Report On TSA Misconduct Finds 1 In 16 Employees Was Investigated Last Year

from the and-that's-just-the-beginning-of-the-bad-news dept

The TSA's security theater is now officially a substandard off-Broadway production. The Government Accountability Office has released a damning report* on the TSA's handling of employee misconduct. Not that the TSA doesn't have its hands full simply writing up the paperwork on ill-behaved employees. From 2010-2012, over 9,600 cases of employee misconduct were reported, with 3,408 of those coming in 2012, an increase of over 700 cases from the previous year.

* Honestly, the GAO doesn't seem to release any other kind of report than "damning." At this point, "all systems nominal" would be the government equivalent of receiving a third Michelin star.

A large percentage of these cases were of the banal, could-happen-at-any-workplace variety.

As with many jobs, the largest group of misconduct offenses involved “Attendance and Leave” issues — “Unexcused or excessive absences or tardiness, absence without leave, failure to follow leave procedures.” This accounted for nearly 1/3 of all investigations between 2010 and 2012.

The more shocking statistic is the number of cases related to the specifics of the job -- screening and security. 1,936 cases -- 20% of the total -- were violations like failing to follow standard operating procedures, bypassing security or sleeping on the job. Another 16% (1,548 cases) weren't any better -- insubordination, ignoring policies and disrespectful conduct.

Remember, these employees are the last line of defense between terrorists and planes, at least according to the narrative that's presented when infants and elementary school kids being detained and invasively searched. (Or when iPads go missing.) The TSA likes to brag about the weapons it's caught, but this data indicates there's still a good chance many weapons are making it through.

Then there's this:

4% -- 426 cases -- fell under this heading: "Inattention to duty resulting in a loss of property or life, careless inspection."

Adding it all up: nearly 40% of the misconduct cases fall under headings that could very conceivably undercut what little actual "security" the dog-and-pony-and-naked-scan show provides. As with any large government agency, most cases were handled with disciplinary triplicate (Letter of Reprimand). Hopefully, those were limited to non-security-breaching first offenses. But temper that hope with this dash of reality -- a mere 17% of violations resulted in termination.

Even these numbers fail to tell the whole story. Things could actually be worse than these stats make it appear. The GAO found the agency's recordkeeping skills to be as lax as its discipline.

Additionally, TSA is criticized for its failure to keep full documentation of misconduct cases, in spite of having a database in which all that info should be kept. GAO blames TSA leadership, which has not issued guidance requiring the recording of all misconduct investigation outcomes.

This brings to light the scariest deficiency of the TSA’s investigation and adjudication process — It lacks “procedures to follow up on completed misconduct investigations to ensure that the agency has identified cases requiring adjudication,” writes GAO.

I realize that private sector businesses usually only fire employees for egregious wrongdoing and that most infractions are "written up" rather than pink slipped. And I realize there are several companies who take a hands-off approach to employee discipline, allowing lousy staffers to stay employed long after they've outlived their usefulness.

But the TSA is no ordinary business. It's stated purpose is to ensure the safety of millions of travelers. It should hold itself to a much higher standard than companies and agencies not charged with protecting the lives of others. Instead, the agency slaps wrists, hands out suspensions and defers any charges from the court of public opinion to the passive-aggressive statements and quasi-apologies of Blogger Bob.

The government wants us to believe in the power of its security theater but the agency's failure to effectively police its own staff undercuts its own narrative.

Filed Under: abuse, misconduct, security, security theater, tsa

TSA Now Searching Valet-Parked Vehicles, Utilizing A Crack Security Team Composed Of... Valets

from the omfg-wtf-tsa dept

Update: The TSA tells us that this claim below was a false report. Instead, they say each airport is responsible for their own security plan, and this was just how this airport conducted some of its security. That said, they also admit that the plans are "approved by the TSA." Still, it's entirely possible that it was wrong to flat out pin this on the TSA -- though it does seem legit to claim that this came about due to the culture of paranoia and suspicion that the TSA seems to encourage.

The TSA apparently has too many Fourth Amendment-violating irons in the fire, what with having to perform random searches in bus stops and on federal highways in addition to the bang-up job they do everyday ensuring that plane-boarding procedures are a fine blend of the ridiculous and the sublimely annoying. Now, the TSA has extended its reach once more, and it's leaning on private individuals to search other private individuals parked cars.

Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it -- a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, "I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off."

Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA.

Take note of that, America. Your safety can only be guaranteed by a search of valet-parked vehicles, but not by a trained agent. Instead, your valet will do a brief search of your vehicle to ensure there's nothing inside the cabin, trunk or under the hood that looks like a bomb. (Like, for instance, a bundle of wires and some other stuff with a post-it attached saying, "NOT A BOMB.")

There's probably not any Fourth Amendment violating going on here. After all, the crack team of valet/security experts aren't authorized to dig through any of the really "secret" areas.

The report stated that the inspection involves looking into the trunk and engine and a "scan" of the inside of the car, which does not include opening the glove compartment or the console.

Granted, the cabin of the vehicle isn't really "private," but digging around in someone's trunk usually requires a warrant or reasonable suspicion. And I don't think I can stress this enough, but YOUR VALET is performing this warrantless, suspicionless search.

But is that the extent of vehicles being searched at airports?

[W]hy only valet parked cars? That's what News10NBC wanted to ask the TSA director about. We reached him by phone.

Berkeley Brean asked, "Are the cars in the short term lots and long term lots getting searched as well?"

John McCaffery, TSA, said, "No, those vehicles that are in the garage, short term long term parking, even if they carry pretty large amounts of explosives, they would not cause damage to the front of the airport. But for those who use the valet, the car could be there for a half hour or an hour so there is a vulnerability."

Well, that almost seems smart, except that cars waiting for a free valet/human bomb detector aren't the only vehicles lingering in front of airports, as J.D. Tucille at Reason points out.

If the TSA is truly worried about car bombs at the curb, all of those private vehicles and taxis making drop-offs and pickups would seem to be of equal concern to cars left with a valet.

His guess is that the TSA does it because it has "nominal consent," thanks to a sign posted at the valet window that announces valet-parked vehicles will be searched per TSA orders. Except that Iacuzza claims no sign was posted when she dropped off her vehicle and the valet agency refused to state when the sign was actually posted.

I think it goes farther than nominal consent. Whether or not it makes sense to search vehicles parked for more than X minutes in front of the airport (it doesn't -- at least if you're not searching non-valet-parked vehicles) is beside the point. Vehicles left for valets to park present both access and opportunity, two aspects our nation's security agencies never let go to waste.

The valet is going to be inside the vehicle to park it. That's a given. No expectation of privacy in terms of the interior of the vehicle. The attendant can also pop the hood once inside. Accessing the trunk may take a key or may have an interior release, but either way, the attendant has everything he or she needs to do a quick and dirty "search." A car waiting for a valet is a Christmas present for the TSA, which clearly has a jones to search as many forms of transport as possible.

And if you don't consent? Well, I suppose you're stuck parking your own car bomb at short-term or long-term parking where it can detonate in peace.

But don't worry, it could be worse. The DHS has noted that in cases of heightened security alerts, the TSA can randomly search any vehicle it wants to. Pushing this job to valets just sounds like the TSA would rather avoid more confrontations with pissed off travelers. Beyond that though, it just seems incredibly shitty to put untrained valets in potentially dangerous situations. You know, unless no one, not even the TSA, really believes anyone's leaving cars loaded with explosives at valet parking.

Update: J.D. Tucille reports that the TSA has responded to his queries with a noncommittal statement:

"Each airport authority, along with their state and local law enforcement partners, is responsible for securing airport property, including the outer perimeter."

Sounds like cans being kicked down the road. Tucille adds:

Suffice it to say, as you can tell from the official statement emphasizing airport authorities and local agencies, TSA doesn't want to take credit for the car searches at Rochester's airport. Also, I think it's a safe bet that Laurie Iacuzza, and anybody else who left cars with valets at the airport before this story broke, was very likely not properly informed that their vehicles would be searched.

Looks like some improper searches have been occurring at the Greater Rochester International Airport. And if the TSA didn't give the go-ahead for these search-and-park maneuvers, whoever whipped up the sign and the notice left in Iacuzza's vehicle will need to do a bit of explaining.

Filed Under: airports, parked cars, security, security theater, tsa, valet

TSA's Instagram Account Full Of Confiscated Weapons Photos Only Looks Like 'Safety'

from the appearances-still-preferred-to-results dept

News of the TSA's new Instagram account has been pinballing around the net. It's a violent hipster's dream, filled with heavily-filtered photos of confiscated weapons. One might be tempted to buy into the TSA's unspoken narrative that all these confiscations are making flying safer, but Cory Doctorow points out where that thought process hits a logical dead end.

The TSA has launched an Instagram account, showing all the "dangerous items" they steal confiscate from air travellers. The message is clear: we are keeping you safe from in-flight danger.

But what they don't show is all the grand-jury indictments for conspiracy to commit air terrorism that they secured after catching people with these items -- even the people who were packing guns.

That's because no one -- not the TSA, not the DAs, not the DHS -- believe that anyone who tries to board a plane with a dangerous item is actually planning on doing anything bad with them. After all, as New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler said (quoting Tom Wolfe), "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." So if there was any question about someone thinking of hurting a plane, you'd expect to see indictments.

This is undeniable. If attempting to carry a weapon onboard is evidence of a true threat, we'd expect to see more would-be fliers headed off to prison, or at least arraigned on terrorism charges. But that's simply not happening. Instead, the weapons are confiscated and they face, at most, a felony charge for attempting to board a plane with a weapon.

This sort of thinking falls right in line with the TSA's liquids policy. Prohibited liquids are tossed into nearby trash receptacles, giving lie to the reasoning that the questionable liquid could be some sort of explosive. Throwing away potential bomb components a few feet from a frequently-crowded TSA checkpoint right on the concourse seems incredibly irresponsible if you truly believe the fluid is dangerous. The fact that this happens several times a day in hundreds of airports across the US proves that not even the TSA agents believe the confiscated liquids pose a threat.

The TSA agent Doctorow spoke with about these seizures said he didn't believe the people who'd had their weapons confiscated posed a threat. But he did come up with a rather novel theory as to why these confiscations took place.

"But," he said, "maybe someone who did want to crash the plane might take the bad thing away from them and attack it."

Doctorow responded that this scenario seemed way too far-fetched to mesh with reality.

"That doesn't sound like a very reliable plan," I said. "If you were a terrorist and that was your plan, you'd have to spend a lot of time in the air waiting for someone to open his laptop bag and show you that he forgot to take his handgun out of it before he boarded."

Based on recent history with would be terrorists, it's more likely the smuggled weapon would be used by passengers against the terrorists, rather than the other way around. This new Instagram account is just the TSA soft-selling its brand of "safety," but the implied narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Filed Under: confiscated items, instagram, security theater, tsa

Senator Tweets About 'Very Uncomfortable' TSA Pat Down: 'OMG'

from the love-pats dept

A few years ago, we wrote about how many elected officials in Congress get to skip through airport security when they fly -- which might explain why they're not so concerned with the intrusive nature (and lack of effectiveness) of today's security theater at airports. It turns out that this only applies when they travel with law enforcement. At other times, if they're traveling alone, they do, in fact, have to go through the standard TSA process, and it appears that Senator Claire McCaskill was not too happy about her latest experience:

Today in my airport screening, test on my hands was positive. Got private, more aggressive pat down. OMG. #veryuncomfortable

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) March 11, 2013

She later said that this sort of #veryuncomfortable and "OMG" experience is something she's gone through frequently due to the fact that she has a metal knee.

Of course, the real question is whether or not this will actually change anything at all. As some have pointed out, Senator McCaskill has been criticizing such pat downs for years (while also arguing in favor of "full body scanners") and it hasn't changed much. In some ways, it just feels like another piece of the theater act.

Filed Under: claire mccaskill, pat down, security theater, tsa

The TSA's True Focus Isn't 'Safety' - It's Self-Preservation

from the give-'em-a-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile-(and-your-plastic-sword) dept

Despite its own worst efforts, the TSA doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Year after year, horror story after horror story surfaces, detailing abuse of American citizens at the hands (very often literally) of TSA agents. If they're not poking, prodding, fondling or carelessly tossing supposed explosives into a trash can five feet away, they're confiscating harmless plastic swords while allowing loaded handguns on board. If they're not digging around in someone's laptop searching for who knows what, they're "diverting" iPads into their personal collections.

A report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) suggests that the TSA's main focus isn't safety, it's self-preservation. As yearly budget reviews loom, the TSA suddenly needs to "look busy" and justify its continued existence. Anything that might cut back its funding is briefly humored and then discarded. (via Reason 24/7)

Congress in 2002 set up a program giving airports the option of having private employees conduct screening operations. Unfortunately, TSA was put in charge of deciding which locations could participate. A total of 16 out of 440 commercial airports nationwide got into the program before TSA Administrator John S. Pistole slammed the door shut last year.

Keeping private companies out of government operations ensures a steady flow of tax dollars. While taxpayers might appreciate the relief, the TSA isn't interested in dividing the pie into more slices that it absolutely has to. While it maintains its (again, very often literal) stranglehold on airport security, the airports it "services" are losing business directly as a result of its frequent bad behavior. As the GAO states, "Passengers who have negative encounters with the screening process generally associate their experiences with the specific airport." 

Private companies would be forced to follow the hated TSA procedures, but even with these limitations, the Department of Homeland Security isn't interested in taking on new "partners."

[T]op Democrats want the TSA to continue rejecting applications to the program "until the costs and possible benefits can be accurately assessed," as Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, urged.

Kind of tough to assess costs and benefits if you're unwilling to actually let the program run. This lockout extends further than private companies looking to get into the airport security business. The deck is stacked against private screeners, whose performance is assessed by the one entity that is relying on their failure to stay in the money.

Right now, the performance of private screeners is assessed under a process directed by TSA. It's not particularly surprising that this government agency is going to do everything it can to limit potential competition. Congressional auditors found, "TSA has not conducted regular reviews comparing private and federal screener performance and does not have plans to do so." The agency isn't about to document its own relative failure.

In fact, the TSA does all it can to keep from being criticized. Here's how the traveler complaint process "works:"

At Ronald Reagan Airport, for example, angry flyers aren't given a form they can turn in on the spot to document their concerns. Instead, they're handed a tiny, easily lost sliver of paper containing TSA's website and mailing address.

Ah, technology... wait... what? A slip of paper that contains the TSA's website URL? If the TSA actually was interested in feedback, it could easily set up a kiosk where travelers could file a complaint electronically with reports that could be viewed and acted on daily. Instead, it justs hands out something of use to nobody and hopes that time and distance either takes the traveler out of the complaining mood or makes the details unreliably fuzzy. The TSA benefits from its neo-Luddite approach which keeps complaints to an absolute minimum, a quasi-fact it frequently references when defending itself against any complaints that somehow make it through.

All of these actions have allowed the TSA to rake in nearly $8 billion a year without having done a single thing to improve its policies, protect travelers or prevent terrorism.

Filed Under: airports, monopoly, private security, security theater, self-preservation, tsa

Child With Brittle Bone Disease Detained By TSA For An Hour

from the if-you're-going-to-be-oppressive-at-least-do-your-job-right dept

It's no secret that I don't think much of the TSA. In addition to a long list of pieces we've done on what I consider one of the most useless government agencies, there's also the more recent story I covered discussing whether or not the agency's operations have resulted in more deaths in the past decade than all the terrorism against American's combined. Still, there is some discussion over whether all of this freedom-taking and death is worth the fuzzy feeling we all suposedly get when boarding a plane, knowing that at least all of this asshat-ery is making us safer.

But then you hear the story of someone like Shelbi Walser, a twelve year old girl from Texas who suffers brittle bone disease and also apparently has to suffer with over-zealous federal employees that don't have enough common sense to fill a thimble.

Shelbi Walser, 12, has brittle bone disease, and was flying to Tampa, Fla., to receive treatment on Sunday when she was randomly selected for an explosives screening on her way through security. Tammy Daniels, Walser's mother, said that her daughter tested positive for explosives when a screener swabbed Walser's palms and fingers.

Speaking with ABC affiliate WFAA, Walser said that she has no idea how the traces of explosive got on her. "It could have come off fertilizer, because we have chickens. I could have run through something from them," she said. "It could have just come off the ground, because I roll through everything."

Here's the thing. Even if you believe that the threat of terrorism via explosives on airplanes is everything that the government would have you believe (and I don't), and even if you think that the methods used by the TSA can help make us safer (and I don't), we're still left with a federal agency that is given so much leeway in curtailing our liberty that they at least should get their damned jobs right. There can be such a thing as common sense in airport security, where you understand that the 12 year old Texan with brittle bone disease probably isn't going 'splode a jetliner. Certainly it seems unlikely that it would take an hour for the TSA to come to this determination.

"I am by no means undermining our safety in the air. After 9/11, by no means am I doing that," Daniels told WFAA. "But when it comes to children, common sense is not in a textbook."

This has always been the problem with the TSA: in the absence of common sense there is such a thing as the paralysis of bureaucracy, and when that paralysis comes to the people in the form of handbook-style security, then that's a win for the very people we're supposed to be protected against.

Filed Under: children, detention, failures, security theater, tsa

TSA Security Theater Described In One Simple Infographic

from the theater-of-the-absurd dept

Didier J. MARY points us to an infographic highlighting why the TSA's security theater has been such a huge waste of taxpayer money:

Filed Under: infographic, security theater, tsa

How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All

from the there-are-victims dept

Security expert Bruce Schneier has been debating the former TSA boss, Kip Hawley, over at The Economist, concerning aviation security. The argument has gone on pretty much as expected, but Schneier's closing argument, in which he details the very real cost of the TSA's security theater, is fantastic. First, he does a brilliant job dismantling Hawley's "you just have to trust us that we know what we're doing" line:

Kip Hawley doesn’t argue with the specifics of my criticisms, but instead provides anecdotes and asks us to trust that airport security—and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in particular—knows what it’s doing.

He wants us to trust that a 400-ml bottle of liquid is dangerous, but transferring it to four 100-ml bottles magically makes it safe. He wants us to trust that the butter knives given to first-class passengers are nevertheless too dangerous to be taken through a security checkpoint. He wants us to trust the no-fly list: 21,000 people so dangerous they’re not allowed to fly, yet so innocent they can’t be arrested. He wants us to trust that the deployment of expensive full-body scanners has nothing to do with the fact that the former secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, lobbies for one of the companies that makes them. He wants us to trust that there’s a reason to confiscate a cupcake (Las Vegas), a 3-inch plastic toy gun (London Gatwick), a purse with an embroidered gun on it (Norfolk, VA), a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it (London Heathrow) and a plastic lightsaber that’s really a flashlight with a long cone on top (Dallas/Fort Worth).

At this point, we don’t trust America’s TSA, Britain’s Department for Transport, or airport security in general. We don’t believe they’re acting in the best interests of passengers. We suspect their actions are the result of politicians and government appointees making decisions based on their concerns about the security of their own careers if they don’t act tough on terror, and capitulating to public demands that “something must be done”.

From there, he notes that the TSA's ridiculous security theater, for which no evidence has been provided to show it actually keeps us safer, has very real "costs" to the public:

In 2004, the average extra waiting time due to TSA procedures was 19.5 minutes per person. That’s a total economic loss—in –America—of $10 billion per year, more than the TSA’s entire budget. The increased automobile deaths due to people deciding to drive instead of fly is 500 per year. Both of these numbers are for America only, and by themselves demonstrate that post-9/11 airport security has done more harm than good.

The current TSA measures create an even greater harm: loss of liberty. Airports are effectively rights-free zones. Security officers have enormous power over you as a passenger. You have limited rights to refuse a search. Your possessions can be confiscated. You cannot make jokes, or wear clothing, that airport security does not approve of. You cannot travel anonymously. (Remember when we would mock Soviet-style “show me your papers” societies? That we’ve become inured to the very practice is a harm.) And if you’re on a certain secret list, you cannot fly, and you enter a Kafkaesque world where you cannot face your accuser, protest your innocence, clear your name, or even get confirmation from the government that someone, somewhere, has judged you guilty. These police powers would be illegal anywhere but in an airport, and we are all harmed—individually and collectively—by their existence.

It's an excellent point, and one that is frequently overlooked. He notes that the increased fear created by such measures is exactly what terrorists wanted. He also points out that if we took the money being wasted on security theater today and actually applied it to "investigation, intelligence and emergency response," it would be a lot more effective. But that requires coming to terms with a politically inconvenient fact: that 100% safety is an impossible goal, and striving for it has tremendous costs, many of which simply aren't worth it.

Filed Under: bruce schneier, harm, kip hawley, security theater, tsa

TSA Freaks Out, Gets Longtime Critic Bruce Schneier Kicked Off Of Oversight Hearing

from the congressional-security-theater dept

If you read this site, you probably already know who Bruce Schneier is. We've certainly mentioned the longtime security expert plenty of times. He's been one of the leading vocal critics of "security theater" from the TSA, and therefore a perfectly reasonable counterpoint to the TSA in a hearing by the House Oversight Committee looking into TSA reform. I don't think anyone has thought quite as much about how the TSA could do things better than Bruce Schneier. But, as you can see from the website of the hearing, Schneier was removed from today's hearing: He didn't get sick or have something better to do. Hell, he didn't even miss a flight. Instead, according to Schneier, the TSA itself had him removed from the panel:

On Friday, at the request of the TSA, I was removed from the witness list. The excuse was that I am involved in a lawsuit against the TSA, trying to get them to suspend their full-body scanner program. But it's pretty clear that the TSA is afraid of public testimony on the topic, and especially of being challenged in front of Congress. They want to control the story, and it's easier for them to do that if I'm not sitting next to them pointing out all the holes in their position. Unfortunately, the committee went along with them.

As Tim Lee notes in reporting on this story, the TSA has done similar things in the past, and even been rebuked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz -- and yet it had no problem doing it again. The fact that Schneier is a part of that lawsuit is meaningless and shouldn't stop him from testifying at all. Schneier is a clear thorn in the side of the TSA, and if it's so afraid of having him speak to Congress, that really says a lot about the (lack of) confidence it has in its own arguments. If you can't stand to let a critic speak, it suggests that perhaps your own argument isn't very strong.

Filed Under: bruce schneier, congress, darrell issa, house oversight committee, security theater, tsa

Slow Down TSA Lynch Mob: That Naked Scanner Expose Video Is Exaggerated & Old News

from the be-real dept

So, a video made by a TSA-critic and blogger named Jonathan Corbett has been making the viral video rounds, supposedly showing how "anyone can get anything past the TSA's scanners." Now, I've been a huge critic of the TSA's scanners and the TSA itself. I think the entire security process is a joke and a form of security theater. I think the naked scanners are a huge waste of taxpayer money and potentially dangerous. But... I'm somewhat surprised at how quickly people just believed what was said in Corbett's video. You can watch the video here: First off, I was surprised to hear that the "revelation" was that by putting something on your side, the machines wouldn't notice it. That's not a revelation at all. It was one of the conclusions that came out in a research report published in 2010, which got a fair amount of publicity at the time. Among various vulnerabilities for the scanners, the report noted:

The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box- cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.

In other words, strap a knife to your side, and perhaps the machine won't spot it. We heard that years ago. So, nothing new here.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that the machines now take images from multiple angles, which would rule out this vulnerability. On top of that, Corbett bases his claim on a couple of sample images that are black and white -- and uses that to claim that a black object on your side will not show up against the black background. Once again, I'm pretty sure his info is now completely out of date. The TSA has been upgrading the scanners so they no longer show the "nude" picture. Just last month we showed an image of what the new machines show: And they show this in public, since there's no more nudity to contend with. Notice that there's a white background... and it's not a scan anyway, but a detector system that highlights points to check out.

Now, it is true that Corbett was able to get through the machines with a metallic box in his side pocket, and that's his proof. He does this twice. While, again, I'm not impressed by the machines, I don't think this is "proof" in the sense that Corbett believes. First of all, official tests show that there's a ridiculously high error rate with these machines -- they let through "bad stuff" all the time. So, I agree with Corbett that the machines are a complete waste and should be done away with, but I don't think one guy going through the scanners twice without getting stopped for a little metallic box in his pocket... is absolute proof that anyone can get through without getting stopped.

Of course, it seems worth pointing out that a metal box is not a dangerous object, and the point of the machines (so we're told) is to stop threatening objects from getting through -- not just metallic objects. So it's possible that the TSA agents saw this thing in his pocket and immediately saw that it wasn't something dangerous. Corbett's test was whether or not the scanners detect metal. But they're not metal detectors, so the test itself is flawed.

So, while I don't agree with the TSA's response to this video in which "Blogger Bob" somewhat angrily snaps back about how important TSA scanning is, I don't think Corbett's claims are that convincing and I'm surprised at how much press it's been generating. Yes, the scanners are probably pointless, and it's all security theater, but that doesn't mean we should all stop thinking through the details on videos that potentially show some weaknesses in these machines.

Filed Under: defeat, jonathan corbett, naked, scanner, security, security theater, tsa