USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

TSA Week in Review - 37 Loaded Firearms Discovered in Carry-on Bags This Week

Friday, October 17, 2014
Loaded firearm discovered at LAS.

Loaded firearm discovered at LAS.

39 Firearms Discovered This Week - Of the 39 firearms, 37 were loaded and 14 had rounds chambered.

discovered grenade

Grenade (LEX)

Inert Ordnance and Grenades, etc. - We continue to find inert grenades and other weaponry on a weekly basis. Please keep in mind that if an item looks like a real bomb, grenade, mine or other explosives weapon, it is prohibited. When these items are found at a checkpoint or in checked baggage, they can cause significant delays because the explosives detection professionals must resolve the alarm to determine the level of threat. Even if they are novelty items, you cannot bring them on a plane. Read here on why inert items cause problems.

  • An novelty grenade was detected in a carry-on bag at Las Vegas (LAS).
  • An inert grenade was detected in a carry-on bag at Lexington (LEX).
  • A grenade-shaped E-cigarette was detected in a carry-on bag at Harrisburg (MDT).
discovered bullets in cuff

Bullets in cuff (BOS)

Artfully Concealed Prohibited Items - It’s important to examine your bags prior to traveling to ensure you are not carrying prohibited items. If a prohibited item is discovered in your bag or on your body, you could be cited and possibly arrested by local law enforcement. Here are a few examples from this week where prohibited items were found by our officers in strange places.

  • Two rounds of .22 caliber ammunition were detected sewn into a shirt cuff at Boston (BOS).
  • An oversized bottle of vodka was discovered in the right ankle area of a Minneapolis (MSP) passenger after advanced imaging technology screening.
Knuckle Stunner (ORD)

Knuckle Stunner (ORD)

Miscellaneous Prohibited Items - In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly, our officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.

Stun Guns - 11 stun guns were discovered in checked bags this week. Two were discovered at Las Vegas (LAS), and the remainder were discovered at Chicago O'Hare (ORD),Dallas Love (DAL),Denver (DEN),Minneapolis (MSP),Oakland (OAK),Omaha (OMA),Provo (PVU),Sacramento (SMF),and Salt Lake City (SLC).

discovered ammunition

Ammo (CRW)

Ammunition - When packed properly, ammunition can be transported in your checked baggage, but it is never permissible to pack ammo in your carry-on bag.

discovered firearms

Firearms discovered at: (Clockwise from top left) ATL, IAH, CLT, ATL, & HOU

discovered firearms

Firearms discovered at: (Clockwise from top left) ATL, CHA, RIC, IAH, & DEN

Table of firearms discovered in carry-on bags

*In order to provide a timely weekly update, this data is compiled from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly from what is reported in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will be actual numbers and not estimates.

You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline. You can go here for more details on how to properly travel with your firearms. Firearm possession laws vary by state and locality. Travelers should familiarize themselves with state and local firearm laws for each point of travel prior to departure.

Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the line is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. The passenger can face a penalty as high as $7,500. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions; that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items.

If you haven’t seen it yet, make sure you check out our TSA Blog Year in Review for 2013. You can also check out 2011 & 2012 as well.

Follow @TSA on Twitter and Instagram!

Bob Burns
TSA Blog Team

If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.

Comments

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Susan sez - "West, Sidney Alford is 1. a paid consultant to the British government and 2. concocted all his "bombs" in carefully controlled conditions, which could not be duplicated by a bunch of kids playing around with Tang.

For you to claim that his "work" supports your claims is disingenuous at best.

Find someone not paid by a government entity and then maybe your comment would have some semblance of the truth."

So you are going to discount the professional opinion of someone that has 40+ years of working in Chemistry and almost 40 years of working in explosives on a professional level - because they do some contract work for the British, American and Australian governments? Wow. You may as well discount the vast majority of industry leaders and advisors to all forms of business - because most of the really good ones do at least some form of consulting or contracting with governments all over the world.

Anon sez - "I did notice in the video that the man says there will likely be a lot of failures. It's somewhat cut off but that leads me to believe that this bomb is unstable and will not work as intended or will kill the bomber before it can be placed."

Dr Alford does indeed indicate that there will most likely be failures in the process. This is a part of a much larger documentary that I can not find linked online anymore (curse you BBC online!!!). Instability is one of the bigger problems facing someone that would want to use something of this nature to blow up an airplane, but there are fairly simple ways (at least according to the explosives experts I have worked with) to stabilize something with additives - at least stabilize it enough to get through a checkpoint and on to a plane.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

West,

I'm sure someone with more chemistry knowledge might be able to figure out a way to stabilize the chemicals.

I'm not seeing how the liquid restrictions would stop this. If he made this with a half liter bottle of liquid, then somebody could easily divide that liquid into a few smaller bottles and carry them through security.

I can see the logic in limiting the total amount of liquids, but I don't see the logic for limiting the size of the bottle. The zip lock bag limits the total volume. Why does it matter if there is two large bottles or six small bottles?

I think the liquid restrictions should be relaxed or removed completely. Throw in some random testing of liquids and I think we would be just as safe.

Submitted by RB on

GSOLTSO said...
Susan sez - "West, Sidney Alford is 1. a paid consultant to the British government and 2. concocted all his "bombs" in carefully controlled conditions, which could not be duplicated by a bunch of kids playing around with Tang.

For you to claim that his "work" supports your claims is disingenuous at best.

Find someone not paid by a government entity and then maybe your comment would have some semblance of the truth."

So you are going to discount the professional opinion of someone that has 40+ years of working in Chemistry and almost 40 years of working in explosives on a professional level - because they do some contract work for the British, American and Australian governments? Wow. You may as well discount the vast majority of industry leaders and advisors to all forms of business - because most of the really good ones do at least some form of consulting or contracting with governments all over the world.

Anon sez - "I did notice in the video that the man says there will likely be a lot of failures. It's somewhat cut off but that leads me to believe that this bomb is unstable and will not work as intended or will kill the bomber before it can be placed."

Dr Alford does indeed indicate that there will most likely be failures in the process. This is a part of a much larger documentary that I can not find linked online anymore (curse you BBC online!!!). Instability is one of the bigger problems facing someone that would want to use something of this nature to blow up an airplane, but there are fairly simple ways (at least according to the explosives experts I have worked with) to stabilize something with additives - at least stabilize it enough to get through a checkpoint and on to a plane.

West
TSA Blog Team

October 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM
.....................
Under what conditions could a person transport a one part liquid explosive and not have that item go boom at the wrong time?

Or if it is two + part(s) under what conditions can the various parts be mixed without having a lab available.

And the final questions, the ones that completely destroy TSA's credibility is why several 100 ML containers are safe when the same amount in one bottle is not safe or why these too dangerous to fly liquids can be safely tossed into common garbage right at the checkpoint.

TSA's procedures in this area prove that the threat from a liquid based explosive is unlikely.

People see when you do stupid things TSA!

Submitted by Anonymous on
"I don't understand how people can forget what happened on 9/11 - the way the hijackers were able to breeze through security, the types of weapons they used to take the planes down..."

Box-cutters were allowed at the time. Your point is not valid.

"...People become angry that their drinks are "taken" etc and that they are being screened at all..."

People are angry because screening is overly invasive to the point of violating civil and human rights and ultimately ineffective. People are not angry simply because screening exists.

"...instead of researching how water or soda can be an initiator for an IED..."

The same water and soda available for sale past the TSA checkpoint? The same water and soda that can be brought through in multiple small bottles without any trouble?

"...instead of realizing there isn't a profile for what a "terrorist looks like" - because it could be anyone..."

I agree. PreCheck is useless.

"...Everything that passengers bring through a checkpoint that isn't allowed to fly is disposed of in mass quantities...."

It's tossed in a garbage bin or auctioned off as government surplus, unless the passenger is somehow able to get to the bag they've already checked.

"...Not because they could all be secret weapons, but because they're a known risk..."

Every item is a risk. A stiletto heel or a pencil can be used to stab. A power cable or a belt can be used to strangle. A laptop computer or a book can be used to bludgeon. Bare hands can be used to punch.
Submitted by Anonymous on
...Alarming on sweat, pleats and buttons IS NOT a false alarm. Perhaps you should design a better method...

...An "alarm" is simply a notification of anomoly. Are these things an anomoly? Absolutly. are they a threat? No, of course not.

...But the machine can only detect anomolies which the officer mus then verify and clear... These items are NOT false alarms.

You haven't read about the boy who cried wolf, have you?

And do you really want TSA wasting resources on sweat and pleats? It's okay to demand better of the government, you know!
Submitted by Susan Richart on

West wrote: "So you are going to discount the professional opinion of someone that has 40+ years of working in Chemistry and almost 40 years of working in explosives on a professional level - because they do some contract work for the British, American and Australian governments? Wow."

Yes, I do discount his statements and "proofs" because he is too close to the British government and will say what they want him to say in order to keep his contracts.

Along the same lines, I discounted the TSA's claims that backscatter AIT was "safe."

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Submitted by Anonymous on

"How do you know this? Do you have statistics to support this claim?"

Yes. TSA's own blotter posts, posted nearly every Friday for quite some time now, make it very clear that the naked body scanners are finding absolutely NOTHING that is dangerous; indeed, their conspicuous failure to detect anything dangerous led Curtis Burns to stop mentioning them for quite a while until the absence was noted in a comment a few weeks ago. Since then, the blog has noted finding a bottle of completely harmless liquid each week.

No explosives. No bombs. No firearms.

Meanwhile, thousands of people, each and every week, are forced to undergo invasive physical searches because TSA rushed to use slow and ineffective screening technology. And all the blather West Cooper and Curtis Burns can muster does nothing to change the fact that the naked body scanners don't work, don't make anyone safer, and have never found anything that endangers anyone.

Pathetic.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Flying has always been part of my career. I appreciate what you guys do to keep me and fellow travelers safe. I always tell the TSA agents of my gratitude on all my business trips. Most anti government people will criticize any form of federal authority. The only reason TSA is criticized is because it is a government agency. If it's not this agency it will be another, I know I live a few miles from the border and around here Border Patrol is all people ever talk about. To all the nay sayers here I would like you to remember the positives when flying and see they outweigh the negative or presumed negative experiences.
Mark

Submitted by RB on

I notice that in this weeks TSA post that the first picture is a handgun supposedly found at LAS but when one takes a look at the list of airports and guns found LAS isn't listed at all.

Is the copy and pasting starting to catch up with the blog team?

Submitted by Anonymous on

"An "alarm" is simply a notification of anomoly. Are these things an anomoly? Absolutly. are they a threat? No, of course not. But the machine can only detect anomolies which the officer mus then verify and clear..
These items are NOT false alarms."

They're the very definition of false alarms: They are alarms that take place for no good reason. If your smoke alarm at home went off every time you took a hot shower and the ambient temperature of your home went up a few degrees, would you consider that a false alarm? Or would that simply be an "anomoly" [sic] that your alarm did a good job detecting, never mind the inconvenience and hassle of turning off the smoke alarm every time you bathed?

Submitted by Susan Richart on

"And do you really want TSA wasting resources on sweat and pleats? It's okay to demand better of the government, you know!"

This is most likely the reason why the TSA won't do a study on false alarms as requested by the GAO - they don't want anyone to know that their machines alarm on such nonsense.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Submitted by Anonymous on

Why do so many TSA clerks misspell the word "anomaly"?

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
"An "alarm" is simply a notification of anomoly. Are these things an anomoly? Absolutly. are they a threat? No, of course not. But the machine can only detect anomolies which the officer mus then verify and clear..
These items are NOT false alarms."
....
They're the very definition of false alarms: They are alarms that take place for no good reason. If your smoke alarm at home went off every time you took a hot shower and the ambient temperature of your home went up a few degrees, would you consider that a false alarm? Or would that simply be an "anomoly" [sic] that your alarm did a good job detecting, never mind the inconvenience and hassle of turning off the smoke alarm every time you bathed?

October 23, 2014 at 9:30 AM

......................
Legislation that allows TSA to conduct a Limited Administrative Search is clear that the search can only be for WEI.

Isn't a search for "Anomalies" a clear violation of the Limited Administrative Search doctrine?
............................

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

RB sez - "I notice that in this weeks TSA post that the first picture is a handgun supposedly found at LAS but when one takes a look at the list of airports and guns found LAS isn't listed at all.

Is the copy and pasting starting to catch up with the blog team?"

Please note the following disclaimer on all weekly posts -

*In order to provide a timely weekly update, this data is compiled from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly from what is reported in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will be actual numbers and not estimates.

Susan sez - "Yes, I do discount his statements and "proofs" because he is too close to the British government and will say what they want him to say in order to keep his contracts."

That is entirely your right, and we will simply have to disagree.

Anon sez - "Why do so many TSA clerks misspell the word "anomaly"?"

1. Not all of the comments are necessarily from TSA employees, they are anon as well.

2. Come on man, Anomaly is tough to work with some days.

Anon sez - "And all the blather West Cooper and Curtis Burns can muster"

Oh come now, I am not nearly as long winded as I used to be.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous Anonymous said... The only reason TSA is criticized is because it is a government agency"

No.

I criticize the TSA because they aren't doing what they claim they are there to do.

Eight Billion dollars of my money (not all of it is mine, but as a tax payer at least a couple of the dollars came from me) is wasted every year for the shoe carnival, the magic-zippy-bag that makes liquid safe, and the countless toys that are prohibited because some ninny somewhere might be scared by them.

There is a lot to criticize the TSA about, them being a Government Entity is actually pretty far down the list.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I'm still confused on the liquid restrictions. I have a tube of toothpaste that is 5.8 oz. I also have a couple of tubes that are 2.7 oz. Any of these tubes will fit in a quart size zip lock bag. Why can I bring two of the smaller tubes through security but I can't bring a single large tube? The total volume is approximately the same.

I just want the TSA to answer that question. Why does it matter the size of the individual container when the total volume allowed is limited by the size of the zip lock bag?

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

Anon sez - "I'm still confused on the liquid restrictions. I have a tube of toothpaste that is 5.8 oz. I also have a couple of tubes that are 2.7 oz. Any of these tubes will fit in a quart size zip lock bag. Why can I bring two of the smaller tubes through security but I can't bring a single large tube? The total volume is approximately the same.

I just want the TSA to answer that question. Why does it matter the size of the individual container when the total volume allowed is limited by the size of the zip lock bag?"

The best answer I can give you, is an old blog post from Kip Hawley outlining the reasoning behind the implementation and ensuing adjustments of the liquids ban in 2008.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

I continue to be intertained. Bacause TSA has not "caught" a terrorist or the body scanners have not "caught" a gun or explosive, they are ineffective. With that logic, fire bottles are ineffective because my kitchen has not caught fire. My car insurance is ineffective because I have not had a trffic accident. My fench is ineffective because my dog has not tried to jump. I dont need locks on my doors because nobody is trying to get in.
You know why people tend to not steal cars with alarms? They are affraid they may get caught. They steer away from houses with alarms beause they may get caught.
Did you ever think that perhaps they dont try to get guns throough the scanners because they may get caught. Perhaps just the fact that TSA has so many different types of screening, people with ill intent are staying clear of TSA checkpoints. Just maybe? All I know is, as someone said earlier, since the inception of TSA, not a sinigle terrorist attack has been attempted on a US based flight. Im good with that statistic.

Submitted by SSSS For Some Reason on

GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "I'm still confused on the liquid restrictions.....

The best answer I can give you, is an old blog post from Kip Hawley outlining the reasoning behind the implementation and ensuing adjustments of the liquids ban in 2008.

~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for the link and for the stroll down memory lane.

But.....

That link does nothing to actually answer the questions around the 3-1-1 rule.

Mr Hawley said in that linked article "...That is the trade-off: if 3-1-1 is too complicated, you can always just check your bag."

It isn't a question of being complicated, it is a question of being effective.

First, why is 20 ounces OK separated into three ounce bottles inside a zippy bag deemed safe, but 16 ounces in one bottle is deemed dangerous?

Second, if that one 16 ounce bottle is so dangerous why is it just tossed into the bin next to the scanners?

I am one of the good guys, or so my security clearance says, and even I can see the threat inherent in your practice of throwing stuff in the bin like it isn't dangerous. For example... Terrorist One winds his way through the line with Bad-Stuff Part A in a bottle. Nope, not going through and into the trash bin it goes. Terrorist Two winds his way through the line with Bad-Stuff Part B in a bottle. Nope, not going through and into the trash bin it goes. Now you have a situation where the TSA itself has put together the fabled liquid-bomb by its own security measures. Your policy is now responsible for the damages and possible deaths because you *said* you were basing your policy on risk without ever actually analyzing the risks in your policy. If you are truly going to have a risk-based plan you have to analyze ALL of the risks, not just the ones the bad guys are supposedly bringing.

Like I said, thank you for that link. And thank you for trying to answer the question. You didn't actually answer the question but I appreciate that you tried.

Submitted by RB on

GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "I'm still confused on the liquid restrictions. I have a tube of toothpaste that is 5.8 oz. I also have a couple of tubes that are 2.7 oz. Any of these tubes will fit in a quart size zip lock bag. Why can I bring two of the smaller tubes through security but I can't bring a single large tube? The total volume is approximately the same.

I just want the TSA to answer that question. Why does it matter the size of the individual container when the total volume allowed is limited by the size of the zip lock bag?"

The best answer I can give you, is an old blog post from Kip Hawley outlining the reasoning behind the implementation and ensuing adjustments of the liquids ban in 2008.

West
TSA Blog Team


October 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM

......................
And in the post that West linked to is item #4, which completely destroys the 100 ml restriction.


"4. The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet. You have to have significant uninterrupted time with space and other requirements that are not easily available in a secured area of an airport. It adds complexity to their preferred model and reduces our risk, having the expert make the bomb and give it to someone else to carry aboard. They are well aware of the Richard Reid factor where he could not even ignite a completed bomb. Simple is truly better for them. Also, bomb-makers are easier for us to identify than so-called clean 'mules.'"

Submitted by RB on

GSOLTSO said...
Anon sez - "I'm still confused on the liquid restrictions. I have a tube of toothpaste that is 5.8 oz. I also have a couple of tubes that are 2.7 oz. Any of these tubes will fit in a quart size zip lock bag. Why can I bring two of the smaller tubes through security but I can't bring a single large tube? The total volume is approximately the same.

I just want the TSA to answer that question. Why does it matter the size of the individual container when the total volume allowed is limited by the size of the zip lock bag?"

The best answer I can give you, is an old blog post from Kip Hawley outlining the reasoning behind the implementation and ensuing adjustments of the liquids ban in 2008.

West
TSA Blog Team


October 24, 2014 at 10:25 AM
.................
In further study of the information that West linked to we see another gaping hole.

The container itself adds complexity. A 100ml container limits the effect of, and even the ability of, a detonation. It also forces a more precise mix, and a lot more boost -- which makes it easier to detect from that side. Even creative ways to smuggle liquids in are less effective because, eventually, they still have to mix it right and get it into the right container, etc. There are also issues with what kind of container you use, but let's leave them to puzzle that out further...

Limiting the containers to 100 ml makes it difficult to make a complex weapon. But, TSA allows you to bring an empty container that could be used to consolidate the several 100 ml bottles of whatever right through a TSA checkpoint.

AT this point I'm guessing the people making up TSA policy all headed to the bar, got smashed, and set around seeing who could come up with the most outrageous excuses for real security.

TSA's LGA policy does not pass the sniff test.

Submitted by Anonymous on

At one time it was reported that TSA missed 70% of test items. Lets assume that is true.

Customs misses about 90% of illegals and 95% of smuggeled drugs.

Why is nobody complaining about the failures of customs?
Dont they also question people without cause? Dont they check your belongings without cause?
Dont they slow down the boarder crossings doing unwarranted searches? Dont they cost billions each year?
compaired to not one terrorist attack or attempt on an American based flight.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous said...With that logic, fire bottles are ineffective because my kitchen has not caught fire. My car insurance is ineffective because I have not had a trffic accident

~~~~~~~

Then you don't understand how those things work.

Fire Bottles do not prevent fire, nor are they designed to prevent fire. They are designed to extinguish a fire after it starts. To put that to a logical comparison Fire Bottles are to fires what Handcuffs are to Police.

Car insurance does not increase your driving safety in any way because it is only used after an incident, not before. To put that to a logical comparison Auto Insurance is to driving what aircraft oxygen masks are to passengers after a decompression event.

"....All I know is, as someone said earlier, since the inception of TSA, not a sinigle terrorist attack has been attempted on a US based flight. Im good with that statistic."

We're good that you're good with it. The TSA doesn't, however, get the credit for that statistic any more than your auto insurance gets the credit for your safe driving.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I continue to be intertained. Bacause TSA has not "caught" a terrorist or the body scanners have not "caught" a gun or explosive, they are ineffective. With that logic, fire bottles are ineffective because my kitchen has not caught fire. My car insurance is ineffective because I have not had a trffic accident. My fench is ineffective because my dog has not tried to jump. I dont need locks on my doors because nobody is trying to get in.
You know why people tend to not steal cars with alarms? They are affraid they may get caught. They steer away from houses with alarms beause they may get caught.
Did you ever think that perhaps they dont try to get guns throough the scanners because they may get caught. Perhaps just the fact that TSA has so many different types of screening, people with ill intent are staying clear of TSA checkpoints. Just maybe? All I know is, as someone said earlier, since the inception of TSA, not a sinigle terrorist attack has been attempted on a US based flight. Im good with that statistic.

October 24, 2014 at 11:56 AM

-------------------------------------

That's the problem. How do you know if the TSA is more effective than pre-TSA security? There have been no attacks but the 9/11 attacks would have still been successful if the TSA was there because boxcutters were permitted and the terrorists had valid boarding passes.

All I know is that my tiger repellent rock has kept me safe from tigers. I've never been attacked by a tiger since I started carrying it so it must work.

Submitted by Anonymous on

West,

The Kip Hawley doesn't really help. If somebody has gone as far as figuring out how to create a liquid bomb, they probably have a way to combine bottles.

I think easing the liquid restrictions would bring some goodwill towards the TSA. I don't see it being less safe if a regular size tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water was allowed. I don't think it would be poorly received like permitting small knives was.

Submitted by Anonymous on
"Perhaps just the fact that TSA has so many different types of screening, people with ill intent are staying clear of TSA checkpoints. Just maybe?"

Is your "maybe" worth $8 billion dollars per year?

Maybe I would like to see actual proof that TSA procedures work. Maybe I would like to see independently reviewable cost-benefit assessments. FWIW, the GAO issued a report that debunked at least one TSA procedure, and a university recently released a study concluding that TSA doesn't understand how to deter an intelligent terrorist.

"All I know is, as someone said earlier, since the inception of TSA, not a sinigle terrorist attack has been attempted on a US based flight. Im good with that statistic."

Before 9/11, passengers cooperated with hijackers. Now they won't. What if that change in mindset is enough to deter terrorists? Wouldn't you like to know if it is, so that we can stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars? Demand proof from TSA that it is spending taxpayer dollars effectively!
Submitted by Anonymous on

I know how important your job is and I apreciate everything you do.
the extra time it takes to get through security is ok with me.
Thank you
Lisa

Submitted by Neal Sonn on

To the poor spelling TSAnonymous - no, you are incorrect. The TSA misses about 100 guns every week that are in the cabins of up to 100 planes. And zero incidents have occurred. Zero.Because the people caring those guns on the planes are NOT terrorists and have no intention of trying to kill themselves and now up the plane.

Your bosses at the TSA admitted in a court of law that no terrorist is even trying to attack planes.

So all of the billions in confiscated property...all of the billions of naked photos taken of innocent people...all of the billions of dollars and hours wasted...all of the millions of innocent people sexually assaulted by the TSA...

Was for nothing. It didn't stop a terrorist. It didn't make flying safer. It didn't do any of the good intentions the TSA allegedly has.

All it did was steal and assault billions of innocent people.

What a disgusting waste.

Submitted by Wintermute on

TSAnonymous said...

"Bacause TSA has not "caught" a terrorist or the body scanners have not "caught" a gun or explosive, they are ineffective. "

No, that is not why they are ineffective. They are ineffective because they miss ~70% of threat items in red-team tests. And ~100% of alarms on the naked scanners have been false alarms (the number of actual items found by them is miniscule). If I did my job that poorly, I'd get fired.

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
At one time it was reported that TSA missed 70% of test items. Lets assume that is true.

Customs misses about 90% of illegals and 95% of smuggeled drugs.

Why is nobody complaining about the failures of customs?
Dont they also question people without cause? Dont they check your belongings without cause?
Dont they slow down the boarder crossings doing unwarranted searches? Dont they cost billions each year?
compaired to not one terrorist attack or attempt on an American based flight.

October 24, 2014 at 2:02 PM
..........................
Is this a CBP blog?

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
I know how important your job is and I apreciate everything you do.
the extra time it takes to get through security is ok with me.
Thank you
Lisa

October 24, 2014 at 9:46 PM
.............................
And I just threw up in my mouth Lisa.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Wintermute said...
"No, that is not why they are ineffective. They are ineffective because they miss ~70% of threat items in red-team tests."

I think you misunderstood what the purpose of a Red Team test is.

Submitted by Not Bob on

Hey TSAnonymous (Bob?)

When you link to articles quoting Blotter Bob, your circular logic is showing.

Just because the TSA says their failures don't matter doesn't mean their failures don't matter.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"...Why is nobody complaining about the failures of customs? ...compaired to not one terrorist attack or attempt on an American based flight."

What does CBP's record have to do with TSA's?

And where is your evidence that TSA has deterred any terror attacks?

Submitted by Anonymous on
"I think you misunderstood what the purpose of a Red Team test is."

You think an explanation from the editor of a homeland security trade magazine is an objective source?!?

Here is how the magazine describes itself:

"Its target audience are officials with homeland security responsibilities at all levels of federal, state and local government, as well as executives of the industries that manufacture the technologies government uses to ensure the nation is protected from terrorism and prepared for every type of man-made and natural disaster. These are the policy- and decision-makers who make the tough choices and the major purchases and sales of the technologies that are employed to keep us safe and secure."

That magazine is primarily about selling technology and secondarily about back-patting.
Submitted by GSOLTSO on

SSSS sez - "Like I said, thank you for that link. And thank you for trying to answer the question. You didn't actually answer the question but I appreciate that you tried."

You are quite welcome, sorry said answers are not always to your liking or as informative as you might wish, but we do have to hold to the SSI regulations. I almost exclusively operate with what I can link to on DHS/TSA pages here. If I don't have a page or a Blog Thread to link, sometimes I don't have much info I can put out at all. I also understand that can be frustrating for the readers, but it is also frustrating for us, because we are unable to explain why we do certain things that can be confusing or create challenges for passengers.

Anon sez - "The Kip Hawley doesn't really help. If somebody has gone as far as figuring out how to create a liquid bomb, they probably have a way to combine bottles.

I think easing the liquid restrictions would bring some goodwill towards the TSA. I don't see it being less safe if a regular size tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water was allowed. I don't think it would be poorly received like permitting small knives was."

I can not argue the points you make above. I also can not help but agree that a change in the LAG ban would be welcomed by the vast majority if it were to move in a direction that was less restrictive. At this point, the threat remains something that is viable and needs to be screened for this way per the current regulations and information/intel.

RB sez - "And I just threw up in my mouth Lisa."

I think we can classify this under TMI...

Anon sez - "And where is your evidence that TSA has deterred any terror attacks?"

This argument cuts both ways though, where is your proof that it has not actually been a deterrent? The deterrent/non-deterrent arguments are next to impossible to prove or disprove - there are simply too many variables to state either way.

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on
Anon sez - "And where is your evidence that TSA has deterred any terror attacks?"

This argument cuts both ways though, where is your proof that it has not actually been a deterrent?...

I like you, West. I am impressed by the grace with which you handle questions and comments here.

To answer your question, TSA foiling a terror plot would be all over the media if it had happened. Foiling a terror plot would be used to justify every controversial decision that the agency has made. It would be used to justify future budget requests. TSA employees would be briefed about it, if only to boost reportedly low morale within the agency.
Submitted by RB on

This argument cuts both ways though, where is your proof that it has not actually been a deterrent? The deterrent/non-deterrent arguments are next to impossible to prove or disprove - there are simply too many variables to state either way.
West TSA Blog Team October 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM

*****************************
With a budget of over $8 Billion Dollars each year I think the impetus is on TSA to demonstrate to taxpayers that our tax monies are not being wasted.

Submitted by Wintermute on

GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "And where is your evidence that TSA has deterred any terror attacks?"

This argument cuts both ways though,

Actually, it doesn't. Government agencies, other than TSA, generally have to have some proof of their effectiveness in order to justify their budgets. Somehow TSA manages to avoid this. By yelling "terrorism" and hiding behind SSI, as you are so apt to do when non-answering questions.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous said...
"When you link to articles quoting Blotter Bob, your circular logic is showing."

Okay, don’t be surprised if no one takes you seriously. I just wanted to make sure you knew how government (includes CBP, local and state agencies, contractors.. ect.) uses these test. TSA didn’t invent this type of testing and took it over from the FAA. I’m not sure what kind of points your guys are trying to make.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Is this property you steal from peaceful people under threat of violent force returned to them, unaltered, at some point?

Submitted by Anonymous on

We're saying the TSA is an abject failure, as proven by their own tests.

Pages