BAO is an acronym that has been appearing more and more in TSA related news stories and blog posts. So what does BAO stand for?a) Branch Artery Occlusion
b) Best Atomic Orbital
c) Best Available Option
d) Bomb Appraisal Officer
While “c” is the best available option, if you chose “d” you are correct. A Bomb Appraisal Officer is another TSA position that you may or may not have heard of. Some of you may have even been fortunate enough to meet a BAO after your bag triggered the suspicion of one of our officers.
What does a BAO do and what experience must one have to become a BAO? To answer these questions and more, Richard, a BAO at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, (CVG) stepped out of the shadows to shed some light on his critical position.
Blogger Bob: So what is a BAO? Tell our readers a little about the day in the life of a BAO.
BAO Richard: BAO is an acronym for Bomb Appraisal Officer. All BAOS serve three primary roles.
1. Workforce Training. This is where we are expected to focus the majority of our efforts. BAOs are charged with finding effective ways to share their expertise and years of real-world experience with the workforce. We build simulated explosive devices and run them through the screening process to show the workforce what the terrorists are doing and what they are capable of. This is challenging in that no two airports or groups of TSOs are exactly the same. It is incumbent on the BAOs to find effective way to do this, regardless of the challenges.
2. Conduct Advanced Alarm Resolution (AAR). When the conventional alarm resolution process has been exhausted and the alarm has not been resolved, the BAO is to be called. At his point, the BAO is responsible for resolving the alarm, with zero margin for error.
3. Serve as the TSA subject matter expert liaison for law enforcement and bomb squad partners. BAOs speak both TSA and bomb squad languages. This is important during a critical response event. In addition, it is not uncommon for law enforcement and bombs squads to request technical assistance and advice from BAOs for incidents at the airport as well as those unrelated to airport operations.
Blogger Bob: Tell our readers a little about your experience prior to the TSA.
BAO Richard: My personal experience came from 21 years in the US Army with 19 of those years as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Technician. I then spent 5 years as a contractor/instructor for the US Department of State Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program (ATAP) training and certifying Bomb Technicians for allied countries around the world. Essentially, I have been doing bomb disposal response or training for the last 29 years.
Blogger Bob: Do other Bomb Appraisal Officers share a similar background as yours? What kind of experience do you need to have under your belt to become a BAO?
BAO Richard: Typically all BAOs have a very similar background. We’re “Bomb Guys”. Either as a military EOD Technician or as an FBI certified Public Safety Hazardous Devices Technician. TSA has established as a minimum requirement that all BAO candidates have been a Certified Bomb Technician from either of these two programs and served a minimum of 3 years as a technician in a Bomb Disposal Unit. All BAOs are interviewed, tested and hired based upon their experience, background and understanding of the terrorist threat. Nationally, if you add it up and divide by our numbers you are looking at an average of 17.5 yrs experience, per BAO across the board. That is an incredible amount of expertise at TSA's fingertips.
Blogger Bob: Before BAOs, how did TSA handle situations with possible explosives? How have things changed since Bomb Appraisal Officers came on board?
BAO Richard: In the old days (2 years ago) the only safe procedure was for the TSOs to contact the local Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), evacuate the terminal and wait until a Bomb Squad arrived and cleared the item. These evacuations cost the aviation industry millions of dollars annually. More importantly, the increased security risks inherent in evacuations are significant. The presence of BAOs available to TSOs prevents unnecessary evacuations and minimizes disruptions in service and risks to all. Adding BAOs to the resolution process allows a Bomb Technician trained individual the opportunity to look at the item, look at the X-Rays and make a “more knowledgeable” determination of whether the item is dangerous and whether the terminal should be evacuated or not. Since implementation of the BAO Program, BAOs working with the TSOs have responded to and safely resolved thousands of alarms at their airports over the past two years.
Blogger Bob: Have you ever had any experiences at the TSA where you thought you had a bomb on your hands?
BAO Richard: Thinking I actually had a bomb? No, but when BAOs respond, we all approach with the understanding that if the TSO has called us for assistance, then we assume a viable threat until we determine it is not. Safety first, then a methodical process for checking and determining whether a hazard is there. Understand though that if we still cannot make a positive determination the item is not a bomb, then passengers are evacuated and the Bomb Squad is notified.
Blogger Bob: With all of the shared experience of Bomb Appraisal Officers, it makes sense that they train Transportation Security Officers and share their knowledge. Can you touch more on the training side of your job?
BAO Richard: Training TSOs IS the BAO mission. Here at CVG our BAOs are on the floor, providing training approximately 6 hours of their 8 hour day. Each day, each BAO is required to build a new training device and use that device to provide a “new learning point” to the TSOs, and we provide 24-hr a day support. Our goal is to keep TSOs current on the products, procedures and practices of the bad guys, so they can better identify it when it is presented to them. Currently ongoing as we speak every TSA employee at CVG is receiving a 6 hr block of classroom instruction and demonstration from the BAOs on explosives, IEDs and terrorist methodology.
Blogger Bob: Do BAOs go through any training even if they have extensive prior experience?
BAO Richard: Absolutely, all new BAOs are required to complete a 3 Phase training certification program. Phase-I all BAOs are required to complete Basic Screener Training (CP and CB). Phase-II is the BAO Certification and Instructor Presentation Skills Course. Since all BAOs will be spending most of their time conducting training, IPS certification is required. Then in Phase-III each new BAO is required to complete a minimum 40hr OJT course with a Senior BAO at an airport with an established and successful BAO-TSA Training program. Once all 3 phases are completed they are certified as operational BAOs.
Blogger Bob: To many travelers who don’t understand the liquid threat, they feel that prohibiting items over 3.4 oz such as toothpaste and mouthwash is insane. The baggie baffles many a passenger. How would you defend the legitimacy of the 3-1-1 program if confronted by a curious passenger?
BAO Richard: The last two liquid explosives threats have originated in Europe and targeted U.S. flagged airlines. This type of threat is not new, but our enemies are persistent and totally committed. They learn from their mistakes and then make adjustments all the time to try and stay ahead of security. Explosives come in ever changing shapes and materials to include a caulk like explosive that looks and feels just like toothpaste or Sunscreen. If we added personal hygiene products such as toothpaste to the “must be sampled” list, the lines would back up forever. It is just simpler, easier, and more logical to restrict those things in the sizes already established to minimize the risks to passenger aircraft.
Blogger Bob: Do you have any frequently asked questions you’d like to answer?
BAO Richard: The most common question we get is based upon the word Appraisal in our title….. “So, what does a Bomb cost?” :) To TSA, it would cost a lot if it makes it on a plane, but seriously, All BAOs are trained and certified explosives security specialists and what we provide is an expert assessment of the item or material of concern based on the totality of circumstances. After doing so, we determine what the appropriate course of action should be. Our focus is, training every day, and safety all the time.
I have to add that the BAOs are not stand alone security assets. While much is made of BAO expertise, we rely on the expertise of the TSO workforce in order to do our job. We are all partners with a common goal and we add an additional expert resource to the TSA’s many layers of security.
Blogger Bob: What does the future hold for the BAO program?
BAO Richard: The success of the program has driven an increasing need from the Federal Security Directors for more BAOs. Originally authorized to hire approximately 300 BAOs, TSA is now looking to add additional BAOs to expand the program significantly. Expansion provides the opportunity to train more people and nobody loves to talk about their job more than a “Bomb Guy”.
Thanks to Rick for taking the time to answer my questions. He and the other BAOs in the field are an extremely critical part of TSA’s mission and we are fortunate to be able to learn from all of their combined experience.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
123 comments:
The BAO kind of reminds me of the commercial of the Maytag repairman...sitting by the phone, just waiting, hoping for someone to actually give his life meaning for once.
It must be pretty boring sitting around waiting for all those bombs that nobody is trying to sneak into airports.
This is about what I expect, brought to me by the people who think hiring science fiction writters to write scarey movie theater plots somehow increases security as much as it increases funding for security theater.
Why do you need a dedicated bomb officer, when local police forces in most major cities have bomb squads?
Whats the ratio of false alarms to real bombs? like 1 million to 1? Or is it worst than that? I am guessing worst.
And I thought the Mafia/Union alliances that brought in the concept of no-show jobs was bad. Thanks for proving you don't need the help of organized crime to give away a cushy pointless paycheck.
-Steve
@ Steve If there is no BAO, then local bomb squads would need to be called out every time there is an incident. That is both inefficient and probably unsafe. I suppose the local squad could assign a bomb officer to the airport full time, but then why did you get rid of the BAO in the first place?
I complain about a lot of things the TSA does, but this isn't one of them. Bringing in and spreading more expertise in order to reduce false positives is a good thing.
That being said, the BAO interviewed really didn't clarify much about the limitations on liquids.
"Explosives come in ever changing shapes and materials"
Yeah, for example a lot of them come in the form of solids. Actually, that's not true. MOST of them come in the form of solids. Now that TSA have gotten the hang of The War on Moisture, and The War on Squishy Things under control, I fully expect The War on Solids to commence.
All solid items are limited to no more than 30 ounces each, and must fit into a five gallon trashbag.
Can't be too safe!!!
I guess if I accepted that there was a real risk of bombs, I would agree. However, "calling the bomb squad every time there is an incident" is silly too....
how about... call them when you have a bomb.
Believe me, I complain about the regular bomb squad too. We recently had an incident here in boston where someone saw a suitcase that someone had left behind... of course they call the bomb squad.
Frankly, I think they should call the mental hospital. If you see a package and think that "bomb" is a likely possibility, likely enough to call anyone other than the owner whose name is found on documents inside.... then you need your head examined and you need to stop wasting our tax funded resources.
And we need to stop patting people on the back and saying they "did the right thing" when the bomb squad is called in because someone absentmindedly forgot their bag somewhere.
They didn't do the right thing, the right thing is to look around for a possible owner, then take a look at the bag or in it and see if you can see who the owner is.... THEN call them or failing that turn it in to the police or nearby building security so the person can come pick their bag up.
The likelyhood of you encountering a bomb in your lifetime, even if you are a TSO, is so small as to not even be worth discussing.... much less funding.
we need to stop encouraging paranoia just because it is good for budgets.
-Steve
Our local BAO’s are outstanding training tools for the TSO workforce. They have actually “been there and done that” in the field, either domestically or in the war zones around the world. They provide us training not just on what a bomb can look like, but also who uses them and how to limit their utility as much as possible.
They are also there, present, at the airport, able to respond to a call immediately. For the police bomb squads we would have to wait. Close the checkpoint, evacuate the concourse, and wait. Having that expertise available to the checkpoint is both a safety and a customer service issue for the passengers.
Carp, how I would love to live in the dream land with you where there are no real threats and everyone loves us. Please, for your own sake; grow up. The terrorist are out there, do hate us and are still planning how to get their evil devices into some corner of America where they can cause the most damage and garner the most attention for their cause. Commercial aircraft are much harder targets than malls, buses, movie theatres, ball games, etc. but the attention and effect of getting a bomb onto a plane past the best security we can muster would be worth their efforts.
All that said, please note that the main job of the BAOs is obviously to train the officers on what to look for. I like the idea of TSA having certified expert bomb dudes train their officers. Thank you TSA for stepping up on this issue and getting some first rate preventative training going.
I note that Richard was completely and utterly unable to defend TSA's war on liquids, because there is no sensible defense for it. Pathetic as always.
Bob, Richard, please post links to peer-reviewed academic research by independent scholars that supports TSA's contention that the 3.4-1-1 policy makes air travel safer.
So TSA continues to cling to the totally discredited "liquid explosives plot" story? Sad.
You guys didn't hear that the British authorities concluded there was actually no threat at all?
Anon said ---
"I note that Richard was completely and utterly unable to defend TSA's war on liquids, because there is no sensible defense for it. Pathetic as always."
Funny, I didn't read anywhere in the post that he was supposed to be defending the "war on liquids." Didn't realize that was his job. Maybe the post was to inform you of the role of the BAO, nothing more. TSA Blog comments from you ... pathetic as always.
Right on the heels of TSA doing a great job propaganda is another news article about TSA guys ripping us off.
My sister got hundreds of dollars of electronics stolen from her luggage in the AC Airport - no redress by the TSA. The airport and the TSA never return her calls. And the cops? They say call the TSA.
You guys need more positive propaganda articles to outweigh all the bad press these days, otherwise nobody is going to fall for it. More puff pieces!
Dream land?
Well I look at it this way. If a "terrorist" fits the profile of real "credible threat" determined, educated, and rational terrorists (yes, there is rationality to attacking an enemy, anyone who isn't a total pacifist has to recognize that)
Then well, I hate to break it to you, but in "my childish little world" they are going to do it. End of story. No matter what "security" you put in place, they choose the time of attack, they choose the place, they choose the method.
The 3-1-1 rule, AT BEST, raises the bar to "less than gifted high school student". I certainly don't remember reading that terrorist profiles tended to include people with IQs less than 60, so I will assume they can figure out anything I can from my myopic little world.
The fact is simply that there is absolutely no reason to believe that a left behind bag, or even a strange looking device in a suitcase is a bomb. The vast overwhelming majority of bags left behind and with odd things in them proves that fact over and over and over again.
Quite simply, if the threat were credible, we would see planes dropping from the sky.
We don't. We also are not catching people trying at a rate that justifies the paranoia.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that all these "credible threats" are nothing more than a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
-Steve
Anon@1:34, Bob and Richard talk about, but do not defending with actual facts, the war on water in the post. Try harder next time.
I'm a retired commissioned officer serving over 22 yrs in Navy EOD , and am also retired from a law enforcement agency as the bomb squad commander. I have almost 40 years of experience, to include 2 tours of Vietnam and 2 tours in the Persian Gulf. I have had several friends and many acquaintances killed by bombs. The problem with airport security is not the TSA, it's the winey pinheads who have no clue of real security forcing an agency charged with providing security to known threats to compromise their procedures. Fly El-al and see what real security "should be". Try wining to them. Just because we haven't had a "real bomb" in an airport, we'd be fools to think it couldn't happen. We are, yes, this may be hard to believe, we are at war. I've fought these people on land and sea. I've been shot at, and have killed some. Stop complaining, face reality, grow up!
Anonymous said: "Just because we haven't had a "real bomb" in an airport, we'd be fools to think it couldn't happen."
Then I'm sure that you would agree that just because we haven't had a real attack by syphillitic ferrets doesn't mean we shouldn't be on the lookout for that too...
carp said...
"The BAO kind of reminds me of the commercial of the Maytag repairman...sitting by the phone, just waiting, hoping for someone to actually give his life meaning for once.
It must be pretty boring sitting around waiting for all those bombs that nobody is trying to sneak into airports.
This is about what I expect, brought to me by the people who think hiring science fiction writters to write scarey movie theater plots somehow increases security as much as it increases funding for security theater.
Why do you need a dedicated bomb officer, when local police forces in most major cities have bomb squads?
Whats the ratio of false alarms to real bombs? like 1 million to 1? Or is it worst than that? I am guessing worst.
And I thought the Mafia/Union alliances that brought in the concept of no-show jobs was bad. Thanks for proving you don't need the help of organized crime to give away a cushy pointless paycheck."
------------------------------
Ok carp, it would really really help if you read what someone post instead of just planning on what you want to post next.
But first of all, really nice of you to disparage those who have served this country almost all of their adult life, either in the military, or the F.B.I. Good to know you have have respect for those men and women who have served our country.
You said it must be pretty boring for the BAOs sitting around waiting for something to happen. I guess you skipped over the part where BAO Richard said that one of their primary job is to train TSOs. Yeah, that part must not have interested you much to have skipped it.
Which brings me to a point many of you have been making. You are very critical of the training TSOs have gotten over the years, or lack of training, or whatever.
The BAO's in part are a direct response to that. As stated, one of their primary responsibilities of the BAO is to train TSO - not to find knives, guns, etc, but to help identify IEDs and their components. This is a very new program. It started around 2 years ago, and is still expanding across the nation.
If you can think of a better person to teach TSOs about IED, please state so.
It will be interesting to see over the next few years the difference in training the average TSO gets becasue of the BAOs.
You ask why TSA "needs a dedicated bomb officer, when local police forces in most major cities have bomb squads?"
Stupid question of you, and again you missed the answer by not reading what BAO Richard wrote.
Before BAOs you HAD to call in the local police. This could take up to 2 HOURS. Repeat: up to 2 HOURS. Sometimes 30 minutes, but either way, the checkpoint closed, and usually the entire terminal to the airport closed.
How many delayed or missed flights would that cause? If one airport has delayed or cancelled flights it has a ripple effect across the rest of the country. This, of course, is bad, and to a VERY great extent has been alleviated by the BAOs.
Why can't you figure this out, carp?
Of course, you might believe the movies where the local police force bomb squad arrives within minutes of being called. Yeah, right, like that happens.
In fact, the cost in delayed flights has dropped down exponentially since BAOs have spread to most of the airports.
So if I get what you are saying right, TSA in part is trying to improve training of TSOs (which soo many of you on this site have said needs to be done) by bringing in experts to train for a specific task, but you think that is bad.
TSA has lowered both money and time lost by having experts on site to determine whatever is found is nothing more than a false alarm, but that is bad too.
Huh, TSA can't win with you, can it?
You are foolish, and that becomes more apparent with each of your post.
It is apparent you do not like TSA, but when you attempt to strike down everything about TSA, without any consideration to what is good or bad about the agency, it becomes apparent TSA should never listen to anything you say.
2 questions:
1. What in the world is the BAO referring to when he says, "More importantly, the increased security risks inherent in evacuations are significant."
2. What's the deal with the horrid BAO logo. Did no one realize that the star looks positively Stalinist?
Anonymous said...
"Yeah, for example a lot of them come in the form of solids. Actually, that's not true. MOST of them come in the form of solids."
Actually thats not true, and tells me you don't know much about explosives.
Anonymous retired commissioned officer: With whom are we presently at war? Criminals? A war on crimes against the United States? Anyone who uses terrorist tactics in an attempt to achieve his goals? A war on a tactic?
Seriously: you think we're at war? We're conducting several occupations and fighting off the criminals who want us to leave. Is that war?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anonymous said..
"Anonymous said: "Just because we haven't had a "real bomb" in an airport, we'd be fools to think it couldn't happen."
Then I'm sure that you would agree that just because we haven't had a real attack by syphillitic ferrets doesn't mean we shouldn't be on the lookout for that too..."
------------------------------
I have noticed on this site that we have the best and the brightest in the world gathered in one place. Of course, I'm talking about those who complain about TSA!
Why, they know everything!
Sir, you have over 40 years experience in EOD, but if a critic of TSA says so, they know better than you! Live with it.
Critics on this site are experts on electronics, law, war, security, government, etc.
Blogger Bob, it is now you task to bring these people together so that they can be tasked with saving the world by telling everyone what to do and how to do it!
However, all joking aside, I hope TSA never finds an IED, that terrorist never attempt to bring one on a U.S. plane, and that we as a society still expend all efforts to prevent such an act, even if it never happens. That would be sooooo much better than a group of people being blown up on a plane.
Phil said...
"Anonymous retired commissioned officer: With whom are we presently at war? Criminals? A war on crimes against the United States? Anyone who uses terrorist tactics in an attempt to achieve his goals? A war on a tactic?
Seriously: you think we're at war? We're conducting several occupations and fighting off the criminals who want us to leave. Is that war?
--
Phil"
Yes, Phil, we are at war. Glad you just woke up.
Call them criminals if you want, but its not just that they want us to leave. You belive whatever you want, but if we were not "there" they will still come here. Your lack of understanding of our world is staggering. What is more frightening is you think you know what your talking about.
The star surrounded by the wreath on top of the badge indicates that person is a master. It has been in use with the military far longer than the TSA has been in existence. It is also used with aviator wings and jump wings.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
"2 questions:
1. What in the world is the BAO referring to when he says, "More importantly, the increased security risks inherent in evacuations are significant."
2. What's the deal with the horrid BAO logo. Did no one realize that the star looks positively Stalinist?"
--------------------------
1. One possible way to attack people, to spread fear, and what has actually happened at other parts of the world, is to watch where police evacuate people. Police will directe people to a specific area as they are leaving a building where there is a possible bomb.
So you, as a terrorist, send in a bomb or fake bomb into the airport, and then place bombs to where you know people will be sent by police, and once they are there, kill those people. This has happened in other nations.
2. dunno
BAO Richard: The last two liquid explosives threats have originated in Europe and targeted U.S. flagged airlines.
*********
Perhaps Richard could explain why in Europe they have no restrictions on liquids or shoes being scanned. You would think that since these threats all originated in Europe that they would have the same policies as the TSA. Perhaps the threat isn't as real as the TSA would liek it to be.
carp said...
"I guess if I accepted that there was a real risk of bombs, I would agree. However, "calling the bomb squad every time there is an incident" is silly too....
how about... call them when you have a bomb."
So tell me, how do you know if you have a bomb or not? Please explain your background to have this knowledge.
I hope others understand that what you are saying is, well, stupid...
Anonymous said...
"I note that Richard was completely and utterly unable to defend TSA's war on liquids, because there is no sensible defense for it. Pathetic as always."
I didn't think Richard needed to defend that, nor was that his purpose.
For you to say that because Richard didn't bring it up, therefor he can't defend it, is actually quiet pathetic on your part.
In the training TSOs have gotten on IEDs, our BAO's have defended it queit well.
Anonymous said...
"BAO Richard: The last two liquid explosives threats have originated in Europe and targeted U.S. flagged airlines.
*********
Perhaps Richard could explain why in Europe they have no restrictions on liquids or shoes being scanned. You would think that since these threats all originated in Europe that they would have the same policies as the TSA. Perhaps the threat isn't as real as the TSA would liek it to be."
---------------------
Yes they do. I had my shoes screen in 3 different nations in Europe, there was the liquid bad, I had to take my computer out at all checkpoints, my jacket off.
"However, all joking aside, I hope TSA never finds an IED, that terrorist never attempt to bring one on a U.S. plane, and that we as a society still expend all efforts to prevent such an act, even if it never happens. That would be sooooo much better than a group of people being blown up on a plane."
No, it wouldn't. You fail to understand the simple fact that resources are finite. Every dollar spent on airport "security" is a dollar that is no longer available for other purposes (infrastructure repair to name just one). So this notion that we should "expend all efforts" is not only foolish, it is downright harmful.
"One possible way to attack people, to spread fear, and what has actually happened at other parts of the world, is to watch where police evacuate people. Police will directe people to a specific area as they are leaving a building where there is a possible bomb."
All you are saying is that large crowds of people represent a potential terrorist target. Now explain why this should concern us when it happens at an airport but not when it happens at the virtually infinite range of public gatherings in this country.
carp said...
"The fact is simply that there is absolutely no reason to believe that a left behind bag, or even a strange looking device in a suitcase is a bomb."
------------------------------
When you post this, it becomes very very apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Bags left behind do not involve TSA, unless it happens in a TSA checkpoint. So if a bag is found somewhere in an airport, the local police have to handle it. Not even the BAOs get invloved.
A strage looking device in a suitcase would ONLY be considered an IED if it repeatedly alarmed the ETD machine, and met other conditions.
Do not think we see something and immediately call for the BAO. That is not what happens. Many steps have to be taken before BAO involvement.
carp, please, please have an idea of what you are talking about before you comment.
Someone anonymously wrote:
"We are, yes, this may be hard to believe, we are at war."
I responded:
"With whom are we presently at war? Criminals? A war on crimes against the United States? Anyone who uses terrorist tactics in an attempt to achieve his goals? A war on a tactic?
"Seriously: you think we're at war? We're conducting several occupations and fighting off the criminals who want us to leave. Is that war?"
Someone anonymously responded:
"Yes, Phil, we are at war. Glad you just woke up.
"Call them criminals if you want, but its not just that they want us to leave. You belive whatever you want, but if we were not "there" they will still come here. Your lack of understanding of our world is staggering."
You didn't answer the question. Your lack of ability to explain your understanding of the world is staggering.
With whom are we at war? Anyone who actively opposes expansion of the American empire? Can a nation be "at war" with anyone and everyone who opposes its foreign policy? Are we at war with any dissidents who express their dissent through unlawful means?
We've recently learned that Dick Cheney hijacked the CIA and had them assassinating people in nations with which we're friendly. Assassination of the inhabitants of a country with the US claims to have a peaceful relationship is, in effect, an act of war against that country. Are we at war with those nations?
Are we at war with drugs? People toss the word war around very loosely these days.
Seriously: With whom do you think the United States is presently at war?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
BAO Richard (or others):
There is one issue I would like a BAO to weigh in on. I am not a "bomb guy" but, my understanding as such is that bomb guys actually like explosives and tend to know a lot about them. It *IS* a niche field afterall.
I had a passing interest in explosives years ago (though there isn't much I haven't had a passing interest in, as told by the graveyard of projects of various vintages around my living space), but I am by no means an expert. I am however well versed in logic and systems.
So here is my question... you know bombs. You could probably design a bomb just as well as any terrorist if you wanted to. Hell, you probably have given your chosen interests.
Do you really think that the front line TSA has a chance in hell of stopping YOU from blowing a plane out of the sky if YOU wanted to do it?
Honest answer here, could you design a bomb, that would be (given todays procedures etc) passed by the screeners without a second look? Please, give it some thought.
Now, there is a second part. Assuming there is someone with your skill out there, and someone (maybe the same person, maybe not) willing to carry it onto the plane and die....
Assuming all that, what measures would need to be taken to actually stop you? Would those measures actually stop you, or just make you change your design?
Now, I think by now many can tell what my answers would be. Aside from not having the expertise, I see no technical reasons someone with that expertise couldn't do it...right now.
am I that far off here? because if my assumptions are correct, then the only conclusion that I can come to is... nobody is really trying that hard.
-Steve
Bob said...
The star surrounded by the wreath on top of the badge indicates that person is a master. It has been in use with the military far longer than the TSA has been in existence. It is also used with aviator wings and jump wings.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
July 15, 2009 2:37 PM
...................
TSA is not a military or para-military organization.
Stop trying to play like one.
> So tell me, how do you know if you have
> a bomb or not? Please explain your
> background to have this knowledge.
Well anonymous... I start with experience. I once in my life was near a bomb (outside of visiting military installations). I was near one because, as teenagers, a friend of mine and I decided to fill a copper tube with some pyrodex and blow it up. Fun... but Unabomber I was not.
Many times, I have run into packages, bags etc, that were left behind, and many times run into devices I didn't understand. None of these has ever turned out to be a bomb in disguise.
So I start by assuming no malicious intent, and its not a bomb. That is, I make the absolutely most reasonable assumption that a person can make...and the default assumption that should be made everywhere except along military supply routes in war zones.
So far, I have never been wrong in that assumption. And i have heard of FAR more people being wrong by assuming otherwise than i have EVER heard about those bomb assumptions panning out.
Its a simple numbers game. I don't play the lotto either. Frankly I would start playing the lotto before I would start assuming their are bombs everywhere... the odds are better by my estimation.
Theres a few million people out there in my general vicinity that can forget packages and briefcases. Compare that to the number of people with motive and opportunity to leave a bomb somewhere.... and it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that calling the bomb squad for anything less than a direct "there is a bomb in the building" threat just doesn't make any sense.
-Steve
Morning Gents
-The BAO model was taken from an Austrailian program and the title was kept the same even though we have made some modifications to the program itself. The word appraisal has different meanings throughout the world and most commonly you'll find that the word appraisal.. doesnt have anything to do with monetary value. Often an object's "worth" isn't in cash monies but in important data that can be gained (or important data that can be handed out to TSOs).
-The "horrid" BAO logo
The image you see is the Explosive Ordnance Disposal(EOD) master badge with the letters BAO placed on top of it. This EOD badge (crab as its called in the community) is far from horrid. It's something many set out to get their hands on and few make it through to get it. That "stalinist" star is actually only given to a Master badge. Meaning the bomb tech wielding the star didn't just come fresh off the boat.
The Wreath Symbolic of the achievements and laurels gained minimizing accident potentials through the ingenuity and devotion to duty of its members. It is in memory of those EOD personnel who gave their lives while performing EOD duties.
The Bomb Copied from the design of the World War II Bomb Disposal Badge, the bomb represents the historic and major objective of the EOD attack, the unexploded bomb. The three fins represent the major areas of nuclear, conventional and chemical/biological interest.
Lightning Bolts Symbolize the potential destructive power of the bomb and the courage and professionalism of EOD personnel in their endeavors to reduce hazards as well as to render explosive ordnance harmless.
The Shield Represents the EOD mission - to protect personnel and property.
I know many men who have died for this horrid decal and I myself love it so much as to get it inked onto my skin for life. Carp, i don't hold your worldly ignorance against you.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell
Sleep tight carp :)
> So you, as a terrorist, send in a bomb
> or fake bomb into the airport, and then
> place bombs to where you know people
> will be sent by police, and once they
> are there, kill those people. This has
> happened in other nations.
SLow day heh. Anyway, presumably, if you can make a real bomb to hit that crowd, then you can make a second real one to make sure the evacuation reaction is exactly whats done and legit.
Other than that, I am not surprized that this has worked. Its a very clever hack. I have repeatedly asked what security measures will be enacted once the checkpoint line becomes the target.
I was off looking over this old article (I was btw caught in the traffic jam caused by this incident): http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/nonterrorist_em.html
and saw:
"It's almost too easy to be a terrorist these days," said Jennifer Mason, 26. "You stick a box on a corner and you can shut down a city."
THAT, more than anything, is my concern. The utter paranoia over these extremely rare events has reaches such levels that a couple of light brights can shut down a city for half the day. That fiasco of utter overreaction cost over a million dollars. One incident... caused by maybe $100 worth of equipment and no threat (other than being flipped the finger by mooninites)
(another BAO question... how many bombs are built with big arrays of LEDs all over the front?)
I am ALL FOR security. What bothers me is the culture of fear. The belief that security means covering your ass at the expense of everyone else.
Sadly, CYA accounts for a large portion of the measures that I see people enact and endorse.
A more to the point article:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/fixing_airport.html
-Steve
-Steve
EODDemo:
> Sleep tight carp :)
Since I got my CPAP machine, I sleep like a baby.... however.... I made no comment on how the badge looked. Sorry.
I also have no problem with people who deal with explosives disposal. Its a dangerous job and one which should be commended.
My problem is A) With the culture of Fear that has people assuming that everything around them is a bomb
B) The CYA lovers who expect me to be ok with spending however much money they feel they need to to protect their jobs from the next attack by spending whatever it takes to defend against "what the terrorists did last time" (see previously posted link on CYA security)
To address B a bit more... lets take the MBTA stats. They tested just under 3000 bags for explosives. 26 of them tested positive and required further search. 0 contained bombs.
Extend those numbers out from a couple of checkpoints at train stations to a set of airport terminals and, frankly, those are some grim numbers from an
"incidents per day" standpoint. Especially when you figure the number of bombs detonated on the train in the last at LEAST 15 years has been 0. (I assume I would have heard of it if it happened)
That is unless you count "snap pops" as bombs. However, you are more likely to get ticketed for littering with those than charged with an explosives related violation.
-Steve
Seems if a person wanted to blow an airplane out of the sky then all that would be needed is a TSO or other airport employee who has access to checked baggage.
Being unscreened most days they could carry in the device, insert it into the unsecure checked baggage, like the TSO thieves we hear about all the time taking stuff out, and job done.
Why try to challenge the checkpoint when TSA keeps the back door wide open?
Anonymous @2:25
No, I reassert: There are an order of magnitude more solid substances that are explosives than liquid substances. Most explosive substances are solids.
You, like the terrorists, may simply be confusing "combustion" with "explosion". (See for example the guys who thought lighting a fuel pipe on fire would blow up JFK airport.)
"I didn't think Richard needed to defend that, nor was that his purpose."
He was asked about it and failed to defend it.
"For you to say that because Richard didn't bring it up, therefor he can't defend it, is actually quiet pathetic on your part."
It was brought up in a question, and Richard failed to defend it, because it is indefensible.
Please read better.
Anonymous said...
"Seems if a person wanted to blow an airplane out of the sky then all that would be needed is a TSO or other airport employee who has access to checked baggage."
--------------------------
But isn't that true of ALL law enforcement and/or security? I ask that question knowing that basically it is.
I know for a fact that the Secret Service does not screen themselves when they arrive at work. This is true whether you'r talking plain clothes agenst, or the uniformed division.
Capital police does not screen themselves. They have over-lapping responsibility to provide protection to facilities in the capital, including members of congress.
When state and local police provide security for the governor or mayor, they do not screen themselves, even at state-wide conventions.
I know this because I have worked with all of these groups, some as a TSA employee, others from my previous life.
What you we are basically talking about is an industry wide practice. To some extent there has to be a level of trust you give people who perform these jobs.
Now you and I may disagree on what extent of trust we hand out, but it is a fact that most security does not screen itself.
Maybe that should change, I do not know. I am sure better people than me, such as the readers/posters of this blog, will tell us so.
However, if I were truly scarstic, I would use the argument so many people on this blog like to use against TSA. It hasn't happened yet, so arn't you over-reacting? Understand, I do not really consider this a valid argument.
carp said...
"I also have no problem with people who deal with explosives disposal. Its a dangerous job and one which should be commended.
My problem is A) With the culture of Fear that has people assuming that everything around them is a bomb."
Here is part of carps problem. He thinks the people at TSA think everything around us is an IED. We actually do not.
Most, if not almost all bags left unattended (I use this example because you have brought it up so often) never receive more than a glance after the police get there. I do not know if there are records of the times bags are left unattended and how often TSA or police think there is a bomb. However, if I were to guess, I would guess that just a fraction of 1% of bags left unattended are handled in such a way as to imply someone thinks there might be something dangerous inside. I guess this less than 1% makes carp think we are an agency clouded by FEAR.
I am positive other TSA employees can confirm this.
So, carp, TSA does not consider everything around them to be dangerous. That is just your mistaken impression.
As far as what else you post, I think we should spend money to attempt to stop terrorist, even if they never strike us again. Why? I do not care if it is only 1 life that is safe; that is a life worth saving. Beside that, terrorism is about fear, and that has terrible economic cost. If spending money to defend against terrorism is what it takes to ease that fear, then I support it. It is money well spent, and we most likely recover what might have been lost.
But what might be lost is something we really can not speculate. How bad was the economy after 9/11? How long did it last? I do know it took nearly 5 years for people to start flying at the same numbers than before. And that ripples out into our economy. Less people renting hotels, cars, eating at restaurants, etc.
You tell me, carp. How much is it worth to protect that? Personally, I hope we are never attacked again, and I still think it would be worth it to have security.
carp said...
edited...
"Other than that, I am not surprized that this has worked. Its a very clever hack. I have repeatedly asked what security measures will be enacted once the checkpoint line becomes the target.
I was off looking over this old article (I was btw caught in the traffic jam caused by this incident): http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/nonterrorist_em.html
and saw:
"It's almost too easy to be a terrorist these days," said Jennifer Mason, 26. "You stick a box on a corner and you can shut down a city."
THAT, more than anything, is my concern. The utter paranoia over these extremely rare events has reaches such levels that a couple of light brights can shut down a city for half the day. That fiasco of utter overreaction cost over a million dollars. One incident... caused by maybe $100 worth of equipment and no threat (other than being flipped the finger by mooninites)
(another BAO question... how many bombs are built with big arrays of LEDs all over the front?"
------------------------------
I am somewhat surprised of your concern of cost that a false alarm might cause, because that has been a major sucess of the BAO program. It has greatly reduced airport evacuations, flight delays and cancelations, and saved millions and millions of dollars. Yes, millions.
Yet you said its a waste in the very first post of this blog.
Why are you not consistant?
As far as what "security measures will be enacted once the checkpoint line becomes the target", TSA alreayd considers the checkpoint line a target. However, it is on the public side of the airport. TSA is attempting several things, such as a portable scanner, which has drawn alot of heat, even on this blog.
Sort of a catch-22 situation. TSA knows the public side is a target, but there is little legally that can be done about it. If TSA tries, people like you start to scream and yell foul.
As far as your traffic jam, that is not the same as a checkpoint. The item in question will have gone through an x-ray. Even if the item has already been ejected from the x-ray the BAO can pull up the image and look at it. The BAO can also ETD the item. As far as a case on the side of the road, none of that would be possible.
This is another reason why the BAO is a great program. It helps greatly to prevent unnecessary evacuations.
As to your question about LEDs, I can not answer that. However, I will ask one of our BAOs when I am at work, and post a reply soon, if your really interested.
Anonymous said...
""However, all joking aside, I hope TSA never finds an IED, that terrorist never attempt to bring one on a U.S. plane, and that we as a society still expend all efforts to prevent such an act, even if it never happens. That would be sooooo much better than a group of people being blown up on a plane."
No, it wouldn't. You fail to understand the simple fact that resources are finite. Every dollar spent on airport "security" is a dollar that is no longer available for other purposes (infrastructure repair to name just one). So this notion that we should "expend all efforts" is not only foolish, it is downright harmful.
"One possible way to attack people, to spread fear, and what has actually happened at other parts of the world, is to watch where police evacuate people. Police will directe people to a specific area as they are leaving a building where there is a possible bomb."
All you are saying is that large crowds of people represent a potential terrorist target. Now explain why this should concern us when it happens at an airport but not when it happens at the virtually infinite range of public gatherings in this country."
-----------------
As to your first comment, I guess you and I just place life at a different value.
And I should explain, I do not mean we should spend all of our resources toward fighting and protecting ourselves from terrorism. I should not have implied that we should just blindly spend money fighting terrorism, and I am sorry if I gave that impression.
But I do believe the value of life is not finite, and that it would be unconscionable to not dedicate large, even vast, amounts of resources towards saving lives.
All this really amounts to is a difference you and I have regarding policy. I think it should be one way, you another. Fair enough.
But you mention that every dollar spent on security is not available for anything else. That is true. But I would look elsewhere to find money, or budgets to cut that might generally be considered wasteful. For example, the government spends money to study the effects of cow gas (methane) on the environment. Not kidding, look it up. There are so many other places in our budget that are truly wasteful.
Yes, large crowds are a target. You are not the first one that has pointed this out. And its also about resources. The Secret Service handles screening at major events like the Super Bowl. Local and state police handle things like state fairs.
TSA has been hired now to screen at major events too, which is a relatively new things.
But yes, those are a threat too, to a larger or smaller event. Good that you noticed.
Anonymous said...
Yes they do. I had my shoes screen in 3 different nations in Europe, there was the liquid bad, I had to take my computer out at all checkpoints, my jacket off.
*****
1. Which three countries were you in?
2. Were you flying from that country to the United States?
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"I note that Richard was completely and utterly unable to defend TSA's war on liquids, because there is no sensible defense for it. Pathetic as always."
I didn't think Richard needed to defend that, nor was that his purpose.
For you to say that because Richard didn't bring it up, therefor he can't defend it, is actually quiet pathetic on your part.
******
Please reread the original post and look for the following question:
"Blogger Bob: To many travelers who don’t understand the liquid threat, they feel that prohibiting items over 3.4 oz such as toothpaste and mouthwash is insane. The baggie baffles many a passenger. How would you defend the legitimacy of the 3-1-1 program if confronted by a curious passenger?"
This was the question where he was asked to defend the current TSA liquids ban.
RB said...
TSA is not a military or para-military organization.
Stop trying to play like one.
Did you take into fact that most of the BAOs are former military or police who have earned that badge?
Yes, in Europe they do have a ban on liquids. A gentleman ended up in the hospital last year as a result of guzzling down a bottle of hard liquor when he realized he couldn't take it with his carry on. This happened in Germany, and I believe it was the Frankfurt Airport. AND, I was told by a very nice Istraelie Woman, that the gentleman who was in front of her, complaining, should have to fly out of Israel. She noted he would never make his flight for all the extra "interviewing" they would be doing, and he would be touched all over to make certain NOTHING was hiding on him. Get your facts straight about world situations before you comment. It truly makes you look completely uneducated!
Nice puppy post. Guess nobody bothered to think that YATSFP (Yet Another TSO Stealing From Passengers), this time at JFK, was worth mentioning.
So will the TSO fire or not fire the Brian Burton, caught on film stealing a 'bait' laptop and a phone from a test bag?
Quoting from the fine article "The thieves also switched the luggage tags, hoping to conceal their handiwork, officials said."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/15/2009-07-15_sting_nabs_stickyfingered_jfk_airport_workers_going_through_luggage.html
All this talk about there isn't any need for a BAO because incidents are so rare - I would like to direct you to this link http://www.atf.gov/aexis2/statistics.htm - There were over 500 criminal explosive incidents and bombs detected in 2007. If you include all cases where explosives were recovered, there were over 2000 incidents that year. If a TSA screener sees a suspicious device, it is entirely reasonable to call in a specialist.
And Steve, you said " how about... call them when you have a bomb." I volunteer you to be the one to check the device and ensure it isn't a bomb. Heck, if they are as rare as you claim, you should go into the field and make a lot of easy, safe money checking for people.
EODDemo wrote:
"Morning Gents"
Sexist, aren't we?
Blogger Bob said...
"The star surrounded by the wreath on top of the badge indicates that person is a master. It has been in use with the military far longer than the TSA has been in existence. It is also used with aviator wings and jump wings.
Bob
TSA Blog Team"
But you guys aren't Military.
I also found the badge to be quite cluttered.
P.S.
As former Military, I understand the symbolism represented by the multiple features of the BDO badge. For those who serve and have serve in those positions I have nothing but the highest regard.
I am offended that the TSA continues to usurp symbols of other agencies and agents in an effort to elevate their profile and self importance.
Anonymous said
"But I do believe the value of life is not finite, and that it would be unconscionable to not dedicate large, even vast, amounts of resources towards saving lives."
Since 9/11 nearly 1000 times as many Americans have died due to tobacco related illnesses, than to terrorism within our borders. Shouldn't we, by your reasoning, be putting vastly more resources towards ending another preventable cause of death?
Patrick (BOS TSO) said...
RB said...
TSA is not a military or para-military organization.
Stop trying to play like one.
Did you take into fact that most of the BAOs are former military or police who have earned that badge?
July 15, 2009 11:36 PM
.........................
Patrick, it matters little what the were in previous jobs.
Trying to make anyone in TSA appear as a military type misleads the public.
I won't argue that there is some very minor need for things like BAO's but don't try playing at things they are not.
If they want to dress like military then I suggest they reenlist so they can wear a proper uniform.
Anonymous said:
"For example, the government spends money to study the effects of cow gas (methane) on the environment. Not kidding, look it up. There are so many other places in our budget that are truly wasteful."
Considering that cows worldwide produce an incredible volume of methane, it would be derelict of our government not to fund some environmental studies. My grandfather was a chemist who worked on processes to convert farm waste into lighting gas (methane) over 80 years ago. Farms use similar technology today to generate electricity. My guess that the current studies cost far less than the now discarded puffer machines, which were a waste of taxpayer money.
Looking for explosives is part of TSA's job description, so having someone on hand who is trained to safely disarm or dispose of them is probably a good concept. Keeping BAO's busy by spending time training TSO's on what to look for, and how to handle the situation could save some lives. Perhaps one day all of TSA's workforce will be as well trained and capable.
However, if I were truly scarstic, I would use the argument so many people on this blog like to use against TSA. It hasn't happened yet, so arn't you over-reacting? Understand, I do not really consider this a valid argument.
July 15, 2009 7:17 PM
.........................
What has happened many more times than TSA would like to acknowledge is that checked baggage is very unsecured, proven by all the cases of thieves stealing from it.
If something can be taken out then something can be inserted as easily.
TSA does not require the screening of all airport workers. An unscreened worker with access to checked baggage or aircraft has the opportunity to insert an item into checked baggage or load it directly on the aircraft
Why would TSA let this continue yet passengers are being harassed daily by TSA, about all manner of things, all the way to the boarding gates?
I just have to wonder how such an incompetent group of people ever got in a position of authority?
TSA is not about keeping bad things off airplanes, they are all about control of the citizenry.
TSA welcomes you to the USSA!
Anonymous wrote:
"But I do believe the value of life is not finite, and that it would be unconscionable to not dedicate large, even vast, amounts of resources towards saving lives."
I agree with that statement - but not if the money is going to be spent by the TSA.
From the NY Times back in April:
"Infant mortality has been declining slightly in the United States. But 28,000 children under the age of 1 still die every year......
"In 2004, the latest year for which worldwide data are available, the United States had a higher rate than 28 countries, including Singapore, Japan, Cuba and Hungary...In 1960, the United States had a higher rate than only 11 countries.
“We think the increase in preterm birth and preterm-related causes of death are major factors inhibiting further declines in infant mortality,” said Marian F. MacDorman, the lead author of the report and a statistician at the C.D.C. “Infant mortality is a major public health problem, and it’s not improving.”
Let's spend our money where it will do some actual good.
TSA Bloggers and Francine:
I quickly recognized the badge as being the military EOD technician badge defaced with the "BDO" acronym over the top of it.
I thought you might be interested to know that it's illegal to use any part of a U.S. military uniform (including insignia and badges) or to use any part of the U.S. military uniforms for any purpose other than for what it was intended.
Here are the relevant cites:
10 U.S.C. § § 771 and 772
15 U.S.C. § 1125
Violators may be prosecuted under:
18 U.S.C. § § 702 and 704
Basically, it's illegal for you to use the official EOD badge, especially altered (any other part of any U.S. military uniform), without approval from the DoD General Counsel's office.
...just thought you would like to know.
Carp sez - "The BAO kind of reminds me of the commercial of the Maytag repairman...sitting by the phone, just waiting, hoping for someone to actually give his life meaning for once."
Not exactly, they mostly do training and awareness classes and are a fantastic source of information and experience for the workforce.
And - "Why do you need a dedicated bomb officer, when local police forces in most major cities have bomb squads?"
This alleviates the need to contact the local EOD techs everytime there is something that can't be readily identified, and also insures that the chance we have a "real" bomb as you like to call it (although until the organization can properly clear the items - everything is considered a "real" bomb).
And - "Whats the ratio of false alarms to real bombs? like 1 million to 1? Or is it worst than that? I am guessing worst."
There is not much in the way of false positives at all. The assessment of an item as a possible threat is not a false positive, it is insuring that the item is resolved - big difference. A false positive means all the equipment and people around say the item is definitely a bomb, and it turns out to be soemthing else.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "I note that Richard was completely and utterly unable to defend TSA's war on liquids, because there is no sensible defense for it. Pathetic as always."
Not true, he gave a defined answer and you seem to have read right by it - the baggie limits the amount allowed, thus limiting the amount carried on thus limiting the possibility of threat. He also gave the public a defense of the organization by pointing out that we do not test all of the LAG in the baggies because the lines would be huge. Those were pretty clear answers, you just didn't see them.
West
TSA Blog Team
Andrew sez - "So TSA continues to cling to the totally discredited "liquid explosives plot" story? Sad.
You guys didn't hear that the British authorities concluded there was actually no threat at all?"
Just because there is a conclusion by another group that there was not a threat in this instance, does not mean that there is no threat in general. Liquid explosives are a viable threat.
West
TSA Blog Team
RB sez - "TSA is not a military or para-military organization.
Stop trying to play like one."
Never claimed we were a paramilitary or military group in any of our publications. Stars are used to represent just about anything in this country by any organization. Bob used that reference as an explanation, not as a tie-in RB. Did you never get a gold star in kindergarten when you mastered something or did a good job? Have you never had something on a website rated 5 stars before? Way to overreact to a simple comparison response.
West
TSA Blog Team
Other then TSA's partnership with local Law Enforcement Officers, the BAO is the best type of support you can get at the checkpoint or checked baggage.
BAO run training classes by far exceed any type of training I ever received from TSA.
The positives far out way the negative of cost. I do believe the BAO program is cost effective because they prevent unnecessary terminal evacuations and help with the core function of explosive detection.
BAO's are teachers as well and are not just twiddling their thumbs waiting by the phone. They have a job to do and they do it darn well.
-Tim "H2H
TSA Blog Team
> All this talk about there isn't any
> need for a BAO because incidents are
> so rare - I would like to direct you
> to this link http://www.atf.gov/aexis2
> /statistics.htm - There were over 500
> criminal explosive incidents and
> bombs detected in 2007.
Very interesting statistics. However, theres not a lot of context in that report, certainly not enough information to come to any sort of conclusion.
I notice major cities like NY and Boston don't seem to have incidents (the map isn't labeled so many cities are hard to pick out). I also notice that it does not break out target types.
Is there any data on how this relates to airports? Now that would be far more interesting...and relevant.
Actually target data in general. Schools? Cars? What is the motivation of the incidents? Is the average bombing targeted at an individual, or targeted at a building, or group?
Also, a few hundred over a year is well, not a lot in a country of over 300 million people, just about anything that you can think of is going to happen somewhere... even in a few places.
Example... how many people in the US are killed every year by serial killers?
http://www.physorg.com/news115920702.html
"current estimates may be failing to account for between 182 and 1,832 victims of serial killings a year."
...and thats JUST the number this person is estimating they fail to count.
Or how about this one:
"James Alan Fox and Jack Levin point out that "medical murderers" have, in a few cases, killed dozens of people and estimate their victims to total 500 to 1,000 a year."
> If you
> include all cases where explosives
> were recovered, there were over 2000
> incidents that year. If a TSA
> screener sees a suspicious device, it
> is entirely reasonable to call in a
> specialist.
> And Steve, you said " how about...
> call them when you have a bomb." I
> volunteer you to be the one to check
> the device and ensure it isn't a
> bomb. Heck, if they are as rare as
> you claim, you should go into the
> field and make a lot of easy, safe
> money checking for people.
Happily, you pay me the salary and benefits that I make now, and I would totally take that job. Talk about a cake walk.
How about this... based on the frequency of packages/bags/etc that turn out to be bombs vs turn out to not be.... if I was the only person doing that for logan... what would the average career survival rate be for my job? I am guessing I would still have a far higher chance of dyeing from some disease I caught from the previous owner of the bag than from a bomb.
(mmmm MRSA.....)
-Steve
Anonymous....
this is why as much as I love anonymous, its hard too, since you cant adress an individual....
You are probably right, the BAO program has probably saved millions. In truth, its probably a good thing.... in the current situation.
The current situation being that people have lots of irrational fear about terrorism. Of course, thats the point of terrorism isn't it? Its really a hack on the human brain...to make us fear things that we really have no cause to fear.
The truth is, everything is a target if someone wants it to be. Its just like car security. Make the car too hard to steal when its parked, and you move the crimes from auto theft to car jacking. Not really an improvement.
The absolute highest possible success of airport security, AT BEST, moves terrorists to other targets, like trains, and schools.
Collectively, I see the PA messages that you hear encouraging people to "See something, say something" and "be on the lookout for suspicous individuals" does more harm to our country than all the bombs that a few boogeyman terrorists could dream of.
It plays right into their hands...it gives THEM power. They didn't just take out a ship, and a couple of planes, and a few buildings... they have now caused millions of people to take their shoes off, and stand in long lines, and call in the bomb squad over and over... all because it worked... we are afraid.
Afraid of something done by dead men from a nearly defunct organization. However, still terribly afraid. They showed us to be a nation of cowards, and I, for one, hate every manifestation of it.
Boo!
-Steve
> Just because we haven't had a "real
> bomb" in an airport, we'd be fools to
> think it couldn't happen. We are, yes,
> this may be hard to believe, we are at
> war. I've fought these people on land
> and sea. I've been shot at, and have
> killed some. Stop complaining, face
> reality, grow up!
While I highly respect your credentials, I am suspect of this so called "war".
We can't protect against all attack vectors in all places. There are just too many infinite numbers of ways. Your line of reasoning, extended to its logical conclusion, would mean I should never open my mail, just because MetLife has never sent me a letter bomb before....
There is no war. We were hit by a small criminal force, we have rolled back that criminal organization. There is no trend, there is no movement against us. There have been a few incidents, by a few misguided people who hated us.
Our own intelligence shows that their leadership has come, after seeing what we have done to them, to believe that that style of attack was counter productive and not a good model for the future anyway.
Overall, this is just not so big a deal as it needs as much effort as we keep throwing at it. The ENTIRE security issue of 9/11 was solved that very day. Locking cockpit doors was a much needed added bonus. We really could have stopped there.
ALL this needs to be rolled back. In my mind, the current tack of the TSA would be like, if we were calling up units still for another surge in Grenada.
-Steve
Can I get some clarification on why so many people think that screening people going IN to an area will prevent them from stealing items and taking them OUT of the area? We could strip search, and x-ray every airport employee going into the sterile area, into baggage whatever and they would still be able to steal thing if they wanted. There is nothing to find when they are going in they haven't taken anything yet. The only way to reduce theft through screening is to search them on the way OUT of the sterile area.
Of course I realize banging the drum of employee theft is just another strawman argument around here. Rather than discuss the BAO program on its own merits (or lack there of) we need to scream about 3-1-1 and employee theft.
Also, several people have confused BAO and BDO in there posts. There is a pretty big difference.
And for Bob Hanssen:
You cite for a use other than what it was intended. The EOD badge was intended to indentify EOD technicians. TSA is using it for that purpose.
carp said...
" So tell me, how do you know if you have
> a bomb or not? Please explain your
> background to have this knowledge.
Well anonymous... I start with experience. I once in my life was near a bomb (outside of visiting military installations). I was near one because, as teenagers, a friend of mine and I decided to fill a copper tube with some pyrodex and blow it up. Fun... but Unabomber I was not.
Many times, I have run into packages, bags etc, that were left behind, and many times run into devices I didn't understand. None of these has ever turned out to be a bomb in disguise.
So I start by assuming no malicious intent, and its not a bomb. That is, I make the absolutely most reasonable assumption that a person can make...and the default assumption that should be made everywhere except along military supply routes in war zones.
So far, I have never been wrong in that assumption. And i have heard of FAR more people being wrong by assuming otherwise than i have EVER heard about those bomb assumptions panning out.
Its a simple numbers game. I don't play the lotto either. Frankly I would start playing the lotto before I would start assuming their are bombs everywhere... the odds are better by my estimation.
Theres a few million people out there in my general vicinity that can forget packages and briefcases. Compare that to the number of people with motive and opportunity to leave a bomb somewhere.... and it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that calling the bomb squad for anything less than a direct "there is a bomb in the building" threat just doesn't make any sense."
-------------------------------
So what you are really saying is you have no experience to determine if something left in a box/briefcase is an IED or not? You just assume its not, is what I get from what you wrote. And that will work almost every time, I would guess. Except for those who are wrong and end up either hurting or killing themselves or others.
Bob Hanssen said...
"Basically, it's illegal for you to use the official EOD badge, especially altered (any other part of any U.S. military uniform), without approval from the DoD General Counsel's office."
Nice of you to be so thoughtful to post this. And to assume its used without permission.
Sandra said...
"But I do believe the value of life is not finite, and that it would be unconscionable to not dedicate large, even vast, amounts of resources towards saving lives."
I agree with that statement - but not if the money is going to be spent by the TSA."
Then its just a matter that you and I disagree on policy. No big deal. It happens all the time, on a vast many government programs.
carp said...
"... lets take the MBTA stats. They tested just under 3000 bags for explosives. 26 of them tested positive and required further search. 0 contained bombs.
------------------------------
You seem to be under the assumption that TSA, or anyone, has equipment that detects bombs/IED.
No such equipment exist, besides humans.
TSA uses an ETD machince, which many people mistaken think detects explosives, maybe becuse of the name of the machine.
It does not detect explosives, and does not have false alarms. It can not mistake a chemical for another chemical.
All it does it detect chemicals that are used in explosives. Thats is. But these chemicals are also used in other products, like hand cream, heart medication.
If 1000 bags were test, and around 30 or so alarmed, that does not mean the ETD machine said it had found 30 IEDs. What it means is that the machine found 30 bags with chemicals on or in it that can be used for both "normal" reasons, such as hand lotion, or used to make IEDs.
An alarm of an ETD simply tells the TSA employee to "look closer", if you will. Humans detect bombs.
So when you or others have claimed that the ETDs false alarm, you are incorrect. They do not.
Anonymous said...
"No, I reassert: There are an order of magnitude more solid substances that are explosives than liquid substances. Most explosive substances are solids.
You, like the terrorists, may simply be confusing "combustion" with "explosion". (See for example the guys who thought lighting a fuel pipe on fire would blow up JFK airport.)"
Again, incorrect. Perhaps around 30% of explosives can be liquid, slurry, paste, jell, cream. And I am not including "combustion" in this percentage. This clearly demonstrates that there is not an order of magnitude of solid explosives over liquid.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said
"But I do believe the value of life is not finite, and that it would be unconscionable to not dedicate large, even vast, amounts of resources towards saving lives."
Since 9/11 nearly 1000 times as many Americans have died due to tobacco related illnesses, than to terrorism within our borders. Shouldn't we, by your reasoning, be putting vastly more resources towards ending another preventable cause of death?
Yes! And we are! We spend so much more on fighting cancer than on airport security each year. As a person from a family that has had multiple members of their immediate family suffer from cancer - luckily no one has lost the fight yet - I couldn't agree more.
But its about multiple responsibilities. Our government should not focus in on only one thing and blind themselves to others.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said...
Yes they do. I had my shoes screen in 3 different nations in Europe, there was the liquid bad, I had to take my computer out at all checkpoints, my jacket off.
*****
1. Which three countries were you in?
2. Were you flying from that country to the United States?"
I flew between France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Sometimes between cites in those nations. I always have flow back to the U.S. from Paris. I have found their security to be more strict than ours.
I have always had to remove shoes, computers from bag, jackets off, and so on.
I had to get rid of my large umbrella in France, they would not let it past the checkpoint. :)
Basically, it's illegal for you to use the official EOD badge, especially altered (any other part of any U.S. military uniform), without approval from the DoD General Counsel's office.
I read the statues you cited. You'd be right, except for a few issues: first, the word "alter", "altered" "change", or any similiar wording is NOT found in the cited statutes. If the insignia is significantly altered, and a reasonable person could not confuse them, then by definition you are not wearing a uniform item, and therefore not breaking the law.
Second, 1125 only covers commercial use of distinctive insignia. Non commercial use isn't covered at all.
Third, even if your interpretation were correct, good luck getting any court anywhere to actually hear the case, much less rule against TSA or any member.
(And are you actually sure TSa didn't get DOD permission?)
Bob Hanssen said: Basically, it's illegal for you to use the official EOD badge, especially altered (any other part of any U.S. military uniform), without approval from the DoD General Counsel's office...just thought you would like to know.
Who said it hadn't been approved? Are you the all-knowing wizard of oz or something, Hanssen?
My house might not ever burn down ,but I have home insurance.
No one might ever steal my car , but I have a car alarm.
Its better to be prepared and safe , than dead and sorry later.
No one could ever imagine the twin towers of the World Trade Center coming down either.
Think about that people before you complain.
Quite honestly, if BAO's are supposed to be training screeners, they're not doing a very good job of it. Screeners are still just as poorly trained as ever - I've seen literally 6 screeners at BWI trying to figure out for 10 minuteswhat something was on a screen before a BAO was called over. Needless to say, it shut down the line during that time for something the BAO ended up waving thru.
Glad these guys are doing such a good job training.
Al
Steve said:
Why do you need a dedicated bomb officer, when local police forces in most major cities have bomb squads?
and
It must be pretty boring sitting around waiting for all those bombs that nobody is trying to sneak into airports.
***********************************
Actually Steve, the bomb squad is usually not called until a confirmed device is found. The expertise of the BAO is used to minimize the calls to the bomb squad. And in their down time when they're not responding to calls, they are conducting training sessions. As for the "bombs nobody is trying to sneak in" we don't really know that do we Steve?
Ryan62 responded to me:
You cite for a use other than what it was intended. The EOD badge was intended to indentify EOD technicians. TSA is using it for that purpose.
The intended use for the military EOD badge is for it to be worn on uniforms of active duty U.S. military personnel who are, or whohave been, certified EOD technicians. Other qualifications include officers in charge of enlisted EOD technicians, but only while these officers are assigned to bomb disposal (or ordnance handling) units. Once they are transferred, they are no longer authorized to wear the badge. So, the intended purpose does not include being used on a TSA website as "defaced" (in the legal definition here) by "BAO" written over the top of it.
In response to the various "anonymi" who perferred to take the approach of attacking my credibility, I offer the following clarifications:
1. If the TSA in general, and Blogger Bob in particular, had actually asked the Department of Defense for permission to use the EOD badge with "BAO" written over the top, there would have been exchange of correspondence, which would have included the instruction for the TSA to place this disclaimer (or one very similar) at the bottom of the depiction: "Depiction of military insignia used by permission of the Department of Defense."
I cited the commercial use atatutes because the equivalent prohibition for employees of the federal government is contained in various government ethics rules. These rules are outlined in various agencies' ethics rules, which are not available in the public domain. I would have had to FOIA these documents.
I hope this clears things up. I trust the TSA staff will make the effort to do things right next time. Asking the DoD's forgiveness after the fact and fixing this particular depiction, presently used without permission, would show a much-needed display of class on the part of the TSA.
"Not true, he gave a defined answer and you seem to have read right by it - the baggie limits the amount allowed, thus limiting the amount carried on thus limiting the possibility of threat. He also gave the public a defense of the organization by pointing out that we do not test all of the LAG in the baggies because the lines would be huge. Those were pretty clear answers, you just didn't see them."
No, West, none of that justifies the 3.4-1-1 war on water, because none of that addresses the complete and utter lack of scientific support for TSA's fever dream that liquids can somehow bring down an airliner. Read better next time.
"Just because there is a conclusion by another group that there was not a threat in this instance, does not mean that there is no threat in general."
West, the people who actually investigate the incident that prompted TSA to lose its mind (and all of its credibility with the public) acknowledged that there was no threat to aviation in the UK case. And TSA is completely unable to present independent peer-reviewed research that supports its war on liquids -- because there is no threat from liquids.
"Liquid explosives are a viable threat."
Stop lying, West.
Anonymous said:
Stop lying, West.
------------
Wow, its a good thing that the TSA has some real explosives experts available. If we were to take your word for it the tin foil hats would need to be changed for hard hats, to protect from the falling debris.
Bob, why does TSA permit individuals who identify themselves as TSOs to insult posters the way "TSORon" does?
Ron, if you have links to peer-reviewed independent research that supports TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy and the war on shampoo, please post a link to it.
carp said...
"Our own intelligence shows that their leadership has come, after seeing what we have done to them, to believe that that style of attack was counter productive and not a good model for the future anyway."
Why do you chose to believe certain intelligence but not others? TSA employees intelligence officers. These men are former officers from the CIA, military intelligence, NSA, etc., with contacts through out government intelligence agencies. These agencies have gathered and presented to TSA intelligence that has directed TSA policy. TSA policy reflects a belief that terrorist will attempt to strike us again through our aviation system. But you claim that there is no threat.
However, you then cite the same sources TSA intelligence officers use to support your point of view.
How can you pick and chose what intelligence you wish to believe? What is your background that you are able to do so?
And how is that honest when you "cherry pick" your sources of information that support your biases? I do not think it can be honest.
You wrote:
"Overall, this is just not so big a deal as it needs as much effort as we keep throwing at it. The ENTIRE security issue of 9/11 was solved that very day. Locking cockpit doors was a much needed added bonus. We really could have stopped there."
How would security doors have prevented Richard Reed from doing what he had planned? Remember, he only failed because he got his fuse wet. He had no intention of hijacking the plane. His mission was to light his bomb and kill everyone.
How would locked doors have prevented the Black Widow bombers? They did not attempt to hijack a plane. They blew up 2 planes within minutes of each other despite the locked cockpit door.
Can you please explain how a locked door would or could have prevented those instances from happening?
Just some quick observations and personal opinions.
The EOD vs BAO badge controversy: I don't like the fact the TSA defaced the insignia. Maybe the TSA had permission to do it, maybe they didn't, but I doubt anyone who has worn the real 'crab' is happy with what they did. All I see is a hatchet-job done on a time-honored isignia that looks like it was done by a first-year art student in their 'Intro to Photoshop' class.
Theft by TSOs: Unless the TSA can get rid of their "bad apples", or deploy preventative measures, this will always be a problem
ID is Security: False. ID is only ID. Security is access control and threat minimization.
Bob Hanssen said...
Ryan62 responded to me:
I cited the commercial use atatutes because the equivalent prohibition for employees of the federal government is contained in various government ethics rules. These rules are outlined in various agencies' ethics rules, which are not available in the public domain. I would have had to FOIA these documents.
I hope this clears things up. I trust the TSA staff will make the effort to do things right next time. Asking the DoD's forgiveness after the fact and fixing this particular depiction, presently used without permission, would show a much-needed display of class on the part of the TSA.
July 20, 2009 1:46 PM
......................
Bob, do you think anyone associated with TSA has ethnics as a high priority?
If they did you would see steps taken to secure checked baggage instead of letting their thieves steal as they like. You would see complaints answered in a timely manner. You would see respect for the constitution instead of TSA always pushing the boundaries of what they can do.
No, ethnics are not even on the radar at TSA.
Anon Said: Then I'm sure that you would agree that just because we haven't had a real attack by syphillitic ferrets doesn't mean we shouldn't be on the lookout for that too...
----
You did it now, TSA will decree all Ferrets be euthanized for creditable threats against air safety.
RB said
Bob, do you think anyone associated with TSA has ethnics as a high priority?
If they did you would see steps taken to secure checked baggage instead of letting their thieves steal as they like. You would see complaints answered in a timely manner. You would see respect for the constitution instead of TSA always pushing the boundaries of what they can do.
No, ethnics are not even on the radar at TSA.
July 20, 2009 9:07 PM
I happen to disagree. The customer rep at BHM devotes a lot of time to investigating claims at my airport. He responds as quickly as he can and doesn't hesitate to address unethical behaviors.
To Bob Hansen:
The cite of 15 U.S.C. 1125 would also apparently make the tin badges that screeners wear also illegal, since they are designed to make the screeners more LEO-like and thus deserving of "respect and confidence,":
"Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of
fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which
"(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person,"
;-)
Anonymous:
"Bob, why does TSA permit individuals who identify themselves as TSOs to insult posters the way "TSORon" does?"
HappyToHelp wrote:
"BAO run training classes by far exceed any type of training I ever received from TSA." (eyes rolling)
Yes, one would think that the TSA would attempt to rein in people who represent themselves to be employed by TSA and who insult others and make statements such as we so often see here from "screeners."
Neither TSORon nor HappyToHelp seem to know enough to keep their fingers off the keyboard.
ldsman said...
RB said
Bob, do you think anyone associated with TSA has ethnics as a high priority?
July 20, 2009 9:07 PM
I happen to disagree. The customer rep at BHM devotes a lot of time to investigating claims at my airport. He responds as quickly as he can and doesn't hesitate to address unethical behaviors.
July 21, 2009 10:27 AM
.........................
Are you saying that your airport has such an excessive number of theft claims requiring a person to investigate these on a full time basis?
A TSO once pulled my carryon because he thought he saw a bomb. It was my deodorant. (I'm surprised he didn't confiscate it, or maybe the bag of rolls my sister had baked.)
Are TSOs required not to have common sense?
Anonymous, It seems to me that you fly a lot for someone who hates it so much. If you are that unhappy with the security system that is in place, please, please, just take the greyhound or amtrak! As a TSO, I have read and I think you are sooooo far off track. The TSA was put in place in response to the public outcry of why doesn't the government have secure measures in place to protect our flying public from the attacks of 9-11. And, yes, it was put together in a hurry to satisfy these concerns and complaints, therefore, there were a lot of bugs to be worked out overtime. So, while trying to come to a comfortable positioning where we have security without violating the freedoms our American Public hold so dear,it has been a long rough road. AND, I WILL add that in my experience, it IS the AMERICAN TRAVELER who is rude and curt to the TSA. Not the foreigners. I have heard more times than not that we should not be screening people from our own country, only OUTSIDERS. So, lets just remember the Oklahoma City bombings, as well as the Richard Reid shoe bomb attemp, and wasn't it a Navy Admiral who was, with the aid of his wife, giving information to the Soviet Union back in the 70's? So, in my opinion, if you have so many complaints, please, take the greyhound.............
Anon sez - "No, West, none of that justifies the 3.4-1-1 war on water, because none of that addresses the complete and utter lack of scientific support for TSA's fever dream that liquids can somehow bring down an airliner. Read better next time."
Nice try Anon, but you are wrong. There are some basic liquids that are difficult to transport, but there are others that have desensitizers that can be used to make transport and storage more safe. This site will give you some basic info on liquids, but I am not going to give more specific info out - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-liquid.htm - You can claim all you want that there is not threat, and you will continue to be wrong, wrong and wrong. If you were truly as concerned as you like to make it out to be, this took me all of 0.13 seconds to find and it is not a "government" page. I am certain that you are completely open minded about this, so here are a couple of more sites - http://www.howstuffworks.com/liquid-explosives.htm - this one details WHY liquid explosives would be a good choice for aviation incidents (of course this would be prior to the current screening process...). How about this one - http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003672.html - This one indicates why the plots using TATP would be difficult to accomplish because it has to be dried once it si mixed, BUT it is still feasible. You know, Time magazine, they must be completely bonkers, they actually have this article - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225032,00.html - that details how the terrorist organizations actually WANT to try and use liquid explosives! And I will give you one more for the road there Anon - http://www.efilmgroup.com/Liquid-Chemical-Explosives-What-You-Never-Wanted-to-Know.html - take a couple of minutes to read these completely unaffiliated sites and see what they are all saying about liquid explosives.
West
TSA Blog Team
RB said
Are you saying that your airport has such an excessive number of theft claims requiring a person to investigate these on a full time basis?
July 21, 2009 1:48 PM
Nice twisting of what I said.
BHM is the hub airport for MSL and HSV. Our customer service rep deals withs complaints, lost and found, signage and various other customer related items. He actually gets very few theft complaints.
Another Anonymous poster said:
‘Bob, why does TSA permit individuals who identify themselves as TSOs to insult posters the way "TSORon" does?”
For the same reason that he allows folks like RB and the corps of anonymous posters (like yourself) to insult the TSA and other posters. I don’t insult individuals, I show my disdain for their positions/opinions. Try and understand the difference.
Another Anonymous poster said:
“Ron, if you have links to peer-reviewed independent research that supports TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy and the war on shampoo, please post a link to it.”
I have done so more than once. Please feel free to do the research for yourself. It takes about 0.32 seconds using google.
West, Ron, I note your complete and utter failure to provide any links to any peer-reviewed independent research that supports TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy and war on liquids. Your failure further demonstrates that TSA's policy is pointless; your insistence that you have done what you have not demonstrates your poor reading comprehension and lack of professionalism.
"I don’t insult individuals, I show my disdain for their positions/opinions."
"So no, I don’t understand. Nor do I care."
"I have done so more than once." No, you have not. PEER REVIEWED, not TSA reviewed.
TSA, do you really want people with attitudes such as this person displays both here and on other sites representing you?
A TSO once pulled my carryon because he thought he saw a bomb. It was my deodorant. (I'm surprised he didn't confiscate it, or maybe the bag of rolls my sister had baked.)
Are TSOs required not to have common sense?
___________________________________
Okay well first off that is a great story. The TSO thought your deo was a bomb, I doubt it! Did he say that when he pulled it out of your bag? "Oh its just deoterant, not a bomb, ha silly me!" Doubt it doubt it doubt it! Here is some common sense, don't make up stories!
Anonymous said...
"A TSO once pulled my carryon because he thought he saw a bomb. It was my deodorant. (I'm surprised he didn't confiscate it, or maybe the bag of rolls my sister had baked.)
Are TSOs required not to have common sense?"
Sigh. The TSO did not think he saw a bomb. If a TSO does think they see what might be components of a whole IED, you call the supervisor, who agrees or disagrees, and you go from there.
No, what most likely happened is the TSO was checking the item to determin if it was a LGA, and if so what size.
As a side note, do you have any idea how many times a passenger has claimed I was looking at one thing in their bag either physically or on the x-ray screen, and I was actually looking at something entirely different? And this is not just my experience, every TSO I knows goes through the same every time they work checkpoint.
carp said....
"Afraid of something done by dead men from a nearly defunct organization. However, still terribly afraid. They showed us to be a nation of cowards, and I, for one, hate every manifestation of it.
Boo!"
Do you really believe those who work for TSA believe everything is a threat? Are you serious?
I do believe a threat exist. Proof of that is in the news today. As reported in the news today
"Authorities revealed Wednesday that an American — charged with giving al-Qaida information on the New York transit system and attacking a U.S. military base in Afghanistan"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_re_us/us_american_al_qaida
This makes me wonder, are there others? Maybe. Maybe not.
It would be foolish, I believe, to say that because we haven't been attacked in 8 years, we will not be attacked again. It did take 7 years before the first World Trade Center attack and 9/11. That is evidence al-Qaida is willing to wait. Is there a magic year that after it has passed we can relax? I think it would be foolish to do so.
You are allowed to think what you want. You should do so, but hopefully you should understand that TSA is not an agency gripped in fear.
So sorry, your "boo" didn't scare us.
Marshall SO said...
"I don’t insult individuals, I show my disdain for their positions/opinions."
"So no, I don’t understand. Nor do I care."
"I have done so more than once." No, you have not. PEER REVIEWED, not TSA reviewed.
TSA, do you really want people with attitudes such as this person displays both here and on other sites representing you?"
---------------------------
There are too many problems with peer-reviewed sources. In the last handful of years it has come to light that many peer-reviewed articles have various mistakes in them, many of the mistakes actual fraud.
As cited from a study of the peer-review system, written by Daryl E. Chubin and Edward J. Hackett, titled "Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy", “[t]here is mounting evidence that peer review in the United States is not functioning well, and there is growing concern among scientists and policy makers about the soundness of the peer review system."
Yet many hold to the view that "unless a theory, fact, and/or analysis has been previously published in a peer review journal such arguments and data cannot be "good science" and cannot form the basis" of a valid opinion. That, by the way, is why you dismiss the DHS studies on LGAs. Small minded of you, I think.
Further, "The fact that an article has been published in a peer review journal does not establish that the facts, research or analytical methodologies, or conclusions reported therein are “generally accepted” by or represent the “consensus” views of the relevant scientific community."
Most of the quotes I post above are from David Egilman MD, MPH, Clinical Associate Professor Department of Community Health, Brown University, who also wrote:
"Most of this literature indicates that, even in the academic sphere, peer review is of poor quality. This is one of the reasons why peer-reviewed journals have repeatedly published fabricated data and studies."
Notice he said most of the "literature" finds peer reviewed sources to be of "poor quality". There seems to be a consensus on the reliability of peer reviewed sources. But hey, you think they are entirely reliable, so thats all that matter, right?
But fine, ask for peer-reviewed studies regarding LGAs. How do you know those studies wouldn't be riddled with mistakes?
Any ways, just a thought.
Marshall's SO said, and I’m not sure why...
"I have done so more than once." No, you have not. PEER REVIEWED, not TSA reviewed. TSA, do you really want people with attitudes such as this person displays both here and on other sites representing you?”
So, sorry to hear about your failure to find the blog comment where I posted the following link:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003672.html
Which says: PLX, or Picatinny Liquid Explosive, is a liquid binary explosive, a mixture of 95% nitromethane and 5% ethylene diamine. It is a slightly yellowish liquid. It was developed at Picatinny Arsenal during World War II for cleaning of minefields. It was to be mixed just before use. PLX was one of the explosives used to down Korean Air Flight 858.”
And can be found at the following link:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2336044328955501444&postID=1635848181962643511
Or this one:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-list.htm
Which can be found at the following link:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2336044328955501444&postID=2512260061922493977
So, Marshalls SO, I’d have that plate of crow ready just as soon as you get home. After all, you need to keep your strength up.
I agree with you Ron.
The people who comment on this blog do not know what we have to deal with everyday at the checkpoint.
They have no idea whats going on, all they care about is the least amount of hassle.
This is the sentiment that I have felt from reading the posts on this blog by people.
No, that's what he said, he'd thought there might be a bomb in there.
No crow needed, Ron, since nothing you posted links to is from a peer-reviewed journal. TSmORon: Wrong again!
Peer review, of course, is not perfect, but it's a darn sight better than "because Kip Hawley said so," which is the only justification anyone at TSA can provide for its nonsensical war on shampoo.
Anonymous said...
"No crow needed, Ron, since nothing you posted links to is from a peer-reviewed journal. TSmORon: Wrong again!
Peer review, of course, is not perfect, but it's a darn sight better than "because Kip Hawley said so," which is the only justification anyone at TSA can provide for its nonsensical war on shampoo."
-------------------------
Not true. Terrorist have used liquid explosives multiple times on planes over the last several decades, and people have died because of it.
On various other times terrorist had planned or attempted to use liquid explosives on airplanes, but for various reasons failed to carry out their plans.
To me that is some evidence that LGA's might pose a possible risk, other than your notion that it's considered a threat because "Kip" said so.
EXPLETIVE DELETED, Ron, I asked for PEER REVIEWED information and you give me links back to some guy's blog from 2006, a list of explosive materials and a link back to a blog post in March!!!!!
Here's a definition of Peer Review from NYU for your edification:
"Peer Review: A system using reviewers who are professional equals; a process used for checking the work performed by one’s equals (peers) to ensure it meets specific criteria."
To Anonymous, yes, I agree that "peer review" can sometimes not do what it is intended to do.
However, the junk that Ron is trying to pass of is beyond the pale.
Quote from TSORon: "I have done so more than once. Please feel free to do the research for yourself. It takes about 0.32 seconds using google."
So it should be quite easy for you to do rather than citing the puff pieces you usually post.
Robert
Quote from TSO Nick: "The people who comment on this blog do not know what we have to deal with everyday at the checkpoint.
They have no idea whats going on, all they care about is the least amount of hassle.
This is the sentiment that I have felt from reading the posts on this blog by people."
Quite honestly Nick, I don't care what you have to deal with at the checkpoint. TSA doesn't care what passengers deal with on a daily basis at the airport.
You choose to be there and you're paid to be there. If it sucks, then do what any other adult does and find another job better suited to them.
Security doesn't have to be a hassle to be effective, but to be fair, that's a mentality that's endemic to the entire government. "The greater the hassle, the greater the security" and "if security is good, then more is better." Unfortunately, more isn't better if it isn't good security to begin with.
We complain about the hassle because TSA repeatedly ignores other threats. Like screening workers as they enter the sterile area. By refusing to secure baggage from theft - after all if someone can take something OUT, then someone can put something IN to the bag and onto the plane. TSA cares about appearances more than security.
I'm willing to put up with some inconvenience if it measurably adds to security. The puffers were one such example. They slowed things down a bit but they actually made sure that explosives weren't getting on the planes. Of course, TSA didn't adequately test those and now they're canned.
However, between the shoe carnivals, liquid lunacy, and so forth, we have a lot of hassle, a lot of show, but no real substance. It's a good show though.
With all this, Nick, I have little sympathy. When I actually am safe because of what TSA does (not what they say), then maybe I'll have some sympathy.
Robert
Anonymous said: There are too many problems with peer-reviewed sources.
Face it, the biggest problem that the TSA has with peer-reviews, especially for the War on Shampoo, is that they won't like the answer.
I am a United States Air Force EOD Tech who has earned the right to wear the EOD badge. I can tell you this much that no present or past military EOD tech that I know has objected to the use of the EOD badge by TSA. Bomb Tech's that were trained by the military or the FBI's Hazarodus Device School have earned the right to wear the badge. BAO's have earned this same right and would not do any thing to discredit the brave men and women who has earned the right to call themselfs a EOD Tech from the military or a Bomb Tech from civilian Law Enforcement or Public Saftey agencies. BAO's use the altered EOD bade with respect and reverence to EOD and Bomb Techs that gave their lives in their mission to stop the bomb from going off, to preserve life and property. With that said unless you are a one of thses fine men and women you have no right to discuss the use of our hard earned CRAB aka the EOD Badge. And just for the people out their who have no use for TSA I am also a Lead Transportation Security Officer for TSA and a EOD Tech in the USAF Reserves.
Chris Boyce said...
"Anonymous said: There are too many problems with peer-reviewed sources.
Face it, the biggest problem that the TSA has with peer-reviews, especially for the War on Shampoo, is that they won't like the answer."
No, I said that because mindless people demand it without actually knowing what they are asking for. I noticed what you didn't cite from my post: the fact that some people believe if it hasn't been "peer reviewed" it isn't valid. As state by the sources I quoted from, that is simply not true.
Yet the chant for "peer review" goes on and on and on.
Peer review has been proved to have produced data that is flawed, has resulted in misguided government policy, and waste of money. This is not my opinion, it is fact.
The current peer review system produces data that is factually not reliable, and in many cases fraudulent. How can a non-expert wade through a large amount of peer reviewed material and determine the good from the bad?
And knowing that, why would anyone hold this system up as the holy grail of how you justify policy?
This is why liquids are banned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm
From an anonymous poster:
Anonymous said...
"No crow needed, Ron, since nothing you posted links to is from a peer-reviewed journal. TSmORon: Wrong again!
Peer review, of course, is not perfect, but it's a darn sight better than "because Kip Hawley said so," which is the only justification anyone at TSA can provide for its nonsensical war on shampoo."
-------------------------
"Not true. Terrorist have used liquid explosives multiple times on planes over the last several decades, and people have died because of it.
On various other times terrorist had planned or attempted to use liquid explosives on airplanes, but for various reasons failed to carry out their plans."
Huh? Where do you get your Kool-Aid?
Anonymous said:
"Huh? Where do you get your Kool-Aid?"
Korean Air Flight 858 was downed by an improvised explosive device which involved PLX (a liquid explosive)on November 29, 1987, killing all 115 aboard.
Philippine Airlines Flight 434 was nearly brought down by another liquid bomb that used nitroglycerin. Had this bomb been placed just a few rows back it would have detonated the center fuel tank instead of just killing a Japanese businessman. The plane was nearly crippled and had to be landed using differential power for navigation.
This bomb, designed by Ramzi Yousef (the 1993 WTC bomber), was to be used on multiple Trans-Pacific planes in the Bojinka Plot, but was disrupted before it could fully materialize.
As for the 2006 liquid bomb plot, its not because Kip Hawley said so. Watch what that bomb would have done to a plane: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm
Anon sez - "West, Ron, I note your complete and utter failure to provide any links to any peer-reviewed independent research that supports TSA's 3.4-1-1 policy and war on liquids. Your failure further demonstrates that TSA's policy is pointless; your insistence that you have done what you have not demonstrates your poor reading comprehension and lack of professionalism."
Your failure to recognize that "peer review" is not the golden chalice you want it to be shows a disturbing narrow mindedness. I never claimed I posted info that was peer reviewed, becuase I do not place much faith in it (this does not mean I discount the possibility of learning something from it, just that I take all sources of information in before making a judgement). The information I posted shows that there are plenty of independent sources that will demonstrate the dangers of liquid explosives. The information I post shows the validity of the threat, and some of the capabilities of the substances themselves - you show a decided lack of reading comprehension by not understanding the difference. You have also shown a singular focus on one result rather than observing all sources of information and making an objective conclusion based on the available facts from all sources.
West
TSA Blog Team
Well, it took a long time but....
" Andrew said...
" So TSA continues to cling to the totally discredited "liquid explosives plot" story? Sad.
" You guys didn't hear that the British authorities concluded there was actually no threat at all?"
Hello Andrew. Do you still think the British authorities concluded there was no threat?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8242238.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&hp
Post a Comment