Slashdot Mirror
Vanity Fair On the TSA and Security Theater
OverTheGeicoE writes "Perhaps it's now officially cool to criticize the TSA. Vanity Fair has a story questioning the true value of TSA security. The story features Bruce Schneier, inventor of the term 'security theater' and contender for the Most Interesting Man in the World title, it would seem. With Schneier's mentoring, the author allegedly doctors a boarding pass to breach security at Reagan National Airport to do an interview with Schneier. 'To walk through an airport with Bruce Schneier is to see how much change a trillion dollars can wreak. So much inconvenience for so little benefit at such a staggering cost.'"
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
"...but if we don't grope your junk and seize your nail clippers and mouthwash, 'the terrorists win'. Don't you see how important it is to make it look like you are safe from a terrorist threat? Never mind that the likelihood of it actually touching you is infinitesimal, or that you have given up, probably forever, precious civil rights. We need to make you feel safer. This is our job."
Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense.
After witnessing enough conversations about how TSA is worthless, or worse, yet another part of an effort to acclimate hapless Americans to living in a police state, I think it's valid to consider the reasons for even "appearances" of security, and I'm glad this article laid them out clearly. Even appearances can be a deterrent.
The other points in the article are also valid. I believe we need to ask ourselves the question that if at least some amount of "theater" is appropriate, what is that amount, and what would the damage been to the air transport sector if nothing (visible) had been done? Note I don't pretend to know the answer.
Some say that money might better have been spent "educating" people why such security measures don't work, so they won't be a afraid when they don't see it. That's a task far easier said than done. Alongside the constant drumbeat in some circles that the government is out to get them, it's important to understand there are actual legitimate reasons for things the TSA is doing, seen and unseen.
None of this means that our homeland security efforts should be exempt from criticism or thoughtful scrutiny, but it needs to be done against a backdrop of reason.
Interesting semi-related story:
Skies Are Now So Safe on U.S. Flights That Experts Turn Focus to 'Surface Threats'
The risk of terrorism is simply not severe enough to warrant that level of investment in security. We will save more lives focusing on clean drinking water, renewable energy, and public health and welfare in general. It would be a lot cheaper too.
If the TSA is ineffective, don't be surprised. It's not intended to be effective. It's intended to be profitable for well connected individuals and corporations. It is quite plainly a fraud on the American people.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes, but they live directly adjacent to everybody who wants to kill them (and, in the immortal words of Tome Lehrer - "...and everybody hates the Jews"). We're separated from them by a ocean on each side.
Not that it matters; I haven't heard of security screenings preventing a bomb from getting aboard a US aircraft, and yet we've had several bombs on them since 2001. Luckily, the passengers now understand that the "sit quietly and we'll land in Cuba and be home in a couple days" paradigm for hijacking is no longer valid. If a passenger gets rowdy, you take him down or you might die. And, so far, it's working pretty well.
A simple metal detector and carry-on x-ray is all that is necessary.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There's a big difference between profiling someone that's acting really weird at an airport and profiling someone by assuming that, for instance, they're Hispanic and therefore should have their immigration status checked anytime they come into contact with a police officer.
If there's reasonable suspicion I'm all for investigation. What I'm not all for, for instance, is assuming that every woman wearing a hijab is a potential terrorist and thus warrants investigation based on that fact alone.
Reasonable suspicion is a grey area, I admit, but that's what the courts are for. The courts have emphatically upheld that simply being of a certain minority is not a valid reason to suspect they are breaking the law. Despite what you may hear as of late, all Muslims are not terrorists.
Why do people never learn? Go read up on Manzanar and the Japanese Internment during World War II. That is the road profiling leads us down. They thought they were doing things in the best interests of the U.S. and its security, too...but it was still wrong, and we can all agree on that (I would hope).
Yeah, because the people who passed the PATRIOT Act weren't appealing to our emotions!
You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?
Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).
You might eventually figure out how to scale the Israeli model to the US size .... but at what cost? How much do the Israelis pay per passenger? And what would it cost us?
Don't forget the most important question: is it worth it? Does the expenditure match the threat? (the answer is no, btw).
You'll get no argument from me that it's not worth the effort, but if we are going to spend the money anyway, I'd rather that we spend it on something that works. I'd rather that we went back to the old days of metal detectors and random searches to help deter the casual criminal from doing something stupid. It's nearly impossible to deter a determined suicide terrorist, especially if he's willing to hide his explosives in a body cavity.
Even if passenger screening was 100% effective, there are still many many ways to sneak something past security. All you have to do a bribe one security employee at one small commercial airport anywhere in the country and you can bring in anything you want and transport it to any airport. And I'm sure you can find at least one employee willing to accept $10K to smuggle in some "drugs", especially if he's addicted to the drugs he thinks he's smuggling. He doens't need to know that the 2 kg of "cocaine" is really high explosives.
Or you hide it in a truckload of maintenance supplies. Or a caterer tucks it inside of a beverage cart. Or the bomber decides it's not worth the effort to smuggle his explosive on a plane and detonates his suitcased sized bomb in a crowded security checkpoint. Or, who knows how else they will do it - the problem with airport security is the same as computer security - the security is always reactionary and is only effective at stopping yesterday's attack there will always be new and novel ways to execute an attack. (and sometimes the security wastes time and effort to stop an attack that can't work anyway, like the ban on water to stop an improbable binary-explosive that would have to be cooked up in a lab on the airplane)