SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the please-walk-through-the-naked-machine dept.
TSA Tests Consistently Evade Own Airport Screenings
ABC News reports on internal live-testing of TSA airport passenger screening procedures that successfully evaded detection of concealed weapons and explosives prior to boarding 95% of the time.
The series of tests were conducted by Homeland Security Red Teams who pose as passengers, setting out to beat the system.
According to officials briefed on the results of a recent Homeland Security Inspector General's report, TSA agents failed 67 out of 70 tests, with Red Team members repeatedly able to get potential weapons through checkpoints.
In one test an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA screeners failed to detect a fake explosive device that was taped to his back during a follow-on pat down.
Officials would not divulge the exact time period of the testing other than to say it concluded recently.
While this report is alarming by itself, a TSA blog post from March 2013 commenting on the results of a previous test explains that the methods employed in these regular tests are deliberately designed to be unrealistically hard, and that the TSA's motivation is to drive improvements in security procedures ahead of terrorist capabilities to evade them:
The goal of the Red Team is to build tests that push the boundaries of our people, processes, and technology. We know that the adversary innovates and we have to push ourselves to capacity in order to remain one step ahead. With that said, our testers often make these covert tests as difficult as possible.
You might be wondering why our testers run tests that our Officers are prone to fail? It's because we want to see if our procedures, technology, and policies are or are not working. We also are constantly looking for ways to improve our performance. When a test is failed, we don't simply check a tick mark in a box and move on. Nor do we take punitive measures as this testing is a learning experience. The results are shared with TSA leadership at the airport and HQ, as well as the officers who were part of the test, noting areas for improvement where warranted.
Update
More news on this same story, now the Acting TSA director has been reassigned.
Just one of many news hits include: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/
Washington (CNN) The Department of Homeland Security said Monday that the acting administrator for the Transportation Security Administration would be reassigned, following a report that airport screeners failed to detect explosives and weapons in nearly every test that an undercover team conducted at dozens of airports.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 05 2015, @01:43PM
...at least they're consistent.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday June 05 2015, @06:15PM
I'll just leave this [despair.com] here.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 05 2015, @08:03PM
All he has to do is move his sight down...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2015, @01:59PM
The fact that the TSA misses 95% of weapons and yet there have been no successful terrorist attacks is proof that the threat is too small to measure.
Keep in mind that the TSA has never once apprehended someone who was convicted of anything remotely terror related. In fact, the one and only guy they have ever arrested on terrorism charges [usatoday.com] turned out to be nothing at all [clickorlando.com] after all.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Friday June 05 2015, @02:20PM
Well clearly then it must be the NSA's massive dragnet that's keeping us safe.
/s
(Score: 1) by ghost on Friday June 05 2015, @03:24PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 05 2015, @09:55PM
The fact that the TSA misses 95% of weapons and yet there have been no successful terrorist attacks is proof that the threat is too small to measure.
More to the point there has been damn few un-successful terrorist attacks on planes.
Misguided crazies, people off their meds, yes. All handily contained by passengers and fearsome 120 pound stewardesses.
They never face anything more than a mild fine, most often no penalty at all.
So what we have here is the expensive version of a Tiger Repelling Rock, that I have in my back garden.
They may claim that the mere threat of being discovered keeps terrorists at bay.
But apparently it doesn't keep the average traveler at bay, because in spite of missing 95% of the test items, they do confiscate boxes full [google.com] of knives and even an occasional handgun, but mostly inert stuff and even works of art, from people's luggage.
They parade this stuff around for the news media. But if you start comparing pictures you find they are the same pictures of the same items, collected over 15 years, including things that are totally innocent. It seems novelty grenades are a favorite.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2015, @10:25PM
>> Keep in mind that the TSA has never once apprehended someone who was convicted of anything remotely terror related.
>
> More to the point there has been damn few un-successful terrorist attacks on planes.
You were saying?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 05 2015, @10:41PM
>> Keep in mind that the TSA has never once apprehended someone who was convicted of anything remotely terror related.
>
> More to the point there has been damn few un-successful terrorist attacks on planes.
You were saying?
Careful reading is important. Those measure two different things.
TSA hasn't caught anybody attempting.
There have been only a few attempts. (shoe bomber, underwear bomber unsuccessful) Germanwings? MH370?.
They seize lots of stuff, but never charge anyone with terrorism.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @09:51PM
> Careful reading is important. Those measure two different things.
Yes, yes it is.
So what if there have been a couple of who got through NON-TSA airports?
The TSA is domestic only.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by iwoloschin on Friday June 05 2015, @01:59PM
The last few times I've flown my Apple "Magic Mouse" has been singled out by the TSA because the agents looking at the x-ray say, "It's got a 9V battery." In reality, it's got two AA batteries, which looks nothing like a 9V, either the exterior shell, or the 6 AAA cells that go into a 9V battery. None of the agents have been able to explain to me why a 9V battery is bad, while the far bigger battery in my MacBook Pro (or even cellphone) is totally fine.
Meanwhile, the last time I flew, I forgot to empty my bag out. Argued with the screener a bit about the Apple mouse (politely, because it isn't her fault she's not trained better), but she basically stopped caring once she realized I didn't have any 9V batteries. As I picked my bag up to walk away I felt my Leatherman multitool in one of the outer pockets, which was *completely* missed, likely because I got the agent mildly flustered about her inane pursuit of 9V batteries. Of course, at that point I wasn't going to say anything, so I went ahead and boarded my flight with no further complications, all the while marveling at how easy it was to bypass security through accidental social engineering. I felt kind of bad, but at the same time I was hardly going to go to the TSA and surrender my stuff because they were too inept to catch it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by pe1rxq on Friday June 05 2015, @02:39PM
I am guessing the 9V batteries are conspiring with the nail clippers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Sunday June 07 2015, @08:03AM
To quote Ed Byrne:
"If you can hijack a plane with tweezers, you deserve the f***in' plane!"
(Score: 1) by dime on Friday June 05 2015, @02:40PM
9v's can be daisy chained (without any extra tools) to create a super battery. So in case you manage to smuggle on 11.1264 kG of 9v batteries, you could do something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hwLHdBTQ7s [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2015, @03:46PM
None of the agents have been able to explain to me why a 9V battery is bad
We'd /love/ to tell you but we can't... It's classified! This kind of information making it out in the open would aid terrorists in attacking us, our way of life and our liberties & freedoms.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Friday June 05 2015, @09:39PM
They check for 9V batteries because all explosives require 9V batteries.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Sunday June 07 2015, @08:05AM
Or high powered rifles, don't forget the high powered rifles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 05 2015, @02:09PM
"While this report is alarming by itself,"
Why would anyone be alarmed? To be alarmed at this report, one would first have to be convinced that the TSA serves some purpose beyond theater. That is ALL the TSA is, security theater, designed to make the sheep feel better. WTF did TSA find it's employees, anyway? They didn't go in search of military people to employ. They didn't draft people from the FBI, police forces, or even prisons. Most TSA employees are dead-enders who didn't have any great aspirations in life. The upper echelons are political appointees.
Anyone who thought that the TSA was doing anything worthwhile really needs to wake up, and smell the coffee.
95% failure rate. That is just about what I expected all along. They catch the extremely sloppy fool, and once in awhile, they get lucky enough to catch some fool who wasn't EXTREMELY sloppy.
The TSA is yet another example of government throwing shitloads of money at some imagined problem, and hoping that it does some kind of good. As usual, it does no good at all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday June 05 2015, @02:13PM
Well, it's a real problem blown completely out of proportion for the total harm.
But then again, if the US government put this kinda rights violation and money proportionally towards what kills americans, we'd all be dragged out for mandatory daily exercise at gunpoint.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 05 2015, @02:15PM
You've got a point. But then, I'm aging, and my knees hurt all the time. If they tried to drag me out at gunpoint, I'd probably just shoot first, thereby committing "suicide by cop".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday June 05 2015, @02:58PM
As an aside, I used to let my knees excuse things too. I'd recommend, low impact, high intensity cardio(like elliptical machines or swimming) for not dying, and squats without weights to build the strength of your knees.
The more that's wrong with your body the harder exercise gets. The less you exercise, though, the more goes wrong with your body. Unless you're over 50, knee problems can usually be overcome.
That's my unsolicited advice for the day.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 05 2015, @03:35PM
"Unless you're over 50,"
Uhhhhh - yeah. The pain was manageable until I was about 50. Today, if I run, the pain manages me instead. Being on my feet for an eight hour shift is about all I can manage these days. And then I come home feeling like I'm wearing twenty pound lead weights on each foot. Today, all of my speed comes from twisting the throttle on the handlebars.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 05 2015, @08:00PM
Squats are bad for anybody. Partial squats, until the thigh is horizontal are generally reasonable, unless you have severe knee problems. Exercise doesn't help cartilage problems, but low stress exercise is generally good. Most people, even with mild knee problems, can walk. Don't jog if you're overweight, it can exacerbate your knee problems ... meaning even if you don't know you have a knee problem, you may suddenly find you do. Hills are useful if you can handle going down them. (Take them slowly, though, in both directions.) Avoid anything which jars the joints. That increases damage and doesn't do anything good for you. If you can manage a slow run where your heels never touch the ground, that's got a lot to recommend it, but don't start out aggressively. Less than a couple of minutes to start and build up slowly from there.
Well, OK, that was just what *I* need to keep in mind, but squats can damage anyone. And it's often a slowly progressive damage. Even high school kids should avoid them. Possibly even grade school kids. (OTOH, the taller you are, and the heavier you are, the worse they are for you. The damage may be proportional to the third power of the height, but I'm not sure. [For comparison, damage when you trip and fall is proportional to the fourth power of the height.])
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @08:10PM
That's crossfit promoted pseudoscience. It's not true.
Are full barbell squats bad for your knees [leanitup.com]
So there you have it. Perform deep, full squats and your butt, quads, and hamstrings will be toned like never before, AND you’ll put your knee joints at decreased risk of injury. Plenty of people seem to have the perception that full squats are dangerous, but this is almost always based on outdated research and endless hearsay from “uneducated bros.”
Seriously, the actual science doesn't bear out the claims made by people trying to sell you something. Please don't repeat this myth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday June 05 2015, @02:09PM
They are dealing with a situation where they most sort one true positive for each of literally tens of millions of true negatives.
Being suspicious of everyone who travels is just untenable. Unless there's a dead giveaway, they're not catching anything. No training, technology, or administrator will help against the problem of overwhelming statistics.
Unless, of course, we're willing to accept numerous completely unjustified false positives with all the unnecessary detention, and injustice that entails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2015, @02:21PM
Unless, of course, we're willing to accept numerous completely unjustified false positives with all the unnecessary detention, and injustice that entails.
The TSA has a solution for that! Just $89 for a credit check [tsa.gov] and you can just skip the risk of any that bad stuff happening to you.
(Score: 2) by CortoMaltese on Friday June 05 2015, @02:27PM
Most people have known this for years, (see for example Jeffrey Goldberg hilarious account of stuff he passed through an airport with, including a Bin laden shirt http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/307057/) [theatlantic.com] the TSA is in short a security theater, more interested in making you uncomfortable and irritated than its interested in stopping terrorist plots, justifying the salaries of those in charge by wasting taxpayers money.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Friday June 05 2015, @03:47PM
I came here to say this, but I'd like to add that in addition to the TSA being security theater, it almost certainly makes us less safe in general. For starters, you regularly have long lines at the airport due to screening backups. As many people have mentioned, it would be far easier to bomb a line than a plane.
In addition, the lines put sick people in close proximity to screeners who just pass germs to the next passenger. Add in the gropings, the accusations of crimes perpetrated by the TSA agents themselves, and the added stress for the passengers to the fact that the whole process is demonstrably useless, and you get an enormous waste of money.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 06 2015, @01:09AM
There's a YouTube series on weapons that you can make in the airport from things that you can buy in the airport once you're past security.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2015, @03:14PM
...the methods employed in these regular tests are deliberately designed to be unrealistically hard...
So make the tests easier and the TSA will catch more of the test contraband. Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday June 05 2015, @06:22PM
By unrealistically hard they probably mean the object was sent through the X-ray machine in a coat pocket or left in a waistband or rear pants pocket, and not just left out in the open and labeled gun, bomb, or knife in big red letters. Or at least that has been my experience, but god forbid you have a metal chassis film SLR with some nice lenses, then it is off for extra enhanced screening including a pat down, getting wanded, swabbed for explosives, a game of 20 questions, and them digging though all your stuff while swabbing all of it for explosives.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @03:23PM
Because the people who really do want to smuggle bombs and weapons onto planes won't make them "unrealistically hard" to find.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 05 2015, @03:49PM
So: TSA is ineffective, which is simultaneously proof that there is no real threat. The response is entirely obvious, isn't it? And yet, nowhere in the MSM have I seen anyone suggest it: eliminate TSA, return security to airlines and airports just as it used to be.
Government bureaucracies never die; every success is a chance for growth (look how good we did, give us more funding); every failure is also a chance for growth (we can fix it, we just need more funding).
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 05 2015, @05:22PM
I have had insight into how government works through the window of an American President I used to work for. Through that window, I've also had insight into how most of the major NGO's you've heard of in the world operate. Even the ostensibly highly specialized ones are clusterfucks of unimaginable proportion. They fail to understand even the most fundamental aspects of the businesses they're in, except for how to cash checks drawn on the public account.
There are two notable classes of exceptions: those bodies of government staffed mostly by scientists/engineers, and the most elite branches of the military. So, the government agencies that do stuff like measure ground water quality or compile data on how many miles of highway the country has or design robots to land on Mars perform reasonably well. The Navy SEALs are a highly effective outfit that can manage truly impressive feats like simultaneously shooting three pirates through a 6-in pane of plexiglas while they and the targets are on two independently moving platforms.
But the TSA? Dept of Homeland Security? Dross.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2015, @05:05PM
<tinfoilhat>
The organizational structure and current benign task of the TSA sounds like it already attracts and organizes a certain kind of people interested in working there. Let's call them RWA's for abbreviation.
All you'd need to additionally do, is teach them how to march, tell them there's an existential threat to their safety & payroll due to people of type X, and give them brown shirts to wear... hey presto!
You didn't expect the USA to always *stay* democratic, did you? Maybe Dick Cheney can come out of retirement to lead the (T)SA to their well-deserved glory.
</tinfoilhat>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @02:43AM
Maybe Dick Cheney can come out of retirement to lead the (T)SA to their well-deserved glory
No, it looks like Hillary wants the job.