12 ms·
TSA failure: Investigators able to smuggle weapons past checks in 95% of tests
- rev_null 11y agoI'd like to see this test repeated, but with investigators smuggling bottled water instead of weapons. I bet the TSA would have a much higher success rate with that.
- eli 11y agoI bet I could get a bottle of water through if I were attempting to evade detection.
- feverishaaron 11y agoCongratulations! You're on the no-fly list.
- mc808 11y agoAssuming they let you carry an empty bottle and distillation equipment, this should be pretty easy.
- vlucas 11y agoThey do let you carry empty bottles through - even large ones. I always take my filtered water bottle through empty and fill it on the other side.
- mikeash 11y agoIt would be trivial. Go buy a large bottle of contact lens solution, empty it, and re-fill it with water. Tell them it's contact lens solution and you're all set. Doing this with explosives may be more difficult, what with the fancy chemical detectors.
- DanBC 11y agoYou'd have to buy the bottle after screening, not before. You're only allowed to take 3.4 ounces through screening unless you have a medical need. I'm not sure people have a medical need for more contact lens solution, even on long flights. Maybe the TSA rules changed? I'm going by what they said on their website: http://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=Liquid http://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=Liquid
- mikeash 11y agoContact lens solution is considered "medically required", and "reasonable quantities" is sufficiently ill-defined that nobody really cares. I'm sure if you had a barrel of the stuff they might ask questions, but a standard 14oz bottle from the store gets at most a quick swab and you're on your way. That swab is what makes this scheme impractical for bringing dangerous liquids, of course.
- MertsA 11y agoBruce Schneier once took two 12 oz bottles of "saline solution" through security to test that. >Later, Schneier would carry two bottles labeled saline solution—24 ounces in total—through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. "Two eyes," he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles. https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2008/11/the_things_he_carrie.html https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2008/11/the_things_he...
- ck2 11y agoAnd hand lotion setting off bomb sniffing for glycerin.
- gesman 11y agoTrue. Nothing arouses suspicion of TSA agents more than the sight of >100ml of water in one place.
- rhino369 11y agoThat probably has to do with the detection tools they have. I imagine a bomb is hard to spot if it doesn't look like this: http://i.imgur.com/WyY4d4f.png http://i.imgur.com/WyY4d4f.png
- verbatim 11y ago" “[Testers] know exactly what our protocols are. They can create and devise and conceal items that … not even the best terrorists would be able to do,” Pistole told lawmakers at a House hearing. "
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ikeboy 11y agoIn other words, security by obscurity.
- yAak 11y agoMy first thought in reading that as well. We all know how great security by obscurity works for computers! That being said, I don't mean to trivialize the problem/task.
- task_queue 11y agoIt's not trivializing if the stakes are as high as they claim they are, as in people's lives.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y agoThis is the most ignorant statement I've read in a month. $50,000 to some ex-TSA employee, and they'd know them too.
- profinger 11y agoProbably too many zeros there. A great deal of Americans would probably do it for $50.
- joshuapants 11y agoI could do it for $16 dollars worth of beer including my own at a bar near an airport
- dsr_ 11y agoClearly the TSA needs more funding to address these threats!
- graffitici 11y agoJust as I suspected. Those that really want to smuggle weapons and such can do so with some minimal amount of homework. And yet the other 99% of people that are about to board a 10 hour red-eye have to waste time in lines, taking shoes off and have semi-naked 3D models made...
- coldpie 11y agoYou don't have to have nude photos taken. You can ask to "opt out" (that's the key phrase, the TSA clowns know what it means), and they will take you aside and pat you down by hand. I do it because it takes longer. If everyone opted out, the lines would become so ridiculously long that they'd have to change their system. I'm doing my part.
- StavrosK 11y agoThat's half of why I do it too, whenever I (grudgingly) fly to the US. The other half is that I don't want people taking naked photos of me, and especially not for security theater. I wish more people did it, though. Whenever I fly I'm the only one I see opting out. When I was flying from Munich to DCA they had one of these scanners installed to a lone US-only gate, and I said I wanted to opt out, and the (German) airport employee looked at me surprised and said "why?". He couldn't understand why someone would opt out of the machine, I guess he thought it was some kind of metal detector or something.
- caseysoftware 11y agoI opted out for years and realized that I don't have to anymore. After they direct you to the scanner, just say "I can't lift my arms above my head" and they'll put you through the metal detector and swab your hands. They don't "test" you because if it's true, they could hurt you. I've been doing it since last fall (30 flights?) without issue now. (These have all been US domestic flights.)
- StavrosK 11y agoI am going to try that next time I'm in a hurry, thank you! I'm half opting out for the principle of the thing, though, which this doesn't have, but it's great to know.
- yincrash 11y agoWhy not link to the original ABC News story? http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests...
- spanktar 11y agoWait, you mean the millions, possibly billions spent already haven't done a thing? Shocking! And now you can pay (TSAPre) to bypass the security theater essentially proving that the whole thing is a massive sham. I'm all for security, but nobody can seem to define what that would actually look like, as opposed to what we have now.
- bediger4000 11y agothe millions, possibly billions spent already haven't done a thing? That's not correct at all. The billions spent have done a lot: they've created an entire class of "cleared" people, and support industries for them. I'm not sure that creating a new aristocracy was the desired end point, but that's what we've gotten to. The "cleared" people Know Better Than Us, and Keep Us Safe, so We Give Them Special Privileges.
- mikeash 11y agoI don't see how Pre exposes it as a sham. I'm no fan of the TSA and I think a lot of the stuff they do is useless at best, but giving people differing amounts of scrutiny based on their risk profile seems pretty smart to me. It's not as if you pay your money and automatically get through. They check you out first and make sure that you're a suitably low risk, and only let you bypass some of the checks if you actually qualify.
- newman314 11y agoPaying money into Pre creates a two class system between the haves and havenots. It does nothing to improve security. In fact, it pretty much proves that Pre should be the norm instead of exception.
- zzalpha 11y agoYou clearly have no idea how Pre works. You don't just pay money and get a pass. There's a significant background check involved which, I suspect, does more to enhance security than some millimeter wave scanner in the security line.
- arca_vorago 11y agoI once got on the air as a caller to NPR or some other beltway radio show where a TSA rep was trying to justify scanners and all kinds of other things. I asked if the rep read Bruce Schneier regarding the fact that the TSA was simply security theatre, and then asked about the former head of TSA who approved the scanner purchases and then went to work for the company making the scanners. He deflected like a pro and afterwards I could no longer call in, as I would immediately get disconnected. Honestly though, I was most angry because those are the sort of things that real reporter worth their salt should be asking, but NPR is such a tamed softball throwing limpdick entity I consider them almost as bad as CNN. Just listen to any given interview with anyone of note. Never a tough question to be heard. BBC is slightly better but I shouldn't have to rely on a fucking British propaganda outlet to hear even a modicum of good reporting. It's sad that these days RT and Al Jazeera english have better reporting on the US than any other mainstream shows I know of. (not counting the handful of very good youtube/podcasts,etc) They know it's all theatre and don't care because the guys at the top are making tons of money playing the revolving door system, and no one is going to do anything about it because the beltway is full of kissasses and naive idiots "just trying to pay the mortgage."
- wahsd 11y ago>"NPR is such a tamed softball throwing limpdick entity I consider them almost as bad as CNN" I used to have rather high regard for NPR until, and I don't know if this has just changed or I just started realizing that NPR has significant backers that are not only Republican and Conservative in spirit, but also beltway bandits, big recipients of government contracts. I always feel like NPR is really not all that different than Fox News albeit far less angry and hateful, but always quick to tuck their tail and throw a flash-bang at any possibility that light is shone on certain things. It really reminds me of the self-congratulatory liberal aristocracy that loves to make itself feel better with insignificant and meaningless efforts.
- wahsd 11y ago>"NPR is such a tamed softball throwing limpdick entity I consider them almost as bad as CNN" I used to have rather high regard for NPR until, and I don't know if this has just changed or I just started realizing that NPR has significant backers that are not only Republican and Conservative in spirit, but also beltway bandits, big recipients of government contracts. I always feel like NPR is really not all that different than Fox News albeit far less angry and hateful, but always quick to tuck their tail and throw a flash-bang at any possibility that light is shone on certain things. It really reminds me of the self-congratulatory liberal aristocracy that loves to make itself feel better with insignificant and meaningless efforts.
- barlescabbage 11y agoIs it a coincidence that this story appears the same week the senate renews the patriot act?
- AnkhMorporkian 11y agoI would say yes, as the TSA's failures doesn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the patriot act. This is a failure of the government, not an excuse for or reason for more powers.
- yellowapple 11y ago> the TSA's failures doesn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the patriot act Not directly, but they both are connected to the overarching theme in American politics of "OMG TURRURRUSTS" (and the overarching subtheme of "our various means of removing the privacy of Americans are not actually doing anything they were marketed to do"; with this article, it seems that neither the TSA's security checks nor the NSA's surveillance are actually doing anything to stop terrorists).
- rblatz 11y agoI can't think of a better example of how the Patriot Act and all of our knee jerk reactions after 9/11 have been ineffective and need to be reexamined. Unfortunately I think the response is going to be even more of the same. Sort of like the saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves."
- ilaksh 11y agoNot, knee jerk, carefully planned years ahead, just like 9/11. Communism has a tendency to require greater levels of force in order to maintain state control. And the the numbers financially are just getting too lopsided to maintain the uneven consumption for much longer. China will start to get a much larger share, and the bankers will have to go along with it, because of basic realities of math. So the global military and economic control will shift to China, but before/during/after the primary economic model in places like the US will have to shift. This means some people will have violent disagreements with the new control structure. So they are trying to lay the groundwork for a carefully monitored and controlled population now. Part of that is conditioning to not expect privacy, which is one main function of the TSA. This is not a new situation or process really.
- jeffcoat 11y agoABC ran pretty much this same story in 2010: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre... According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times.
- sdoering 11y agoMeaning, that the system did not work then and does not work today in providing security. It only seems to be there to instill the feeling of security in Jane/Joe Average. So it really seems to be just security theater... It is not designed to work - and you could argue it being this way by design. It detects the idiots (smugglers & the little guys, et al) - but if something severe happens the only consequences are making the system more secure by adding to it. not by questioning it. That way the systems is kept alive and politicians have the ability to be seen doing something, after a tragedy happens. Everyone is happy - except Mrs. Taxpayer - but she does not get asked. # cynisism of
- k2enemy 11y agoThe TSA is also succeeding in another one of their goals. Their very public and very disruptive "security" measures are a visceral reminder that reinforces people's beliefs that there are terrorists behind every corner and that we need to be protected from them. And as long as we're afraid of terrorists the government can institute more sinister measures such as mass surveillance and domestic spying.
- serge2k 11y agoHonestly, I have had more issues with TSA jerks than with the NSA.
- ilaksh 11y agoThe TSA is not actually there to catch 'terrorists'. Its mainly there to play a role in the mythical world that supports war and hegemony, and despotic rule domestically.
- dragonwriter 11y agoIt was mostly created to relieve the airlines of responsibility and potential liability for security incidents: airport security, including federal regulations of what you could bring on to planes and what had to be verified before you got on them, existed before the TSA federalized the actual screening.
- Karunamon 11y agoDid the airlines ever have that responsibility? My understanding was that third party security companies were responsible for screening pre-9/11.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Did the airlines ever have that responsibility? Yes, and several were sued based on screening responsibility that for damages resulting from the 9/11 attacks. > My understanding was that third party security companies were responsible for screening pre-9/11. Yes, the function was outsourced and often provided jointly by one contractor contracted to the the airlines at any given terminal, but the airlines were responsible for it. The proposal to federalize the function going forward first arose, IIRC, as part of discussions about the legislation to bail out the airlines by capping liability stemming from 9/11.
- simoncion 11y agoYou can sue anyone for anything. A skilled prosecutor can indict anyone for anything. Can you provide a citation of such a case that either went to trial, or reached a non-trivial settlement? Links to random blogs won't cut it, unless they actually link to court papers.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoIt would be nice if they just decided that the security theatre doesn't work but I doubt it. And there is an argument that without 100% chance of success, and the number of steps that have to go right for a "big" event, that even a small detection rate is sufficient. But I would much prefer a more systemic fix.
- DanBC 11y agoIf you read the TSA blog you see they catch about 20 to 30 handguns per month. So does that mean that they don't catch about 400 handguns a month? How many people have been injured by a handgun on a plane or in an airport in the past 20 years?
- wlesieutre 11y agoI would bet most of those handguns are from idiots who forgot they were carrying it or knew they had it but forgot that they needed to move it to their checked bag and declare it. Someone sneaking it through the x-ray machine would probably try harder to pack it in a way that makes it less obvious.
- jessaustin 11y agoHandguns aren't radioactive. Someone actually has to pull the trigger to cause a problem. If pedestrians on a random block of a busy downtown somewhere were scanned like this, lots of handguns would be found there as well.
- rhino369 11y agoI'd imagine handguns are much easier to find since they are distinctive.
- meesterdude 11y agoHow much time has been wasted of people waiting in line, taking off their shoes, unpacking their laptop to go through security? how much money has been wasted by the government on the program? People end up on the no fly list. Kids in wheelchairs and little old ladies get felt up for bombs and are put through a needless trauma. Just, amazing. Purely security theater. TSA: nothing for something
- noondip 11y agoI regard the TSA as basically a public work program for low-skilled employees. They certainly do little to improve security, maybe even worsen it, but hey, at least some tens of thousands of people aren't out of work.
- AngrySkillzz 11y agoThis is also true of the DoD and intelligence community, except that it's a public works program for high-skilled technologists.
- coldpie 11y agoI'd much rather we just paid them to stay at home.
- ytdht 11y agoTSA is job and fear creation at the very least
- chatmasta 11y agoOne could argue that the TSA checkpoints benefit overall airport efficiency. Optimizing for flow of millions of people per day, it makes sense to funnel through predetermined pipelines. This way passengers enter the terminal at a constant rate.
- meesterdude 11y agoI don't think needing to arrive at least 2 hours before your flight is reflective of an efficient system
- knodi123 11y agoOne thing I've always wondered - who at the TSA is requesting these tests? Surely they know their own security is crap. It's not like it's an outside watchdog agency. It's like if some surgeon lost 19 out of 20 of his patients, but then asked a nurse to keep count and publish the numbers. Just bizarre. And whoever set this internal audit process up - what did they have in mind afterwards? As jeffcoat said, there has been no change over the last 5 years, so... is it just like "/bin/internal_audit | tee /dev/null"? Aside from rubbing our faces in how they're wasting their $7 billion annual budget, what did they intend for this audit to accomplish?
- greggarious 11y agoMaybe the GAO forced it? The GAO has been critical of the TSA before: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159
- ams6110 11y agoFailed tests justify more spending. Follow the money.
- remarkEon 11y agoUnless we're talking about, oh idk, schools.
- a3n 11y agoBut our junk is has been checked. So we've got that going for us.
- njharman 11y agoCalling this a TSA failure, is failing to understand what the real purpose of the TSA is. Hint, it's not security. It is a failure of leadership / government to do something effective rather than political.
- ck2 11y agoTSA is completely and only for security theater. Wanna bet the NSA also has a 95% failure rate? How about agencies ignoring actual intelligence like "bin laden determined to strike" ?
- alukima 11y agoI make at least one round trip flight at least once a week. The thoroughness and extent of my search varies greatly depending on which co-workers I am traveling with. When I am traveling with mostly white co-workers it's very quick. When I am traveling with non-white co-workers we always end up waiting on at least one or two people who have been selected for a secondary screening. Nice to know that this time consuming, expensive and racist process is also pointless.
- smrtinsert 11y agoAs a brown skin, I love how often they randomly check the person in front of me OH and me too :) They at least try to pretend its random now as opposed to pre TSA when I would get picked all the time for random screening directly out of a large line.
- dhimes 11y agoI wonder what the racial profile of the red-teamers are (the ones assigned to try to smuggle stuff past the inspection points)? I'm really curious as to whether or not the skin color of the red-team agent played a part in getting caught.
- tracker1 11y agoI wonder that too.. I can only guess that if your name begins with K or ends in Z, or something with K and Z in the name you get flagged. My ex-wife's son, Kruz gets flagged every time for secondary screening, from when the TSA first started, until even recently... he hasn't traveled yet without being "randomly" selected.
- vidoc 11y agoWhen you think about it, the most successful terrorist ever is Richard Reid. He might not have killed anyone but following up his failed attempt to blow a bomb hidden in his shoes, literally billions of people have had to remove their shoes at the airport. This guy changed the society .. PS: while I hate removing my shoes every time I go through security in the US, I am glad Richard didn't opt for using his arse as a C4 stash :P
- Abraln 11y agoAgreed, it could be argued that those who drive below the speed limit do more damage than most terrorists due to lost productivity and pollution.
- gesman 11y agoThe sooner TSA will (or be allowed to) learn from El Al security - the better it will be for everyone.
- selimthegrim 11y agoSo, uh, you mean relentlessly profile people based on micro expressions and ethnic background from the time they walk into the ticketing hall?
- gesman 11y agoNo, I mean using more of human intelligence instead relying on expensive machinery and dumb routines on a mass scale.
- pcarolan 11y agoAnyone have a rough estimate of what we've paid for enhanced security since 911?
- tholmes 11y ago“[Testers] know exactly what our protocols are. They can create and devise and conceal items that … not even the best terrorists would be able to do,” Pistole told lawmakers at a House hearing. You know, like taping a bomb to your body. How would you ever think that up without the playbook.
- sgnelson 11y agoEvery few months, the TSA in the fairly large city I live in, with it's fairly large airport, announces that they have stopped 10 guns from getting on our airplanes! Thank God for the TSA. They make it sound as if these criminals trying to bring guns onto the plane, had plans to take the entire plane hostage and do another 9/11. What they don't mention, is that in about 99.9% of these cases (internet statistics), it was a guy who had left his pistol in his bag after going to the range and completely forgetting it was there. There was no ill intent, no criminal desire, just plain forgetfulness. But the TSA crows about what a great job they're doing keeping us safe. But it's just another case of security theater. It's the way they spin the story that gets me. They don't acknowledge the fact that these people weren't too criminals (I still believe in intent), but the TSA, in order to prove their worth, treat them like such. They're catching the people who are only guilty of forgetfulness, not the ones who actually are willing and able to do harm. Like every other giant bureaucracy, the TSA is only interested in self-perpetuation, not actually protecting our constitution and keeping us "safe." And all the while, they're really not stopping anything, especially all the guns that get put on a plane everyday without anyone noticing.