Friday, December 31, 2010

70% Detection Failure Rate Being Reported is Based on Testing from 2004-2005

In the last week or so, several media outlets have referenced a “recent” report which cites a 70 percent failure rate for TSA to detect guns and knives passing through airport checkpoints. Some stories acknowledge the outdated covert testing report while not acknowledging the steps that have been taken since then to improve security. All are misleading.

It's important to note that while the report was issued in 2006 and appeared in the media in 2007, the tests it references were actually carried out in 2004-2005.

Let me point out a few things that aren't getting reported:

New Security Measures: Since 2004-2005, TSA has implemented new security measures and deployed enhanced technology, which reflect TSA's evolving approach to aviation security. Among TSA's many layers of security, both seen and unseen, these include the following:

  • Advanced technology X-ray systems, used to screen carry-on baggage, which feature multiple views of the item and enhanced detection capability. Currently, there are more than 940 AT X-ray units deployed to airports nationwide.
  • Advanced imaging technology, which safely screen passengers for both metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons and explosives. There are nearly 500 units deployed to airports, and the use of the technology has led to the detection of more than 130 dangerous or illegal items in the last year.
  • Enhanced pat-downs, which were deployed to greatly increase TSA's detection capabilities for threats such as those seen last year on Christmas Day.
Limited Scope: Not only is the report nearly 5 years old, but the limited testing was conducted at only three out of 450 federalized U.S. airports.

Covert Testing Increases Security: TSA conducts covert testing in order to continually challenge our workforce and raise the bar to create stronger layers of security. As Administrator Pistole pointed out while testifying on the Hill recently, the results of covert tests informed TSA's decision to implement enhanced measures, such as new pat down procedures and the widespread deployment of advanced imaging technology.

Bottom line, TSA will continue to use every tool at our disposal - including new security measures based on the latest intelligence and covert testing results to keep the traveling public safe. Security is not static, but constantly evolves to meet the terrorist threats of tomorrow.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

95 comments:

Pat Mullen said...

OK, so your result is based on 2004-2005 data that is ten years old? How can that output be valid today? I am missing something.

Robert MacLean said...

Yup. These were the years you went into overdrive retaliating against TSA whistleblowers such as myself, Spencer Pickard, and Frank Terreri.

In 2006, you won The Thomas Jefferson Muzzle Award:

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2006/

Exposed on ABC World News Tonight and 20/20 for your "very very wrong...arrogance" as charged by the Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7070437

You mandatory intelligence surveillance detection report policy that forced air marshals to input innocent passengers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K70hdhgVBY

Thanks for reminding us all about this milestone.

Respectfully,
Robert MacLean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean

Anonymous said...

If this information is outdated, Whats the current detection rate? You talk about new equipment and procedures, But don't state whether or not they've actually improved anything.

Tomas said...

So, Bob, rather than railing against the use of outdated reports and numbers, how 'bout supplying the current official reports and numbers.

Fight the use of out-of-date information with current information rather than complaining and waving one's hands.

As you do work for a public agency, that information really is the right of the American public to know.

We (collectively) pay TSA to do a job, and we deserve to know how well (or not) you are doing it.

Provide the current reports and numbers and we wouldn't have to use old ones...

Tom

Anonymous said...

"There are nearly 500 units deployed to airports, and the use of the technology has led to the detection of more than 130 dangerous or illegal items in the last year."
Wow! That is almost one pair of scissors found this year for every 4 nude scanners out there! Good work, guys! Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

The obvious question is: what is a more updated rate?

Concerned Observer said...

Thank you for addressing this.
However, you do not offer any more recent statistics. I would like to see recent statistics on whether or not the current measures are catching what they are supposed to.
Most of us have heard of the pair of 12" razor blades that supposedly got through security as well as the loaded gun that slipped through more recently. Both of these happened within the past two years, if I am not mistaken.
There are a number of genuinely concerned, logical, and reasonable citizens who would like to have access to this information in order to confirm that the TSA is accomplishing their goals.

Indeed, what are these goals? A 0% likelihood of terrorist attack is impossible, for there will always be a new/unknown technology. At what point does the % likelihood of attack become statistically insignificant?

Anonymous said...

In other words, you have no evidence that there's any actual improvement. But please don't pay attention to this because it upsets us. Wow, my faith in the TSA is doubled!

Anonymous said...

All that and a gun still went through security two weeks ago,

Anonymous said...

Let me point out one thing that isn't getting reported: - you haven't reported on the results of more recent tests. This lack of transparency is... telling. Instead of complaining about old test results being recirculated, how about publishing new test results????

Jim Huggins said...

So ... if the failure rate of 70% is outdated, what's TSA's current failure rate?

Anonymous said...

"Some stories acknowledge the outdated covert testing report while not acknowledging the steps that have been taken since then to improve security. All are misleading. "

Misleading, how? If you want us to trust the TSA's effectiveness, publish the results of more recent testing, "Bob."

Convenient that the TSA decided to "classify" (sort of, SSI isn't really classified since most members of the TSA do not hold security clearances) the results of this testing. I'm told that the current results are not much better than those reported upon.

That the TSA's performance was poor several years ago in no way implies that it's better now.

Smarten up, Bob. The taxpayers deserve better service than this. The 112th Congress will be cleaning up the mess that is the TSA.

Anonymous said...

Conspicuously missing: your current detection failure rate.

Way to spin things, Bob!

Anonymous said...

So what's the failure rate now? If it was good you would be bragging about it. We know you catch some guns because you busted Don King but you're not catching 100% because that guy with the Glock went through last month.

Saying "We sucked 5 years ago but we're better now" is not confidence inspiring. Saying that you only sucked at 3 out of 450 airports doesn't inspire confidence. Probably the airports that weren't tested were worse.

This high failure rate on carry-on-bags means that the nude-o-scopes, even if used properly, are largely useless. If you have a 70% chance of getting onto the plane by putting your gun in a carry-on, why would you try to conceal it on your person? What is the failure rate of detection on the nude-o-scopes?

The TSA should be concentrating on its primary mission: keeping guns and bombs off the planes. Stop looking for drugs, stop looking for nail clippers, stop searching for bottles of water. Stop harassing pregnant women. Stop checking ID's. When you start catching 90% of real threats then you can start making up some imaginary ones. The reality is that right now, there are too many ways to get a gun or a bomb onto a plane that don't require putting it in your underwear or mixing imaginary chemicals in the bathroom. Secure the baggage handling areas. When the TSA can make the guarantee to me that I can pack valuables in my luggage, then the checked baggage areas will be secure enough that I won't worry about bombs being slipped into luggage there.

Typically, the TSA is confiscating 2 guns a day. That means, given a 70% failure rate, that typically there are 6-7 guns flying. This may be lower today, but it was the statistical norm in 2004. Thankfully these guns must have belonged to law-abiding (though somewhat stupid) citizens, not terrorists.

Your agency sucks, it fails at keeping us safe and you've just been lucky.

Eric Vitiello said...

I would like to see a list of the 130 items that were found using the ~500 scanners, and the cost of each scanner. If I need to file FOIA paperwork, please let me know.

But I bet you don't even post this comment.

Anonymous said...

There is something glaringly missing from this post - your failure levels today. I'm guessing since you don't publish them they actually got worst. This is highly probable, since you guys have been distracted by new policies looking for all sorts of silly, not dangerous, items.

Anonymous said...

The statement that you purchased new X-rays is misleading. You did not invest well in X-rays capable of, say, looking into my bag in a way to allow me to keep my laptop inside. Instead, you decided to purchase X-rays that virtually strip-search people.

Anonymous said...

So what is your failure rate now? 85%? I suppose its worse, since in no part of the article you state that it improved.

Anonymous said...

"...Security is not static, but constantly evolves to meet the terrorist threats of tomorrow."

Constantly evolving......

It certainly looks like that within a very short time, the "evolution" that the TSA is imposing on the people of the United States will strip us of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS under the guise of protecting us.

First it was the gross and rediculous notion that simply using the word, "Administrative" means that citizens lose their 4th Amendment rights, and now citizens are being arrested at the airports for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak up against the TSA's abuse of our other rights.

American is becoming a POLICE STATE

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for you.

"During the time that the TSA was allowing 70% of the test weapons and explosives through security, how many planes were blown up or hijacked?"

ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

During that time, how many Americans did the TSA screen? 100 Million passengers?

Therefore, there is only one logical conclusion.

The American people are NOT a threat to our nation. No, it is the GOVERNMENT / HOMELAND SECURITY / TSA that is a threat, they are a clear and present threat to our very freedom.

Anonymous said...

Why does the TSA routinely censor about 75% of my comments?

In the land once known for freedom, the only thing transparent at the TSA is a citizen's clothes.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting my latest comments. I appreciate it.

RB said...

Ok, so the 70% detection rate is from a few years back.

What is the detection rate today or from the lastest test results?

Anonymous said...

So, Bob, what's the current rate?

txrus said...

Anonymous pointed out...
The statement that you purchased new X-rays is misleading. You did not invest well in X-rays capable of, say, looking into my bag in a way to allow me to keep my laptop inside.
**********************************
Which brings up a very good point-in the past several years, since that outdated data Bob is so dismissive of, the TSA has launched various campaigns to make sure things like laptops, large electronics, & even shoes are screened by themselves instead of leaving them in the carryons where they belong.

In other words, a campaign to dumb down the process because the screeners had a detection failure rate of 70+%.

So, as others have asked, Bob-what is the CURRENT detection failure rate in this era of everything gets its own bin?

Anonymous said...

In early December, John Pistole was quoted in a lot of the mainstream media as saying every test gun, bomb part or knife got past screeners at some airports. Since he was only confirmed to the position less than a year ago, I can't imagine that he'd be talking about previous failures of over four years ago, but about current failures that he planned to address.

This blog is typical of the TSA reactionary stance on, well, pretty much everything. If y'all did something right the first time, about half of your detractors would simply die of shock.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, you are now getting closer to a record-breaking 100% detection failure rate!

Anonymous said...

AIT technology has been demonstrated in peer-reviewed research to be EASILY fooled. So how does that counter such a high failure rate?

Anonymous said...

Come on, guys. You know they can't reveal their current failure rate - that would be a security threat!

/sarcasm

Anonymous said...

Since the current failure rates are not included in this apologetic piece of excuse upon excuse, I have to assume they are worse than 70%.

Anonymous said...

130 dangerous or illegal items
Could we please have break down of what the found items were?

Anonymous said...

Bob,

You aren't stupid. Why did you post this? You knew that posting that the failure rate isn't currently 70% would obviously lead to the question of what the current rate actually is.

Anonymous said...

Why do you continue to waste taxpayer dollars with postings that offer no data and no information? For those of us who are frequent travelers and witness the behaviors of many TSA employees, no one is surprised by reports of incompetence. What private sector company would think they can take a person with a few weeks of training, classify them as a professional, and ordain them as a security officer to protect our country? Only the TSA.

Anonymous said...

Ridiculous. Show us you are better now. In the absence of new numbers, we will have to continue using the data we have, and suspect it probably got worse.

Anonymous said...

There is a reson that TSA does not post their current failure rate and it has nothing to do with informing the terrorists. The TSA's approach to security is a lesson in how to fail on a grand scale.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/12/24/2726608_tsas-screening-strategy-criticized.html

Mark said...

Why does the TSA routinely censor about 75% of my comments?

Because they need something with a better percentage than 70% of failure.

Anonymous said...

Remember, blogger bob can't tell us what the current rate is. It's a federal crime to embarrass the TSA. I'm sure he doesn't want to be the next Chris Liu,

RB said...

Bob, I don't think the public will fall for your con game, at least not unless you learn the con game trade a bit better.

K Smith said...

The current failure rates must be so bad they dare not report it.

Classic government obfuscation tactics - to keep people from knowing the truth just don't report it. Kind like the Fed did with the size of the money supply. They just stopped reporting the data in 2006. Or the Bureau of Labor Statistics with inflation. They just don't report real inflation any more.

You don't need to see their identification.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

They can go about their business.

Move along.

Anonymous said...

Current failure rates, please.

Anonymous said...

Proof or it didn't happen... TSA failure actually decreasing that is.

It seems like the TSA is just one big bag of fail.

Sandra said...

Bob, why do you continue with these types of threads? Threads that you know are at the very least obfuscatory and at worst, full of untruths.

The only conclusion any reader can reach from this thread is that the current results are far worse than the prior results or are picking up items that are of absolutely no threat to any aircraft.

Anonymous said...

Apparently all the previous commenters have missed the BIGGEST iron of Bob's post:

"Limited Scope: Not only is the report nearly 5 years old, but the limited testing was conducted at only three out of 450 federalized U.S. airports."

So they complain that a sample of security only 3 airports is insufficient to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of security. This from the same agency that uses a study of AIT installations at only 3 airports at proof of their safety.

Anonymous said...

Great way to start the year! FFirst admit that you actually did fail 70% of the time (even if it was a few years ago in a few airports), then somehow avoid providing any new data, or even telling us that the current rates are better than that!

Typical TSA.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, the failure rate of this blog is around 100%.

Chris Boyce said...

It doesn't matter what your failure rate is or isn't. The real causes of improved civil aviation security for the last 10 years has been:

1. The change in doctrine in place prior to 9/11 of cooperating with hijackers;

2. The willingness of passengers and crew to fight back, which caused the failure of the shoe and underwear bombers; and,

3. The hardening of cockpit doors.

Sorry, TSA...you are irrelevant.

SSSS for some reason said...

I'll add my voice to the growing numbers of others.... Can you please provided updated and current data?

I am going to file FOIA paperwork and post a link to what I get (if anything). Anyone else who does the same, please share what you get (if anything).

Rock said...

If the next post from the TSA and from Bob is anything other than a verifiable number of the current rate, and is instead either "we can't tell you" or "that number doesn't exist" or a humor post, or a puppy post, or anything - ANYTHING - when a VERY easy to understand and answer question is being asked by EVERYBODY...

...we have the first true and incontrovertible proof of the fact that this blog is nothing more than sheer propaganda with no real value to the American taxpayer, who is paying for it.

Boilerplate:
American's have a right to travel freely within their borders, by any legal conveyance;
The 4th amendment requires probably cause for searches.

don't believe it said...

This truly is government reasoning at its finest: Man, you can't criticize us -- we haven't failed seventy percent of the time since 2005!

Would a business with that kind of failure rate in 2004-2005 still be around today? You know the answer.

I'll look forward to seeing more recent data on this topic.

Anonymous said...

You know why the press uses this outdated data? Because it is the only data it has! It is correct to use it, since it pertains to the TSA, and you fully admit that it is real data here. Unless you give new data, they should stick with what they have.

As many above, I suspect the new data may actually be worse than 70%. Considering you are now distracted by silly new little rules and procedures, and won´t reveal new numbers, I estimate something around 85% for 2010.

Anonymous said...

Breakdown of the 130 dangerous or illegal items the TSA found in the last year.

65 - Snow Globes
25 - Toner and ink cartridges
8 - Gel shoe inserts
30 - Bottles of Water
2 - Pairs of scissors

Dead Dog Bounce said...

Hi Bob,

If you cannot supply results on success or otherwise of penetration tests carried out at airports, can you at least answer the following question:

Please list all tests carried out since establishment of TSA, including dates and number of airports checked and number of penetrations attempted.

I don't care about the security-sensitive pass-rate. I'm starting to think you don't bother to test your security properly.

Anonymous said...

Any security procedure that depends on people staying alert and watching a scanner display for hours day after day will never be effective. People just can't do this. You fancy new scanners won't change this and I doubt the failure rate has changed.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

As many other US citizens here & elsewhere have called for - show us more current data!

Also, you think we should feel better because you are virtually strip searching & irradiating us w the new scanners or sexually assaulting us with body searches ( calling them pat-downs is insulting & stupid). You haven't improved security. You are violating laws & the Constitution.

Stop with the obfuscation, please.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, TSA...you are irrelevant."

While you are certainly correct that the TSA is irrelevant with regard to security, it certainly is relevant to the 67000+ it employs.

Junior said...

Yes, test results were not favorable then. Can we look at first the year: 2004-2005 TSA is 2-3 years old, a startup that had to perform with a learning curve leaning against experience. Previous practices created an environment for the birth of this agency. Now since, an agency that has to be 100% all the time, has performed exceptionally well. Wall Street wunderkinds are not expected to perform close to that level to earn mega bonuses. A better informed public is now flying with enhanced capbailties as to what may be inapproiate for flight. An airline industry is thriving, and an American public has lost the anxiety that came after 9/11. Hey, we are doing somehting right.

Anonymous said...

Now, Bob, I might not be good at math, but if I'm reading this right, at least 370 AIT machines did nothing but take naked pictures of people, right? So, if you are a AIT screener, a busy YEAR entails finding one item? That doesn't sound very effective or efficient.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
"Sorry, TSA...you are irrelevant."

While you are certainly correct that the TSA is irrelevant with regard to security, it certainly is relevant to the 67000+ it employs.

January 3, 2011 11:15 AM

.........
What is more relevant is why should the public be required to support 67,000 public servants who offer nothing in return to the public?

Waste of tax monies!

Anonymous said...

We are nation depended on guns.
They take our guns.
Make us live in a bubble.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE

Anonymous said...

THE TSA, HOMELAND SECURITY, And the FED are illegal! get them out the country. send them back to England!

Anonymous said...

Bob, you are obviously active because you are approving comments. So, are you going to give us the new numbers or could you at least tell us if they are not available and why?

Anonymous said...

So where are your peer reviewed statistics ?
You're full of lies.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for the current detection failure rates.

Bubba said...

You can continue to invest in X-rays and whole body imaging machines, and you will continue to have dismal failure rates. Why? It is a human trait to be dismally bad at detecting rare objects visually:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/full/435439a.html

Yet another article from the World´s top scientific journal Nature, the same journal that stated there is no science behind the SPOT program.

Why does the TSA ignore good science?

ZRD said...

It's become fairly clear that this blog has transitioned from useful information to a PR stunt gone wrong, when a majority of the posts are obfuscation, including this one.

Like everyone else has said - you didn't provide update numbers, nor did you say the older numbers were inaccurate at the time. Therefore, the correct thing to do is to presume the current numbers are roughly in line with the old ones, say a 60-80% failure rate.

Anonymous said...

In resonse to Anonymous:
""There are nearly 500 units deployed to airports, and the use of the technology has led to the detection of more than 130 dangerous or illegal items in the last year."
Wow! That is almost one pair of scissors found this year for every 4 nude scanners out there! Good work, guys! Keep it up!"

While I can see how the numbers shown in the article are small in comparison to the amount of scans going on, I respectfully disagree with your approach to the subject. (as indicated by your apparently sarcastic tone). Seeing how far TSA's measures have improved since 2004/2005, isn't it reasonable to admit that while they may be catching, as you say, 1/4 now that they may be improving the scans in the future? And really, if one out of every four people is caught with some sort of "weapon" (scissors aren't usally classified as weapens but for the purpose of this topic could be used as such)isn't that 25% less of a chance that someone is going to come and hurt you with said scissors? Just a thought.

"We've had a series of reports actually going back several years from the inspector general, from the General Accounting Office, and our own TSA Office of Inspection, where they do, as you describe, covert testing," Pistole acknowledged to George Stephanopoulos last month during an interview on Good Morning America. "And unfortunately, [undercover testers] have been very successful over the years." said...

"We've had a series of reports actually going back several years from the inspector general, from the General Accounting Office, and our own TSA Office of Inspection, where they do, as you describe, covert testing," Pistole acknowledged to George Stephanopoulos last month during an interview on Good Morning America. "And unfortunately, [undercover testers] have been very successful over the years."

MarkVII said...

Whether this 70% failure rate is current or not, I think one thing is clear.

The TSA expends too much effort looking for items that only a petty bureaucrat would consider a security risk (eyeglass repair kits, lipstick, contact lens solution, gel packs to refrigerate breast milk) and not enough on realistic threats.

Also, the TSA continues to paint a bulls-eye on its own back with its organizational arrogance.

Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes

P.S. Ironic CAPTCA this time -- ouSHAM

DJ said...

looks like "The Economist" isn't buying this...

They point out many of the same arguments made here, then remind us that the ABC News piece didn't rely on the 2004-2005 numbers, but rather on sources briefed on more recent data. One of the sources was John Pistole.

Anonymous said...

What do you bloggers expect? Do you think that a terrorist is attempting to get a bomb through everyday? You keep asking for evidence of the items TSA has found, multiple guns are found everyday. On average, how many people do you think attempt to carry a gun or bomb on board daily? For guns, I doubt it is that high. And bombs, it has not happened in the USA yet...The important question is, are the measures in place today going to keep us safe? Is TSA going to detect the passenger with a bomb that will eventually try to get though? I think so, only time will tell. We will really only know the answer when somone tries to sneak a bomb though one of the TSA checkpoints.

Anonymous said...

Unless current detection failure rates are published, we can only believe that they got worse after all the new technology and attention on thermos bottles to further distract your staff. There is no other reason to hide the current data from us.

Anonymous said...

The travelling public that flies on planes is already very safe and secure as compared to the travelling public that rides in cars.

The very best goal that TSA can hope to evolve towards is something that pushes the already insignificant threat of airplane damage out of the airplane in into the unprotected soft targets, like the checkpoint. (Checkpoints themselves are already targets of the terrorist threats of today -- See Iraq, Afgahnistan, etc... no evolution necessary.)

Anonymous said...

Is TSA going to detect the passenger with a bomb that will eventually try to get though? I think so, only time will tell. We will really only know the answer when somone tries to sneak a bomb though one of the TSA checkpoints.
------------------------------------------

And in your world it somehow makes sense to spend millions and millions of dollars to prevent something so rare that no one has even attempted to do it it at least a decade? Well, heck, why don't we ramp up the TSA's black widow detection system? Of course, we won't know if it worked until someone tries to smuggle a bunch of black widow spiders onto a plane. But before you laugh, please think of how you might feel if you or a relative was bitten by a deadly black widow spider on a plane and we hadn't done everything in our power to stop it.

Do you people have any concept whatsoever of the scarcity of resources? Every dollar that TSA spends could be going to fight the things that actually kill us. I know that heart disease, cancer, and diabetes aren't as sexy as terrorism, but they are the actual threats to your life.

Anonymous said...

Should we expect a response to the Economist piece about this blog post, or are you planning to completely ignore it?

Speaking of which, have you heard back from the experts that you contacted about the Nature article? Several months ago you claimed that you had sent out some inquiries...

RB said...

Bob you are apparently claiming that the 70% Detection Failure Rate is incorrect.

So what is the Failure Detection Rate from the latest available data?

RB said...

"Bottom line, TSA will continue to use every tool at our disposal - including new security measures based on the latest intelligence and covert testing results to keep the traveling public safe. Security is not static, but constantly evolves to meet the terrorist threats of tomorrow."


Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

...........
I fail to see how TSA complies with the above statement when TSA fails to screen everyone equally that enters the secure areas of airports.

Care to explain this discrepancy Bob?

Anonymous said...

Current failure rates are obviously worse than 70%, since you won't even publish a sentence saying they have improved!

RB said...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,2


"DHS serves only one clear purpose: to provide unimaginable bonanzas for favored congressional districts around the United States, most of which face no statistically significant security threat at all. One thinks of the $436,504 that the Blackfeet Nation of Montana received in fiscal 2010 "to help strengthen the nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks"; the $1,000,000 that the village of Poynette, Wisconsin (pop. 2,266) received in fiscal 2009 for an "emergency operations center"; or the $67,000 worth of surveillance equipment purchased by Marin County, California, and discovered, still in its original packaging, four years later."



"As for the TSA, I am not aware of a single bomber or bomb plot stopped by its time-wasting procedures. In fact, TSA screeners consistently fail to spot the majority of fake "bombs" and bomb parts the agency periodically plants to test their skills. In Los Angeles, whose airport was targeted by the "millennium plot" on New Year's 2000, screeners failed some 75 percent of these tests."

We need TSA why?

Anonymous said...

How many guns are flying today?

On average, the TSA confiscates 2-3 guns per day, nationwide. Given a failure rate of 70%, there are 4-5 illegal guns flying every day.

Thankfully, those carrying the guns are law-abiding, albeit somewhat stupid, citizens. Were there actual terrorists trying to take over planes we would all be in big trouble.

TSA needs to concentrate on keeping guns and bombs off the planes. Stop confiscating water, stop confiscating small knives and pliers. Stop with the shoe removal already. Get people through security faster and work on making the lines shorter (a big line at the security checkpoint is a perfect terrorist target).

Focus, test and improve. When the TSA can boast a 99% success rate in catching guns and bombs in tests then maybe it's time to move onto something more challenging.

The nude-o-scopes are a big distraction for the TSA. Since you can't catch the guns in carry-ons (and we know this still happens - there was that guy with the Glock last month) why would a terrorist bother hiding a gun on their person? And what is the success rate of catching guns, knives, etc. with the nude-o-scopes? We know that at least one person was scanned with one and had their saw blades completely missed. How many guns have been missed by the nude-o-scopes?

The TSA is one big failure. You have not been successful since 9/11. You have been lucky. Stop lying to everyone about how wonderful you are and show some humility. Start working to improve and stop treating all of your customers as criminals.

RB said...

Bob, you claim the 70% Detection Failure Rate is not accurate so tell us what the current Failure Detection Rate is?

RB said...

Bob still waiting for the latest Dectection Failure Rate.

Until more recent data is posted the rate remains at a 70% failure rate for TSA screening.

Anonymous said...

rb said:
"Bob still waiting for the latest Dectection Failure Rate.

Until more recent data is posted the rate remains at a 70% failure rate for TSA screening."

come on rb why so positive i figured that you would assume that they are in fact WORSE than 70% because the tsa is hiding the info. your slipping...

Anonymous said...

How much do you want to bet that the TSA has gotten *worse*?

FACT: the TSA has NEVER stopped ANY terrorist.

FACT: the TSA has missed a massive amount of potentially dangerous and illegal items, including weapons like razor blades and guns.

Just a few of the 'mistakes' even AFTER the enhanced screening enacted recently:

LOADED GUN!

2 (12") STEEL RAZOR BLADES!

The above two examples occurred in December 2010!

My guess is that the failure rate is closer to 90% now.

RB said...

Bob, you post and claim the 70% TSA failure rate is wrong.

So why not finish the post and provide current verifiable numbers supporting your post?

RB said...

RB said...
Bob, you post and claim the 70% TSA failure rate is wrong.

So why not finish the post and provide current verifiable numbers supporting your post?

January 21, 2011 7:16 AM

.......................
Bob, is this going to be another series of questions you refuse to respond to?

I ask you softball questions based on information YOU posted and all of a sudden you get laryngitis of the fingers.

Why is that Bob?

If the TSA detection failure rate is not 70% what is the detection failure rate?

RB said...

Bob, is this going to be another series of questions you refuse to respond to?

I ask you softball questions based on information YOU posted and all of a sudden you get laryngitis of the fingers.

Why is that Bob?

If the TSA detection failure rate is not 70% what is the detection failure rate?

January 22, 2011 9:24 AM

........
Still waiting Bob.

RB said...

Bob, is this going to be another series of questions you refuse to respond to?

I ask you softball questions based on information YOU posted and all of a sudden you get laryngitis of the fingers.

Why is that Bob?

If the TSA detection failure rate is not 70% what is the detection failure rate?

January 22, 2011 9:24 AM

........
Still waiting Bob.

January 27, 2011 12:24 PM

......................
And still waiting Bob.

RB said...

RB said...
Bob, is this going to be another series of questions you refuse to respond to?

I ask you softball questions based on information YOU posted and all of a sudden you get laryngitis of the fingers.

Why is that Bob?

If the TSA detection failure rate is not 70% what is the detection failure rate?

January 22, 2011 9:24 AM

........
Still waiting Bob.

January 27, 2011 12:24 PM

......................
And still waiting Bob.

January 29, 2011 10:11 AM
.....................
Bob, I know you've been busy writting a post slamming Mr. Mocek and then getting to eat another course of Crow but come on. You posted that the 70% TSA Detection Failure Rate was incorrect. All I or the others are asking for is the current TSA Failure Detection Rate.

It is your claim Bob that 70% is wrong so get a little backbone and finish up with some correct information.

enjaydo said...

This blog has previously misrepresented and skewed words/data for pr purposes. Why should we believe this?

Publish them on your website so we can verify that you are telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

So lets see if I get you anti TSA people right. You THINK you have the right to know every single little detail of how TSA does everything right? So this means you are in favor of letting the enemy know how best to get around the security that is in place and bring down another plane? Do I have this correct? Because thats what it sounds like to me. There is an old saying that still rings true today--"Loose lips sink ships". Why in the world would you give the enemy ANY kind of information that might help them? Simply because you think you have some right to know?
And answer ONE question for me. How many planes have gone down since TSA took over? I'll wait.
Times up. ZERO, NONE, NADA!! There is no way thats pure luck. Also why are you always blaming TSA for things that happen in other countries? The underwear bomber originated in Amsterdam or something. How is THAT TSA's fault?

RB said...

Anonymous said...
So lets see if I get you anti TSA people right. You THINK you have the right to know every single little detail of how TSA does everything right? So this means you are in favor of letting the enemy know how best to get around the security that is in place and bring down another plane? Do I have this correct? Because thats what it sounds like to me. There is an old saying that still rings true today--"Loose lips sink ships". Why in the world would you give the enemy ANY kind of information that might help them? Simply because you think you have some right to know?
And answer ONE question for me. How many planes have gone down since TSA took over? I'll wait.
Times up. ZERO, NONE, NADA!! There is no way thats pure luck. Also why are you always blaming TSA for things that happen in other countries? The underwear bomber originated in Amsterdam or something. How is THAT TSA's fault?

February 3, 2011 6:27 PM

.................
I don't understand your claim of Anti-TSA for just asking what the Detection Failure Rate is since TSA says the reported 70% Detection Failure Rate is outdated.

Wouldn't you like to know just how well TSA is doing in their screenings?

So I ask again, Bob, if as you claim the 70% Detection Failure Rate is not accurate then what is the current TSA Detection Failure Rate?

ZJ Monkey said...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin

He is absolutely correct. I find it appalling the number of sheep that are putting up with this. What happened to America? We used to be the home of the brave, after 9/11 we are now a nation of cowards jumping at every shadow. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Did it not occur to you guys that claiming "improved security" is meaningless when you don't actually give us any new data on TSA failure rates?

This article can be summarized like this: "Okay so we used to have a 70 percent failure rate, but now we've changed some things"

I severely doubt any meaningful improvements have been made, seeing as how you are unwilling to publish any new data.

Anonymous said...

The TSA is an abomination and needs to be abolished!

Anonymous said...

Dear TSA, Don't feel bad. The Senator from the Great State of Maine did the same thing to the Capitol City Police after an incident back in '04/'05. Capitol City Police beat you with a hands down outright failure rate of 100% (failure) at all tested facilities. That's not to say they're useless or that they don't do their job or are without success in other areas (they also have a high rate of paycheck cashing.) Dear General Public, When keeping you safe counts; count on yourself.