How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All

from the there-are-victims dept

Security expert Bruce Schneier has been debating the former TSA boss, Kip Hawley, over at The Economist, concerning aviation security. The argument has gone on pretty much as expected, but Schneier's closing argument, in which he details the very real cost of the TSA's security theater, is fantastic. First, he does a brilliant job dismantling Hawley's "you just have to trust us that we know what we're doing" line:

Kip Hawley doesn’t argue with the specifics of my criticisms, but instead provides anecdotes and asks us to trust that airport security—and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in particular—knows what it’s doing.

He wants us to trust that a 400-ml bottle of liquid is dangerous, but transferring it to four 100-ml bottles magically makes it safe. He wants us to trust that the butter knives given to first-class passengers are nevertheless too dangerous to be taken through a security checkpoint. He wants us to trust the no-fly list: 21,000 people so dangerous they’re not allowed to fly, yet so innocent they can’t be arrested. He wants us to trust that the deployment of expensive full-body scanners has nothing to do with the fact that the former secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, lobbies for one of the companies that makes them. He wants us to trust that there’s a reason to confiscate a cupcake (Las Vegas), a 3-inch plastic toy gun (London Gatwick), a purse with an embroidered gun on it (Norfolk, VA), a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it (London Heathrow) and a plastic lightsaber that’s really a flashlight with a long cone on top (Dallas/Fort Worth).

At this point, we don’t trust America’s TSA, Britain’s Department for Transport, or airport security in general. We don’t believe they’re acting in the best interests of passengers. We suspect their actions are the result of politicians and government appointees making decisions based on their concerns about the security of their own careers if they don’t act tough on terror, and capitulating to public demands that “something must be done”.

From there, he notes that the TSA's ridiculous security theater, for which no evidence has been provided to show it actually keeps us safer, has very real "costs" to the public:

In 2004, the average extra waiting time due to TSA procedures was 19.5 minutes per person. That’s a total economic loss—in –America—of $10 billion per year, more than the TSA’s entire budget. The increased automobile deaths due to people deciding to drive instead of fly is 500 per year. Both of these numbers are for America only, and by themselves demonstrate that post-9/11 airport security has done more harm than good.

The current TSA measures create an even greater harm: loss of liberty. Airports are effectively rights-free zones. Security officers have enormous power over you as a passenger. You have limited rights to refuse a search. Your possessions can be confiscated. You cannot make jokes, or wear clothing, that airport security does not approve of. You cannot travel anonymously. (Remember when we would mock Soviet-style “show me your papers” societies? That we’ve become inured to the very practice is a harm.) And if you’re on a certain secret list, you cannot fly, and you enter a Kafkaesque world where you cannot face your accuser, protest your innocence, clear your name, or even get confirmation from the government that someone, somewhere, has judged you guilty. These police powers would be illegal anywhere but in an airport, and we are all harmed—individually and collectively—by their existence.

It's an excellent point, and one that is frequently overlooked. He notes that the increased fear created by such measures is exactly what terrorists wanted. He also points out that if we took the money being wasted on security theater today and actually applied it to "investigation, intelligence and emergency response," it would be a lot more effective. But that requires coming to terms with a politically inconvenient fact: that 100% safety is an impossible goal, and striving for it has tremendous costs, many of which simply aren't worth it.

Filed Under: bruce schneier, harm, kip hawley, security theater, tsa

TSA Freaks Out, Gets Longtime Critic Bruce Schneier Kicked Off Of Oversight Hearing

from the congressional-security-theater dept

If you read this site, you probably already know who Bruce Schneier is. We've certainly mentioned the longtime security expert plenty of times. He's been one of the leading vocal critics of "security theater" from the TSA, and therefore a perfectly reasonable counterpoint to the TSA in a hearing by the House Oversight Committee looking into TSA reform. I don't think anyone has thought quite as much about how the TSA could do things better than Bruce Schneier. But, as you can see from the website of the hearing, Schneier was removed from today's hearing: He didn't get sick or have something better to do. Hell, he didn't even miss a flight. Instead, according to Schneier, the TSA itself had him removed from the panel:

On Friday, at the request of the TSA, I was removed from the witness list. The excuse was that I am involved in a lawsuit against the TSA, trying to get them to suspend their full-body scanner program. But it's pretty clear that the TSA is afraid of public testimony on the topic, and especially of being challenged in front of Congress. They want to control the story, and it's easier for them to do that if I'm not sitting next to them pointing out all the holes in their position. Unfortunately, the committee went along with them.

As Tim Lee notes in reporting on this story, the TSA has done similar things in the past, and even been rebuked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz -- and yet it had no problem doing it again. The fact that Schneier is a part of that lawsuit is meaningless and shouldn't stop him from testifying at all. Schneier is a clear thorn in the side of the TSA, and if it's so afraid of having him speak to Congress, that really says a lot about the (lack of) confidence it has in its own arguments. If you can't stand to let a critic speak, it suggests that perhaps your own argument isn't very strong.

Filed Under: bruce schneier, congress, darrell issa, house oversight committee, security theater, tsa

Slow Down TSA Lynch Mob: That Naked Scanner Expose Video Is Exaggerated & Old News

from the be-real dept

So, a video made by a TSA-critic and blogger named Jonathan Corbett has been making the viral video rounds, supposedly showing how "anyone can get anything past the TSA's scanners." Now, I've been a huge critic of the TSA's scanners and the TSA itself. I think the entire security process is a joke and a form of security theater. I think the naked scanners are a huge waste of taxpayer money and potentially dangerous. But... I'm somewhat surprised at how quickly people just believed what was said in Corbett's video. You can watch the video here: First off, I was surprised to hear that the "revelation" was that by putting something on your side, the machines wouldn't notice it. That's not a revelation at all. It was one of the conclusions that came out in a research report published in 2010, which got a fair amount of publicity at the time. Among various vulnerabilities for the scanners, the report noted:

The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box- cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.

In other words, strap a knife to your side, and perhaps the machine won't spot it. We heard that years ago. So, nothing new here.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that the machines now take images from multiple angles, which would rule out this vulnerability. On top of that, Corbett bases his claim on a couple of sample images that are black and white -- and uses that to claim that a black object on your side will not show up against the black background. Once again, I'm pretty sure his info is now completely out of date. The TSA has been upgrading the scanners so they no longer show the "nude" picture. Just last month we showed an image of what the new machines show: And they show this in public, since there's no more nudity to contend with. Notice that there's a white background... and it's not a scan anyway, but a detector system that highlights points to check out.

Now, it is true that Corbett was able to get through the machines with a metallic box in his side pocket, and that's his proof. He does this twice. While, again, I'm not impressed by the machines, I don't think this is "proof" in the sense that Corbett believes. First of all, official tests show that there's a ridiculously high error rate with these machines -- they let through "bad stuff" all the time. So, I agree with Corbett that the machines are a complete waste and should be done away with, but I don't think one guy going through the scanners twice without getting stopped for a little metallic box in his pocket... is absolute proof that anyone can get through without getting stopped.

Of course, it seems worth pointing out that a metal box is not a dangerous object, and the point of the machines (so we're told) is to stop threatening objects from getting through -- not just metallic objects. So it's possible that the TSA agents saw this thing in his pocket and immediately saw that it wasn't something dangerous. Corbett's test was whether or not the scanners detect metal. But they're not metal detectors, so the test itself is flawed.

So, while I don't agree with the TSA's response to this video in which "Blogger Bob" somewhat angrily snaps back about how important TSA scanning is, I don't think Corbett's claims are that convincing and I'm surprised at how much press it's been generating. Yes, the scanners are probably pointless, and it's all security theater, but that doesn't mean we should all stop thinking through the details on videos that potentially show some weaknesses in these machines.

Filed Under: defeat, jonathan corbett, naked, scanner, security, security theater, tsa

TSA Insists That It Doesn't Pick Hot Women Out For Extra Scrutiny

from the no-really dept

The TSA apparently has heard enough of various claims that its agents have been giving... um... "special attention" to attractive women making their way through airport security, and has issued a clear denial that the TSA ever focuses on looks, rather than security. In the specific case they're discussing, in which a woman claimed that she was forced to go through a body scanner three times, the TSA says that it happened so long ago that there aren't any specifics to go on. However, it does note that the machines at that airport are not the infamous "nudie scanners" but rather the newer machines that don't show a person's direct scan (and that these images are viewable by the person being scanned): It does seem likely that the TSA is correct that the claims of this woman being put through a scanner for prurient purposes may have been exaggerated, but that doesn't mean that attractive people aren't necessarily called out for extra attention. The TSA categorically denies this possibility, but how would it know? It's not like TSA agents have a particularly good track record in obeying the law. Could there have been a situation where someone sent a woman through the scanner multiple times not to see the scan, but to keep paying her special attention? That seems much harder to rule out, and nothing in the TSA's post even acknowledges that possibility.

Either way, the blog post also notes that the woman did not file a complaint at the time, and suggests that if you have a problem, you should do so. Perhaps the TSA's Blogger Bob has never traveled like us "normal" people, but the whole process of getting through security is often such a hassle, the last thing you want to do after finally being allowed into the gate area is to continue dealing with the TSA and/or to provoke further scrutiny. As we've seen in the past, the TSA also does not have the best record when it comes to responding to those who complain about its activities.

I'm sure Blogger Bob believes that the TSA doesn't give special attention to attractive passengers, but perhaps it's time to acknowledge that the entire security theater setup is open to such charges because of how poorly designed it is?

Filed Under: hot women, security theater, tsa

TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC

from the he-might-be-a-terrorist dept

Senator Rand Paul has frequently criticized the TSA and its security theater at airports both for being intrusive and (more importantly) for not being effective. He's made the point repeatedly that it's a mistake to simply assume everyone may be a terrorist. So it's interesting to note that Paul himself was unable to board his flight to DC today after the TSA refused to let him through security. Apparently the scanner machine spotted something, and Paul refused a pat down. There was some dispute over whether or not he was "detained." The TSA denies "detention," which actually is an important issue, since you cannot detain elected officials on their way to Congress, according to Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

While the TSA says this wasn't a detention, it does raise questions over whether or not Senator Paul was "questioned in any other Place" while "going to..." his "respective" House. The White House put out a statement that kinda misses the point:

"I think it is absolutely essential that we take the necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe, and I believe that’s what TSA is tasked with doing."

Sure, it's essential. But does anyone think that patting down a US Senator has anything to do with ensuring that air travel is safe?

Filed Under: detention, privacy, rand paul, tsa

Bakery Creates TSA-Safe Cupcakes After TSA Defends Its Confiscation Of 'Dangerous' Cupcakes

from the at-least-those-terrorists-won't-get-fat dept

While the TSA continues to not catch terrorists, it is catching flak for its decision last month to confiscate a cupcake. Even more bizarre, the TSA is continuing to defend the confiscation, claiming that since this cupcake was in a jar it meant that the frosting was considered a gel and subject to the totally silly and pointless 3 oz. rule.

I wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t your everyday, run-of-the-mill cupcake. If you’re not familiar with it, we have a policy directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot of 2006 called 3-1-1 that limits the amount of liquids, gels and aerosols you can bring in your carry-on luggage. Icing falls under the “gel” category. As you can see from the picture, unlike a thin layer of icing that resides on the top of most cupcakes, this cupcake had a thick layer of icing inside a jar.

In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage, however, the officer in this case used their discretion on whether or not to allow the newfangled modern take on a cupcake per 3-1-1 guidelines. They chose not to let it go.

Or maybe they were just hungry. Either way, rest assured that terrorists who get through security won't be able to get fat on cupcakes.

Or... maybe they can. A bakery in Rhode Island, picking up on this ridiculousness and sensing a marketing opportunity, is now offering a TSA-complaint cupcake, complete with exactly 3 oz. of frosting... a plastic baggie, and a faux boarding pass declaring compliance: Yes, there's now a dessert menu for your airport security theater...

Filed Under: cupcakes, overhype, security theater, tsa

The TSA Posts Its 'Top Good Catches Of 2011' List, Not One Of Which Is An Actual Terrorist

from the because-one-time-that-guy-tried-to-ignite-a-cupcake-with-a-lightsaber dept

Everyone loves a good "Best of..." list and with 2011 having just wrapped up, pretty much every site on the web has a few posted. Bruce Schneier points us in the direction of The TSA Blog, which has posted its own self-congratulatory list, "The Top 10 Good Catches of 2011."

"Good" is very much a sliding scale when you're a government agency that combines the incompetent brusqueness of classic security theater with the thoroughness of an overenthusiastic gynecological exam.

So, what sort of "epic gets" made the TSA's list? Well, there's a variety of weapons, ranging from normal loaded handguns in carry-on bags to something called a "Tactical Spike" to throwing knives to a taser disguised as a cellphone. There's also a science project, some wildlife, inert landmines, some chunks of C4 explosive and a flare gun. There's a lot of items that sound dangerous, but Bruce Schneier points out what's missing from the TSA's collection:

That's right; not a single terrorist on the list. Mostly forgetful, and entirely innocent, people. Note that they fail to point out that the firearms and knives would have been just as easily caught by pre-9/11 screening procedures. And that the C4 -- their #1 "good catch" -- was on the return flight; they missed it the first time. So only 1 for 2 on that one.

So, the TSA looks as though it had its gloved hands full during 2011, especially when you consider all the non-terrorist, non-weaponry that was seized in the name of safety over the past year. In addition to those incredibly threatening cupcakes, our favorite theatre troupe saved us from being killed to death by the following items:

TSA confiscates a butter knife from an airline pilot. TSA confiscates a teenage girl's purse with an embroidered handgun design. TSA confiscates a 4-inch plastic rifle from a GI Joe action doll on the grounds that it's a "replica weapon." TSA confiscates a liquid-filled baby rattle from airline pilot's infant daughter. TSA confiscates a plastic "Star Wars" lightsaber from a toddler.

With the list of threatening objects covering everything from actual guns with actual bullets to fake guns that can only be fired by those possessing ultra-tiny hands and the requisite "kung fu grip," it seems like it will only be a matter of time before we're asked to board the flight naked with our clothing and belongings being shipped to our destination on a bulletproof, bombproof supertrain. It also looks as though our children, previously thought to be "the future," are apparently now the "new face of terrorism."

Congratulations, Blogger Bob and the rest of the TSA crew! Here's hoping 2012 brings an even better list, one where inert plutonium sits side-by-side with purloined KFC sporks and back issues of Guns & Ammo in the 50-gallon trash container 15 feet away from the checkpoint. Safe!

Filed Under: security theater, terrorism, tsa

US Mainstream Media Refuses Op-Ed About TSA Eroding Civil Liberties... But Pravda Publishes It

from the sad-statement dept

A few months ago, we wrote about how a TSA agent who was involved in an intrusive "pat down" of Amy Alkon threatened her with a defamation claim for daring to say and write that she felt she was raped by the TSA agent. Recently Alkon sought to publish an op-ed about her experience and the importance of standing up for one's civil rights in America. As she notes, pretty much all of the American mainstream media refused to publish the piece:

Media outlets that refused to publish this piece include the LA Times, The New York Times, Reuters, CNN, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and The Washington Post.

You know who did publish it? Pravda. Yes, the rather infamous Russian publication.

The TSA's main accomplishment seems to be obedience training for the American public -- priming us to be docile (and even polite) when ordered to give up our civil liberties. Not only does the TSA violate our Fourth Amendment rights, they've posted signs that effectively eradicate our First Amendment right to speak out about it. One such sign, in Denver International Airport, offers the vague warning that "verbal abuse" of agents will "not be tolerated." Travelers are left to wonder whether it's "verbal abuse" to inform the TSA agent with his latex-gloved hands on their testicles that this isn't making us safer, or are they only in trouble if they pepper their statement with obscenities? Not surprisingly, few seem willing to speak out and risk arrest.

Whether or not you agree with Alkon's point, it seems bizarre that the big American media wouldn't even let her speak her mind on the subject...

Filed Under: amy alkon, civil liberties, media, searches, tsa

TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures

from the why-grandma-and-grandpa-don't-fly dept

The TSA is, once again, defending its screening procedures after reports came out of degrading and embarrassing searches performed on three different elderly passengers at JFK, each of which involved passengers with medical equipment that it appears the TSA did not know how to handle in a reasonable way. While the TSA emphasizes that it didn't do a "strip search" on any of the passengers, that seems to ignore the point that, in all three cases, the searches appeared to be highly inappropriate. An MSNBC story about all of this summarizes the three passengers' complaints:

In one case, Lenore Zimmerman, 85, of Long Beach, N.Y., said TSA agents took her into a private room in late November to remove her back brace for screening after she decided against going through a scanning machine because of her heart defibrillator.

"Zimmerman said she had to raise her blouse and remove her undergarments for a female TSA agent," said Schumer and Gianaris' letter.

[....]

In another recent incident, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, Fla., was asked about a visible protrusion from her waist band, which she identified as her colostomy bag.

She was "escorted to another room where two female agents made her lower her pants for an inspection. Sherman raised concerns that the agents would disrupt her colostomy bag, causing pain and potential damage," the letter said.

A third woman, Linda Kallish, of Boynton, Fla., said that after she revealed she was a diabetic with an insulin pump in her leg, she was escorted to a separate room where she was told to remove her pants so the agents could check the pump, the letter said, without saying when that incident took place.

The letter discussed above came from Senators Chuck Schumer and Michael Gianaris, asking the TSA to have an "on-site passenger advocate." It seems like that would certainly make some amount of sense, though I imagine getting rid of security theater would be a better solution. But, in absence of that, having someone in authority who actually has the passengers' interest in mind seems like it could be useful.

Even more bizarre, however, is that while the TSA admits that its agents were at fault in the first case above, and should not have removed the brace, it still seems to recommend that passengers be the ones to bone up on the rules:

We recommend that all passengers familiarize themselves with security protocols and inform officers prior to screening if they have medical devices that require special screening. It makes things easier for everybody if all parties know in advance what to expect.

Yes, JFK personnel are receiving additional training as well, but should traveling by plane really require individuals to study up on what inhumane and degrading treatment they should expect before hitting the airport?

Filed Under: elderly, jfk, privacy, searches, tsa

Loaded Gun Falls Out Of Checked Bag. Feeling Secure At Airports Yet?

from the grope-grope-grope dept

It's always fun for me when Techdirt has stories about the TSA, but perhaps not for the same reasons as everyone else here. By that, I mean that the range of reaction to such stories always strikes me as incredibly varied. Get a story about the TSA working with the cosmopolitan state of Tennessee to check drivers for whatever it is they check for, and you'll get serious responses about our civil liberties being eroded. Write about these all-world defenders of truth and justice laying the smackdown on a possible-terrorist but confirmed breast cancer survivor and her mammory implants, and truly flabbergasted readers will demand action from our politicians. Relate the words of the guy that created the TSA to begin with and his apprehension about where the agency has gone in its off-broadway tour of security theatre, and you'll even get some folks defending the TSA in the comments. These are all well and good, true opinions and feelings from either side; the stirring of a wonderful national debate.

Me? I just like to laugh. And no one has made me laugh lately like the TSA.

Gumnos alerts us (without a patdown, no less) to a USA Today story of how LAX's airport security is trying to define ironic comedy. At least, that's what I assume they're doing, because otherwise it means that some of their people may be in need of an IQ test. Look, no security is perfect. Something is going to sneak through occasionally. And we've been told the terrorists are creative, hiding exposives in their shoes (laces out, Dan), their underwear (I'm assuming they have to go with tighty-whities here, right? Or else everything would just kind of fall out?), and we've been told that the clearly deep-thinking and well-funded terrorist networks around the world are looking into hiding a multi-megaton nuclear warhead in a hair bonnet.

But what you don't expect to encounter is what happened at LAX. And that's for a loaded .38 caliber pistol to kind of just fall out of a passenger's duffel bag as it was being loaded onto the plane. Now, to be fair, the TSA promptly and proudly announced that it isn't their duty to screen anything but carryon luggage, as if this was some kind of a win for them. But all that makes me wonder is why a federal agency in charge of ensuring safe transportation is more concerned with slapping around our meaty bits than, oh I don't know, checking the damned luggage that goes on the plane! Again, this is not carryon luggage, but rather checked luggage. But how does it make any sense to parse out different sets of luggage to be checked by different agencies with potentially different equipment and...You know what? I'm not going to try to make sense of this for fear of a complete mental breakdown.

Still, I'm all about the positivity, which is why I pictured myself standing in line, waiting to board the plane (why am I always in Group D, damn it?) and watching the baggage handlers out the window lovingly slam my stuff into the luggage compartment, when a loaded .38 pistol comes spinning out of the bag and lands on the tarmac. After a moment of watching the handlers stare dumbly at each other for a moment, I burst out laughing, pointing at the gun, then back at the airline employees, then off in the distance where some TSA agent is playing puppet with a 98 year old triple amputee (try figuring that one out), then back at the gun. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat.

So take a moment to thank the TSA for all the laughs.

Filed Under: airport, guns, security, tsa