"Should I Put The Bomb In The Tray With My 3 Oz. Toiletries, Sir?"
This is probably one of the few ways screeners would actually be able to find a bomb in somebody's carry-on.
In case you haven't heard, screeners at LAX missed 75% of fake bombs in carry-on bags or under clothes. Thomas Frank writes in USA Today:
"That's a huge cause for concern," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's former inspector general. Screeners' inability to find bombs could encourage terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes, Ervin said, and points to the need for more screener training and more powerful checkpoint scanning machines.In the past year, the TSA has adopted a more aggressive approach in its attempt to keep screeners attentive — the agency runs covert tests every day at every U.S. airport, TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said. Screeners who miss detonators, timers, batteries and blocks that resemble plastic explosives get remedial training.
The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago are "somewhat misleading" because they don't reflect screeners' improved ability to find bombs, Howe said.
TSA chief Kip Hawley, responding to previous reports about screeners missing hidden weapons, told a House hearing Tuesday that high failure rates stem from increasingly difficult covert tests that require screeners to find bomb parts the size of a pen cap. "We moved from testing of completely assembled bombs … to the small component parts," he said.
Terrorists bringing a homemade bomb on an airplane, or bringing on bomb parts and assembling them in the cabin, is the top threat against aviation. "Their focus is on using items easily available off grocery and hardware store shelves," Hawley said.
A report on covert tests in 2002 found screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies.
Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs, according to a separate report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
The recent TSA report says San Francisco screeners face constant covert tests and are "more suspicious."
Oh, goody. And it really seems to be working, huh? ("Mr. Bin Laden, you'll need to take your shoes off and place them in one of those plastic trays...")
This isn't to say I've never encountered really good screeners. I have. Twice. Once, in The Netherlands. (They asked all sorts of questions, and the people asking them were clearly not graduates of the fry line at Mickey D's.) And then, years ago (1982), when I won a trip to Israel.
Quiet frankly, if we're not hiring El Al-level screeners...why hire screeners at all?
--Quiet frankly, if we're not hiring El Al-level screeners...why hire screeners at all?--
The quality of the American work force isn't that high.
doombuggy at October 19, 2007 2:30 AM
Why not?
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2007 6:21 AM
The quality of the American work force isn't that high.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the American work force overall. The problem with American screening is (I'm guessing here) that these jobs are so shitty and poorly paid that they can't persuade people who are bright and motivated to take them. Instead of reminding us to take off our shoes (our daily homage to the one of the dumbest and least competent terrorist wanna-bes out there), our screeners could just as easily be asking if we'd like fries with that.
justin case at October 19, 2007 6:50 AM
Word, Justin. Useless people hired for a useless
enterprise.
Crid at October 19, 2007 7:05 AM
As a frequent flyer, the only way I sleep at night is to assume that, as pathetic as security measures are, they at least make it hard to put a high profile operation together. If the terrorists are relying on several operatives being able to pass through security and assemble a device once onboard, they will have to use so much redundancy as to make their network unwieldy and prone to compromise.
But it still seems about like bringing in your "Welcome" mats at night and thinking you will discourage burglars.
But here is the real pisser. If we were to implement measures that were even slightly more effective, there would be howls from the same people who howl every time the sun goes behind a cloud (I'm looking at you Sharpton.) The Israelis are effective because they do the one thing we will never be able to do at JFK: profile. A high-school level regression analysis will show screeners who to look for and it isn't my aunt Bessie.
martin at October 19, 2007 7:06 AM
A better question is why have screeners? There was a certain very low level of bombs per aircraft mile in the U.S. prior to 9/11. Divide the number of bombed aircraft by the number of flights; I guess the ratio to be about 1/100,000,000. Now maybe that ratio has increased since 9/11, although I'm unaware of any objective studies proving that air travel is actually more dangerous. It's true that our collective sensitivity to terror has increased, partly because El Busho's minions very wisely twisted Americans' increasing paranoia into a political tool to facilitate his raping of the constitution.
Good risk assessment requires that planning be done before disaster strikes, not as a knee-jerk clusterfuck afterward. This airport screening thing is a slap to the face of Americans, saying "we're addressing a problem that never existed by creating an illusion of effectivness to placate you because a solving the real problem (why do any number of angry zealots want to commit mass murder?) is too difficult or inconvenient and we'll make our fake fix annoying to punish you for our mistakes."
My college friend knew: always carry a bomb onto a plane because the odds of 2 bombs on a plane are astronomically lower.
DaveG at October 19, 2007 7:20 AM
That is my question, though. I think there is a need for screening, but if we're not going to have competent screeners we shouldn't have any screeners at all. I would be a competent screener, Crid would be a competent screener, police detectives would probably be competent screeners. But, we're hiring people away from the fry cook line at McDonald's.
We are not more secure, just more annoyed.
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2007 7:23 AM
Certainly there are more ways to terrorize Americans. I know several, having thought of them over lunch with my fellows at work, while we were discussing the stupidity of a DOE "rule" that "prohibits parking a privately-owned vehicle within 30 meters of a Federal building".
Oh, boy. These guys must write gun laws. Intent on murder, wholesale? Dang, can't do it, can't park there!
Our company cannot even notice such a parking violation in a timely manner, much less deal with it. We lunchers rapidly came up with a dozen nasty tricks that I'm not repeating here because an airport screener might be reading this, and he knows that if I know what to do, I should be harassed because nobody ELSE could possibly think these things up!
Radwaste at October 19, 2007 8:04 AM
Skydivers pack their own 'chutes, so...
Let airline flight crew do it. Cockpit personnel are intelligent, resourceful, sometimes retired military officers; flight attendants may not be at that level, but they are typically intelligent and charismatic and know how to resolve conflicts. They all have skin in the game, it would be great PR, humbling for the pilots, and the ex-military could have useful profiling skills (not that that's legal).
DaveG at October 19, 2007 8:17 AM
Competent screeners would profile and that would hurt people's feelings and we can't have that.
Someone planning a terror attack today doesn't have to worry about getting past a competent officer, they have to worry about getting through the same cluster-f*ck everyone else does. If Muhamed has the fuse and Muhamed misses the flight, Akmet and Ibn-Ali land in Toledo with no money and a story to tell.
As lame as security measures are, they force potential terrorists to increase the complexity of their plans and that makes them easier to catch pre-detonation and investigate post-detonation.
Show of hands: who thinks Hillary will disband the TSA in her first 100 days?
martin at October 19, 2007 8:19 AM
I predict every passenger will also be screened for prostate cancer. Even the women. On the taxpayer dime.
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2007 8:27 AM
You want totally secure flights?
Everyone flies in a paper hospital gown after reciving a cat scan and no luggage or personal items allowed
lujlp at October 19, 2007 11:19 AM
Shortly after 9/11 they started upping the hiring of airline screeners and had ads in the paper (this was for LAX). My friend, an educated but out of work actor, looked at the pay range (which was $20 an hour I believe) and the benefits and thought, hey I can do this and it may help keep people safe. He was nervous about the huge testing line, but then he looked around him and felt much better, as the people around him clearly couldn't speak English well (or at all), looked fairly homeless, or completely incompetent. He was happy that the test was so easy, had a great interview...they never called him. He was shocked, but I suppose maybe they only want a certain "quality" of candidate.
Stacy at October 19, 2007 12:37 PM
I have to agree with DaveG. The entire TSA system is ineffective. More to the point, it *cannot* be effective. By definition, screeners can react only to threats that have already been identified. The old screening done before TSA was just as effective at this, and a hell of a lot more pleasant.
If one is going to invest in security, it's got to be getting ahead of the terrorists. Infiltrate their organisations. Play cultural and political games to eliminate their support - especially their financial support. By the time they get around to building bombs, its already too late - you're only going to stop the stupid terrorist at that point.
TSA, the attitudes of the screeners, the attitudes of the people undergoing screening - the last time I was in the USA, it felt a lot more like Soviet Russia. In the panicky search for security, the USA has taken a long step towards being a police state.
I read a much different proposal once, that would be far more in keeping with the ideas of freedom and democracy: scrap TSA, and encourage people to qualify themselves for concealed-carry permits. Anyone with such a permit, who brings their gun on an airline flight gets 10% off their ticket. That may sound naive, but it can't be worse than what we've got now...
bradley13 at October 19, 2007 1:46 PM
Sadly, I was once a TSA screener. I'm a college graduate, but I found myself in a situation where that was the highest paying job around. Very depressing, I know.
At any rate, it was depressing to go to work every day knowing that my job was, at its most basic level, to catch idiots and make the public feel safer. I would, of course, try my best to look for anything or anyone suspicious, but it wears on you when day after day you are treated like the enemy by the public, and like an expendable resource by your employer. There was so much internal conflict at my airport that anyone could be written up for anything (wearing the wrong style of shoes, or wearing shorts where shorts are not allowed)and fired within the week. As you might imagine, it's hard to work well under such conditions.
At any rate, I would agree that there's no reason for screeners at all if they don't catch anything; however, I sincerely believe that there have been a very few instances when very, very stupid would-be terrorists were caught by the TSA. I don't know about other passengers, but if I'm going to be killed by a terrorist, at least let it be a smart one who had to come up with an ingenious plan to do it, not some depressed asshole who lights his shoe on fire.
Sara K. at October 19, 2007 2:11 PM
"I'm a college graduate... anyone could be written up for anything (wearing the wrong style of shoes, or wearing shorts where shorts are not allowed)and fired within the week. As you might imagine, it's hard to work well under such conditions."
Yeah, it's called a job and a uniform. Oddly enough, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, UPS, FedEx, MacDonald's, Burger King, et al wear uniforms and still manage to get the job done.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 19, 2007 4:45 PM
"Yeah, it's called a job and a uniform."
Gee, is that what those are called? My point was only that we as employees worked under the constant threat of termination for things that normally would not warrant such extreme action. If a strand of hair fell out of my bun and touched my collar, I could be reported for being "out of uniform" and fired. I imagine they're not as stringent with their policies at Burger King.
Sara K. at October 19, 2007 6:26 PM
Yet you didn't talk about a strand of hair, you spoke of being out of uniform on the job.
Although I'm quite sure management is out of control, if the strand of hair issue is the reason 75% of the test bombs passed through inspection, we need to raise the hiring standards for both management and employees.
Personally, I don't want to go out in a ball of flame because somebody is miffed over a personnel issue.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 19, 2007 9:47 PM
> This isn't to say I've
> never encountered really
> good screeners.
There's no such thing as a "good screener." I don't want to be screened. I want to be conveniently and safely transported. Let's not pretend that this invasive, fleshy, dignity-brutalizing intrusion upon our persons is happening because somebody really likes us and wants us to be OK.
> The Israelis are effective
> because they do the one
> thing we will never be
> able to do at JFK: profile.
Well, that, plus, they're Israel. They're in the Israel security business, not the United States of America security business. It's like comparing Canadian and American health care. Canada wouldn't be able to operate as it does without Estados Unidos next door; and no nation could be able to have faith in their present security protocols if the United States were not the world's superpower.
> Good risk assessment
> requires that planning
> be done before disaster
Humor me, keep reading this comment.
> I would be a competent
> screener, Crid would be
> a competent screener
Speak for yourself, redhead. If I were a TSA stooge, I'd step up the alcohol to stunning new extreme, eat nothing but salty snacks for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and warp my social demeanor into a snarling mask of lethargic, narcissistic hostility; I'd be just like the fucktards we have working at airport now. And I'd have a good health care plan at a better price.
> They all have skin
> in the game
Cool expression
> they force potential
> terrorists to increase
> the complexity of
> their plans
To a trivial degree... Unless you care to argue otherwise. You can't prove a negative. Maybe there have been no airplane attacks since 9/11 simply because there have been no airplane attacks since 9/11. I think these TSA clowns deserve zero credit.
> that makes them easier
> to catch pre-detonation
> and investigate post-
> detonation.
Keep reading, keep reading.
> who thinks Hillary will
> disband the TSA in her
> first 100 days?
If she promised to, I'd probably fucking vote for her.
Don't tell anyone I said that.
Seriously, don't. I take it back.
> Everyone flies in a
> paper hospital gown
Guys, the problem isn't hardware, it's bad will. A sufficiently murderous guy can kill you with a paper cup.
> let it be a smart one
> who had to come up with
> an ingenious plan to do
> it, not some depressed
> asshole who lights his
> shoe on fire.
But Richard Reid was stopped before completing his attack, and he was stopped by fellow passengers. I think it's always going to be that way. The government can't do shit for us up there, we need to count on each other.
As Raddy said once, you can't stop people from making a first attack. So if/when another plane goes down that way on our soil, the only thing we can do is investigate with our distinctly American ingenuity and bring rapid and unholy whoop-ass to whatever enterprise found the courage to hurt us.
Meanwhile, airport security theater is an inexcusable and pointless degradation of American liberty. It costs us in all the things that are most dear to us, and it ought to be put to a stop.
http://tinyurl.com/226ubu
Crid at October 19, 2007 11:19 PM
This story made me want to fly to Portland to take a piss in that woman's pocket.
http://tinyurl.com/284jyf
Crid at October 19, 2007 11:21 PM
Guys, the problem isn't hardware, it's bad will. A sufficiently murderous guy can kill you with a paper cup....we need to count on each other.
That's true, and yet...
When I get on a plane, I am at the mercy of lots of technology and the people operating it. When I am walking down the street, that guy with the paper cup has to pull up his socks and play a pretty sharp game to ruin my day. Once I am packed in an aluminum tube full of jet fuel speeding along several miles off the ground, the equation is different; Crid, you've got my back and I've got yours but best intentions might not be enough (yeah, I thought it was a funny picture too.) I think the circumstances allow as much scrutiny as they attach to gun ownership, driving privileges and
purchasing hypodermic needles (and I chose those examples carefully.) I hate getting frisked at the airport but 1. nobody makes me fly and 2. hassle-free air travel is available at price. I think the "civil liberties" flavor of TSA whining is shrill melodrama. We can stop getting frisked when we have killed all the terrorists.
no nation could be able to have faith in their present security protocols if the United States were not the world's superpower.
Be a pal and explain what you mean by that. Arguably, the Canadian health service "works" because the Canucks know that if they get sick enough and are important enough, they can always go south if needed. They have faith in the larger system. Security MIGHT be seen the same way: the security guard is backed by the police who are backed by SWAT/HRT who is backed by the military from tanks on up to nukes. But "security" has been around since the first tribe told a burly caveman to walk around with a stick and make sure nobody throws mammoth guts over by the water hole. Security measures can work just fine without regard to whose flag is on the pole.
You can't prove a negative...airport security theater is an inexcusable and pointless degradation of American liberty. It costs us in all the things that are most dear to us, and it ought to be put to a stop.
Actually, I can prove a negative, I just don't feel like it right now. So how can anyone prove that air travel would not be less safe if security measures were reduced? And it does have to be proved before the measures will be changed.
martin at October 21, 2007 11:15 AM
> I just don't feel
> like it right now.
Gosh, Martin, if only you weren't so gol-darned busy! It's such a shame!
Actually, I'm not even that eager to argue that we wouldn't be safer... Though I could give it a try, if you promise that it would annoy you. My bigger point is that the safety we gain isn't worth the things we trade for it. The safety is mostly illusion. The time, money, dignity and clarity are real.
> that guy with the paper
> cup has to pull up his
> socks
Not really, not if you don't see him coming. Do you truly, truly believe that the airport's shoeless pantomime is making it materially harder to wound the United States? You should say so in affirmative terms, rather than chiding others to be good sports about it.
> TSA whining is shrill
> melodrama.
Perhaps you just have no dignity to offend. OK, how 'bout this, a new scheme for LAX: Terminals 1 thru 3 plus Bradley International will be TSA-free. 4 thru 6 will still have these illiterate diabetics rifling through your underwear and toothpaste. Passengers will pick their own airlines. That leaves you with United, Continental and Delta, you big, patient, constable-loving man you! The rest of us will get on with our lives and our travels.
Crid at October 21, 2007 7:29 PM
if you promise that it would annoy you
Done!
Although the point that needs clearing up is:
"no nation could be able to have faith in their present security protocols if the United States were not the world's superpower."
Are you talking Pax Americana? If so, that attitude has been cited by people who aren't me as the #1 motive for 9/11.
The antidote is to open up the borders like the nice Europeans, put in foot baths, point the crappers away from Mecca, mutilate our little girls and no more suicide bombings. Uhm, fuck that. We have to fight them and one of the places that fight is going down is at concourse D.
But are we fighting the best way?
The idea of having the pilots search the luggage and screen the passengers is funny but it violates Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage and Ricardo is a hard ass. I want my pilot happy as a fucking clam at high tide.
Having the screeners go on the flight is poetic but on the second day of the program it is just another butt taking up an expensive seat. (And they already decided against uniformed marshalls.)
The idea of discounts for passengers packing heat is juicy but my kid is not allowed to point his index finger and say "bang" in school so it ain't happening.
I like the idea for high-hassle, low-hassle airlines except for one thing: The psycho-killer with the paper cup can only kill a few people on the street but he can kill thousands if he gets on a plane. Your right to skip the security farce conflicts with my right to not get blown up by your airplane.
I AGREE that the shoe drill won't stop paper cup guy with the same positive level of effectiveness we have come to expect in the post-penicillin universe, but you have to have something better before you pull down what's there. I HOPE he will tweak when they ask him to take his shoes off. I HOPE the measures will make it less easy to kill people with airliners.
martin at October 22, 2007 9:14 AM
> Are you talking Pax
> Americana?
I'm saying what would the world be like today if we weren't the superpower? Canada's armed forces are for shit; France --while having the will to screw around in Cote d'Ivory and the South Pacific-- can't even float a carrier. A lot of nations have decided to spend their money on other things so long as America can pick up their tab on war-making. For all the complaining about Iraq, we don't see these other nations taking up new arms. When people imagine using military force for virtuous purposes, in the UN and elsewhere, it's the United States who's expected to bring the talent and materiel.
> he can kill thousands
> if he gets on a plane.
But seconds later:
> I HOPE the measures will
> make it less easy to
> kill people with
> airliners.
It smells like something more than hope, and it stinks, sez me.
Crid at October 22, 2007 10:16 PM
“Smells like…stinks, etc.” Yeah, you caught me. It is faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen and I know, I know, anyone who has it belongs in a rubber room. Call me a freak but seeing a woman with a star sewn onto her sleeve gives me a feeling of safety that an ACLU guy in a jacket with leather patches sewn on the elbows doesn’t.
In my world, people in uniform are a good thing; they are law and order. And since the big wall came down, I’m not even that particular the color of the uniform (unless it includes a kafiyah.) A lot of people (not me) think the world would be safer if the United States disarmed from coast to coast and became Sweden with a better film industry. Nope.
For all its many, MANY faults, if we are going to shut down the TSA, we might as well follow all the way through and box up the carrier fleet and the laser-guided bombs too. I don’t want to get into a whole Tom Clancy thing but terrorists do plan their ops and they do slam their fists in frustration when the rules change from “no nail-clippers” to “no mouthwash.” Someday, we will bomb the right cave and this will be over, until it starts again.
I’m guessing that comparing the TSA to lobotmites and fast food employees will go out of fashion when Mrs. President Bill Clinton is the one signing their checks. For right now, it is just childish kvetching about a controversial president and wishing that we could live in a world with no sharp edges.
martin at October 23, 2007 11:18 AM
And another thing! (I know, thread over, damned stairwells and their rapier wit.)
"Perhaps you just have no dignity to offend."
You buried the snark-o-meter with this one but the point is taken and here is an answer. My dignity doesn't go away because somebody looks in my suitcase and sees my ointment. My pride maybe, really more my vanity and who cares about those things when people really, truly and genuinely want to murder you?
If I want to sneak away for a freak-o-licious weekend in Vegas with someone even Lena would find shocking, I will have the good sense to fed-ex the magic suitcase to the hotel in a plain brown box and I'd've done that before 9/11.
martin at October 25, 2007 9:35 AM
Leave a comment