TSA failure: Investigators able to smuggle weapons past checks in 95% of tests
newsnet5.com
newsnet5.com
Nice to know that this time consuming, expensive and racist process is also pointless.
My ex-wife's son, Kruz gets flagged every time for secondary screening, from when the TSA first started, until even recently... he hasn't traveled yet without being "randomly" selected.
They know it's all theatre and don't care because the guys at the top are making tons of money playing the revolving door system, and no one is going to do anything about it because the beltway is full of kissasses and naive idiots "just trying to pay the mortgage."
I used to have rather high regard for NPR until, and I don't know if this has just changed or I just started realizing that NPR has significant backers that are not only Republican and Conservative in spirit, but also beltway bandits, big recipients of government contracts. I always feel like NPR is really not all that different than Fox News albeit far less angry and hateful, but always quick to tuck their tail and throw a flash-bang at any possibility that light is shone on certain things. It really reminds me of the self-congratulatory liberal aristocracy that loves to make itself feel better with insignificant and meaningless efforts.
We may have a free media, but with self-censorship like this, it's effectively only marginally more free than a state run system.
Al Jazeera meanwhile has absolutely no chance (I'm assuming here) of getting an interview with a high level player, so they can pose hard hitting questions as they have no downside risk in doing so.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre...
According to one report, undercover TSA agents
testing security at a Newark airport terminal on
one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed
to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times.
A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed
that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated
explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX
airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's
O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded
in getting through undetected 45 times.So it really seems to be just security theater...
It is not designed to work - and you could argue it being this way by design. It detects the idiots (smugglers & the little guys, et al) - but if something severe happens the only consequences are making the system more secure by adding to it. not by questioning it. That way the systems is kept alive and politicians have the ability to be seen doing something, after a tragedy happens. Everyone is happy - except Mrs. Taxpayer - but she does not get asked.
# cynisism of
I don't think it's all that new... it's just another witch hunt... nobody is found, and the cycle continues... we need more military, more weapons, more useless tools, and projects to make a few people on this inside millions of dollars.
People have a very irrational fear of flying. It's the safest mode of travel, yet, single incidents panic people and multiple panic the entire country.
El Al has had a better security record without the digital "strip searches" and junk-grabbing. The USA accomplish the same... if it wanted (i.e., Congress/the unions/everyone but the taxpayers).
Actually, El Al is just as bad as well. El Al also had an open and explicit policy of racial profiling until last year (when it was ruled illegal in court to practice this policy openly[0]). If you are white and carry a US or Israeli passport, you'll breeze right through. But the experience of flying El Al is very different if you:
a) have an Arab name, or
b) "look" Arab, or
c) are Palestinian.
El Al has been very heavily criticized by Arab Jews (yes, they exist) as well as non-Arab and Arab Muslims and non-Muslim Palestinians for treating the aforementioned groups very badly. There have been multiple cases of Arabs, Muslims, and/or Palestinians winning civil suits against El Al for their shocking treatment of these groups - in many ways worse than what the TSA is usually criticized for doing.
By the way, this doesn't happen only in Israel, but in other countries as well (including the US), which let El Al conduct their own security procedures at foreign airports for flights to Israel. In at least one lawsuit, the plaintiffs won and were awarded five figures in part because their mistreatment by El Al happened in New York, where open[1] racial profiling is illegal.
[0] emphasis on openly.
[1] emphasis on open.
As for Mrs. Taxpayer, she does get asked, and she supports the TSA: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/americans-views-tsa-positi.... Only 12-13% of people polled think TSA is doing a bad job or isn't effective.
Fact of the matter is that the TSA is doing a bad job and is a colossal waste of time and money. People should be outraged at the misuse of $7.4 billion from the annual budget. The media should be calling out the US government for mismanaging tax dollars.
As to the drop of water argument, I don't see that as particularly valid. Either it's a waste of money or it isn't. Wasting money should be cut out whenever possible. Happy to debate the merits of the program being a waste or not, but not going to dive into a conversation about how it's OK to waste money frivolously.
Most of the media exists to sell advertising, and the content provided to consumers exists specifically to attract a particular demographic to the outlet to support advertising sales.
Educating the general population is not part of the media's business model.
I could also state, that people are dumb for not demanding to be informed truthfully about real important issues. But then at least the following question arises: Who gets to decide, what is important?
Is it American Idol, Dancing with the Stars or is it TSA not working properly?
Most people would root for entertainment I believe yes I know I am a misanthrope).
If true, it was quite a long time ago -- advertising has been the dominant source of revenue, and media has served that revenue source for a long time. Even in the days when print newspapers were strong, their "paid circulation" wasn't important because it brought in a lot of revenue, it was important because advertisers viewed it as the best indicator of engaged audience.
For-profit businesses serve their owners and generally act to maximize profits; there are exceptions, but expecting something different to be the norm without any structurally-imposed constraints mandating is naïve.
If you want a media whose mission is educating the public, You aren't going to get it from privately-owned, for-profit, media corporations because "educating the public" isn't something they can monetize as well as providing a combination of both a source of distress and the appearance of a salve for that distress for a targeted demographic to get them dependent, and then selling advertising access targeted to that demographic.
Here's a thought experiment however, ask someone why they watch the news, buy a news paper or visit sites like the new york times. Then re-read your comment and see where the differences are. :)
Also, we aren't in a democracy or free market economy. The people who have the most to profit from the TSA's budget being as large as possible are also the people pulling the strings here. Follow the rabbit hole and find out how much companies like Rapiscan spent on lobbying and tell me again how this is a free market economy.
Or the feeling of fear.
Or worse; it's there to condition us.
Literally the only thing that saves you from going to super jail when working with these types of objects is a signed letter of authorization.
Doing this with explosives may be more difficult, what with the fancy chemical detectors.
You're only allowed to take 3.4 ounces through screening unless you have a medical need. I'm not sure people have a medical need for more contact lens solution, even on long flights.
Maybe the TSA rules changed? I'm going by what they said on their website:
http://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=Liquid
That swab is what makes this scheme impractical for bringing dangerous liquids, of course.
>Later, Schneier would carry two bottles labeled saline solution—24 ounces in total—through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. "Two eyes," he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.
https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2008/11/the_things_he...
Nothing arouses suspicion of TSA agents more than the sight of >100ml of water in one place.
And whoever set this internal audit process up - what did they have in mind afterwards? As jeffcoat said, there has been no change over the last 5 years, so... is it just like "/bin/internal_audit | tee /dev/null"? Aside from rubbing our faces in how they're wasting their $7 billion annual budget, what did they intend for this audit to accomplish?
The GAO has been critical of the TSA before: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159
In fact, it pretty much proves that Pre should be the norm instead of exception.
You don't just pay money and get a pass. There's a significant background check involved which, I suspect, does more to enhance security than some millimeter wave scanner in the security line.
My mother didn't apply for it, nor did she pay for it. If it costs money to get, why would the airline give it to her? It's not because she's "high status" as she doesn't have an appreciable number of miles.
The machine looks something like this http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/01/64/47/477654/3/628x471.jpg
Initially there were two large groups of people who got Pre. One group was people who were already enrolled in another trusted-traveller program like NEXUS or Global Entry (I have Pre courtesy of Global Entry, for example), presumably because they'd already been through background checks -- potentially more rigorous ones than Pre strictly required -- and thus were deemed a useful and trustworthy pilot group. The other group was people in the upper tiers of frequent-flier programs, who again were deemed useful and trustworthy (anybody who clears security as often as the top-tier FFs do is either trustworthy or a complete systemic failure of security).
After running that for a while, they started up another avenue into Pre, called "Managed Inclusion". This was advertised as a test of real-time capabilities to assess who does and who doesn't need more rigorous screening, but from a cynical perspective was really just a way to expose casual travelers to the fact that Pre exists and give them a taste of it. Managed Inclusion is why you see random Joe and Jane Traveler told to go to the Pre lane; it's not a consistent status/membership like the other trusted-traveller programs, it's just a thing that does or doesn't happen sometimes when they check in and get a boarding pass.
As an aside: Managed Inclusion has significantly reduced the usefulness of Pre, because people who end up in it have been conditioned to do the typical process (remove stuff from bags, take off shoes/belts/etc.), and don't get the fact that, when their boarding pass has the Pre logo, they don't have to do that. Which eats up more time as they get lectured by a TSA person, repack their stuff, put their shoes back on, and so on.
And now you can just enroll directly in Pre by paying the application fee and getting background checked (though why anyone would, when NEXUS or GE are more useful and come with Pre as a side effect, I don't know). So the frequent-flier-status enrollment is being wound down, Managed Inclusion keeps going as a way to expose the general public to the idea, and that's where we are today.
Managed Inclusion is akin to Movie Preview in hotels back in the day...
I stand by my statement that Pre should be the norm not the exception. Make Global Entry the premium tier, that's fine but Pre needs to be the new norm.
I grant you, though, it sounds like Pre is far less rigorous of a check than NEXUS or Global Entry. But a check is still involved.
But GE involves CBP going through employment/address history as well as every time your passport's been used and any issues you've ever had at a border (I know because I heard a guy at the next desk being grilled in his interview about a piece of fruit in his luggage when I was in my interview). And NEXUS involves having both the US and Canada run checks on you independently.
So in terms of rigor, NEXUS > Global Entry > Pre seems to be the way it goes.
There is no way any background check was involved for this.
For better or worse, the TSA is also applying a policy where, to address slow security lines, they're allowing folks to get waved through Pre.
In principle this is random, and therefore has the same effect on security as not patting down every passenger.
Assuming it actually worked that way.
No, there isn't.
I walked into the interview booth on a whim one day, when my flight arrived early. They were booked solid, but someone had missed their time, so they slotted me in. My "extensive" background check was completed and KTN issued in less than 24 hours. They may run some sort of cursory criminal records check, but any such check is automated and too fast to be called "extensive."
Edit: I should add that I do not have (and have never had) any sort of security clearance, but people who do tell me that the process for the lowest level of "real" security clearance takes many months and costs many thousands of dollars.
The Nexus program in Canada, for example, involves among other things an extensive interview and background check by the opposing country (for example, as a Canadian, the US performs my check).
If there were a way to pay money I definitely would though just to get it every time guaranteed. Where should I send the ckeck?
My Global Entry enrollment "interview" consisted of "Put your hand on the scanner. Now look at the camera. OK, you'll get your Known Traveler Number in an email later today, and a card you can keep with you in the mail in about a week."
The CBP people who do GE generally seem to be on a whole different level of efficiency and understanding-actual-security compared to the average TSA blueshirt at the airport.
You pay $85, and the government basically does a background check on you. If you pass the background check, you are in TSA Pre-check.
It is not something different, but I think some airlines do automatically sign some of their clients up for pre-check, particularly if those clients have status. E.g., United Airline's pre-check information page discusses people who have opted-in through their frequent-flier program:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/tsa-...
If you are going to down vote, at least say why (other than zzalpha's pointless assertion)
FWIW, if people are going to sign up for Pre/Gobal Entry/Nexus, it's the best bang for the buck to sign up for Nexus at $50 and included GE/Pre benefits. The only drawback is that you need to get to a Canadian border for the interview.
That's not correct at all. The billions spent have done a lot: they've created an entire class of "cleared" people, and support industries for them. I'm not sure that creating a new aristocracy was the desired end point, but that's what we've gotten to. The "cleared" people Know Better Than Us, and Keep Us Safe, so We Give Them Special Privileges.
People end up on the no fly list. Kids in wheelchairs and little old ladies get felt up for bombs and are put through a needless trauma.
Just, amazing. Purely security theater.
TSA: nothing for something
Consider two passages. One has a mantrap or airlock style set of doors which only permits two people per minute. The other has a set of turnstiles which -collectively- permit six-hundred people per minute.
Through which passage are you going to fit the most people in a sixty-minute period?
Consider also that -regardless of how many people you fit through the passage- at the destination of each one of those people is an orderly queue designed to never be overloaded. This means that the only thing lowering throughput at the passage does is lengthens the queue to pass through the passage. If you lengthen that queue, then folks waste more time waiting in that queue; time that could be usefully spent doing anything else.
PS: while I hate removing my shoes every time I go through security in the US, I am glad Richard didn't opt for using his arse as a C4 stash :P
I do it because it takes longer. If everyone opted out, the lines would become so ridiculously long that they'd have to change their system. I'm doing my part.
I wish more people did it, though. Whenever I fly I'm the only one I see opting out. When I was flying from Munich to DCA they had one of these scanners installed to a lone US-only gate, and I said I wanted to opt out, and the (German) airport employee looked at me surprised and said "why?". He couldn't understand why someone would opt out of the machine, I guess he thought it was some kind of metal detector or something.
After they direct you to the scanner, just say "I can't lift my arms above my head" and they'll put you through the metal detector and swab your hands. They don't "test" you because if it's true, they could hurt you.
I've been doing it since last fall (30 flights?) without issue now.
(These have all been US domestic flights.)
That being said, I don't mean to trivialize the problem/task.
$50,000 to some ex-TSA employee, and they'd know them too.
The TSA has always been about security theater. Unlike some I feel like their heart is in the right place (the same for the NSA too). It's too bad there's this huge expensive machine now with lots of entrenched interests and risk-averse leadership.
Of course, being the hackers that we are, we might wonder how that money would be better spent. I for one advocate for a 2 hour "passenger mixer" prior to the flight. It would be mandatory, but catered, open bar, where you get to know your other passengers, and vote on whether someone needs further attention from authorities. A free party and you take your fate into your hands? And even with premium booze it would be far cheaper than the TSA. Plus if you get blown up you have no-one to blame but yourself.
What they don't mention, is that in about 99.9% of these cases (internet statistics), it was a guy who had left his pistol in his bag after going to the range and completely forgetting it was there. There was no ill intent, no criminal desire, just plain forgetfulness. But the TSA crows about what a great job they're doing keeping us safe.
But it's just another case of security theater. It's the way they spin the story that gets me. They don't acknowledge the fact that these people weren't too criminals (I still believe in intent), but the TSA, in order to prove their worth, treat them like such. They're catching the people who are only guilty of forgetfulness, not the ones who actually are willing and able to do harm. Like every other giant bureaucracy, the TSA is only interested in self-perpetuation, not actually protecting our constitution and keeping us "safe." And all the while, they're really not stopping anything, especially all the guns that get put on a plane everyday without anyone noticing.
Not directly, but they both are connected to the overarching theme in American politics of "OMG TURRURRUSTS" (and the overarching subtheme of "our various means of removing the privacy of Americans are not actually doing anything they were marketed to do"; with this article, it seems that neither the TSA's security checks nor the NSA's surveillance are actually doing anything to stop terrorists).
Communism has a tendency to require greater levels of force in order to maintain state control.
And the the numbers financially are just getting too lopsided to maintain the uneven consumption for much longer. China will start to get a much larger share, and the bankers will have to go along with it, because of basic realities of math.
So the global military and economic control will shift to China, but before/during/after the primary economic model in places like the US will have to shift.
This means some people will have violent disagreements with the new control structure. So they are trying to lay the groundwork for a carefully monitored and controlled population now. Part of that is conditioning to not expect privacy, which is one main function of the TSA.
This is not a new situation or process really.
So does that mean that they don't catch about 400 handguns a month?
How many people have been injured by a handgun on a plane or in an airport in the past 20 years?
Someone sneaking it through the x-ray machine would probably try harder to pack it in a way that makes it less obvious.
Wanna bet the NSA also has a 95% failure rate?
How about agencies ignoring actual intelligence like "bin laden determined to strike" ?
You know, like taping a bomb to your body. How would you ever think that up without the playbook.
It is a failure of leadership / government to do something effective rather than political.
Yes, and several were sued based on screening responsibility that for damages resulting from the 9/11 attacks.
> My understanding was that third party security companies were responsible for screening pre-9/11.
Yes, the function was outsourced and often provided jointly by one contractor contracted to the the airlines at any given terminal, but the airlines were responsible for it. The proposal to federalize the function going forward first arose, IIRC, as part of discussions about the legislation to bail out the airlines by capping liability stemming from 9/11.
Can you provide a citation of such a case that either went to trial, or reached a non-trivial settlement? Links to random blogs won't cut it, unless they actually link to court papers.