Feel safe? Don’t. Airline security is a joke.
There’s just no other way to put it. And it’s administered by idiots.
The stories keep piling up. Adam Savage (WTF, TSA?) tells a story that is hilarious in spite of it being so not funny. Savage inadvertently got two 12 inch razor blades onto the plane with him.
Bruce Schneier points to this video and says
The video is worth watching, even if you don’t speak German. The scanner caught a subject’s cell phone and Swiss Army knife — and the microphone he was wearing — but missed all the components to make a bomb that he hid on his body. Admittedly, he only faced the scanner from the front and not from the side. But he also didn’t hide anything in a body cavity other than his mouth — I didn’t think about that one — he didn’t use low density or thinly sliced PETN, and he didn’t hide anything in his carry-on luggage.
Full-body scanners: they’re not just a dumb idea, they don’t actually work.
Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab would not have been stopped by the new machines:
But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.
Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.
If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger’s clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.
Cory Doctorow notes that an article in the Journal of Transportation Security says that specially shaped explosives would likely avoid detection:
It is very likely that a large (15-20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter “high technology”. Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.
And the health effects of this kind of radiation are still not determined.
Several University of California, San Francisco faculty members, in a letter of concern, state “there is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations,” and recommend the reevaluation
of the “potential health issues [they] have raised before there are irrevocable longterm consequences to the health of our country.” The scientists and physicians have also noted that the comparison of backscatter Xray machine dosage to “cosmic ray exposure inherent
to airplane travel or that of a chest Xray,’’ is “very misleading,” while “real independent safety data do not exist.”
That might not be the worst of it. All those people who scoot through the plane to clean it up? All those baggage handlers? The caterers?
Ground workers?
Exempt.
Patrick Smith notes one more bitter irony:
An airline pilot who once flew bombers armed with nuclear weapons is not to be trusted, and is marched through the metal detectors before every flight, just like passengers. But those workers who cater the galleys, sling the suitcases and sweep out the aisles can amble through a turnstile unmolested?
So in summary, these new machines aren’t going to find the bombs and there is a gigantic personnel security hole in the system.
Happy trails.
See author page
We need to think up more slogans for TSA, like “Thousands Sexually Assaulted” and “We handle more junk than Fred Sanford” or “We handle more packages than FedEx”.
This is nothing but Security Theater. We have given up our liberty for security, and TSA has become corrupt with power. It’s time to remove the TSA from the Vaterlandsicherheitsverwaltung and turn it back over to private companies. It’s also time to begin certifying far more FFDOs, and begin adding Armed Trusted Passengers to the security.
If I had my way as TSA Administrator, I’d fire every one of the TSA screeners and hire every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine that wanted a job. I’d contract El Al to provide the training for them.
Tell me, since we overhauled our airline security in the US, how many commercial airliners have been hijacked?
Another inconvienent truth some people just can’t handle.
Hijacking is so yesterday.
How many bomb ingredients have made it on board?
@Ivan Lets see, how many US planes have been hijacked since the inception of commercial flights, Quick research finds that only a total of 11 planes have been hijacked originating in the US. Out of those 11 only 3 were done by US citizens (DB cooper 11/24/71, name unknown because of the quick research 01/12/72, Garrett Trapnel 01/28/72). The last one there caused the policy changes we used until after 9/11. For the rest, 5 were committed by Cuban Nationals and the last 4 by Islamic terrorist.
The changes made have had nothing to do with hijacking planes. As the medal detector sensitivity could have been turned (and have been) to detect any form of medal carried by passengers.
The last two policy changes came from someone trying to blow up planes to which they didn’t board the flights in the US. The Shoe bomber boarded his flight in England, and the underwear guy boarded in the Netherlands.
Your argument is false.
Smokey Behr, very good idea, on humber 1, hoping for other number from you,
your logic is solid
Ivan,
Do you know why the airlines haven’t been hijacked?
Do you think it is because of the efforts of security?
Or do you think it is because every able bodied person on the plane won’t sit by idly and watch it happen?
1
2
3
4
That was a quick search. Prior to 9-11, the rule was if your plane was taken hostage, sit tight, wait it out, and more than likely all will be well.
Post 9-11, the rule is, get out of your seat and deal with the problem.
So the question is, who stopped Richard Reid? Who stopped the Underwear Bomber?
Who failed on the Underwear Bomber? Was the government not warned?
So, take your rhetoric of “no hijackings” on planes somewhere people believe that crap, because I am telling you the TSA makes no difference in airline security. The passengers are the security now.
Also, Ivan, tell me how many airlines were hijacked prior to 9-11?
chipset, yes, absolutly the best security, are the AMERICANS,
BYE
@ kcanova, #4:
I’m not sure how someone came up with a count of only 11. Consider this Wikipedia list of U.S. commercial aircraft hijacked to Cuba, with particular attention to 1969, 1970, and 1971. I well remember that era, as I was flying back and forth between the States and Puerto Rico almost every year.
@Greg #8 The source I used for hijacking similar to the hijackings of terrorist in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings
I was into “homeland security” (I hate that term) before it was popular. In 1980 I was traveling on a Greyhound bus from Barstow to LA, sitting in the right front seat. We were out in the middle of the trackless desert when this old black guy dressed as a beatnik came finger-popping up the isle and told the driver he wanted off. The driver explained that company policy prohibited letting passengers off between stops. The beatnik dude got more adament, and finally grabbed the steering wheel.
At that point I leapt across the passenger to my left, grabbed the dude, swung him around (I was a lot bigger than he was), and loudly told him to get back there and sit down. He did, and that was that.
See, this stuff is simple!
simple for you, but not evrery one can command a person, like you do, it’s a natural gift
to be able to assessa situation fast and take the lead, to correct it surounded by peoples so freak up they cant do nothing to help you,
bye
I think we have been very LUCKY.
People have been turned in by their own family members,
People have been on ”No Fly Lists” but somehow go on board anyway.
People tried to use liquids that only would explode after they were to be combined on board the plane.
But we have aimed many of our resources in wrong directions.
Look at the news from just yesterday:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says it is taking “proactive” steps to clean up its database of aircraft in the U.S. after The Associated Press reported that about a third of U.S.-registered aircraft, or up to 119,000 planes, have “questionable registration.”
Sheesh!
I guess if you could hire thousands of barely literate TSA thugs to grope passengers you should be able to find a few smarter than that who can sit and do paperwork properly all day in the FAA….but maybe not.
I guess we just keep hoping we stay lucky.
Any security/screening system is only as good as the last (and, presumably, least competent) would-be terrorist. The systems are reactionary and easily fooled. What is to prevent a dozen passengers from each bringing 12 ounces (four three-ounce) containers that easily fit in a quart-sized zip-closure plastic bag) of liquid explosives, then combining them in-flight? The resultant 144 ounces of the right explosive materials can do a massive amount of damage. A person with anvounce or two of chloroform can easily knock out a crew member. Any chemist can tell you myriad ways to combine readily available materials into a bomb, fire hazard, or other health hazard. And these common materials (like bleach, ammonia, etc.) hav such low specific gravity (the equivalent of density when talking about liquids) that they are transparent to millimeter waves and x-rays.
To be sure, the events of 9/11 showed us how vulnerable the airline industry was to terrorists, and reasonable security measures (particularly safeguarding the cockpit) resulted. But our “intelligence” operations and interdepartmental communications (FBI and CIA, for example) were areas in which we needed (and still need) to concentrate our resources. In addition, we need to act on valuable information from these agencies, even if it feels politically incorrect. If Muslims want to show us just how peaceful the religion of Islam is, they should be LEADING the efforts to weed out the bad characters from within their society, and I can’t think of a better way than to insist upon profiling as the most effective tool. To boot, it would make the lives of us “infidels” a little less stressful.
The acts of jihadists are the epitome of profiling, so why not use it the way firefighters “fight fire with fire” to isolate the dangers from the rest of the population. Obviously I don’t believe that most Muslims are terrorists, but I do believe that most terrorists are (radical, sworn to defeat the “Great Satan” USA) Muslims. As a Christian, if there was a terrorist movement that targeted another group of people, I wouldn’t want to make Hassidic Jews (for example) to undergo senseless and humiliating screening procedures. It just wouldn’t make sense, and I know that many of my Christian friends feel the same way, AND they would encourage enhanced security measures if they were more than knee-jerk reactions.
We can, and should, base our security practices on actionable and verifiable intelligence accumated by our FBI and CIA. If we don’t, what’s the purpose of funding these agencies.
Jeff
Well, that’s very interesting, Smokey. Because… if you are unaware, over 25% of TSA hires are indeed ex military, and they post on their website that they give preference to ex military… a policy I can back fully. Therefore, when you decide to make a blanket statement of TSA employees or scanners en toto, remember where the focus of their hiring lies, and who you may be insulting.
Now… DrJ. What am I to do with you. Dang I like you, but geez, guy. Not sure to be embarrassed, or livid with you. First it was the erroneous hype over the two year old Global Entry system, and mistakening it for TSA. Now this?
Okay, now I feel like I’m reading a cheap tabloid. Is this deliberate? Or is this submitting a post for publishing without researching and thinking?
First of all, the “graphic” you opt to include is not an image of what the body scanners capture. None of the two new scanning devices will penetrate anything below the first layers of skin. Thank you for misinforming or misleading the general public. Some might buy into this nonsense, you know. Take some responsibility for accurate portrayal… in both pictorial and text. I beg of you. We can not afford any more stupid electorate than we are already saddled with. So much of the electorate never makes it past the headline, the picture, and the first paragraph.
Second of all, we’re not talking about TSA screeners monitoring in any of your two cited examples, so the “security hole” isn’t tied to incidents related US airline security personnel. We have no control over German, UK or other countries’ security personnel. And puleeeze… a comedian’s stand up routine as “evidence”?? Didn’t the ensuing “nuts and bolts” comments give you a clue that it’s a script, fer heaven’s sake? Get serious…
Third, we don’t know what kind of “scanner” was being used in the German video. And we dang sure can’t tell by the cute, cheap headline picture you included that isn’t related to any country’s airline scanning system, since that scanning system only exists in physicians’ offices for x-rays.
What’s my point? If I want to read the National Enquirer, I’ll pick up a copy the next time I go thru the grocery store checkout.
What is reality?
If someone has to go thru a pat down because they refuse to enter a machine, there are complaints. Then if someone goes thru a scan, but a TSA doesn’t linger over the image… supposedly for “porno” reasons… and misses something, there are complaints. if they go thru a scan and TSA *does* notice something, then does a pat down…. there are complaints.
Gee… complaints are the only thing in common here, right? Damned if they do. Damned if they don’t. Damned if they do, and miss something. Make up your mind….
Always remember, despite technology, there are always human frailities involved.
Pat downs are not necessarily “feel ups”, but become scandalous headlines, despite the fact that millions of travelers never go thru them. As the article you, yourself, link… “…So, national “opt-out day” came and went, having caused hardly a ripple. No surprise, really.”
Exactly.
Why? Because it’s a small minority that endure these pat downs, and generally for some reason for their refusal to enter the scanner… either deliberate for their 15 minutes of YouTube fame for protest and ridiculous headlines, or because they’ve been scared to death by absurd stories of personal porn pictures, floating around the Internet. Also most ensuing pat downs are not some attempt to “cop a feel”. They are TSA workers – many ex military personnel – doing their job.
Since when have we implemented national security by the complaints of a minority few? In fact, when has national security been decided by the public at large, not privvy to intel? Are you suggesting we should? I mean, what the heck do we know, since unless Wikileaks tells us and the world at large, that’s inside intel.
And no… I’m not talking about those that had genuine search intrusions…. despite that fact that the majority of them quoted by ill-researched bloggers reveal most happened long before the new TSA rules. But let’s not let reality get in the way of a good spin, right?
When genuine intrusions happen.. and they always will – that’s why we have court systems for recourse. If someone is wronged, that’s where you go. But you can’t stop “wrongs” before they happen. Something conservatives are always trying to tell the nanny lib/progs. You can not legislate good behavior.
As for “ground workers” and airline crews? These people are at work daily. They *need* a streamlined security check, or perhaps you’d like to subject them to dangerous amounts of radiation? TSA and the crew airlines are working on this aspect. Considering that you make an issue of how they were exempt in the next paragraph, you can’t be so all fired concerned about the radiation level.
Be consistent, please.
As I said, for the amount of times I fly annually, I am neither so prudish, nor worried about the “exposure” to either the radiation or visual for security. I’ll take the scan for wise useage of my personal time. I don’t care.
Do I think it’s effective? Perhaps, and perhaps not. It will only be as good as an astute TSA scanner sitting in another room. Do I think it’s another government scam for allocation of funds and keeping the citizen in the “fear” status? Of course.
On one hand, we do have much to be cautious about, and I’d be royally POed if they didn’t make an effort to screen for potential danger.
On the other hand, am I truly inconvenienced because I have to walk thru one of two different types of scanners instead of a metal detector? Not really. I don’t fly every day… I expect a level of scrutiny.
This is a very disingenuous post, with absolutely zero data on the type of scanner used, the country the security screener was located in, or any of it’s ties to American airline security. And frankly, I expect to see better than Alex Jones or political hype crap here submitted as posts.
Nan G, hi, my niece brought a small bottle of nail cleaner she had pour in a smaller countainer for eye cleaner called murine, for her vacation use, it was pass by security, no lable on, so she came back home , and put out all things on a table , then she took the eye suppose cleaner and put a drop in one eye, she almost lost her eye if she has not seen a specialit quickly,
that is a must never do in filling a suitcase for travelling
Bees, not sure to laugh, or feel bad at your niece’s event. Heaven knows that, for any of us that travel with some regularity, we’ve all looked around for the right size bottle that would fit in that single quart size plastic bag with everything else. Tell your niece that I’ve also learned from first hand errors (like using conditioner instead of shampoo after arriving at the destination… DOH!) that marking your bottles with a permanent marker for the content, and keeping a permanent travel kit, is really handy… as well as good for eliminating ugly (and costly/dangerous) surprises.
MATA, HI, yes when she told me that story,that was a while ago,I felt to say it and I restrain because, I thought she know now the hard way, but it gave me a good lesson not to never do so simple to mark it, and she is a smart person, on top of that,
thank’s take care, my friend
Mata: That 25% are probably all supervisors and higher or not in the air security operations division: The types that don’t have to deal with the average traveler. The qualifications for a TSO (screener) are basically in the “can you fog a mirror?” range. If you look at the various video clips showing the screening, none of those doing the screening look like they’ve been in the military.
Smokey, don’t be making assumptions of things you do not know. I do know that, after reading some Congressional testimony about the TSA, it’s more than 30% ex military hire. They did not designate positions, and therefore neither should you… unless you actually know something and aren’t just talking out another orifice. We tries to stick to the facts here.
New hires? Do they make it to management immediately 100% of the time? Or do they work their way up the “ranks” most often? Take your pick. But unless your born into a profession or company, it’s not likely you end up in management at your first job interview. So personally, I don’t agrree with your casual statement, just based on normal hiring practices… and no other info.
And if you want to typecast every TSA screener based on what you see in the various (and few) videos… when you consider how many airports and screeners there are in the nation… well, there’s not much I can say to you save WTF???? :0)
MATA, I’m sure you know what on the picture on the post what the man has like a stick on
the sleeping gentilman? is that a scanner? thank you
No, Bees… that is “wanding” down the body to detect metal. It is not a scanner. Been “wanded” many times. No “cheap thrills”, I assure you.
Added: See what I mean, Drj? You have now been part of the misinformation campaign.
The bombs, Mata. The bombs. JTS published article says you may not find them.
Health effects undetermined.
Actually, that’s EXACTLY what we’ve done. Implement security policy based on the actions of a minority.
Ah, yes.It’s quite true that the efforts to blow up planes have been on incoming flights and I have observed that previously. However, none of the scanners here would have caught them either.
And airport workers do make for an excellent breeding ground for msichief. There are far fewer of them than there are passengers and their passing through these devices can be done elsewhere.
Then again, that doesn’t stop 16 year olds from jumping into aircraft wheel wells either.
Love you too! 😉
NanG: I wouldn’t be too concerned with the “119,000 planes have “questionable registration” hype. All that means is the owner has moved and failed to send his new address to the FAA. Happens all the time. In addition to that, there are many thousands of “aircraft homebuilders” who register their aircraft in anticipation of completing it, then never do.
Mata spoke of the Enquirer. They would have run the story of the “questionable registrations” wasn’t up to their standards.