Auditors Question TSA's Tech Spending, Security Solutions 239
Frosty P writes "Government auditors have faulted the TSA and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, for failing to properly test and evaluate technology before spending money on it. The TSA spent about $36 million on devices that puffed air on travelers to 'sniff' them out for explosives residue. All 207 of those machines ended up in warehouses, abandoned as unable to perform as advertised, deployed in many airports before the TSA had fully tested them. Since it was founded in 2001, the TSA has spent roughly $14 billion in more than 20,900 transactions with dozens of contractors, including $8 billion for the famous new body scanners that have recently come under scrutiny for being unable to perform the task for which they are advertised. 'TSA has an obsession of finding a single box that will solve all its problems. They've spent and wasted money looking for that one box, and there is no such solution,' said John Huey, an airport security expert."
Who'da Thunk? (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA is not about solutions that work (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA is simply a job creation program that has gone amok. At first it was extra baggage screeners, but it's now grown to the point that the only jobs they could think of involve fondling people. I think the idea is that if they get sued often enough, it will create lots of jobs for paralegals, expert witnesses and attorneys. The TSA likes machines because machines need operators, and each operator is one more job. In short the TSA is the biggest farce I've ever seen the government create, and it can't be closed down completely quickly enough.
Magical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not use dogs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering why no one is asking about using dogs for bomb sniffing.
I'm guessing that the reason the TSA isn't trying that is because dogs can be supplied by many "vendors". It's more difficult to patent a dog than a scanner.
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they wouldn't be raiding the pilot's house that blew the whistle on this blatant hypocritical mission that the TSA is apparently on. http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=113529&provider=top&catid=188 [news10.net]
These scanners are obviously making their way to shopping malls, schools, gov buildings, and just about anywhere else - so don't let them fool you and tell you it's for the brown men in turbans, feeling up your 14yr old daughter and your 75yr old grandmother has nothing to do with brown men in turbans plotting evil things in caves.
Re:TSA is not about solutions that work (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not simply a job creation scheme - it is primarily a weath transfer machine backed by arse covering beaurocrats/lobbyists/corporatists on the revolving doorway that is the Security-Industrial Complex. The corporations get their money whether the machnes work or not. In fact, it is better if the machines don't work as there is then the option for supplying the Next Solution to Your Problem (TM)
Re:Uh, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lowest bidder only maximizing profit for shareholder.
Incumbent official only maximizing donations to reelection campaigns.
I do not see much difference.
Are we really worried about knives? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the pilot is behind a locked door (that the knife cannot cut through), are we really concerned about knives?
And dogs should be able to detect firearms.
Re:Are we really worried about knives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Oh yes! Remember, those 9/11 trrrrists had nothing but carpet knives!
Of course, we now tell the pilot to never open that door, no matter the threat, and guess what, this would entirely solve the knife threat (not for the unfortunate passengers, but then... 300 passengers knowing they will get their throats slit vs. maybe 4 terrorists... let's overpower them with mass!).
The whole threat scenario does not fit reality anymore. But we're deadly afraid of knives and we have to defend against them, ignoring that there is already a solution for it in place. Because, remember, it worked once already!
Re:Why not use dogs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because dogs don't give security theater the same feeling as machines do.
In this forum, everyone knows how bad machines can mess up, but to the layperson, a million dollar machine running sophisticated terrorist detection software operated by a surely well trained man in a deep blue uniform will get the job done. Everyone other passenger owns a dog. Dogs aren't magical to them, but machines: machines are magical and completely above reproach. There are millions of dollars of work from people who are far smarter than you in there. You can trust that will keep you safe.
Remember, it really isn't about safety. We have other people to handle that. TSA is their to handle the illusion of safety.
Re:Magical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that every time, it's not limited to government. Companies want that magic box that keeps them save from trojans and hackers alike. Buy once, forget about it is the goal.
And it's insanely hard to get it through a CEOs skull that this is not the way it works. Even if his CISO and CTO are there yelling with you in chorus.
I can actually give you a box, but it is worth jack without trained personnel and without adapting security protocols. And both cost time and continue to cost money. That's something most beancounters loathe.
Usually a few weeks later I get informed that they decided against me and bought some solution that gives them that box. And it's working, they haven't been hacked since.
And if there's no fire, you can build your house out of cardboard and it won't go up in flames.
DHS riddles with waste? (Score:4, Insightful)
A bloated bureaucratic behemoth that paid for iPods for cops and bullet proof vests for dogs? But didn't pay for extra employees for searches? Or keeping cops on the street?
The next thing you will be telling me is that there is a pattern of bribery and corruption between contractors and employees administering the contracts.
They need their budget slashed immediately.
Re:And then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks.
People have been hijacking and blowing up planes for decades and nobody's economies collapsed. It's only since it happened over American soil that The Terrorist Fear took over and America started fucking everyone (including themselves) in the ass and generally doing the terrorists' jobs for them.
The rest of the world has been dealing with this sort of bullshit for years and getting on with their lives. I was on the tube in London two days after a bunch of fucktards blew it up and we didn't have government agents groping passengers at every station (well, not officially, anyway). We got blown up by a higher class of arseholes in the 80s and we learned how to deal with that sort of shit. The correct response is the Glasgow response. You boot your local terrorist in the nuts as hard as you can, then go about your business.
The sooner America realises that they're amateurs at this and learns how to handle it properly the better.
Re:Magical thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
I was discussing this with the security manager recently. We've gone several years without a significant incident. Because of that, it can be very hard to justify new things that we do need: updates, upgrades, new technology that handles the new generation of threats. They don't understand why we want to go through app proxies when the existing firewalls -- glorified stateful inspection firewalls -- seem to do the job just fine. SurfControl worked fine for years, so they don't understand why we need proxies that do more than just traffic categorization. I admit that we can certainly communicate better, but even good communication won't necessarily address the perception that everything is OK now and so probably will be for the time being.
Re:And then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the Jean Charles de Menezes incident was a royal cockup of monumental proportions. The Met got rumbled trying to lie their way out of it too.
When the IRA put bombs in bins in public areas, yes, we removed the bins (there usually are bins now - sensitive areas have heavy duty bins that direct explosions upwards) and put non-shatter windows into the bottom two floors of public buildings. That's a reasonable response to a sustained bombing campaign, much like reinforcing and locking cockpit doors.
You can't 'win' a 'war' against terrorists - you do what you can to limit damage and make large targets more difficult to bomb, and apart from that you have to accept that it's just not possible to eliminate risk. If you go massively overboard like the US has done, you really have Let The Terrorists Win.
The clue's in the name. They're terrorists. If you let them terrorise you, I'd say that's a pretty convincing victory for them. The IRA et al and 7/7 bombers were largely unsuccessful as terrorists - they scared the shit out of us for a few weeks, but that's about as far as it went. People kept going to the pub after the Guilford and Woolwich bombings, the tube was back up and running in a matter of hours after 7/7. The trick is not to give a fuck and make sure they know it.