Slashdot Mirror


Airport Security Fails 17 Times Out of 18 In Minneapolis (fox9.com)

Bruce66423 writes, "It appears that that the security theatre at Minnesota airport failed to spot 17 security violations out of 18 last week." A local Minneapolis news station reports: Last Thursday, what's referred to as the "Red Team" in town from Washington D.C., posed as passengers and attempted to sneak items through security that should easily be caught... 17 out of 18 tries by the undercover federal agents saw explosive materials, fake weapons or drugs pass through TSA screening undetected... In April of 2016, sources said the airport failed nine out of 12 tests.
"When asked about Thursday's failing grade, the TSA said, 'TSA cannot confirm or deny the results of internal tests and condemns the release of any information that could compromise our nation's security.'"

146 comments

  1. Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some water by darthsilun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess it's because dihydrogen monoxide has killed so many.

  2. Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its goal is not to be successful at catching these type of things.

    It succeeds in its real goal - grabbing money, decreasing freedom of movement, theater.

    1. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theater keeps people from trying to sneak stuff in. It doesn't actually have to work as long as people believe it might.

      In related news, I walked through the metal detector with my belt on. Instead of letting me take it off and re walk through, I got my crotch groped.

    2. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop going to the Blue Oyster Bar then.

    3. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just moan and pretend to enjoy it, if everyone did this, they may have difficulty finding employees to do it

    4. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think the theater is there to make people feel they are safe. It may scare an undetermined attacker or wanna be terrorist, but I doubt it will stop someone with real intent. However, you've got to show all those passengers they are safe or you loose a considerable amount of revenue. The theater does that pretty successfully.

    5. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that just relies on the obscurity of the knowledge that it doesn't work. Which will inevitably come out because people feel safer actually knowing.

    6. Re: Of course it fails by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      Just moan and pretend to enjoy it, if everyone did this, they may have difficulty finding employees to do it

      Heh! Yeah, you go ahead and show us how it's done, we'll watch.

      You'd simply be arrested & charged with things like felonious aggravated sexual harassment of a Federal employee, lewd & lascivious public behavior, disorderly conduct, and probably several other charges.

      Don't worry, with a good lawyer and some luck with plea-bargaining (assuming they aren't particularly annoyed and determined to hammer you), you could be out in under 3 years. Even if they drop the charges you're still out a ton of money in expenses and lawyer fees (tbh if you're stuck with the public defender you're likely boned regardless unless you can defend yourself), missed paid travel, and have an(other?) arrest on your record.

      "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against...We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." --- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re: Of course it fails by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And I think she got that one right. Circumstantial evidence seems to support her. (A stopped clock, and all that.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lmfao

      Theater works for the people who won't do anything and the stupids who would try and fail. (Underwear and shoes idiots, grandma)

      Theater doesn't work for the people with the contacts and budget necessary to do real damage. (Sept 11 hijackers)

      "Well if that's the case why hasn't it happened since then?!"

      Because people with the contacts and budget necessary haven't tried since then.

    9. Re:Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No no no....it's goal is to enable homosexual men to sexually assault you without you realizing it. See here:

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/travel/tsa-patdown-firings/index.html

    10. Re: Of course it fails by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      And I think she got that one right. Circumstantial evidence seems to support her. (A stopped clock, and all that.)

      If looked at objectively and taking reasonable account for the times in which it was written, AS gets a lot more "right" than many are willing to admit. If it did not get so much right, it would not incite such strong reactions from collectivists/statists/Marxists/communists/etc at it, or it's author's, mere mention.

      I'm dreading the possibility, with the US close to a financial and social collapse, of a "Directive 10-289"-like move by the government when the dollar collapses and the markets tank. If they do that, it won't be just a financial/monetary disaster that might have some possibility of the US coming through eventually, it will mean the end of the US as a free and open society. The "Great Experiment" will be over.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    11. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because as soon as people realized that they were going to die either way, they tried to take back control of the plane.

      Seriously, if someone looks like they're up to no good there's no shortage of people itching to pounce on them and hold them still long enough for the FA to break out the zip cuffs.

    12. Re:Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its' a public works project, nothing more. When you see monthly job numbers creep p, making people think the economy is on track, remember that 55,000+ of those people are part of a welfare project designed to make you *feel* safer, not actually *make* you safer.

    13. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a faggot aren't you?

    14. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir

      I admire the logic in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your news letter.

    15. Re: Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it good for you? Did you cum?

    16. Re:Of course it fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA, zooming to new heights of performance with a 5.6% detection rate!

      Excellence is our motto, our creed! Next step, raise the bar even higher, to the dizzying heights of 5.7%! We will be so high that they will have to cut a hole in the airports' ceilings! We will be so high that we will get credit for scaling Mt. Everest! We will be so high that we ought to be arrested for being under the influence!!

  3. condemns the release of any information by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... condemns the release of any information that could compromise our nation's security.

    Keeping some information secret can also "compromise our nation's security".
    For example, if the TSA is incapable of doing its job, keeping that information secret isn't in the national interest.

    1. Re:condemns the release of any information by Tihstae · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keeping some information secret can also "compromise our nation's security".
      For example, if the TSA is incapable of doing its job, keeping that information secret isn't in the national interest.

      Well, part of the security theater is keeping the mysteries of the theater alive. If you tell how the special effect works, it isn't so special anymore. The special effect here is that this is all just a waste of time and resources to make the feds have a bigger budget. There is no security here other than the theater.

    2. Re:condemns the release of any information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... condemns the release of any information that could compromise our job's security.

      There. I fixed it for you.

    3. Re:condemns the release of any information by kpainter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... condemns the release of any information that could compromise our nation's security.

      Translation: We regret you chose to point out that we are a bunch of incompetent fucktards. We condemn that.

    4. Re:condemns the release of any information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Theatre works whilst the 'suspension of disbelief' is maintained. With the TSA at least that boat has sailed.

    5. Re:condemns the release of any information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no security here other than the theater.

      Clearly the TSA does not have enough resources. This is a perfect excuse for a bigger budget. It's all by design. Fail the tests, cry for more money, rise, repeat.

    6. Re:condemns the release of any information by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The first rule of Security Theatre is don't talk about Security Theatre.
      The second rule of Security Theatre is don't talk about Security Theatre.

    7. Re:condemns the release of any information by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      if the TSA is incapable of doing its job, keeping that information secret isn't in the national interest.

      Actually, I think keeping security holes secret is in the national interest - assuming that its not used an excuse to avoid fixing the hole. After all, that's the policy with technical exploits (90 day embargo on release to fix the issue is standard.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. There is no person who has ever flew in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knows you are a fucking failure no confirmation necessary.

  5. don't view the link by nnet · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't read the article, there's nothing in it that isn't covered in the summary. The site layout/design is terrible as well.

  6. Re:Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wate by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The TSA is 100% effective in detecting bottles of Breast milk and preventing them from being taken on board the aircraft,

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't that hard of a problem to solve:

    1) Eliminate TSA. Bring in private security firms like there used to be. Pay the workers well, even if tickets are a bit more expensive. Attract better, more competent workers.

    2) Simplify the screening process. Make it less complicated and have fewer prohibited items. If security can focus on things that are really important instead of all of the inane rules, less truly dangerous items will get through.

    3) Expand the security checkpoints and staff them better. Each person might spend a bit longer actually being screened, but hopefully the wait times in line could be shortened. Let the workers have a little more time to look at the X-ray images of the baggage. Properly staff the checkpoints so the process isn't rushed.

    Any laptop ban is a step in the wrong direction, by the way. Adding more prohibited items and making the screening more complex is only going to make the problem worse. The proposal to bring US rules about knives back into line with the rest of the world was a good idea. Unfortunately, people were convinced it was dangerous and I don't believe it ended up happening.

    Have better staff, pay them better, simplify the screening process, and don't rush the actual screening of luggage. I'm not opposed of tickets cost a couple more dollars to have real security instead of the intrusive joke security theater that the TSA is.

    1. Re:Solutions by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

      Someone mod this up; I'm out of mod points.

    2. Re:Solutions by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Actually, one thing the electronics ban (it doesn't just apply to computers) does suggest is having multiple options for carry-on screening. Every one hates the hassle of going through security, so why not incentivise that? For most people, a phone or Kindle/mini-tablet (yeah, currently too big where the ban is still in place but let's assume we tweak things a bit) is all the in-flight entertainment they need. If you were to provide the equivalent of the express aisles at supermarkets where your carry-on bag can basically zip straight through the X-ray and you get into the departure lounge faster and with less hassle, you might just get people deciding that maybe they don't need their big laptop on their holiday after all.

      For others, that really do need to bring their laptop or DSLR camera gear (my main concern with the ban), you get the extra screening with more thorough visual inspections, mandatory residue swabs, sniffer dogs, or whatever else it is that Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Istanbul have put in place to get the ban removed. Sure, that's going to mean you spend a little longer going through the process, but if enough people qualify to go through the express aisles, then maybe the queues won't be as long as as all that and it'll all mostly balance out. That could also potentially incur some extra expense as a further encouragement to travel light (not to mention providing the airlines with some more upselling opportunities), but you do get to choose - and as long as it's not too exhorbitant maybe that would be a price worth paying.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea:

      1) Eliminate TSA and bring in Military. Scare the CRAP out of would-be terrorists, and give those reserve guys something useful to do.

    4. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea. Execute (by firing squad) everyone who works for the TSA, NSA and FBI for treason. Cut military spending to 10% of what it is now. Use money to fund disease and cancer research and to put into programs that actually help citizens of the United States. Stop fucking with other countries and let them live their own lives.

    5. Re: Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about they just stop using the TSA as a works program for ghetto hood rats?

      When 81% of your workforce is from a demographic that is 9% of the population, you're not hiring based on merit... Unless it's the NBA.

    6. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because our Constitution prohibits searches by the government without a warrant? And the military is part of the government! (Just as much as the TSA is. But we already lost that battle.)

      OTOH, if the pro-gun contingent were as ready to leap in and defend the Fourth Amendment as vehemently as they do the Second Amendment whenever someone suggests reasonable background checks before being able to buy a gun... But they have tunnel vision about the Constitution; they're just a one trick pony IMO.

      If Delta, American, United, et. al. were to go back to private companies doing security and made is as simple as "if you want to fly on our planes, go through our security." Metal detector, pat down, high power X-Rays, whatever. Whatever the airline thinks it needs to be to make flying their planes safe. That'd be fine with me.

    7. Re:Solutions by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Add: advise passengers on how to tackle incidents voluntarily in flight and how to cooperate with authorities, just a few tips. Print it on the seat-back safety card too

      Add: drop off carry-on bags at check-in and pick up securely in the gate area, scan/sniff them in bulk on their way to the gate, associate them with passengers and track by RFID and phone App. take measures to assure that passengers can only pick up their own bags and that the bags are handled gently

      Add: stroll-through body scanners for all passengers with RFID enabled ID documents. Use AI to flag issues and redirect all remaining TSA team to pulling people aside if the scanner shows up anything anomalous as passengers walk through. TSA can match ID to boarding passes using the airline booking system

      Add: do away with special perks for certain classes of passenger. Let the 1st class suffer with the unwashed, no buying your way through. That should spur some improvements

      Add: Fire management that has poor red team test results.

      There should be no queues in any unsecured area under normal operation

      --
      Nullius in verba
    8. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sort of right but the fact is, security should be done like Israel does it. They're subject WAY more actual threats than anything in the US and yet have more sane rules.

      You have to toss out the PC bullshit and get down to pragmatic solutions. The simple fact is, profiling (racial or not) works and it works very well.

    9. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure 100% sure that #1 would increase ticket costs. Consider how many TSA employees tend to sit around doing precious little with only basic training. You could get by with fewer *well-trained* security professionals, paid higher wages, who know what to look for, and still cost about the same or less.

    10. Re:Solutions by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Eliminate TSA and bring in Military."

      I'm willing to bet that you've never served in the military. It'd be difficult to imagine a task more ill suited to the military than airport security screening.

      Not that the TSA seems to have any aptitude for it either.

      Beyond the metal detectors which are simple, non-intrusive, and should keep firearms and broadswords off the planes, effective airport security would require trained professionals with a thorough knowledge of threats and contraband and the ever changing (and quite bizzare) regulations. You really think a few E-4 enlisted folks with an average IQ of maybe 105 who have caught a 30 day airport detail are capable of doing what would need to be done?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    11. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the pro-gun contingent were as ready to leap in and defend the Fourth Amendment as vehemently as they do the Second Amendment whenever someone suggests reasonable background checks before being able to buy a gun...

      Which simply proves you're an idiot that's never bought a gun and has no fucking clue whatsoever what's involved, has no fucking idea what anyone, gun-owner or not, might be defending other than the 2ndA, but blissfully & ignorantly bleats out the groupthink talking points like a good sheeple.

      Say BAAA! BAAA! you fucking sheep!

    12. Re:Solutions by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      For most people, a phone or Kindle/mini-tablet,,, is all the in-flight entertainment they need.

      Or, alternatively, maybe other people have different values than you do. When I fly, the number of people I see with a laptop seems to hover around 10%

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    13. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have better staff, pay them better ...

      Corralling cows into a race and crush; sorry, corralling people into a queue and scanner is dull, boring work. It's like digging a ditch with the ditch complaining about you: People sign-on for that when there's nothing better. Having better wages probably won't bring better staff and it won't make the job interesting. The result will be higher staff turn-over.

      ... don't rush the actual screening of luggage ...

      Any task is a compromise between capital (machinery) and labour: Businesses pick the combination with the lowest TCO over a given period of time. The best way to lower the cost is to externalize it, which is easily done by social engineering. This is why businesses have a 20-90 minute queue for customer service: Your time doesn't cost them a cent but it allows them to control the rate of work and thus the cost of labour.

      Using more capital (scanners) or labour for nationalized security isn't an issue, there's always more money to 'think of the planes'. But there is an issue of space, where the screening area for passengers and the required staff, is small. It's ridiculous that spacious unsecured zones and spacious secured zones are connected by a man-trap that deliberately wastes customers' time.

      There's also the issue of dealing with false positives; which made US airports grind to a standstill last Christmas. These airports aren't designed for peak-loading and the solution of customers spending another hour in a queue, makes alternative transport, which has less security, more attractive. Little surprise, the TSA originally wanted to "secure" the highways to ensure that everyone is "safe", all the time. It's an impossible monopoly that reveals the TSA is theatre.

    14. Re:Solutions by u801e · · Score: 1

      I agree with the first point, but why not just eliminate passenger screening entirely? We don't have routine screening for other types of mass transit like buses, taxis/ride shares. Even going to places like the movies or local shopping mall don't require screening (at least in my experience).

      We have had incidents in pretty much all the examples I mentioned above, but we didn't have to deal with the subsequent nationwide/worldwide security theater that comes with traveling by air.

    15. Re:Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If passengers can get curb-to-gate at the airport in Tel Aviv in 30 minutes, don't pretend you can't do the same in the US. The key difference is that to provide even a degree of security at the lowest price, the US model scrapes the residue at the bottom of the barrel, slaps a uniform on it, and pretends it's effective. Pay more for fewer *professionals* and you'll get better quality security, faster lines, better service, etc.

    16. Re:Solutions by imidan · · Score: 1

      Even simpler: whitelist for allowable items. Items must be contained within a specified, relatively flat, transparent plastic zipper bag. All items must be clearly visible. Put maybe a couple dozen items on the list. One phone per person, a keychain with maybe three keys. A limited amount of medication. A transparent plastic wallet fitting within certain dimensions and containing a limited number of cards and bills. Anything not on the list gets confiscated or disposed of without notice or consultation.

      We'll be so safe, it'll usher in a new utopian era.

  8. They test the ability of TSA to detect drugs? by VAXcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The TSA isn't supposed to be looking for drugs - just threats...

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    1. Re:They test the ability of TSA to detect drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TeHTerrorist use drugs to fund their evil

    2. Re:They test the ability of TSA to detect drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1
      Conservative courts should strike this down. If this isn't a fishing expedition, I don't know what is.

    3. Re:They test the ability of TSA to detect drugs? by will_die · · Score: 1

      They have no authority over drugs. If they or similar looking items are found local police are suppose to be called and they investigate and arrest. That is from the TSA web site.
      Not sure what the testing would be, but the stories that you do read about are when the drug carrier puts the drugs in peanut butter or similar substance which should be stopped because of the liquid base. They could be testing drugs that way to see if the TSA agent detects the liquid product and to see if they steal the drugs.

  9. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what affects national security?

    Forcing passengers through worthless security procedures that inherently fail worse than just removing every tenth person from the flight at random.

    And then trying to hush up the results.

    In the height of 9/11's aftermath, an American friend of mine came to London, and then we all flew to Europe for a holiday. It was only in the queue towards security at a London airport that her husband spotted she still has a CS canister in her hand luggage from her previous flight. Literally, she'd forgot to take it out of her handbag, it had came all the way into the UK (where it's illegal to possess, let alone take it on a plane) via a standard flight, and it was only when we were heading out again that - by chance - he spotted it.

    He had to discretely drop it in one of those bins they have for bottles that are too large, etc. on the way into security.

    Sure, it's not a grenade or something, but it's not the sort of thing people should be carrying onto a plane without even realising, and nobody spotting it, and it's not the sort of thing that should be in the UK at all as it's illegal to own, sell or possess the damn thing. But it came right through security at least once (we think it might have been on another flight earlier too, but nobody was quite sure) and was about to go through it again.

    And it was in hand luggage, not just the hold.

    The irony hit home hard. The bottle of water I'd bought 10 minutes earlier in the airport shop outside of check-in was taken from us. The CS spray was larger than that and had already been through security successfully once.

    We need to radically re-think airport security. And especially its impact on the majority of people who just want to get on a damn plane, have a comfortable journey, get off as quickly as possible, and carry on with their lives.

    To be honest, I now can't be bothered to fly, even to Europe. Too much pissing about waiting, hassle going through security (taking off shoes, putting laptops in other bags, being patted down, having drinks taken from me, being forced to "test" baby's milk if I want to take it with me, endless fucking queueing and people yelling instructions at you), and then an uncomfortable and unpleasant flight and the same shit the other end.

    I'd rather have a motorway drive, onto a train or ferry, not have to do with any of that shite, and then poodle through Europe. Giving my money to petrol stations instead of airlines, small towns instead of massive airports, and taking whatever I like to drink or eat or watch TV on.

    The tax that we must be pissing away by putting people off flying with this shit just isn't worth it. You can get a flight for a pittance now, granted, but there's a reason for that. I just cannot imagine it's going to be profitable for much longer, and I don't even believe we're paying the wages of people who do all the security shit, let alone the pilots and crew, and fuel.

    At some point the bubble will burst and people will say "too much" and use alternative means. And it won't hinder a terrorist one bit.

    1. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what percentage of screeners and their management are going to be fired because of this? If this was a private company, even the board of directors would be out.

    2. Re:Sigh. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      The TSA still has a record of catching 0 terrorists. Of course when asked about numbers they clam up and mumble something about national security.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the election acceptance speeches at all levels of government are rife with "the future" and "moving on from the mistakes of the past". Actual trials, convictions and prison sentences are for the little people.

    4. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, I now can't be bothered to fly, even to Europe.

      If you travel thru LHR I can understand that - it's a nightmare.

      OTOH, flying thru smaller, less busy airports is fine IMO. For example, LCY is a a dawdle. Yes, you still get the same security screening, but when it's combined with a short stroll rather than a long obstacle-course through a crowded maze it doesn't feel as bad.

      You may as well do your traveling to Europe now, before Brexit makes it even worse. BTW, I highly recommend Bruges, "it's like a f***ing fairytale". :-)

    5. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading when I read "In the height of 9/11's aftermath". Sounds too buzzwordy.

    6. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is "CS" in this context?

    7. Re:Sigh. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      In my experience it's more often called "pepper spray" or "mace" but I was at a loss at first too. Using actual CS gas is rare any more, IIRC. OC is more common but people still call it CS or pepper spray even if not technically correct.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So jumping to conclusions about someone's political views after reading one sentence on an unrelated topic ...

    9. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I deployed to Iraq in 2004, took my mid-tour leave in November 2004. I flew back in uniform with just a carry on. I made it through 3 of 4 security checkpoints before it was discovered I had two knives, a straight razor, and a multi tool in a small zippered pocket I had forgotten about. The TSA agents were super nice about it, and allowed my bag to get put with the checked luggage under the plane. Needless to say I was still a bit nervous about the incident, being post 9-11 and all.

      When they seat us, I happened to be sitting next to a TSA agent. I told him the story, but added "I guess the only thing you couldn't smuggle onto a plane is a chainsaw!" To which he replied "Only if it is running." Which was pretty funny at first, but when the reality of the comment hit me, I lost almost all faith in TSA.

    10. Re:Sigh. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >If you travel thru LHR I can understand that - it's a nightmare.

      If you fly to LHR, fly first class and they give you a little pass that lets you go through a private security line with far less hassle.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    11. Re: Sigh. by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      But you were in uniform with military ID. They should be spending minimum efforts on you based on a very low threat assessment. Doesn't bother me at all.

    12. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know what affects national security?

      Having a country entirely full of total fucking cunts that everyone hates?

    13. Re: Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because nobody who wants to commit a terrorist act has ever been in the military...

      And all the people with military ID and uniform are sane, level-headed, non-discharged, not suffering from PTSD, etc.

      It's exactly that kind of profiling that lets people slip these things onto aircraft.

      "Oh, I didn't bother to search him because..." is just admission of failing to search a passenger. Whatever privilege such people are assigned would be easily turned into access for a terrorist in seconds.

  10. Security theatre theatre by bmomjian · · Score: 1

    In that case, it was "security theatre theatre" because it was a test/drama itself.

  11. only the Weapons were Fake? by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    so the explosives and drugs were the real thing? that Red Team know how to party.

    1. Re:only the Weapons were Fake? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      so the explosives and drugs were the real thing? that Red Team know how to party.

      The explosives were probably fake, but coated with small amounts of real explosives so that they could be detected by the sniffers. The drugs, probably the same... except not with explosives

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:only the Weapons were Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they rely on dogs to sniff out explosives and drugs, I guess faking the smell would be a challenge.

  12. Drugs? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the TSA is explicitly looking for drugs?

    That sounds like a clear 4th amendment violation, since it unrelated to the safety of passengers.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you voluntarily agree to a search, then it can't be a 4th amendment violation.

    2. Re:Drugs? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      If you don't voluntarily agree to a search, then you're not actually "flying".

    3. Re:Drugs? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      They will answer that flying is not a public right nor service; they are private airlines. And you can fly on other private airlines (like JetSuite X or Surf Air) where you do not have TSA checks.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re: Drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whhhhhhaaaaaaaatttttt where the fuck do I find these

  13. Drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are there for other reasons than security? Who would have thunk it?

  14. Big soft target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If there's one thing we learned from No Russian, it's that giant lines of people stuck waiting for useless procedures ARE an ideal target for terror.

  15. Its an improvement by burtosis · · Score: 2

    I travel through msp a lot and went through the msp airport a few months before 9/11 and the TSA update to security. They were understaffed and was waiting so I just walked through the detector. It beeped and no one came. I said, almost shouting, "OK, if no one is coming to check I'm leaving!" I proceeded to walk off as the guy behind me laughed (he also left). Believe it or not 1/18 is probably an improvement. At least they walled up the walkway where you could just toss a package up from the lower entrance level before security to the upper walkway after it lmafo.

  16. Excellent Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the test used fake items, of course TSA didn't flag those people. It knew the materials were fake and thus allowed them through. This airport's TSA security is top notch!

  17. Re: Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wat by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

    its funny, people would rather complain about commercial flying when a pilots license is readily available via general aviation.

  18. Doesnt matter. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Airport security is all theater anyways and designed to indoctrinate americans to accept being inspected and have people carrying automatic weapons around you for your "protection".

    we are as safe without all this invasive BS and M16 toting militarized police.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Doesnt matter. by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      we are as safe without all this invasive BS

      Far safer, in fact.

    2. Re:Doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our grandkids will expand this to checks on highways. Their grandkids will expand this to checks entering every building. Their grandkids will expand this to in home cameras recording everything you do. Their grandkids will require the installation the new Apple iBrain implant which features remote thought monitoring.

    3. Re:Doesnt matter. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      That rate of adoption is still slower than what has happened already.

  19. And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many people think the federal government is capable of managing health care and education. I submit it fails at all of these tasks because bureaucrats don't care about outcomes, just butt covering and budgets. They have zero incentive to care if they do their job correctly or how it impacts any citizens.

    But we no longer live in a country that cares much how $4 Trillion is spent each year, as long as it can be politicized and some party apparatchiks can gain power over their enemies.

  20. being a software developer who has worked on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airport security, this is how it really works. So is no wonder it fails

  21. Laptop evasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if booked on a flight where laptops are not allowed, I should be able to fold a magazine around the laptop and just stroll through security. Nice.

  22. i wish could use that excuse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA cannot confirm or deny the results of internal tests and condemns the release of any information that could compromise our nation's security

    When I screw up at work: "I cannot confirm or deny those results, and I condemn the release of any information that might compromise my ability to find continued employment".

    Somehow I think it would not be an excuse.

  23. It happens all the time by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    I was going through US customs in Dublin and inadvertently got in the line for pre cleared, the signage was rather confusing as to where to go, who don't have to go through the scanners at all. She looked at my passport, looked at some sort of list that they must have for expected people for the day, pretended to see my name on it and just let me pass.

  24. Re:Solutions -- Won't Work on United Airlines by I75BJC · · Score: 1

    8 hour flight on United Airline (Boeing 777) Inflight entertainment was available but was only streamed through the passengers' devices. Taking away passenger devices means No inflight entertainment. It's cheaper for the passenger to use their own device than the airline outfit the aircraft. I guess you don't fly?

  25. too busy stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At JFK the chances of losing something small and valuable from your carry on bag is about the same as getting ripped off by the baggage handlers who go through your checked bag. The number of times I've had to decline some minimum wage thug insisting I put my cash, held in my hand, through the xray machine is annoyingly large. I ask for a receipt, which usually works they just wave me through, but I had to tell one bored headphone wearing high school dropout to "get a cop" as he started intimating he was going to back alley me.

    The TSA has been a disaster since day 1. If we had any responsible Federal officials in this country ... ah forget it ...

    1. Re:too busy stealing by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

      What do you expect from folks that get minimum wage? Maybe if the government would pay them better they may start to care.

    2. Re:too busy stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from folks that get minimum wage? Maybe if the government would pay them better they may start to care.

      Regardless of salary, maybe if there were some penalties for failure?

  26. 100 rounds of ammo got through to Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100 rounds of ammo got through to Japan ... where the owner was transiting and decided to throw it into a bin.
    A cleaning lady found it, got the police, who watched video and captured the 60+ yr old woman from the USA.

    Japanese freaked out. 100 rounds! Oh the horror! How could that possibly have gotten through US security? Remember, she was a transit passenger, so her luggage was checked-through - this was carry-on!

    Someone, somewhere, was sleeping when they scanned her carry-on. I'd like to know who has been fired for each of these failures.

    Someone needs to be held accountable - after all the pocket knives the TSA has stolen from me for no good reason.

  27. Re: Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wat by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Really, generally available huh? I can just spend a couple of hours reading the book?

    No, GA isn't the answer. Unless your needs are quite modest, your aircraft won't be. Which means time and money. Which, interestingly, is what commercial aviation offers.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  28. Security by tquasar · · Score: 1

    I can neither confirm nor deny that I read Slashdot.

  29. This is sad by hduff · · Score: 2

    The TSA is not security, it's security theater. It protect no one and only diverts scarce resources to their own brand of waste.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  30. I don't see privatization by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    resulting in more and better paid staff. That cuts into profits. It would be far better to recognize that short of mandatory strip searches actually securing transportation is hard. We'd be better off asking ourselves why folks want to drive planes into buildings in the first place. Yeah, there's some religious nut jobs out there to be sure. But let's not forget that desperate times make desperate people. Spend more money on sending food and medicine to impoverished countries and you'll have less desperate people. Then you can cut back on stuff like the military we use to keep those folks at bay. Put another way: It's cheaper to drop food on people than bombs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't see privatization by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Countries with real threats seem to make it work.

      http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-...

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  31. Re:Solutions -- Won't Work on United Airlines by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    I fly, I use a tablet for that.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  32. TSA = Employment Program by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    The TSA is the biggest federal employment program ever. It puts thousands into a steady job. Of course, it would be nice if the agents actually accomplished something other than waste space and annoy travelers.

  33. Osama Bin Laden Was Wealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Osama Bin Laden was wealthy and from a wealthy family.

    Money had nothing to do with it.

  34. There's your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the testers had olive-colored skin, TSA's find rate would be 100% - or greater.

    1. Re:There's your problem by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Ripe olives or green olives?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:There's your problem by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I guess he meant tested.
      And in that case green or black or any mixture would not matter :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  35. Untested workers and mind numbing tasks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because the people TSA hires aren't educated and tested to prove their knowledge on a regular basis. They are understaffed and required to do the same mind numbing task repeatedly and rapidly, psychologically the whole task becomes automated and hypnotic.

  36. those fabulous loose lips of Rosie the Riveter by epine · · Score: 2

    "When asked about Thursday's failing grade, the TSA said, 'TSA cannot confirm or deny the results of internal tests and condemns the release of any information that could compromise our nation's security.'"

    Just a question.

    Is there any way to achieve national security without the clear and present danger of public exposure and embarrassment hanging over government apparatchiks who fail to deliver their mandates?

    Because somehow I don't think that "loose lips" is the only way to sink ships.

    Crackerjack government agencies with the curtains drawn. There's a Costa Concordia in every box suite.

    1. Re:those fabulous loose lips of Rosie the Riveter by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Crackerjack government agencies with the curtains drawn.

      Or, perhaps, "Jackboot"government agencies.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:those fabulous loose lips of Rosie the Riveter by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Is there any way to achieve national security

      It will be easy to solve the problem of domestic armed robbery. (hint: no country has ever done that, either)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  37. Re:Solutions -- Won't Work on United Airlines by Zocalo · · Score: 1

    United isn't the only airline that has that kind of entertainment system or some variation of it (some also let you watch the inflight movies on your own device), and some people prefer to provide their own entertainment on their own devices anyway, which is why I specifically suggested tweaking the current size limits to allow smaller tablets to still qualify for the express screening option. You'd also have the option of a full-size notebook or tablet if you wanted it, but you'd have to opt for the full-on screening. The point of the idea isn't to stop passengers from bringing their electronics or whatever into the cabin, it's to give people a choice between whichever is the more convenient of faster screening or larger devices, while at the same time enabling more thorough screening of just those devices that are deemed large enough to be repurposed as an IED.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  38. Security theater by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The point of airport security isn't really to thwart terrorists. It's to convince people that flying is safe, so that they'll fly instead of drive to their destination. You see, cars are much more dangerous than planes, and car accidents kill far more people than terrorists do. So a terrorist incident aboard an airliner kills more Americans by convincing them to drive instead of fly on their next trip, than it directly kills aboard the airliner. (9/11 was the exception, since the planes were used to attack another target. But as UA93 demonstrated, that's not going to happen again.)

    So the point of airport security is to convince people that the government is doing something about terrorists, and that it's safe to fly. Hence the term "security theater". Actually doing something about terrorists is less important than convincing people that something is being done and assuaging their fears about flying. Because the public's fear about flying and terrorists is irrational and completely out of proportion to the actual risk, a well-meaning lie ends up being better for society than the truth.

    Unfortunately, a lot of the people in the TSA don't get this. They take their jobs way too seriously, making air travel a hassle. This convinces people to drive instead of fly, and a good number of them end up dying in car accidents. Basically, if there are too many intrusive TSA procedures and rules, the TSA can wind up indirectly killing more people than terrorists.

    1. Re:Security theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it you convince the naive part of flying public that air travel is save, don't you also convince the naive part of the terrorist contingent is save, and deter them from even thinking of doing anything.

    2. Re:Security theater by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The point of airport security isn't really to thwart terrorists. It's to convince people that flying is safe, so that they'll fly instead of drive to their destination.

      The point is to (try to) protect the airline companies and profits, their planes (which, turns out, are really expensive) and the things planes could be crashed into. The country has a huge capital investment in airline travel. If actual people are safe, that's a bonus.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  39. It's All Your Fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We refuse to admit any sort of shortcoming, and we condemn any attempt to point them out to us. Uncle Knows Best, plebs."

    #PROGRESS

  40. Re: Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you high? There's a HUGE barrier to entering private flight, and it's called MONEY - licenses, fees, etc.....AKA more TAXES.

      I know lots of private pilots, I've looked into it myself, and I know what they spent on it - and if they were not *already wealthy, they wouldn't have done it.

  41. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robbers, Thieves and Perverts the lot of them.

    I have been robbed by them more than once. I will not fly anymore because of them.
    If the Airlines want my business, they need to GET RID OF THE TSA.

  42. Profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They probably failed at purely random checks. But in reality, if you fit a certain profile on looks and ethnicity, chances are security will be biased to control you.
    If you look like a middle-aged bearded Afghan traveling alone or with similar friends and are trying to get a bomb through security, your chances of success are probably narrower than those of a Scandinavian grandmother traveling with her grandchildren.

  43. what quantity of explosive? by Paul+Carver · · Score: 2

    What a completely useless article. Since I don't care at all if people take fake weapons or drugs on planes, the only question of any importance is "how much explosive?" but the article doesn't give any info on that essential question.

    This "failure" may have been a trivial amount of some explosive too small to pose any serious threat, plus a bunch of items that aren't even a threat in any quantity.

    I'm certainly willing to believe that the TBA is useless, but this article has zero value in supporting that belief.

    1. Re:what quantity of explosive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Since I don't care at all if people take fake weapons or drugs on planes, the only question of any importance is "how much explosive?" but the article doesn't give any info on that essential question.

      > This "failure" may have been a trivial amount of some explosive too small to pose any serious threat, plus a bunch of items that aren't even a threat in any quantity.

      We probably will never know exactly what was _supposed_ to be detected, but the point is that whatever they snuck through, the TSA was _supposed_ to detect, 100% of the time. The article mentions that the red team _stopped_ testing early once it was clear that it was pretty trivial to get their contraband through the checkpoints that they were testing.

      Everyone _here_ knows that TSA is (secretly) one of the worst combination entry-level jobs and government welfare programs in the US. However, it's _supposed_ to be (and is as expensive as) a security screening program. So, it's important to at least _attempt_ to make the Ruling Class consider either making the TSA a competent screening program, or reducing its equipment inventory and personnel to match its _actual_ capabilities.

      I think we all pretty much agree that reducing screening to "baggage scanning + metal detector with additional inspection if you trigger the detector" is _more_ than enough.

    2. Re:what quantity of explosive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red team testing usually involves 2 "standard" quantities of explosive materials.
      1 pound and 2 pound bombs are used, because someone determined that 1 pound was enough to blow all the windows and emergency doors (instant depressurisation) and 2 pounds were enough to punch a hole in the plane body itself.
      Two distinct scenarios that really don't mean shit, but made for easy reading to useful idiots.
      I don't know what explosive was used to develop these "standards", but these test bombs have been going through all manner of security theaters for decades.
      The Israelis get it right, and have done so for a VERY long time, because they are the ONLY nation that has been targeted by active terrorists for so long and by so many as to make it a necessity. They prevent all threats, and did so long before rapiscan machines etc.
      The plain reality for the rest of us is: there isn't a terrorist threat at all.
      It's so trivially easy to cause mass damage and death, either in a plane, at an airport, or at the local cineplex.
      That it DOESN'T happen is the Sherlock Holmes response to terrorism: Watson, why is the dog NOT barking?
      You know what the security theater does do? Pumps billions to Chertoff and other white collar thieves.
      A very effective gravy train.

  44. Re:Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wate by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The TSA is 100% effective in detecting bottles of Breast milk and preventing them from being taken on board the aircraft,

    But they still let the source breasts onto the plane - perhaps full of milk!

    Future TSA rule: All breasts must be in travel-sized containers that are 3.4 ounces (100 milliliters) or less per item.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  45. Failing to release information = treason? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    'TSA cannot confirm or deny the results of internal tests and condemns the release of any information that could compromise our nation's security."

    I'll see their ass covering and raise them that "I condemn failing to release any information that will result in ineffective national security and consider hiding such information to be tantamount to providing aid and comfort to our enemies".

  46. for fucks sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    abolish this shit

  47. Small potatoes by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The TSA is the biggest federal employment program ever.

    Incorrect. Currently that would be our grossly oversized and over funded military which employs well over a million people directly and quite a few more indirectly. The TSA is a rounding error by comparison. And irritating boil of a rounding error but small potatoes in the grand scheme of government waste.

  48. Not voluntary by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If you voluntarily agree to a search, then it can't be a 4th amendment violation.

    Since freedom of travel is a civil right and air travel is the only realistic option for travel in many cases, it's pretty hard to argue that the search is in any way voluntary.

    1. Re:Not voluntary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure John Gilmore filed some lawsuits about this and lost to the govt.

  49. It's not like they need it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like the area is home to tons of Somali jihadis that they need this.

    Dirka dirka qa'bum!

  50. Civil rights and public services by sjbe · · Score: 1

    They will answer that flying is not a public right nor service; they are private airlines.

    Flying is not a public right but the right to travel is and the TSA is most certainly a public service since it is a part of the federal government. Furthermore the airlines fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA as well as various transit authorities so if the airlines don't want to treat passengers nicely we can always revoke their right to use the runways which are routinely taxpayer funded.

    And you can fly on other private airlines (like JetSuite X or Surf Air) where you do not have TSA checks.

    So only rich people get to enjoy their civil rights?

  51. The article was on Fox by Hasaf · · Score: 1

    The article was posted on Fox9 and the source mentioned in the article was Fox9.

    As far as the content, these results are not surprising. The testers do not have any associated risk, as such, the behaviours characteristics are different from those that the inspectors are looking for.

  52. Note the wording. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    TSA cannot confirm or deny the results of internal tests.

    They cannot. This can mean only two possibilities.
    ---They're colossally incompetent. They don't know the results of their own tests, or they haven't the ability to speak the appropriate words.
    ---They're lying. They actually won't tell, not cannot tell.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Note the wording. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Or their policy is that they don't reveal the results so they cannot do it while complying with their policy.

    2. Re:Note the wording. by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      If the info is classified, they really cannot tell. Without breaking the law that is.
      "information that could compromise our nation's security" is the whole idea behind classification.

  53. Re: Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've never been wealthy, as you put it, but I have a pilot's license and a small plane.

    It's a matter of budget and priorities. If you want it bad enough you figure out how to do it. If you don't want it bad enough you complain that only the "already wealthy" can afford it. The question is really how much do you want it and from your comment I would say not enough. You obviously have other things you would rather spend your money on... and that's OK... for you.

    There are plenty of other things out there that cost at least as much or more. My used airplane costs less than a new car today. Anyone that can find coin for a new car can easily afford to buy a used aircraft.... and airplanes are generally better maintained than most cars (for good reason). Or build your own aircraft with the same money and get something brand new!

    That's not to say GA is cheap or easily affordable. If you want it enough (or need it enough) you find a way to make it happen. When you no longer want it bad enough you sell and find something else to spend your money on.

    As to the original point -- GA won't replace commercial air, especially on the long runs. But for shorter flights, or when you need to go someplace not well served by commercial then GA can be a better choice.

    And I suppose we have to define what is meant by General Aviation -- I define it as mostly small single and twin engine propeller driven aircraft. While smaller jet aircraft used by business, and the truly wealthy, are also classed as GA by the government, I see them as a business class between GA and commercial. They really do fit an entirely different kind of flying between my airplane and a jumbo jet.
    --
    Steve (AC because I haven't bothered to register in all these years)

  54. Re:Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wate by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    /oblg. Airport Logic ?

    ---
    TSA, noun, Theater Security Airhead.

    In 2012, TSA global strategies chief John Halinski was asked directly whether there had been a single arrest or detention on terrorism charges creditable to the implementation of whole-body scanners. He answered that there was not.

  55. Re:Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wate by davester666 · · Score: 1

    I would volunteer to be one of the people who checks each breast to ensure it is not over-filled with this dangerous fluid, and assist with removing anything in excess of what is safe.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  56. Downer attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, this headline is so biased with a mopey glass half empty kind of view.

          In Minneapolis the local papers are all reporting "Local airport security success every 18 times!"

  57. Hey, they got it right once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could be a glimmer of hope that they perform some useful function.
    Or, more likely, especially dumb luck?

    I'm ok with TSA as a jobs program.
    As a power trip that wastes time fighting the last war, not so much.
    They are a hurdle, abet low, for the bad guys to have to jump over.
    The question is, what should the TSA's mission be?

    On 9/11, the tactics of hijacking changed.
    For 3 flights, the response was give the bad guys the plane and you get to go home to your kids.
    It didn't work, and the bad guys won. (Score 2 major towers and minor damage to the Pentagon.)
    For the 4th flight (flight 93) the good guys got smarter, and as a result the bad guys did not get to take out the Capital.

    If the TSA were rational, their mission is to give the good guys on the plane a fighting chance.
    The problem is that this is fighting the last (9/11) war.
    But at least, that's one ahead of where they are now.

    ps. And certainly, this test is part of the problem.
        If these folks are getting grades for anything aside from security (see drugs) they are being focused in the wrong direction.

  58. Re:Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wate by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Good, you can start with the 300lb woman over there, then next is that one that looks very old but you never know, they might be hanging to the floor due to having so much milk in them.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  59. Re: Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wat by darthsilun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your silly suggestion isn't going to get me to Europe. Japan, India, or South Africa; all places I've been in the last ten years. Or even Chicago – in February – in a Cessna 172.

    And how many years does it take to get IFR rated, on average?

    So no, a pilots license is not really an option for most people.

  60. Re:Yeah, but $deity forbid i should take some wate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And contained only in clear plastic.

  61. For an already-dangerous city. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Given Minneapolis' restive Somali population, this should be of extra concern.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  62. Question a bit of the accuracy of testing by bongey · · Score: 1

    Only issue I see with this testing is none of the undercover testers would present the typical behavioral clues of a true drug smuggler/bomber. The undercover testers do not have to really worry about being caught, thus act the perfect criminals, which rarely exists. Hopefully the undercover screeners have a few that try to play the part of being nervous.

  63. Re:Solutions -- Won't Work on United Airlines by leelapolis · · Score: 1

    My inflight is very old-fashioned--books, the paper kind. I can usually finish a book or so on any flight to either coast. Usually books on philosophy or theoretical physics tho these days its hard to tell the difference..
     

  64. Solution by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Bring in a private firms under a commission model. Essentially, they choose how to conduct the searches. They only get paid based on a) contraband found and b) catching Fed operatives in test case scenarios.

    Fail to prevent 80% of Fed undercover tests, booted from contract. Private firms will be motivated if their contractual pay is tied directly to their success rate.

  65. Elephant in the room... by thomn8r · · Score: 1

    The TSA was really just GW's jobs program.