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

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: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.