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.'"

Comments

Get a clue Big Sis

[koan]

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.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.

That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[Overzeetop]

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.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[bill_mcgonigle]

This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.

And now that they're unionized, good luck with that. When was the last time we saw government voluntarily reduce its size and scope?

The only way this is going to be fixed is by wiping out the whole department. There's a primary coming up a candidate who would do that.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[ColdWetDog]

I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.

That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.

Part of security is intimidation. If you don't think you can breach the defenses and don't try - that's a win. But trying to use Israel as an example of 'how to do' airport security will fail for the simple reason that the Israelis are trying to protect only one large airport (Ben Gurion) - not hundreds of large ones and thousands of smaller ones. Some things just don't scale.

Further, Israeli security is openly racist -if you look Arabic, you're chances of getting most carefully screened is much higher than if you're Caucasian appearing. That wouldn't (so to speak) fly in the US.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[AngryDeuce]

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).

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[CohibaVancouver]

It does strongly prejudice against people who are from and/or have traveled to particular countries

Exactly right. I'm as WASP as they come, and I was pulled aside at Ben Gurion when my passport showed entry visas for Egypt and Jordan. While the questions were very serious, at all times I felt like I was dealing with an intelligent, skilled professional whom I immediately respected. I have no such sense when I'm being barked at by some TSA goon.

Re:Get a clue Big Sis

[hawguy]

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)

Dwight D. Eisenhower quote

[FudRucker]

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."

Re:Good.

[Jawnn]

"...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."

How to befuddle the TSA:

[Entropius]

"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 the reason why, for better or worse

[daveschroeder]

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'

Re:Oh man..

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Good.

[Cosgrach]

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.

Re:Oh man..

[unrtst]

I burn my tongue every time I eat pizza... I always eat it before it's cool.

Fight fire with fire

[colinrichardday]

Yeah, because the people who passed the PATRIOT Act weren't appealing to our emotions!

Re:provide conceal carry?

[oodaloop]

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.