
Drone Maker Accused of Covering Up Bomb in Bag on Delta Flight - uptown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/drone-maker-accused-of-covering-up-bomb-in-bag-on-delta-flight
======
everdev
It is crazy to think of all the money spent on TSA that something like this
could happen post-9/11 and post- failed shoe bomber. It shows that people and
machines are still fallible.

I never hear about TSA thwarting terrorist attempts. Either they keep it under
wraps or nobody is trying because they perceive the security to be too high.
Or they get caught before they try. In any event, this incident seems like a
careless mistake, but still scary nonetheless.

~~~
ericcumbee
My cousin in the early 2000s worked for a R&D company who did some work on the
early generation of sniffer machines that detected trace residue of
explosives, and biological agents in airports. He had to go to a meeting and
flew from Atlanta to boston with a prototype of the machine. He packed it in
his carry on case along with his basic tool kit. When he got to security
screening he realized that he also had vials of simulants for anthrax, sarain,
various explosives, etc etc in that case. He gets into the security screening
line and the TSA guy starts asking him all kinds of questions and he just
knows he is about to get detained for the simulants which were not clearly
marked as such. Instead the guy is like “You can’t take that screw driver with
you”

~~~
dragontamer
This was figured out in an Dept. Homeland Security "red team" test of the TSA
a few years ago, where the TSA failed like 95%+ of the tests against them:
[https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-
fin...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-
widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881)

I think the TSA has switched strategies recently, and they've been improving
since then. But ultimately, its not the "bag check" where the TSA catches
goons, its the random more intense check that they do these days. And sure,
going from 95% failure to 80% failure isn't much of an improvement, but its
still going to change the calculus of an attacker. When you have a 20% chance
of failure before you even board the airplane, that's an issue to your plans.

Furthermore, TSA includes air marshals and the Israeli-style "behavioral" cops
who are scanning airports. These are the more successful cops at the job, and
the ones we are relying upon for real.

I wouldn't discount the entirety of the TSA just because of the failures of
the bag-check program. Again, US Air marshals (armed cops who sit on every
aircraft secretly with plain-clothes) are under the TSA and I think the US Air
Marshals contributes a LOT to our real security.

Unfortunately, the bag-check thing is mostly security theater, but at the same
time, the more "serious" checks vs attackers are more hidden and less well
known (as it should be). But security theater might be enough to discourage an
attack, or at very least cause our enemies to focus on the bag-check (when our
REAL security really lies with other programs). So its a useful distraction
IMO. There's a bit of "wink-wink lets not talk about this" going on that you
need to understand though.

~~~
fosk
> US Air marshals (armed cops who sit on every aircraft secretly with plain-
> clothes)

Do they really sit on __every __flight?

~~~
matwood
No, but I had one sit next to me on a flight to Vegas once. It's a long story,
first how we suspected and then when he admitted it as we got off the plane.
They do exist though.

~~~
bonzini
How did you suspect?... (And, who's the other person in the plural?)

~~~
matwood
Some friends and I were on the way to Vegas. We had a few drinks and I guess
hit the limit they serve on a flight. We had been having a conversation with a
guy next to us about small talk things, joking, wharever. This guy then looks
at the stewardess and says “they’re fine, and there is no need to cut them
off”. She then kept bringing drinks until we landed. At that point we started
joking he was an air marshall, and he laughed it off.

Once we got in the terminal he kinda flashed his ankle holster and told us to
have fun on our vacation. Also mentioned something along the lines that we had
made a normally boring 5 hour flight entertaining.

I should add this was 10+ years ago.

------
varenc
This "Switchblade® Tactical Missle System" advertised on AeroVironment's
website is probably what they were transporting:
[https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-
systems](https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-systems)

They emphasize that it's "man-portable" and it's a "precision lethal payload"
embedded onto a drone.

~~~
tlrobinson
Browsing a marketing website for a missile system is a bit surreal.

~~~
varenc
It is! I find the writing fascinating...especially the overly aggro names like
"Switchblade®" and the funny phrases like "man-portable delivery system",
"warfighter", and "wave-off capability". (not sure what that last one
means...)

It also seems like the URL actually has a typo? The page has the title
"Tactical Missile Systems" but the URL is for "/tactical- _mission_ -systems"

~~~
L_226
Wave-off means that you can abort the missile strike post-launch if you
realise you haven't identified your target correctly.

------
zacharycohn
I feel like there's a pretty big thing left out of this article.

Why did they bring that on the plane?

------
duskwuff
Upon reading the headline, there was one question in my mind -- and
unfortunately, the article didn't answer it. To wit:

 _Why was the drone 'rigged with explosives' in the first place??!_

~~~
michaelt

      "By embedding a precision lethal payload into a remotely
      controlled, man-portable delivery system, Switchblade®
      provides warfighters with a valuable and more cost-
      effective alternative to existing airborne and land-based
      missile systems."
    

[https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-
systems](https://www.avinc.com/solutions/tactical-mission-systems)

~~~
kevinmchugh
Is there a purpose for the military-technical jargon beyond sounding serious
and sophisticated (and thus expensive)?

~~~
athenot
I'm not in that industry but if it's anything like other fields, I'd say this
jargon has specific meaning to them.

~~~
monocasa
If it's anything like it was ROTC, the jargon here is mainly to signal
conformity.

------
quizme2000
(Red Flag or Yellow Flag) This article was based on a report from Aurelius
Value, about a case that was filed a month ago. Aurelius Value makes my spidey
sense bullshit detector light the F up. The drone maker looks to be a solid
company with a stock that is steadily growing, 1MM volume, and just had a 52
week high in the last week. If I were a unethical bastard with a mandate to
manipulate a company's short term stock prices, this wouldn't be a bad target.

~~~
danso
What does a company's stock performance have to do with the allegation under
discussion?

~~~
bertjk
They appear to be a research firm specializing in reporting on companies to
which they own short positions.

If you go to read their articles at
[http://www.aureliusvalue.com/](http://www.aureliusvalue.com/) you are
immediately presented with a TOS that basically says as much. The TOS also
makes some disclaimers that looks to be aimed at reducing the risk of them
being held liable for spreading false/harmful information.

So given all this, It is only prudent to be skeptical.

~~~
danso
“Appear”? The posted article outright identifies them as a short seller. I’m
not disputing that someone may profit from the consequences of this
allegation. I’m asking if we have reason to believe that the allegation itself
is questionable, just because it may harm a company’s stock performance. Did
the short seller fabricate it or conspire with the plaintiff?

------
gonesilent
Happened in 2015 and now a short stock seller is attempting to manipulate the
price of the stock by bringing the story out in public again.

~~~
danso
"again"?

This incident was previously unreported. It only came to light because of a
lawsuit filed by the terminated employee in April 18, 2018:
[http://aureliusvalue.com/content/uploads/2018/05/AVAV-
whistl...](http://aureliusvalue.com/content/uploads/2018/05/AVAV-
whistleblower.pdf)

------
jessaustin
It's difficult to work up much sympathy for any armaments manufacturer who
sells to the USA military. However, this "whistleblowing" didn't really
accomplish much. It was a thoughtless mistake to bring the explosives on the
plane, but there is no indication that it was SOP or that the company made any
money by doing it.

In general, I believe it's customary to maintain secure storage at any
location where explosives are used, and let professionals move the explosives
around.

~~~
danso
Are you arguing that the "whistleblowing" was not worthwhile or legitimate
whistleblowing?

~~~
jessaustin
I don't think whistleblowing is "sacred", in the sense that anyone who
disagrees with his boss and gets fired for it has an aspect of Edward Snowden.
[0] Instead it's like most human activities: sometimes good, sometimes bad,
occasionally pointless. It's clear that one shouldn't bring explosives on
commercial flights or indeed on any motorized vehicle not designed for the
purpose, but it's also against regulations to bring apple juice on commercial
flights. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I'm all for armaments
manufacturers going out of business, but let's do it the right way. In the
long run this accomplishes nothing.

[0] To be clear, Snowden is a magnificent human. If punching a hundred
plutocrats would get him out of his predicament I would do it tomorrow.

~~~
danso
Are you under the impression that people in this thread have lionized the
plaintiff as if he were Edward Snowden?

I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. Because this incident of
whistleblowing didn't bring down the armaments industry, it is essentially
worthless? Because the TSA can be stringent against mundane and otherwise safe
carry-ons, that this means we shouldn't judge those who think it safe to bring
undisclosed explosives in their carry-ons?

~~~
jessaustin
It's my impression that we're talking past each other, to some extent. The
idea that there is a "proper" way to develop and market remote anonymous
deathmurderbots (the evil purpose of which is well known) is so bizarre that
it renders all other aspects of the discussion somewhat vague and
insubstantial. If the point is that the Law should protect "bad" people as
well as "good" people, then sure I agree. The way that things work in this
dingy corner of America, however, is typically more arbitrary than that. It's
difficult to take any story we get from this quarter at face value.

It is interesting, which threads inspire the sort of "policing" we see here.
Is it so important that we all agree about things we cannot possibly know?

