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."
"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.
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'
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"
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?
I burn my tongue every time I eat pizza... I always eat it before it's cool.
Logic goes that if anyone is allowed conceal carry,...
No, the logic goes that people who are planning to shoot up a bunch of people are not going to be deterred by the fact that some place is a "gun-free" zone. As a matter of fact, that makes that place a better choice for shooting up a bunch of people because you know that no one else there will be armed. The argument is that these places should allow those who have been granted a concealed carry permit (a process that usually involves some evaluation of the mental state of the individual and whether or not they have a history of encounters with law enforcement) because then not everybody there would be solely a potential victim.
Of course, the big part of this argument comes from the stories very few people hear of where someone tried to shoot up a place where there were people carrying concealed weapons. Within six months of the first Virginia Tech shootings there were two or three similar attempts that did not make the news because the shooter only got off about six shots before someone with a concealed carry license pulled their weapon and shot him. The thing is, every time someone tries this in a "gun-free" zone, there are a lot of deaths, every time someone tries this where someone is legally concealed carrying there are at most three deaths (two victims and the perpetrator).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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.
Yeah, because the people who passed the PATRIOT Act weren't appealing to our emotions!
Agree on all points. Additionally, crimes that were averted with the mere flashing or drawing of a weapon do not get reported either. A woman getting raped and beaten is newsworthy and sensationalist. A woman pulling a gun defensively on someone trying to rape her wouldn't even get reported to the news let alone aired; too common and boring. I carry concealed, as do many of my friends. One of them was approached by several hoodlums. My friend pulled his vest to the side to show his pistol, and they walked away. How many times this kind of nonviolent preemptive defensive use of a firearm occurs is anyone's guess.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.