Epic Fail

[Pangloss]

That's a very good point. This was a failure of foreign security measures. Why is DHS being blamed for it?

 

On this subject, I think the blame issue relates to the terrorist watch list. I guess it makes sense that security officials check watch lists for destination countries before boarding. There was a side story yesterday about this same passenger (the bomber) being denied boarding onto a flight to the UK because he was on their watch list.

[Severian]

The only thing this latest attempt tells me (or rather confirms) is how dumb the terrorists are and how dumb the authorities are. I mean, despite the comedic value, exploding underpants is a pretty obvious way around the security checks. How many times have you had the security guy check your suspicious 'package'? It is a wonder that this hasn't been tried before, and it just shows how useless current security measures are for preventing a serious terrorist attack.

 

They prevent us taking a penknife on board, but routinely allow women with metal bra supports in, which could very easily be assembled into a weapon.

 

There are lots of inconsistencies like this, but I suppose it doesn't really matter to the authorities. After all, the aim of the authorities is not to prevent planes exploding - it is to maintain confidence in air travel (and avoid the economic implications a lack of confidence would bring). Because, lets be honest, you could blow up a plane a week and the number of deaths would still be well below road accident deaths (which are something like 800 people a week in the US alone).

[Pangloss]

Given the placement of that explosive, I've been wondering if this particular terrorist even has a "package" anymore.

 

Reading between today's headlines, I think Obama may be about to throw Napolitano under the bus. Two days ago she said that there was nothing that should have put this suspect's name on a no-fly list, but the president today was withering in his rebuke of the system's failure to stop this guy. They may still try to spin this as a pre-existing condition (unlike health insurance companies, politicians can still turn those away!), and that could save Napolitano's job.

[swansont]

On this subject, I think the blame issue relates to the terrorist watch list. I guess it makes sense that security officials check watch lists for destination countries before boarding. There was a side story yesterday about this same passenger (the bomber) being denied boarding onto a flight to the UK because he was on their watch list.

 

He had applied for a visa renewal using fake college information, and it was denied. But he got his US visa while in London before that had happened.

[iNow]

Reading between today's headlines, I think Obama may be about to throw Napolitano under the bus. Two days ago she said that there was nothing that should have put this suspect's name on a no-fly list, but the president today was withering in his rebuke of the system's failure to stop this guy. They may still try to spin this as a pre-existing condition (unlike health insurance companies, politicians can still turn those away!), and that could save Napolitano's job.

 

Claims of Napolitano being thrown under the bus are exaggerated and sensationalist, at best. She was actually quite accurate and said that the terrorist didn't seem to meet all of the criteria required to go on the no-fly list, but that they were still investigating the details to find out. That whole "still investigating" comment was pretty important. IMO, she was mostly trying to assuage public fears about the safety of air travel as people returned home from holiday vacations during her Sunday morning appearances on This Week and Meet The Press. She also directed her comments very specifically to the response after the attack. I know. I watched her on both shows this morning off my DVR.

 

Anyway, here's the Presidents statement from this morning which you seem to reference above.

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/29/president-preliminary-findings-regarding-attempted-terrorist-attack

I wanted to speak to the American people again today because some of this preliminary information that has surfaced in the last 24 hours raises some serious concerns. It's been widely reported that the father of the suspect in the Christmas incident warned U.S. officials in Africa about his son's extremist views. It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community, but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list.

 

There appears to be other deficiencies as well. Even without this one report there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together. We've achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks. But it's becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.

 

Had this critical information been shared it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America.

 

 

Note also how the president notes that this information became available during the last 24 hours, and it's been almost 72 since Napolitano did her speaking. Yes, heads will roll and changes will be made, but I can't see where you're getting this "thrown under the bus" mentality. Seems rather premature, but you're potentially aware of something I'm not.

[DJBruce]

It appears as if some Republican congress-persons are calling for Secretary Napolitano's head. Although I feel that the incident points to major flaws in our airport security to rush into firing anyone yet alone a cabinet member is highly impudent. A complete investigation should be conducted and then those at fault should be disciplined as necessary. Turning this into a partisan bicker will accomplish nothing, and that is the only reason Republicans are attacking Secretary Napolitano.

 

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) on Tuesday became the first lawmaker to call on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign after the recent attempted airline bombing.

 

 

The veteran member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee called for Napolitano's ouster in the wake of the attack on the Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day.

[iNow]

Funnily enough, it's Republican Senator Jim DeMint who has been holding up the Obama appointee for TSA Administrator, and on top of that, Republicans have been opposing funding for the TSA to improve screening equipment and procedures.

 

So, what do they suggest now that this has happened and obtained media attention? Napolitano's head on a spit!

Idiots and hypocrites. I'm so tired of this nonsense.

 

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021674.php

President Obama nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert, to head the TSA a few months ago. Southers is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence, and the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Two Senate committees considered the nomination, and easily approved Southers with bipartisan support.

 

But the Senate hasn't been able to vote on the nomination because DeMint hates unions, and isn't sure if Southers might allow TSA workers to organize. Without that guarantee, DeMint not only opposes Southers' nomination, but prefers to leave the Transportation Security Administration without a permanent administrator.

 

This realization, in the wake of the attempted terrorism on Christmas, should make DeMint back down. It hasn't -- he still supports blocking Southers' nomination until he knows TSA workers won't unionize. The terrorist threat is bad, but the threat of collective bargaining is the real danger.

 

Also note, congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

[Pangloss]

Wait, the opposition party is holding up key federal appointments, and calling for resignations at the first sign of trouble?? What is this, the 2000s?!

[bascule]

Wait, the opposition party is holding up key federal appointments, and calling for resignations at the first sign of trouble?? What is this, the 2000s?!

 

Yeah, remember when those stinking hippies showed up to Bush protests brandishing assault rifles? Oh wait...

[Zolar V]

Ha. At the first sign of trouble the administration is already under attack. it seems like there were some people with agendas lying in wait for some ammo to attack.

 

But to go back to the original issue, i would suspect that if the military or a security measure that was the same as the military's were implemented there would be NO terrorist attacks on airplanes anymore. or at least pretty close to none.

As for the body scanners, i just don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. its not like its a full color "I am seeing you naked through a hole in the wall while you take a shower" kind of naked. + who cares about being a full anatomical model. If anything i feel bad for the guy who has to sit behind the desk and go "there is a penis, there is a pocket, there is a penis, there is a boob, there is a pen, there is a boob, there is a bomb, there is a knife, there is a penis. OMG A BOMB" must be so mundane.

[Pangloss]

Based on the ACLU's objections, I'm assuming that when you enter one of these scanners a pole drops from the ceiling, flashing lights come on, erotic music is played over loudspeakers, everyone in the immediate area is served with shots of tequila, and every video monitor in the airport is immediately tuned to the operator's viewscreen. And of course all scans are also recorded and distributed via the TSA's new YouTube channel, and whomever is judged "best" in a weekly poll gets to be a contestant on "America's Next Top Airport Scanner Model".

[DJBruce]

How can the body scanners be considered an more intrusive than the scanners which look at look inside of my personal luggage? If the ACLU is calling the body scanners a virtual strip search would the luggage scans not be virtual unwarranted searches. Flying is not a requirement, and if someone wishes to not have to enter one of these scanners all they have to do is make the decision not to fly. In my opinion having to go through one of these scanners is basically the same as having to give the state my birthday, social security number, height, weight, eye color, signature, home address, and color picture before being able to drive.

 

The thought that these pictures could be used for anything more than immediate threat identification is ridiculous. When you pass through the security check point you are not required to give any identification, so there is no way the government could correlate these pictures with your super secret CIA file the government keeps on everyone of its citizens.

[iNow]

My sense is that most of the opposition comes from our culture who is ashamed of their bodies and full of ridiculous Puritanical notions about the concept of nudity and/or sexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although, I can see some potential for abuse when folks like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt fly, or someone like Jessica Alba.

 

60 Minutes did a special on it a while back:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/travel/main3356425.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3356675n

[bascule]

As a civil libertarian I don't have a problem with these scanners, although I could see the situation being a bit different if I were an attractive young woman being leered at by some creepy old TSA agent who was ogling my naked boobies.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I recall reading an article about software that superimposed any non-body objects (guns, stuff in pockets, etc.) detected in scans onto a generic human body model so the person doing the scanning wouldn't even have to see people naked -- they'd just see guns hidden on the corresponding part of the generic model. I wonder what happened to that work.

[DJBruce]

You are correct Cap'n there are different methods algorithms that hide the identity of anyone passing through the body scanners. Here is a paper write by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario detailing the methods of such processes. In her conclusion Dr. Ann Cavoukian PhD. stated:

 

Whole Body Imaging technologies that incorporate strong privacy filters — de-identifying raw images for backroom screeners, and using generic body images (or rendering body images to mere outlines)for frontline screeners, can deliver privacy-protective security. When combined with appropriate viewing, usage and retention policies, and appropriate notices to passengers, WBI implementations can satisfy security requirements without sacrificing (and perhaps enhancing) passenger privacy. We [believe that this positive-sum paradigm can, and should be the end goal of such airport security passenger screening technologies – security and privacy, not one at the expense of the other.

 

 

Here's another complaint coming from some people against the use of the full body scanners.

Ian Dowty, a lawyer with Action on Rights of the Child, said allowing minors to pass through the scanners violates child pornography laws.

 

"It shows genitalia," he told The Associated Press. "As far as English law is concerned ... it's unlawful if it's indecent."

[Zolar V]

 

Here's another complaint coming from some people against the use of the full body scanners.

 

That is so dumb, who really cares if someone sees your nut sack or vagina. Its not like were going to find out there someone with a triple tipped penis exuding green slime that has vagina's all around it. Every one has the same parts, there really isn't any "variety" or "uniqueness" that makes having genitalia "yours".

[iNow]

Revere had a good write-up this morning over at Effect Measure. He called attention to many of the limitations with the scanners, and further elucidated how our priorities tend to be incredibly irrational on this topic. A pretty well done piece if you're in the mood for a short read on the topic.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/12/whats_next_we_fly_nude.php

What's next? We fly nude?

 

Given the usual response to terrorist threats on airplanes, we expect the latest move to protect us will be to require us to travel nude. OK. Probably not. Republicans are too skittish about public nakedness. They prefer it in the privacy of their mistresses' beds. What we will see, instead, is yet another attempt at a technical fix, spearheaded by high priced security and aviation "consultants." I saw one of them, Mary Schiavo (former inspector general of the Department of Transportation) the other night on the PBS Newshour. She was hawking expensive explosive sniffers for airport check-in, as well as the scanners that undress you without undressing you. That apparently works just fine for prurient Republicans.

 

I'm not an expert on airport security (although I am an expert victim of airport security theater), but I do know something about statistics and probability and can recognize a classic fallacy when I hear one.

 

<...>

 

Those "minor" quibbles aside, let's assume that by investing a gazillion dollars we could deploy some sophisticated technology at every airport within our borders and coming to and from the US that was so accurate it only had a false positive once in 100,000 passengers, i.e., it was 100% sensitive and 99.999% specific. I doubt we can make a machine that accurate, but let's just suppose we could.

 

How many false positives would that produce? According to the Department of Transportation, during the last year there were about 710 million enplanements (US carriers, October 2008 - September 2009; excludes all-cargo services, includes domestic and international). That would produce 7100 false alarms, about 20 a day. How many passengers carrying explosives would the technology pick up? Well, we've had exactly 2 since 2001 (Richard Reid the shoe bomber and the current underpants bomber), or .25/710,000,000 enplanements (it's actually less because enplanements have decreased substantially since 2001). So the probability of an alarm being correct is about 1 in 30,000 or .000033. For that yield there is the cost of research and development of the technology, acquiring and installing it, operating and maintaining it and the extra time of all the passengers. There will also be an effect on air travel generally, stressing an already economically desperate industry. To the extent that increases miles traveled by road, we have to add that cost and the cost in lives of motor vehicle accidents into the mix.

 

Of course there will be those who say it's worth it, whatever the cost in dollars (direct cost, only, estimate of $100 billion; why "no cost too high" should be true for air travel and not health care reform baffles me, but human psychology isn't always rational). But the "worth it" argument is only valid if it worked. As others have said, including Schanz on the PBS Newshour segment, this is essentially a reactive strategy. There's almost always a way -- often an easy way -- around technological fixes like this. They usually involve human engineering exploits, not technological ones. Yet we are the proverbial generals always fighting the last war. Nor is it irrelevant to the cost accounting that there have been two examples in 8 years of passengers carrying explosives aboard airplanes but zero examples of successful detonation. Even when you get the stuff onboard, there seems to be a substantial gap between paranoid fantasy and actual practice.

[Dave]

This is a bit of an issue for me. I am supposed to travel to the US in March to see a friend of mine who is a postdoc at UNC. I was already having second thoughts - what with them taking ALL of my fingerprints and retaining that indefinitely, having to fill in a buttload of information 72 hours before the flight, and just generally being treated like a piece of crap. So this extra security is probably going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I think I'll just put the US on my own no-fly list.

[bascule]

It would seem that much like a certain former white house press secretary, Rudy Giuliani is now claiming this bomber committed a "terrorist attack on America" and went on to reiterate that we had "no domestic attacks under Bush. We had one under Obama"

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/01/rudy-giuliani-no-domestic-attacks-under-bush-one-under-obama.html

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa? Did Mr. 9/11 9/11/9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 just say we didn't have a domestic attack on this country under Bush? (not to mention a similar incident of PETN being smuggled onto an airplane?)

 

I really don't know what to make of this form of selective amnesia.

 

Furthermore, Giuliani is mad because this man is going to be tried in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal. This really makes no sense to me. He's a civilian. Is Giuliani suggesting he's a member of a foreign military? That would mean that, by definition, he is not a terrorist. So pick one, Giuliani: he's a terrorist and should be tried in civilian court, or he's a member of a foreign military and deserves a military tribunal (and means this was an act of war).

[Phi for All]

It would seem that much like a certain former white house press secretary, Rudy Giuliani is now claiming this bomber committed a "terrorist attack on America" and went on to reiterate that we had "no domestic attacks under Bush. We had one under Obama"

It would be interesting to see a national poll come out testing whether these instances of selective memory have caught on with the public. Would FOX News viewers agree with Giuliani and Perino that there were no domestic attacks during the Bush Administration more than non-FOX News viewers?

[Pangloss]

Surely Giuliani meant after 9/11. This is a commonly-reported meme, to say that there were no further attacks under the Bush administration. I realize this ignores Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, but given that the Reid incident came just a few months after 9/11 I think there is a legitimate question here -- have the systems improved, and if not, why not? This should not be a political question and the fact that it is is disappointing.

 

Regarding the political question of whether we're safer or less safe under Obama, I think it's a bunch of hooey.

[bascule]

Surely Giuliani meant after 9/11. This is a commonly-reported meme, to say that there were no further attacks under the Bush administration. I realize this ignores Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, but given that the Reid incident came just a few months after 9/11 I think there is a legitimate question here -- have the systems improved, and if not, why not?

 

So there were two "terrorist attacks" on our country during Bush's term (I don't think Richard Reid counts really, but by Giuliani's standards it does) and Giuliani is claiming zero.

 

If he said "further", great! But he didn't. I still contend it was selective amnesia.

 

Regarding the political question of whether we're safer or less safe under Obama, I think it's a bunch of hooey.

 

As I've expressed repeatedly, the TSA is security theater. As a frequent world traveler I hate it and worse I hate what it makes foreigners think about America. Reentering the country is bad enough for an American. I hate to think what it's like for a foreigner to enter our country. I frequently fly to Switzerland, which when coming from most first world countries doesn't even require an entrance visa. You just get off the plane and stroll right into the country. Compare that to America, where you step off the plane, have to go through customs, get drilled on what you were doing abroad, have to grab your check baggage, go through security with that, recheck it, then go through a separate security process for all your carry-ons. It's just silly, and it's not making us any safer.

 

When my chances of getting killed by a terrorist on an airplane are an order of magnitude less than getting struck by lightning, I'm not really worried. I hate how much money we're spending on this "problem" and the inconvenience it adds to world travel. I'd rather be at an order of magnitude higher risk of a terrorist attack (something on par with getting struck by lightning) in exchange for a more convenient world travel process and easier access to the country by foreigners. All this security theater does is make world travel less convenient and alienates foreigners.

[Pangloss]

If he said "further", great! But he didn't. I still contend it was selective amnesia.

 

One of the things I hate about the 24-hour cable networks is the fact that their constant need to prattle on generates a never-ending stream of verbal typos from whomever happens to be on the air.

 

 

When my chances of getting killed by a terrorist on an airplane are an order of magnitude less than getting struck by lightning, I'm not really worried. I hate how much money we're spending on this "problem" and the inconvenience it adds to world travel. I'd rather be at an order of magnitude higher risk of a terrorist attack (something on par with getting struck by lightning) in exchange for a more convenient world travel process and easier access to the country by foreigners. All this security theater does is make world travel less convenient and alienates foreigners.

 

QFT (and nicely put).

 

And I don't think it would be any different if we'd elected Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Biden or Lieberman. This country's just not capable of looking at this problem objectively yet.

[Phi for All]

If he said "further", great! But he didn't. I still contend it was selective amnesia.

Extremely intentional, pre-engineered and rehearsed selective amnesia in both Giuliani's *and* Perino's cases, imo. Once is a fluke, twice *could* be a coincidence, but in the case of US politics, it looks more like a spin job.