Schneier Talks to the Head of TSA

Bruce Schneier recently had the chance to sit down with Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and discuss some of the frustrations travelers experience head-on. "In April, Kip Hawley, the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), invited me to Washington for a meeting. Despite some serious trepidation, I accepted. And it was a good meeting. Most of it was off the record, but he asked me how the TSA could overcome its negative image. I told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that. He did enjoy writing a guest blog post for Aviation Daily, but having a blog himself didn't work within the bureaucracy."

Comments

Re:Ask him...

[yaphadam097]

The TSA is not responsible for the no-fly list. They only enforce it. Your question should be directed to the FBI. Specifically, a little known office called the TSC. http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_02 46.shtm

Re:Doing their job?

[Puff of Logic]

Pilots can only work a certain number of hours per month (I forget if this is an FAA rule or just part of their collective contract). It's due to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) which are very specific as to how many hours may be flown in a given time period, how many rest hours are required, and so on. Some airlines really push the line though (even to the point of breaking the FAR) by doing things like assuming any time the pilot isn't in the cockpit is "rest" time, including travel to-and-from hotels. Pilots, predictably, don't find these antics amusing and thus serious tension arises between airline management and the line crews. Union negotiation is often seen as the only protection that crews have from these practices, although pilot unions aren't exactly popular either.

Re:thanks for saving me the trouble

[AeroIllini]

Football mum goes in the queue with a bottle of water. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether she was a threat or not.

Terrorist goes in the queue with a bottle of clear liquid that will blow up an aeroplane. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether he was a threat or not.

You go in the line with a bottle of clear liquid that is innocuous, but incidentally happens to react with the clear liquid the terrorist was bringing. They take away the bottle, toss it into the trash, it leaks...

BOOM.

In a busy terminal full of people.

The fact of the matter is, if there is the SLIGHTEST bit of suspicion that a container contains liquids which are a danger to the people around them, then proper handling procedures must be followed, including isolation and proper disposal. The fact that they're not checking for threats is not the point... the point is they are tossing potentially explosive liquids together in a standard trash can in a terminal full of hundreds of people. If the liquid wasn't potentially dangerous, then why do they take it away?