
Schneier removed from TSA oversight meeting at TSA request  - zdw
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/congressional_t.html
======
DanielBMarkham
There used to be an old, old joke on slashdot. Whatever the topic, somebody
would say "I, for one welcome our new X overlords"

I, for one, welcome our new security overlords.

For some reason, it doesn't sound as funny anymore.

There was a story recently about how all sorts of various agencies now want
their own drones to watch the citizenry as we go about our normal lives. I'll
never forget an interview the reporter had with a Congressman. His basic
stance was something along the lines of "Boys will be boys. This is just all
sorts of other agencies wanting to get in on the UAV bandwagon."

My point is this: I don't think our elected representatives take any of this
very seriously at all, no matter what they might say during an election or on
TV. I don't think it bothers them for one second that the TSA gets to pick
it's own witnesses for each day, or that gradually we're turning into a
security state. I just don't think it really registers on their radar.

~~~
fabricode
I thought the overlord joke was from the Simpson's, but it turns out that they
got the idea from 70's high camp: [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-
welcome-our-new-x-ov...](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-
new-x-overlords)

More on topic: I believe that one of the main reasons why they don't take it
seriously is because they are literally above the law here. They don't have to
go through the same process that ordinary travelers do. I can't find an
authoritative source, so either all of Congress or only those senior members
traveling with a security detail are exempt, but either way, those in charge
don't understand the full impact it has on ordinary people's lives.

~~~
alain94040
Not true. Here's one famous case: Senator Kennedy was on the no-fly-list for a
while, so security theater applies to congress members as well as you.
([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html))

~~~
bdunbar
_so security theater applies to congress members as well as you._

Not so much ...

"Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finally called to apologize about the
mix-up, and the delays stopped in early April, Smith said."

If you, or I, got on the no-fly list I doubt the head cheese would call up and
offer an apology.

------
jergason
Sent Jason Chaffetz (my representative) the following email:

Disgusted With The TSA

I was looking forward to seeing the TSA respond to Bruce Schneier's criticisms
in the Oversight Committee meeting today. He is one of the world's experts on
security. The news that he was dismissed from the committee makes me think the
TSA is much less interested in actual security than in their own appearance,
which fits the definition of security theatre very well. Please hold the TSA
accountable for their gross misuse of power. Please make them answer to actual
security experts on their policies. Thank you very much.

~~~
davidw
Phone calls and real mail are supposedly more effective.

------
Bud
I found it quite illuminating to peruse the list of the
shills^H^H^H^H^H^Hwitnesses who are going to be allowed to testify:

Christopher L. McLaughlin, Transportation Security Administration, Assistant
Administrator for Security Operations

Stephen Sadler, Transportation Security Administration, Assistant
Administrator for Intelligence and Analysis

Rear Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for
Marine Safety, Security & Stewardship

Stephen M. Lord, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Director, Homeland
Security

~~~
philwelch
Quick clarification: Stephen Lord doesn't work for DHS, he works for GAO,
which is an agency established by Congress to maintain, as the title says,
"government accountability". His _jurisdiction_ is over DHS. This isn't to say
he's a good guy, since GAO is mostly bean counters, but there it is.

~~~
jimmar
When the GAO issues a report saying that your department is ineffective,
people listen. They may be bean counters, but they are fairly well respected
bean counters. The reports that I have read really help identify problems in
government entities.

------
wpietri
The committee membership is here:

<http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/>

That's over 20 different states represented there, so odds are good you can
contact one of the members and be listened to. Let 'em know this is bullshit,
and that if we're going to spend money on security, it shouldn't be on
theater.

~~~
kungfooey
Thanks for the link. I just emailed my representative on the committee.

~~~
donw
Send a physical letter -- it has far more impact, especially if handwritten.

------
tptacek
Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA? The body
scanner program in particular has been roundly criticized by civil
libertarians (both conservative and liberal), has generated credible concerns
from professional scientists as to health risks, and has been repeatedly
demonstrated by physical security experts to be ineffective.

Schneier is an effective writer, particular when his audience comes with
built-in respect for his accomplishments, but his broad disdain for virtually
all of airport security† probably reduces his effectiveness in making a case
to the wider public. He's easy to caricature, and traffics professionally in
an image of "security muckraking" that suggests he'd oppose the TSA no matter
what it does.

† _A disdain I share, mind you._

~~~
mikeash
Schneier is effective because he tells a different side of the story from
most. The civil libertarian angle is already pretty well covered. People take
it as a security versus liberty tradeoff and the population has, in general,
resoundingly chosen to favor security. I don't think there are any new
arguments to be made there. The civil libertarians will say that this stuff is
bad, the TSA will say that it's necessary to keep us safe, and nothing will
really happen.

Schneier is different because he's an expert in _security_ and he lays out
just why the TSA's approach is _bad security_. Not because it infringes on
liberties, but because it's just not effective, and the money could be used
more effectively. This approach is, I believe, the only way to convince an
unreasonably frightened American public to back change.

~~~
tptacek
Schneier has less expertise in airport security than other professional
security and law enforcement people who _also_ disagree strongly with the
TSA's approach to airport security.

My point isn't that "it's bad security" is a losing argument; my point is that
Schneier isn't the only qualified person making that argument.

~~~
JoshTriplett
If a half-dozen more qualified individuals step up to make the same arguments,
perhaps the inclusion of Schneier would prove redundant. I don't see those
people lining up to make those arguments, and I see plenty lining up to defend
the current state or try to make it worse.

It also helps to hear from someone who starts from the perspective of "only do
things that work and are worth the cost", rather than someone who starts from
the perspective of "do anything that could possibly make a difference, it
couldn't hurt (given that we don't place any value on anything other than
security)".

------
sedev
I probably shouldn't be disappointed, by now, that the TSA continue to live up
to the reputation that they have around here. The agency is pretty much a pure
creature of cognitive bias at this point - of sunk cost fallacies, of the
desperate impulse to cover one's own ass, of irrational fears and irrational
responses.

I flew over the weekend. I reached a bit of a breaking point about taking the
TSA seriously when I heard one of the screeners refer to a contraband item (a
bottle of water) in luggage as a "party foul." Everyone but the higher-ups
knows that it's an absolute farce and a waste of money. It's a great example
of why the tops of hierarchies should _not_ be insulated from the consequences
of their decisions - rather, the opposite.

------
jerrya
What is the point of an oversight hearing if you refuse to let your top
critics testify?

~~~
cheald
Theater, of course.

------
cliveholloway
When I heard Schneier had been invited I actually thought the government was
going to take this seriously.

Obviously this is now going to be just another whitewash. _sigh_

------
vgnet
I couldn't find a peep about the meeting in TSA's blog. I find it ludicrous
that they can boot a top tier expert without enough time to replace him by
anyone that could bring similar points to the discussion.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I think you're confused. Their blog is not an information-dissemination
service, it is a marketing instrument.

~~~
dangrossman
You would've gotten the same message across without also insulting vgnet by
omitting that first sentence.

~~~
mattdeboard
What? People get confused. I get confused. You get confused (as evidenced by
this post). Everybody gets confused, just like everybody poops.

~~~
dangrossman
Nobody's actually confused. He did not literally mean to say anyone was
confused. He's essentially saying "you were naive to think this blog was more
than a marketing channel".

~~~
pavel_lishin
KwanEsq explained exactly what I intended with my introduction.

------
sp332
From a comment on that page by "greg":

 _Based on their logic, the TSA should also withdraw from the hearings as
they're involved in the lawsuits._

------
stblack
Canadian here -- a non-American perspective: your President has no cojones. If
he had a pair, the TSA is one of the things he could have easily remedied, or
better controlled.

~~~
njharman
Your assuming that security theater, a large target for public's anger, and a
ready source of media distractions aren't all very valuable tools for The
Office of the President.

1984 was a very good instruction manual.

~~~
stcredzero
It's not like there's a lack of deserving decoys out there. However, the TSA
has the advantage of "reaching out and touching" people literally by the
multi-millions. The current situation was put in place by George W. as well.
They may be the best outrageous government agency the current administration
could hope for to look good by comparison to.

------
jjcm
Darrell Issa (one of the committee leaders) is fairly active on twitter. Let
him know your concerns: <https://twitter.com/#!/DarrellIssa>

------
WiseWeasel
So I guess they answered the question in the title of the hearing before it
even started: theater.

------
gkanai
I also emailed my rep. (Carolyn Maloney, D-NY) who is on the TSA oversight
board.

------
bdunbar
A lady asked Dr. Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got a republic or a
monarchy?"

"A republic," replied the Doctor. "If you can keep it.”

Feels like we've lost it: the monarchists have won it back.

The pity is they're not even very _good_ monarchists.

~~~
nknight
No, a lot of our extant problems would not be present under any reasonably
sane (not necessarily benevolent) monarch, very likely including some of the
more useless security apparatus. We'd just have different problems.

~~~
bdunbar
I was not implying that we'd be better off with a monarchy.

Only that the rascals in charge _want_ to be a monarchy, and they're not very
good at it.

------
cheez
Duh.

