12 ms·

Viral Video About Body Scanners

448 points by maverhick 15y ago

maverhick 15y ago
"around the interwebs" "baggies of drugs" "things that go BOOM" Seems legit.
- slamdunc 15y ago
  Agreed. The TSA Out of Our Pants guy goes to the trouble of giving specific examples in a well-articulated video and they respond with some catchy, hip-sounding interwebs keywordz... I feel safer already.
famousactress 15y ago
Wow. This blog post makes me WAY more afraid of the TSA than the original video did. I can't wrap my head around the language used. "Things that go BOOM" ???!?!?! Are you fucking kidding me? These are the people that are supposedly acting in the interests of our safety? Disgusted. Whoever wrote or approved this post ought to be fired. Fast.
- grandalf 15y ago
  That language is intended to resonate with people who look at cat pictures on the internet and who are (obviously) the people whose clicks made the video in question go viral.
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    The TSA isn't Reddit, we're talking about people's real security at stake here. Them joking about "things that go BOOM" is just downright distasteful, especially when people are expecting them to confront the security concerns more seriously. Them joking about this makes them look like a joke.
    - Uchikoma 15y ago
      And when usually the "things that go BOOM" kill people when they do. No context to make jokes about.
- mckoss 15y ago
  On a flight last week I overheard the TSA agent joke about the "torture" procedure he was about to inflict on my son when he opted out of a body scan. I don't find anything about the TSA to be humorous.
  - sounds 15y ago
    But remember! If you joke about carrying a weapon, about violence, or anything the TSA does not like... Immediate grounds for (at best) a thorough pat-down. Or being added to a no-fly list. Or being tossed out of airport security. Or being detained away from your family.
    - rooshdi 15y ago
      Exactly....remember those two friends that got barred from the US for joking over Twitter: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3528138 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3528138 Now the TSA makes an even more incendiary joke about "things that go BOOM" and it's all dandy from their perspective. Talk about hypocrisy.
- Deestan 15y ago
  > Whoever wrote or approved this post ought to be fired. Fast. Thus solving the problem once and for all.
  - famousactress 15y ago
    Of course I'm not arguing it's a complete solution.. but I would argue that a complete solution would include this. Also note that I didn't suggest that whoever wrote it be fired alone, I think anyone who had any oversight into this line of thinking should go. It's indicative of a culture of arrogance, disrespect, poor decision-making, and anything but reverence for the value of the service that the organization is charged with.
- monkeypizza 15y ago
  I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but this type of gallows humor is pretty common - in private, it's common for doctors to joke about dying patients, etc, because keeping things deathly serious all the time is emotionally impossible.
  - akl 15y ago
    Are you sure that's a reasonable comparison?
  - mrhyperpenguin 15y ago
    But as you said yourself, there are situations in which this 'humor' is appropriate. The official blog of a government agency is definitely not the place. I would expect this type of language from a no-name blog by a person with the grammar of 16 year-old.
  - klausa 15y ago
    Yes, but that's the key - in private. There are jokes I use with my friends, that I would NEVER use in public situation.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    Nah, the humor wasn't the scary part. Their trust in pre-deployment testing and so forth..... That was the scary part....
- einhverfr 15y ago
  I did too but not for the reason of the language. The guy is substituting pre-deployment testing for on-going penetration testing by a diverse group of independent individuals. If this was Microsoft's attitude towards security, Windows 8 would still be as secure as Windows 95....
- biot 15y ago
  On the contrary, this individual should be promoted to the head of the TSA and be required to make weekly public TV appearances.
- teyc 15y ago
  They are impossible to fire. If no one slips a bomb past them, they've done their job; If someone slips a bomb past them, they'll only grow bigger and more menacing.
  - sophacles 15y ago
    Worse still: If no one tries to slip a bomb past them, they must ignore the obvious and declare they need more power to catch the evil-doers. If someone is successfully caught by them, we obviously need to up security, because this display of effectiveness may not be enough.
- trapexit 15y ago
  "Things that go boom" must be official TSA terminology. I've heard it used by screeners on multiple occasions at different airports. They're probably not permitted to use the "b-word" out of concern for spooking passengers, much as passengers are not permitted to use the "b-word" out of concern for spooking the screeners.
thaumaturgy 15y ago
I've never felt more like I was living in a prequel to Idiocracy than I did while reading that.
- grandalf 15y ago
  One imagines the Idiocracy intro showing how TSA evoled into TGB (Things Go Boom).
  - tuxguy 15y ago
    TTGB (things that go boom) to be precise FTFY :)
- sold 15y ago
  Sometimes YouTube comments give me also that feeling.
- Jimmie 15y ago
  I read the first paragraph, scanned the rest of it and assumed that it was satire. Checked the url, that looked right so I thought maybe they got hacked. It's unbelievable.
philk 15y ago
If their security is as good as their blogging it's time to consider travelling by bus. Also their "20 layers of security" chart[1] is an unintentionally hilarious masterpiece. Note the arrow they've drawn circumventing every layer of security apart from passengers. So really, we can't say they didn't warn us. [1] http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm
- mcantelon 15y ago
  The authorites are working on that angle, too. ;) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-...
- pizza 15y ago
  When I saw the 20 layers chart, I thought it was a troll blog because the graphic looks like it has planes crashing into towers.
  - Terretta 15y ago
    > Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack. Well, we were vetting crews before 911. How many attacks did that layer stop? The sentence needs a qualifier: "...through that vector."
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  I immediately thought of the phrase "twenty herbs and spices," and that product doesn't even exist here.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  My guessing is that their testing of the scanners is about as good as their blogging......
mattdeboard 15y ago
Beyond disturbing. Equivalent of, "u mad?" Rebuttal with no refutation. Embarrassing and useless, but just enough to placate the placid and ignorant.
pg 15y ago
There is something chillingly unconvincing about their attempts at informality. Big Brother jokey is a lot more frightening than Big Brother bureaucratic or Big Brother bombastic. Too bad this insight wasn't available to Orwell or he could have made 1984 even scarier.
- jfoutz 15y ago
  That's because Huxley was right. (http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourse...)
  - armandososa 15y ago
    I think the current reality is more of a mix between "A Brave New World" and "Farenheit 451". Bradbury deserves a mention there.
    - spiritomb 15y ago
      trending towards THX-1138
    - mindcrime 15y ago
      I think the current reality is more of a mix between "A Brave New World" and "Farenheit 451". Bradbury deserves a mention there. Funny you would say that... I agree, although I wasn't thinking about Fahrenheit 451 when I mentioned another "mix" scenario in another thread[1] that touched on Nineteen Eighty-Four. My thought then was: Interestingly, I think reality is converging towards something like a hybrid of the two worlds described by Orwell and Huxley. Well, in the case of Huxley not so much the literal use of hypnosis and psycho-analysis, but if you treat that stuff as a metaphor, then you can see the connection. TV, pop music, Fox News, and so much other low-value content has become the "sedative for the masses" at the same time that the government assumes more and more power and control... "Of course," you might say, "we're nowhere close to Orwell's world with his Minitru, etc ." But if you substitute "We are at war with the USSR and the Taliban are our allies and have always been our allies" and "We are at war with the Taliban and the Russians are our allies and have always been our allies" for certain bits of Orwell's work, you might notice some eerie parallels and scary possibilities. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3671843 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3671843
drivebyacct2 15y ago
>It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that completely addresses privacy concerns. Well that makes me feel great. Guess they decided they been caught blatantly lying on that point before so they decided to reiterate it, just with sufficiently vague qualifiers.
- Maxious 15y ago
  "Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field" Isn't it 30% effective in auditor tests.... oh wait you have a post that claims 30% is inaccurate but doesn't actually disprove the figure or provide accurate figures: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being....
- philwelch 15y ago
  "Vast majority", eh? Yeah, I guess the "vast majority" aren't the young, attractive women you always hear about them disproportionately scanning.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Is this the case? It's not terribly surprising, I just hadn't seen stats for that.
tsigo 15y ago
If this weren't on a .gov site I'd think this was satire. As it is, it's just scary and sad.
- AdleyEskridge 15y ago
  I had the same reaction. My eyes kept twitching from "things that go BOOM" to the URL, to the conceivably-fake logo, back to "things that go BOOM", back to the URL, back to the logo, etc. It took me a good six to seven seconds before reality sunk in. I'm really hoping that this is simply an example of an organization that neither takes its blog seriously nor provides much oversite over its content. If anyone at the TSA read this post and signed off on it—wow. The author of this post made no attempt to dispute the video, instead focusing on the fact that their are other security measures. Oh, and the author inexplicably felt it would be important mentioned that you can opt-out of the scanners if you want. What did I just read?!
- sharth 15y ago
  To be honest, I'm still not sure if the post was because the blog was hacked.
mcantelon 15y ago
"Body scanners don't work, but we do other stuff too." Jesus.
- Jimmie 15y ago
  This is a succinct, hilarious and accurate summation. I salute you.
functionoid 15y ago
Tax payers money...billions...not sure what testing they did before buying or they knew it and still bought them because they got their cut.
ryguytilidie 15y ago
"We're actually safe, I'm not going to give any evidence of this, just trust me". Seems fair.
brevityness 15y ago
So, this is where our tax payers' money is going? Sigh.
shingen 15y ago
That last paragraph is a doozy. Completely addresses privacy concerns; is completely safe; oh and hey, it's completely optional, assuming you don't prefer molestation and possibly randomly missing your flight.
otterley 15y ago
... and nowhere do they deny that the method presented actually works.
shingen 15y ago
The fascinating thing about their claimed 20 layers of security, is also that a failure by any single layer can result in a terrorist attack succeeding. They surprisingly don't point that out. (har har)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
stretchwithme 15y ago
yeah, get all your info about the government FROM the government. No conflict of interest there. So, why did they defer those safety studies anyway? Just a scheduling conflict? Too busy with an election? The things that we have to be subjected to just to satisfy campaign contributors.
ard0r 15y ago
This is a non-serious response. I think I'm going to talk to my congressperson about this.
AgentConundrum 15y ago
I can't believe that this is the official TSA blog. I can understand trying to take steps to avoid the usual ridiculously dry press release style articles that governments and big businesses normally have, but.. this was just unprofessional. You have "Blogger Bob" telling us to ignore the video "some guy" made and that everything's fine because this is just one of the way they protect you from "things that go BOOM". Also, the blog never disputes the video. There is no text that tries to say that the video was faked or anything, or provides any indication that the video and the vulnerabilities contained therein aren't exactly as they appear. Finally, just because I'm feeling particularly nitpicky tonight: they're using Blogger's favicon and are hosted on Google's servers (DNS resolves to ghs.l.GOOGLE.COM). Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a touch unprofessional as well.
rogerbinns 15y ago
Guess how many of the people who work on the ground airside are scanned? In any event the TSA is not taking enough credit here. Did you know their scanners have prevented meteorites? They have also prevented tiger attacks. Since installing them there has not been a single instance of meteorites hitting planes or tiger attacks on planes. I think the US government should borrow even more money so we can get them to also prevent giraffe attacks.
- cskau 15y ago
  Also snakes.
wpietri 15y ago
Shorter TSA: We're not going to deny that this guy can bring whatever he wants through, but having screened 600m passengers in the last year, we did once find a gun and some drugs. So you're safe! And if you don't think a dose of radiation is a good trade for pretend security, you can always wait another 15 minutes for a grumpy person to grope you.
newman314 15y ago
The flippant behavior exhibited makes me both alarmed and angry. Here's an interview with Blogger Bob that Google returned: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html Apparently, being snarky on the government dime pays quite well. Dude appears to be rocking a Rolex.
DevX101 15y ago
I'm almost impressed by the linguistic gymnastics taken here to avoid saying outright that they got caught with their pants down. The post concludes on an entirely unrelated point to the premise of the post |Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down. Sure, I'm carrying in a gun in my shirt pocket I'd like to get on the plane. Let me just request the patdown to make sure I get caught.
- brlewis 15y ago
  That sentence was there for the benefit of people with safety questions about the scanners. For more information on the medical uncertainties, follow the link labeled "completely safe" to the Archives of Internal Medicine article and look under "Related Article".
suprgeek 15y ago
This has got to be one of the stupidest and (unintentionally) scary responses ever to a serious attempt to question security. - Ad-Hominem attacks on the person raising the questions - No direct refutatio of the specific points raised in the Video - Co-relation and causation confusion (we have found x hence we are effective against the things in the video) - Pathetic attempt at informal tone of voice - Appeal to Stats and big impressive numbers when none is justified In short - Americans need to be really upset that their security is handled by these buffoons. -
- meow 15y ago
  the tone really got me.. it's like an alien infested corpse trying to mix with normal humans...
eplanit 15y ago
"tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs" go BOOM?? I can't help but notice the glossing over of the mission creep. [quote from article] ... Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.
tnuc 15y ago
I for one feel a lot safer thanks to this blog post from the TSA. Keep up the great work TSA and thank you for putting my worries to rest. -- Do I need to put sarcasm tags?
rythie 15y ago
In any case, surely the weakest link is airports in less developed countries, which always seem to be much less secure to me.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  I dunno. They have different threat profiles, and usually implement security to suit that threat profile.
- hub_ 15y ago
  You work for TSA? 'cause that the kind of reasoning coming from TSA.
  - rythie 15y ago
    Is it? I don't much about them since I live in the U.K. it just seems generally when I've been travelling, mostly to less developed countries, that the airports aren't really that secure.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
warren-g 15y ago
Not that I'm condoning the machines, and perhaps I'm missing something, but... Couldn't this "vulnerability" be fixed if they took two scans? Take one of front/back (current approach) and then ask the person to turn 90 degrees and take another scan? to see the sides?
- replax 15y ago
  Yes it could. The problem with that is, that it a) doubles the amount of time needed to scan one person and b) doubles the duration of exposure to radiation. therefore, we'd be better of with metal detectors. Aside from that, the TSA would have to explain, that body scanners are useless without scanning twice and we therefore need to expose you to the double amount of radiation...
  - toomuchtodo 15y ago
    Doesn't the current scan take 3-5 seconds, and then you have a wait upwards of 20-30 seconds to get the "all clear" from the TSA agent in front of you who was radioed from the agent viewing the body scanner image? Ridiculous.
- evan_ 15y ago
  If I had to turn 90° I would hide contraband in the loose sleeves of my shirt, and I would hold my arms forward slightly, so that when I was turned perpendicular with the beams, the contraband was forward of my center of mass.
gaius 15y ago
Stand back people, TSA Blog Team is on the case! More seriously, these jokers let terrorists waltz on board planes (e.g. The Shoebomber) and only the passengers, treated like criminals by TSA, stop them. Time to send the rentacops back to the mall.
- endersshadow 15y ago
  The Shoe Bomber took a flight from France, which is not under TSA jurisdiction [1]. It's important to note that the TSA only operates in US airports. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)#Bombing_attempt_on_American_Airlines_Flight_63 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)#Bomb...
mrmaddog 15y ago
2 days ago, from a BusinessWeek article about the author of the blog post: “I call it the corny dad approach. I’m basically the Bob Saget of blogging,” the 41-year-old tells Bloomberg Businessweek. “This isn’t really the most exciting subject, so I thought I should inject some personality into it.” Three years removed from working the security lines himself—he used to train TSA officers at the Cincinnati airport—Blogger Bob has clearly gained some perspective on the experience. [1] Whether or not entertainment has a place in government blogging is an argument for another day, but I think we can all agree that under no circumstances should this type of blog post ever be allowed as an official government response. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the-tsa-be-as-cool-as-the-tsas-blogger-bob http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the...
- Linka4356 15y ago
  Surely he means "Danny Tanner," as Bob Saget is hardly a "corny dad." Not surprised at the mistake though.
  - epoxyhockey 15y ago
    For those that have not seen the real Bob Saget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW4mPZmKPM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW4mPZmKPM
plf 15y ago
If there was any doubt as to whether the original technique described in the original video worked, this blog post has just confirmed it.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Number of terrorist attacks detected and thwarted by TSA measures since 2001: Zero Number of terrorist attacks attempted since 2001 over US airspace: MORE THAN ZERO
tsaoutourpants 15y ago
Blogger Bob is just another part of the TSA's layered approach to bullshitology. I'm glad it's transparent to all, and thank you again for covering this issue.
- steve19 15y ago
  You, sir, are a hero! (tsaoutourpants is Jonathan Corbett)
stewbrew 15y ago
It seems they don't watch German television shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ
- quink 15y ago
  OK, this is the most shocking thing I've seen in a while... I've never seen anything so awesomely refuted. Even if you don't speak German, watch it. Basically, they do a scan of the man, who claims to be carrying a swiss army knife, and only find a mobile and the microphone transmitter on the back that's inevitable since they're on TV. However, the man is carrying thermite (three vials), an igniter for the thermite, a vial that can contain even more explosive and a normal igniter. They claimed that in an airport situation he'd be wearing the jacket and that they'd also have done a side view. Which is funny because these scanners can penetrate clothing while showing skin - that's the whole point of them... and a side view wouldn't have helped much considering that he was carrying something in his mouth and near his lower back. They take the stuff (which is made from materials available in any pharmacy for a 'few cent') outside that he carried in his lower back area and set it on fire, which melts through the pan. One of the body-scanner people calls the whole thing 'limitedly funny'. Then he says that "I don't know if we're well advised if we say 'look how stupid the terrorists are' if they'd do it like a professor advises, 'then we could bring down a 747'". The professor moves the pan a bit and the whole thing ignites a bit more. The whole screen turns white before the camera person decides to move back a little.
  - rpstrong 15y ago
    If anything, the video supports the use of the TSA's active screening technologies (backscatter and millimeter wave devices). The scanner being used is neither of these, it is an entirely passive device - see: http://www.thruvision.com/Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Product_Page.htm http://www.thruvision.com/Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Product... for a brief explanation of their technology. While ThruVision's scanner is arguably safer, it is clearly deficient in detecting threats. And it isn't being used by the TSA. In fact, ThruVision's website does not cite a single instance of their scanner being used anywhere in the world for passenger screening. In other words, the video has NOTHING to do with current screening technology.
grepherder 15y ago
OK, I will play the devil's advocate. Yes, he does not deny or dispute whether the method works as claimed. The otherwise hip language is not helping nor does it sound sincere, I agree. But, if we want to stay objective: 1) He describes the demonstration in the video as a "crude attempt", which is in certain ways true. Neither is the attempt too sophisticated, nor the documentation of it, or should I say especially the documentation. The video itself is lacking in scientific argumentation, and makes up for the lack thereof with unnecessary political rhetoric that I don't need to be fed to see the simple "flaw" he claims to have discovered - more about that now... 2) The person in the video may or may not be sincere about his claims, but he definitely is not the first person to point out this "flaw". It was known publicly for a very long time, and it is reasonable to assume people who developed and approved the system were well aware of it. 3) Everyone is pointing out that there is no attempt at a "scientific" refutation in the blog post. Well, he is right in stating that their claim never was that they can catch any single concealed object with the body scanner. I don't see what it is exactly that he needs to refute. It is indeed part of a layered system, and I can't see how anyone can disagree with this concept. I'm not saying the scanner is a reasonable layer or that it should stay - but if your argument is "it has to work 100% or it has to go", it is pretty weak. He doesn't really evade any serious accusation here - he simply points out the obvious and reinstates their claim: what was shown in the video is uninteresting, because the body scanner was never about catching metal boxes sewn to the side of a shirt with 98.5% confidence. You can argue the body scanner is an economical disaster, dispute it on the basis of privacy or bring up health concerns, but I like to stay objective. There is nothing wrong with this post, as a response to the demonstration in the video, beyond the silly language.
- meow 15y ago
  the % would not matter if you can fool it 100% in a well defined flow...
  - grepherder 15y ago
    I understand that. The point is there are very few (if any) single security layers, physical or digital, that can claim otherwise, i.e. that can't be "fooled 100% in a well defined flow". People here should be aware of that more than most.
quink 15y ago
Tagged this in delicious. Wondering if it'll show up with my tags... http://delicious.com/quink http://delicious.com/quink Can someone else tag it too with my tags and it might show up on their page...?
marcamillion 15y ago
This definitely looks like the beginning of the end for at least the body scanners. If that video brought on so much heat that they had to respond like this and drop the ball so much, queue more public outrage and major back-pedalling in 3.....2.....1....
- beagle3 15y ago
  If only that were true. Can you think of a case in history where continued government incompetence (or outright malice, depending on your point of view) that was demonstrated and gained a lot of valid criticism and public outrage, actually resulted in a change?
toyg 15y ago
Their "20 layers of security" reminds me of your usual "7 proxies" and "over 9000": meaningless over-the-top numbers with no relationship with reality.
aprescott 15y ago
Astonishing blog post. Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. This reminded me of part of the recent TSA Fail post by a former FBI agent. Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle should be appalled at an unauthorized use to which TSA is putting their screening: Identifying petty criminals--using one search method to achieve a secret goal. This is strictly forbidden in other government branches. In the FBI, if I had a warrant to wiretap an individual on a terrorism matter and picked-up evidence of a non-terrorism-related crime, I could not, without FBI Headquarters and a judge’s approval, use that as evidence in a criminal case. But TSA is using its screening devices to carve out a niche business. According to congress, TSA began to seek out petty criminals without congressional approval. TSA have arrested more than 1,000 people on drug charges and other non-airline security-related offenses to date. http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html
guynamedloren 15y ago
Today, I am not proud to be an American. Thanks TSA.
- danssig 15y ago
  Why were you ever proud of something that just happened to you having nothing what so ever to do with any actions you took yourself?
  - prodigal_erik 15y ago
    Some people say "proud of X" when they mean "refuse to feel shame about X". It bugs me a little also.
justanotheratom 15y ago
Can someone post a link to the viral video they are referring to? I can't seem to find it (I live in a cave).
- meow 15y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA
- johnx123-up 15y ago
  http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-...
Animus7 15y ago
> For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail... The way I read it: For obvious job security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail... Anyway, I sure feel safe knowing that the security of my life is entrusted to obscurity, and I'm thankful for the trolling TSA blog posts that remind me of this.
- user24 15y ago
  > For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail... Yes, because security through obscurity is an effective policy.
neilmiddleton 15y ago
"things that go BOOM"
nagrom 15y ago
The pie-chart on the delete-o-meter on that blog sidebar doesn't reflect the numbers underneath it. At present, there are 50k accepted comments and 17k deleted, but the deleted slice is much less than 25%.
tuxguy 15y ago
As an Indian, i am always envious & jealous of how govt agencies & systems work so much better in the US than in India. So i was really shocked to see this blog post, after the said govt agency's credibility has been seriously damaged (by the viral video) "... things that go BOOM" Are you f*ing kidding me ? Is that how a govt official is supposed to communicate ? Leave alone the content, but the tone of the post is very crass, insensitive & insulting. Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly common, even in some of the most liberal cities in the US & the world.. San Francisco bay area. Check out http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052 & http://bit.ly/bartisevil http://bit.ly/bartisevil on the high-handedness of BART PD (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
whalesalad 15y ago
Uhh am I the only one here who isn't planning on reading too deeply into this? Seems like TSA got pwnt by lulzsec or anonymous?
Uchikoma 15y ago
The most interesting thing in that post was on what they focus. One would have that it was terrorism, but no, they spread their attention by looking for drugs with those body scanners. Feeling safe now.
adrianwaj 15y ago
Confidence Trickster Bob should go through a con artist scanner. It'd explode.
jcromartie 15y ago
This is even worse than I thought the scanners were. THIS is what the operator sees? http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm That means that it's a complete black-box and if you just beat the scanner's algorithms, you beat the scanner operators too. What a complete and utter joke.
einhverfr 15y ago
The blog article is extremely funny. I keep thinking, "If this were a post by Microsoft about a security vulnerability report, I'd be in business doing Linux migrations for the rest of my life."
reader5000 15y ago
Just astounding. As soon as I read "interwebs" I had to check to make sure this was an official communications channel of a Federal agency. Mind is blown. Is this the same level of people running the CIA/FBI? What is going on?
- philwelch 15y ago
  The TSA are clowns, but the CIA/FBI are deadly serious by all accounts I've heard. They're far more dangerous to be on the wrong side of.
mattezell 15y ago
It would appear that Wired came to the same conclusion as the blogger - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_confirms_1b_of_nude_body_scanners_made/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_con...
methoddk 15y ago
What an ignorantly worded blog post. By the TSA?! Come on. If anything, this post does nothing but give the impression that the flaw in the scanners IS true.
CF_riseAbove 15y ago
Methinks thou dost protest too much TSA
GBond 15y ago
Tone is baffling... only explanation is the official blog is trying to spoof their spoof? https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov (TSA satire)
jroseattle 15y ago
Well, Bob (original author) -- as if the situation couldn't be more magnified, your post has simply added to the impression that the TSA is mostly public hand-waving in the place of real security. "Crude" attempt? "you know… things that go BOOM"? I sincerely hope you take anyone's claim seriously, public or otherwise, that they can circumvent any security measure put in place by the TSA. The tone of your blog post smacks of disregard; if you thought it would invoke confidence on the part of the reader, you thought wrong. The biggest defense put forth: well, we have other security detection methods so, hah! Don't you get that the point about the body scanners is that they can be beaten? That they're superfluous to the security regimen? That if you can't defend them directly, they serve no real purpose? That's the point of the video, and it's completely lost on you (and obviously others for whom you speak.) As is the impression among so many travelers, the TSA confuses "feeling safe" with "being safe" and it appears your post simply reinforces that view. Visions of the SNL parody skit from years ago come to mind.
xster 15y ago
I have a feeling this response is doing them far more harm than good. It's just a simple admission that everything stated was true and I'm going to make it into a high school argument and call you some guy with some crude video that's irrelevant.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
erode 15y ago
I've never believed something less than the words in this blog post.
RealAmerican 15y ago
The really funny thing is that this guy is probably making between $93,00 - $142,000 (paid by us). Look at this job listing for a TSA program analyst: http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200 http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200 ...with tasks like "You will develop and approve solutions to current and anticipated problems" I think Blogger Bob is writing some of these job descriptions, too. Makes me sick. Here are the benefits Blogger Bob gets: DHS offers competitive salaries and an attractive benefits package, including: health, dental, vision, life, and long-term care insurance; retirement plan; Thrift Savings Plan [similar to a 401(k)]; Flexible Spending Account; Employee Assistance Program; personal leave days; and paid federal holidays. Other benefits may include: flexible work schedules; telework; tuition reimbursement; transportation subsidies; uniform allowance; health and wellness programs; and fitness centers. DHS is committed to employee development and offers a variety of employee training and developmental opportunities. For more information, go to www.dhs.gov/careers and select "benefits."
RealAmerican 15y ago
The really funny thing is that this guy is probably making between $93,00 - $142,000 (paid by us). Look at this job listing for a TSA program analyst: http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200 http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200 ...with tasks like "You will develop and approve solutions to current and anticipated problems" I think Blogger Bob is writing some of these job descriptions, too. Makes me sick. Here are the benefits Blogger Bob gets: DHS offers competitive salaries and an attractive benefits package, including: health, dental, vision, life, and long-term care insurance; retirement plan; Thrift Savings Plan [similar to a 401(k)]; Flexible Spending Account; Employee Assistance Program; personal leave days; and paid federal holidays. Other benefits may include: flexible work schedules; telework; tuition reimbursement; transportation subsidies; uniform allowance; health and wellness programs; and fitness centers. DHS is committed to employee development and offers a variety of employee training and developmental opportunities. For more information, go to www.dhs.gov/careers and select "benefits."
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ojosilva 15y ago
To me the bad thing about the TSA, and counterterrorism in general, is that every day that goes by without an attack reinforces whatever methods and expenses they might incur. But the worse is that only a terrible event could prove them wrong and stop the nonsense.
mangoman 15y ago
The post mentioned that the scanners are one of 20 layers of security and mentions Behavioral detection, Explosive Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshall etc as some of the other "layers" of security. I wanted to see what these 20 layers were, and I really didn't see anything that would "protect" against someone exploiting the scanners like the video demonstrated. In fact one of the "layers" of security was "Intelligence". How comforting. If you want to see some serious security theater, check out http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm. This blog post is just feels forced, and makes me a little quesy...
hgasdasdgdj 15y ago
All the comments here sucks ass "It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM. " If you shat out an emotion frmo that sentence, you too much of a baby to use the internet, LEAVE.
presto8 15y ago
I was at the airport last week and got randomly selected for the backscatter x-ray machine. I was told to remove everything from my pockets, including things that I would normally keep for going through a metal detector (passport, papers, wallet, etc.). The scan went fine, but on the other side, the TSA agent noticed that due to the fold of my jeans, it looked like I had something in my pocket. He said he had to pat me down to make sure I didn't have anything in there. Which made me seriously doubt the efficacy of the backscatter machines. What's the point of the machine if something could slip through that would still necessitate a physical body search?
rbanffy 15y ago
What shocks me most is the abundance of anonymous comments, probably fearful of how the TSA can make life miserable for them.
reidmain 15y ago
"For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail" Security through obscurity. Are they afraid that if they disclose information people would somehow be able to find holes? If this is the case then why is this technology used? Why have gapping holes already been pointing out by numerous people? Thinking that "the terrorists" don't have the ability to break this system without understanding the intricate details of it is just downright stupid.
ghshephard 15y ago
" down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. " Is this for real? When did the TSA start doing drug searches? Can they effect arrests? I'll be honest - I'm a little shocked that a supposedly "official" blogging site is writing like a half-tweaked 13 year old and is bragging about doing drug searches at a supposed check for weapons. It's also pretty irresponsible to make claims about the scanning system like, " It is completely safe " - I suspect that "Blogger Bob Burns" neither has the background, nor the authority to make such claims (let alone the knowledge). About all he(?) should be doing is suggesting which certifying authority has provided a clean-bill-of-health on their scanners. All in all the most disturbing thing I've read in a couple weeks.

448 points by maverhick 15y ago

maverhick 15y ago

"around the interwebs" "baggies of drugs" "things that go BOOM" Seems legit.

slamdunc 15y ago
Agreed. The TSA Out of Our Pants guy goes to the trouble of giving specific examples in a well-articulated video and they respond with some catchy, hip-sounding interwebs keywordz... I feel safer already.

famousactress 15y ago

Wow. This blog post makes me WAY more afraid of the TSA than the original video did. I can't wrap my head around the language used. "Things that go BOOM" ???!?!?! Are you fucking kidding me? These are the people that are supposedly acting in the interests of our safety? Disgusted. Whoever wrote or approved this post ought to be fired. Fast.

grandalf 15y ago
That language is intended to resonate with people who look at cat pictures on the internet and who are (obviously) the people whose clicks made the video in question go viral.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  The TSA isn't Reddit, we're talking about people's real security at stake here. Them joking about "things that go BOOM" is just downright distasteful, especially when people are expecting them to confront the security concerns more seriously. Them joking about this makes them look like a joke.
  - Uchikoma 15y ago
    And when usually the "things that go BOOM" kill people when they do. No context to make jokes about.
mckoss 15y ago
On a flight last week I overheard the TSA agent joke about the "torture" procedure he was about to inflict on my son when he opted out of a body scan. I don't find anything about the TSA to be humorous.
- sounds 15y ago
  But remember! If you joke about carrying a weapon, about violence, or anything the TSA does not like... Immediate grounds for (at best) a thorough pat-down. Or being added to a no-fly list. Or being tossed out of airport security. Or being detained away from your family.
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    Exactly....remember those two friends that got barred from the US for joking over Twitter: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3528138 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3528138 Now the TSA makes an even more incendiary joke about "things that go BOOM" and it's all dandy from their perspective. Talk about hypocrisy.
Deestan 15y ago
> Whoever wrote or approved this post ought to be fired. Fast. Thus solving the problem once and for all.
- famousactress 15y ago
  Of course I'm not arguing it's a complete solution.. but I would argue that a complete solution would include this. Also note that I didn't suggest that whoever wrote it be fired alone, I think anyone who had any oversight into this line of thinking should go. It's indicative of a culture of arrogance, disrespect, poor decision-making, and anything but reverence for the value of the service that the organization is charged with.
monkeypizza 15y ago
I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but this type of gallows humor is pretty common - in private, it's common for doctors to joke about dying patients, etc, because keeping things deathly serious all the time is emotionally impossible.
- akl 15y ago
  Are you sure that's a reasonable comparison?
- mrhyperpenguin 15y ago
  But as you said yourself, there are situations in which this 'humor' is appropriate. The official blog of a government agency is definitely not the place. I would expect this type of language from a no-name blog by a person with the grammar of 16 year-old.
- klausa 15y ago
  Yes, but that's the key - in private. There are jokes I use with my friends, that I would NEVER use in public situation.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Nah, the humor wasn't the scary part. Their trust in pre-deployment testing and so forth..... That was the scary part....
einhverfr 15y ago
I did too but not for the reason of the language. The guy is substituting pre-deployment testing for on-going penetration testing by a diverse group of independent individuals. If this was Microsoft's attitude towards security, Windows 8 would still be as secure as Windows 95....
biot 15y ago
On the contrary, this individual should be promoted to the head of the TSA and be required to make weekly public TV appearances.
teyc 15y ago
They are impossible to fire. If no one slips a bomb past them, they've done their job; If someone slips a bomb past them, they'll only grow bigger and more menacing.
- sophacles 15y ago
  Worse still: If no one tries to slip a bomb past them, they must ignore the obvious and declare they need more power to catch the evil-doers. If someone is successfully caught by them, we obviously need to up security, because this display of effectiveness may not be enough.
trapexit 15y ago
"Things that go boom" must be official TSA terminology. I've heard it used by screeners on multiple occasions at different airports. They're probably not permitted to use the "b-word" out of concern for spooking passengers, much as passengers are not permitted to use the "b-word" out of concern for spooking the screeners.

thaumaturgy 15y ago

I've never felt more like I was living in a prequel to Idiocracy than I did while reading that.

grandalf 15y ago
One imagines the Idiocracy intro showing how TSA evoled into TGB (Things Go Boom).
- tuxguy 15y ago
  TTGB (things that go boom) to be precise FTFY :)
sold 15y ago
Sometimes YouTube comments give me also that feeling.
Jimmie 15y ago
I read the first paragraph, scanned the rest of it and assumed that it was satire. Checked the url, that looked right so I thought maybe they got hacked. It's unbelievable.

philk 15y ago

If their security is as good as their blogging it's time to consider travelling by bus. Also their "20 layers of security" chart[1] is an unintentionally hilarious masterpiece. Note the arrow they've drawn circumventing every layer of security apart from passengers. So really, we can't say they didn't warn us. [1] http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm

mcantelon 15y ago
The authorites are working on that angle, too. ;) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-...
pizza 15y ago
When I saw the 20 layers chart, I thought it was a troll blog because the graphic looks like it has planes crashing into towers.
- Terretta 15y ago
  > Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack. Well, we were vetting crews before 911. How many attacks did that layer stop? The sentence needs a qualifier: "...through that vector."
JonnieCache 15y ago
I immediately thought of the phrase "twenty herbs and spices," and that product doesn't even exist here.
einhverfr 15y ago
My guessing is that their testing of the scanners is about as good as their blogging......

mattdeboard 15y ago

Beyond disturbing. Equivalent of, "u mad?" Rebuttal with no refutation. Embarrassing and useless, but just enough to placate the placid and ignorant.

pg 15y ago

There is something chillingly unconvincing about their attempts at informality. Big Brother jokey is a lot more frightening than Big Brother bureaucratic or Big Brother bombastic. Too bad this insight wasn't available to Orwell or he could have made 1984 even scarier.

jfoutz 15y ago
That's because Huxley was right. (http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourse...)
- armandososa 15y ago
  I think the current reality is more of a mix between "A Brave New World" and "Farenheit 451". Bradbury deserves a mention there.
  - spiritomb 15y ago
    trending towards THX-1138
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    I think the current reality is more of a mix between "A Brave New World" and "Farenheit 451". Bradbury deserves a mention there. Funny you would say that... I agree, although I wasn't thinking about Fahrenheit 451 when I mentioned another "mix" scenario in another thread[1] that touched on Nineteen Eighty-Four. My thought then was: Interestingly, I think reality is converging towards something like a hybrid of the two worlds described by Orwell and Huxley. Well, in the case of Huxley not so much the literal use of hypnosis and psycho-analysis, but if you treat that stuff as a metaphor, then you can see the connection. TV, pop music, Fox News, and so much other low-value content has become the "sedative for the masses" at the same time that the government assumes more and more power and control... "Of course," you might say, "we're nowhere close to Orwell's world with his Minitru, etc ." But if you substitute "We are at war with the USSR and the Taliban are our allies and have always been our allies" and "We are at war with the Taliban and the Russians are our allies and have always been our allies" for certain bits of Orwell's work, you might notice some eerie parallels and scary possibilities. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3671843 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3671843

drivebyacct2 15y ago

>It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that completely addresses privacy concerns. Well that makes me feel great. Guess they decided they been caught blatantly lying on that point before so they decided to reiterate it, just with sufficiently vague qualifiers.

Maxious 15y ago
"Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field" Isn't it 30% effective in auditor tests.... oh wait you have a post that claims 30% is inaccurate but doesn't actually disprove the figure or provide accurate figures: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being....
philwelch 15y ago
"Vast majority", eh? Yeah, I guess the "vast majority" aren't the young, attractive women you always hear about them disproportionately scanning.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Is this the case? It's not terribly surprising, I just hadn't seen stats for that.

tsigo 15y ago

If this weren't on a .gov site I'd think this was satire. As it is, it's just scary and sad.

AdleyEskridge 15y ago
I had the same reaction. My eyes kept twitching from "things that go BOOM" to the URL, to the conceivably-fake logo, back to "things that go BOOM", back to the URL, back to the logo, etc. It took me a good six to seven seconds before reality sunk in. I'm really hoping that this is simply an example of an organization that neither takes its blog seriously nor provides much oversite over its content. If anyone at the TSA read this post and signed off on it—wow. The author of this post made no attempt to dispute the video, instead focusing on the fact that their are other security measures. Oh, and the author inexplicably felt it would be important mentioned that you can opt-out of the scanners if you want. What did I just read?!
sharth 15y ago
To be honest, I'm still not sure if the post was because the blog was hacked.

mcantelon 15y ago

"Body scanners don't work, but we do other stuff too." Jesus.

Jimmie 15y ago
This is a succinct, hilarious and accurate summation. I salute you.

functionoid 15y ago

Tax payers money...billions...not sure what testing they did before buying or they knew it and still bought them because they got their cut.

ryguytilidie 15y ago

"We're actually safe, I'm not going to give any evidence of this, just trust me". Seems fair.

brevityness 15y ago

So, this is where our tax payers' money is going? Sigh.

shingen 15y ago

That last paragraph is a doozy. Completely addresses privacy concerns; is completely safe; oh and hey, it's completely optional, assuming you don't prefer molestation and possibly randomly missing your flight.

otterley 15y ago

... and nowhere do they deny that the method presented actually works.

shingen 15y ago

The fascinating thing about their claimed 20 layers of security, is also that a failure by any single layer can result in a terrorist attack succeeding. They surprisingly don't point that out. (har har)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

stretchwithme 15y ago

yeah, get all your info about the government FROM the government. No conflict of interest there. So, why did they defer those safety studies anyway? Just a scheduling conflict? Too busy with an election? The things that we have to be subjected to just to satisfy campaign contributors.

ard0r 15y ago

This is a non-serious response. I think I'm going to talk to my congressperson about this.

AgentConundrum 15y ago

I can't believe that this is the official TSA blog. I can understand trying to take steps to avoid the usual ridiculously dry press release style articles that governments and big businesses normally have, but.. this was just unprofessional. You have "Blogger Bob" telling us to ignore the video "some guy" made and that everything's fine because this is just one of the way they protect you from "things that go BOOM". Also, the blog never disputes the video. There is no text that tries to say that the video was faked or anything, or provides any indication that the video and the vulnerabilities contained therein aren't exactly as they appear. Finally, just because I'm feeling particularly nitpicky tonight: they're using Blogger's favicon and are hosted on Google's servers (DNS resolves to ghs.l.GOOGLE.COM). Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a touch unprofessional as well.

rogerbinns 15y ago

Guess how many of the people who work on the ground airside are scanned? In any event the TSA is not taking enough credit here. Did you know their scanners have prevented meteorites? They have also prevented tiger attacks. Since installing them there has not been a single instance of meteorites hitting planes or tiger attacks on planes. I think the US government should borrow even more money so we can get them to also prevent giraffe attacks.

cskau 15y ago
Also snakes.

wpietri 15y ago

Shorter TSA: We're not going to deny that this guy can bring whatever he wants through, but having screened 600m passengers in the last year, we did once find a gun and some drugs. So you're safe! And if you don't think a dose of radiation is a good trade for pretend security, you can always wait another 15 minutes for a grumpy person to grope you.

newman314 15y ago

The flippant behavior exhibited makes me both alarmed and angry. Here's an interview with Blogger Bob that Google returned: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html Apparently, being snarky on the government dime pays quite well. Dude appears to be rocking a Rolex.

DevX101 15y ago

I'm almost impressed by the linguistic gymnastics taken here to avoid saying outright that they got caught with their pants down. The post concludes on an entirely unrelated point to the premise of the post |Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down. Sure, I'm carrying in a gun in my shirt pocket I'd like to get on the plane. Let me just request the patdown to make sure I get caught.

brlewis 15y ago
That sentence was there for the benefit of people with safety questions about the scanners. For more information on the medical uncertainties, follow the link labeled "completely safe" to the Archives of Internal Medicine article and look under "Related Article".

suprgeek 15y ago

This has got to be one of the stupidest and (unintentionally) scary responses ever to a serious attempt to question security. - Ad-Hominem attacks on the person raising the questions - No direct refutatio of the specific points raised in the Video - Co-relation and causation confusion (we have found x hence we are effective against the things in the video) - Pathetic attempt at informal tone of voice - Appeal to Stats and big impressive numbers when none is justified In short - Americans need to be really upset that their security is handled by these buffoons. -

meow 15y ago
the tone really got me.. it's like an alien infested corpse trying to mix with normal humans...

eplanit 15y ago

"tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs" go BOOM?? I can't help but notice the glossing over of the mission creep. [quote from article] ... Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.

tnuc 15y ago

I for one feel a lot safer thanks to this blog post from the TSA. Keep up the great work TSA and thank you for putting my worries to rest. -- Do I need to put sarcasm tags?

rythie 15y ago

In any case, surely the weakest link is airports in less developed countries, which always seem to be much less secure to me.

einhverfr 15y ago
I dunno. They have different threat profiles, and usually implement security to suit that threat profile.
hub_ 15y ago
You work for TSA? 'cause that the kind of reasoning coming from TSA.
- rythie 15y ago
  Is it? I don't much about them since I live in the U.K. it just seems generally when I've been travelling, mostly to less developed countries, that the airports aren't really that secure.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

warren-g 15y ago

Not that I'm condoning the machines, and perhaps I'm missing something, but... Couldn't this "vulnerability" be fixed if they took two scans? Take one of front/back (current approach) and then ask the person to turn 90 degrees and take another scan? to see the sides?

replax 15y ago
Yes it could. The problem with that is, that it a) doubles the amount of time needed to scan one person and b) doubles the duration of exposure to radiation. therefore, we'd be better of with metal detectors. Aside from that, the TSA would have to explain, that body scanners are useless without scanning twice and we therefore need to expose you to the double amount of radiation...
- toomuchtodo 15y ago
  Doesn't the current scan take 3-5 seconds, and then you have a wait upwards of 20-30 seconds to get the "all clear" from the TSA agent in front of you who was radioed from the agent viewing the body scanner image? Ridiculous.
evan_ 15y ago
If I had to turn 90° I would hide contraband in the loose sleeves of my shirt, and I would hold my arms forward slightly, so that when I was turned perpendicular with the beams, the contraband was forward of my center of mass.

gaius 15y ago

Stand back people, TSA Blog Team is on the case! More seriously, these jokers let terrorists waltz on board planes (e.g. The Shoebomber) and only the passengers, treated like criminals by TSA, stop them. Time to send the rentacops back to the mall.

endersshadow 15y ago
The Shoe Bomber took a flight from France, which is not under TSA jurisdiction [1]. It's important to note that the TSA only operates in US airports. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)#Bombing_attempt_on_American_Airlines_Flight_63 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)#Bomb...

mrmaddog 15y ago

2 days ago, from a BusinessWeek article about the author of the blog post: “I call it the corny dad approach. I’m basically the Bob Saget of blogging,” the 41-year-old tells Bloomberg Businessweek. “This isn’t really the most exciting subject, so I thought I should inject some personality into it.” Three years removed from working the security lines himself—he used to train TSA officers at the Cincinnati airport—Blogger Bob has clearly gained some perspective on the experience. [1] Whether or not entertainment has a place in government blogging is an argument for another day, but I think we can all agree that under no circumstances should this type of blog post ever be allowed as an official government response. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the-tsa-be-as-cool-as-the-tsas-blogger-bob http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the...

Linka4356 15y ago
Surely he means "Danny Tanner," as Bob Saget is hardly a "corny dad." Not surprised at the mistake though.
- epoxyhockey 15y ago
  For those that have not seen the real Bob Saget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW4mPZmKPM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW4mPZmKPM

plf 15y ago

If there was any doubt as to whether the original technique described in the original video worked, this blog post has just confirmed it.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Number of terrorist attacks detected and thwarted by TSA measures since 2001: Zero Number of terrorist attacks attempted since 2001 over US airspace: MORE THAN ZERO

tsaoutourpants 15y ago

Blogger Bob is just another part of the TSA's layered approach to bullshitology. I'm glad it's transparent to all, and thank you again for covering this issue.

steve19 15y ago
You, sir, are a hero! (tsaoutourpants is Jonathan Corbett)

stewbrew 15y ago

It seems they don't watch German television shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ

quink 15y ago
OK, this is the most shocking thing I've seen in a while... I've never seen anything so awesomely refuted. Even if you don't speak German, watch it. Basically, they do a scan of the man, who claims to be carrying a swiss army knife, and only find a mobile and the microphone transmitter on the back that's inevitable since they're on TV. However, the man is carrying thermite (three vials), an igniter for the thermite, a vial that can contain even more explosive and a normal igniter. They claimed that in an airport situation he'd be wearing the jacket and that they'd also have done a side view. Which is funny because these scanners can penetrate clothing while showing skin - that's the whole point of them... and a side view wouldn't have helped much considering that he was carrying something in his mouth and near his lower back. They take the stuff (which is made from materials available in any pharmacy for a 'few cent') outside that he carried in his lower back area and set it on fire, which melts through the pan. One of the body-scanner people calls the whole thing 'limitedly funny'. Then he says that "I don't know if we're well advised if we say 'look how stupid the terrorists are' if they'd do it like a professor advises, 'then we could bring down a 747'". The professor moves the pan a bit and the whole thing ignites a bit more. The whole screen turns white before the camera person decides to move back a little.
- rpstrong 15y ago
  If anything, the video supports the use of the TSA's active screening technologies (backscatter and millimeter wave devices). The scanner being used is neither of these, it is an entirely passive device - see: http://www.thruvision.com/Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Product_Page.htm http://www.thruvision.com/Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Product... for a brief explanation of their technology. While ThruVision's scanner is arguably safer, it is clearly deficient in detecting threats. And it isn't being used by the TSA. In fact, ThruVision's website does not cite a single instance of their scanner being used anywhere in the world for passenger screening. In other words, the video has NOTHING to do with current screening technology.

grepherder 15y ago

OK, I will play the devil's advocate. Yes, he does not deny or dispute whether the method works as claimed. The otherwise hip language is not helping nor does it sound sincere, I agree. But, if we want to stay objective: 1) He describes the demonstration in the video as a "crude attempt", which is in certain ways true. Neither is the attempt too sophisticated, nor the documentation of it, or should I say especially the documentation. The video itself is lacking in scientific argumentation, and makes up for the lack thereof with unnecessary political rhetoric that I don't need to be fed to see the simple "flaw" he claims to have discovered - more about that now... 2) The person in the video may or may not be sincere about his claims, but he definitely is not the first person to point out this "flaw". It was known publicly for a very long time, and it is reasonable to assume people who developed and approved the system were well aware of it. 3) Everyone is pointing out that there is no attempt at a "scientific" refutation in the blog post. Well, he is right in stating that their claim never was that they can catch any single concealed object with the body scanner. I don't see what it is exactly that he needs to refute. It is indeed part of a layered system, and I can't see how anyone can disagree with this concept. I'm not saying the scanner is a reasonable layer or that it should stay - but if your argument is "it has to work 100% or it has to go", it is pretty weak. He doesn't really evade any serious accusation here - he simply points out the obvious and reinstates their claim: what was shown in the video is uninteresting, because the body scanner was never about catching metal boxes sewn to the side of a shirt with 98.5% confidence. You can argue the body scanner is an economical disaster, dispute it on the basis of privacy or bring up health concerns, but I like to stay objective. There is nothing wrong with this post, as a response to the demonstration in the video, beyond the silly language.

meow 15y ago
the % would not matter if you can fool it 100% in a well defined flow...
- grepherder 15y ago
  I understand that. The point is there are very few (if any) single security layers, physical or digital, that can claim otherwise, i.e. that can't be "fooled 100% in a well defined flow". People here should be aware of that more than most.

quink 15y ago

Tagged this in delicious. Wondering if it'll show up with my tags... http://delicious.com/quink http://delicious.com/quink Can someone else tag it too with my tags and it might show up on their page...?

marcamillion 15y ago

This definitely looks like the beginning of the end for at least the body scanners. If that video brought on so much heat that they had to respond like this and drop the ball so much, queue more public outrage and major back-pedalling in 3.....2.....1....

beagle3 15y ago
If only that were true. Can you think of a case in history where continued government incompetence (or outright malice, depending on your point of view) that was demonstrated and gained a lot of valid criticism and public outrage, actually resulted in a change?

toyg 15y ago

Their "20 layers of security" reminds me of your usual "7 proxies" and "over 9000": meaningless over-the-top numbers with no relationship with reality.

aprescott 15y ago

Astonishing blog post. Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. This reminded me of part of the recent TSA Fail post by a former FBI agent. Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle should be appalled at an unauthorized use to which TSA is putting their screening: Identifying petty criminals--using one search method to achieve a secret goal. This is strictly forbidden in other government branches. In the FBI, if I had a warrant to wiretap an individual on a terrorism matter and picked-up evidence of a non-terrorism-related crime, I could not, without FBI Headquarters and a judge’s approval, use that as evidence in a criminal case. But TSA is using its screening devices to carve out a niche business. According to congress, TSA began to seek out petty criminals without congressional approval. TSA have arrested more than 1,000 people on drug charges and other non-airline security-related offenses to date. http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html

guynamedloren 15y ago

Today, I am not proud to be an American. Thanks TSA.

danssig 15y ago
Why were you ever proud of something that just happened to you having nothing what so ever to do with any actions you took yourself?
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  Some people say "proud of X" when they mean "refuse to feel shame about X". It bugs me a little also.

justanotheratom 15y ago

Can someone post a link to the viral video they are referring to? I can't seem to find it (I live in a cave).

meow 15y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA
johnx123-up 15y ago
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-...

Animus7 15y ago

> For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail... The way I read it: For obvious job security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail... Anyway, I sure feel safe knowing that the security of my life is entrusted to obscurity, and I'm thankful for the trolling TSA blog posts that remind me of this.

user24 15y ago
> For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail... Yes, because security through obscurity is an effective policy.

neilmiddleton 15y ago

"things that go BOOM"

nagrom 15y ago

The pie-chart on the delete-o-meter on that blog sidebar doesn't reflect the numbers underneath it. At present, there are 50k accepted comments and 17k deleted, but the deleted slice is much less than 25%.

tuxguy 15y ago

As an Indian, i am always envious & jealous of how govt agencies & systems work so much better in the US than in India. So i was really shocked to see this blog post, after the said govt agency's credibility has been seriously damaged (by the viral video) "... things that go BOOM" Are you f*ing kidding me ? Is that how a govt official is supposed to communicate ? Leave alone the content, but the tone of the post is very crass, insensitive & insulting. Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly common, even in some of the most liberal cities in the US & the world.. San Francisco bay area. Check out http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052 & http://bit.ly/bartisevil http://bit.ly/bartisevil on the high-handedness of BART PD (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

whalesalad 15y ago

Uhh am I the only one here who isn't planning on reading too deeply into this? Seems like TSA got pwnt by lulzsec or anonymous?

Uchikoma 15y ago

The most interesting thing in that post was on what they focus. One would have that it was terrorism, but no, they spread their attention by looking for drugs with those body scanners. Feeling safe now.

adrianwaj 15y ago

Confidence Trickster Bob should go through a con artist scanner. It'd explode.

jcromartie 15y ago

This is even worse than I thought the scanners were. THIS is what the operator sees? http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm That means that it's a complete black-box and if you just beat the scanner's algorithms, you beat the scanner operators too. What a complete and utter joke.

einhverfr 15y ago

The blog article is extremely funny. I keep thinking, "If this were a post by Microsoft about a security vulnerability report, I'd be in business doing Linux migrations for the rest of my life."

reader5000 15y ago

Just astounding. As soon as I read "interwebs" I had to check to make sure this was an official communications channel of a Federal agency. Mind is blown. Is this the same level of people running the CIA/FBI? What is going on?

philwelch 15y ago
The TSA are clowns, but the CIA/FBI are deadly serious by all accounts I've heard. They're far more dangerous to be on the wrong side of.

mattezell 15y ago

It would appear that Wired came to the same conclusion as the blogger - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_confirms_1b_of_nude_body_scanners_made/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_con...

methoddk 15y ago

What an ignorantly worded blog post. By the TSA?! Come on. If anything, this post does nothing but give the impression that the flaw in the scanners IS true.

CF_riseAbove 15y ago

Methinks thou dost protest too much TSA

GBond 15y ago

Tone is baffling... only explanation is the official blog is trying to spoof their spoof? https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov (TSA satire)

jroseattle 15y ago

Well, Bob (original author) -- as if the situation couldn't be more magnified, your post has simply added to the impression that the TSA is mostly public hand-waving in the place of real security. "Crude" attempt? "you know… things that go BOOM"? I sincerely hope you take anyone's claim seriously, public or otherwise, that they can circumvent any security measure put in place by the TSA. The tone of your blog post smacks of disregard; if you thought it would invoke confidence on the part of the reader, you thought wrong. The biggest defense put forth: well, we have other security detection methods so, hah! Don't you get that the point about the body scanners is that they can be beaten? That they're superfluous to the security regimen? That if you can't defend them directly, they serve no real purpose? That's the point of the video, and it's completely lost on you (and obviously others for whom you speak.) As is the impression among so many travelers, the TSA confuses "feeling safe" with "being safe" and it appears your post simply reinforces that view. Visions of the SNL parody skit from years ago come to mind.

xster 15y ago

I have a feeling this response is doing them far more harm than good. It's just a simple admission that everything stated was true and I'm going to make it into a high school argument and call you some guy with some crude video that's irrelevant.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

erode 15y ago

I've never believed something less than the words in this blog post.

RealAmerican 15y ago

The really funny thing is that this guy is probably making between $93,00 - $142,000 (paid by us). Look at this job listing for a TSA program analyst: http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200 http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200 ...with tasks like "You will develop and approve solutions to current and anticipated problems" I think Blogger Bob is writing some of these job descriptions, too. Makes me sick. Here are the benefits Blogger Bob gets: DHS offers competitive salaries and an attractive benefits package, including: health, dental, vision, life, and long-term care insurance; retirement plan; Thrift Savings Plan [similar to a 401(k)]; Flexible Spending Account; Employee Assistance Program; personal leave days; and paid federal holidays. Other benefits may include: flexible work schedules; telework; tuition reimbursement; transportation subsidies; uniform allowance; health and wellness programs; and fitness centers. DHS is committed to employee development and offers a variety of employee training and developmental opportunities. For more information, go to www.dhs.gov/careers and select "benefits."

RealAmerican 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ojosilva 15y ago

To me the bad thing about the TSA, and counterterrorism in general, is that every day that goes by without an attack reinforces whatever methods and expenses they might incur. But the worse is that only a terrible event could prove them wrong and stop the nonsense.

mangoman 15y ago

The post mentioned that the scanners are one of 20 layers of security and mentions Behavioral detection, Explosive Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshall etc as some of the other "layers" of security. I wanted to see what these 20 layers were, and I really didn't see anything that would "protect" against someone exploiting the scanners like the video demonstrated. In fact one of the "layers" of security was "Intelligence". How comforting. If you want to see some serious security theater, check out http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm. This blog post is just feels forced, and makes me a little quesy...

hgasdasdgdj 15y ago

All the comments here sucks ass "It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM. " If you shat out an emotion frmo that sentence, you too much of a baby to use the internet, LEAVE.

presto8 15y ago

I was at the airport last week and got randomly selected for the backscatter x-ray machine. I was told to remove everything from my pockets, including things that I would normally keep for going through a metal detector (passport, papers, wallet, etc.). The scan went fine, but on the other side, the TSA agent noticed that due to the fold of my jeans, it looked like I had something in my pocket. He said he had to pat me down to make sure I didn't have anything in there. Which made me seriously doubt the efficacy of the backscatter machines. What's the point of the machine if something could slip through that would still necessitate a physical body search?

rbanffy 15y ago

What shocks me most is the abundance of anonymous comments, probably fearful of how the TSA can make life miserable for them.

reidmain 15y ago

"For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail" Security through obscurity. Are they afraid that if they disclose information people would somehow be able to find holes? If this is the case then why is this technology used? Why have gapping holes already been pointing out by numerous people? Thinking that "the terrorists" don't have the ability to break this system without understanding the intricate details of it is just downright stupid.

ghshephard 15y ago

" down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. " Is this for real? When did the TSA start doing drug searches? Can they effect arrests? I'll be honest - I'm a little shocked that a supposedly "official" blogging site is writing like a half-tweaked 13 year old and is bragging about doing drug searches at a supposed check for weapons. It's also pretty irresponsible to make claims about the scanning system like, " It is completely safe " - I suspect that "Blogger Bob Burns" neither has the background, nor the authority to make such claims (let alone the knowledge). About all he(?) should be doing is suggesting which certifying authority has provided a clean-bill-of-health on their scanners. All in all the most disturbing thing I've read in a couple weeks.