
Reassessing Airport Security - Garbage
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/reassessing_air.html
======
erbo
The TSA was created for one purpose and one purpose only: To remove liability
from the airlines if someone tries to blow up a plane or bring a weapon onto
one for evil purposes. (At the same time as it was created, the airlines had
liability _retroactively_ removed after 9/11; without that, they'd have been
sued into smoking craters by the families of the 3,000 people who died.)

The fact is, _nobody_ in this country has been willing to die to blow up an
airplane since 9/11\. If there had been just _ten_ people willing to do so,
then, from the statistics, nine planes would have been blown up, and, when the
tenth guy was caught, he would have blown up the _airport_ instead.

The TSA is a failure, and an infringement of civil rights besides. Everyone
responsible for it, up to and including members of Congress, should, by all
rights, be fired and forfeit _all_ salary and pension benefits.

~~~
fredgrott
no, not a failure..No planes blown up and No huge Airlines liability..like it
or not the politicians who made the law do not have the same expectations we
do

~~~
grecy
_Homer_ : Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

 _Lisa_ : That's specious reasoning, Dad.

 _Homer_ : Thank you, dear.

 _Lisa_ : By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

 _Homer_ : Oh, how does it work?

 _Lisa_ : It doesn't work.

 _Homer_ : Uh-huh.

 _Lisa_ : It’s just a stupid rock.

 _Homer_ : Uh-huh.

 _Lisa_ : But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

 _[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]_

 _Homer_ : Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

~~~
digi_owl
Homer, catching the essence of Idiocracy before Idiocracy...

------
nabla9
If somebody wants to kill air travelers, TSA screening checkpoint line is the
most attractive target.

Just fill big suitcase with explosives and wait until you are middle of the
TSA screening line during holiday season.

~~~
freehunter
To be honest, that's a huge fear of mine every time I'm waiting in a TSA line.
What happens if they find a weapon and the person decides to use it right then
and there? What happens if their equipment sets off a weapon? What happens if
a domestic terrorist is trying to get back at the TSA directly?

Most of my flights are what Delta or United call "connector" flights, so there
are only 40-50 people on the plane anyway. Not an attractive target, I would
think. But standing in line at O'Hare, there could be 100+ people there. I'm
not afraid of the TSA. I'm afraid of the massive crowd of people they create.

~~~
__z
From the article:

"The TSA is failing to defend us against the threat of terrorism. The only
reason they've been able to get away with the scam for so long is that _there
isn 't much of a threat of terrorism to defend against_... Terrorists are much
rarer than we think, and launching a terrorist plot is much more difficult
than we think. I understand this conclusion is counterintuitive, and contrary
to the fearmongering we hear every day from our political leaders. But it's
what the data shows."

You're much more likely to get killed on the car ride to the airport than at
the airport.

~~~
freehunter
You're right. But there's something about standing in a high security area
with these serious looking people wearing gloves and swabbing things and big
x-ray scanners and leading people away in handcuffs and it puts all kinds of
ideas in your head. It makes the threat of terrorism seem that much more real
and prominent. And my mind says if it's going to happen, it's going to happen
_right here_. Not up there.

I was just debating with my wife last weekend about how people are so
terrified of guns when cars are so much more dangerous and random and
senseless. But it's human nature to worry about danger when someone is
actually threatening you with that danger. I worry more about accidents when
someone is driving dangerously in front of me. I worry more about terrorism
when someone is screaming at me to take my shoes off so they can check for a
bomb.

~~~
simoncion
> ...there's something about standing in a high security area...

High security areas take security screening seriously.

When an intoxicated man in a blue shirt can successfully impersonate a member
of your security staff and perform multiple private screenings of (attractive,
female) travellers [0], it's clear that you don't take security seriously.

[0] [http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/07/drunk-gropes-two-
posin...](http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/07/drunk-gropes-two-posing-
tsa.html)

------
BinaryIdiot
My favorite part about the TSA is that you can pay about $80, fill out some
forms and show a couple of pieces of identification and now you can bypass
most of their security. It's just a money making scheme; being able to pay
money to bypass most of their security shows their security doesn't do
anything useful (otherwise why would you be able to pay to bypass it?).

~~~
jamestnz
The TSA Precheck program, you mean?

At $80-100 a throw, I'm not sure it's a very good money-making scheme. For
starters, when someone enrols in the precheck program, they must undergo both
a background check and an in-person interview... how much of the $80 fee do
you suppose that leaves?

And even once approved, you're still subject to metal-detector scans upon
boarding, you just get to skip the whole shoes-belt-laptop game. Oh and they
can still "randomly" subject you to those checks if they want to. So I don't
really agree that it's some crude "anyone can just pay and receive carte
blanche access at the airport" scheme.

Here's another good one: for nationals of APEC member countries, there's the
APEC Travel Card[2]. Frequent travellers can pay for one of these cards, and
they gain access to dedicated expedited immigration queues (or, in the absence
of a dedicated APEC queue at your airport, you get to use the pilot/aircrew
lane). The card costs $150 and is good for 3 years.

For business travellers making multiple flights per week, access to programs
like these is a godsend (I used to fly internationally at least once per week
for work).

I do agree with you that all the "security theatre" stuff is a transparent
sham, but the existence of programs like precheck isn't proof of that.

[1] [http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2012/02/29/tsa-pre-
check-T...](http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2012/02/29/tsa-pre-check-TM-
begins-john-f-kennedy-international-airport)

[2] [http://travel.apec.org/abtc-summary.html](http://travel.apec.org/abtc-
summary.html)

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> At $80-100 a throw, I'm not sure it's a very good money-making scheme. For
> starters, when someone enrols in the precheck program, they must undergo
> both a background check and an in-person interview... how much of the $80
> fee do you suppose that leaves?

So I haven't gone through it but several people I know have and all of them
report that they fill out forms, show identification and that's it. The
"interview" is always a very short questionnaire and background checks are
incredibly cheap to do nowadays.

> And even once approved, you're still subject to metal-detector scans upon
> boarding, you just get to skip the whole shoes-belt-laptop game. Oh and they
> can still "randomly" subject you to those checks if they want to.

The metal-detector scan is incredibly fast, no one is ever in that line and
you don't have to remove your laptops, shoes and other related equipment. You
just go through and you're done 99% of the time.

> So I don't really agree that it's some crude "anyone can just pay and
> receive carte blanche access at the airport" scheme.

I don't agree with that either hence why I never said it so I'm not sure why
you bring it up.

~~~
DamnYuppie
The interview is very short as is the paperwork. They run you through a back
ground check as well which isn't something that you would actually see.

------
rquirk
While we're at it, can we be allowed to carry bottles of water through
security? At least in Europe, having to pay 3€ for a 50cl bottle of water
after passing through the checks is clearly just a money-making scheme and has
nothing to do with stopping terrorism.

~~~
freehunter
I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US we can carry an empty bottle through
security.

I did once accidentally leave a large, full bottle of contact lens solution in
my carry on, though, and it passed right through. Maybe that's the trick.

~~~
hn9780470248775
I typically don't bother to remove "liquids and gels" from my baggage. The
detection rate is less than 50%, and even then, they'll only find the most
obvious offending water bottle (or whatever). You shrug, say "whoops", and
move on.

You could probably claim contact lens solution as a "medically necessary
liquid," which is exempt from the rules anyway.

~~~
peteretep
This must be a TSA thing; every damn time at LHR I forget anything, it gets
caught, they get irritable with me, it needs redoing.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I agree the security at LHR is far more intense. They caught a lighter and
topical gel buried way down in a traveling medical kit I carry. I have gone
through TSA 100's of times with this kit and they never once mentioned it.

------
mark-r
While I agree that the $7B spent on TSA is a waste, I can't agree with his
conclusion that we should spend it on other security measures. That just leads
to more "wiretap all the citizens" initiatives.

~~~
privong
He does say "I'd rather see that money spent on intelligence and
investigation". And I think it's evident from his other writings that
"intelligence and investigation" refer to focused and targeted efforts, rather
than dragenet surveillance.

~~~
mark-r
Undoubtedly that's what Bruce would prefer, but what do you think are the odds
it would turn out that way?

~~~
privong
Similar to the odds that money would actually be taken away from the TSA's
budget :)

------
mc32
One thing to note is that the testing was done by people with detailed
knowledge of operational procedures, therefore they knew the weaknesses and
took advantage of that. In other words, if you got 100 semi random travelers
and tried to have them sneak things thru fewer than 95 would succeed.

Now, that's not to say the TSA isn't incompetent and shouldn't improve its
procedures and policies, but rather the 95% is an exaggerated value.

One other observation to make. When driving down the highway over the speed
limit and a patrol car becomes visible, it's quite clear the car would not
catch every infringer, yet, nearly everyone slows to comply with speed limits.
In other words, as Bruce says, you don't need 100% effectiveness for the
system to be effective.

~~~
bargl
I got the opposite from the original CNN video. It appeared that they were
using "basic" hiding techniques for these items. They weren't trying to go and
reinvent the wheel by using techniques they know will get through TSA
screening, but they used techniques that they figured TSA would be able to
find, and they just failed.

I'm going to go re-watch the video to see if I missed something though. I'll
edit this if I learn something new.

Edit: I looked for some more detailed articles and I found this quote, however
it is coming from the TSA not the testing agency.

> The goal of the Red Team is to build tests that push the boundaries of our
> people, processes, and technology. We know that the adversary innovates and
> we have to push ourselves to capacity in order to remain one step ahead.
> With that said, our testers often make these covert tests as difficult as
> possible. It’s not like they’re using a cartoonish bundle of dynamite with
> an alarm clock strapped to it. These items are extremely hard to spot.

[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/tsa-fails-
secur...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/tsa-fails-security-
tests-gets-new-director.html)

Edit 2: I'm an idiot the TSA was the screening agency, or at least these tests
are frequently referred to as internal tests. I didn't know the Department of
Homeland Security Inspector General (IG) was a part of the TSA.

~~~
a3n
Even if they were using full-on, ninja terrorist techniques, _you would expect
screeners to train to those standards_. If they train to and pass those
standards, then Joe Terrorist shouldn't be a problem.

They did use that excuse in the past. Lame after-the-failure excuse making.

------
vermooten
My last TSA check took < 5 minutes, everyone courteous and professional. Ain't
no thang. The bigger ballache for me (I live in the UK) is waiting at customs,
sometimes 90 minutes in a line.

~~~
viraptor
Try Melbourne, Australia... 2.5h last time in the "not privileged country"
line :/

~~~
tomjen3
Australia is basically the hell-hole of the first world.

------
juliangregorian
I just re-entered the US via JFK last night. There was an employee going up
and down the line promoting "Global Entry" (skip the line). All I could think
was how utterly farcical the whole thing came across.

~~~
kgrin
Global Entry is for immigration/customs, not TSA security.

The trade-off is: they do a background check and take some biometrics, and in
exchange you can skip the conversation with an immigration agent where they
ask you where you're been, etc. - you just answer the usual customs-form
questions at a kiosk.

It's actually a pretty reasonable trade-off, and speeds the process of going
through Customs - which, unlike some of the TSA stuff, is in no way unique to
the US (having gone through immigration/customs in 20+ countries, I can say
with some experience that the US is far from the worst...)

