Armed TSA Agent Gets By Scanners Multiple Times

from the feeling-safer? dept

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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 3:06pm

    One word for all of this TSA BS.

    Fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    MisterHux (profile), Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 3:10pm

    If we don't have the machines then the terrorists win.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    TheStupidOne, Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 3:18pm

    So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?

    To make Chertoff richer, of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 3:20pm

    It's all about jobs, because without them there would be fewer people employed undercover to check them out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    chris, Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 4:30pm

    Re

    Actually, BECAUSE we have those machines, the terrorists have won.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Angry Puppy (profile), Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 4:36pm

    So why did we need those fancy new scanners again?

    Because all the best theater productions have really good special effects.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 5:02pm

    Re:

    Linkage

    Just sayin...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    BuzzCoastin (profile), Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 8:11pm

    Echo Chamber

    Welcome to the Echo Chamber on Techdirt. Where you hear only one thing repeated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    testcore (profile), Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 8:19pm

    Re: Echo Chamber

    That's awesome. You just invoked Russell's Paradox. Or did you say that already?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2011 @ 8:42pm

    Re: Echo Chamber

    Not unlike main stream media.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2011 @ 12:01am

    Re: Re: *hangs head*

    Oops. That's hear hear I guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Feb 23rd, 2011 @ 1:40am

    Re: Echo Chamber

    TSA...tsa....tsa...tsa....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Feb 23rd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    John Gardner (profile), Feb 23rd, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Feb 23rd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 23rd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2011 @ 12:05pm

    Re:

    It was Napolitano you idiot!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This