http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008867281

Quote :

"Washington (AHN) -Baggage screeners at two of country's busiest airports failed to spot fake bombs planted by a security asset who had pretended to be a passenger in more than 60 percent of the tests conducted last year. USA Today reported that despite hours-long searches by the bomb screeners in Los Angeles International Airport, it missed about 75 percent of motivated bomb parts hidden by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, bomb screeners missed about 60 percent of hidden explosive materials planted on carry-on bags, toiletry kits and briefcases. Meanwhile, screeners who work for a private company assigned at the San Francisco International Airport missed only 20 percent of the planted bombs. The TSA conducted 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco. According to TSA the need for the test includes understanding how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to end terrorists' acts in carrying bombs through checkpoints. Clark Kent of Homeland Security Department said that the test covers a big cause for concern. Kent believed that the inability of screeners to find bombs could give confidence to terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes. "Their focus is on using items easily available off grocery and hardware store shelves," TSA Chief Kip Hawley told the USA Today. "

A couple points.

#1 The terrorist have already won. Here we are, over 6 years later, and we aren't any more secure through our airports than we were then. How much was spent on all this? How many headaches have we collectively suffered? How many people died while being detained? Even at San Fran, where ONLY 20% went undetected, it just takes one of those to work.

#2 Bombs did not bring down the towers. Box cutters and flight training did. Richard Reids shit wasn't going to bring down the plane. Why are we wasting our money?

#3 I really appreciate information like this, so I know how my money is being wasted, but if we are truly in it because we fear the 'terrorists' are actively trying to sneak bombs in, why do we publish how terrible we are at finding them. We suck so bad, and yet 6 years later, there hasn't been one, NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE, where someone was busted sneaking a bomb in. All this "we aren't doing a good enough job" talk is just continuing to terrorize the populace.

This country needs to get it's head checked.

10/18/2007 1:09:34 PM

Quote :

"Clark Kent of Homeland Security Department said that the test covers a big cause for concern."

No worries, Superman is on the case.....

10/18/2007 1:16:47 PM

Quote :

"Clark Kent of Homeland Security Department said that the test covers a big cause for concern."

an even better question would be why is superman working for the gov't?

10/18/2007 1:17:08 PM

Quote :

"The terrorist have already won."

you are 100% right and the Bush admin has aided the terrorist from a certain perspective in obtaining their goals.

The terrorist spread Terror to the American people who have become as paranoid about terrorism as Americans in the 50's were about them commies.

Second, they have affected our lives here in the US and added burden with change in our new post 9/11 lifestyle.

Lastly, we know how much the Islamic terrorists hate "freedom and democracy" as Bush has repeatedly stated. The events post 9/11 saw an increase in federal government power as well as a decreased respect for the constitution from government authorities

Quote :

"Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism



[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 1:41 PM. Reason : l]

10/18/2007 1:37:56 PM

^what in the hell are you bitching about? Do you have less freedom than 6 years ago? Its the same broken record over and over again. Did the FBI illegally search your apt or something?

10/18/2007 1:52:28 PM

for all i know they could have

For example...

Every time you visit the pharmacy their is a notice saying some crap about DXM sells titled under a part of the Patriot Act. That is all good and swell they want to monitor DXM sells to decrease meth productions or some shit but what the hell does this have to do with the initial rationale for the Patriot Acts which were supposed to be about fighting terror, homeland security, and increase inter-departmental communication. Who knows how many other riders are part of the patriot act which has vastly increased power of the US executive branch and hinders the avg citizens personal freedoms.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 2:04 PM. Reason : s]

10/18/2007 1:58:49 PM

What's the same broken record all over again? You're gonna have to do better that.

10/18/2007 1:59:36 PM

TKE-Teg

to steal the right-wing's favorite line. I guess you do not like our freedoms and would rather let Bush and Co. rape the constitution in the name of homeland security

10/18/2007 2:11:20 PM

Quote :

"How much was spent on all this?"

Okay, I'll give you that. We've spent a shit ton of money on these programs...

Quote :

"How many headaches have we collectively suffered?"

Waiting longer in security lines? Getting held a bit longer if you have the same name as on someone on the don't fly list? Both annoying, but nothing extraordinary....

Quote :

"How many people died while being detained?"

Um... in airport security? Or are you talking about Gitmo... which really has nothing to do with the article that you posted... Cause by that reasoning, you would be saying that more people than necessary were apprehended, and sent to Gitmo. But the article seems to imply that more people are getting through than should....

Just trying to get an understanding....

10/18/2007 2:34:18 PM

Quote :

"Um... in airport security?"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RVVHB02&show_article=1&image=large

Sure, you're going to pick apart this story about her being a recovering addict, her acting "crazy" running up and down the gate, etc. But I bet you if flying wasn't so "nerve racking" these days, then people wouldn't be all amped up and "crazy" about getting bumped to the next flight.

Quote :

" Waiting longer in security lines? Getting held a bit longer if you have the same name as on someone on the don't fly list? Both annoying, but nothing extraordinary.... "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-case/get-over-yourselves-airp_b_68748.html
Just another day in the airport, ask to talk to a supervisor and get threatened with a call to the police. Nothing extraordinary about that. I can tell you don't travel much.

The whole point is, we have spent a shit ton of money, and not only have we not gotten anything in return for it, we are actually worse off than before we started spending the money.

It's like driving a nice honda accord with 50k miles on it and paying big dollars to get the civic with 200k miles on it.

10/18/2007 2:47:56 PM

I have to disagree that it's made us less safe. Yes, a woman in a tragic circumstance died while being held by airport security in an extreme circumstance. Yes, a guy got told that the agent was going to call the police if he didn't sit down. But to say that the reactions to 9-11 in airport security have made us, overall, less safe, is an extreme exaggeration.

Are you arguing that we should just get rid of the screening measures that we have in place? That I don't agree with.

Figuring out a way to better spend the money so that reports like this don't keep coming out...I can support that.

10/18/2007 3:06:37 PM

I don't feel more or less safe flying. I'm much more worried about a general issue with the plane landing/takeoff itself than any act of terrorism. The statistics are on my side.

No, I don't agree with no screening, and I don't think you can reduce the failures to 0% without full body and bag searches of everyone, and under the current system (10-20 people manning a security gate that thousands pass through per hour) this isn't possible.

On top of all that, if the name is to defend against terrorism, it is a complete and total waste of money if the failures aren't reduced to zero %. All it takes is one and the money is down the pisser. The terrorist terrorized us. We failed. Or has someone somewhere defined some acceptable level of risk? Is a 5% failure rate acceptable? How much failure rate is acceptable for the money we spend on the systems and the inconvenience we are putting ourselves under.

Lets find the terrorist before they get to the airport, which it seems like we are having more success doing.

10/18/2007 3:23:11 PM

I complete agree with Chance on this thread.

10/18/2007 3:29:03 PM

i agree with this as well.

i was planning on checking my bag when i was flying out to vegas, so i brought along a handle of scotch and a fifth of gin. i got to the airport too late so i had to carry it on. i told the security guards that i had two large liquid containers in my bag, and where should i put them? i was told to leave them, and if the machine didnt find them, i would be fine. needless to say the screener found them, but after taking the handle of scotch, they didnt even sift through the bag to find the other container....they said "we've already taken this from you, so we'll let you slide on whatever else is in there".

i was glad to keep my liquor, but i lost all my faith in airport security.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : d]

10/18/2007 3:38:01 PM

^ They just wanted your alcohol.

If you had fit the profile though, they would have searched deeper. At least on some level though the security screeners realize the idiocy in some of the rules.

10/18/2007 3:44:01 PM

^^awesome story

10/18/2007 5:23:23 PM

I know Chance has read these articles, but i'll go ahead and link them too. Anyone who needs some perspective on what is going on in airline security right now needs to just read a couple articles by some of the experts. Here are some articles by security and airline experts that point out the innumerable flaws with our current security situations

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/08/25/askthepilot198/
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/06/08/askthepilot235/
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/10/12/askthepilot249/

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/08/airport_securit_10.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/business/02road.html

i told this to my wife/finance soon after 9/11 that the next attack will not come hijackers posing as passengers going through the normal security procedures as other passengers do. Even though they apparently wouldn't have a hard time pulling off such an attack based on these studies, why bother? The airport and airplanes are much more accessible through backways that employees, vendors, delivery men, repair people, etc use. Why try to sneak a bomb through a metal detector when you can just put on a blue jumpsuit and walk around the far side of the terminal and right onto the tarmac? Or just get a job a Starbucks inside the terminal? Terminal employees don't have to go through security in a lot of airports! Neither to baggage handlers or janitors or cooks or basically anyone who has access to the places except for the damned passengers!

10/18/2007 5:55:01 PM

so the private company does better than the gov't at a task? WHAT A SHOCK!!!

10/18/2007 6:48:57 PM

wait.... what?
are you trying to turn this into a private security screeners vs. government-run TSA who hired the same brain-dead screeners argument?

this doesn't have anything to do with how owns and runs the security companies. I don't know if the public has ever been happy or particularly safe with the idiots who pat them down and search their bags at airports, no matter who they work for

10/18/2007 7:07:28 PM

actually, I was just making my usual observation that the gov't sucks at pretty much everything it tries to do...

10/18/2007 7:10:44 PM

and the markets cannot survive without significant governmental subsidy

10/18/2007 7:15:04 PM

kind of ironic, though, since "gov't subsidies" are inherently less efficient than allowing the people to use their money in the market directly. AKA, the gubment wastes monies by providing subsidies that otherwise could have helped said markets.

10/18/2007 7:17:13 PM

Who needs terrorists when tomato juice does the job

http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/laguardia.delays.tomato.2.410215.html

10/22/2007 12:22:11 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/episode219/watch.html

Quote :

"A late-night security guard waves in employees without checking bags, large cleaning carts, or giant pallets of newspapers. A stranger walks up to a regional commercial jet on an airport tarmac, no questions asked. A woman with an IED strapped to her leg gets by TSA screeners. Investigative reporters at KNXV in Phoenix, KHOU in Houston, and KUSA in Denver go undercover, go on stakeouts, and go the extra mile. Cultivating inside sources and unearthing government documents, local news reporters reveal shocking lapses in the nation's airport security. "

10/31/2007 10:27:44 AM

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071026-report-terrorist-watch-list-swells.html

Quote :

"The report also found ongoing problems with people on the no-fly list being permitted to fly. On international flights, passenger lists are reviewed twice, once before a plane takes off and a second time afterwards. The GAO found that a number of individuals on the no-fly lists had been allowed to board airplanes, and their identities had only been caught during the second round of reviews. Domestic flights, on the other hand, are not subject to a second review, making it impossible to know how many members of the no-fly list have managed to fly domestically."

10/31/2007 12:11:22 PM

TSA = a bunch of high school drop outs who are on a power trip.

10/31/2007 1:36:35 PM

good new Bruce Schneier essay
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_war_on_the.html

Quote :

"We've opened up a new front on the war on terror. It's an attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected; it's a war on different. If you act different, you might find yourself investigated, questioned, and even arrested -- even if you did nothing wrong, and had no intention of doing anything wrong. The problem is a combination of citizen informants and a CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats. This isn't the way counterterrorism is supposed to work, but it's happening everywhere. It's a result of our relentless campaign to convince ordinary citizens that they're the front line of terrorism defense. "If you see something, say something" is how the ads read in the New York City subways. "If you suspect something, report it" urges another ad campaign in Manchester, UK. The Michigan State Police have a seven-minute video. Administration officials from then-attorney general John Ashcroft to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to President Bush have asked us all to report any suspicious activity. The problem is that ordinary citizens don't know what a real terrorist threat looks like. They can't tell the difference between a bomb and a tape dispenser, electronic name badge, CD player, bat detector, or a trash sculpture; or the difference between terrorist plotters and imams, musicians, or architects. All they know is that something makes them uneasy, usually based on fear, media hype, or just something being different. Even worse: after someone reports a "terrorist threat," the whole system is biased towards escalation and CYA instead of a more realistic threat assessment."

Quote :

" they're asking certain professions to pay particular attention: truckers to watch the highways, students to watch campuses, and scuba instructors to watch their students. The U.S. wanted meter readers and telephone repairmen to snoop around houses. There's even a new law protecting people who turn in their travel mates based on some undefined "objectively reasonable suspicion," whatever that is. If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."

Quote :

"Causing a city-wide panic over blinking signs, a guy with a pellet gun, or stray backpacks, is not evidence of doing a good job: it's evidence of squandering police resources. Even worse, it causes its own form of terror, and encourages people to be even more alarmist in the future. We need to spend our resources on things that actually make us safer, not on chasing down and trumpeting every paranoid threat anyone can come up with."

11/1/2007 7:54:10 AM

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/11/02/askthepilot252/

Quote :

"This would be the second dose of bad press for the Homeland Security hacks in recent weeks. Last month, you might remember, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA is a branch of DHS) got a media scolding after it came to light that TSA airport screeners had failed to detect up to 75 percent of phony bomb components smuggled through terminal checkpoints during tests. I don't normally rush to the defense of TSA, but am I the only one who finds this revelation overblown and irrelevant? This is a clear-cut case of workers being asked to do the impossible, then criticized when they fall short. Think for a moment about the countless ways in which dangerous materials can be smuggled through security. A bomb component, no different from a knife, a gun or a dangerous liquid, can be hidden, disassembled, improvised from and/or disguised any number of ways -- most of them undetectable. Attempting to ferret out every potential weapon is a lost cause from the beginning. I've said it before: The dirty work of keeping terrorists away from planes takes place out of view -- as the job of intelligence agencies and law enforcement. Airport screening exists as a last resort, and it should not be held responsible for failing to meet absurd and useless standards of zero tolerance. "

11/2/2007 9:18:02 AM

Some more good stuff.

Here, our main stream media and the FBI is doing the terrorizing

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/fbi.malls/index.html

Quote :

"In what one FBI spokesman described as "almost an annual ritual," the bureau has obtained uncorroborated intelligence indicating al Qaeda would like to strike shopping malls during the holiday shopping season, two law enforcement sources said Thursday."

Uncorroborated intelligence?! That's an oxymoron right? Sounds like the perfect starting point for national security!

Quote :

"A senior counterterrorism official told CNN that the credibility of the information is very low but is being passed along out of an abundance of caution. And a senior government official described the intelligence as very raw and meant to help law enforcement partners to build on if they have other relevant information."

Ok, soooo...you don't have shit, but you need it made public to people that don't do shit with this so called intelligence, so that you can build on it when you get more intelligence later?

In re of this comment from ^

Quote :

"The dirty work of keeping terrorists away from planes takes place out of view -- as the job of intelligence agencies and law enforcement. Airport screening exists as a last resort, and it should not be held responsible for failing to meet absurd and useless standards of zero tolerance. ""

Exactly
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1519293384

Quote :

"Rome, 6 Nov. (AKI) - Police have arrested at least 20 people allegedly linked to Islamic Salafite cells in a massive anti-terror campaign across Italy."

These people weren't caught at the damn security checkpoint, and I'd be real surprised if any true threat like on the scale of 9/11 attempts to come through a security checkpoint. So can we please have our damn water back, stop having to take off our shoes, and stop dealing with 1 hr long lines that do nothing for us?

11/9/2007 12:16:36 PM