TSA's Sloppy Redacting Reveals All

A travel blog breaks the story of a poor job of redacting by the TSA: they posted a PDF of airport screening policies, with certain sections blacked out — not realizing that simply laying a black rectangle over the text is hardly sufficient. Cryptome has posted a copy with the redaction removed (ZIP).

Comments

Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[JoshuaZ]

I know people who work in the US government. As I understand it, when releasing material that is partially blacked out, in most departments the procedure is to simply black it out on a hard copy and then photocopy the hard copy or scan it if it is to go online. This removes any chance of clever ways of getting the data if there's something about the file format or such that is strange. I don't see why the TSA wouldn't do the same thing. Moreover, isn't the fact that you can do this with PDFs well known? I've even seen it used as a way of covering up spoilers. What were they thinking?

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[Reason58]

I don't see why the TSA wouldn't do the same thing.

For the same reason they make you take your shoes off? For the same reason they have so many ineffective security policies that busy airports often have security checkpoint lines containing more people than a plane, which makes for extremely easy bombing targets (no security!)? Clueless, inept, and there to absorb money and power.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[JWSmythe]

    It's not clueless and inept. It's the illusion of security. Take off your shoes. Put your liquids in a clear bag. Stand here while we do a cursory search of your carry on luggage. It's to make the general population *FEEL* secure, not to actually secure them. Have you looked in their trash bin of confiscated items? It's all stuff that wouldn't sell at a yard sale. Their "explosive" detectors are a joke. And backscatter xrays? I went through one. Because of the way my shirt was sewn, it looked like I was wearing suspenders. 15 minutes to explain that it was just a shirt. How about recent tests where only 25% of the tests done passing obvious dangerous items (bombs, knives, guns, etc) through security were caught?

    They still allow objects with more serious potential through. A laptop as a blunt force instrument? The potential energy stored in a laptop battery? The RF radiation created by handheld electronics? The fact that a highschool football player could overpower the flight crew and air marshals? They worry about that tube of toothpaste. What if 100 of the tickets for a flight were booked by terrorists? Good luck for the rest of the passengers to overpower them.

    But, the people demanded higher security, so they get the illusion of higher security.

    Now, take off your shoes, and play along with the security theater.
 

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[JoshuaZ]

Security theater isn't inherently bad. People get scared very easily. We could say "sure, we've added in some minor stop gaps but the main result is that we hope if you get hijacked you'll do your patriotic duty to stop the hijackers or barring that bringing the plane down. And bombings? We aren't very concerned about them. Such events have been very rare for a long time." People wouldn't respond rationally to that. So instead we add steps that are ostentatious and feel like security. The result is people behave more reasonably and use airplanes they wouldn't otherwise do so. This is a cynical but strong argument for security theater.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[furball]

Obviously the solution is a security line for the security line. That way the security line can't be bombed. Duh.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[JWSmythe]

    No, your views aren't cynical. They're realistic. Unfortunately, we (the gov't with our tax dollars) are spending so much to enhance the illusion, that could be better spent elsewhere. But, the TSA isn't going away any time soon, and "security" measures will continue, even though they are entertaining at best.

    I had a nice talk with a TSA agent once. I had time to waste, and he was going through the drill. It was obvious that he understood his job was just to maintain the illusion. We both understood that if air travel is the path of most resistance, a real terrorist would choose the path of least resistance. There are so many options, and even in a total police state those methods wouldn't be fool proof. Consider the underground movements during WWII in Europe. Even in occupied cities with Axis troops on every corner, the resistance was able to not only subvert their security by moving people in and out, but they were able to stage resistance attacks (as we'd now know as terrorist attacks). But as it goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[LordLimecat]

Most people at airports dont seem afraid, or reassured, they tend to simply be irritated at what the average citizen can recognize as silly and ineffective.

I dont know what part of the population the TSA hopes to fool, but its not the majority.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[MartinSchou]

Have you looked in their trash bin of confiscated items?

This bit actually says it all.

1) You're not allowed to bring liquids above a certain quantity for fears it might be part of an explosive device
2) Throw said components into an open trash can
3) Repeat 1 and 2 until you hit critical mass
4) Throw an igniter into the trash can
5) Big boom

When's the last time you saw the police or military treat a package like that, when they suspect it might be an explosive? It never happens. They take very serious steps to prevent injuries, going as far as blowing up small bags of bikinis.

But at the airport, where you have hundreds of people standing in line, you're supposed to just toss it all into an open container next to the line. Security indeed.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[Jbcarpen]

I'd like to point out that a Terrorist (in general) deliberately targets civilians. If someone is claiming to be a Freedom Fighter they had better be taking steps to ensure that their targets are military in nature. If they target civilians out of choice, then they lose the right to claim freedom fighter status (doesn't stop them from claiming it anyway, but they're just deluding themselves.)

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[Uberbah]

I'd like to point out that a Terrorist (in general) deliberately targets civilians.

If they aren't targeting civilians, they aren't terrorists. Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon? Not terrorism. Flying a plane into the Pentagon? Not terrorism (though it was for the folks on the plane). Bombing the U.S.S. Cole? Not terrorism. Attacks on military installations and personnel is not terrorism, it's an attack on the military.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[Uberbah]

Even though I don't agree with the stupid security "measurements" taken, this is just absurd and not particularly well thought through.

You shouldn't throw stones....

It takes a very, very small bomb to kill the same amount of people once they are on the plane.

Hardly. Planes are designed to withstand heavy weather and have redundant systems. Carrying a large bomb into a long security line is trivial. Carrying a bomb onto a plane large enough to hit the fuel tanks, the cockpit or severely damage one of the wings is NOT trivial.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[meringuoid]

If they target civilians out of choice, then they lose the right to claim freedom fighter status

In such a campaign, who's a civilian? Are informers considered civilians, or can the Resistance shoot them? Are collaborators considered civilians, or can the Resistance intimidate or terrorise them to discourage working with the enemy?

I'm pretty sure the French Resistance did both. So did the IRA.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[Richard_at_work]

Aircraft are designed for stresses in particular ways - apply stresses in other ways and its easy to bring down the plane.

You don't have to hit the cockpit, fuel tanks or wings - you simply have to disrupt the fuselage structure itself, which is actually fairly trivial to do. Once the fuselage structure has lost integrity, there is no aircraft.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[QuantumG]

There's always one. "Hey everyone, I'm so stupid that I don't even understand how to keep my stupidity a secret."

Ok, I'll try to explain this really simply to you.

1. There's more people in line at the checkpoints than there is on a single plane because there's more than one plane at the airport and the checkpoints take so god damn long.
2. The mythical* terrorists can make those lines even longer just by sending people in to fool around at the checkpoint.
3. People are made of squishy stuff, and are therefore easy to explode.
4. Planes are made of metal which is much stronger than people, so they are harder to explode. And before you mention fuel, the fuel is inside the metal.
5. There's no checkpoints to get to the checkpoints, so it's easier to attack the big mass of people before the checkpoint than it is to attack the small masses of people after the checkpoint.

* All of this is so damn obvious that the only sensible conclusion is that there are no terrorists trying to blow up airports in the US. Further evidence of this is that, in countries that actually have suicide bombings, attacking checkpoints is exactly the strategy they use and, as such, checkpoints are designed to keep people moving through them as fast as possible.

Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this.

[Phylomo]

Awesome branch on this thread. So many people don't know the difference. "Terrorist" designation comes from tactics, from choice of targets, NOT from motivation. Your examples, merinquoid, point out where the line is fuzzy. Another example: PLO suicide bomber attacks against an Israeli military checkpoint? Not terrorism. PLO suicide bomber attacks against a school-bus full of children? Terrorism. PLO suicide bomber attacks against adult Israelis, all of whom might be armed and capable of defending themselves? Civilians, but civilians who view themselves as an extension of the military? Maybe terrorism, maybe not. Certainly an attack that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves against, but maybe not terrorism. (Thanks, jbcarpen, uberbah and merinquoid)

Re:why are they so scared about xray monitors?

[frdmfghtr]

First guess, they don't want the "terrorists" to see how good/bad the x-ray devices are.

Second more cynical guess: Xray machines are mostly useless and the TSA doesn't want the public to realize it's a bunch of voodoo?

Perhaps it a privacy concern between whomever owns the bag being scanned and other members of the public.

Silly

[QuoteMstr]

Here are typical examples of redacted paragraphs:

Ensure TSOs do not handle explosives, incendiaries, or weapons if such items are discovered during the screening process.

D. Whenever a Threat Image Projection (TIP) enabled x-ray is unable to detect 28-gauge wire at Step 10 on the Test Step Wedge, discontinue use. The STSO must immediately notify TSA management.

An airport assigned LEO (if available), STSO, or designated TSA representative clears the individual after inspecting his or her badge, credential, and Government-issued photo ID, and if flying, his or her boarding pass and Notice of LEO Flying Armed Document.

Aircraft operator flight crewmembers in uniform, with valid aircraft operator employee identification, are
exempt from the Unpredictable Screening Process and restrictions involving liquids, gels, aerosols, and footwear. Aircraft operator flight crewmembers in uniform, designated as selectees, are not exempt from the requirements regarding liquids, gels, aerosols, or footwear. Any alarm of the aircraft operator flight crewmember's person or accessible property must be cleared.

On what planet is it necessary to keep facts like these secret?

The TSA redacting process

[MosesJones]

This clearly comes from the people who thought up my favourite piece of brain dead "security" from the TSA

When you enter the line to the security gate a TSA numpty checks your boarding pass to make sure you are allowed to join the line. Everyone joining the line has their boarding pass checked, this is a piece of paper often printed on a computer that says what flight you are on, its just about the easiest thing to fake in the history of fakery.

Then you lob everything into the x-ray machine, clearly needing to separate your laptop out as clearly its impossible to see stuff through that. Shoes of course, belts, internal organs...

Then as you step through the body scanner some TSA numpty says "boarding pass please". Pointing out that you've just put all your crap through the machine and that your boarding pass is with your passport and your wallet is of course pointless. The answer... wait until it comes out of the machine and then show the numpty. you are of course also checked at the gate with both passport (hard to fake) and boarding pass (trivial to fake).

So in otherwords the TSA check TWICE a piece of easy to fake information and NEVER check your ruddy passport.

So how did the TSA redact this PDF. Well simple they had the same process. The first person pasted on the black squares. This was then printed out.

The first checker then looked at the printed out copy and said "looks fine to me"

This document was then scanned in and then printed again to be checked by a second checker who said "yup all okay"

And then they put the ORIGINIAL electronic copy on line with the pasting over the top.

The TSA is to security what Micheal Vick is to Pet Care

WWII terrorism : Who wrote the history books ?

[DrYak]

Most people would not call the attacks of Germany and Britain on each others civilian populations during WWII "terrorism", even though the blanket targeting of civilian populations did occur (ie. the bombing of civilians was not an accident, or "collateral damage", it was a deliberate act designed to kill and undermine moral).
Why was the bombing of civilian cities (those with no or little military infrastructure) during WWII considered valid, and yet now is considered "terrorism"?

Well from a purely theoretical point of view, these bombings (and also the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were *indeed* perfect example of the definition of terrorism (killing civilian target for the sole purpose of undermining the moral), even if they were done by government instead of some rebel groups.

But now you see, with wars done by governments, the small difference is that the winners get to write the history books. And if they choose to call their deeds as "glorious acts of democratic resistance against the evil empire of dumb-stupid nazis" instead of "acts of terror to break the enemy's morale", so be it.
And that's how some doctrine like "Shock and awe" are born.

In an alternate reality where the American economy had collapsed, giving a chance to Afghanistan to actually win the war, you know how the books where going to describe this conflict.

Re:One interesting redacted section

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Then why isn't Saudi Arabia on that list?

Re:One interesting redacted section

[thisnamestoolong]

Mod parent up to +11 Insightful -- the ONE major terrorist attack that precipitated all of this nonsense was perpetrated by Saudi nationals, yet they are not on this list of nations? That list has no place being in existence, but if it is to exist, it is psychotic to not include Saudi Arabia.