jewelry, and so on can clutter the X-ray image and conceal stuff behind them, directly or by simply breaking up the outline sufficiently. A bag of toiletries containing a bunch of sub-3-oz tubes of this and that is *supposed* to be run through separately, but I've never once had a problem leaving it in my bag and I fly over a dozen times a year.

    It's embarrassingly easy to get shit past those morons. Sometimes I do it by accident, like forgetting a pocketknife or bottle of soda. If it's not on the outer part of the bag, they usually miss it.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...