Schneier, Journalist Poke Holes In TSA Policies 296
Fallen Andy points out an article in The Atlantic written by Jeffrey Goldberg. He and Bruce Schneier teamed up to put the TSA's policies to the test at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. They found plenty of evidence for security theater, and rather less for actual security. Quoting:
"'The whole system is designed to catch stupid terrorists,' Schneier told me. ... As I stood in the bathroom, ripping up boarding passes, waiting for the social network of male bathroom users to report my suspicious behavior, I decided to make myself as nervous as possible. I would try to pass through security with no ID, a fake boarding pass, and an Osama bin Laden T-shirt under my coat. I splashed water on my face to mimic sweat, put on a coat (it was a summer day), hid my driver's license, and approached security with a bogus boarding pass that Schneier had made for me. ... 'All right, you can go,' [an airport security supervisor] said, pointing me to the X-ray line. 'But let this be a lesson for you.'"
Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Interesting)
While he occasionally manages to pass on common sense to people who are confused by propaganda, he still manages to pass on the propaganda! Where this journalist is saying that TSA policies are not there to catch terrorists, they're just there to make people feel better, Schneier is giving advice on how to improve the policies to catch terrorists. They're not interested in catching terrorists Bruce!
He rocks the boat, but he never connects the dots.
It *is* good theater (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The best we can do (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent a lot of years in the military; threat assessment and defense was a part of my job.... The whole TSA inspection system is a joke. It is nothing but theater.
I could go on and on....
I used to fly with the Bomb.... A demonstration computer built into one of those medium sized toolbox cases. It had a bare board embedded computer, an LCD screen, a PLC, wires and cabling all over the place, the case was lined with a grounding plane, and it had bolts all over the case holding the guts in. It even had a remote control I built with 20 toggle switches and a bunch of LEDs. I hand carried this monster on dozens of flights and *never once* did anyone at TSA express any curiousity about this case.
Anyway, the Europeans do it much better than the TSA. Chase everyone out of the gate, set up the checkpoint, and screen and scan everyone as they board....
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, you're going to run up against the one advance in airplane security that *has* been made post-9/11: you're not getting through the reinforced cockpit door with anything less than a battering ram.
Re:lol (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not there to make you feel safe. It's there to make you feel like you should feel safe, and be grateful for it, while feeling nervous enough to ask for more.
Re:Strictly speaking the system worked (Score:1, Interesting)
5. Therefore the whole inconvenience bit is actually pointless.
I think that's the general point. The theatre is pointless, so stop wasting everyone's time and dignity by making us go through with it.
Re:Obamaism (Score:3, Interesting)
Poor reasoning. He didn't ask for a lesson in what trips their wire of suspicious, he asked *why* they were going through his stuff. The answer can be as simple as "We saw an object on the xray that might be contraband." or even "We have reason to believe a prohibited item may be in your bag." It doesn't actually tell the passenger a whole lot, but at least it categorizes the event as "we think we may have some evidence" vs. "It's totally random" vs. "You look nervous, so we're giving you more attention."
But let's face it - no one likes security, and it's fair to know what can hang you up - that's why they publish the rules. If they come out and say "Hey, you had a container that was exactly 3oz of liquid, sometimes we can't tell if it goes over the limit without closer inspection", then you can start carrying 2oz bottles of contact solution to put yourself further in the "safe" area. It's good for you, and it's good for security.
Further, hoping that the enemy doesn't know what magic lines you've drawn as a basis for your security is a horrible plan. Security should be tight because it's tight, not because no one knows the ways in which it sucks. It's the old argument over whether open source is more vulnerable because everyone can see the code; time and again it has been shown that open source can be at least as secure as closed source.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a danger, not a benefit.
He missed the most obvious problem with his plan on "closing the triangle". He wants an id check when the person gets on the plane because only a stupid terrorist won't know how to steal a credit card and avoid the "do not fly" check by using a fake name when he buys the ticket.
Only a stupid terrorist won't be able to get a fake id to go with the stolen credit card to get through the new, as-you-board id check.
High school students do it so they can buy liquor, you don't think a terrorist might be able to? His suggested solution is just more of the same game we are already playing, only he doesn't recognize it.
In other security programs that waste public money (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in NYC if you go to a subway you will sometimes see police officers near the entrance with a little desk in front of them. They are supposed to randomly pick out people to check their bags. This is supposed to do what deter a real terrorist?
What if a real terrorist walks into a subway upon seeing the cops just simply does a 180 and walks about a block to the other entrance to the same station. Somehow I think I rather have the officers be involved in their usual crime stopping work, at least at that way they sometimes succeed.
Or... Grey's law (Score:5, Interesting)
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can, I think, top this. In July, on a flight from Hong Kong to Toronto, the plane made a refueling stop. Nobody, repeat nobody, had bought a ticket to Anchorage, this was a refueling stop and there were no tickets for sale Hong Kong - Anchorage. Nonetheless, everybody was ordered off the plane and had to show passports to American immigration officials. The people in front of me also had to press their thumb against an electronic fingerprint scanner. When it was my turn, I asked what would happen if I refused to surrender my fingerprint, or that of my two children. He said not to worry, they didn't do that for American and Canadian citizens. Only everyone else.
This was not, I repeat, was not, a flight into the United States, except for a refueling stop. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the US government is going far beyond what used to be considered acceptable.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
why the hell is parent modded as "insightful"?