Slashdot Mirror
TSA Paid $1.4 Million For Randomizer App That Chooses Left Or Right (geek.com)
An anonymous reader writes: For those of you who have traveled through U.S. airports in recent years, you may have noticed the Transport Security Administration (TSA) use a Randomizer app to randomly search travelers in the Pre-Check lane. The app randomly chooses whether travelers go left or right in the Pre-Check lane so they can't predict which lane each person is assigned to and can't figure out how to avoid the random checks. Developer Kevin Burke submitted a Freedom of Information Act request asking for details about the app. The documents he received reveals the TSA purchased the Randomizer iPad app for $336,413.59. That's $336,413.59 for an app, which is incredibly simple to make as most programming languages of choice have a randomizing function available to use. What may be even more intriguing is that the contract for the TSA Randomizer app was won by IBM. The total amount paid for the project is actually $1.4 million, but the cost is not broken down in Burke's documents. It's possible IBM supplied all the iPads and training in addition to the app itself.
The question is whether it is truly random or not. If they spent $1.4M and got a truly random result, fine. It's absurdly pricey, but it works. If they spend $1.4M and got the rand() function, then terrorists might be able to exploit it to escape random searches.
"as most programming languages of choice have a randomizing function available to use"
You mean has a psudo-random function that is not that hard to predict.
Casino Level Randomization is a little harder.
I know you're being silly on purpose, but would a true randomizing device really be necessary? Human traffic patterns already have such a random element to them that even if one somehow could reliably predict the next number in the software algorithm, there are so many other factors that can't be controlled that it's still essentially random anyway.
I honestly could see it being in the low five-figures to develop such an application, but that money would mostly be applied to figuring out how to design the user-interface of the application such that it best-fits with how the TSA is *supposed* to operate, and in beta-testing to confirm that it does what it's supposed to do and that any untrained TSA agent down to the junior-assistant-trainee who breathes with his mouth open could use it and understand it, but mid-six-figures is pretty ridiculous.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
ZOMG $1.4M for an app that randomizes a single bit!!! (*)
* Note that it may have actually been $1.4M for hardware, training, and app.
Seriously, how fucking asinine are these clickbait articles getting? If you can decisively say that they charged $300k+ or $1.4M+ for an app that simple, do so. Otherwise you're just full of shit.
He means precisely instances like that.
The problem is, that what he proposes, is more of this... He proposes that more of the country should be privatised, because "businesses can do it much more efficiently".
The correct solution here was not to get any business involved at all, because as soon as you do that, they try and make a (huge) profit out of it. The correct solution was instead to get a software engineering intern on the government's payroll to write this app in one day.
Are you selling it to the federal government? [YES]
Is a random number generator used in the product? [YES]
Is the product intended for a security application? [YES]
Requirement: The Random Number Generator be CAVS certified to SP800-90A and the module within which is operates be FIPS140-2 certified.
That's $100,000 before you've got out of bed, to meet the government procurement requirements.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It's possible IBM supplied all the iPads and training in addition to the app itself.
I know it is fun and easy to criticize the TSA, and I am in favor of replacing them entirely with any of a dozen different possibilities. That said, there is a big difference between developing an app and supplying hardware and doing testing and training. I could build the app but I have no idea what the cost would be to test it sufficiently to meet government standards, then train the staff to use them, then equip the staff with hardware to use it. The cost of the app could literally be $0 and still top $1 million after the testing, training and equipment costs.
Someone else pointed out this is typical clickbait. It's got a shocking headline but then scant details on what actually caused the scenario. If they'd instead said "TSA has IBM develop an app that IBM contributed for free in exchange for exclusive rights to train staff for $10/hr each on how to handle customer service. Additionally, IBM will supply sufficient devices to have a minimum of two for each airport line at 5% profit per device" then the headline wouldn't generate nearly so much interest and the criticisms would be much better founded.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the bureaucracy that guides the TSA spent far more than is reasonable. I just didn't see enough details in TFA to assume that is actually the case. Does *anyone* have a breakdown on what kind of training, what kind of testing, what kind of devices were purchased?
I have a system that is:
- Analog
- Does not require electricity
- Durable
- Ambidextrous
- Gender neutral
- Made in the USA
Training video here: http://putlocker.is/watch-goin...
Dear Mr. Sexconker,
We are in receipt of your case of 2000 (two thousand) manually operated analog cupronickel randomization discs. We admire the evident durability and domestic origin of your product, and initial testing proves that the sequence of flips is suitably random. In addition, we are confident that your training video can be developed into a course that our agents will be able to complete in about six months.
Unfortunately, your product does not meet the contracted criterion of gender neutrality. Al of the "heads" depicted are male.
Yours,
Monroe Fnord, Technology Director
Transportation Security Administration
Department of Homeland Pork, Transportation Pork Administration
Why is Snark Required?
"IMO the gaps between the rationals are small enough that it doesn't matter if you can prove this for irrationals"
Excuse me, but your opinion is wrong. Rational numbers are said to be sparse in the real number space. For the argument see "Lebesgue Measure." As for why there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers see "Cantor's diagonal argument".
Your reasoning is however correct. If P(HEADS) = p, P(TAILS) = (1-p). The probability for coin tosses are:
HH = p*p
HT = p(1-p)
TH = (1-p)p
TT = (1-p)(1-p)
Eliminating HH and TT leaves HT and TH at p(1-p) probability. There's no assumption on p being rational or not. However the further you are from p=0.5, the longer it takes to get a "valid" flip.
reason defies logic