Gov't investigator gets fake passports using phony documents of a dead man, 5-year-old boy

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Using phony documents and the identities of a dead man and a 5-year-old boy, a government investigator obtained U.S. passports in a test of post-9/11 security. Despite efforts to boost passport security since the 2001 terror attacks, the investigator fooled passport and postal service employees four out of four times, according to a new report made public Friday.

-----

-One investigator used the Social Security number of a man who died in 1965, a fake New York birth certificate and a fake Florida driver's license. He received a passport four days later.

-A second attempt had the investigator using a 5-year-old boy's information but identifying himself as 53 years old on the passport application. He received that passport seven days later.

-In another test, an investigator used fake documents to get a genuine Washington, D.C., identification card, which he then used to apply for a passport. He received it the same day.

-A fourth investigator used a fake New York birth certificate and a fake West Virginia driver's license and got the passport eight days later.



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FAKE_PASSPORTS?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-03-14-01-43-01

[bottomtheweaver]

1. If fake IDs were actually hard to get, how would we tax all those illegals?

It was never, ever about security. Same with all that hoopla at airports -- it's hasn't been about security for some time, as it's no longer possible to hijack airplanes (airplane manufacturers aren't dolts). Originally it was about the illusion of security, but now it's about the illusion of terra.

[Angleae]

3. No longer possible to hijack airplanes????

News to me, and I have to fix them. The only thing that has been done to them is replace the cockpit door with a kevlar reinforced door, a stronger door frame, and an electronic keypad lock the combination to which is in the airline's maintenance manual. The door also has a deadbolt but can't be bolted until the pilots have evidence of an actual hijacking, at that point it's a race to the door and the hijackers have a head start not to mention the pilots have basically no idead what's going on in the cabin other than sounds through the door.

[bottomtheweaver]

4. The information I've seen is that commercial planes manufactured

for the last decade or so are equipped with controls that can be taken over from the ground in the event of a cockpit emergency. Such capabilities are not exactly beyond the technical range of Boeing and other plane manufacturers heavily invested in developing and building military aircraft. Nevertheless there is apparently some secrecy around the technology.

[Angleae]

5. The information you have seen is false.

No commercial airliner has such a system. The C-17 has such a system in place but nothing else built by Boeing (737, 747, 767, or 777). I personally work on 737s, 757s, & 767s. It all comes down to cost, these systems cost money and are not mandated by the FAA or CAA, therefore the airlines won't pay to have them installed and the manufacturer won't install it for free.

[bottomtheweaver]

6. Yes, everything costs money,

but if it was deemed in the interests of national security to require a few Pentagon contractors to equip their commercial planes with such systems, I don't imagine the money would be hard to find. And if was also deemed essential to national security to keep the presence of such systems classified, I don't imagine they'd have any trouble doing that, either.

[Angleae]

7. Installing is easy.

We can do it where I work, it's not a problem. Keeping it secret however is not quite so easy. If you equipped all civil airliners with such a system, there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people that would know about it and even if the govt found some way to "classify" a civilian system, it would eventually find it's way into the public knowledge. The details of the systems might not, but it's existance will. It's impossible to keep something that widespread a secret.

[bottomtheweaver]

8. It appears that it isn't a secret.

That's my point.

[bottomtheweaver]

9. p.s. From what I can gather, the capability is built into the plane,

by way of its computerized surface control avionics, transponder, and flight data recorder, so all that's required to allow the remote takeover system to operate is a software upload. Presumably, this could be done in secret or at the factory, so you wouldn't necessarily be aware of it, which makes a certain amount of sense, as the system could conceivably be abused by unauthorized agents.

[Angleae]

10. Those three systems don't interact.

(Personal experience as an avionics tech for 20+ years)
The "computerized surface control avionics" (aka autopilot), transponder, and flight data recorder (actually the flight data acquisition unit) have no direct conection to one another and neither the transponder nor autopilot have the capability for a software update outside of the shop. The flight management computer can be updated and interfaced with the autopilot but doesn't interface with the antennas unless GPS is installed. The transponder doesn't interface with anything except TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) and all it does it gives an aural and visual warning of possible collision and vocal commands to fly by, it doesn't take control. Then there's the inabability of the autopilot to engage itself, the on/off controls are pure manual, it can't just flip itself on (it can turn itself off). On top of that there is another huge problem, they're called circuit breakers. All the C/Bs for the listed systems are in the cockpit and easily pulled. (Note: all the above applies only to Boeing & McDonnell Douglas, I have very little experience on Airbus)

Another small issue, the aforementioned boxed are not made by the same company. They could each be made by a different company using their own propriatary software. (Collins, Honeywell, AlliedSignal, Bendix, Motorola, Sundstrand, etc)

[Angleae]

11. To install such a system.

You would probably need to replace the flight management computers (usually 2) with a computer that will accept remote commands. You need to install a receiver and antenna per FMC and the associated wiring so that the ground signal could be received, processed, and sent to the FMC. You would also need to replace all flight control computers (autopilot) so that the FMC could override cockpit commands. And last, you need to re-locate the circuit breakers and applicable black boxes to somewhere people can't get to them in flight (easier said than done, not much space in narrow bodies, wide body electronic bays are accessible in flight)

[ohio2007]

2. How many votes can he cast on election day ? eom