Schneier Has Something Good To Say About Airport Security

Bruce Schneier points out on his blog a proposal to use electronic randomizers at airport security checkpoints. Schneier writes there: "I've seen something like this at customs in, I think, India. Every passenger walks up to a kiosk and presses a button. If the green light turns on, he walks through. If the red light turns on, his bags get searched. Presumably the customs officials can set the search percentage. Automatic randomized screening is a good idea. It's free from bias or profiling. It can't be gamed. These both make it more secure. Note that this is just an RFI from the TSA. An actual program might be years away, and it might not be implemented well. But it's certainly a start." In this case, the proposal is for randomizers that direct passengers to particular conveyor-belt lines for screening.

Comments

Same in Mexico.

[icebike]

Nothing new here.
Had the same experience in mexico a dozen years ago.
Red light or green light.
But back then, there was a guy standing on a switch could just flex his knee to make additional selections if you looks particularly shady.

Re:Same in Mexico.

[Em Adespoton]

I'll take the bait. Ever been to Nigeria?

There are Christian Extremists just like there are Muslim Extremists -- and there are Hindi Extremists as well, for that matter. The rest of the logic is left as an exercise for the reader.

Vancouver (YVR) has something similar

[KPexEA]

You stand on a mat and it directs you to one of three different security lines, presumably to randomize the screeners incase you have one on your payroll.,

Common sense is not bigotry

[SuperKendall]

just functioning brain cells and a lack of bigotry.

It's not bigotry to pay more attention by behavior profiling and using a little common sense rather than blind rule following.

Behavior analysis is free of racial implications.

Meanwhile "The Randomizer" pulls aside a four year old while letting through some sweaty guy with the shakes and an oddly bulging coat.

Re:Common sense is not bigotry

[Col. Bloodnok]

I think Schneier wrote about this in 'Beyond Fear'. A book which I think should be required reading for all politicians and policy makers.

The security staff in Israeli airports are trained to look for people 'acting hinky' - they have years of experience in this and an excellent record.

The Taliban in particular are not above using innocent women or children as remotely detonated 'suicide' vest victims - sometimes willing, but often not.

There is nothing preventing a mixed approach. Randomise searches by all means (I agree with Schneier, it can't not improve security), but you need the human behavioral analysis to bolster this for better security - that analysis is best done by trained professionals, something which the TSA are currently, not.

Re:Is there evidence that profiling is not effecti

[cffrost]

Is there evidence that profiling passengers based on appearance and behavior is not more effective than randomized screening?

Yes. MIT published a paper entitled "Carnival Booth" that demonstrated that random screening is more secure than profiling, essentially due to the latter's vulnerability to probing:

Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System

A Lay Explanation of the MIT Research Paper [Carnival Booth]

Schneier on Security: Profiling

Proxy bombs are also difficult to screen for with profiles.