
The TSA's True Focus Isn't Safety - It's Self-Preservation - mtgx
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/17563321412/tsas-true-focus-isnt-safety-its-self-preservation.shtml
======
pavel_lishin
See Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bur...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy)

 _In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy
itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy
is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are
eliminated entirely._

~~~
drzaiusapelord
This is why these hit pieces are completely unfair to the TSA. Just about
every organization becomes self-preserving as its primary function. Government
and non-profit are the most obvious but the bureaucracy of for-profit
companies and even individual divisions inside of those companies follow the
same rules.

I was just looking over the recent Android handsets via tmobile and was
shocked at the nightmare of tacked-on apps and other carrier garbage on them.
All these divisions in t-mobile are trying to justify their existence by
dropping various apps on the handsets like music managers, music stores,
t-mobile tv, AV, security, etc etc. No one wants or needs these and the few
that do will find them in the play store.

Look at well run companies like Apple or Google. The iphone and the Nexus have
none of this junk. I imagine their corporate culture is a lot less
bureaucratic than that of a carrier like tmobile.

>in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who
work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for
the organization itself.

I like to think Apple and Google are the former and carriers in the latter.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Just about every organization becomes self-preserving as its primary
> function._

But when they prioritize self-preservation over their intended goal, that's
__bad __.

~~~
jonnathanson
I think the real issue arises in organizations where self-preservation is
actually at odds with, or at least orthogonal to, the organization's stated
goal. Take the TSA, for instance (and many government agencies, departments
within large corporations, nonprofits, etc.).

The supposed goal of the TSA is to efficiently and effectively protect
travelers and the country from criminal and terrorist actions. In theory, if
the TSA is doing its job well, it's actually _reducing_ budgetary needs and
slashing fat in favor of efficiency. The TSA should be trying to become
_clever_ and _nimble_ , moreso than massive and overhead-burdened.

But the self-preservation mandate suggests the opposite. Self-preservation,
for a government agency, means making sure you preserve or grow your budget
year over year -- because you're fighting other agencies for it. Every dollar
you get is up for grabs by other agencies next fiscal, and vice versa.
Accordingly, becoming expensive and inefficient works in favor of self-
preservation. As any seasoned bureaucrat knows, not achieving results means
asking for more money to throw at the problem. If the TSA demonstrated that it
was achieving its goals at current budget levels, it wouldn't receive the same
budget next year. Or even face a budgetary reduction.

~~~
snogglethorpe
I think most people are resigned to the existence of bureaucracies, _despite_
such problems as rent-seeking, inefficiency, etc, as long as they meet a few
basic criteria:

(1) they serve some reasonably obvious positive purpose

(2) the negative effects of what they do aren't _too_ noxious, in particular
when compared with (1)

The TSA, it would seem basically fails on _both_ points. Despite the good
intentions with which it was formed, it's pretty clear that they don't improve
safety in any significant manner (you might find people some disagree about
this, because they believe the security theater, but I think the number is
dropping). The _negative_ effects of their existence, of course, are legion,
(I suspect it's quite hard to find anybody that disagrees on this point!).

So I'd suggest the public probably on average doesn't support the TSA to the
same degree they might other bureaucracies, even those that they find
annoying.

Unfortunately, of course, the public's opinion on the matter is of little
importance once the system is in place...

------
beloch
The TSA is good for a variety of business interests. One specific example is
the manufacturers of back-scatter X-Ray machines. They're hideously expensive
and pure security theater but, in large part thanks to the TSA, they're in
most U.S. airports now. How would you like to own a company that makes a
product that doesn't actually have to work in order for you to gross billions?

Now, if this bothers you, you should probably pay attention to the fact that
the market for these toys is expanding. Rapidly.

[http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-
official...](http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-officials-
expand-use-and-dose-of-radiation-for-security-s)

You know when you're about to step through one of these scanners at an
airport, but now one can drive right past you in your car without your
knowledge! Despite their lack of concrete results in airports, the back-
scatter X-Ray machine market is exploding into new form-factors, and it's all
thanks to U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The horrible punch-line to this is that these back-scatter vans face an almost
impossible task. It's hard enough to tell bombs from batteries in the
controlled setting of a an airport security check-stop. Imagine trying to
distinguish bombs from the random things people keep in their cars! The crews
operating these vans must generate so many false-positives that, in order to
reach the point where they can actually provide some real measure of security,
they would need to be supremely competent, supremely dedicated, and entrusted
with extraordinary powers to search suspicious vehicles. All of the above are
improbable. I will eat my shorts the first time one of these back-scatter vans
actually finds a real car-bomb.

~~~
epoxyhockey
The image of the RadPRO SecurPASS in that link is _outrageous_ with respect to
actively exposing individuals to x-ray radiation. Inmates are x-rayed every
time they return from work detail.

Why do we have to learn the lesson over and over again that x-ray radiation
causes cancer? I hate the arguments that it _only hurts us a little bit each
time_.

------
smsm42
So they think patting down 5-year-old girls and 90-year-old grandmas and
grabbing my testicles each time I have to fly - not actually making the
country more secure? Banning cupcakes and handbags with gun-shaped emboidery
is actually not protecting us from terrorists? I can't believe it...

~~~
rz2k
The TSA is clearly flawed, but I'm happy that planting bombs on oblivious
children and elderly is an ineffective tactic.

~~~
smsm42
Was it ever?

------
pmb
The whole trick of designing institutions is to make sure that when they act
for their own self-preservation (as they will and do) they will simultaneously
be achieving the goal we want them to be achieving.

~~~
Firehed
So, ensure that organizations that fail to achieve their goal go away? This
isn't complicated: if you want to keep your job, you need to do it, and meet
some sort of standard in doing so.

The problem is we've somehow managed to create organizations that continue to
exist even when they completely fail to accomplish the intended tasks. Once
your method of self-preservation shifts from "functioning" to "lobbying", the
whole thing needs to be dismantled.

The TSA is fortunate in that they have other people lobbying on their behalf,
but that doesn't change the fact that they exist due to legislation rather
than effectiveness.

------
makmanalp
Link to cut through the blogspam to actual Govt Accountability Office report:

<http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650364.pdf>

~~~
nollidge
I don't think it's "blogspam" to summarize and contextualize a dry government
report.

------
codex
HN has quite an anti-TSA bias. The TSA has problems, but so does every large
organization. I suspect HN'ers glare at the TSA because they travel
frequently, and it would benefit them disproportionately to cut down on travel
time and inconvenience. This is like the trucking lobby arguing for fewer
restrictions on driver safety--the perspective is not exactly objective.

~~~
cwp
That. Or, perhaps, the TSA is objectively awful.

Tell you what. Post an article that sings the praises of the TSA and I'll
upvote it. Then we can have a discussion about bias.

~~~
codex
A fair point. I spent only about 30 seconds on this, but found:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943959>, "Surprise Gallup Poll: People
Think TSA Does A Good Job". This is a poor article: it's merely reporting on a
public poll of the TSA. I didn't expect the public to be so approving; I
expected views of TSA to be like views on taxes: they're necessary, but
everybody still hates them. But perhaps the public is so scared of terrorists
on planes that the TSA is comforting to them.

It's not a report on TSA efficacy, but I didn't look for one; such a report is
would not be worth much due to the difficulty of proving a negative: the TSA's
objective is not to find 100% of contraband, but to prevent terrorist attacks.
There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there
have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that
prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say.

EDIT: I submitted two more articles:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944165>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4944163>

Still no upvotes, though.

~~~
mseebach
> There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there
> have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does
> that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say.

No, really, it's not. Of prevented terror attacks since 9/11, TSA has
prevented exactly 0% of them. The shoe bomber was on the plane with the bomb
when he was subdued by fellow passengers. The underwear bomber also made it
onto the flight.

Only for 2011, but you can bet the TSA wouldn't let you forget if they
actually caught a terrorist:
[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves.html)

~~~
codex
One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by
the difficulty and no longer try. For example, how many plane bombings have
their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop
inspecting luggage? Probably not.

~~~
mseebach
> One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by
> the difficulty and no longer try.

Well, let me know if you actually get around to making the argument. In the
meantime, consider the basic economics of an attack as laid out by someone
else: If the other passengers on the flight realise that you're up to
something, _every single one of them_ has a clear motive to take you on in the
fight to the death. Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more
difficult after 9/11.

> For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None.
> Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not.

Good thing, then, that the suggestion on the table is a return to pre-9/11
security, not abolishing it.

EDIT: pre-9/11 security, plus the few things we've realised actually makes
sense - such as reinforced, locking cockpit doors.

~~~
codex
Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy
post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the
bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to
be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of
attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent.

EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon:
[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-
fi...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-finds-
explosives-inside-body-cavities/)

~~~
mseebach
No, millimeter-wave scanners do not penetrate the skin, so they're ineffective
against that type of attack.

------
wallawe
Welcome to America's permanent big government state. This is a prime example
of excessive government bureaucracy, and it demonstrates how inefficient and
wasteful many of these govt. programs are but exist anyway to keep politicians
happy. The only reason TSA is getting called out for its unnecessary bloat is
because the public despises what they do.

~~~
rayiner
The size of the federal bureaucracy has hovered around 2m +/- 10% for the last
50 years, even as the U.S. population has increased by over 70%.

~~~
wallawe
I highly doubt the employee headcount of the federal government is a good
indicator of efficiency. I would say not at all. There could be 10 total
government employees but that wouldn't signify more well-oiled machine. My
initial assertion stands true. The government is bloated, inefficient, and
wasteful (now more than ever). TSA is merely a good microcosm for the system
as a whole.

Side note: it's appreciated (expected?) to provide sources when throwing out
stats.

~~~
rayiner
Re: source, see: <http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/ExecBranch.asp>

I think the headcount of the bureaucracy, relative to the size of the country
being managed, is a very relevant metric of the efficiency of the system. I
mean after all, in a private company it would be pretty impressive if the
company nearly doubled in size without adding substantially to the number of
managers.

The point isn't that the federal government isn't large, it's that it's a
complete mispreception to assert that the TSA is a good microcosm of the
federal government. The TSA is a traditional bloated bureaucracy, with tons of
government employees doing not much of anything. That's not what most of the
federal government looks like. I've worked in a federal agency and in the
private sector, and if anything the federal agency was better run and more
leanly staffed.

In reality, 95% of federal expenditures are just checks to other people.
Checks to farmers to subsidize agriculture, checks to states to subsidize
highway construction, Social Security checks, Medicare reimbursement checks,
etc.

The fact is that people rant up and down about how bloated the federal
government is, but nobody can ever point to non-trivial ways to reduce
spending. And the reason is that it's not a matter of simply firing a bunch of
bureaucrats that sit on their ass doing nothing--there just aren't very many
of those people. Rather, it's all about not writing those checks. Writing a
$20 billion check to subsidize suburban commuters instead of $40 billion,
cutting grandma's social security check by 20%, etc. That's where all the
money goes.

------
ianstallings
This is true of almost every government entity.

~~~
ceejayoz
This is true of almost every entity.

~~~
mseebach
Probably, yes. But at least private entities can be (and frequently are)
killed by customers starving them of their income - this can happen passively
by simply not buying their products anymore. Public sectors ones need
politicians to actively invest political capital in not just removing it, but
figuring out what it was meant to do in the first place, how to do it better
and then setup a new entity that's better - so there's very high friction to
take on the task. Obviously, also, anyone who takes on TSA opens himself up to
being labeled "soft on national security".

Of course, there are many anemic private companies that are kept alive for
various reasons long beyond their reasonable lifetime, but generally this
holds. Private companies come and go much faster than public sector ones.

That said, I'm not sure airport security is necessarily a good fit for a
private company.

~~~
ianstallings
I think a good example to point to would be Pinkerton security, which for
example guards some military bases when needed for things like air shows. They
are highly trained at security. The TSA seems to hire almost anyone that is
breathing and hasn't been to prison. They seem completely unconcerned with
security and more concerned with being rule-bent weirdos.

~~~
mseebach
I'm not saying that the guards couldn't be privately employed (which is the
case in SFO, for an example) - as long as they have to enforce TSA stupid
rules, that doesn't matter (anecdotal evidence suggests the guards in SFO are
friendlier than average, but this can have many causes).

I was referring to making security a private concern in the same way operating
an airline is a private concern - that I struggle to see how would work: How
do you align the long-term interest that a terror attack doesn't occur with
the short-term horizon of an industry that bankrupts itself every decade?

On the other hand, FAA seems to be mostly sane and evidence-driven, so they
might take on the task of creating and maintaining the regulatory framework
that private airport security would operate under.

------
adpowers
I flew yesterday and found a rifle bullet+cartridge on the "secure" side of
the TSA checkpoint. Yet somehow the gift-wrapped paperbacks in my checked
luggage were deemed suspicious and unwrapped. Useless fools.

~~~
frig8
You know, it's not entirely unreasonable that someone could package a bomb to
look like a gift-wrapped paperback. So if their technology can't distinguish
your book from a potential explosive via X-rays alone, it may have to get
opened. Explosives detection results in false alarms, unfortunately, but as
far as I know most countries do it and it rarely results in such inconvenience
to passengers.

The rifle cartridge is obviously on their contraband list, so it should have
been caught. Someone probably brought it through accidentally. .22 LR?

~~~
mseebach
My SO once bought a small blender (less the blade) through in her hand luggage
- I understand and respect why they asked to take a closer look at that. But
if a bomb is indistinguishable from a paperback, then a bomb is
indistinguishable from a bag full of clothes. Which means that the current
level of security is woefully inadequate and only by opening up all luggage
and carefully sifting through every one inch layer of material can we find
hidden bombs.

Rather, this seems like a perfect example of the self-perpetuation suggested
in the article. It takes a while, so there's a line, it look very meticulous
and the victim isn't going to complain, or he might risk finding himself on a
do-not-fly or do-harass list.

------
cdooh
While the TSA is messed up and all that, Americans shouldn't be too quick to
turn to private companies. Private companies would be profit focused, this
means that any way to minimise costs will be taken which may compromise
security. I give you Blackwater in Iraq as a good example

~~~
smokeyj
You trust a private corporation to strap you to a flying hunk of metal, but
not to ensure your safety? Sounds logical..

~~~
rayiner
Airlines, at least in the US, are quasi-government corporations run by courts
and unions in a state of near perpetual bankruptcy.

~~~
tptacek
The "majors" are, but Southwest and JetBlue are obvious counterexamples.

~~~
rayiner
Right, I was thinking of Delta, United, etc.

------
dpeck
The <organization of any sort> True Focus isn't <organizations purported
purpose> \- It's Self-Preservation

------
swombat
So the TSA is like some kind of rogue AI just "tryin' to survive" - except
that unlike an AI, it's incredibly stupid on a massive scale.

Doesn't bode well for our chances of fighting a real intelligent AI when it
finally creeps up on us.

~~~
indiecore
Why fight it? I for one embrace our AI overlord, maybe we can finally have the
philosopher king we need.

------
DodgyEggplant
Every organization tends to preserve the problem it should solve (don't
remember the source, sorry)

------
jcromartie
This is true of every institution.

------
Shivetya
at times I wonder if this is not the unwritten goal of many agencies. We have
an incredible duplication of effort on the part of many aid agencies and no
progress is usually attempted to weed that out, how would we even begin with
this one?

------
epsylon
In other words, the TSA is a self-licking ice-cream cone.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone>

------
michaelbrave
this reminds me of another article written a little while ago
[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-
airport-...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-
security-is-killing-us) which discussed how it is incredibly less safe to
drive than to fly (even with terrorist attacks) and that the increased
security of the TSA is making more people drive instead, which has caused a
lot more accidents and deaths because of it. both interesting.

------
orthecreedence
This is not unique to the TSA, or bureaucracies in general, but more the
universe. Every dynamic system feels the desire to grow and preserve itself.

------
jasonkolb
Now why isn't this sort of thing talked about during campaigns?

~~~
forgotAgain
Because campaigns are run for the good of the candidate, not the good of the
country or the people. If the campaign thought that promising to fix the TSA
would be a net positive to attaining their goal of winning the election then
they would do so.

The same analysis explains why very few important issues are discussed, and
why even then, they are spoken of in a series of talking points previously
gauged to insure a net positive result.

------
stcredzero
TSA: Out to photograph and grope your ass while covering their own.

------
dreamdu5t
Why do people accept this reality when talking about the TSA, but not other
government agencies? All government agencies are like this, especially the
Federal ones.

~~~
Firehed
The TSA is more actively harmful to the freedoms we (supposedly) cherish, and
is a strong push towards a surveillance society and a police state. Many other
agencies are equally unproductive (or actually do something useful, just in a
very inefficient manner), but not actively working against something we care
about.

~~~
pavel_lishin
The TSA is also extremely visible in the public's eye.

How many people do you know that have complained that the CIA was spying on
them, vs. how many people do you know who have complained that they got
government-groped?

------
indiecore
I paid extra to not fly though the US. I encourage other North Americans who
can to avoid it to do similarly.

