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.'"
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't doubt that the whole system isn't there to catch actual terrorists, but to simply condition the populace into accepting this kind of routine as a the standard quo. Fo
You left off "shizzle".
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be knew here.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a financial system that is built upon the government, huge corporations and consumers borrowing insane amounts of money to keep the myth of a strong US going. The TSA's primary purpose is to create a show designed to make the public-at-large feel safe and keep spending their money by flying. If a significant percentage of people stopped flying because of fear, the entire airline industry would collapse.
After 9/11, Bush was all over the airwaves telling people to continue to go to work and not stop spending their money because we need to keep the economy strong. Of course, when an anthrax tainted letter was found in a congressional mail sorting facility, congress closed its doors. But we simple consumers need to just keep borrowing money and consuming to keep the economy strong and if that means creating a government agency to create a theater show, then that's just what our government will do.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
... telling people to continue to go to work and not stop spending their money because we need to keep the economy strong. Of course, when an anthrax tainted letter was found in a congressional mail sorting facility, congress closed its doors.
Sadly, I think one of the best things you could do for the economy would be to get congress to run away more often...
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't doubt that the whole system isn't there to catch actual terrorists, but to simply condition the populace into accepting this kind of routine as a the standard quo.
I know people desperately want to see this as a subtle plot by hidden puppetmasters, but really, as with all conspiracy theories, Hanlon's Razor needs to be considered:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
The desire to seek explanations involving some controlling individual or group is as old as humanity itself. The vast pantheon of gods invented to explain the frighteningly random whims of nature bear witness to this. Unfortunately, that's simply not the way it is. Nature is implacable. Tornadoes and tidal waves are inevitable, as is stupid security theater. Security theater is itself a kind of appeal to "the gods" to keep us safe. The truth is, people are just plain fucking stupid, particularly large groups of people put in charge of something that can't really be prevented. Yes, they do think this is to "stop terrorists". It's not logical, it's just blind reaction. In its own way, this is actually worse than the machinations of a secret cabal, because there's no central controlling authority to expose and thwart. It's just a giant morass of human nature. Half the population has an IQ of under 100, and many of them work for the TSA. All we can do is keep explaining their error and hope they learn.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dammit!
To moderate, or post?!
Doh!
+1 insightful.
Or... Grey's law (Score:5, Interesting)
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Is it? How about kids being fingerprinted to enter Disneyland?
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/01/walt-disney-world-fi.html [boingboing.net]
http://disney.families.com/blog/disney-world-implementing-new-fingerprint-scanner-security [families.com]
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: (Score:2)
Inconceivable!
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that GrumblyStuff is responding to the AC calling Ironix a troll?
He shoulda used the quote to give his post some context. The AC is as much to blame for not following the thread as GS is for not being clear enough in his post in case someone didn't read the thread.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
Just fly first class. Use the steak knife.
OTOH - just what do you plane to do next chucko - stab your way into the cockpit cabin? The whole article is pretty inane - Real Terrorists(TM) don't wear Hezbolah T-shirts. It appears that the TSA crews that he encountered by and large accurately pegged him as a harmless goof.
Of course, these are largely the same group of fine folks that let my wife go through three checkpoints with a pair of bright orange, one inch diameter explosive flares that said "FLARE" in big black letters that were sitting in plain view in the mesh pockets of her backpack.
Sigh.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
No no, it all makes perfect sense. It's all about behavior profiling. You see, any terrorist will take pains to hide his activities. Therefore anyone who looks like a terrorist most certainly isn't one. Anyone who carries guns, bombs, or other contraband openly is by definition safe, and so doesn't need to be searched.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
So if I'm hypothetically waving around an AK-47 and saying "Allah is Great!", I'm just a funny goofball?
Re: (Score:2)
Now if you were saying Allahu Akbar instead of Allah is Great... then things might be different.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
Leave the Admiral out of this! He's a naval officer in a legitimately uniformed combat unit which limits its engagements to legitimate military targets (the possibility of contractors notwithstanding).
cya,
john
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, in your case, you don't even need the gun or the chanting ..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No no, it all makes perfect sense. It's all about behavior profiling. You see, any terrorist will take pains to hide his activities. Therefore anyone who looks like a terrorist most certainly isn't one. Anyone who carries guns, bombs, or other contraband openly is by definition safe, and so doesn't need to be searched.
That's a good theory but ... what if they know that we know they're trying to hide their activities? And what if we know that they know that we know they're trying to hide ... that means that they would have to try and hide ... because then we'd know they knew we knew they were trying to hide ... so they wouldn't bother. See? It's really simple when you sit down and analyze it.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly, I cannot drink the wine in front of you!
What's really funny is that I got modded Insightful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you gut the first attendant, while they are on the ground screaming in pain the other passengers will look on horrified and panic.
Kick the cockpit door in(there pretty easy) and make your demands, meanwhile your partner(s) also gut a few people to keep everyone in order.
Sound familiar?
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:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the one advance in security is not the door to the cockpit, it's the understanding on everyone's part that cooperating with a hijacker isn't in anyone's interest anymore, and the half a dozen guys (and maybe a few women) who will be beating the terrorist to a bloody pulp as the rest of the passengers applaud.
United 93 was a test. The next time, the plane won't go down while the bad guys get killed.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
United 93 was a test. The next time, the plane won't go down while the bad guys get killed.
Yep. Had to happen once, but won't happen twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
As a culture, we've pretty conclusively shown that we'd rather someone else do the dirty work. We'll see: it'll happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
who will be beating the terrorist to a bloody pulp as the rest of the passengers applaud.
Of course, what you're forgetting is that there's still the occasional hijacker who really does just want to fly to Cuba.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't something I have to worry about forgetting, it's something he better not forget. He's not going to make it.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
It's a moot point though: if you hijack a plane with a bunch of Americans on it now, odds are we're going to rip your head off and shit down your throat.
Re: (Score:2)
who will be beating the terrorist to a bloody pulp as the rest of the passengers applaud.
Of course, what you're forgetting is that there's still the occasional hijacker who really does just want to fly to Cuba.
Well, he should have thought of that before trying to hijack a flight out of the States, shouldn't he? :3
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how likely this is to happen. Think about it - we have a government that has systematically become of the most purposelessly invasive influences in our lives, that has routinely skirted the law, and routinely questioned the validity of our constitutional democracy - if we can't stand up to that by throwing out the yahoos in office who vote for this stuff, would they seriously be able to stand up to someone on a plane?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
voting someone out requires voting someone else in, and that may not be the best choice. There is also a level of abstraction to the conduct of our government in washington.
on the other hand, being confronted by someone who wishes to directly cause harm to you and those around you is not nearly as abstract, and doesnt have to be replaced with someone that you hope has better intentions. The jackass on the plane just needs to be stopped.
There are two types of free, I think there are also two types of sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard this as well. I also heard the cockpit door was supposed to stay closed the entire time of the flight, which is why I was dis-heartened the last time I was on a plain and I saw them freely opening the cockpit door.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And then you're trapped, and the passengers WILL start throwing punches. That's another post-911 lesson: I don't think anybody will let you ever hijack a plane, even if it's just going to land safely later.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
United 93 was the fourth plane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and don't forget the second advance. The FFDO program. (Commonly known as the "Guns in the cockpit program") By the time you get your second kick in on that door the pilot will be responding with a hail of bullets.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it does sound familiar, which is why it isn't going to happen. Because immediately after you gut the flight attendent, 200 people who don't want to be flown into a big building are going to jump you. Basically, any kind of "smuggle a knife on and seize the plane from all the cowering people" isn't going to work anymore, because people would rather take a chance on getting knifed, than be killed for sure in plane crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Just fly first class. Use the steak knife.
Never flown first class. Several times gotten steel knives. Sure, they were as un-sharp as can be, but even I could sharpen one in few minutes to be *very* sharp (with a "stone" or diamond sharpener).
The only time I was stopped was because I a "little" electronics, GPS, MP3, camera, razor, etc. and chargers & car adapter for most of those ...
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew a guy who worked airport security pre-9/11. One day they were running a security drill, and pulled him aside when he let a guy through the checkpoint with a two-piece rifle. Why did he allow him to pass? "Because it wasn't a working rifle. It wasn't put together."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what you get for trying to fly first class on Southwest. Real airlines still use metal knives. On Guard!
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that it has something to do with his focus on the human element of security. The fact that you can build a cryptosystem that the feds can't break on your own computer with free tools, a modest knowledge of c, and some acquaintance with number theory is pretty damn cool. The fact that your fellow citizens will cheer as the feds waterboard the key out of you really puts that in perspective, though. It is hard to be a cypherpunk utopian when less than 1% of the population can be bothered to follow a step-by-step FAQ to set up PGP, and even geeks respond to google's data mining of their email by telling you how nice the interface is. Techies can argue, correctly, that the great firewall or any other censorware is full of fairly pitiful holes. That doesn't change the fact that it puts up enough resistance(which isn't much) to keep 95% of china's equivalent of average Joe from trying to get past it.
In a way, I think that the cypherpunk ideal fell apart when they built it and nobody came. All sorts of strong crypto are available to everybody, for free, and aren't even all that much trouble to use. Almost nobody bothers, probably so few that those who do just stand out by doing so.
I don't like the idea; but I strongly suspect that Schneier's decline in inspiration has more to do with his assessment of the state of security than it does with any specific sellout.
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:4, Insightful)
Worse than that, it seems like anyone who knows anything about cryptography is automatically suspect these days. "If you have nothing to hide, then why do you need that"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse than that, it seems like anyone who knows anything about cryptography is automatically suspect these days. "If you have nothing to hide, then why do you need that"?
Sad but true. Of course, if people actually thought about this, they'd all have strong crypto. If the Feds grab your laptop, for example, they'll look for anything they can nail you on, "terroristic" or not. This confiscatory behavior on the part of the TSA is officially called "intelligence gathering" but what it really is is a widespread fishing expedition.
... would you really trust that machine to pass scrut
If any of you carry computers around with you that are used regularly by, say, your co-workers
Re: (Score:2)
that's because he's a security expert, not a political pundit. people turn to him for analysis & advice about security practices, not about political issues.
i think it would weaken his credibility if he tries to overstep the bounds of his expertise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree on one hand, but in a way I think that he is asking the TSA to do what I don't want them to do in many ways, which is behavioral profiling. This also does not work (at least has a very low specificity and sensitivity), and could make our lives a lot worse by harassment instead of uniform policies.
Stopping somebody because they are sweating is a bit ambitious, and is similar to what has been going on:
http://govtsecurity.com/transportation_security/TSAsSPOTunit/ [govtsecurity.com]
which is worse for most nerds. I am no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He rocks the boat...
And therin lies the fundamental difference between a noted expert in the Security field and the average joe. Bruce can and does rock the boat, where the average joes opinion would barely make a splash against the side of an inflatable raft.
While I agree there seems to be more grandstanding nowadays, if anyone is going to effect some level of change, the chances are far greater with his sig at the bottom of the Security report.
As with all things Security, it's always taken in baby steps unless something VER
Re: (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
Re:Schneier bothers me (Score:5, Informative)
They're not interested in catching terrorists Bruce!
He rocks the boat, but he never connects the dots.
Yeah, sure he doesn't.
That's why he says things like these:
much of our country's counterterrorism security spending is not designed to protect us from the terrorists, but instead to protect our public officials from criticism when another attack occurs. [schneier.com]
what I've come to call security theater: security primarily designed to make you feel more secure. [schneier.com]
lol (Score:3, Insightful)
"'But let this be a lesson for you.'"
Yes, the security checks are total bogus. Glad we have shown that in the open right now...
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
George Carlin had that nailed years and years ago when he said security is there to make the white middle-class feel safe. There is simply no way to make it safe, too many variables.
RIP George.
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not intended to make people safe or feel safe, that's just the excuse and the reason why the excuse works. Really TSA is just another step to reduce people's rights and move to a de-facto authoritarian state... Never doubted it, this story just proves it: they never even cared that it's effective to catch terrorists, nothing to do with that, just get people used to random unwarranted searches and seizures and arrests. It's the government and media that sucks up to it that keep people scared, keep them afraid, keep them in a state of terror... oh wait, isn't that what the evil terrorists are supposed to do not the government that "protects" from them? Does anyone even remember what does the word "terrorist" mean? Sorry for rent, it accumulates every once in a while...
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that any sort of argument? Planes weren't raining out of the sky before the TSA was around, or even before any security measures were being taken.
I will sell you this rock, it keeps tigers away....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Got cite? Wikipedia only lists 6 hijackings in the 1970s. Perhaps all these other ones weren't notable enough to list?
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.
It *is* good theater (Score:5, Interesting)
Obamaism (Score:5, Insightful)
When I went through at JFK and asked questions about why they were segregating my bag the supervisor came over and accused me of suffering from "Obamaism".
I complained and TSA dismissed my complaint that the supervisor was making a joke. Really? TSA thinks that a citizen asking about his rights is a joke? Really?
Re: (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.
Re:Obamaism (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but just how is carrying a 2oz bottle (what's that in real units anyway?) better for security than carrying a 3oz bottle of fluid ?
Technically, the TSA did its job right. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, they didn't arrest, because he didn't present a threat. And he didn't. So it's a bit difficult to say that the system failed, based on this story.
However, it's interesting to see exactly how little actual security there is at the airport. Bruce is right - the only thing new is better cockpit doors and passengers who'd rather die than get high-jacked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you knew that already. Everything Bruce says is common knowledge. Do you really need him to reaffirm it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly right. Bruce is missing something that he normally understands quite well. Security begins and ends with the individual. Anyone trying anything funny on an airplane for the next 30 years will immediately get swarmed by the rest of the passengers who won't give a shit for their own lives so long as they can prevent the terrorist from carrying out his plan.
There is no system or process you can build that is stronger or more robust than this.
Re:Technically, the TSA did its job right. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet we're wasting billions of dollars of our money building worthless systems on top of that. That's your money, and my money. I want it to stop. The best way to do this is to show how useless it is.
I think you misunderstand Bruce's objections. He does not simply object to the fact that the TSA is insecure. He objects to the fact that the TSA wastes huge piles of money, and those huge piles of money could be used for better things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Technically, the TSA did its job right. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. No he isn't. TFA directly quotes him discussing EXACTLY what you say he is "missing":
"'Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.'"
The point that you, and many others are missing, however, is a couple lines down:
"the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. 'Spend the rest of your money [elsewhere, for better effects.]'"
ie. The security of airlines is NOT at issue. The EFFECTIVENESS OF TSA, is. You would do better to save money by cutting back on TSA, and INVESTING it elsewhere. Elsewhere may be more maintenance on commercial jets, improving air traffic control, or perhaps even a few more air marshals.
TSA is wasting lots of money, needlessly hassling travelers, and for all that, there's no appreciable improvement in security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His conclusions are not original, and their is much he is missing, including the problems of identity matching that are at the forefront of much research in the area.
His conclusions aren't original, but somehow, even after five years of people saying, loudly, what totally irrelevant theater the TSA is, the TSA still has a budget of more than $5 billion. That's half as much as the government spends on "general science" research and twice what they spend on "energy" research. I suspect he'll shut up about TSA as soon as we stop wasting so much money on them.
For example, you still seem to be missing his entire point. Solving "the problems of identity matching" won't ma
Re: (Score:2)
the only thing new is better cockpit doors and passengers who'd rather die than get high-jacked.
Which is all we need. I want my pocket knife back.
Re: (Score:2)
Printable single page version (Score:4, Informative)
Whom does this surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
You would think that if it were effective, they would be capturing people with provable ill intent. And you'd further think that if they did this, they'd want to tell th e world, loudly! After all, they could justify their own existence that way.
Yet somehow, we haven't heard of one Mighty Terrorist being caught by TSA. ONe must assume that this is because they are not /being/ caught. So... if TSA is not catching terrorists, what the hell are they doing?
The sole purpose is to make people feel protected (or violated, depending on your perspective). There's a sizeable portion of the population who feels reassured when senior citizens and soccer moms get pulled out of line for a closer search.
Land of the free.
Right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer: Lots of people.
It's the sad truth. I mean, when you think about it, these practices got put in place by people who thought it would be a good idea (for whatever reason). There are also lots of people who just buy in to the security theater of "Oh, they check my ID, so that must filter out the terrorists" that hadn't ever looked at the policies from this point of view.
Common sense isn't very common.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The security didn't catch this guy, and the passengers subdued him. I'm a little confused as to your point.
Re:Whom does this surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
Q: Why did the [nation X citizen] sprinkle salt on the road?
A: To keep elephants away.
Q: But there are no elephants in [Nation X].
A: See, it's working!
Maybe instead, the drop in hijacking attempts means that potential hijackers who aren't suicidal terrorists (historically, the bulk of hijackers) have figured out that attempting to hijack a plane these days is effectively suicidal because the non-hijackers in the plane will mob you with no concern for your welfare. A free plane flight to Cuba just isn't worth the risk because the odds of success are so low. Knock over a [place of business] for funds and arrange proper transportation (though Mexico or the Caribbean) instead.
Apparently hijackers have a better feel for the actual risks in hijacking than the sheeple like you. The first thing I remember saying when I found out, after the fact, that planes had been hijacked and crashed into the WTC towers was "That'll never happen again". That was clear no matter what the TSA did.
The best we can do (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the current state of airport security is just that - the best the agency can do, with it's current resources, budget and enormous demand for speedy throughput.
I myself have pondered the possibility of some kind of conspiracy, but all I'm seeing is an outdated, overwhelmed structure under a lot of pressure.
This is a very difficult problem to solve:
- fast processing of people
- spotting potential threats with minimum resources
- overstretched, tired, worn-out employees
- far from state-of-the-art equipment
- unbeliavable throughput
If the throughput is 1/100 of the LAX or JFK demands, then maybe it would be possible to look at each passanger, "check in" with them, evaluate their level of nervousness, clothing, carefully check for tell-signs etc.
With 1 second per passenger that's impossible and the best an agency can do is issue blanket policies including racial/name-based profiling, travel patterns, databases of destinations etc. and hope for the best.
I truly believe that the security policies are not an adequate protection. I don't think that's by design, rather a limitation of the design.
No conspiracy theory here, just lots of frustration with what I perceive as needless delay and inconvenience, bordering with disrespect and abuse in some cases (large-scale profiling and temporary detention of people entering the US etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
In short, I think there's a lot of fear behind the policies, and not enough intelligently focused resources which ought to be a solution.
Being rude and abusive to passengers it not a necessary part of enforcing security.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the current state of airport security is just that - the best the agency can do, with it's current resources, budget and enormous demand for speedy throughput.
I agree that actual proper security isn't viable given the resources available, but the current state of affairs is far from "the best the agency can do." Currently the security system wastes millions of dollars and costs travelers massive inconvenience and countless hours of time all to create the illusion of security. I agree that real security in the airport may be more or less impossible, but the best the TSA could do would be to get rid of all the completely ineffectual security and stop wasting mill
Re:The best we can do (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the current state of airport security is just that - the best the agency can do, with it's current resources, budget and enormous demand for speedy throughput.
Sure it's the best they can do. The point, though, is that the best they can do is COMPLETELY ineffective -- and yet they still spend $7B per year doing it. Why?
Suppose you had <insert incurable disease>, and I told you that for $10,000 per year, I would sell you a cure.
"Does it work?" you ask.
"No," I respond "but it's the best anyone can do."
Would you buy it? Or would you spend your $10K on something else that actually gives you value?
Re:The best we can do (Score:5, Insightful)
This is total bullshit. You're making the common mistake of examining their current budget, their current results, and assuming that achieving more results would require either more money or less speed.
This is simply false. It is false because it overlooks a simple fact: the current use of the budget is horrendously inefficient. In other words, better results can be achieved without making things slower (and indeed, while making things faster) on the same budget.
Most of what the TSA does is useless. Eliminate that, and suddenly you have a bunch of free money sitting around and people going through security faster. Take that money and put it into things that are actually useful. Now you have faster, better security for the same amount of money.
Why doesn't this happen? Mainly because this better security would be a lot less visible. This makes moron travelers feel less safe (even though they are actually more safe) and opens bureaucrats up to blame in the event that someone gets through it. All rationality flies out the window in the ceaseless finger-pointing that follows any failure, and the vast majority of bureaucrats are far more concerned with protecting their own asses than protecting the country.
So what if he had terrorist propaganda? (Score:5, Insightful)
The flag features, as its charming main image, an upraised fist clutching an AK-47 automatic rifle. Atop the rifle is a line of Arabic writing that reads Then surely the party of God are they who will be triumphant. The officer took the flag and spread it out on the inspection table. She finished her inspection, gave me back my flag, and told me I could go. I said, "That's a Hezbollah flag." She said, "Uh-huh."
Correct me if I am wrong, but all the TSA crew are meant to watch for is if you are bringing anything onto a plane that could then be used to bring it down or hijack it.
Propaganda on the other hand cannot possibly bring down a plane from the sky, and it is surely protected to some extent by freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hasn't stopped them before. [aclu.org]
Theater to test theater? (Score:2, Insightful)
Shooting fish in a barrel? (Score:2)
Jeffery is missing something here... (Score:2)
Bruce says the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Much of the article talks about someone not getting things that are not illegal to fly with confiscated. He makes a big deal about carrying a flag. The screener looked at the flag. It wasn't confiscated. BIG DEAL. It isn't illegal to carry a flag on board. He wasn't arrested for ripping up paper in a bathroom. BIG DEAL. It isn't illegal to rip up paper in a bathroom. He wasn't stopped for wearing a teeshirt.
He starts out by saying he was doing things that terrorists wouldn't do, and then complains because he wasn't questioned about doing those things.
Then the "saline solution" hole. Yes, every time you create exemptions from rules you create loopholes for bad guys to get through. Thanks for advertising the saline solution loophole, I'll remember it. Do you think that the TSA screeners should be testing fluids for what they are? There are an awful lot of different things, and any false positive is going to be lept on as another example of TSA stupidity while some poor schmuck is detained for nothing.
So, a terrorist who isn't stupid steals a credit card and buys a ticket under someone else's name. He prints a fake boarding pass with his real name (?) to get past TSA. Then he uses the original pass to get on the plane. We're told that this hole can be closed by simply checking the names at the time someone gets on the plane.
Uhhh, hand raised here. Question? If a terrorist is smart enough to steal a credit card with someone else's name to buy the ticket, won't he be smart enough to get a FAKE DRIVER'S LICENSE WITH THE SAME NAME so he can get past your new, stricter policy? You haven't closed the triangle at all. You've just made everyone feel more secure when they aren't. That's the game you are complaining about.
Hey. Every security measure can be bypassed by someone intent enough on doing it. TSA didn't find some of the things this guy was carrying that he shouldn't have been. Gee. Humans aren't perfect. Combine that and the ability to bypass anything, of course you get the logical result that we might as well not do anything to stop people from taking whatever they want on board.
Re:Strictly speaking the system worked (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It's trivial to get around airport security.
2. Everyone knows this.
3. There hasn't been any hijackings.
Therefore:
4. There is no-one attempting hijackings.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like we didn't already know the whole damn thing was a charade in the first place.
And I can't know what was "proved," but I can certainly conjecture that he's temporarily made things worse for the rest of us.
Once the eager beavers in security get wind of this little tale, you may rely upon the fact that they're all going to see to it that they never get singled out for being unacceptably lax on the cattle they process for a living.
Great.
Just what I wanted.
More damn bullshit going th
Re:Strictly speaking the system worked (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They used to check you ID both before you enter security and at the gate (and when checking in bags). A couple years back they dropped the gate check and now they only check it before the security line. They mark the boarding pass at security but it's not like a retarded five year couldn't copy that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the exact opposite in my experience flying domestically in Canada over the past few years: only the boarding pass is checked at the security line; the personal ID (driver's licence, etc.) is examined at the gate.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Informative)
Don't some of our TV programming and films make it over the border? After seeing those, are you surprised to see U.S. government and industry collaborating on something that's kind of stupid?
They check ID against your boarding pass at security. They don't (at least here in the U.S.) check either against the "no-fly" list, at least for domestic flights. (IIRC I did have to zip my passport over a reader on flights to Japan, and I'm presuming that it checked me against the list.)
You buy a ticket with a fake name, say "Omar K. Ravenhurst" [westnet.com], and stolen a credit card number. The ticketing system finds no "Omar K. Ravenhurst" on the no-fly list, so lets the transaction through,
With a little PDF manipulation, you print out a boarding pass for "Omar K. Ravenhurst", and one for your real name, "John Smith".
You show the "John Smith" ID and boarding pass at security, then the "Omar K. Ravenhurst" boarding pass at the gate. You're allowed on the plane. and the party starts.
Or heck, you show the "Omar K. Ravenhurst" pass at security, and claim to have forgotten your ID. They let you through, just like they let through the author of TFA. You're allowed on the plane. Hilarity ensues.
Or you do what many 19-year-olds do every day and get a fake ID and match it up with your stolen card number. It's not like terrorists can't counterfeit ID cards, or get "genuine" ones from the DMV with fake birth certificates or by bribing an employee. (And "REAL ID" bullshit won't much change that.)
Or you do what many of the actual 9/11 terrorists did and use your actual goddamn ID, because the odds are damn good that you're not on the list anyway since this is your first suicide hijacking...
Re:3 steps to happiness (Score:4, Funny)
2. Begin to exhibit religious zealotry
3. Prophet?