Major Security Vulnerabilities Uncovered At Frankfurt Airport 91
jones_supa writes "According to a report published in this Sunday's edition of the mass-circulation Bild am Sonntag newspaper, investigators sent by the European Commission found it surprisingly easy to smuggle banned items past security at Frankfurt Airport. It said undercover investigators posing as passengers were able to smuggle weapons or other dangerous items through security every second time they tried to do so. One of the biggest problems was improperly trained staff, who were often not able to recognize dangerous items when viewing the screens they use to look at x-ray images of baggage. The staff is sourced via a privately owned service provider. Germany's Federal Police said they introduced new measures immediately after learning of the security deficits to ensure that passenger safety was guaranteed. Fraport AG, the company that operates the Germany's biggest airport, also took the findings seriously and begun an operation to retrain a total of 2,500 workers."
Security at FRA (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only at Frankfurt, but in general in German Airports, I've always been surprised by the use of private security agencies to screen passengers. I have nothing about these private security providers, but just like for anything else, I recognise that their are activities well suited for them; other not so much.
I have no doubt that private security firm could do that task adequately, but I seriously doubt they could do it well and in a cost effective manner at the same time. There is a lot of pressure to reduce costs at large airports in order to further reduce fares. That's the reason why they have those private firms there at the first place. In turn, these firms offer the service at lower cost... salaries and overtime rules are definitely one reasons for these lower costs, but lower training and selection standards as well.
Re:Security at FRA (Score:5, Interesting)
You assume that "lower quality" isn't in fact the intention.
Companies like airport operators are well aware that it's all useless theater, if it weren't for these annoying checks they'd more than welcome lax security!
Re:Security at FRA (Score:4, Informative)
I don't assume anything... I just observe.
What I observe is that pretty much the same people (from the same security firm) screen my luggage at the airport and my bag before I get into a night club. I don't like it a clubs, but accept it. But I find it close to unacceptable at airports. I've seen a lot of incompetence, lack of respect and abuse of power at German airports (especially at FRA).
In Canadian airports, the pre-boarding screening is also partly done by private firms. The situation is hardly better. I've seen a huge difference in handling there as well. Most of the time its is very professional and the standards of CATSA at obviously higher than by the Bundespolizei. I think that a major difference, is the the on-site oversight remains under the control of the CATSA in Canada, whereas in Germany, the Bundespolizei is only there for show. They just stand there (if at all), but don't seem to supervise the screening activities. This observation may be wrong, as we, as passenger, hardly know what goes on behind the curtain, but it would explain the service quality in both countries although but employ private firms.
I couldn't care less about the screening itself; it beings little more than the feeling something is done for security for those who somehow need that feeling. What I do care about is how my belongings and myself are handled in the screening process, what ever that process may be.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say that my experiences with their screening personell have been far less than what would be expected from professionals. They make the TSA look civilized.
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
You might recall that the TSA got started by taking sackloads of private company-employed rent-a-cops and making them federal employees, thus unfirable. This ensured and still ensures a nice base level of incompetence as well as arrogance, and costs you more tax dollars than the private situation did. You also get less oversight due to all the petty secrecy, down to being forbidden from knowing which rules apply to you today, and you have less recourse since they're judge and jury too. What do you think that closed-off-from-the-world pervy scanner's peeping box is for, hm?
The real problem, however, is that it's all security theatre. It doesn't do anything worthwhile. The hassle does the same thing that comfort noise does for voip and cellular phone connections. It assures you that "something is being done" without having the slightest connection as to whether something is actually being done or not.
There is, however, very real damage to some unlucky if otherwise innocent victims. This makes the whole thing a net drain on the economy and on society. Moreover, the very few things that have happened since the theatre began and that actually have improved security turn out to be among the absolute cheapest things to happen in the space. This makes value-for-money overall very poor. Spectacularly so, in fact.
So the correct lesson to draw from this is not to do what is always being done in such cases, to "beef up security. Instead what should, nay must, happen now, finally, it's long overdue, is to review what we really want out of our "security investments" and implement just that.
This would mean that quite a lot of measures can go, and quite a lot of manpower will no longer be allowed to harass travelers, and quite a lot of amazing pervy scanning equipment will turn out to have no further purpose except maybe as a gimmick in kinky clubs. It'd mean the end of numerous databases and that we no longer need those chips in our passports, and a host of "data-sharing" peepery that really didn't bought us anything would have to be stopped too. Which all in turn means that it'll never happen before the current world order collapses under its own obesity. But that is what the correct course of action would mean.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
There is some truth in what you say. Airport security is and will always be not perfect, as it is not possible to realize total security, as long as objects (people and luggage) are allowed to get on board. However, real police officers would be better at the job. They are carefully selected and get years of training before they are policemen (maybe this is different in the US, I don't know.). They are better paid (even though I think they do not get enough for the task they have to perform) and they cannot be pushed around like those rent-a-cop people at the airport. Their only obligation is to do their job right.
On the other side, the private companies try to make a fortune and they must compete with each other. Therefore, they try to become cheaper. In that business this is only possible by buying cheaper equipment, but there are limits to that as minimal standards are applied in that area. Therefore, the only option is in pay and training. The result is obvious.
If you pay peanuts you get monkey.
Re: (Score:3)
Airport security can be made better by requiring mandatory classes in kinesics [slashdot.org]. Of course some people see this as "racist" because it then becomes profiling. Many police constables here in Canada do so after they're hired on, many of the police colleges and DEPOT already have some form of it being taught during training. I have heard through friends that work for various forces that this is becoming a norm in the US as well.
Re: Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to understand the point of the TSA to understand why the party of allegedly small government so enthusiastically created them. Making employees "unfirable" (whatever that means) had nothing to do with it.
- Conservatives in the US are largely authoritarians and authoritarian followers. The TSA is very authoritarian. This sits well with that particular mental weakness.
- Since this is about theater, whether they succeed or fail is irrelevant. The point to an authoritarian is to have power. Why do conservatives support thuglike cops almost universally? You'd think that 'rugged individualists' would't support wholesale rights violations, wouldn't you?
But here's the real reason for the TSA:
- Before the TSA, security at airports was paid for by the AIRLINES. The TSA is corporate welfare on a grand scale. By federalizing security they not only took that cost away from the people who take your legroom away and charge you for bags now, but they also removed any legal liability the airlines might have for a large scale security screening failure.
Here's an interesting question: if the TSA is all nice and federalized and stuff and not run by airlines now, why do they have fast lanes for first class passengers? Has the idea of equality before our government (and it before us) in this country been so thoroughly erased by corporate propaganda that nobody even questions that?
Re: (Score:3)
" if the TSA is all nice and federalized and stuff and not run by airlines now, why do they have fast lanes for first class passengers?"
The fast lanes are not part of TSA. They are before TSA security and are run by airport staff (check the difference in uniforms).
TSA does run Pre-Check which is a known-traveler system. You agree to give the TSA extra data about you that they could not collect without your consent and in exchange if they classify you a a lower than average risk they will let you through red
Re: (Score:2)
I would't call this"missing the point", as the title of your reply says; rather "not adressing the points I believe are more important..."
What you adress are parly symtoms of a whole different and bigger problem with govermental organisation. i've seen this all over the place where I lived and worked...it's by no mean a TSA issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Airport security has always been a government job for the simple reason that all commercial traffic airports (in the U.S.) are owned by the government. The local government may have chosen to subcontract out
Re: (Score:1)
I've always been surprised by the use of private security agencies to screen passengers.
You were surprised? Who should be doing it instead? Better private security than police/military with huge automatic assault rifles if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the local union in FRA ask that the governement takes again over security control.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually very common here in Europe, it's a public service but the government issues some form of tender to buy it from the private sector. And yes, they do often suck at writing the contract and following up that what's been ordered is delivered in correct quality and quantity. If you ask for "a security guard" you get a body with a pulse, if you ask them to have mandatory training, pass certifications and exams you'll get that, but if you don't ask you don't get it even if they're totally unfit for t
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that the slashdot teaser - and your response - both latch onto the "private" part of the picture, as though there was inherent reason to dread private enterprise when providing some important service, to presume government would do better.
OH NO. WE ARE ALL DOOMED! (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone must now stop the people from carrying toothpaste and knives on board planes because they are bomb making materials.
Hint hint: guns go through the air all day long by accident. You don't hear about these on the news because the people who accidentally got them through don't want to throw themselves in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed].
To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a problem with carrying knives, clubs and all sorts of other weapons on a plane as long as they're in hold baggage. The only time it would be an issue would be if you carried the weapon in your carry-on baggage or your pocket. And I simply do not believe that happens by accident. Anyone in any of the parts of the world where I routinely travel (not America, granted, but that's not e
You'd think they'd have learned (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You'd think they'd have learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Frankfurt airport already tries their best to make travel unpleasant. This is the only airport I have seen that pats everyone down after going through the scanners. Both times that I went through this airport with my wife they took her to a private room to disrobe because her "bra wire" was setting off the alarm. Funny how that never happens anywhere else.
Despite the fact that I am coming from another country in the EU, they always force us to de-plane on the tarmac in front of the gate, then shuttle
Re: (Score:3)
Frankfurt is where they think the Lockerbie bomb got into the baggage system.
From a different plane coming from Malta.
Obvious solution (Score:2)
In other news: (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so according to that so called "newspaper" (I read TFA there yesterday) 50% of dangerous items were not recognized during security screening. But even with this terrible performance, no related incidents have been reported. In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.
Re:In other news: (Score:5, Insightful)
There are ~30 million commercial flights and around 2 hijackings [wikipedia.org] per year, so that nobody's tried at Frankfurt might be just statistics. None of the confirmed hijackings since 2001 has casualties, though I suppose there's mysteries like MH370. Even if you assume the worst though, statistically you're far more likely to die from technical malfunction or pilot error. Or external causes like being shot down by a missile like MH17, but I guess that's location dependent. Unless you can bring a bomb on board to take down the plane yourself there's no way people will let you cease control of the craft anymore, so hijacking as we knew it is a past era. Most of it is just preventing a stabbing that could just as well have happened on the bus or tram or subway, it just happens to be up on a plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, except for transcontinental and overseas flights, you're more likely to die in an accident on your drive to/from the airport than on the flight itself. And the only reason the risk is higher for longer flights is because, well, they're longer, so there's more time
Re: (Score:2)
Every flight consists of at least three phases : take-off, cruise and landing. The large majority of airplane crashes occur in take-off and landing phases, and relatively small numbers in cruise (some while taxiing too, but they're mostly survivable - airframe damage only).
If you re-work the statistics in terms of take-off, cruise and landing, then the numeric
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.
No, that just shows that the Intent, Capability, and Opportunity haven't yet aligned to result in an incident or attack... that you know of. Absence of an attack isn't the same as absence of a threat. And you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't terrorists in Germany, or flying through it, that wouldn't attack the airport, planes, or other places in Germany specifically or Europe in general.
Attacks on Frankfurt Airport, Ramstein Planned: Three Islamist Terror Suspects Arrested in Germany [spiegel.de] - Septe
Re: (Score:2)
No, that just shows that the Intent, Capability, and Opportunity haven't yet aligned to result in an incident or attack... that you know of.
So there have been mysterious plane hijackings which have been hushed up and so nobody knows about them?
Security is better than it has ever been on aeroplanes, primarily because the passengers now seem to delight in beating seven bells out of attampted bombers and then trussing them up like a turkey with spare seat belts.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that just shows that the Intent, Capability, and Opportunity haven't yet aligned to result in an incident or attack... that you know of.
So there have been mysterious plane hijackings which have been hushed up and so nobody knows about them?
Nobody knows what happened to MH370 - and a hijacking is more likely than aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
It could mean a bunch of things. The threat being non-existent is merely one of them.
The threat could also be very rare, but have a high enough cost when it does occur that working to prevent it is beneficial.
Those who would be carrying out the threat could think the security is better than it is and hence be using other methods,i.e. the deterrent factor is working.
Or a bunch of others of course.
Learn from the Canadians? They are the best... (Score:2)
Yes, they should learn from our neighbours to the north. They seem to know [macleans.ca] what they are doing.
My (Dated) Experience (Score:1)
Real terrorist threat level (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the fact that security at airports is not very good and nothing really bad has happened in the last decade, what does this tell us about the real terrorist threat level in Europe?
Don't let yourself get scared by politicians who rule by using fear. Learn from the hard facts!
Re: (Score:2)
what does this tell us about the real terrorist threat level in Europe?
Why, that government intrusion into communications is what's really stopping the terrorists, before they even get to the airport. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the fact that security at airports is not very good and nothing really bad has happened in the last decade, what does this tell us about the real terrorist threat level in Europe?
That much of Europe has probably been almost lulled into the level of complacency that will make a truly horrifying attack possible?
Re: (Score:2)
It tells us that any level of airport security is enough to make an attack using an aeroplane not the most attractive option for terrorists.
That obviously is not true since the 9/11 hijackers had to pass through airport security.
Re: (Score:2)
The 9/11 hijackers didn't pass through airport security, they had someone on the inside who let them through a door.
That isn't true. Now go away, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo! Image you were a terrorist, angry and filled with hate. What would you do? Hijack an airplane, place a bomb in a crowded train station or empty a gun in a supermarket? I'm sure it won't be the airplane hijacking, because that's just too much trouble. To see what threat level a country really has, don't look at the typical place the government is focusing on. Be creative, think like a terrorist and look for the weak spots. You'll find that from a technical point of few, it's very easy to commit a terr
Re: (Score:2)
But how much damage can one person do? If he's successful he'll maybe kill ten people.
An individual terrorist could easily kill hundreds of people, and wound thousands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truck bomb. It's been done before. Examples include the suicide bomb attack against the US Marines in Beirut, and the attack against the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a life.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems your opinion is that there are attacks or attacks just waiting to happen.
You can't prove the absence of anything: therefore it's impossible to disprove what you say. Therefore I can only concluse that what you say is not really a useful point of view to hold.
Do you have any evidence that we're about to be drowned in terrorists?
That much of Europe has probably been almost lulled into the level of complacency that will make a truly horrifying attack possible?
You know that Europe has had terrorists i
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be an option that you missed: seeing if there are indicators that terrorists have an interest in striking.
Major terrorist attack is ‘inevitable’ as Isis fighters return, say EU officials [theguardian.com]
EU’s 28 governments are said to be struggling to respond to threat of Islamist fighters coming back from Iraq and Syria
Europe faces 'greatest terror threat ever' from jihadists in Iraq and Syria [theguardian.com]
ETA, IRA, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, all were small potatoes compared to the potential of the
Re: (Score:2)
So people who want to pass more laws to give themselves more power are claiming a threat that they could only save us from by passing more laws to give themselves more power. OK. I totally believe them then.
The same sort of people also said how terribly important it was to invade Iraq because of WMDs. Turns out they lied.
Was nice while it lasted... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuck.
I fly out of FRA almost weekly & have been really enjoying how quick, easy, & efficient getting through security there is (especially as compared to US or UK). Oh well... bring on the needlessly long lines, taking off shoes, & porno scanners.
Re: (Score:2)
I went through Heathrow recently. Apart from being a pain in the arse to get to and one of the worlds most miserable airports, the security seemed OK. It was moderately busy so they had the metal detector cranked way down on sensitivity and they sopped requiring shoe removal years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
"It said undercover investigators posing as passengers were able to smuggle weapons or other dangerous items through security every second time they tried to do so."
'Real terrorists wouldn't get a second try. ;)'
No, they'll send 6 terrorists an 3 will get through.
And remember, the security inspectors are not allowed to actually _hide_ the stuff, they must place a gun or a handgrenade -as is- in the luggage.
They cannot disassemble the gun and hide it in a bunch of jewely or use especially crafted zipguns tha
Re: (Score:2)
It's normal (Score:3)
After all, the personnel only ever sees handguns in the luggage when the security inspectors do a test.
This is not America where every second grandma has a gun in their purse that they can forget to take out.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not America where every second grandma has a gun in their purse that they can forget to take out.
And from reports I see in the local news, loaded as well.
I question (Score:1)
Whether anyone can be trained to be observant effectively, it seems a quality you either have or do not have, and most certainly the "caliber" of those hired is fairly low (I mean who wants that job?) so training would be even more difficult.
I would guess we will be hearing about this again if someone does their due diligence and follows up on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankfurt Second Worst on My List (Score:2)
I have flown to and from or changed planes in 26 airports. Frankfurt Airport (Rhein-Main-Flughafen, FRA) was the second-worst next to the armpit of airports, which is Kona International (KOA) in Hawai'i. Flying from Los Angeles (LAX) to Budapest (BUD) my wife and I had to change planes in FRA. With 12 security stations, only four were open. It took us over 30 minutes in line to reach a security station. Some passengers booked on our plane to BUD missed the flight because they were still stuck in line a
Guaranteed? (Score:1)
Guaranteed, huh?