TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance

from the 'no-terrorists-yet-but-you-know,-we'll-just-keep-up-the-spying-because-r dept

More news comes from the Boston Globe about the TSA's "Quiet Skies" program. Having decided the skies were too quiet, the TSA started nominating people for surveillance based on god knows what and sent air marshals all over the US to tail "suspects" as they unsuspectingly went about their travels. Some of the targets included flight attendants and law enforcement officers. To those tasked with this futile (and likely unconstitutional) surveillance, the program is a waste of time and resources, if not a full-blown civil liberties catastrophe.

To the TSA, this previously-hidden bullshit is just some more discretion-flexing on behalf of the American public to save them from terrorists it inadvertently admitted aren't even targeting aircraft anymore. Why go through the hassle of the boarding process, smuggling precursors past half-inept, half-asleep TSA agents when you can just rent a van from Home Depot and drive it into a crowd?

The TSA insists the program has value and that it will continue to send air marshals out to tail flagged randos. It also insists better education of air marshals will shut complaining marshals the hell up. But what it failed to do in a Congressional hearing, called after the Globe's expose, is actually present any evidence the program works.

On Wednesday and Thursday, TSA officials shared details of the program with congressional staffers from four committees and fielded questions in closed-door briefings.

The officials said about 5,000 US citizens had been closely monitored since March and none of them were deemed suspicious or merited further scrutiny, according to people with direct knowledge of the Thursday meeting.

THIS JUST IN:

CARTS, HORSES IN EMBARRASSING MIXUP, SAY TSA OFFICIALS
Cart-horse confusion expected to continue for the foreseeable future

The TSA had to tail 5,000 people just to determine they weren't suspicious. That's the wrong way around, constitutionally-speaking. The government isn't allowed to snoop on people until it can find a reason to snoop on people. That's not how the Fourth Amendment works. The TSA's inept comparison to cops on the beat is worse than apples in regards to oranges. Cops don't tail people to see if they're going to do something suspicious. Suspicions are in place before the surveillance starts since, most of the time, law enforcement agencies don't have the manpower/funding to tail people all over town to see if they might be up to something.

Get a load of this talking point, delivered by someone who doesn't appear to care it's directly contradicted by statements made to Congress by TSA officials.

“The program analyzes information on a passenger’s travel patterns, and through a system of checks and balances, to include robust oversight, effectively adds an additional line of defense to aviation security,” TSA spokesman James Gregory said Monday.

Bullshit. All of this is bullshit. The "robust oversight" is especially bullshit since Congress was first introduced to this program by the Globe's reporting. The TSA claimed it had informed Congressional oversight about the program but oversight members pushed back, stating they'd never heard of it.

The "line of defense" is more bullshit. A program that has, to date, surveilled 5,000 people only to discover the TSA had no reason to surveill these 5,000 people is not a "line of defense." What it actually is is what the union representing the air marshals says it is: a waste of resources.

The air marshals union, which represents many of the 2,000 to 3,000 so-called flying FAMS, criticized Quiet Skies last week, saying that the criteria of the program were unacceptable and that the public would be better served to have air marshals assigned elsewhere.

Now, the TSA is being told it will need to answer questions about its no-longer-secret surveillance program -- one it instituted without input from its oversight and without informing anyone it was putting it in place. And the program has wasted resources 5,000 times to achieve zero wins on the national security front.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, congress, oversight, quiet skies, surveillance, tsa, useless

Report: TSA's Ground-Based VIPR Teams Are Expensive, Quite Possibly Useless

from the if-we're-so-useless-how-come-we-keep-getting-$$$-every-year-smart-guy? dept

It's been awhile since we've discussed the TSA's ground-focused efforts. It's going to get acronym-heavy here shortly, so I'll set the stage. The TSA oversees more than just airports. It's also been known to wander around bus stops and weigh stations, hoping to catch less upwardly-mobile terrorists before they can kill us for our freedoms.

The teams dispatched to keep an eye on the ground have perhaps the coolest acronym in government: VIPR. Yes, the cool name probably had the acronym applied after the fact, but being suspicious of buses and truck drivers is what the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response unit is all about. It's not composed of the retail rejects and petty tyrants the TSA staffs screening areas with. Rather, it makes use of Flying Air Marshals (FAMs) who team up with local law enforcement to hang out at bus depots and weigh stations.

Since VIPR is there to catch terrorists, the Fourth Amendment is generally overlooked to remove the warrant requirement standing in the way of national security efficiency. VIPR units rely on citizen tipsters and their own unassailable hunches to search trucks, buses, rental vehicles, luggage… pretty much anything it can get its hands on. It must be working because no one has blown up a federal building with a Uhaul truck since the last time the government failed to prevent it from happening.

This may be the only metric being used by the TSA to justify the existence of its VIPR squads. A recent Inspector General's report [PDF] notes VIPR activities blow through a whole lot of taxpayer cash, but seem to have little to show for it.

Despite dedicating approximately $272 million to ground-based activities, including VIPR operations, FAMS could not demonstrate how these activities contributed to TSA’s mission. During our assessment of FAMS’ contributions to TSA’s layered approach to security, we determined that FAMS lacked performance measures for the 24 strategic initiatives and most ground-based activities outlined in its strategic plan. Additionally, FAMS’ VIPR operations performance measures fail to determine the program’s effectiveness.

The best way to feel like something is working well is to never test that theory. The TSA's mission is literally "travel safety," so you'd think ground efforts covering two areas where plenty of mileage is racked up (buses, trucks) would be having some measurable effect. But that would be assuming the TSA and its underlings care about operational efficiency and it's apparent they don't.

Not only could VIPR units not justify their existence, but the grounded Air Marshals don't actually know how much is being spent getting nothing useful done.

FAMS could not provide a budget breakout by division or operational area. Without effective performance measures or detailed accounting of funds, FAMS cannot ensure it is maximizing its resources to address its highest risks and cannot measure the value of its investments in these ground-based activities.

The only thing FAMS has in place to measure effectiveness values looking busy over making America safer. The report points out the only metric used by VIPR/FAMS is "output-based" rather than "outcome-oriented."

FAMS insists the VIPR program mere existence is proof positive of its effectiveness. Can't bust terrorists if they're too intimidated by federal agents milling around aimlessly.

FAMS contends that the highly visible nature of VIPR operations deters potential terrorists.

The OIG disagrees with this assessment, pointing out that if FAMS is going to use that argument, it should at least come up with some supporting facts before attempting to rely on it.

FAMS should measure progress based on whether VIPR operations improve the security of our transportation systems, including whether deterrence significantly contributed to this outcome. Measuring VIPR operations’ deterrence capacity is important, considering that FAMS relies on its visible presence to dissuade potential attackers. Without well-developed, outcome-oriented performance measures, FAMS cannot adequately assess whether operations contribute to increased transportation security.

While the TSA did concur with the OIG's recommendations, it still took the time to complain about the report's original title. According to the TSA, the draft title was a little too ego-bruising, so it recommended one that softened the blow (and removed FAM from the headline). The OIG met it a little less than halfway.

TSA requested the Office of Inspector General modify the report title to TSA Lacks Effective Performance Metrics for Ground-based Assignments. They asserted there is an implication from the title of the draft report, FAMS Could Not Demonstrate the Value of Its Ground-Based Assignments, that the assignments do not provide value. Although we disagree that our report made such an implication, we modified the title of the final report to FAMS Needs to Demonstrate How Ground-based Assignments Contribute to TSA’s Mission.

I guess the new title restores some hope: FAMS may one day produce supporting evidence for this perceived value. Until then, truckers and bus passengers will be hassled by federal agents hoping to stumble across VIPR program value while performing warrantless searches of people and vehicles.

Filed Under: ground teams, security theater, tsa, useless, vipr