Homeland Security Woes

Apparently, another problem with our security is due unreliabilty because of faulty and outdated technology in our bomb detectors. Here are some of my favorite quotes from this article.....(since I can't just link the url cuz I'm a noob)

Originally Posted by MSNBC.com

TSA pulls plug on explosives detectors
Agency reportedly halts use of ‘puffer’ devices over reliability concerns

NEW YORK - The Transportation Security Administration is suspending installation of the only airport checkpoint device that automatically screens passengers for hidden explosives due to problems with the system’s reliability, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

“We are seeing some issues that we did not anticipate” with the devices known as “puffers,” the Times quoted Randy Null, the agency’s chief technology officer as saying.

Introduction of the so-called trace-detection portals, nicknamed puffers because they blow air while searching for residue from explosives, was far behind schedule even before the TSA moved to reassess whether they should be modified or upgraded or whether to wait until better versions are available, the Times said.

The problems with the portals are part of a pattern of the federal government’s inability to bring bomb-detection technologies to the nation’s airports, the Times reported, with the agency continuing to depend on low-tech measures to confront the threat posed by explosives at airports and on airliners.

Elected representatives and former domestic security officials place the blame on management stumbles in research as well as turf fights, staff turnover and underfinancing, the Times said. Some initiatives have also faced opposition from the airline industry or been slowed by bureaucratic snarls, it added, citing a host of problem areas including:

Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. Turf fights? Are they 13 fighting over who owns the playground? People's lives are on the line......

Quote:

* Test conducted by the agency last year that members of Congress and a former Homeland Security Department official called “disastrous” and “stupid” because the TSA had not tested the smaller, cheaper baggage-screening device in the way it was intended to be used.
* A document scanner that would look for traces of explosives on paper held by a passenger was tested for years, but the agency now realizes it may be preferable to check a passenger’s hands -- with no plan in place to do so.
* Grant money given to an equipment maker to speed up explosives-detection machines that screen baggage and reduce the frequency of false positives. With the work completed successfully a year ago, the agency has not made the necessary software upgrades on the hundreds of machines in airports, the Times said.

The first was due to stupidity, the second was due to laziness, and the third was due to laziness and cheapness. For a government that claims to want to keep it's people safe from terroristic activities, it sure is slacking.

But wait, there's more!!!

Quote:

‘Haphazard program’
“The whole program has been haphazard. And the result is that still today we have a series of outdated technology that does little but search for metal or guns,” the Times quoted Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican who chairs a House panel overseeing aviation as saying.

Several former senior department officials said the main problem is the conflict between the TSA, which handles airport security, and the Science and Technology division of the Homeland Security Department, which oversees research. The agencies have not figured out how to balance their often conflicting goals in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Times said.

“You have to have a long-term strategy and a short- to medium-term strategy,” said Stephen McHale, former deputy administrator of the TSA told the Times. “What we have been doing is shifting resources back and forth between those two goals. The result of that is we are not making the best progress in either one.”

.................

Quote:

One problem with the puffers is that they do not include sensors for liquid explosives, even though terrorists have long shown an interest in them, the newspaper said. And despite efforts to ensure reliability, the puffers often broke down or had other performance problems perhaps due to dust and dirt.

So not only are the puffers considered unreliable and outdated, but they don't even check for the type of explosives that terrorists usually employ? That, but also bomb sniffing dogs aren't 100% reliable in the first place, which means that they have to find new ways to detect bombs and such.

Since I can't link this article either......

Originally Posted by CBSnews

Do trainers have to be licensed? “In some programs, yes. And in most programs, no,” says Myers.

This means that poorly trained dogs and handlers are working in many parts of the country. Which brings us to the case of Lezley Whipple in Lordsburg, N.M. After her school district hired a private handler and his dog to search for drugs, she was called out of class one day because the dog had alerted on her car.

Wow, just wow.

If I sound a little biased, it's because I am. I've never been a fan of Homeland Security. They sound great in theory, but fall on their faces in action.......like Uchiha.....

How ya doing, buddy?

I love bias polls...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Master Thief

Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. Turf fights? Are they 13 fighting over who owns the playground? People's lives are on the line.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the nature of bureaucracies and other such government organizations, which have long loved to engage in turf wars with each other, particularly when there exists some kind of overlap in responsibility. Expecting different would require changing the nature of bureaucracy, which most beings short of God would find difficult.

The problem affects the military services, too. The Air Force, for instance, is particularly notorious for this.

(Also, you don't need such long strings of periods after sentences. One is all you need, but if you want to use ellipses, you only need to use three.)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

We will never have an air tight security plan. Not that we shouldn't take decent efforts on many fields but it would be silly to delude ourselves into thinking there is a threshold where if we spend and do enough we will be safe. There are more substantive issues at work that need to be dealt with. I agree we should emphasis efficiency. Do the most we can for a reasonable amount of money. A decent stab at public diplomacy coupled with a streak of benevolence wouldn't hurt.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

You seem to be unfamiliar with the nature of bureaucracies and other such government organizations, which have long loved to engage in turf wars with each other, particularly when there exists some kind of overlap in responsibility. Expecting different would require changing the nature of bureaucracy, which most beings short of God would find difficult.

Try impossible. Also, I'm aware of bureaucracies and how they're run, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

The problem affects the military services, too. The Air Force, for instance, is particularly notorious for this.

In what way? I don't actually pay much attention to our military beyond what veterans tell me about their tours of duty.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

(Also, you don't need such long strings of periods after sentences. One is all you need, but if you want to use ellipses, you only need to use three.)

It's a habit of mine...

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Master Thief

In what way? I don't actually pay much attention to our military beyond what veterans tell me about their tours of duty.

There are plenty of examples, but the best came soon after World War II and the establishment of the Air Force as an independent service. The Air Force was then keen to take over as much military aviation as they could, which would have meant in addition to the separation of themselves from the Army, them absorbing Marine aviation and the elimination of the Navy's carrier fleet. The Navy was not happy about this, and fought tooth and nail against the Air Force and the Pentagon's civilian leadership, which supported the Air Force's position. The event went down in history as the Revolt of the Admirals.

Another example was the A-10. Based on experience in Vietnam, the A-10 was designed to be a premier ground attack plane, which it was (and still is). However, it didn't fit with the Air Force's idea of what it should be; ground support aircraft are less than glamorous when compared to their strategic bombers and supersonic jet fighters. After Vietnam, the Air Force wanted to cancel the program. The Army, which has a vested interest in ground support aircraft being available, was unhappy about this decision. In response, they said they would be happy to take the A-10 of the Air Force's hands if they didn't want it. The idea of the Army having its own fixed-wing air element was even more intolerable to the Air Force than having to put up with the ugly things, so they backed down and kept them.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

There are plenty of examples, but the best came soon after World War II and the establishment of the Air Force as an independent service. The Air Force was then keen to take over as much military aviation as they could, which would have meant in addition to the separation of themselves from the Army, them absorbing Marine aviation and the elimination of the Navy's carrier fleet. The Navy was not happy about this, and fought tooth and nail against the Air Force and the Pentagon's civilian leadership, which supported the Air Force's position. The event went down in history as the Revolt of the Admirals.

Another example was the A-10. Based on experience in Vietnam, the A-10 was designed to be a premier ground attack plane, which it was (and still is). However, it didn't fit with the Air Force's idea of what it should be; ground support aircraft are less than glamorous when compared to their strategic bombers and supersonic jet fighters. After Vietnam, the Air Force wanted to cancel the program. The Army, which has a vested interest in ground support aircraft being available, was unhappy about this decision. In response, they said they would be happy to take the A-10 of the Air Force's hands if they didn't want it. The idea of the Army having its own fixed-wing air element was even more intolerable to the Air Force than having to put up with the ugly things, so they backed down and kept them.

Thanks for that. It was informative and interesting. You would think that different, but essentially the same, institutions that are charged with the protection of the country would do everything in their power to ensure that safety, and wouldn't worry about being "glamorous"......

ps: To the mod that changed my poll........sorry

FELIPE NO

Another good recent example of the joys of bureaucracies is that system that Israel developed to stop RPGs. The Army purchased a few test models to see how they did. It scored a 9 out of 10 I believe. Anyways deployment of the Israeli system is permanently cancelled because the Army wants to use one being built by some US company that has lots of contracts with it. Now the Israeli one is complete now and it apparently does a good job while the US one at earliest will be ready in 2008 and it's still questionable whether it'll be as good as the Israeli version. But welcome to the joys of bureaucracy and well placed contributions to highly placed individuals. Homeland Security has the same problem unfortunately which is why some systems that aren't so good get deployed while other systems that would seem logical to use to us don't.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?