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.'"
Israels airport security has not been breached since the 70's
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html
"All passengers waiting to check in speak to a polyglot agent. The agents, most of whom are female, ask a series of questions, looking for nerves or inconsistent statements. While the vast majority of travelers pass the question and answer session and have a pretty easy time going through security"
This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Nope this is America they will just increase the penalty for this sort of thing and/or legislate it away.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"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."
"I see your prohibition is against 'liquids'. Can I carry ice onboard?"
The agent didn't know. Asked his supervisor; she didn't know.
And if he does, does he prefer Dos Equis?
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'
between 2 percent and 5 percent of travelers get singled out for additional screening. The exact selection criteria aren't publicly available, but ethnicity is probably a consideration [...] Secondary screening can involve hours of questioning. Agents have been known to click through all of a traveler's digital photographs. Body searches are common, and agents usually take luggage apart one item at a time.
This does not sound better. Just racist, inefficient, and highly subjective.
Yeah, really, I've been badmouthing the TSA since before it was cool.
I also happen to be really into this band, but you wouldn't have heard of them.
Security isn't very good at the White House either:
Citation:
Ozzy Osbourne, from the biography "I Am Ozzy"
Good article, but then...
I read the comments after it.
What was I thinking?
You probably heard them when you were visiting your girlfriend in Canada.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
The terrorists have already won. FTFY. They have caused a state of irrational fear. They have changed the lives of every single American alive. They have cost us in the lives of American soldiers in a pointless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have spent BILLIONS on these wars. They have caused us to spend BILLIONS of dollars in an largely ineffective program of trying to reassure people that they will be safe. While we may not be able to say that they have destroyed our economy, I think that it's a pretty safe bet that a good part of the reason for our current economic stress is either directly or indirectly related to this. One good example is the airline bailout following 9-11. Our Constitution has been gutted and people's rights have been trampled into the ground.
IMO, the real terrorists now are the war contractors, our elected officials and the fucking sheeple who put them there.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Regarding incidents of mass shootings, i.e. Columbine and Virginia Tech, a gun enthusiast said all these places are "gun free" zones. He said more and more states are removing gun bans on various places because places that allow conceal carry never had mass shootings. Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry, then whenever or whereever a madman shooter goes wild, other people (students and teachers) can pull out their handguns and waste the perpetrator. This seems to be the most ridiculous form of security but mentality of people of this country are all going nutzoid these days. Like using logic that there were "no terrorist attacks" in the 1800s (there were but were called something else).
mfwright@batnet.com
I burn my tongue every time I eat pizza... I always eat it before it's cool.
If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, imagine the REAL number of lives that would have been saved.
If this same funding had been applied to highway traffic safety, then highway speeds would be a maximum of 35 mph, TSA employees would be touching the undercarriage of your car at every on-ramp, and people would want to fly everywhere, even for a downtown commute.
I've heard good things about the Venezuelean security screeners (I think it was Venezualean, I heard about it second-hand) ... maybe it was just a single case, and not the way it's all done, but rather than the 'standard 3' we used to get asked (did you pack your own bag, etc.), they'd ask questions like 'What's the color of the inside of your suitcase?'
They were presenting at a conference, and the screener (coming in at customs), asked them to give the presentation to them. If it's someone claiming to be visiting as a tourist, you ask them what hotel they're staying at (and you can check the reservation), and what sites they plan on seeing.
I admit, it's possible to be prepared for all of these questions ... but when they're less predictable (giving the screener the ability to improvise), and it's not just yes/no questions, it's harder to plan for.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
It is interesting on the power of words. By adding a term calling it "Security Theater" it basically puts an end to the argument because the phrase is so catchy that it must be true.
Or just by using a negative connotation to a concept is enough to get people to change their mind.
I have learned to turn on my BS alarm when people start using words that give an emotional response. And challenged them much further to prove their point. Sometimes they do have a point, but using wording in your argument to evoke an emotional response isn't a valid argument.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I was feeling really paranoid [...] Ozzy Osbourne
Oh really ?!
Yeah, because the people who passed the PATRIOT Act weren't appealing to our emotions!
The argument was that we (the US) spend a lot of money on a security force that is practically ineffective, and is therefore "just for show." TFA was able to support this argument, IMHO.
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
and, the most bizarre thing of all: you fly a private plane, there are no security checks whatsoever. and you can take off from the *very same airport* too!
you don't have to own a plane to do this, just rent one.
it's more expensive than just buying a flight ticket, and private planes are smaller too - but if you're a person valuing comfort, it's not unreasonable.
or if you want to fly a plane full of explosives into a building, you can still cause a lot of damage... oh, and you don't have to hijack it, as you're already in the pilot seat to begin with...
You are right. Words have power. To be able to talk about something, you need words for it. You could try describing what you mean, but the problem is you'll always be side-tracked.
If you start describing the ban on bringing coke-bottles onto planes, you'll end up discussing if that particular ban (the ban on fluids) makes sense or not. While perhaps interesting, this is a different discussion from the one about security theatre. By using the phrase, you can talk about the general concept: security-measures that are very visible, and frequently annoying, while having questionable impact on actual security, without getting into specifics about precisely *which* policies you consider to be security-theatre.
Similarily, if you want to discuss the problems of excess political correctness, you cannot do so by using a single (or multiple) examples of silly statements that you consider to be PC-nonsense, because doing so would have a near-unity chance of derailing into a discussion of your particular example as opposed to the general tendency.
Other examples ? racist (1871), sexist (1965), prude (1704), apatheist (new, not found a definitice source for first appearance), shill (1916), fundamentalist (1920), neocon (1979 neo-conservative, a decade later shortened)
Each of these words are useful, because they let you talk of a phenomenon (or an ideology or idea) as a whole, without needing to resort to explaining-by-example, which has a huge risk of turning into a discussion about the example instead of discussion about the phenomenon.
Security theatre is well-defined, the meaning of the term is clear, and it describes a tendency that it's useful to be able to talk-about. As such, there's no reason to be skeptical of the word just because it evoked an emotion in you. (I bet "shill" and "racist" also evokes an emotion, they are still useful words though)