Aviation Security Debate: Bruce Schneier V. Kip Hawley (Former TSA Boss)

Fluffeh writes "A nice summary at TechDirt brings word that Bruce Schneier has been debating Kip Hawley, former boss of the TSA, over at the Economist. Bruce has been providing facts, analysis and some amazing statistics throughout the debate, and it makes for very educational reading. Because of the format, the former TSA administrator is compelled to respond. Quoting: 'He wants us to trust that a 400-ml bottle of liquid is dangerous, but transferring it to four 100-ml bottles magically makes it safe. He wants us to trust that the butter knives given to first-class passengers are nevertheless too dangerous to be taken through a security checkpoint. He wants us to trust that there's a reason to confiscate a cupcake (Las Vegas), a 3-inch plastic toy gun (London Gatwick), a purse with an embroidered gun on it (Norfolk, VA), a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it (London Heathrow) and a plastic lightsaber that's really a flashlight with a long cone on top (Dallas/Fort Worth).""

Comments

Schneier

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Schneier sent the Kipster off, wearing his arse like a hat.

Too bad that the "reality-based community" is attached to persuasive argument, reason and evidence. Those are now the desperate hopes of the powerless.

You see, they'll be doing whatever they want to you, anyways.

Re:Schneier

[siddesu]

To be fair, Kipster never stood a chance in a fact-based argument and probably knows it well. What Schneier says is true - TSA, and the whole security theater is just a CYA operation with some budged to dispose of to friends, and is defended mostly by interested parties to an emotionally involved audience.

But the theater is also there because most of the US public think they can afford it and that it is very visible and looks impressive. In a way, this is similar to the US carrying 25,000 nuclear warheads at the peak of the Cold war, although 3000 were more than enough for adequate retaliation threat. I guess you can call it demonstration of prowess, and it seems it is at least as important as effectiveness to many.

I stopped flying.

[OFnow]

I cannot speak for others, but I have stopped flying. Period. Instead we drive where the distance is reasonable and simply don't go many places we once went. So the argument that 'people are flying anyway, the security theater must be ok' is weak as the number flying might be much higher. Not that airports have the capacity for more air travel anyway...

Re:I stopped flying.

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot speak for others, but I have stopped flying. Period. Instead we drive where the distance is reasonable
and simply don't go many places we once went. So the argument that 'people are flying anyway, the security theater must be ok' is
weak as the number flying might be much higher. Not that airports have the capacity for more
air travel anyway...

Actually, one of schneier's points is that this effect has caused some 500 deaths in road accidents per year. I have not read the book he cites as a source for this number...

Re:I stopped flying.

[dkleinsc]

So have I, including being willing to spend about 5 days and a not-insignificant amount of money to travel from Ohio to California by rail. Which I consider to be a small price to pay for not having my rights trampled.

Especially because rail travel is rather fun if you do it right. Sleeper cars are basically moving hotel rooms, meals are included, and you can hide in your room or try chatting in the lounge depending on your willingness to get to know complete strangers. I've met some interesting people on trains, including a nun in a spiritual crisis, a guy who was a well-known campaign adviser in Texas, some ardent Tea Partiers, Boy Scouts heading back from hiking trips, etc. And you also get a real sense of how big the United States really is, and all the variety of landscapes in it - I was thinking of Woodie Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" along much of the ride.

Of course, the TSA now is trying to get into the business of searching rail passengers and creating highway checkpoints so that those of us who don't want to be searched without probable cause can't avoid it. I don't mind seeing bomb-sniffing dogs in major rail stations, because that makes some sense. But what doesn't make sense is trying to take away any object that could be lethal - as George Carlin pointed out, you probably could beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times.

Re:I stopped flying.

[shadowofwind]

I frequently travel between California and Ohio also, but can't afford the time for a train.

I took a steel mock-up of a bomb on an airplane once, on the way to a data collection at Fort Irwin. TSA didn't even ask to open the bag. But they confiscated one of my drill bits on the return trip.

Re:I stopped flying.

[jovius]

Found from the comments of TFA: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1107.pdf page 158

Researchers have estimated that the 9/11 attacks generated nearly 2,200 additional road traffic deaths in the United States through mid-2003 from a relative increase in driving and reduction in flying resulting from fear of additional terrorist attacks and associated reductions in the convenience of flying.

Original source: Garrick Blalock, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Daniel H. Simon, “Driving Fatalities After 9/11: A Hidden Cost of Terrorism,” Applied Economics, Vol. 41, No. 14, 2009, pp. 1717–1729.

Good to see my old boss in the news

[ackthpt]

Kip was a decent boss at Skyway, too bad they didn't say 'No' to the jerks who bought out the company and ran it into the ground, while skimming money off the top, every stinking month.

One thing to consider

[PPH]

a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it

TSA agents are probably on a level with mall cops. Or lower. Some analyst probably evaluated the possibility of taking over an airliner with a fake gun. One way to slip a fake gun onto an airplane would be to make a cardboard replica that could be folded flat. With a couple of photos of a real gun affixed to the sides, and a terrorist waving it and screaming and the flight crew could be fooled. So a regulation was created to prohibit photos of guns. Now, if you explained that to a logical person, they could easily distinguish between a t-shirt print and a full sized side view of a semi-auto. TSA agents aren't hired for their judgment, but for their ability to follow rules. Simple rules. So the rule 'no pictures of guns' will be interpreted literally. And this will cover everything, including an image of Elmer Fudd with his double barreled shotgun.

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[Anonymous Coward]

We no longer visit the United States. Instead, we go to other parts of Canada or to Mexico or to Europe where, each year, we drop 2-3 K dollars for holidays. Grabbing my nutsack and/or pushing me into a microwave oven isn't exactly what I would call laying out the welcome mat. That's why we don't go to the US anymore. Oh well, lots of other places to see in the world.

The USA is on my no-fly list

[Anonymous Coward]

(Not that that list was anything but a mental list, nevertheless)

I live in switzerland, and for the last three years I've traveled to america every year for a conference. This year I decided to go to a european conference instead, for the sole reason of TSA, Security Theater and having to essentially waive all my rights(!) just to be allowed to enter the country.

While I'm only one person, flying only once per year to america, I wonder how many others did the same.

Re:The USA is on my no-fly list

[overshoot]

While I'm only one person, flying only once per year to america, I wonder how many others did the same.

Add me to the list. I used to rack up about 50,000 frequent flyer miles a year for conferences and business in general. In the last six years I've flown a total of twice, and if I have to do it again I'll drive or (maybe) take a train. SF is only a long day's drive from Phoenix anyway and I have family at about halfway.

With retirement coming up I may never fly again.

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[Anonymous Coward]

--- Hasn't flown since 9/11 - never intend to again. I also never intend to go to Disney as long as they use fingerprint scanners at the entrances.

Re:This is why TSA kicked him out of testifying

[steelfood]

I guess somebody took a play out of Hoover's book. It took the disgracing of Nixon to break that cycle of power grab and blackmail the last time around. If only people actually could get a clue from history...

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[0111 1110]

Would you rather drive for 48 hours or be raped? I prefer to only have my knob polished by attractive females, and I prefer not to have my anus or ass crack or even my scalp explored by curious, impatient, eager fingers. I honestly don't understand people who are willing to be sexually violated in order to avoid losing a few hundred dollars or being seriously inconvenienced.

It brings to mind that joke about Winston Churchill and a socialite:

"Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
"My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose I would."
"Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
"Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
"Madam, we've already established that. Now we are just haggling about the price."

Re:On the other hand

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Terrorists" aren't even trying. There are so many things I can think of to wreak havoc on an airplane flight, I can't even begin to count them. And why the obsession with airplanes, when travel is the least of the things that could be disrupted?

The only answer is that these people lack will, intelligence, or both. Because if they really wanted to, they could turn the USA upside down a different way every day of the year. Such is the leverage that any average citizen has over the forces of Nature these days.

We should be grateful, since very few of us in the so-called Land of the Free are really prepared to do what it takes to remain free as an everyday civil effort. You can see that by the simple fact that the TSA is little less than a Terrorists Surrogate Army - doing more to affect our freedoms than all the hijackers al-qaeda could manage to recruit.

Speaking of leverage.

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[pla]

Obviously if my dislike of TSA policies doesn't overcome my love of my family, there must not be a real issue to begin with. That's logic.

Actually, yes. I agree with you completely in spirit, but as long as enough of us keep putting up with it by flying rather than either driving or skipping the trip, we have passively given our personal (and financial) standing ovation to the current security theatre system.

You want to make a difference? Make the process take as long as possible (if you really must fly). Insist on a pat-down over the pornoscanner. Deliberately set the metal detectors off with harmless-but-embarassing (for the agents) personal items... Like nipple rings. Make sure that you can take a later flight and it won't make much difference - And let the government molesters know as much. Bring a variety of items with you (of no real personal value and that technically pass TSA rules) that will confuse the hell out of them as to whether or not you can take them through security (hint - TSA agents know nothing about electronics - Try taking an old video card in your carry-on and watch them twitch).

The problem there, it annoys all the sheep who just want to get hurry up and get groped so they can visit Grandma. If enough people actually cared enough to act, instead of bitch, just 10% of us holding up the screening process could bring commercial aviation in the US to a screeching halt. Instead, the very, very few of us who do care simply get pulled to the side to enjoy the accusatory glares of our fellow travelers.

Baaaa!

Structural solution

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

> more intelligence-driven

An Israeli expert suggested separating risk assessment from implementation. A simple organizational change, but it would mean that the TSA could no longer expand its empire by exaggerating risks.

Re:Marvelously versatile

[David Gerard]

You joke, but this is literally the case. I can't find the link, but a lot of terrorists basically don't have a life, and getting them one actually breaks up the group. This was tried on (IIRC) the Black September group.

Re:Marvelously versatile

[David Gerard]

Found it! It's from All You Need Is Love: How the terrorists stopped terrorism in The Atlantic. Their own generals wanted to break up Black September, but couldn't come up with a way to get these ridiculously dedicated terrorists to stop:

My host, who was one of Abu Iyad's most trusted deputies, was charged with devising a solution. For months both men thought of various ways to solve the Black September problem, discussing and debating what they could possibly do, short of killing all these young men, to stop them from committing further acts of terror.

        Finally they hit upon an idea. Why not simply marry them off? In other words, why not find a way to give these men -- the most dedicated, competent, and implacable fighters in the entire PLO - a reason to live rather than to die? Having failed to come up with any viable alternatives, the two men put their plan in motion. ...

      So approximately a hundred of these beautiful young women were brought to Beirut. There, in a sort of PLO version of a college mixer, boy met girl, boy fell in love with girl, boy would, it was hoped, marry girl. There was an additional incentive, designed to facilitate not just amorous connections but long-lasting relationships. The hundred or so Black Septemberists were told that if they married these women, they would be paid $3,000; given an apartment in Beirut with a gas stove, a refrigerator, and a television; and employed by the PLO in some nonviolent capacity. Any of these couples that had a baby within a year would be rewarded with an additional $5,000.

        Both Abu Iyad and the future general worried that their scheme would never work. But, as the general recounted, without exception the Black Septemberists fell in love, got married, settled down, and in most cases started a family...the general explained, not one of them would agree to travel abroad, for fear of being arrested and losing all that they had -- that is, being deprived of their wives and children. 'And so', my host told me, 'that is how we shut down Black September and eliminated terrorism. It is the only successful case that I know of.'

That was the view from the inside, dunno how it squares with your knowledge. But that's the source I had, for what it's worth.