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.

11 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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."
  3. 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

  4. 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?"
  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. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.