U.S. Airports are safe from toys and cookies!

[shemp]

Toy Behind Airport Bomb Scare (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/25/national/main978113.shtml)

(AP) A terminal at San Diego International Airport was evacuated Tuesday after luggage screeners mistook a child's toy and a cookie for bomb-making components, officials said.

A screening machine detected what appeared to be bomb-making material in a carryon bag, said Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Jennifer Peppin.

A bomb squad was called to the terminal, which serves regional flights, and investigators determined the bag did not contain any "IED," or improvised explosive devices, Peppin said.

"Essentially what they did find was a child's toy and some organic material in a bag that turned out to be a cookie," Peppin said. "Those two items combined on-screen, they very much appeared to be an IED, and it turned out not to be."

And I for one am GLAD that AMERICA is SAFE from TOYS and COOKIES! Who knows if our enemies might develop a COOKIE BOMB!

[Bjorn]

Toy Behind Airport Bomb Scare (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/25/national/main978113.shtml)

And I for one am GLAD that AMERICA is SAFE from TOYS and COOKIES! Who knows if our enemies might develop a COOKIE BOMB!I know a serious comment is not appropriate, but here I go anyhow: I fly a lot (is it possible to get cash from frequent flyer programs?), and took off from San Diego Airport yesterday. I am very happy to know that something that looked like 'bomb-making components' were discovered and taken seriously. I simply hate to be on a flight with bomb-making components in someone's carry-on luggage.

[shemp]

My point is that if we can't develop detection devices that can differentiate between toys/cookies and bomb-making materials, how can we have any confidence in the ability of those devices? Yes, I'd rather be safe than sorry, but it seems we've spent a lot of taxpayers' money on junk technology.

[TragicMonkey]

This news story is disgustingly lacking in details. What kind of cookie? A homemade chocolate chip, possibly with pecans in it? Or a store-bought kind, like a chocolate Oreo? Or maybe it was a gingersnap? Or an oversized sugar cookie with orange frosting for Halloween? The public demands to know! Wow, dieting really affects your sense of what's important. Maybe it was an oatmeal cookie with raisins! Or a peanut butter cookie, the kind where you mash a fork into the top to get cross-hatching!

[Manny]

Toll House cookies are da bomb.

[TragicMonkey]

Toll House cookies are da bomb.


Maybe it was a Pepperidge Farm Milano cookie! Or even a Girl Scout Samoa?!

I demand a more thorough investigation. Grand juries. Testimony. Scandalous carryings-on. A prime-time television drama. "What Cookie Is This" Xmas claymation special. A rock opera. This is the stuff of legends, here. The story has pathos! Bathos! Porthos! Ornithosuchuses!

I can't tell you how many acts of terror I would commit for a damn cookie right now.

[Bjorn]

My point is that if we can't develop detection devices that can differentiate between toys/cookies and bomb-making materials, how can we have any confidence in the ability of those devices?I know, I know.

Yesterday, my cigarette lighter was confiscated by the TSA. It wasn't in my pocket, but they found it by x-raying my carry-on. The (very polite) TSA guy told me it wasn't allowed because of incidents like the shoe-bomber, but I was allowed to carry matches. When I pointed out that the shoe-bomber used matches, not a lighter, he shrugged and mumbled something about him not making the rules ... :)

I'm still fine with the policy (if it looks like a bomb, check and re-check), I feel a lot more 'what the eff' when they ask me "did a stranger give you a packet to bring on the trip"? Maybe they catch a lot of bombs that way ...

[pgwenthold]

OTOH, they had to bring in the bomb squad because it looked like "bomb-making components"? It didn't look like a bomb. It looked like things that could be used to make a bomb.

Is TSA not allowed to confirm that they are "bomb making components" on their own without calling the bomb squad?

(note, it would be different if it looked like an actual bomb; in that case, bring in the bomb squad; also, if TSA checks and they are bomb making components, then bring in the dudes)

[Psi Baba]

This news story is disgustingly lacking in details. What kind of cookie? A homemade chocolate chip, possibly with pecans in it? Or a store-bought kind, like a chocolate Oreo? Or maybe it was a gingersnap? Or an oversized sugar cookie with orange frosting for Halloween? The public demands to know! Wow, dieting really affects your sense of what's important. Maybe it was an oatmeal cookie with raisins! Or a peanut butter cookie, the kind where you mash a fork into the top to get cross-hatching!
Might have been a fig newton. Figs come from the Middle East you know. Can't be too careful (new TSA question: "Have any strange monkeys wearing fez's put anything in your luggage?"). But I think the important thing here is that this is proof that there is at least one brand of cookie out there that actually contains organic material. We have to find out what that is!

Monkey eating figs (http://www.msu.edu/~smith780/vervet_fig.jpg)

[Manny]

OTOH, they had to bring in the bomb squad because it looked like "bomb-making components"? It didn't look like a bomb. It looked like things that could be used to make a bomb.

Is TSA not allowed to confirm that they are "bomb making components" on their own without calling the bomb squad?Eh. San Diego is an "international airport," but it ain't Kennedy or LAX, if you know what I'm saying. I'm OK with them not having their own experts and calling them in when necessary.

[luchog]

I know a serious comment is not appropriate, but here I go anyhow: I fly a lot (is it possible to get cash from frequent flyer programs?), and took off from San Diego Airport yesterday. I am very happy to know that something that looked like 'bomb-making components' were discovered and taken seriously. I simply hate to be on a flight with bomb-making components in someone's carry-on luggage.
Unfortunately, according to a recent report from the GAO agency overseeing airport security; while we may be more secure against cookies and knitting needles, we are potentially less secure against real bombs, firearms, and genuine terrorists than we were prior to 9/11. Thanks to TSA's poor management of information and funding, and millions of dollars wasted on corporate perks. Luggage theft, however, has risen considerably.

GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05864r.pdf

CBS report on luggage theft.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/eveningnews/main643165.shtml

Other info:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/secure_flight.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/airportinsecurity/

[Morwen]

Well, that's a relief. I'm flying on Saturday. I might go hungry, but I will feel safe. Yessir.

[Leif Roar]

My point is that if we can't develop detection devices that can differentiate between toys/cookies and bomb-making materials, how can we have any confidence in the ability of those devices? Yes, I'd rather be safe than sorry, but it seems we've spent a lot of taxpayers' money on junk technology.

Well, a system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Stopping 99.9% of all bombs is much better than stopping 0%.

As for false positives (identifying something harmless as a bomb,) as long as there's not so many of them that the system becomes impractical to use, it doesn't necessarily affect the effectivness of the system. If the system stops 50% of all cookies and 100% of all bombs, the system has perfect security (in that no bomb will ever slip past it.)

Of course, in reality no system is perfect, and when designing or adjusting a security system, it becomes a question of weighing the amount of false positives (% cookies stopped) against the amount of false negatives (% bombs let through,) so that we get a system that's useable (doesn't stop every other person for a strip search) while giving good security (stopping almost all bombs.)

(On another note, marzipan apparently have the same density as plastic explosives and the x-ray machines at airports can't tell the two apart. Since marzipan is a common Christmas snack in Norway, the airport authority sometimes make public statements reminding people that if they're bringing marzipan in their carry on or luggage, they should make sure it's easily accessible so that the security guards don't have to dig through the entire suitcase to check if the blob on their screen is edible or explosive.)

[MRC_Hans]

Well, a system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Stopping 99.9% of all bombs is much better than stopping 0%.

As for false positives (identifying something harmless as a bomb,) as long as there's not so many of them that the system becomes impractical to use, it doesn't necessarily affect the effectivness of the system. If the system stops 50% of all cookies and 100% of all bombs, the system has perfect security (in that no bomb will ever slip past it.)*snip*Exactly! And don't forget that the system works by deterrent , too: It doesn't just stop the bombs detected, it (more importantly) also discourages would-be bombers for bringing them at all. And for this, the cookie detection works just fine: Knowing the system is so oversensitive that it even detects the odd cookie isn't exactly great news for the prospective bomber.

Hans

[Zep]

I'd like the flight attendant to bring me a glass of milk and a couple of organic bomb components once I'm in flight, please.


Seriously, don't they have bomb-sniffing dogs? I suspect Fido can differentiate between C4 and a Supersize Double-Crunchy Extra-Nuts-and-Sprinkles Gob-Stopping Choco-Coffee Ultra-Cookie. Dogs don't like SDCENASGSCCUC's. Other stuff, yes. Not those.

[luchog]

Well, a system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Stopping 99.9% of all bombs is much better than stopping 0%.

As for false positives (identifying something harmless as a bomb,) as long as there's not so many of them that the system becomes impractical to use, it doesn't necessarily affect the effectivness of the system. If the system stops 50% of all cookies and 100% of all bombs, the system has perfect security (in that no bomb will ever slip past it.)
The problem, however, as noted in the links I posted previously, is that that is exactly what is happening. The system is too inefficient, and the rate of false positives is too high. Part of that is the technology, and part of that is the poorly trained and poorly screened staff working the machines. The rate of false negatives is very high, possibly higher than pre-9/11 according to FBI and GAO tests; and the rate of false positives is also unacceptably high.

I can't find the link, but the FBI did a test last year, attempting to sneak firearms through normal baggage screening in carry-on luggage. The rate of failure was among the highest in recent history. Baggage handlers are either so poorly trained that they don't know what to look for, or they're too busy harassing grandmothers over their knitting needles, and feeling up 13-year-old girls, that they miss fairly obvious dangers.

[MRC_Hans]

The problem, however, as noted in the links I posted previously, is that that is exactly what is happening. The system is too inefficient, and the rate of false positives is too high. Part of that is the technology, and part of that is the poorly trained and poorly screened staff working the machines. The rate of false negatives is very high, possibly higher than pre-9/11 according to FBI and GAO tests; and the rate of false positives is also unacceptably high.

I can't find the link, but the FBI did a test last year, attempting to sneak firearms through normal baggage screening in carry-on luggage. The rate of failure was among the highest in recent history. Baggage handlers are either so poorly trained that they don't know what to look for, or they're too busy harassing grandmothers over their knitting needles, and feeling up 13-year-old girls, that they miss fairly obvious dangers.Well, if that is so, then yes, there is a problem, but that is not what the OP stated. It just made fun of a case where a cookie was suspected of being (an) explosive.

Hans