
The TSA's Dumb Air-Security Rules Are Not Based on Science - marklabedz
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tsa-dumb-security-rules-not-science-based
======
kjhughes
I think that the public has moved beyond being comforted by security theater.
Now, two other forces are propping up the absurdities: (1) bureaucratic self-
preservation, and (2) leadership irrationality along the lines of "man, will I
look bad if I support revoking [stupid TSA rule #1039237] and a terrorist then
uses the opening in an attack."

~~~
mseebach
> leadership irrationality

Narrowly considering the rules of the game, it's not an irrational stance at
all.

~~~
daenz
Sounds like the rules of the game are a problem. The desire to stay "in power"
outweighs the desire to actually represent constituents accurately.

~~~
rhizome
Iron Law of Institutions:

<http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html> (ignore the partisan
aspects)

~~~
daenz
Good read. I wish this kind of thing was taught and discussed in schools, but
it seems like that would be "breaking the 4th wall"

------
raintrees
If we assume the TSA is a political response, and we consider the statement
"Politics is show business for non-pretty people"* then the TSA's policies
being referred to as Security Theater seems much more expected.

*yes, I took a liberty to avoid such a negative emotional content word

~~~
crusso
> "Politics is show business for non-pretty people"

It's worse than that, since I'd categorize the TSA as part of the blob of
bureaucracy that is one step removed from politics or real political
(democratic) accountability.

Voters and politicians panicked after 2001 and acted to do "something".
Unfortunately, it's been over a decade since that something was put into place
and for at very least half that time we've known that it's a mostly misguided
effort.

How long does it take for the US government to undo mistakes like this, if
ever?

~~~
psadauskas
The "War on Drugs" has been going on for over 40 years now, so there's your
answer.

~~~
crusso
Yeah... the Constitution should have had some kind of efficacy test and
timeout for all legislation.

Maybe now that we know a lot about code refactoring, we could apply the same
concepts to legislation.

To connect back to another HN topic today, maybe we need a lot more articles
entitled "Write Less Laws".

------
yason
And did anyone ever think that there would be a sound rational basis for the
operations of TSA? Good morning to scientificamerican.com, too.

The TSA is rolling on with its own mandate regardless of science and the
opinions of thinkers, and they will do anything that they want and that can
superficially be based on increasing "security"; that is, such claims that
people are easy to persuade to believe if they're not left to think about it.

I don't know how they fit in the big picture: they represent some fears or
some power that people have invited into this world. But I can be pretty sure
what the true reason is that compels them to justify their own existence.
Follow the money.

------
senjutsuka
While we're at it, most fire investigation isnt either. We should change that
since it often leads to imprisonment.

~~~
davidcuddeback
I was surprised by this. Googling turned up this article from 1998:
<http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article9.html>, and of course Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_investigation#The_New_Scie...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_investigation#The_New_Science_of_Post-
Flashover_Burning) . Wikipedia makes it sounds like science is making it's way
into fire investigation, starting with the 2005 and 2007 experiments by the
ATF, but it's not clear how many fire investigators have paid attention to the
results. Thanks for pointing this out. I learned something new today.

~~~
sadga
That article is interesting, but extremely violates Wikipedia's editorial
policy. The wording is inflammatory and opinionated, not encycopedic:

"The bottom line was “The “old-days” of locating the point of origin of a
post-flashover fire by relying on the “lowest burn and deepest char” are
OVER![12]

When word of the ATF experiments reached the fire investigation community,
people began to examine the data more closely, because an error rate over 90%
was simply unimaginable! In fact, the poor results should have surprised
nobody. "

~~~
laserDinosaur
It appears the page has already been tagged as "It is written like a personal
reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject."
in 2011, but so far nobody has decided to tidy it up.

------
physcab
TSA's security rules are a mix of deterrents and science. I worked on
explosive detection devices for the TSA during my PhD.

The banning of liquids and pastes are logical. There are some extremely
volatile liquid and plastic explosives that would take your leg off if you
dropped [1][2]. Or if they were used as primary explosives to ignite a more
powerful secondary explosive. That could be disastrous if TSA allowed liquids
in larger quantities.

As for the detection technologies that are currently out on the market, all I
have to say is that every single one of them can be confused and circumvented,
which is why they have seemingly arbitrary rules. For example, xray
technologies can easily confuse plastic explosives with a piece of cheese,
which is why you have to take shit out of your bag. MMW wave technologies are
confused by water substances, which is why you have to do a pat down if an
anomaly is detected.

My own technology that I worked on was primarily developed as a low-cost
surface technique, so if you had explosive residue on your hands or baggage
our detector would alarm.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin>
[2]<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa6fcun3kag>

~~~
Corrado
I don't think that anyone is denying that liquids can pose a threat. The
article stated that by allowing everyone to bring some small amounts of
liquides defeats the purpose almost completely. All I would have to do is get
5 of my co-conspirators to carry on 5 little contains each of some volatile
liquid and when we get past security we pour them all together to make one big
batch of nastiness.

This example, and many more, is why we say the TSA's security rules are
useless and arbitrary. About the only way to ensure a risk free flight is to
force everyone to fly naked, not allow luggage, remove the cleaning crew,
etc... and I don't think there are any airlines that are willing to go that
far. :/

~~~
pavel_lishin
Or just carry the five containers yourself, by carrying a bottle of shampoo,
conditioner, moisturizer, suntan lotion, and toothpaste. All non-transparent
containers - I've never seen a TSA agent sniff toothpaste to make sure it was
actually toothpaste, and not superglue, or cocaine, or strawberry jam.

------
akamaka
_For example, according to the TSA, the 11-inch model of the MacBook Air is
fine to leave in your bag, but the 13-inch model must be removed._

There's nothing inherently unscientific about this rule. Presumably someone
has calculated the volume of explosive that's worth checking for, and then
another person has translated that into simple, practical rules that can be
quickly taught to a large number of border agents.

~~~
glesica
Sure there is, but not necessarily (only) in the way that was originally
implied. Science, generally speaking, involves observation and inference. A
scientific approach to airplane security would therefore (to simplify greatly)
involve looking at what has happened in the past to inform our decisions for
the future.

In the past (2001), terrorists attacked airplanes using tactics and weapons we
were unprepared for. It seems reasonable, then, to think that if there is
another terrorist attack on an airplane it will follow this pattern: it will
use tactics and weapons we are unprepared for.

So checking 13 inch Macbooks more closely than 11 inch Macbooks (assuming
taking the thing out of its case _actually_ does anything) just means that
terrorists should find ways to put a sufficiently-powerful bomb in an 11 inch
Macbook in order to be successful.

Our approach, therefore, is completely unscientific because it assumes that
terrorists today will continue to use the tactics they used yesterday, or were
planning to use yesterday, when we know from observation and inference
("science") that this is not the case.

Note that there have been several attempted attacks since 2001. None have been
successful, and none of them, not a single one, was foiled, even partially or
with assistance from, TSA. Each of these attempts exploited a weakness in the
TSA processes. Seems like the terrorists are better at "science" than the TSA
are.

~~~
akamaka
What you're discussing is strategy (the choice of where to deploy resources in
a conflict). Some might argue that science can be applied to conflict, but
Clausewitz for example makes a convincing argument that strategy is not
scientific and will never be.

------
Sottilde
Good article, although short and without too much actual research or science.
Not a fan of the second page that only contains a few sentences, though.

~~~
jeremyarussell
Okay so it wasn't just me.

------
revscat
I have a sneaking suspicion that the TSA's existence _is_ based upon science,
although the science in question is sociology and/or mass psychology.

------
jws
Timely. I just cleared security where I was effectively given my choice of
magnetometer, backscatter, or groping. I suppose under some reality that is
more secure than assigning magnetometer to everyone. They should do it there.

(I'm not saying which airport. I like it this way.)

~~~
potatolicious
I've been passing through SFO frequently. I take some minor schadenfreude in
how uncomfortable some of the agents are when groping me.

If I have to bend over and take their stupid, unconstitutional rules, I'll
look them in the eye while they rifle through my pubes, no sense letting them
off easy.

~~~
pavel_lishin
My fiance will never forgive me if we miss our flight because I tell a TSA
agent, "Why won't you look me in the eyes when you make love to me?"

------
DividesByZero
Things like the TSA are great illustrations of the pervasiveness of the
surveillance-industrial complex at the beginning of this decade.

Security doesn't need to be a motivating factor, merely sufficient
justification - after that things like back scatter body scanners, procedures
that require more security staff and any other product or innovation the SIC
comes up with can be shoehorned in.

They've worked out they can make money off of people's fear, and there's a
neat little feedback loop where more security makes people more paranoid, more
afraid leading to more security. Good business, if you can get it.

------
samspot
I didn't find this article to be very scientific. Although it claims certain
rules are arbitrary it doesn't bother to point out what makes them so, which
is what I was expecting when I clicked on this.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
It's kind of difficult to show why something is arbitrary, usually the lack of
any evidence to the contrary is good enough. I mean the example of having a
certain amount of liquid but as long as you call it baby formula, it is ok,
seems to be so clearly arbitrary that only the most pedantic would demand
further proof. :)

~~~
samspot
The baby formula is an exception that I'm fairly sure will only work if you
have an actual baby with you. Since most terrorists aren't carrying infants it
is deemed an acceptable risk. Based on what I know about breastfeeding laws it
may actually be illegal to restrict people from carrying these items. So based
on what we know I'd say this rule isn't arbitrary at all.

To me the better example of an arbitrary rule is laptop thickness. However we
can speculate that someone has determined that objects greater than > 1 inch
are more likely to carry explosives. We can argue that it's arbitrary, but
aside from the TSA coming out and explaining the reasoning we will never know.
And I'm not sure they are obligated to tell us.

------
mikeash
In other breaking news, the sky is blue, and water is wet.

------
jszielenski
"Finally, there's the Federal Aviation Administration rule that all
electronics, even headphones and e-book readers, have to be turned off during
takeoff and landing, allegedly to prevent interference with the plane's
navigation systems.

But the scientific evidence for this worry is sketchy. Some devices emit
signals that could theoretically affect an aircraft's electronics. Yet “there
have never been any reported accidents from these kinds of devices on planes,”
FAA spokesperson Les Dorr told the New York Times last year. Once again,
irrational fear, not solid science, is dictating policy for millions of
travelers."

Actually, it is based on science. Cell phones flying by overhead while landing
or taking off overload cellular base stations. So as a courtesy to cellular
phone carriers, airlines require cell phones to be put into "airplane" mode.
Digital Communications 101 son.

~~~
rogerbinns
I'm happy with the devices being turned off as most crashes happen during
landing and takeoff. I'd rather people were paying attention to their
surroundings, paying attention to the briefings and not having hard metal
objects that would seriously hurt people should the plane suddenly decelerate.
But if they agree with me then that is the reason they should give.

~~~
wonderzombie
At least as far as situational awareness concerned, a decent book is just as
impairing for many people.

Actually, in that case as well as safety, I don't see much difference between
a book and a Kindle. But they can't go and whitelist one device without
complaints, can they? Sigh.

~~~
rogerbinns
I'd rather be hit on the back of the head by a book than a kindle should there
be a rapid deceleration! But yes the correct answer is to do a cost benefit
analysis.

