Security Theater In Action
from the don't-you-feel-safer-now? dept
The Atlantic has an article in which the author, Jeffrey Goldberg, put various Bruce Schneier theories to the test, to see just how ridiculous airport security is these days. As expected, he discovered that Schneier is correct in calling most airport security "security theater." It's designed to make people think they're safer because they see something that looks like security, even if that security does absolutely nothing to stop terrorists. As the article notes, it's not at all difficult for terrorists to bypass the system, so the only thing the system is really good for is to (a) catch really, really dumb terrorists or (b) to make other people think that the security is doing something.Schneier, of course, has been making this point for years, so it was interesting to see what sort of response Goldberg was then able to get out of the TSA's boss, Kip Hawley. His responses seem to fall into one of two categories. First, he suggests that the TSA is well aware of the potential vulnerability described, but he can't really explain how it's been fixed, or secondly, he insists that any odd behavior will be spotted by trained employees and stopped. Except that Goldberg tested that theory too, attempting to behave quite strangely -- including ripping up a bunch of fake boarding passes in plain view of people... who all ignored him.
Hawley's responses at times border on incomprehensible:
"What do you do about vulnerabilities?" he asked, rhetorically. "All the time you hear reports and people saying, 'There's a vulnerability.' Well, duh. There are vulnerabilities everywhere, in everything. The question is not 'Is there a vulnerability?' It's 'What are you doing about it?'"Either there's some totally secret system that the TSA is using to actually stop these vulnerabilities, or there isn't a system and Hawley is just being confusing in order to create some doubt. I'm not sure either one makes me feel any safer about flying. While some may claim that we should feel safer because there might be a more secretive plan in place that Hawley won't talk about, consider me a skeptic. Security through obscurity has rarely proven to be as effective as a real and open security plan. I'm not saying that the TSA should reveal everything it does, but given Goldberg's experiences in "probing" the system, it's not clear that any "secret plan," whether real or implied, is working particularly well.
Well, what are you doing about it?
"There are vulnerabilities where you have limited ways to address it directly. So you have to put other layers around it, other things that will catch them when that vulnerability is breached. This is a universal problem. Somebody will identify a very small thing and drill down and say, 'I found a vulnerability.'"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airports, inspections, security, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
just kidding, although this isn't a surprise. It's just hard to take to court and show "damages"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Airplanes represent a force multiplier that potentially allows a few nutbags to use some boxcutters to gain control of something that enables them to do much more damage than they could with their boxcutters alone.
TSA's mission should be to worry about the latter and not so much about the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you have to exploit the vulnerability first
so when standing there and pointing at the flaw doesn't prompt action, then sometimes you need to go a step further.
why not smuggle whatever it is that you want to smuggle on to the plane and film yourself holding it during take off then upload the video to youtube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In 2005 there were 30,694 gun deaths.
The resources spent on "The War on Terror" are a joke and it is obvious that Americans value the price of a building higher than the lives of humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But people will always fear traveling, just ask my mother in law.
Still, if 50,000 people die in 2008 due to alcohol and guns. This should be in focus instead of millions of people being harassed at airports because they happen to carry a bottle of water. The risk of anything BAD happening while flying is insignificant when compared.
So grow up and stop fear mongering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Risk is the price of freedom. Heck, its the price of living under any government, just ask the victims of any dictator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happens is they discard your bottle and let you on the plane. The bottle is tossed into the same trash can as all other bottles. Tomorrow you can try again, and the next day, and the day after.
There is no security measure involved at all.
I am all for security that works.
Sectioned off secure cockpits and US marshals on planes. Most/all else is a waste of resources currently.
And unless 100 planes are to go down in flames due to 5ml of alcohol brought onboard and set on fire this year. Money could have been better spent on preventing alcohol and gun related deaths.
Get your priorities straight. Flying is safe, even with the boogyman holding a 5ml bottle of water in the seat next to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And who are you comparing to when you think the US has a high standard of living?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The question I did ask was who are you comparing to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl06/index.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world /article3617160.ece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are happy that gun deaths are at a near all time low...of over 30,000 in a year?
And your comment about the ability to travel without fear? What we're saying is go after the actual threats (insecure cockpits) and quit messing around with theatrics. Do you honestly feel safer travelling through airports today than before 2001? I know that I spend WAY MORE mental energy thinking about threats now that I'm surrounded by blatantly ineffective security measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is just a show.
What I found when preparing to travel recently is that you may not have an aftermarket gel filled insole in your shoe, however, a gel or water bra is just fine.
Like many of these precautions or restrictions, all it does is inconvenience law abiding citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is just a show.
What I found when preparing to travel recently is that you may not have an aftermarket gel filled insole in your shoe, however, a gel or water bra is just fine.
Like many of these precautions or restrictions, all it does is inconvenience law abiding citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little can be done to stop someone who is willing to die to accomplish an act. The best we can probably hope for is that pilots won't turn planes over to terrorists who can then use them as weapons. We will lose individual planes, but hopefully not whole buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once hired the dude figured out he is clueless and begins implementing anything that looks like he is worth his paycheck. Now he needs staff to make him less likely to be sacked when money is tight. And you end up with a system of making poor choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If politicians instead talked about the actual numbers involved (how many domestic terrorist deaths in the past 100 YEARS vs. how many gun deaths in the past 100 DAYS?), they could avoid the pork-barrel lean.
But that is not what politicians do for a living...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Talk about feel good laws. Outlawing guns would feel good for all of a few weeks while the honest people give up their guns. But then reality would sink in when crime would go through the roof because the criminals know they are the only ones with guns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Statistically you SHOULD BE MORE AFRAID OF YOUR WIFE SHOOTING YOU than of flying.
Humans just aren't wired to gauge threats in modern society very accurately. And you prove that very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does having guns on the street make a home more safe (scare away criminals) or more dangerous (improperly kept, the deranged/drunk/"temporarily insane", criminals arming themselves)?
The UK may have crime going "way up", but take a look at *which* type of crime and how guns would hinder/enhance that rate (hint: gun advocates don't like going this deep into the topic...)
But forget the "philosophy" of pro-/anti- gun freaks. Simply look at the raw numbers. Does it make sense to invest a HUGE amount of resources on fixing a prick in your finger at the same time that you are hemorrhaging out somewhere else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The UK crime is home invasion and yes, a gun in the home would slow that down. Home invasion went up dramatically after guns were removed.
I am not arguing that the TSA needs fixed, only examining your desire to reduce alcohol and gun deaths. Please put forth a solution as complaining about it doesn't fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone once told me "You know what they say; figures don't lie but liars figure."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concealed Carry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Concealed Carry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Concealed Carry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Source please?
As a Brit one of the few things this government has done is drop most crime dramatically - serious crime is down as is the risk of becoming a victim of crime
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/crime-statistics/
You can argue that some of it is stats and it might not be as rosy a picture as the Home Office is painting but we are a long way off up, let along "way up"
Obviously you know better what with being an American an' all, but I for one kind of like living in a country where shootings still make national news
I don't know how you go about removing guns from a society that already has them but if the rest of your 'facts' are comparable to the ones above then I would guess neither do you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup - Sure thought they were
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2008/10/12/warning-in-case-of-terrorist-attack-do-n ot-discard-brain/
And this blog might be an eye opener for you:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the risk of flying, I don't much worry about that either. There is little to nothing I can do about it and the risk that someone jacks the plane I am on is very low. My comment about the alcohol was only to point out that they don't allow bottled water through security because it may not be bottled water! Some of the measures they have taken are actually worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are the one arguing against simple math. Good luck on that one.
And you are the only one bringing up any measure impacting your freedom. You brought up making guns illegal and now you are pitching it as some other persons point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please put forth your solutions for all to examine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plug the real security holes
Unfortunately, the security measures concentrate only on well marked entry points. I travel a lot and I'm often puzzled about how easy it is to get access to the plane parking bays from outside. To make it easier, many airports around the world have public roads running through the runway area. Whats to stop someone from jumping off a vehicle, dressed as ground crew, taking whatever lethal items with him and planting it in a plane, or hiding out in the plane? The runway area is so large, there's no way to prevent total access short of having guard towers and patrols... or am I missing something here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plug the real security holes
Why are the current crop of security measures necessary? How do a bunch of INEFFECTIVE measures help "the situation" (and what is that situation)?
I believe that some level of security is necessary, but that's true of any public place (malls, libraries, schools, trains, airports, roadways, etc...) But the amount and the particular measures of security need to be properly assessed.
The current over-emphasis on one area shows at least two problems: (1) massive spending is not actually securing anything [i.e. wasted resources] and (2) other areas of public safety are suffering [i.e. resource starved].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plug the real security holes
I think it's more due to the fact the airlines are a more dramatic target for terrorists - i.e the induced fear/panic per action is much greater than other mass transit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To borrow from the blacksmiths
Not everything shaped like an anvil has all of the qualities to actually be an anvil. The blacksmithing community calls these "anvil shaped objects" or ASO's.
I submit that the TSA is actually a "Security shaped object" - it only looks like security until you try to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not true everywhere, certainly some hyperbole. I've been to Midway Airport (Chicago) and seen the McDonald's employees going through security with everyone else. I think there's a separate line for airport employees, but they were all going through security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Play the TSA Game
And if you remember anything from your chemistry classes, check out the "science" store in the Charlotte Airport mall. Can you say "Fun With HouseHold Chemicals"???. I knew you could...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Play the TSA Game
It is not the items themselves. It is that other things can be concealed in or made to look like them.
However, I also believe that the liquids rule is prompted by the airports/port authorities to increase sales of items at a hugely inflated markup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Play the TSA Game
It is not the items themselves. It is that other things can be concealed in or made to look like them.
However, I also believe that the liquids rule is prompted by the airports/port authorities to increase sales of items at a hugely inflated markup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]