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

On the other hand

[overshoot]

There's no limit to the amoung of thermite you can carry on, and no limit to the amount of calcium carbide.

Just to name two.

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:On the other hand

[AK Marc]

If I were a terrorist, I'd set a bomb off in security (one of the large, dense open ones, like Denver). Then, one week later, set off a bomb at crowded check-in lines. Then 6 days later, check a bag through and set that off on a 15 minute timer ( no casualties, but will shut down most airports as they can't move baggage without the machinery that would be damaged by it). Then, 4 days after that, set off a car bomb in 5 airports at once in the drop-off or pick-up areas.

That should just about shut down all large airports in the US, and those that jump when they think the US might ask them at some point in the future to jump (UK/OZ, I'm looking at you). Modify the plan as reactions happen (i.e. delay the schedule if all airports are shut down). That would bankrupt all US airlines other than Southwest and Alaska, unless the government moves itself closer to bankruptcy with bailouts.

The US is pretty delicate, more delicate than Americans would acknowledge, and so it would work because they wouldn't see the results from it coming.

This is why TSA kicked him out of testifying

[DCFusor]

For congress, and they were, as usual, too spineless to tell the TSA to take a hike. After all, it's congress who spent all that money to line Chertoff's pockets (guess who makes the useless scanners now), and they didn't want to look bad for it - hearings are just photo-ops for the next election, to give the appearance of "doing something" when of course, the only thing going on is bribes and blackmail. Ever notice how DHS gets every excessive dime they ask for? Well, I know if I had warrantess wiretaps and all that kind of thing, the first thing I'd do is get the dirt on congress for future blackmail. This would occur to any bureaucrat in a few seconds. So you have to assume that's why these agencies never get seriously questioned about their ridiculous antics and waste, eh?

Re:This is why TSA kicked him out of testifying

[Anonymous Coward]

They are creating fear in order to gain more power. People are willing to give-up their rights to any politician claiming to protect them.

Fear is the mindkiller.

Re:This is why TSA kicked him out of testifying

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress is NOT SPINELESS!! And neither is the president..

They are corrupt. It's a big difference. But regardless of what they are, they are a perfect reflection of the voting public.

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:This is why TSA kicked him out of testifying

[spasm]

No congresscritter or international equivalent wants to be Michael Dukakis and have her or his arse handed to them in the next election when a single Willie Horton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton) makes it onto a plane and does something Bad.

It's politically far safer to support any level of nonsense security theater and be able to say "I supported every effort to prevent this tragedy" after the inevitable next Bad Thing than stand up and actively support even the sanest reductions in security theater because the inevitable next Bad Thing will still happen and your political enemies will have no problem turning it into your fault.

For the non-Americans, Michael Dukakis was a governor of Massachusetts who stuck his neck out and supported a fairly common-sense program for giving prisoners coming up to the end of their sentence short periods of furlough as part of efforts to support reintegration into society. Willie Horton was a prisoner who absconded while on furlough and later raped someone. When Dukakis ran for President in 1988, Republicans ran attack ads against Dukakis featuring Horton and his crimes as a consequence of Dukakis' 'soft on crime' approach.

Re:This is why TSA kicked him out of testifying

[10101001 10101001]

I like to think of it this way. America likes to think of itself like it's Charlie Brown*. In reality it's Peppermint Patty**.

*As much as Charlie Brown is treated as a punching bag and is self-deprecating, it appears the world is set against him. He is the underdog who is too worried at times about going too far and hence is wishy-washy, but in a crisis he'll rise up as the natural leader and do the right thing.

**Peppermint Patty is obnoxious, self-centered, and quick to lay blame upon others. Yea, everyone is in love with you, even when they don't even know you exist or love someone else. Golly, you're bossing people around all the time towards your own ends, but why does it seem like some people think you finally deciding to hold yourself back a bit is too little, too late? Oh, sure, you can be the leader, but if things get tough, you want to push the actual responsibility, concerns, etc on someone else. Or you can just ignore that there's any sort of connection between your orders and the implication that they'd actually deal with a problem by actually effecting it in a positive way.

PS - Yea, yea, I've watched too many Peanut specials. I still like them though. I just don't like the idea of living them.

The Winner:

[Anonymous Coward]

(from http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/823)

Adam Barnes
March 30, 2012
Adam Barnes

Our debate has now ended and those supporting the motion—that changes made to airport security since 9/11 have done more harm than good—have won handsomely. ...
Voters have roundly declared that the frustrations, the delays, the loss of liberty and the increase in fear that characterize their interactions with airport-security procedures vastly outweigh the good these procedures achieve. For some, indeed, the benefits are essentially non-existent: any sensible terrorist can find a work-around or choose a different point of attack, as Bruce Schneier explains. And so the widely expressed hope is that changes made to security in the (near) future will make the whole regime less reactive, more rational, more flexible and more intelligence-driven. The results of this debate suggest that these changes should be made with some urgency: passengers are angry.

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.

Leave the TSA alone!

[girlintraining]

They're in the business of making passengers feel safe. Passengers like that. They'll gladly suffer through free prostate exams if it means they can sit comfortably on the flight, believing they won't be one of the next set of 9/11 martyrs.

And it's a popular product: Look at how many people fly. If people didn't like the product, they wouldn't buy it. So whenever someone says "Ah! They're taking away their civil liberties!" ... Well, yes, but that's no worse than you forcing your own beliefs on them that they shouldn't be able to buy free prostate exams.

At the end of the day, you can only be responsible for your own behavior: These people aren't being forced to board a plane at gunpoint. They wllingly accept what the TSA is doing, regardless of whether or not it is necessary.

If you want the situation to change: Don't fly. Let the airplanes rust in their hangars. Let the corporations go bankrupt one by one. The TSA is only allowed to live by the patronage of the passengers. No passengers = No TSA.

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[icebraining]

Of course, that assumes the TSA will remain restricted to airplanes...

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Willingly" is a pretty tough argument to make.

If I have to fly to a wedding or for business, I have no choice. Many destinations are reachable by air only, or would involve something like a 48 hour round trip drive.

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.

Re:Leave the TSA alone!

[Chris Burke]

They'll gladly suffer through free prostate exams if it means they can sit comfortably on the flight, believing they won't be one of the next set of 9/11 martyrs.

No, we suffer through it because we want to be able to visit our families and not spend most of what little vacation time we have travelling.

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.

Well, yes, but that's no worse than you forcing your own beliefs on them that they shouldn't be able to buy free prostate exams.

You mean my belief that we could have airline flights -- the thing everyone actually wants -- without the prostate exams?

Oh, and on the subject of prostate exams: they aren't that far yet. But after making you take off your shoes after the Shoe Bomber, and making you get your crotch photographed after the Underpants Bomber... You just wait until the Butthole Bomber shows up. Then it'll be put-up or shut-up time.

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."

we can't AFFORD the TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clearly ineffective, but never mind that: we don't have the money for it. In case we haven't noticed, we're spending 1 point some odd TRILLION more every year than we take in.

Unfortunately, like most large bureaucracies, the TSA is self sustaining. It work hard to justify itself, despite never having caught a single terrorist in its entire existence. Replicate that to hundreds of other useless federal agencies, and you have a government that far overstepped the bounds of what it's supposed to be for, and now exists to give jobs to the phone sanitizers (RIP, DA) of our country.

Yet Americans will cheerfully keep voting for Republicrats, no matter what they do, so I guess the TSA is what we deserve. You get the government you deserve, they always say.

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.

[hawguy]

I cannot speak for others, but I have stopped flying.

If it means I get an empty middle seat between me and that fat lady with the perfume, I sincerely thank you.

It is my fond hope that your decision not to fly is taken up by a wide majority of Americans.

Be careful what you wish for...empty seats are only temporary... If demand decreases, airlines will cut back on scheduled flights (or plane size (or both)) to eliminate as many empty seats as possible.

Unlike a hotel that has a reason to keep occupancy below 100%, an airline is happiest when occupancy is at 100% (and the only way to get there is to sell 105% (or more) of the seats)

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.

[tragedy]

I don't mind seeing bomb-sniffing dogs in major rail stations, because that makes some sense.

It makes sense only in that someone might try to bomb all those people concentrated together in the rail station, but no more sense than in any other place where there are a bunch of people standing around. Preventing bomb attacks on trains (or buses, or any other form of ground transport) by inspecting passengers makes no sense whatsoever. Things that travel on the ground don't need to be attacked from within by passengers. Someone who wants to bomb a train doesn't need to sneak a bomb onto it, they just need to walk up to the tracks when the train is coming and drop the bomb on the tracks. Or they can skip the bomb and derail the train by attacking the tracks with hand tools, etc. If they want to hijack a train to hold everyone hostage, they can force it to stop and board it. Same things apply to buses. Anyone can drive up in front of a bus and drop a bomb from a car, or run the bus off the road with a larger vehicle, or point a gun at the driver and force them to pull over, then board it, etc. Screening passengers makes zero sense in those situations.

For planes, at least it makes some sense. Planes are fast. It's not exactly trivial to catch up to them in mid-air to board or attack them. The pilots can't just pull over and stop anywhere, either. To hijack a plane without being on it when it takes off, you have to have a pretty impressive plane yourself. Hijacking a plane in mid-air from the outside doesn't make any sense anyway since, if you had the resources to do it in the first place, the only thing you'd need would be the passengers and, unless there were specific passengers you were after, you could just start your own airline, load up your own plane, then kidnap those people in mid-air. So, for planes, at least there's some security excuse for screening passengers like that. For ground transportation, it's just stupid.

Re:I stopped flying.

[ATMAvatar]

Interestingly, that would mean that the TSA has indirectly caused more deaths since 9/11 than the terrorists caused during 9/11.

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.

Marvelously versatile

[overshoot]

Thermite makes a wonderful toothpaste...

Actually, by itself it's a powder mix. It's convenient to add a liquid binder to make a paste for easy application but it can also be pressed with any of several other binders into any number of solid forms. Plaques, for instance, to be awarded at a conference. Carry on 20 kg of award plaques and Security might ask to see them but they won't blink at you carrying them on. The rest is obvious to any sophomore engineering student.

And TSA knows about these [1], but since there's no practical way to screen for them they just hope that the Bad Guys are too stupid to bother with a sure-fire way to remove planes from the sky.

[1] And many, many others. Ask a sophomore engineering class to come up with methods and you can have hundreds. Fortunately, Bad Guys are never geeks.

Re:Marvelously versatile

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, Bad Guys are never geeks.

Osama Bin Laden had a degree in Civil Engineering[1]. Al-Zawahiri is a surgeon[2]. The guy who tried to drive into Glasgow airport in a flaming Range Rover was a medical doctor. There are plenty of chemists and engineers who pop up all the time from inside the various Islamist terrorist groups.

[1] Reportedly
[2] Ditto

Re:Marvelously versatile

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Engineers are overrepresented among terrorists. Perhaps you can convince one that he'll get 70 especially attractive virgins if he repairs your sarcasm meter and then achieves martyrdom.

Re:Marvelously versatile

[superdave80]

Osama Bin Laden had a degree in Civil Engineering[1]

Yeah, but the old joke goes:

Q: What is the difference between a civil and aeronautical engineer?

A: An aeronautical engineer builds weapons. A civil engineer builds targets.

Osama was the wrong type of engineer to be a terrorist!

Re:Marvelously versatile

[jc42]

And Mohammed Atta, the leader of the World Trade Center attack team, had a degree in architecture. I've seen this factoid used to explain that the attack wasn't actually an act of terrorism; it was an act of artistic criticism. Atta was destroying what he and many others considered the ugliest blot on the New York City skyline.

Re:Marvelously versatile

[ozmanjusri]

Perhaps you can convince one that he'll get 70 especially attractive virgins if he repairs your sarcasm meter

Virgins on Slashdot? How likely is that?

Nope, still not working.

Re:Marvelously versatile

[PCM2]

Too soon.

Over a decade later is too soon? OK, I guess I'll switch to Pearl Harbor jokes.

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:One thing to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a decent attempt at a sensible explanation. Unfortunately, you're wrong.

I know something about this incident. It was quite simple. The security guard was pissed off - he had been in an argument with his boss earlier - and was looking to take it out on someone. He picked a teenager with a T shirt which had a picture of 'Optimus Prime' on it, and told him to take it off, simply because it looked flashy to him. There was not even any concern about the fact that all 'Transformer' robots hold a gun initially. The issue about the gun was raised later because the family made a fuss, and they were looking for a retrospective excuse. Of course, at that stage, all the guards stuck together and ordered the family off...

The point here is that, in the West, we have appointed people to 'look after us' and 'tell us what to do' in every conceivable activity in life. And a large portion of the people who apply for these jobs are assertive bullies. You can see it everywhere - people telling us what to eat, how much we should exercise, what kind of sex is legal... And when they run out of sensible things to tell us, they just start to make it up...

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.

The lab called

[overshoot]

Your sarcasmometer is overdue for calibration.

Re:The lab called

[Cajun Hell]

Oh, a sarcasmometer, that's a real useful invention!

Too Late... well, maybe.

[dfenstrate]

Of course, that assumes the TSA will remain restricted to airplanes...

I present to you the TSA VIPR program.

Note how it consists of some Mall Ninja acronym/name, like the murderous "Fast and the Furious" program put on by the justice department and ATF clowns.

The reason I suggest it might not be too late is because they pissed off Amtrak by molesting train passengers (leaving the train, no less), and were banned from Amtrak property for a while (still?).

So, at least a government-sponsored entity is willing to tell these jack-booted thugs to go pound sand.

Re:Too Late... well, maybe.

[sunwukong]

China, which has a far superior train system, has airport like security at its stations.

For some reason, though, I've found the Chinese security even at airports to be much more reasonable and even helpful compared to the NA variety, e.g.

guard: What's in your pocket?
Me: My hat.
guard (double take): But what's THAT?
Me: A banana.
guard: (laughs and waves me through)

Mind you, it's funnier in Mandarin.

What's the defense against body cavity explosives?

[hawguy]

The TSA guy said that by preventing terrorists from using complicated liquid explosives, they have to move to more exotic explosives. Ignoring the very porous security perimeter of an airport (many tons of airline parts and supplies are trucked in every day, there's no way to inspect everything), what's going to keep a dedicated terrorist from using old fashioned C4 explosive hidden in an obvious body cavity. I've seen enough internet porn to know that with proper training and motivation, a quite sizeable chunk of explosives could be hidden within the body. With surgical help and no desire to stay alive for more than 12 hours, I suspect that even larger portions of explosives could be hidden within the body.

Bravo, Mr. Schneier.

[jcr]

He's doing a marvelous job of systematically shredding the bullshit that the TSA is trying to sell.

-jcr

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.