New TSA Report: Every Test Gun, Bomb Part Or Knife Got Past Screeners At Some Airport

from the but-they-got-to-touch-your-junk dept

Fri, Dec 17th 2010 6:33pm — Mike Masnick

While the TSA is still fighting as hard as possible to be able to either see you naked or touch your private parts, apparently it hasn't spent that much time actually figuring out how to look for people carrying weapons onto planes. A few folks have sent in this ABC story about a man who boarded a plane with a loaded handgun that had been in his carry-on bag. The guy noted that he normally carries the gun in his bag, but takes it out before traveling -- he just forgot to do so and was pretty spooked when he realized he had the gun on him (he reported the incident to the TSA upon landing).

But even more scary than that is the article notes that the TSA admits that it's really bad at finding weapons, saying that the "failure rate" of tests is reaching 70% at some major airports and at some airports "every test gun, bomb part or knife got past screeners." So, while scanners are looking at or touching your crotch, they're apparently not bothering to look for guns. Comforting.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bombs, guns, screening, tests, tsa

74 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 6:40pm

Makes sense when you think about it.
So you're saying they're distracted by all the nekkid photos they have to look at? Shocking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:02pm
  
  Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
  On the flip side, with a 70 percent failure rate, that means there is a 30 percent success rate. If you were a terrorist and you knew that there is a 30 percent chance of getting caught, you might think twice before attempting your attack :)
  
  Plus, as TSA employees get used to the distraction they will become less distracted, though the high turnover rate may always maintain a constant level of distraction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    From a terrorist perspective, that's almost a two thirds chance of success.
    
    And yet, we haven't had much more than clownish attempts that were quickly neutralized by people who had been paying any kind of attention whatsoever on 9/11.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an electronic Rodent, 18 Dec 2010 @ 10:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
      From a terrorist perspective, that's almost a two thirds chance of success.
      Rather more than that if you think about it. That's a 2/3 chance including for example the guy who just happened to leave a gun is his bag, not a 2/3 chance based on people with all the reports of holes in coverage and methods of circumvention deliberately trying to hide the things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    You know what they could do is require every new TSA employee to spend a certain amount of time at a strip club or something to get used to the distraction before starting their work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
      ...or hire the pornstars to man the machines, they are used to it already.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Aerilus, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
      now that would make a great 7 hour training video of course it would permanently screw up your sex life
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    What?
    
    People who are prepared to DIE for their cause would be deterred by a 30% chance of failure?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
      My post was satire intended to criticize these silly policies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
        Ah, you should include the /satire tag so people know. Its not always easy picking out satire from stupidity these days :P.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
        Smiley faces generally indicate jokes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Blatant Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    "If you were a terrorist and you knew that there is a 30 percent chance of getting caught, you might think twice before attempting your attack :)"
    
    No, I would just make sure my remote detonator worked so that I could still kill dozens in the airport, and terrorize thousands.
    
    Cause, ya know, that's why they are terrorists. Boo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
      Yeah, if someone did those kind of attacks, they might not even get CAUGHT if they were cautious enough, assembled the bomb in a home-made 'clean room' to cut down on evidence, etc.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Oizo, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    No, you just need to try around 3 times instead of 10 :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    Err, 30% chance of getting caught really isn't something to get worried about. It's a pretty big chance that he won't get caught, and terrorists doing something on planes right now are basically suicide bombers, so it's not like they're afraid of the consequences of getting caught. They're already prepared to die for their cause.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 6:30am
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    Umm, someone who is crazy enough to blow themselves up probably isnt worried about being caught by the TSA.
    
    Logic fail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anonymnous, 19 Dec 2010 @ 10:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
    Spoken like a TSA employee.
    
    Just as a reminder, the stops we've had recently have come from the passengers on the plane, not the people getting paid by our tax dollars.
    
    also a %30 failure rate is hardly a deterrent to someone willing to strap an explosive on and blow themselves up.
    
    We're all being conditioned to accept this ridiculous situation while the terrorists are laughing their a$$3$ off!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - mdmadph (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 6:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes sense when you think about it.
      It's cool, man -- this is the Internet, you can say "asses" here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BruceLD, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:23pm

Subject
Oh NICE! I've heard about the 'imminent' Christmas terrorist attack warning in the US and I just HAPPEN to be going to the US for Christmas and New Years for some partying. Thank ALL THAT IS HOLY that I am NOT flying. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:30pm

Once employees join the TSA, it is darn near impossible to get rid of them, and maybe that's the problem. Put it to them this way... you fail a test you lose your job. You're in this role for a reason and if you can't do that job you are a liability to national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  "it is darn near impossible to get rid of them"
  
  What? The TSA has a high employee turnover rate, it seems easy to get rid of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    (but the problem with a high turnover rate is that none of them are ever experienced enough to know what to look for)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 6:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure, work for the TSA for a few months - get terminated and get unemployment for 2+ years. Sounds logical to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Turn-over rate isn't the same as termination rate.
    
    From your link, only 200 of them were "terminated." The other 67,000 left voluntarily.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim O (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:05pm

I like the excuse....
"Look, this is simply human error," KTRK's Aviation Security expert said. "When something like this happens, it's human error. I mean, these folks are doing the best job they can."

Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Semi-Reputable Mathemastatistican, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:06pm

Amazing trend in Gov't statistics- It's always either 30% or 70%
There are 357000 private and commercial aircraft in the US, and the FAA doesn't know the ownership of more than 132000 aircraft.

So even the FAA is 30% incorrect on their recordkeeping.

I bet those records of all your emails, credit card transactions, and phone calls are either 70% or 30% incorrect too. NTTAWWT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MissingFrame, 18 Dec 2010 @ 8:11am
  
  Re: Amazing trend in Gov't statistics- It's always either 30% or 70%
  Before spellchecking I think emails with mistakes were closer to 90%.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim O (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:11pm

Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
Whenever my dad drives past someone holding a sign on a street corner he always quips: "I wonder if his boss realizes that guy could be replaced by a stick and a staple gun".

Whenever I go through TSA I am infuriated that we didn't just lock the cockpit door and call it good.

We are paying vast hordes of idiots to do a job that has already been accomplished by inanimate objects (cockpit doors). Who's dumber... the TSA employees that let weapons flow onto planes or us taxpayers who are paying them for the non-service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:20pm
  
  Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
  If you're speaking of people holding up advertisements for pay, they generally can't be replaced by a stick and a staple gun, due to local ordinances. That's why they hire the guy with the sign. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 18 Dec 2010 @ 12:19am
  
  Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
  Whenever I go through TSA I am infuriated that we didn't just lock the cockpit door and call it good.
  
  After the very first hijacking, they should have re-designed all new commercial planes so that the passenger compartment is completely isolated from the cockpit. Coupled with a policy that says that at the first sign of a hijacking, the pilots will cut off all communication with the passenger compartment.
  
  Kind of hard to hijack a plane if you can't access the cockpit and the pilot can't hear your threats.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 6:37am
    
    Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
    Rekrul, the objective isn't really to hijack the plane, as much as it is to kill everyone on the plane. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were not trying to get control of the plane, they were trying to destroy it.
    
    The idea of hijacking as the main issue isn't right, it is the rare concept. Most attacks on aircraft are designed mostly to just take the plane down and kill everyone on board.
    
    You blow a nice big hole in the side of an airplane, and pretty much the fun is over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 7:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
      Those two 'bombers' that you talked about had little to no chance of having any success. The thing that they did were so simply and had so many flaws, that it was a one in a BILLION chance that they would have succeeded.
      
      Even if they had..... big whoop. 150 people killed. Less than 1000th of the number killed IN CAR ACCIDENT ALONE SOLELY IN THE UNITED STATES EVERY YEAR!
      
      Not a big danger, as I keep on pointing out!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Griff (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
        Even if they had..... big whoop. 150 people killed
        
        2 points.
        
        1. The idea is to terrorise. That is, make Americans not feel safe. A plane bombed out of the air would sink the aviation industry lower and hurt the USA generally.
        
        2. A plane bombed out of the air over a major city would be hard pressed to miss a load of people on the ground.
        
        However, the shoe bomber would maybe have left enough of a plane for a pilot to make at least some choices before meeting the ground.
        
        However, (and I said this after 9/11) if Al Quaeda really wanted to scare the American people they would pull off a million small operations in cities and small towns alike so NOBODY felt safe.
        
        9/11 was for recruitment. There won't be a re-run of the same thing again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2010 @ 9:20am
        
        Mission accomplished
        The idea is to terrorise. That is, make Americans not feel safe. A plane bombed out of the air would sink the aviation industry lower and hurt the USA generally.
        
        Absolutely true, and they've done the job very, very well. The US as a whole is scared out of its collective mind, and this shows no sign of changing, particularly not with the government doing everything it can to keep the fear level amped up as high as possible.
        
        Look at what we've done: Out of fear, we have given up rights & liberty to a degree that would have been inconceivable only a short time ago. We've granted intrusive and oppressive additional powers to law enforcement agencies of all kinds, we've entered into two wars which are destroying us both morally and financially, and so forth. We've even starting referring to our country as the "homeland".
        
        We are flinching at every shadow, randomly shooting our big rifle into the darkness and cowering, begging a big daddy to please protect us from the scary boogyman. We will give up anything to be made to feel safe -- even give up actual safety!
        
        The fact is that we are not, and never were, in any serious danger from "terrorists." The terrorist threat present a much lower risk to us than other things we do every day, such as driving. We have become a nation of cowards and we are destroying ourselves because of it. That's the real threat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jim O (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
      The objective isn't to kill everyone on a plane. The objective is to terrorize. Why spend so much effort getting explosives, weapons, and people on a plane when you could just set off a bomb in the security lines of the US's ten biggest airports?
      
      The idea is to go for high yield with the greatest possibility of success. Even though TSA is a bunch of bumbling idiots they are still a risk; why take a risk when there are equally sexy targets with much less risk?
      
      Added bonus: attacking security gives potential for the attackers to escape.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
        Well, no one ever said the terrorists were smart either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rekrul, 19 Dec 2010 @ 11:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
      You blow a nice big hole in the side of an airplane, and pretty much the fun is over.
      
      Not necessarily. Look up Flight 243. Due to stress and metal fatigue, a large section of the passenger cabin roof and side was ripped away in flight. One crew member was sucked out of the plane, and some people suffered injuries from the debris, but the pilot was able to make an emergency landing with no other fatalities.
      
      I'm not saying that a bomb going off wouldn't be a really bad thing to happen, just that the amount of explosives the shoe or underwear bomber had on them probably wouldn't have been likely to destroy the plane itself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
      You blow a nice big hole in the side of an airplane, and pretty much the fun is over.
      
      You obviously have never seen LOST.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...
  cockpit doors do not protect passengers
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:29pm

i bet they arrested the guy with the handgun when he reported it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- scarr (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:55pm
  
  Re:
  They caught him after a reliable tip.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:36pm

It got reported. The system works! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:07pm
  
  Re:
  But you got reported for no reason.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 18 Dec 2010 @ 12:23am

Anyone care to speculate on how much time the guy would have spent in jail if they'd found the gun during screening? Personally, I think they would have tried to get him classified as a terrorist so that the normal protections wouldn't apply and they could ship him to a secret prison for a few years.

The guy would have been tackled by security, the airport locked down, all flights grounded, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 18 Dec 2010 @ 1:41am

Help is on the way
Maybe these new technologies will help.

I like when the guys says: "'The system you have in Europe and America is bull****. Unless you adopt an approach that actually works, whatever technology you care to use will make little difference. The terrorists will always be one step ahead,' says Rafi Sela, a top Israeli security consultant. Through his firm, AR Challenges, he is in charge of marketing the automated Israeli method to Europe and America as a complete package - what he calls Trust Based Security, or TBS.

Full report is here and well worth the read:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1336571/Terrorism-Can-really-stop-bomber-as king-Are-terrorist.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 3:20am

Time to step it up a notch! Body cavity searches! Too many people are dying everyday from terrorist attacks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 3:28am
  
  Re:
  I know you're just being funny, but the sad thing is someone in power will think that's actually a good idea. They'll completely ignore the fact that this guy got the gun through security because it was in his BAG!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 4:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    So now they will have to squeeze your bag? Instead of just tickling it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josef Anvil (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 4:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ummmm you should read the ABC article. They DID almost completely ignore the fact that it was in his bag. It's in the last paragraph.
    
    "A TSA spokesperson says the agency has conducted an investigation, saying remedial training was provided to the security officers involved in the incident. Advanced imaging technology and more stringent pat downs have also since been implemented."
    
    I think I hurt myself laughing at the "remedial training". Is that something like, if you see a gun in the bag, don't let the passenger through?
    
    Other than that they added body scanners and groping, neither of which will help with guns in bags getting through security. Personally, I think it would have been a lot funnier if the guy had gone through the full body scan and then realized he had a gun in his bag. EPIC fail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 6:19am

Feel safer? Have you ever felt safe? I feel safe at home with my gun and that's about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 18 Dec 2010 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  I feel safe at home with my gun and that's about it.
  Ermmm i hate to worry you but statitics suggest that "in your home with your own gun" is one of the least safe places there is - you're much safer on a plane :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 7:05am

It's a Boring Job
Day after day, hour after hour, you finally end up not really looking. I imagine there is also a certain amount of "expediting" the searching with long lines of people anxious to get through.

Besides being ineffectual, this type of "security" is expensive. I was at at an airport where we had to wait for the ticket agents, the TSA folks were just standing around. When the airline ticket agents finally showed up we had to stand in line for them, the TSA agents just ambled about. Finally getting through the airline ticket agents, we lined up to go through the TSA line. The airline ticket agents; they were standing around. Waiting in line TWICE, that's American efficiency!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eileen (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 8:02am

To the (I'm sure) well-intentioned person who pointed out that it's the plane of 150 passengers that must now be the target (as we have pointed out that locked cockpits preclude much else)... have you considered the gross inconsistency with TSA gropings/scanning required for the congregation of 150 on a plane but NOT for congregations of 150 elsewhere? I mean, they could bomb a 300 person wedding! No security, more damage, yay! OR pray-tell, what is stopping them from bombing the damn security line when it is congested with 200 people because TSA moves like molasses? hmmm? Are you starting to see, yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MBraedley (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 9:01am

In the words of Adam Savage
WTF TSA?

Reference link (LSFW), click on the big red box in the video. (LSFW)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interval (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 9:03am

End Result?
As a result of this report of course the TSA is going to step up its groping, everyone gets a cavity search (babies too of course) and they'll still be no better at finding terrorists. You gotta hand it to 'em for single mindedness of purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allen, 18 Dec 2010 @ 11:32am

levels
the level of ability does not follow the level of technology. spend all you want on hi-tech, but hi-tech morons are still morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grin And Bear It, 18 Dec 2010 @ 11:43am

It is all about appearances (and a steady paycheck)
A once-famous tennis pro of some decades past was often quoted as saying, "Image is everything!" It is all about appearances, which is why capped teeth, good hair, a confident attitude and the ability to talk over anyone else is how nattering nabobs of nonsense are able to get elected and create ineffective laws and policies. A Means Test for voting? No. For running for office? Yes, but that is not enough. Also, no Riders on bills, and the requirement that all who are enacting laws read every word of every page of every proposal. Oh, and while I'm playing "Let's Pretend," outlawing all lobbyists, and limit terms to one of six years per office, and once a law is enacted, the Decider In Chief of the moment cannot arbitrarily decide to not abide by certain portions of a bill, and can either sign or veto in toto accordingly, and after affirming an oath of office to abide by the Constitution not to proceed to violate the laws of the land the constituents are constrained respect. Ah, but I dream...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 2:00pm

Who cares about the TSA?
The TSA is a groups of under paid freaks that like molesting children and ex bay watch babes. Simple as that.

The profile of the most recent bombers and gun men is this ...

Is angry at the world.
Can't find a woman.
Can't get laid. (hence the anger)
Uses religion to express the anger.

How do we solve this?

Introduce them to AdultFriendFinder.com where anyone can get laid.

What just occured to me is maybe they have found this site on their own. I mean with the FBI setting people up to do christmas tree lighting bombings ... maybe they are getting laid.

Merry x-mas ... and send a trial subscription to to every mosque you can think of.

I'm on a camel ... again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puppets Tonight (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 2:15pm

Body Scanning Airport Blues
You think THAT'S bad? This alien's scanned pics were leaked! It's all explained in the "Don't Touch My Junk Bro! Body Scanning Airport Blues"
Good luck to all who are traveling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 18 Dec 2010 @ 5:43pm

who cares
It does not really matter, what percentage they find, it is clear they are capable of providing more security now than 10 years ago.

they DO find people, they find smugglers all the time, and they find more people these days previously.

Most people think the extra inconvienence is worth it.

Plus, people will not take the risk to try, even if they have a 70% chance of making it.. 70% is too high a risk.

Would you like to have an operation (for something non life threatening) if you only had a 7 in 10 change of not dying?

(Mike, I see you cannot fix your web site, very sad)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 19 Dec 2010 @ 3:10am
  
  Re: who cares
  Oh dear HWGA
  
  It does not really matter, what percentage they find, it is clear they are capable of providing more security now than 10 years ago.
  Is it? Oh goody. Please provide the clear evidence then.
  they DO find people, they find smugglers all the time, and they find more people these days previously.
  Do they? I hear stories of people being stopped with dangerous items like knitting needles, toy guns etc. Are you talking about drugs? Occasionally they catch a drug mule but news stories I've seen seem to suggest that siezures fluctuate more as a relatively fixed percentage of the total amount being smuggled than any greater sucess. If you have figures I'd love to see them.
  Most people think the extra inconvienence is worth it.
  No YOU think it's worth it. "Most people" I would imagine grumble about it but don't think in too much detail and take a "Well what can you do" attitude. I don't know about your "most people", but most of the people I know have at least 1 story either first or 2nd hand of a "dangerous" item getting through security and think it's all a farce.
  Plus, people will not take the risk to try, even if they have a 70% chance of making it.. 70% is too high a risk.
  On what are you basing that? You're contradicting yourself now. If "smugglers" are caught all the time then it's clear "people" are taking the risk. By extension at least 30% of people are "taking the risk" and not being caught. I would also suggest that the "risk" is significantly lower than 30% if you are deliberately trying to conceal an item using the (published) deficiencies of the systems.
  Would you like to have an operation (for something non life threatening) if you only had a 7 in 10 change of not dying?
  And now the random and meaningless analogy. To relate that anywhere near airport security, which is difficult in the extreme and still meaningless you would be talking about a 7 in 10 chance for an immediately fatal condition. These people are willing to die in most cases.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 20 Dec 2010 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: who cares
  "(Mike, I see you cannot fix your web site, very sad).."
  
  It's not that he can't prevent you from posting, it's that he chooses not to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
superfly, 18 Dec 2010 @ 9:05pm

there's not much about the TSA procedures that seems very effective
I had a similar experience last week. Got the full bag search so they could confiscate my *dangerous* unopened 6oz ice coffee drink and then when I got home I found a large pocket knife I'd forgotten was in there that had been right under the bottle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mojo, 18 Dec 2010 @ 11:48pm

I have a hard time believing any of these people "just forgot" they had a loaded gun or a knife in their bag before flying.

I'm not sure what the purpose of lying is, but if you can actually go through the process of packing for a trip, driving to the airport and go through security without remembering their is a loaded gun in your bag, you need brain surgery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 20 Dec 2010 @ 5:37am
  
  Re:
  I've never forgotten to remove it before a flight, but I routinely keep a handgun in my laptop bag. I could easily forget to take it out before going to the airport.
  
  I have forgotten to remove a swiss army knife from my keychain before going to the airport (which the TSA didn't notice despite me HANDING MY KEYS TO THE GUY). Items we carry all of the time become ignored quickly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloomman, 19 Dec 2010 @ 8:01am

Wait a minute

"So, while scanners are looking at or touching your crotch, they're apparently not bothering to look for guns. Comforting."

So are you saying there's a 70% fail rate on the scanners? That appears to be the implication. I was under the impression we were using the scanners *because* we had a 70% fail rate and this improved that greatly.

Are we manipulating stats in the above quote or are the scanners really failing that bad? If it is a twist on the facts, what is the real fail rate now with the scanners?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 19 Dec 2010 @ 8:30am

Apparently, genitals and mammaries are much more dangerous than bombs and other assorted weapons. It would be rather hilarious to see a hijacker whip it out whilst shouting all sorts of threats. Now that I think about it, that may be effective - because many would die laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riquin, 19 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm

We are not flying any more
So it is immaterial to us. !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 19 Dec 2010 @ 2:46pm
  
  Re: We are not flying any more
  So it is immaterial to us. !!!
  And thus are rights removed as society goes the way of "I'm all right, Jack!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron, 19 Dec 2010 @ 4:42pm

TSA
It is sure difficult to have much faith in our TSA people. Profiling and observation using common sense seems to be so much more productive. It seems our government doesn't always use the sense we want to think they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
john doe, 19 Dec 2010 @ 7:34pm

Not true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 11:40pm

i once carried 50 rounds of CCI Stinger(22LR) rounds in my computer backpack. I got through security, in 2 airports because I went out for a cig. One was a Major Airport, and I mean a MAJOR airport. when i got to my destination, I gave the ammunition to a friend who shoots. I'm glad i didn't have my gun on me. but I had ways of getting it home if i really wamted to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benji (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:11am

Sometimes they find things
Wish they hadn't found my pocket knife that'd I'd forgotten to remove when I parked. It wasn't the greatest knife, but it was pretty good, and it would open boxes and letters like a champ. Ah well, at least they had a wine key for sale at the gift shop next to my terminal, so if I was really wanting to cause some mayhem, the tools were available to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALI, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:19am

خیلی مزخرف بود چیزهای باحال بزارید
[ link to this | view in chronology ]