What ever happened to the Shoe Scanner Idea? It’s still cooking! TSA started collecting data on Shoe Scanning Detection technology in the fall of 2008 and is currently soliciting industry input as it looks to explore future use of shoe scanning systems. In addition, TSA has requested funding for shoe scanning detection technology as part of the FY11 budget.This would be a win-win because it’s the perfect balance of security and convenience. Shoe removal has long been considered one of the most inconvenient aspects of airline security, so this would be welcomed with open arms (and shoed feet) by the flying public. I can assure you that our officers want this technology to work just as much or more than the passengers do. This would allow them to focus their attention on other things and there would be much less clutter on the X-ray belts. So the passengers and officers would be gaining all of this added convenience and security to boot. (Shoe pun intended)
Check out the recent USA Today article on this subject.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
93 comments:
You really don't seem to have any grasp of reality whatsoever. Every single dollar you spend on a useless machine to combat a virtually nonexistent threat represents a dollar that could be spent on something that is far more pressing. Again, as I mentioned in response to one of your posts gloating about having spent several hundred million dollars of taxpayer money on portable explosive scanners, a defibrillator costs about $1500 and can actually save lives. We would be much better off, and much safer, if we invested this money on defibrillators (or road maintenance, or bridge repair, or new air traffic control systems) than on needless, expensive toys for you guys. Also, is there anything that can be concealed in a shoe that couldn't be concealed in one's rectum?
Bob, how many other countries require passengers to remove their shoes for screening?
Bob, how many planes have been brought down by shoe bombs anywhere in the world since Richard Reid?
Bob, how many planes were brought down by shoe bombs in the US before the shoe carnival was made mandatory in 2006?
Bob, how much has TSA spent on this project?
Bob, why did TSA spend all that money to protect us from a threat so unlikely that it presents infinitesimal risk to anyone?
Bob, What Happens If My Hands Alarm During an Explosives Trace Detection Test? You never did answer that question.
Anonymous said...
a defibrillator costs about $1500 and can actually save lives
So then why didn't you take the money you wasted on the computer you're typing on and put it to good use by saving someone's life, instead of buying a needless, expensive toy?
is there anything that can be concealed in a shoe that couldn't be concealed in one's rectum?
To answer this would require some lab research. If you'll volunteer your rectum, I'll volunteer my shoe contents and we'll get an answer to your question.
Bob, how does Bill's abusive and threatening 1:56 pm status get posted?
Bob, why are we spending more money of something that TSA will toss aside after they have barely used it? Remember the Puffer machines? Remember, we spent Thirty Million dollars on a project that TSA tossed aside! Take a look at this article from the Seattle Times!
Bob, when will you get around to answering the question about what happens when our hands alarm during ETD???????????
Please, Please, stop this security theater. Stop spending money left and right, such as 12,000,000 for new uniforms for TSA employees. How about the millions you have spent on the WBI or the test strips.
How about everyone at TSA personally fund these projects, so they can feel the lose to their checkbook when the program fails!
Bravo to the TSA for this innovation.
Bill said...
Anonymous said...
a defibrillator costs about $1500 and can actually save lives
So then why didn't you take the money you wasted on the computer you're typing on and put it to good use by saving someone's life, instead of buying a needless, expensive toy?
is there anything that can be concealed in a shoe that couldn't be concealed in one's rectum?
To answer this would require some lab research. If you'll volunteer your rectum, I'll volunteer my shoe contents and we'll get an answer to your question.
March 3, 2010 1:56 PM
...................
Talk about inappropriate responses.
How do you know that Anon has not donated a Defibrillator?
How many millions of taxpayers monies has TSA completely wasted (Puffer Machines)?
Now TSA is buying WBI Child Porn Viewers with more tax monies that add nothing to security.
Latest reports is they want to buy some kind of shoe screener while no valid reason is fronted to do anything to shoes other than leave them on peoples feet where they belong.
TSA is the biggest government boondoggle ever devised and needs to have its purse strings cut.
Dear Bill.
This is a different "Anonymous" to the one you just slagged off by showing your ignorance of the facts. If you spent 15 minutes actually looking at this whole issue you might actually change your mind. If you have one.
The TSA is a pointless waste of time, money, tax dollars and above all makes more enemies of the US of A. I know people in Europe who will not come to the USA because of all the crap they would have to go through to actually get here. They'd rather fly inside the EU, get a train or drive.
You'll probably come back to me with some BS about they wouldn't be welcome here anyway - but then, that's the problem isn't it? They aren't welcome here. It's one of the reasons that tourist travel is falling like a rock.
The TSA is actually scaring people away. The problem is, it's the wrong people.
"So then why didn't you take the money you wasted on the computer you're typing on and put it to good use by saving someone's life, instead of buying a needless, expensive toy?"
Because I, as a private citizen, judged that the benefits of a computer outweighed the benefits of a defibrillator. I am relatively young and in good health, so there isn't a great reason for me to get a defibrillator. My question concerned why the federal government would purchase expensive security-related technology to combat a virtually nonexistent threat when the citizens of this country are collectively at a much, much greater risk of needing a defibrillator. If this is all about "saving lives" it makes no sense whatsoever to spend the money in this manner.
----------------------
is there anything that can be concealed in a shoe that couldn't be concealed in one's rectum?
To answer this would require some lab research. If you'll volunteer your rectum, I'll volunteer my shoe contents and we'll get an answer to your question."
To be fair, I have to say that your response was hilarious. Well done!
So then why didn't you take the money you wasted on the computer you're typing on and put it to good use by saving someone's life, instead of buying a needless, expensive toy?
Computers are needless, expensive toys now? Please, at least be logical when attacking someone else.
The general point was that a cost/benefit analysis is a reasonable and responsible process in any new system. To date, there has been little to no transparency from the TSA in this regard.
The reason is that the risk is infinitesimal, and any risk analysis based in reality would throw out this project in favor of other security improvements, like collaboration between intelligence units, behavioral detection, and response training, which have massively higher bang for the buck.
Bob can you hire Bill onto your Blog team? I think those who ask stupid repetitive questions may rethink before they type!
Bill said
So then why didn't you take the money you wasted on the computer you're typing on and put it to good use by saving someone's life, instead of buying a needless, expensive toy?
Im a paramedic and I am appalled at your remarks. Your words show that you obviously have no clue what your talking about. AEDs have saved 10's of thousands of lives. Which is way more then TSA can claim in terrorists has caught or stopped. The number is 0 TSA has yet to catch a terrorist and every incident in recent history was stopped by passengers on the flight.
CCEMT-P said...
...and every incident in recent history was stopped by passengers on the flight.
March 3, 2010 3:32 PM
And yet none of those flights origninated in the US. Shows what you know buddy.
I think Bill was suggesting that anonymous buy and donate a difibulator rather than the computer that he owns since hes more concerned about heart attacks rather than terrorist attacks (we're still at war with a radical muslim extremist group). OH, and at least at my airport, we have 2 defibulators located near both checkpoints. So we can save lives on the ground and in the air. yay.
CCEMT-P said...
Bill said
So then why didn't you take the money you wasted on the computer you're typing on and put it to good use by saving someone's life, instead of buying a needless, expensive toy?
Im a paramedic and I am appalled at your remarks.
####
I think if you read the post, you will see that “Bill” was suggesting “Anon” buy an AED rather than a PC. I think maybe you’re a bit quick to judge…
So on top of looking at our daugthers naket you want to X-ray our shoes?
I salute the TSA on finding new and improved ways to waste our money without increasing security.
(Don't get me wrong: as a frequent flyer I appreciate air safety and security. But I resent the TSA money wasting and unprofessionalism, that is far worse than many other countries air securty.)
Hmmm, some things to think about while we wait for a ride on the TSA Ferris Wheel:
The airmport in Manchester, England has suspended the use of the vitraul strip search machines on travelers under the age of 18. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article6880806.ece
Also, across the big pond, a woman refused to be electronically strip searched for religious reasons, and was denied boarding, as was another woman who refused to go through the scanners for "health" reasons.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece
Comments?
Kudos to the agency for pursuing a solution to the #1 gripe that passengers have: removing their shoes.
Google "how much did 9/11 cost" and you can see that some of the estimates top 2 trillion dollars, and this does NOT take into account the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that cost several trillion dollars more.
Investing billions of dollars in airport security makes fiscal sense. Even if future 9/11s do occur but at less frequency than without the investment, airport security makes a lot of sense looking solely at economic factors.
Anybody who thinks that this is a waste of money, that airport security doesn't stop terrorism needs to do a little research because captured terrorists are the ones that have told us that airport security HAS thwarted their attacks. Why did the shoe and underwear bombs fail to bring down the planes? Because airport security had improved to detect conventional bombs that would have worked.
The terrorists only have to "get it right" once. Airport security has to get it right EVERY time. That takes money.
Marching to the TSA beat: LeftRightLeftRightLeftRight.
'TenHUT!
Why was Bill's comment approved, given that is threatens another poster? Or do your rules only apply to some people here the same way they do in airports, Bob?
> Shoe removal has long been
> considered one of the most
> inconvenient aspects of airline
> security
Actually, I would bet that many people would consider the creation of Constitution-free zones in American airports to be more inconvenient.
Yeah, 4th Amendment. One of my favorites.
Of course we can consider it as inconvenient and humiliating to remove our shoes in the airport. This invention of shoe scanner is a good idea. But I hope this exaggeration on terrorist threat shall end one day.
Bob,
I don't know how much you and the other TSA bloggers know about how the federal budgeting process works. I actually do understand it and I want to make sure you and blog readers are fully aware of what your post really means and what it doesn't mean. Placing aside the discussion of actual threats of shoe bombers, here is the rest of the story which you (or whoever wrote the post) overlooked for one reason or another.
1. FY 2011 budget request: This is what's in the president's budget recently submitted to Congress. This is far from approved, let alone actually having funds to do any of this. Over the spring and summer, Congress considers all of the budget and develops appropriations bills. Assuming this project is high enough on anyone's priority list, the absolute earliest that any money would be available is Oct 1, 2010.
Realistically, health care and the mid-term elections will outprioritize individual appropriations bills. Odds are that we won't have appropriations bills signed by Oct 1, which means Congress would have to pass continuing resolutions to keep the government functioning. Under a CR, agencies can't start any new programs, including this one. Congress' top priority after Oct 1 will be to go home and get reelected. So, the earliest that appropriations bills could be considered is mid-November.
After appropriations bills are passed, it can take a month or more for the funds to actually get to agencies. Then the TSA can start the competitive procurement process to actually hire contractors. This normally takes 4-6 months.
2. Everyone needs to understand that this budget request is for STUDY contracts and not PRODUCTION contracts. Not one dime will go towards buying operational units for airports. Assuming the study contracts take about a year or more, we are talking 2013-2015 when anyone could start to see operational units at airports.
All of this assumes the devices actually work and Congress fully funds both this phase and the production phase.
I hope I've cleared up any misconception that these things are going to start appearing in airports any time soon.
Bob -- I'd like you to post the funding profile and budget justification text for this project as it is written in the DHS FY 2011 budget submittal. I can FOIA this information. But, in the interest of public service, you can get this information in about 10 minutes from one of your CFO people and post it here on the blog.
The only way we can assess how serious you are about this is to follow the money.
OH, and at least at my airport, we have 2 defibulators located near both checkpoints. So we can save lives on the ground and in the air. yay.
March 3, 2010 4:41 PM
..................
Perhaps, but apparently you would have to get permission from your supervisor before renderening aid per TSA policy.
"Airport security has to get it right EVERY time."
ROTFLMAO....
When will that ever happen?
ROTFLMAO....
Plenty of room for improvement...
ROTFLMAO....
Get what right?
Thank you Dave Nelson. This was by far the most useful, down-to-earth, honest and productive text I have read on the TSA blog ever.
Bob, if you read this, that's a benchmark to aspire towards. Cut the marketing fluff (and while you are at it some of your useless policies, too).
Ok this comment is for all those that think the risk of attack isn't high enough to care about airport security. What was the risk for attack on september 11th? About the same as todays risk or maybe higher back then since we were not currently at war? Either way it probably wasn't very high since there were thousands of planes flying around and your probability of being on one of those planes was very slim. But what I am hearing from all of you people is that taking the time and money to prevent that risk even though it is small from happening isn't worth it. I wonder how many people out their in the USA would agree with that mentality. Protecting the nation from another incident like 9/11 isn't worth it? If any of you try and say "oh its just another TSA agent pulling the 9/11 card." then shame on you. I shouldn't have to remind you of the reason TSA is here and the reason why we still do our jobs every day.
TSA would not have to spend money on a shoe scanner if everyone just happily removed their shoes. Hmm interesting concept, if the people aren't happy TSA has to spend more money to make them happy but that also makes them unhappy. Bottom line is, when terrorists stop using shoes to conceal bombs that kill soldiers in Iraq....well I guess TSA would still have to search your shoes since other bad guys could pick up the same tactic. If you don't want TSA to spend money on shoe scanners then stop complaining about having to remove your shoes. If you don't like removing your shoes their are disposable foot coverings you can purchase and use for when going through security to keep your feet from touching the floor. I believe that may be a better finacial solution wouldn't you agree?
RB said...
Talk about inappropriate responses.
How do you know that Anon has not donated a Defibrillator?
How many millions of taxpayers monies has TSA completely wasted (Puffer Machines)?
Now TSA is buying WBI Child Porn Viewers with more tax monies that add nothing to security.
Latest reports is they want to buy some kind of shoe screener while no valid reason is fronted to do anything to shoes other than leave them on peoples feet where they belong.
TSA is the biggest government boondoggle ever devised and needs to have its purse strings cut.
March 3, 2010 3:01 PM
------------------
I'll admit the puffer machines was a bad idea. But at the time TSA had you the passenger's best interests in mind. The machine would have reduced pat downs and made screening faster. It broke, but at least TSA was trying to make it easier right? There are very valid reasons to check shoes. Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane.
Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
Bob, how does Bill's abusive and threatening 1:56 pm status get posted?
March 3, 2010 2:04 PM"
--------------------
Because it's funny and it's what lots of us were thinking!! (except I volunteer the entire shoe! - size 11 triple EEE)!!
Quoted:
"..........Also, across the big pond, a woman refused to be electronically strip searched for religious reasons, and was denied boarding, as was another woman who refused to go through the scanners for "health" reasons.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece
Comments?
March 3, 2010 5:29 PM"
------------------
Yup, they were denied boarding. Way to go!! No comply, no fly!
Bob, would you post a link to the TSA information stating that ice can be taken through the checkpoint for all travelers?
Not to sure I like this one Bob. Does this mean that the passengers are going to stand in their shoes while they are being scanned? Another step in the screening process is not something that is going to make anyone’s life easier. It will also add to the TSO requirements for checkpoints, more people and the associated costs of training and maintaining them.
If the same results can be obtained by not changing things from where they are right now then why change? Either the passenger remains in their shoes while they are being scanned or they are going to have to remove them for this additional step in the process.
Or maybe I’m missing something, are the new scanners like the “weigh in motion” scales that is becoming common for truck drivers? They get scanned as the person passes through the WTMD or the WBI’s?
TSO William Reed said the following...
I'll admit the puffer machines was a bad idea. But at the time TSA had you the passenger's best interests in mind. The machine would have reduced pat downs and made screening faster. It broke, but at least TSA was trying to make it easier right? There are very valid reasons to check shoes. Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane.
March 4, 2010 11:30 AM
...................
How many of these same things could be hid in a body cavity?
TSOWilliamReed said...
TSA would not have to spend money on a shoe scanner if everyone just happily removed their shoes. Hmm interesting concept, if the people aren't happy TSA has to spend more money to make them happy but that also makes them unhappy. Bottom line is, when terrorists stop using shoes to conceal bombs that kill soldiers in Iraq.... well I guess TSA would still have to search your shoes since other bad guys could pick up the same tactic. If you don't want TSA to spend money on shoe scanners then stop complaining about having to remove your shoes. If you don't like removing your shoes their are disposable foot coverings you can purchase and use for when going through security to keep your feet from touching the floor. I believe that may be a better finacial solution wouldn't you agree?
March 4, 2010 11:27 AM
So the shoe thing is about shoes being used in Iraq as a weapon, not on airplanes, is that right TSA employee Reed?
"TSA would not have to spend money on a shoe scanner if everyone just happily removed their shoes."
Why should people be happy to remove their shoes? It's gross, inconvenient, and does nothing to make anyone safer. No planes have ever been brought down by a shoe bomb. TSA's policy -- the only mandatory shoe carnival in the world -- is an hysterical overreaction to one failed attempt that took place eight years ago.
TSOWilliamReed wrote: "What was the risk for attack on september 11th? About the same as todays risk or maybe higher back then since we were not currently at war?"
Spoken like a man who's never taken a statistics or risk analysis course in his life...
TSOWilliamReed you say: "If any of you try and say "oh its just another TSA agent pulling the 9/11 card." then shame on you. I shouldn't have to remind you of the reason TSA is here and the reason why we still do our jobs every day."
I won't say "shame on you". Instead I want to point out that despite sinking literally billions of USD into the TSA people still fly their planes into buildings. But I know that the TSA is really good in harrassing innocent passengers...
I love air security. At more than 150k miles per plane annually I really am grateful that money is used for making us safe. But the TSA is not making us safer AND wasts money AND is a nuissance to millions of innocent passengers. So who should be ashamed?
RB said...
TSO William Reed said the following...
I'll admit the puffer machines was a bad idea. But at the time TSA had you the passenger's best interests in mind. The machine would have reduced pat downs and made screening faster. It broke, but at least TSA was trying to make it easier right? There are very valid reasons to check shoes. Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane.
March 4, 2010 11:30 AM
...................
How many of these same things could be hid in a body cavity?
------------------
Many, but hiding foreign objects inside of a human body are going to create many more suspicous activities other than just being nervous.
RB said...
TSOWilliamReed said...
TSA would not have to spend money on a shoe scanner if everyone just happily removed their shoes. Hmm interesting concept, if the people aren't happy TSA has to spend more money to make them happy but that also makes them unhappy. Bottom line is, when terrorists stop using shoes to conceal bombs that kill soldiers in Iraq.... well I guess TSA would still have to search your shoes since other bad guys could pick up the same tactic. If you don't want TSA to spend money on shoe scanners then stop complaining about having to remove your shoes. If you don't like removing your shoes their are disposable foot coverings you can purchase and use for when going through security to keep your feet from touching the floor. I believe that may be a better finacial solution wouldn't you agree?
March 4, 2010 11:27 AM
So the shoe thing is about shoes being used in Iraq as a weapon, not on airplanes, is that right TSA employee Reed?
March 4, 2010 3:03 PM
----------------
No, the shoe thing is about a guy using a shoe bomb to blow up an airplane. Since then terrorists have continually used shoe bombs to blow up other things like soldiers. If the intelligence is there we are gonna use it and the intelligence says the bad guys are still using this tactic and will continue to do so because....its a good tactic.
Anonymous said...
TSOWilliamReed you say: "If any of you try and say "oh its just another TSA agent pulling the 9/11 card." then shame on you. I shouldn't have to remind you of the reason TSA is here and the reason why we still do our jobs every day."
I won't say "shame on you". Instead I want to point out that despite sinking literally billions of USD into the TSA people still fly their planes into buildings. But I know that the TSA is really good in harrassing innocent passengers...
I love air security. At more than 150k miles per plane annually I really am grateful that money is used for making us safe. But the TSA is not making us safer AND wasts money AND is a nuissance to millions of innocent passengers. So who should be ashamed?
March 4, 2010 3:28 PM
-------------------
I have a feeling you are talking about the guy that flew his private airplane into an IRS building.
Anonymous said...
"TSA would not have to spend money on a shoe scanner if everyone just happily removed their shoes."
Why should people be happy to remove their shoes? It's gross, inconvenient, and does nothing to make anyone safer. No planes have ever been brought down by a shoe bomb. TSA's policy -- the only mandatory shoe carnival in the world -- is an hysterical overreaction to one failed attempt that took place eight years ago.
March 4, 2010 3:21 PM
--------------------
Some large airports provide foot coverings like the ones you see in hospitals for passengers removing their shoes. If you would like your own for airports that do not provide them they are sold at walmart by the box.
Here is the thing, bad guys are gonna use their shoes to hide weapons thats just how it is. So we have to screen your shoes. You can take the cheap inconvenient way of doing this(removing your shoes and x-raying them) or TSA can find a much more convenient way of doing it that will cost tax dollars (researching and producing shoe scanning technology).
8675309, I call into question your statement that terrorists are stating that airport security is thwarting attacks. Please provide evidence to back that up.
Anonymous said: "Yup, they were denied boarding. Way to go!! No comply, no fly!"
Give up your rights or don't fly. Way to go!
It's really sad to see Americans to so casually and to so willingly give up rights for the illusion of safety.
Another anon said: "And yet none of those flights origninated in the US. Shows what you know buddy. "
And yet all of those flights had to be screened to TSA standards or they can't fly into the US. And they still got on board. Shows how much you know about security buddy.
Al
Anonymous said...
Bob, how does Bill's abusive and threatening 1:56 pm status get posted?
March 3, 2010 2:04 PM
LOL! You're kidding right? NO, probably not. Bill says:
"If you'll volunteer your rectum, I'll volunteer my shoe contents and we'll get an answer to your question."
You find that threatening and abusive how? Seems like you're too sensitive. OOPS! Was that too abusive Anon 3/3/10 2:04?
Bob, how many other countries require passengers to remove their shoes for screening?
Bob, how many planes have been brought down by shoe bombs anywhere in the world since Richard Reid?
Bob, how many planes were brought down by shoe bombs in the US before the shoe carnival was made mandatory in 2006?
Anon you should be happy that this country has stronger security measures. Just because another country doesn't do something doesn't mean that it is not neccessary. It means they accept that risk which the USA does not. If you take a security measure away then they have yet another path to come at us with.
TSOWilliamReed said:
(March 4, 2010 11:30 AM)
There are very valid reasons to check shoes. Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane.
Go ahead, please name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for airplanes. As RB said, it would be better if you can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe, would be bad for airplanes and can't be hidden in a body cavity.
Go ahead, I'll wait. "Hundreds", you said.
" TSOWilliamReed said...
TSA would not have to spend money on a shoe scanner if everyone just happily removed their shoes. Hmm interesting concept, if the people aren't happy TSA has to spend more money to make them happy but that also makes them unhappy."
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Clean the disgusting, filthy floors, give people something to put on their feet while they do the shoeless march, and you might get a little less resentment towards this worthless charade.
"TSOWilliamReed said...
If you don't like removing your shoes their are disposable foot coverings you can purchase and use for when going through security to keep your feet from touching the floor. I believe that may be a better finacial solution wouldn't you agree?"
Provide a comfortable place on each side of the checkpoint to remove and replace shoes and foot coverings, and perhaps it might work. Maybe you should do something useful, too, like serve snacks to replace all the harmless stuff you toss out.
I've said it several times before, but it's worth saying again for all of you who say the U.S. is the only country that screens shoes.
Back in 1999 when I was flying out of Frankfurt, Germany, I was forced to remove my shoes. I thought the guy was joking and he looked at me and said "Do I look like I'm joking big man?"
Frankfurt, Germany (Not USA)
1999 (Before 9/11)
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
"No, the shoe thing is about a guy using a shoe bomb to blow up an airplane. Since then terrorists have continually used shoe bombs to blow up other things like soldiers. If the intelligence is there we are gonna use it and the intelligence says the bad guys are still using this tactic and will continue to do so because....its a good tactic."
Mr. Reed, if it's a good tactic how come it's never been tried anywhere in the world, let alone successfully implemented, since 2001 -- regardless of whether or how shoes are screened?
Bob, your one personal experience in 1999 is not relevant. How many countries, today, have a mandatory shoe removal policy for all passengers?
How many planes have been brought down by shoe bombs anywhere in the world since Richard Reid?
How many planes were brought down by shoe bombs in the US before the shoe carnival was made mandatory in 2006?
How much has TSA spent on this project?
Why did TSA spend all that money to protect us from a threat so unlikely that it presents infinitesimal risk to anyone?
What Happens If My Hands Alarm During an Explosives Trace Detection Test?
Bob, were your shoes steel toe? Was this shoe removal a special case as it probably was, or routine as the TSA does?
Are you allowing the rare exception that can occur to defend an undefendable policy?
TSOWilliamReed wrote: "Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane."
While I sincerely doubt you could literally name hundreds of items, it would be much more interesting if you, instead, named the items that one can hide in a shoe that one may not also hide inside another body cavity.
And just so you don't discount the concept as ridiculous (as someone else has done on this blog -- not sure who, might have been an anonymous post) I will preemptively point out that student Fidelis Ozouli, for example, managed to hide approximately 1kg of drugs in his stomach, neatly packaged in plastic, each the size of a package of sugar!
Again, I'll point out that I'm not really opposed to the ETD scanning, although I think that if it is as fast and painless as is suggested, it ought to become a standard part of the checkpoint, rather than a "hey, we rolled snake-eyes! Let's test some hands!" USP thing.
Bob said...
I've said it several times before, but it's worth saying again for all of you who say the U.S. is the only country that screens shoes.
Back in 1999 when I was flying out of Frankfurt, Germany, I was forced to remove my shoes. I thought the guy was joking and he looked at me and said "Do I look like I'm joking big man?"
Frankfurt, Germany (Not USA)
1999 (Before 9/11)
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
March 5, 2010 9:26 AM
..............
OK, Bob. What other countries require shoe removal in 2010?
Ayn - I was wearing black loafers and I had not stepped through the magnetometer yet. I hadn't even put my bag through the X-ray.
My point is that shoes were being screened by other countries prior to 9/11 and TSA. I'll agree that they were not screening all shoes, but shoes were being screened.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob, thank you for admitting that your anecdote has nothing to do with the question being asked. That question, once more, is: How many countries, today, require every air passenger to remove their shoes for screening?
avxo said...
TSOWilliamReed wrote: "Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane."
While I sincerely doubt you could literally name hundreds of items, it would be much more interesting if you, instead, named the items that one can hide in a shoe that one may not also hide inside another body cavity.
And just so you don't discount the concept as ridiculous (as someone else has done on this blog -- not sure who, might have been an anonymous post) I will preemptively point out that student Fidelis Ozouli, for example, managed to hide approximately 1kg of drugs in his stomach, neatly packaged in plastic, each the size of a package of sugar!
Again, I'll point out that I'm not really opposed to the ETD scanning, although I think that if it is as fast and painless as is suggested, it ought to become a standard part of the checkpoint, rather than a "hey, we rolled snake-eyes! Let's test some hands!" USP thing.
--------------------
Anything you can hide in a shoe you can hide in a body cavity. I know that sounds ridiculous but you need to understand these people don't care if they hurt themselves because to them they are going on a suicide mission and won't be alive long enough for it to matter. And I have seen an x-ray of a mans pelvis that tried to sneak an entire bottle of very expensive wine through a checkpoint in his rectum, lets just say he was showing very serious suspicious activity and they caught him.
Anonymous said...
"No planes have ever been brought down by a shoe bomb. TSA's policy -- the only mandatory shoe carnival in the world -- is an hysterical overreaction to one failed attempt that took place eight years ago."
I guess we shouldn't worry about one failed attempt eight years ago?
I remember one failed attempt to bring down the World Trade Center that happened eight years before September 11.
But, at least we didn't hysterically overreact to it...
Brian said...
Anonymous said...
"No planes have ever been brought down by a shoe bomb. TSA's policy -- the only mandatory shoe carnival in the world -- is an hysterical overreaction to one failed attempt that took place eight years ago."
I guess we shouldn't worry about one failed attempt eight years ago?
I remember one failed attempt to bring down the World Trade Center that happened eight years before September 11.
But, at least we didn't hysterically overreact to it...
--------------------------------
Ok, Brian, I'll bite: Exactly what steps do you think we should have taken to prevent the second attack on the WTC?
So,
Does a catastrophic event in which lives are lost have to occur before a preventative security technology can be deployed?
I'm not arguing that these machines are, or are not necessary, I am asking a question. Must someone die before TSA is allowed to try and prevent a death? Doesn't that seem a little..........unrealistic?
I just think the argument is not a good one. If TSA did nothing, and something occurred where lives were lost, then there would be much criticism for not being proactive. When TSA does anything, to even try to be proactive, then they are criticized for introducing a security measure that is meant to prevent a possible security threat, that has not yet successfully claimed lives.
Puzzling.
@Anon: "Ok, Brian, I'll bite: Exactly what steps do you think we should have taken to prevent the second attack on the WTC?"
Hardened cockpit doors and not complying with hijacker demands would have prevented the attack on the WTC. Heck, we already saw that not complying with the hijackers saved the 4th target because the brave people of UA93 paid with their lives to save others'.
Nothing TSA is doing now would have prevented 9/11 from happening. Hardening cockpit doors and changing the policy of compliance PLUS passengers not sitting down and taking it have done more to secure aviation than TSA has.
Screening didn't fail on 9/11, but it was a convenient scapegoat. It hasn't gotten any better since 9/11 despite the increased inconvenience, hassle and cost.
Earl
TSOWilliamReed wrote: "Anything you can hide in a shoe you can hide in a body cavity."
Thank you for making my point.
"I know that sounds ridiculous but you need to understand these people don't care if they hurt themselves because to them they are going on a suicide mission and won't be alive long enough for it to matter."
Bingo.
So, focusing on the small threat -- shoes -- so obsessively doesn't do much of anything to help security.
How many millions of shoes have you screened since the Reid incident? How many of those contained anything of interest to the TSA?
Meanwhile, TSA's own Office of Investigations, and investigations by other government agencies seem to suggest that shoes are the least of our worries.
Despite the TSA's unwillingness to release actual numbers for its internal tests, USA Today reported that investigators successfully managed to smuggle up to 75 percent of the fake bombs they tried to bring through checkpoints at LAX. At Chigago, the number was not as bad, but still ridiculously high at 60 percent. At SFO, the number was still 20 percent.
Before you say that the new machines will magically fix that, think again. Someone plainly demonstrated -- on camera -- that the machine missed the bomb-making components that he hid on his body, and the only cavity he used was his mouth. I can provide the link to the video on request, if necessary.
"And I have seen an x-ray of a mans pelvis that tried to sneak an entire bottle of very expensive wine through a checkpoint in his rectum, lets just say he was showing very serious suspicious activity and they caught him."
Given TSA's reaction to this sort of thing, I wonder how it is that there wasn't a policy change requiring those wishing to fly to get ETD-swabbed "back there"?
My question is this:
If the threat of X is high enough that we need to screen people for it, why do we only screen people for it AFTER some clown tried to do it?
Richard Reid fails to blow up his shoes. Now everyone has to take off their shoes.
Some guys in London get caught before they can try out their explosive shampoo. Now we have the 3-1-1 rule.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab fails to blow up his underwear. Now everyone has to remain in their seat for the last hour of the flight.
I guess we should be thankful some idiot hasn't tried to blow up his rectum yet.
Eventually one of these morons is going to get lucky and succeed. After all, the TSA didn't stop any of them.
If the TSA is so unimaginative that they can't predict possible attack vectors, are they really keeping people safe? On the flip side, if and when they do implement these procedures it will be a huge inconvenience to everybody. I suppose it is a tight line to walk.
This site is full of cry babies seriously, how do you people have so much time to complain? No jobs? Or are you business travelers using your laptops waiting for your next important flight for a meeting which could most likely be handled via email or conference call. *Sigh*
RB said… “How many of these same things could be hid in a body cavity? … So the shoe thing is about shoes being used in Iraq as a weapon, not on airplanes?”
So you think that since the dangerous people, who want to kill Americans, can just place the bomb inside their bodies TSA should stop looking for bombs outside their bodies? Do you also believe that if an Al-Qaeda agent uses a technique to kill Americans overseas they won’t try to use the same technique to kill Americans on our own soil? You need to try connecting the dots once in a while RB.
Anon said… “I want to point out that despite sinking literally billions of USD into the TSA people still fly their planes into buildings.”
A private plane that struck a building killing two people compared to four passenger jets that killed thousands. Hmmm, sounds like TSA is effective!
By the way, for those of you who don’t think that terrorism is alive and well in the world here is a web page that I discovered that lists significant terrorist incidents. This list stops at 2003 but I am sure you will agree the terrorists have not.
http://www.state.gov/ r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
I accept that anything you can hide in a shoe you can also hide in a body cavity.
I am confused why this means TSA shouldn't look for items in shoes. It seems to me it would be easier (and definately less painful) to modify a shoe than to hide something in a body cavity. You can also hide something in a 10gallon hat. TSA checks head coverings or should they not check hats because anything you can put in a hat can be found in a body cavity?
This argument also suggests that you are in favor of cavity searches at the airport. Or perhaps you are in favor of a machine that could locate prohibited items found inside body cavities. You make a very good case to support Advanced Imaging Technology (the body scanner) or if this cannot find items in body cavities a machine with stronger radiation technology to see deeper into the body.
Anon said… “Eventually one of these morons is going to get lucky and succeed. After all, the TSA didn't stop any of them.”
That’s right, everyone of those guys were too concerned with TSA’s security to attempt to fly out of an American airport. Everyone of those morons boarded planes in other countries.
Bob, you still haven't told us how many countries, today, mandate that every single passenger remove their shoes for inspection.
Anonymous wrote: "I accept that anything you can hide in a shoe you can also hide in a body cavity.
I am confused why this means TSA shouldn't look for items in shoes."
That's not what it means, nor why this argument is being brought up.
The crux of the argument is that TSA's reactions to events are simply knee-jerk reactions.
Consider shoe screening. The TSA cannot point to a single success involving contraband hidden in shoes and intercepted by TSA personnel. Yet, they obsessively insist on screening everything from boots to flip-flops.
And while the TSOs on your local checkpoint are living a foot-fetishist's dream, TSA's own investigators can smuggle items through the checkpoints successfully more than half the time, and people can flash fake badges and call themselves "U.S. Marshal" to get admitted to the sterile area.
Now we have a documented attempt of someone stuffing their underwear full of explosives. No, there was nothing the TSA could have done in this case, and I don't count that as a failure on their part. But what will their reaction to this be?
You also wrote: "This argument also suggests that you are in favor of cavity searches at the airport. Or perhaps you are in favor of a machine that could locate prohibited items found inside body cavities. You make a very good case to support Advanced Imaging Technology (the body scanner) or if this cannot find items in body cavities a machine with stronger radiation technology to see deeper into the body."
I have no problem with millimeter-wave machines and would support their use. I don't like XRB machines, TSA's arguments about its safety notwithstanding. But neither MMW or XRB machines can see inside the body.
As far as your suggestion that stronger radiation be used is disconcerting, even without the privacy implications. I suspect you know very little about how ionizing radiation works, and the side-effects that it has.
Suggesting is one thing, but you really ought to educate yourself on the matter before allowing the TSA to stuff you inside a machine and zap you.
"I guess we should be thankful some idiot hasn't tried to blow up his rectum yet."
They been there. Done that.
Google: rectum bomber Saudi Arabia's Prince Mohammed bin Nayef
@Anon: "This site is full of cry babies seriously, how do you people have so much time to complain? No jobs? Or are you business travelers using your laptops waiting for your next important flight for a meeting which could most likely be handled via email or conference call. *Sigh*"
Do you have something useful to contribute, or are you just whining like the whiners you're whining about?
Physician, heal thyself.
Earl
@Greg: "That’s right, everyone of those guys were too concerned with TSA’s security to attempt to fly out of an American airport. Everyone of those morons boarded planes in other countries."
And please note that at ALL of those airports, screening has to be up to TSA standards or the flights aren't permitted to get into the US.
With the abysmal detection rates on the GAO tests, it clearly shows it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get a bomb on the plane in the US. It's even more trivial if you do it with someone who isn't screened and has direct access to the plane. You know, like ramp workers, catering crews, etc. Yet despite those gaping holes, we don't have any bombings.
Have you considered the possibility that maybe the threat isn't as big as TSA makes it out to be? They need reasons to justify their existence.
Earl
Anonymous said...
My question is this:
If the threat of X is high enough that we need to screen people for it, why do we only screen people for it AFTER some clown tried to do it?
...........
Or only screen passengers instead of everyone who enters the airports sterile area?
Thousands of people enter the sterile area each and every day without any screening what-so-ever.
How's that for layers of security?
Or only screen passengers instead of everyone who enters the airports sterile area?
Thousands of people enter the sterile area each and every day without any screening what-so-ever.
How's that for layers of security?
RB think of an airport that is very large. Like SEA, BWI, LAX. These airports have hundreds of doors that can bypass TSA checkpoints. The security measure in place to deter this type of threat is random screening of these access points. To screen every door 100% of the time is not possibly with the resources TSA has. I know what you propose would be very solid security but doing it at random has its benefits as well. It is not as secure as you propose but it is better than no screening at all. It is a risk assessment. The reality is TSA can not be everywhere.
"Bob, you still haven't told us how many countries, today, mandate that every single passenger remove their shoes for inspection."
How is this relevant? The TSA has nothing to do with how other countries screen their passengers unless they are going to enter our airspace. I doubt such data even exists. Some countries don't even screen 100% of their passengers in any way shape or form, much less their shoes.
If their sovereign decision is that they don't care if their planes blow up, then that is their prerogative. Thankfully I don't have to fly out of their airports.
LTSO with Answers said...
Or only screen passengers instead of everyone who enters the airports sterile area?
Thousands of people enter the sterile area each and every day without any screening what-so-ever.
How's that for layers of security?
RB think of an airport that is very large. Like SEA, BWI, LAX. These airports have hundreds of doors that can bypass TSA checkpoints. The security measure in place to deter this type of threat is random screening of these access points. To screen every door 100% of the time is not possibly with the resources TSA has. I know what you propose would be very solid security but doing it at random has its benefits as well. It is not as secure as you propose but it is better than no screening at all. It is a risk assessment. The reality is TSA can not be everywhere.
March 10, 2010 2:43 PM
..............
I know it's a new fangled device and all but ever hear of a thing called a lock?
"How is this relevant? The TSA has nothing to do with how other countries screen their passengers unless they are going to enter our airspace. I doubt such data even exists. Some countries don't even screen 100% of their passengers in any way shape or form, much less their shoes."
It's quite relevant, since if other countries don't require a shoe carnival and have suffered no ill effects, that's a clear indication that shoe screening has nothing to do with preventing attacks on aviation.
"If their sovereign decision is that they don't care if their planes blow up, then that is their prerogative. Thankfully I don't have to fly out of their airports."
How many planes have ever been blown up with shoe bombs?
I know it's a new fangled device and all but ever hear of a thing called a lock?
To restrict movement to everyone in an airport would cause many logistical problems with the many entities that work inside an airport.
"How many planes have ever been blown up with shoe bombs?"
Fortunately, none. Is it because TSA screens them? Maybe, maybe not.
If you had it your way, Richard Reid would have succeeded, scattering debris into the ocean and the shoe bomb would have never been found and we wouldn't be taking our shoes off. How many planes need to blow up before you think there is a need? My answer is, none. Thankfully, Reid was an idiot and the terrorists lost one more way to kill us.
LTSO with Answers said...
I know it's a new fangled device and all but ever hear of a thing called a lock?
To restrict movement to everyone in an airport would cause many logistical problems with the many entities that work inside an airport.
March 15, 2010 11:29 AM
...........
So safety is really not the goal of TSA?
8675309: "How is this relevant? The TSA has nothing to do with how other countries screen their passengers unless they are going to enter our airspace. I doubt such data even exists. Some countries don't even screen 100% of their passengers in any way shape or form, much less their shoes.
If their sovereign decision is that they don't care if their planes blow up, then that is their prerogative. Thankfully I don't have to fly out of their airports."
And just how many planes are falling out of the sky in places that don't screen for shoes?
I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1.
Funny thing is security isn't a hassle and at the very least is just as effective as TSA in the developed world. And even in developing nations, how many planes do you see falling out of the sky?
It's not that the countries don't care about planes falling out of the sky. It's about accepting the fact that the risk of a shoe bomb is so small that it's not worth the effort to screen for shoes. Saying that they don't care because they don't is specious logic at best.
Al
"Fortunately, none. Is it because TSA screens them? Maybe, maybe not."
Really? How does TSA screening keep shoe bombs from blowing up planes in countries that don't have a shoe carnival?
"If you had it your way, Richard Reid would have succeeded, scattering debris into the ocean and the shoe bomb would have never been found and we wouldn't be taking our shoes off. How many planes need to blow up before you think there is a need? My answer is, none. Thankfully, Reid was an idiot and the terrorists lost one more way to kill us."
Bob, is accusing TSA critics of wanting terrorists to succeed in keeping with the comment policy of this blog?
Your hysteria aside, no one wishes Reid had succeeded, and shame on you for suggesting it. But since no one, anywhere in the world, has ever successfully used a shoe bomb -- indeed, Reid appears to be the only person ever to try, and he failed -- regardless of whether or how shoes are or are not screened, TSA's continued shoe carnival stands exposed as an hysterical overreaction to a one-time event.
8675309 said...
"How many planes have ever been blown up with shoe bombs?"
Fortunately, none. Is it because TSA screens them? Maybe, maybe not.
If you had it your way, Richard Reid would have succeeded, scattering debris into the ocean and the shoe bomb would have never been found and we wouldn't be taking our shoes off. How many planes need to blow up before you think there is a need? My answer is, none. Thankfully, Reid was an idiot and the terrorists lost one more way to kill us.
March 15, 2010 12:11 PM
Since there has been a successful detonation of an anus bomb should everyone boarding a US carrier received an anal exam?
That would be equal to how TSA treats a failed shoe bomber event.
In fact the anus bomb did go off whereas the shoe bomb failed.
So of the two which is the greater threat?
TSOWilliamReed said:
(March 4, 2010 11:30 AM)
There are very valid reasons to check shoes. Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane.
So how are you going with that list, William? It's been nearly two weeks since you made the claim. You must be able to list at least 100 by now.
Or would you just like to admit that there aren't all that many dangerous things that could be hidden in a shoe but not in a body cavity?
I can imagine the officers would LOVE this technology to come into place. This would also aid in speeding up the security screening process. I know for me at least, the most time-consuming part is taking off shoes and putting them back on.
Has the technology shown to be more effective than the xraying examination of the shoes? I would think it would be as examining the xray seems that it would have a fairly large amount of human error involved as shoes tend to be of such different varieties with many possible combinations of material. Seems as though that would pose potential difficulties to the human eye.
Before this post drops off the front page to make room for more puppy posts...
TSOWilliamReed said:
(March 4, 2010 11:30 AM)
There are very valid reasons to check shoes. Do you know what you can hide in a shoe? I can name hundreds of items that can be hidden in a shoe that would be bad for an airplane.
---
Haven't heard from you for a while William. Guess you must be working on that list. Maybe you could post the first hundred for us to read while you finish the rest of it?
Or are you ready to admit you had no idea what you were talking about?
TSOWilliamReed claimed to know hundreds of items that could be hidden in a shoe to bring down a plane.
Can he name one of those items that could not just be concealed on the person of someone and carried through the checkpoint.
8675309 replying to the question "How many planes have ever been blown up with shoe bombs?" wrote the following:
"Fortunately, none. Is it because TSA screens them? Maybe, maybe not. If you had it your way, Richard Reid would have succeeded, scattering debris into the ocean and the shoe bomb would have never been found and we wouldn't be taking our shoes off. How many planes need to blow up before you think there is a need? My answer is, none. Thankfully, Reid was an idiot and the terrorists lost one more way to kill us."
You seem to be suggesting that shoe scanning somehow stopped Richard Reid, which is patently false. Richard Reid had already successfully gone through security and was on the plane, which was flying over the Atlantic.
So I'm not sure if you have no idea what you're talking about or if you're just flat out lying. Either way, your "point" is nothing but a strawman. Next...
Way to put anonymous in his place. I get so tired of hearing his hate mongering comments. Get a life man.
TSO William Reed
Claimed to know hundreds of items that could bring down a plane in a shoe.Mr Reed has no idea what he is talking about.The problem is the curent security is all smoke and mirrors. TSA wants to scare you so you will be obediant so we just line up and do what ever they want us to do.Next they are going to make us go trough the backscatter machines instead of it being voluntary. After they strip search up with their equipment what is next. They didn't realize they were not screening all the checked luggage in Denver for a long time.When the smoke clears and the mirrors break we will know the truth that TSA makes us no safer than before 9/11 it only cost us more money for Wasington to waste.
You really don't seem to have any grasp of reality whatsoever. Every single dollar you spend on a useless machine to combat a virtually nonexistent threat represents a dollar that could be spent on something that is far more pressing. Again, as I mentioned in response to one of your posts gloating about having spent several hundred million dollars of taxpayer money on portable explosive scanners.
The problem is that these portable explosive scanners are not being used. So the money was wasted as the goverment seems to do.The stimulus pkg. is only there for govt. workers to waste.
Wow. I wonder how much it will cost to implement a shoe scanning system across the nation. It is not that difficult to take your shoes off for 10 seconds. Although, I do consider myself with the masses in that, I sure would like to not take my shoes off.
hmm...
For what it's worth, I flew out of Frankfurt in May of 2010. This was a direct flight TO the USA.
No passengers were required to remove their shoes.
I'll let everyone else discuss.
IDO Security of Israel already uses this technology. Israel is know for being proactive. Maybe we should take a lesson from them.
See below:TEL AVIV, ISRAEL--(Marketwire - 10/04/10) - IDO Security, Inc. (OTC.BB:IDOI - News), developer of the innovative Magshoe™ "shoes-on" weapons metal detection system, today announced that the Company has received orders for additional MagShoe™ M-100 units to be installed in Tel Aviv's Ben-Gurion International Airport.
Israel's Airport Authority has ordered additional MagShoe™ M-100 units for Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv. This is in addition to the numerous units already operating successfully for more than two years.
Post a Comment