Phoenix TSA fails to detect 20 trips with 20 pounds of pot – failure or fearmongering?

by Scott Carmichael on

Fox news in Phoenix is covering the story of two men who were running a regular pot transport scheme, delivering pot to Chicago from their home airport. The men had apparently passed through Phoenix Sky Harbor airport over 20 times, each time with almost 20 pounds of pot.

The story focuses on why the TSA failed to detect the pot, and “what else may be getting through?”. Because the men used airline buddy passes, their regular activity failed to show up on any of the automated watch systems, so they were able to book a ticket, and head directly to the airport.

The TSA issued a statement about the incident: “The mission of the TSA is to ensure the safety of the aviation system and intercept dangerous items.”

To me, that makes perfect sense – the TSA is not in charge of finding or detecting drugs. If a TSA agent happens to find a stash of marijuana hidden in a bag, I’m sure he or she would call for airport law enforcement, but in my opinion, expecting the TSA to add drugs and other items to their search list is just not possible – they have a hard enough time finding guns and bombs. That said, I can understand them not finding the pot once, or maybe twice – but to fail to notice it over twenty times does seem rather excessive.

What do you think? Is it fair to blame the TSA for not finding 20 pounds of pot taken on a plane over 20 times?

%Poll-47435%

Luggage liquid limitations to end – but only in Europe, and not till 2013

by Scott Carmichael on

The European Union has committed to lifting the current restrictions on liquids carried by air passengers no later than April 2013.

It was back in 2006 when security staff at London Heathrow UK police foiled a terror attempt that planned to use liquids stored in hand luggage to blow up a plane – and since then, travelers have been limited in how much they can carry on a plane.

The rules have been a major hassle for everyone (except the makers of travel size toiletries). Thankfully, Europeans only have to deal with the rules for three more years, which is when airports should have the necessary equipment to detect liquid explosives. Once the rules are lifted, all liquids will once again be allowed in carry-on luggage.

Hopefully the next development will be a reliable shoe bomb scanner, because once we can keep our shoes on, and our toiletries in our bags, travel will be one step closer to how it was before the terrorists screwed things up for us.%Gallery-76818%

Airport security — what works, and what does not?

by Scott Carmichael on

With so much talk about new explosive detection equipment and the upcoming full body scanners, we decided to look into some of the current technology in place at airports around the world. What works, and what does not?

Will the future of airport security involve everyone stripping down to their underpants? Or will technology evolve to the point where computers can detect terrorists from a distance?

Metal detector

The airport metal detector is a piece of equipment that works absolutely perfectly – for finding metal. It won’t detect explosives, ceramic knives or anything else that is not metallic. And it isn’t designed for that – its sole purpose is to detect metal objects.

Anyone who has left their belt on, or had some loose change will know how sensitive these things are.

Why they don’t always work: Can only detect metal. Can’t sense explosives, ceramic blades or liquids.

The x-ray machine

At the airport, baggage is checked at two places – at the security checkpoint, and at the checked bag drop-off. These machines are pretty good. But they have a fatal flaw – they can’t detect anything without the presence of a human operator. And lets be honest – someone that has to sit in front of a monitor looking at bags move past them will never reach a 100% accuracy. Things will slip through the cracks.

Why they don’t always work: The human element is the weak spot. Unable to “sniff” for explosives.


Passenger puffer machine

The “puffer machine” was supposed to be the ultimate in airport security. You step into the machine, it blows puffs of air on you, and “smells” for explosives. It all sounds like the perfect solution. These machines were in place at several airports on a trial basis before they were all removed due to “unforeseen technical problems”.

Millions were invested in the devices, which are now probably collecting dust in a storage facility. High profile research labs are still working on better solutions, and there are several very promising technologies in the very early stages of development. Sadly, without some really serious government money, those machines won’t be at your local airport any time soon.

Why they don’t always work: Citing “technical difficulties”, they are no longer in use at US airports.

Swab explosives detector

Anyone who has been pulled aside for a secondary search (the dreaded “SSSS” on your boarding pass” will have seen the screening expert “swab” their bag and place the sample inside an expensive looking machine. The machine sniffs for explosives, and can detect the smallest trace of stuff that can blow up a plane.

Why they don’t always work: only passengers selected for secondary screening are pulled aside for a swab detection. Easy to get a false positive.

Full body imager

The full body imager (or whole body imager / millimeter wave scanner) is supposed to be the holy grail of airport security. After the Nigerian underpants bomber was pulled off his plane, these new machines popped up in the news and within days, the first ones were being ordered for European airports.

Tests have been conducted on the machines, and there is a very big chance that the underpants bomber would not have been caught had he passed through one. Then there is of course the issue of privacy. We all want to fly on a plane without any terrorists wearing bombs wrapped around their groin, but apparently we draw the line at letting security staff stare at our naked bodies on a TV screen. To make matters worse, we were promised that none of the US based machines could store or send our images, but CNN already discovered that was was a lie.

Why they don’t always work: Only at select airports, only passengers pulled aside for secondary screening are asked to voluntarily go through the machine, possibly not 100% reliable.

Passenger no-fly lists

The super secret passenger no-fly lists collect data from several sources. It isn’t necessarily filled with the names of the worst terror suspects in the world, and the list has been proven to be terribly inaccurate. Worst of all, those people that have a name that matches something on the list have had a hell of a time getting through airport security.

The Nigerian underpants bomber was on one list of terror suspects, but apparently was not considered dangerous enough to warrant adding to the no-fly list. At the same time, 8 year old kids are stopped because their name matches someone dangerous.

Why they don’t always work: Too much data, but not enough ways to find the bad guys.

Pat-down

Pat-downs have been proven to be ineffective – and for one simple reason; fear of embarrassing travelers. The underpants bomber would have successfully passed a pat-down because screening staff don’t do a comprehensive search. The only kind of search that will work, is the kind used in prisons.

You can’t find explosives attached to someones private parts if you don’t physically search that area. Is a full effective pat-down embarrassing? You bet it is. But it is a heck of a lot more effective than just waving a wand up and down your legs.

Why they don’t work: You can’t perform a full search, without performing an actual FULL search,

(Images courtesy of Flickr users Daquella Manera and jcortell – click images for direct source)

What strange things have been found on planes?


BREAKING NEWS: New security regulations updated – go into effect midnight tonight

by Scott Carmichael on

After over a week of uncertainty, subpoenas to bloggers and false positives, the governement has settled on a comprehensive package of new security measures following the failed terror attempt on Christmas day.

Politico.com appears to have the first mention of these new measures. As usual, the government is slow on releasing their own news.Tomorrow, we’ll probably see some official mention from the DHS web site, unless they plan to keep it a secret, and wait for bloggers to leak it again.

The measures include:

  • 100% of passengers flying to the United States from a country on a “state sponsor of terrorism” list will be patted down, and will receive enhanced luggage screening.
  • Passengers from Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen will be added to a list of “countries of interest” and will also receive additional screening.
  • Passengers from all international airports will receive random enhanced screening. This could be a pat-down or screening through advanced imagers (whole body imaging), explosives puffers or other equipment.

As much as I love to complain about airport security, these new measures seem to make perfect sense. There are of course still some unknowns – how will passengers transiting be screened, and how quickly will international airports be forced to introduce upgraded screening equipment. [Ed. note: this is particularly interesting in light of the revelation that a full-body scan wouldn’t have detected the Christmas Day bomber, anyway.] There is of course also the issue of how the Department of Homeland Security plans to enforce the new measures, and how they plan to audit foreign measures, especially since they have a hard enough time keeping an eye on their own domestic security.

In the end, we’ll probably all need to get used to enhanced screening for flights heading to the United States, at least until someone wishes for “world peace” and has their wish granted.

UPDATE: The BBC has a more comprehensive report on the upcoming changes. Mainly pointing out that “terror-prone” countries will be targeted.

UPDATE 2: The TSA has found someone to update their web site on a Sunday evening -but their statement is short and contains no new information.

UPDATE 3: An unidentified member of the TSA has listed the 14 “countries of interest” that will trigger these additional measures. Interestingly and unusually, this directive does not have an expiration date and is intended to be “sustainable and long term.”

Additionally, pilots still have the ability to curtail pillow and blanket use, and limit passenger movement in the cabin during any portion of the flight.

UPDATE 4: The TSA is serious about breaches, folks. On Sunday night, flights out of one terminal at EWR were halted for seven hours as officials investigated a possible security breach. Unfortunately, the person who caused the alert was never located.

PRO TIP: Leave the rhinestone-encrusted grenades at home. Don’t even put them in your checked bags.

UPDATE 5: Despite the obvious need for leadership from TSA, the Senate is still locked in a standstill over the President’s nominee to head the TSA.

Interestingly, even US citizens flying into the US from overseas will face enhanced security inspections, which may include full-body pat-downs. And by “full-body,” we mean “private parts,” too.

Body scanners wouldn’t have caught Northwest bomber

by Sean McLachlan on

Here’s another hit for airline security. Not only have we discovered pat-downs aren’t effective, now it turns out that full-body scanners wouldn’t have detected the Christmas bomber on Northwest Flight 253.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was overpowered by passengers and flight crew after trying to detonate nearly 3oz of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) hidden in his underwear with a syringe containing a liquid accelerant to set it off. Neither of these items would have been detected by the scanners because they use a millimeter-wave technology that´s only good for detecting dense objects such as metal, plastic explosives such as C4, and thick plastic. Powders and small amounts of liquids can’t be detected.

Conservative Minister of Parliament Ben Wallace, former adviser at the defense firm Qinetiq, which developed the scanners for airport use, said that in test trails the millimeter waves passed through not only clothing, rendering it invisible, but also liquids, powders, and thin plastics. The very things Abdulmutallab hid in his nether regions to avoid detection in case he got patted down, which he didn’t.

Wallace said that x-ray scanners probably wouldn’t have worked either.

The machines’ limitations were confirmed by Kevin Murphy, product manager for physical security at Qinetiq. The company is developing an improved version.

Last week the Transportation Security Administration ordered $165 million worth of millimeter-wave and x-ray scanners at about $150,000 a pop.