Thread: TSA screening proceedures posted online

watching C-Span and they told the story so found this on computerworld (felt it was the best of the articles out there)

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...cedures_online

In a gaffe called "shocking" and "reckless" by some U.S. lawmakers, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inadvertently posted a 93-page document containing highly sensitive information on its airport screening procedures on a government Web site.

The aviation security manual included details on TSA procedures for screening passengers, special rules for handling the CIA, diplomats and law enforcement officials and the technical settings and tolerances used by metal and explosive detectors used at airports.

The document included information on the frequency with which checked bags are to be hand screened for explosives, the names of 12 countries whose citizens are automatically sent to secondary screening and a list of items for which screening is not always required. Also included were images of sample credentials used by members of Congress and the CIA which the TSA said could be easily imitated. Each page of the manual carries the admonition:"NO PART OF THIS RECORD MAY BE DISCLOSED TO PERSONS WITHOUT A 'NEED TO KNOW.'

The document, which was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site was discovered on Sunday by The Wandering Aramean blog. The manual was posted as part of a TSA contract solicitation and was supposed to have been redacted.

But rather than removing the sensitive text from the document "they just drew a black box on top of it," the blog noted. "Turns out that PDF documents don't really care about the black box like that and the actual content of the document is still in the file."

The TSA document has since been removed from the federal Web site. But numerous copies of the documents have since become available around the Internet.

In a statement, a TSA spokesman said that the document was an "outdated, unclassified version of a Standard Operating Procedures. This version of the SOP was never implemented. Because TSA has to constantly adapt to address ever evolving threats, there have been 6 newer versions of the procedures since this version was drafted." The statement goes on to add that while the document demonstrates the "complexities of checkpoint security" it does not contain information related to the specifics of everyday screening. A full review is now under way into the incident, the TSA said.

The TSA's claim that the document was outdated has done little to quell the outrage expressed by some lawmakers.

In a statement today, Sen. Susan Collin (R-Maine), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee blasted the TSA over its lapse. "This manual provides a road map to those who would do us harm," Collins said. "The detailed information could help terrorists evade airport security measures

The "shocking breach" will undercut the American's public's confidence in security measures at U.S. airports, she said. Collins said she intends to ask the Department of Homeland Security for a complete explanation of how the breach happened and what specific actions are being taken to prevent "this type of reckless dissemination" in future.

In a similar statement, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (I-Conn.) called the release of the SOP manual an "embarrassing mistake."

"A security manual, redacted or not, is not the type of document we want to share with the world," Lieberman noted, adding that the improper redaction only compounds the error.

fail much?

Yeah, I heard all kinds of stuff about what gauge of wire cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines and other proven methods for fooling such devices.

Not cool. Way to go, TSA.

I kind of doubt though that advanced terrorist networks would not have this information to begin with.

Who's gonna bother with another commercial plane attack. I live in DC, the center of all this bullshit security. If someone had an RPG they could blast the oval office easy, shit I took classes at the Corcoran, with nothing more than a smile you can get on the roof and have a clear view of half the white house grounds Lee Harvey Oswald style, its a waste of cash and its not effective. Someone willing to risk their life to damage a building, monument, or person will succeed %95 if they aren't an idiot. Throwing money at it doesn't solve anything.

Its catch-22

Originally Posted by Panic

Who's gonna bother with another commercial plane attack. I live in DC, the center of all this bullshit security. If someone had an RPG they could blast the oval office easy, shit I took classes at the Corcoran, with nothing more than a smile you can get on the roof and have a clear view of half the white house grounds Lee Harvey Oswald style, its a waste of cash and its not effective. Someone willing to risk their life to damage a building, monument, or person will succeed %95 if they aren't an idiot. Throwing money at it doesn't solve anything.

Its catch-22

well i think the reason is it is still probably the easiest way to level a building/kill 1000s of people (goal of terror, to kill and scare the ordinary people, less kill a president or high ranking officer (though both would probably be better then 72 virgins to them)). Its hell of a lot easier to get into some high rise buildings, but to bring enough explosives to do heavy damage be a bit more of a challenge.

Or if its like 24, then it easy to kill 100000s in a couple seconds

(why do i have a feeling after this post, theirs going to be a crapload of black cars around my neighborhood by tomorrow?)

it kinda reminds me when they'd say which airports had the worst security on the news....

it's pretty gray, like it's win/win and lose/lose
if you tell then there can be public pressure to change it instead of it just going unknown until an attack... but at the same time it's like saying "go here to do yo shit"

can i get a job as the TSA internet security consultant? i apparently know more then the current idiot doing it "Hmm lets just post a pdf with black boxes around the sensitive info, that should be fine!"