Armed TSA Agent Gets By Scanners Multiple Times

from the feeling-safer? dept

Tue, Feb 22nd 2011 2:54pm — Mike Masnick

Via Glyn Moody, we learn that during a test of the TSA's safety scans at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport, an undercover TSA agent was able to get through security -- including the various scanning machines -- multiple times, despite carrying a gun. The report also notes that none of the TSA agents who completely missed the gun were disciplined, and said that they all are still working at the security checkpoint. So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?

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: security, tsa

29 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Overcast (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:06pm

One word for all of this TSA BS.

Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MisterHux (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:10pm

If we don't have the machines then the terrorists win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re
  Actually, BECAUSE we have those machines, the terrorists have won.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:12pm

"So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?"

Because you need to trust your government. They have your best interest at heart. Seriously. That was not a "test", it was a practice run! They didn't tell any of the agents about the practice run, how do you expect them to catch it?!

"For security reasons, we do not publicize or comment on the results of covert tests, however advanced imaging technology is an effective tool to detect both metallic and nonmetallic items hidden on passengers."

So effective, that they need a heads up! How much is a TSA agent's salary? I know a few people from the asylum who need to round up the end of the month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:16pm

Do you want to bet they didn't get scanned because the lines were too long, held up by a few people at the front bitching about scans and pat downs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 3:16pm
  You're on. $50
  
  "The source said the undercover agent carried a pistol in her undergarments when she put the body scanners to the test. The officer successfully made it through the airport's body scanners every time she tried, the source said."
  
  Try reading next time. Pay up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re:
  Linkage
  
  Just sayin...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:18pm

*hangs head*
I wish it was possible to charge people in our government with theft for flushing our tax dollars down the toilet with this TSA BS. These machines appear to be 100% ineffective, create privacy nightmares, and we are spending more and more money on them. Someone is stealing from us. I just wish our government would stop protecting them and actually punish the thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:53pm
  
  Re: *hangs head*
  Here here. Michael Chertoff and the manufacturer made a shit ton off it tho so I'd rather start criminal proceedings on them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 12:01am
    
    Re: Re: *hangs head*
    Oops. That's hear hear I guess.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Gardner (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:36am
    
    Re: Re: *hangs head*
    Chertoff, when asked, did say his scanners would probably not have caught the underwear bomber, so he was being quasi-honest... certainly more honest than the people who swore up and down we needed these devices to stop terrorists from boarding our planes
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Dynice (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:18pm

So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?

To make Chertoff richer, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  It was Napolitano you idiot!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:20pm

It's all about jobs, because without them there would be fewer people employed undercover to check them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:09pm

What's most frustrating is that stories like this just don't reach the vast majority of people. They think the TSA is actually doing something besides burning money and making air travel as much fun as showering in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Angry Puppy (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:36pm
  
  I'm Not Surprised
  Yeah, the politicians authorize spending large amounts on dubious scanner technology (probably getting large donations from the corporations manufacturing this junk) and bluff the public into thinking air travel is being made safer through apparently proactive efforts on elected official's part.
  
  A large person hiding a small pistol has a very good chance of passing through TSA security. I personally would not try it, I prefer not to shower in prison. A person trying to pass through security carrying a Dirty Harry sized hand cannon in a holster would be caught, but, as this proves, not always someone trying to sneak a small, well hidden, firearm. The techniques and technology used are simply poor. Hiring very astute (read: well paid due to being educated and smart) people as TSA agents that are trained to 'read' passengers as is done in Israel (with perfect success since implementation) is the way to go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:58pm
  
  Response to: chris on Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 4:09pm
  I agree but am not sure if it is lack of info or lack of empowerment. I know those polls are out that say otherwise, but I don't know a soul who doesn't get that this is totally bogus. But Wat do? Make a stink, get arrested. Call your congressperson, like they care. I don't know. It is a symptom of the stupid military industrial complex. Like regular ppl trying to suggest cuts to the defense budget.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:36pm

So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?

Because all the best theater productions have really good special effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BuzzCoastin (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:49pm

So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?
So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?
Because in the end, Winston learned to love Big Brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:47am
  
  Re: So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?
  winston always loved big brother. big brother protects us. weakness is strength, lies are truth, love is pain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:11pm

Echo Chamber
Welcome to the Echo Chamber on Techdirt. Where you hear only one thing repeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- testcore (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:19pm
  
  Re: Echo Chamber
  That's awesome. You just invoked Russell's Paradox. Or did you say that already?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:42pm
  
  Re: Echo Chamber
  Not unlike main stream media.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Echo Chamber
    ... tech dirt provokes critical thinking and learning while exposing propaganda for what it is. MSM tell sheep what to think. I wasn't dissing td
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re: Echo Chamber
  So...did you actually have any substantial argument to make, TAM, or have you just accepted your roll as a troll?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 1:40am
  
  Re: Echo Chamber
  TSA...tsa....tsa...tsa....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 2:41am

It's not a matter of discipline but human limits.
http://tiny.pl/hdh1z
The model is flawed and firing people won't fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 2:50am

It's probably a profiling thing...
Perhaps if he'd had noticeably large breasts or a colostomy bag or something, they might have checked him a little closer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:35am

So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?
> So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?

Because some passengers are attractive to look at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]