Are You Kidding Me? I Was Hoping It Was April Fool’s Day When I Was Reading This…
Security screeners at two of the nation’s busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY. I had to read this twice. Yes I am in shock.
The article stated that screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.
At Chicago O’Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.
The report looks only at those three airports, using them as case studies to understand how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to stop terrorists from carrying bombs through checkpoints.
I thought that we had better security now than ever. Is that not the case? We are spending billions of dollars on airport security and nothing is improving. Yes, I have left a bottle of water in my briefcase or gone over the three ounce limit on my toothpaste in the past month and yes they went unnoticed. I didn’t think much of it but maybe I should.
The article also mentions that 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.
SO WE ARE SPENDING A TON OF MONEY — FOR WHAT?
- Are you surprised by this?
- Do you notice a difference with security now than in the past?
- Does security appear to be tighter when they raise the warning levels?
I really look forward to hearing your comments.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I’m guessing some of these bomb parts passed through as screeners carefully searched my 7 yr. old daughter! In two of our last three trips she was reduced to tears when pulled away from her family and subjected to random search and scanning.
I’m no security expert, but I’m pretty certain that spending a lot of time searching and frightening second graders probably doesn’t make air travel significantly safer for any of us.
In both cases, the frontline TSA officials were apologetic and even seemed embarrassed by the situation—maybe we should ask them what they suggest as a solution?
November 19th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Dan,
That is horrible. I am shocked that happened once let alone twice. Thankfully we traveled earlier today with our little ones and everything was extremely smooth. The kids are usually very intimidating waking through the security machines but everyone handled it like a champ today.
With all the money we are spending on airport security I wish it was perfect, flawless and protected this great nation. If it isn’t take some of the money and invest in teachers, social workers and the health care field.
Thanks for sharing your comments. Sorry it wasn’t a good story.
Merrill
November 20th, 2007 at 7:43 am
I must admit that I am not at all surprised by this. Given that I am not what one would consider a frequent traveler, I cannot comment on whether the TSA’s level of proficiency varies with the threat level. However, I can say that this is merely another example of government waste at its finest.
The primary premise for the creation of a governmental agency in a capitalist economy is to do work that is deemed unprofitable by the private sector. In other words, if you can turn a profit doing it, then it is the role of the private sector - not the government - to serve that need.
Airline security has a tremendous profit potential - especially given that, according to your numbers, private firms are much more proficient at their jobs. I would imagine they are that way because if they are not, good ol capitalism takes over and replaces them with a competitor. The government’s answer to inefficiency is to hit it with another budget infusion, hire even more unqualified personnel to do the job and ’study’ the problem again in a few years!
Dan, as the father of two girls, I am saddened by what happened to your daughter. I suppose they searched (and frightened) your daughter so that it would not look like they were ‘profiling’. But I digress…
November 20th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I love how they miss bomb parts, but god forbid I try to sneak a travel sized shaving cream in my carry-on because it wouldn’t fit in my ziploc. Then they give you that “look”. The one where they stare at you like you just tried to declare a jihad on the airport. It was shaving cream…
Don’t get me started on Carmex.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:48 am
I have noticed that screening overseas is tighter. I’ve been quizzed more carefully on my luggage, been patted down, and had my hand baggage gone through a lot more when coming back to the US then when leaving from it.
I realize that staring at those x-ray screens must be among the most boring jobs in the world, and I’m not sure what more can be done to keep people’s attention up. Do the inspectors who miss the fake bombs get fired?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Much of our response to 9/11 has been very unfortunate. If the “shoe bomber” had put the plastic explosives in his wallet, instead of his shoes, we would be opening our wallets at the gate and keeping our shoes on. Fortunately he didn’t hide the explosives in his underwear. We have all of this focus on airports, but they have already hit us with airplanes. What makes anyone think that they will do the same thing twice? We keep focusing all of our attention on the last incident instead of the next one. So our ports are largely unprotected along with our shopping malls, bridges, etc.
One cell had plans to use small amounts of liquid explosives, so we were banned from bringing any liquids onto the plane. Now we can bring them on board again. Did something change, or did someone realize that the ban was not well thought out in the first place?
On the positive side, we have not had another attack in the US since 9/11. Life goes on and the level of fear seems to be subsiding, but wait until the Presidential campaigns get into full swing. The terrorists don’t need to attack us to create terror in our lives. Our own politicians and media do that so well that al Qaeda doesn’t need to do anything at all.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:41 am
This is not a surprise to me. I see a strong parallel to officiating in sporting events. Often the NHL or NBA or MLB will focus on something important at the beginning of the season and it tends to make the overall calling of the games worse. In the same way, the focus on tighter security has our security people nit-picking on the “rules” but missing the point–or missing the bombs, really. It’s a sad, but seemingly true thing that often when we bear down we mess up. Maybe we should do like Israel and perform real profiling–when a ticket is purchased, do a database search on the buyer to determine whether they are a security threat or not. Then when they show up we can focus efforts on the probably threats instead of the 7 year olds. (I once saw a poor 90 year old put through the full body search. What idiocy following the rules can lead us to, and meanwhile we lose sight of hte real objectives.)
In fact, there is a lesson to be learned for us researchers here. How often does our quest for the “rules” of research lead us astray from meeting hte client’s objectives and in the end we end up providing an inferior product?
November 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I think the intentions of the screening process are good: to eliminate dangers from people who are a threat. The problem is, terrorism is a sophisticated, calculated crime and there is little that can be done to prevent it. The locks on our doors only keep out the stray, unprofessional criminal who might wander in and take our TV. They won’t keep out the psychopath who wants to harm you. And, terrorists are psychopathic, for sure. So, the issue with screening is two fold: 1) it focuses on what we can control/detect, which can’t possibly keep up with the innovativeness of the perpetrators, and 2) it’s enforced by people who have no other source of power and esteem in their life. People who have no power and are suddenly put in the position of authority inflict their pettiness on people because they can. It boosts their self-esteem. All you can do is smile, be patient, and get through it as fast as you can. What’s the saying? “Resistence is futile.”
November 24th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I thought I had saw it all at the airport. Flying back from Atlanta today I actually watched and stood next to a TSA security person talk on your cell phone for over 6 minutes while customers were going thru security. I understand that emergencies can happen but since the young lady was speaking very loud it was very obvious that it was a personal call and had nothing to do with an emergency.
I am speechless to think this happened on one of the busiest travel days of the year.
Amazing - I wish they would correct this or put our tax dollars towards education, health facilities or social workers.
Merrill
December 14th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Amazing on my Nashville trip the security team only checks your ID and boarding pass before you go thru security not after you go thru the metal detector. I assumed every airport checked ID’s twice and especially after you go thru the airport security.
I asked the staff is that always the case and they said yes but it is changing in a few weeks.
Surprised that is the way they do it.
Merrill