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.'"
"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.'"
I guess it's because dihydrogen monoxide has killed so many.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
The TSA isn't supposed to be looking for drugs - just threats...
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
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.
In that case, it was "security theatre theatre" because it was a test/drama itself.
so the explosives and drugs were the real thing? that Red Team know how to party.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
I can neither confirm nor deny that I read Slashdot.
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
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/
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
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.
What do you expect from folks that get minimum wage? Maybe if the government would pay them better they may start to care.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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. . . .
'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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ripe olives or green olives?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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
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)
/oblg. Airport Logic ?
---
TSA, noun, Theater Security Airhead.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
The TSA was really just GW's jobs program.