6 ms·
Drone Maker Accused of Covering Up Bomb in Bag on Delta Flight
- everdev 8y agoIt is crazy to think of all the money spent on TSA that something like this could happen post-9/11 and post- failed shoe bomber. It shows that people and machines are still fallible. I never hear about TSA thwarting terrorist attempts. Either they keep it under wraps or nobody is trying because they perceive the security to be too high. Or they get caught before they try. In any event, this incident seems like a careless mistake, but still scary nonetheless.
- dublinben 8y agoThe TSA is security theater. It does not stop determined parties from smuggling dangerous contraband on airplanes.
- grayhatter 8y agoOr a small group of careless people who "wanted to see if they could". I obviously have no idea of their intent.
- chatmasta 8y agoSecurity theater and also a massive federal jobs program and corruption funnel (pouring money into the suppliers of all the “security technology”)
- cwkoss 8y agoMichael Chertoff, former head of homeland security, accepted a quarter million dollars to "consult" for Rapiscan (body scanners), then helped them secure a $118M contract with the TSA. Corrupt as hell. https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyist-takes-congressional-job-overseeing-spending-tsa-security/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff
- bitwize 8y agoOkay, then why not pay a bunch of people to stand around and wave people through sham "detectors" we are told can detect weapons/explosives/etc. on our persons/in our luggage, but in reality do no such thing? Why do we have to take off our shoes and put our laptops in separate bins by themselves? The added inconvenience is way greater than even the perception of safety.
- rosser 8y agoBecause the other consequence of imposing security theater on the traveling polity is getting them used to jumping through arbitrary, imposed hoops like that. It's conditioning people to accept and submit to idiocy like this from their government.
- grayhatter 8y ago> Either they keep it under wraps or nobody is trying because they perceive the security to be too high. Or they get caught before they try. Or, no one really is trying to blow up planes, and we're just wasting money trying to prevent something that never happens.
- lb1lf 8y agoWe're not wasting money trying to prevent something that never happens; we're basically paying career insurance for the powers that be (Tm) in case someone actually /did/ blow up a plane. They'd look awfully bad if they hadn't done anything to counter the threat, no matter how marginal (Oh, and in fairness - there /are/ people who want to blow up planes, though as a first approximation one could do worse than estimating their number at zero...)
- jstarfish 8y agoThe TSA is a make-work program, not a legitimate security solution. Its only reason for inception was to provide employment for a pool of otherwise unskilled workers. Same with the DHS-- terrorism has always been a concern; we didn't need another law enforcement arm. Despite either's questionable utility, no public official wants to be responsible for putting so many people out of work or jeopardizing the illusion of safety they provide.
- everdev 8y agoSomehow I doubt this is the real reason TSA exists.
- jstarfish 8y agoIf security were the actual reason, we'd see implementations more akin to Ben-Gurion's. Instead, we get to subject ourselves to the whims of a department of high school graduates with no particular law enforcement, legal, criminal justice or counter-terrorism expertise snooping through your luggage looking for vibrators.
- ericcumbee 8y agoMy cousin in the early 2000s worked for a R&D company who did some work on the early generation of sniffer machines that detected trace residue of explosives, and biological agents in airports. He had to go to a meeting and flew from Atlanta to boston with a prototype of the machine. He packed it in his carry on case along with his basic tool kit. When he got to security screening he realized that he also had vials of simulants for anthrax, sarain, various explosives, etc etc in that case. He gets into the security screening line and the TSA guy starts asking him all kinds of questions and he just knows he is about to get detained for the simulants which were not clearly marked as such. Instead the guy is like “You can’t take that screw driver with you”
- dragontamer 8y agoThis was figured out in an Dept. Homeland Security "red team" test of the TSA a few years ago, where the TSA failed like 95%+ of the tests against them: https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin... I think the TSA has switched strategies recently, and they've been improving since then. But ultimately, its not the "bag check" where the TSA catches goons, its the random more intense check that they do these days. And sure, going from 95% failure to 80% failure isn't much of an improvement, but its still going to change the calculus of an attacker. When you have a 20% chance of failure before you even board the airplane, that's an issue to your plans. Furthermore, TSA includes air marshals and the Israeli-style "behavioral" cops who are scanning airports. These are the more successful cops at the job, and the ones we are relying upon for real. I wouldn't discount the entirety of the TSA just because of the failures of the bag-check program. Again, US Air marshals (armed cops who sit on every aircraft secretly with plain-clothes) are under the TSA and I think the US Air Marshals contributes a LOT to our real security. Unfortunately, the bag-check thing is mostly security theater, but at the same time, the more "serious" checks vs attackers are more hidden and less well known (as it should be). But security theater might be enough to discourage an attack, or at very least cause our enemies to focus on the bag-check (when our REAL security really lies with other programs). So its a useful distraction IMO. There's a bit of "wink-wink lets not talk about this" going on that you need to understand though.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- agitator 8y agoTSA is generally a joke. Do you think anyone who is seriously attempting something would be dumb enough to get caught by TSA. Sure it might catch a few loonies who have voices telling them to blow up their shoes, but the TSA won't stop a real terrorist plan. It's going to be intelligence and surveillance that catches real threats.
- a1369209993 8y agoThe TSA is useless, but to be fair: > I'm just saying that we shouldn't ignore the stuff that only total idiots would fall for since history has shown that the opposing team is made up of total idiots. We do in fact have morons trying to blow up their shoes, and it's not like politicians get anything else right.
- ada1981 8y agoOr nobody is trying and security isn’t perceived to be that high. We don’t have a huge domestic terrorism problem in this country, despite what the media might lead us to believe.
- privacypoller 8y agoAnd now none of us will be allowed to travel with drones in our carry-on, all because of one bad actor </s>
- cm2187 8y agoAll these security checks are mostly a show to calm down people who are obsessed with terrorism. I don’t think that in the history of aviation, a single terrorist attack has ever been prevented by an airport passenger security check.
- kpil 8y agoIt's hard to tell isn't it? Since it's know, the bad guys would be stupid to plan something that involved dragging weapons or explosives through the security checks. Some where stupid and tried and succeeded. A limited number then accidentally set their underwear on fire and a few others managed to make a hole in plane.
- cm2187 8y agoWell, all those who tried succeeded.
- cwkoss 8y ago> I never hear about TSA thwarting terrorist attempts. Either they keep it under wraps or nobody is trying because they perceive the security to be too high. Or they get caught before they try. One more possibility: the TSA is horribly incompetent and have a low detection rate for true-positives.
- varenc 8y agoThis "Switchblade® Tactical Missle System" advertised on AeroVironment's website is probably what they were transporting: https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-systems https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-systems They emphasize that it's "man-portable" and it's a "precision lethal payload" embedded onto a drone.
- danso 8y agoThe lawsuit does name Switchblade as the program involved: http://aureliusvalue.com/content/uploads/2018/05/AVAV-whistleblower.pdf http://aureliusvalue.com/content/uploads/2018/05/AVAV-whistl...
- tlrobinson 8y agoBrowsing a marketing website for a missile system is a bit surreal.
- rdl 8y agoIt successfully makes me want to build my own.
- varenc 8y agoIt is! I find the writing fascinating...especially the overly aggro names like "Switchblade®" and the funny phrases like "man-portable delivery system", "warfighter", and "wave-off capability". (not sure what that last one means...) It also seems like the URL actually has a typo? The page has the title "Tactical Missile Systems" but the URL is for "/tactical-mission-systems"
- duskwuff 8y agoUpon reading the headline, there was one question in my mind -- and unfortunately, the article didn't answer it. To wit: Why was the drone 'rigged with explosives' in the first place??!
- michaelt 8y ago"By embedding a precision lethal payload into a remotely controlled, man-portable delivery system, Switchblade® provides warfighters with a valuable and more cost- effective alternative to existing airborne and land-based missile systems." https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-systems https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-systems
- kevinmchugh 8y agoIs there a purpose for the military-technical jargon beyond sounding serious and sophisticated (and thus expensive)?
- athenot 8y agoI'm not in that industry but if it's anything like other fields, I'd say this jargon has specific meaning to them.
- monocasa 8y agoIf it's anything like it was ROTC, the jargon here is mainly to signal conformity.
- Fomite 8y agoDefense guys love that kind of language.
- bitwize 8y agoIt's the kind of language that makes colonels' and generals' ears prick up. Just like how the marketing verbiage for enterprise software ("scalable", "five nines", etc.) is meant to impress decision makers in the private sector.
- jessaustin 8y agoIt's difficult to work up much sympathy for any armaments manufacturer who sells to the USA military. However, this "whistleblowing" didn't really accomplish much. It was a thoughtless mistake to bring the explosives on the plane, but there is no indication that it was SOP or that the company made any money by doing it. In general, I believe it's customary to maintain secure storage at any location where explosives are used, and let professionals move the explosives around.
- danso 8y agoAre you arguing that the "whistleblowing" was not worthwhile or legitimate whistleblowing?
- jessaustin 8y agoI don't think whistleblowing is "sacred", in the sense that anyone who disagrees with his boss and gets fired for it has an aspect of Edward Snowden. [0] Instead it's like most human activities: sometimes good, sometimes bad, occasionally pointless. It's clear that one shouldn't bring explosives on commercial flights or indeed on any motorized vehicle not designed for the purpose, but it's also against regulations to bring apple juice on commercial flights. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I'm all for armaments manufacturers going out of business, but let's do it the right way. In the long run this accomplishes nothing. [0] To be clear, Snowden is a magnificent human. If punching a hundred plutocrats would get him out of his predicament I would do it tomorrow.
- danso 8y agoAre you under the impression that people in this thread have lionized the plaintiff as if he were Edward Snowden? I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. Because this incident of whistleblowing didn't bring down the armaments industry, it is essentially worthless? Because the TSA can be stringent against mundane and otherwise safe carry-ons, that this means we shouldn't judge those who think it safe to bring undisclosed explosives in their carry-ons?
- gonesilent 8y agoHappened in 2015 and now a short stock seller is attempting to manipulate the price of the stock by bringing the story out in public again.
- gnode 8y agoDo you have any more details?
- danso 8y ago"again"? This incident was previously unreported. It only came to light because of a lawsuit filed by the terminated employee in April 18, 2018: http://aureliusvalue.com/content/uploads/2018/05/AVAV-whistleblower.pdf http://aureliusvalue.com/content/uploads/2018/05/AVAV-whistl...
- cwkoss 8y agoGood. I hope that companies trying to weaponize drones go lose money.
- quizme2000 8y ago(Red Flag or Yellow Flag) This article was based on a report from Aurelius Value, about a case that was filed a month ago. Aurelius Value makes my spidey sense bullshit detector light the F up. The drone maker looks to be a solid company with a stock that is steadily growing, 1MM volume, and just had a 52 week high in the last week. If I were a unethical bastard with a mandate to manipulate a company's short term stock prices, this wouldn't be a bad target.
- danso 8y agoWhat does a company's stock performance have to do with the allegation under discussion?
- DavidAdams 8y agoIf you have knowledge of an unreported event that could affect a company's stock price, then you can short the stock and do your best to promote the story through social media, hoping it makes the stock dip long enough for you to make some money.
- danso 8y agoYes, I know what short-selling is. And I think everyone who read the article knows that a short-seller brought up this lawsuit, since it says so right in the article: > Aurelius Value, a short-seller, highlighted the lawsuit in a report Thursday, saying the allegations could disrupt AeroVironment’s relationship with government agencies. Maybe I should have been more specific in my question: I wanted to know if the parent commenter was asserting that the allegation itself is false/spurious.
- quizme2000 8y agoPlease consider the source before claims. This is become a very important step today esp. when a financial incentive exists. Aurelius Value have made or inflated other claims of this nature before and have been sued by companies for Short Seller Attacks. This fact should discount any claims or "research" they publish or assert. This article should never have been published by Bloomberg based on Aurelius Value previous attacks. Either the Bloomberg article was auto generated from seeking alpha scrap, the reporters are incompetent, or the listed reporters have a relationship with Aurelius Value. Now about the case: The court filing is behind a paywall, but the case is listed as civil suit for unlawful termination. The case is NOT a criminal case nor is the case related to "smuggling a bomb" on a civilian flight. You can file anything in court. It's only a filing with a case number. There has been no judgement, trial, or any hearings listed other than it being entered into the court record. Also, there is a thing called FOIA that would backup up some of these incredible claims that a real research firm would request. So yeah it's a well planned and timed Short Sell Attack.
- zacharycohn 8y agoI feel like there's a pretty big thing left out of this article. Why did they bring that on the plane?