11 ms·

Security Risks of TSA PreCheck

tristor 10y ago
Thankfully, Amex Platinum benefits include a credit for Global Entry which automatically gets you TSA Pre-Check, so I've been whizzing through border patrol and TSA for a long time now. Unfortunately, it's a protection racket that requires participants to turn over their fingerprints into a national database, so it has all sorts of ethical and philosophical murkiness around it. In the end though, if you're traveling for business its one of those things you can't afford not to have because of how stupid the process for regular joes is. As a frequent traveler I can only agree with Bruce's conclusion here. TSA Pre-check is a failure, not because it doesn't provide enough security, but because the existing process for regular travelers is completely pointless. As any frequent traveler is already fully aware, the TSA is a big joke, and going back more or less to how we did airport security pre-9/11 with the better scanning technology is more than good enough for the realistic threat level and would greatly reduce traveler stress and increase airport throughput. The TSA is failed jobs program which has threatened the civil liberties of the average traveler for no gain whatsoever in national security. It's time to cut it back to something realistic.
- sebleon 10y ago
  TSA pre-check is actually a good honeypot for finding bad people. Regular TSA is a joke, so having these people skip it is fine. But coming up with a shortened list including most evil doers is golden. I'm sure they scrutinize the heck out of anyone that's trying to avoid detection.
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    Someone that doesn't think it's worth paying the $85 fee for PreCheck is now an "evildoer"? There are a lot of people in this country that fly very rarely and for whom $85 is a lot of money.
    - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
      Not agreeing with them, but you misread what they said. They said that PreCheck itself was a self-selecting list of "evildoers" (i.e. the only people who pay for it are up to no good). As I said, I don't agree, but that's what they posted.
      - sebleon 10y ago
        To clarify, I meant that vast majority of evil doers would pay $85 for less screening (alongside a lot of normal people). While doing thorough background checks on all travelers is an impossible task, it might possible to do thorough checks on all Pre-Check members. This could be worth it for the TSA, even if 99% of PreCheck members are good.
        Johnny555 10y ago
        I read it that way at first, but then went the other way because it makes no sense -- there's so little difference in screening between lines, why would a terrorist invite more scrutiny months before they are ready to act? Besides, an organized terrorist cell is not going to bring their bomb through security anyway, they are going to bring it in on a catering truck or one of the other thousand service vehicles that enter the poorly secured airport perimeter every day. There's no way to "body scan" a truck.
        calvano915 10y ago
        "There's no way to "body scan" a truck." I've seen something similar on a show in the past and found this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPfUSPVH6oQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPfUSPVH6oQ Up for debate is how reliable these scanners are.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
1024core 10y ago
Pre-Check is nothing but a fund-raising scheme by the TSA. They have an incentive to further slow down the usual screening lanes, so more people will buy into PreCheck! How is this not a bad incentive??
makecheck 10y ago
It’s so strange to read a TSA person make some reasonable criticisms on the one hand, and to then come up with ridiculous proposals such as adding REMOVAL OF SHOES to the pre-check lane?!? Heck, removal of shoes and other items is probably 75% of the entire travel delay (they should just sit there for a few minutes and watch people stumbling around). Just about the only sensible measure at this point is to return to a bullshit-rules list of length zero, and just say “right this way, please”.
themckman 10y ago
One thing I've noticed recently at SEA is that there appears to be some sort of privatized PreCheck. I've had some guy come around with brochures for the company offering minimal lines/waiting to get through security if you signup for whatever the program is. Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding the company online.
- kristjansson 10y ago
  These guys https://www.clearme.com/ https://www.clearme.com/ ? Seems weird to me, and quite expensive for what they offer...
peter303 10y ago
Maybe next adminstration will introduce profiling, which seems an absurbs oversight after spending tens of billions on security, not to mention the time cost. Yoing Arab men should get more ecrutiny than old ladies in wheel chairs.
na85 10y ago
TSA seems like a government make-work project.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with make-work; but surely it could be accomplished without an accompanying make-miserable?
  - Filligree 10y ago
    If you're planning to spend money on make-work, then you might as well make a go at basic income. But in fact there's plenty of real work that could usefully be done instead. Fixing some of that crumbling infrastructure, perhaps? ...this is just grousing. None of us disagree, and nothing we say here will help. sigh
    - jliptzin 10y ago
      I wouldn't want TSA employees reallocated towards rebuilding our bridges and tunnels. That would cause extreme anxiety for me, at the very least.
  - panzagl 10y ago
    It is funny how HN comes across as both pro basic income and anti government jobs programs.
    - hx87 10y ago
      Paying people is acceptable. Paying people to make me miserable is not acceptable.
    - plandis 10y ago
      It's almost as if different people have different opinions. If anything, that's a great reason to read HN :)
    - obstacle1 10y ago
goodells 10y ago
I find it difficult to believe that the bureaucrats that came up with this couldn't recognize the gaping hole and inconvenience that TSA PreCheck is. This could be interpreted as some acknowledgement of the security theater they're putting on, indicative of poor management/internal lack of faith at the TSA, or some combination of both. As an aside - I've never had the opportunity to rant about this before - the Dane County Regional Airport is laid out in such a way that there are two escalators that go up to the security checkpoints on the upper level, one on each side of the ticketing counters. One is TSA PreCheck, the other is not (yes, entirely 1/2 of the locations they have available are TSA PreCheck, and there are always lines at the other side). The signage is very poor and many, many people end up going to the PreCheck side, get turned away, and then need to walk 10 minutes to the other side of the airport to go through the regular lane. Of course this could be avoided if you enroll in that program, but for people who travel by plane infrequently, the cost/benefit ratio just isn't there.
- pklausler 10y ago
  Oh, come on. 10 minutes? BS. If you're shuffling behind a walker, dragging unwheeled luggage, and have to stop and take a dump in the men's room, maybe that's 10 at most. Any able adult can walk that stretch in Madison's tiny little femto-airport in a couple of minutes. It's not even a long frisbee toss. (I had to live there for six years and got to know those dozen horrible bus-station-ish gates all too well.)
danvasquez29 10y ago
I signed up for TSA PreCheck recently and have taken 3 trips with it so far, all to different locations. One thing that has stood out to me is that the security agents that check IDs REALLY check ID's. There's a notable difference in the length of time and scrutiny they put into it, and some even asked follow up questions like where I was born and where I was going, which just about never happens in regular security. It made me think that they were maybe taking advantage of the lower volume and lower stress environment and using behavior based analysis like the Israeli's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/israels-risk-based-approach-to-airport-security-impossible-for-e/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/israels-risk-base...)
- jrockway 10y ago
  I have also had PreCheck for many years, and have not noticed this. In fact, when the regular lines are long, they just bring people out of those lines and into the PreCheck lines. The big kicker is that they have PreCheck at SFO, whose security isn't even run by the TSA. It's just some random private company. PreCheck is basically the government admitting that nobody is interested in blowing up planes and that it's not worth the effort to thoroughly screen people (which they do not do in the regular lines either). Heart disease or a car accident is what's going to kill you. There will always be terrorist attacks. They don't matter in aggregate.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > some even asked follow up questions like where I was born Why? Your ID doesn't have that information.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    I'd guess the parent has a "weird" last name. My significant other appears "white" but has an Arabic last name and is frequently asked these kinds of questions.
  - knz 10y ago
    Passports do.
huffmsa 10y ago
Potential acts of terror stopped at the checkpoint by the TSA since 2001: 0 ---Edit--- Knitting needles confiscated and grannies fondled: Classified as it pertains to Homeland Security
- niij 10y ago
  It's there a source for this? I find it hard to believe that some idiot hadn't tried to bring something onboard in the past 15 years.
  - huffmsa 10y ago
    They have and they succeeded, the shoe bomber guy and the guy who set his scrotum on fire.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      How is the shoe-bomber-guy a TSA success story?
      - huffmsa 10y ago
        He's not. Those two are really the only AQ tied incidents since 9/11 and they waltzed right past the TSA.
        realityking 10y ago
        FWIW the shoe-bomber boarded his flight in Paris. Hard to blame the TSA for not stopping him.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - anubisresources 10y ago
    People have forgotten guns and knives in their luggage that TSA has confiscated, and TSA proudly advertises those numbers. What is noticeably absent is information about any attacks TSA has thwarted. Of course it's possible some attacks have been prevented by deterrence but I doubt that as TSA has a 95℅ failure rate detecting explosives and other weapons[1]. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u... Slate has another article from 2010 you might enjoy http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/does_the_tsa_ever_catch_terrorists.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
feld 10y ago
My TSA PreCheck experience: - no removing shoes - never bothered about my computer gear, screwdriver set, razor blades - completely through security in a few minutes Then I look at the people in he regular line while waiting for my friend and see everyone's personal space being invaded, bags rifled through, electronics and cables strewn about, harassed over the stupidest items It's a joke. PreCheck is proof they aren't serious about security. Anyone could pay the $75 and walk through with dangerous items. That said, I'll gladly continue to use PreCheck because if someone wants to attack an airport they'll attack the long security line which I won't be stuck in.
- gcb0 10y ago
  you are already paying a tsa fee on each ticket. and you not only accept the crappy and ineffective service you paid for, but you pay extra just to not be subject to what you paid for in the first place. you are a genius! California should try this model for the next drought.
- monocasa 10y ago
  I always took the precheck to be a clever setup for a useless organization. They have the completing concerns that they both need to A) screen enough people that our looks like they're doing something and, B) minimize inconveniencing the kind of people that Representatives actually listen to. By adding that fee to skip the line, they add a de facto class distinction on who gets screened.
- hash-set 10y ago
  I personally don't think an item is particularly dangerous lacking the intent to use it. I'm tired of the breathless stories about people forgetting their concealed weapons and then getting nicked for it. Yes, it's a dumb move, and maybe for some carrying a gun is irrational, but for others, it is a daily part of life and is necessary and they passed the background checks so what threat are they? None. Yet the government lays a heavy fine on these people for what is a minor mistake. And for the downvoters: I'm fine with how firearms are currently handled when it comes to commercial aviation, but I will note that if you own your own plane or have access to a private jet, there is NOTHING stopping you from carrying your gun right onto the plane! The horror! And many commercial pilots are also armed, so these 'prohibited items' are all over the airports despite what the public believes. What most concerns me is not the few dumbasses, but the breathless reporting of non-newsworthy events. We all just want to get where we're headed safely and not deal with a lot of bs.
LukaAl 10y ago
The problem with this article is that it fails to recognize the real threat model. The objective of a terrorist is not to blow up a plane, it is to scary people and do this by killing and injuring the highest number of people while minimizing the risk of being detected. If this is the threat model, why a rational terrorist should try to put the bomb on a plane? The Brussel Terror Attack has shown exactly this[0]. Terrorist killing themselves at the check-in counter (but they could have chosen the security lanes). Obviously, we need airport security because the threat model is not only terrorists but also hijackers and smugglers (and non-rational terrorists?). Obviously, the risk of using the hijacked plane as a bomb, like in 11/9 is still a risk, but other measures like reinforced cabin doors are more effective for that. So, basically, the TSA is a failure in making people safer and but a huge success in making traveler life miserable. TSA Pre-Check is nothing but them keeping on with their "good work". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Brussels_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Brussel...
- literallycancer 10y ago
  If the goal of terrorist organizations was to kill the most people, they would target critical infrastructure, like drinking water reservoirs or perhaps air traffic control towers, if they have a thing for airplanes. They will say they are trying to kill people to help their cause, but it's more likely that they operate as any other 'business'. They try to impress the 'investors' (e.g. Wahhabis with oil money), so they can get more resources and expand into other 'markets'.
- kapitza 10y ago
  Because the goal (or rather the means) of terrorists is to scare people. And it's much scarier to imagine your plane being blown up in the air. Reason has nothing to do with it. The number of deaths due to car accidents, even falling down the stairs, is much greater. The main impact of terrorism is the irrational fear, not the rational risk aversion. But it's much easier to stamp out terrorism by force, hard as that may be, than to convert human beings into rational animals. The goal of terrorists is to achieve power through violence. The gold standard would be the PLO, now the PA. The ANC also did extremely well with this strategy. There are two effective ways to combat terrorism. One is to surrender to the terrorists. Neither the PLO, nor the ANC, nor the IRA, is setting off any bombs these days. Works great especially if surrounded by a cloud of euphemisms. The other is to treat the terrorism as an isolated incident and counterattack on the political front. Consider the response to Timothy McVeigh or especially Dylann Roof -- textbook. Great stuff, America still knows how to do it. If terrorism is committed in the name of the Confederate flag, ban the Confederate flag and crack down on white nationalists everywhere. Even the peaceful ones. Especially the peaceful ones. No one ever said that the best way to defeat racist terrorism is to satisfy the legitimate grievances of moderate racists. But if the USG adopted this strategy, the GOP would probably grow a "militant wing" in well under a decade...
CWuestefeld 10y ago
Allow liquids to stay in the carry-on since TSA scanners can detect threat liquids. Wait a minute - is Hawley admitting here that the whole thing with throwing out all liquids before entering is a sham? Does anyone have more information on this?
- jpalomaki 10y ago
  According to TSA PreCheck page[1] the same liquid limitations still apply, you just don't have to put them on the belt. I don't think this is about them being able to detect the threat liquids. For the security checkpoint throughput it is important to avoid having to stop people and dig into their bags. I believe the reason for picking the liquids out of bag is just to make it faster for the security person to check you are not carrying too much. For PreCheck flyers this is not needed, since most of them are seasoned travelers and now the limits. [1] https://www.tsa.gov/precheck https://www.tsa.gov/precheck
- byoung2 10y ago
  Anyone who has traveled with a baby knows they can easily scan liquids inside the bag (e.g. formula and a gallon of distilled water). There is no need to even put them in a separate plastic bag. Sometimes they do a bomb residue test, however. I suspect throwing out liquids was a scam to sell you more drinks at higher prices after the checkpoint.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    I travelled through the US from Mexico to Europe last year. Bought a nice bottle of Mezcal at the airport in Mexico, had it in a sealed bag to enable travel. TSA agent didn't trust the travel seal, so he took it out of the bag, scanned bottle with some cotton swabs put into a device (my guess is HPLC), it was OK so he re-sealed my bag with TSA tape so I could carry it on multiple flights in Europe.
bluedino 10y ago
>> Timothy McVeigh was an upstanding US citizen before he blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building He was a paranoid, transient psychopath, anti-government activist, with more emotional and psychological problems than you could shake a stick at. He would be on all kinds of lists today.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Would he? I mean, the people that blew up the airport in France had formal training at the Al'Qaeda camps. The guy that tried to explode his underwear had most of those traits, and his father calling the authorities on him before the event. It shouldn't be hard for a police force to keep control of everybody that gets enough tools to make a bomb that passes the older airport scanners. Instead, we get the government reading our email and that joke of security.
- willvarfar 10y ago
  And, to pick another lone wolf, which lists might Brevik be on if he were at-large today?
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> What the Trusted Traveler program does is create two different access paths into the airport: high security and low security They're both low security. PreCheck just admits that and creates a low-hassle, low-volume lane.
Havoc 10y ago
I just don't get how the TSA manages to be so much worse than other country's border checks. Its like they've made it their mission in life to be as much of a pain as possible.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  FWIW, Munich is just as bad as major American airports, or at least it was this past September. Edinburg and Dublin both seem to be doing it well. Minimal hassle. Plus, the US "border" check in Dublin is smoother than (non-pre-screened) checks at IAD.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    The US checkpoint in Sydney didn't strike me as too bad, especially considering they have to process an A380-load all at once. Auckland is just terrible though. You get off a plane from the US and they put you through an undersized security chokepoint before allowing you to move to another terminal.
  - Havoc 10y ago
    >FWIW, Munich is just as bad as major American airports, or at least it was this past September. Strange - I was in Munich during September as well - Oktoberfest. You could see security staff was a little on edge but was fine otherwise. Just the usual strip everything metal & go through scanner.
- ChrisBland 10y ago
  I've spoken to a few people who work for dod/dia et al as it relates to DHS/TSA. They say they employ 3 types of people: 1) those that need a job and don't care 2) those that like having authority over others but couldn't cut it in other jobs, and 3) those with bad grades, bad pedigree, etc who are trying to work their way up DHS and transfer to another agency from within.
  - r00fus 10y ago
    So pretty much the kind of people you wouldn't want to interact with. Wonderful.
endtheshow 10y ago
To me, the base assumption that the TSA has anything to do with security is just wrong. The TSA did the following. 1. It let the people feel better post 911 2. It created low skill minimum wage jobs to boost employment numbers. 3. It increased Gov. control over traveling with increased internal data on the movement of legitimate citizens. 4.surved to create the most intricate theater around. The only thing that, since 911 has stopped anything, has been onboard citizen action and stronger doors to the cockpit.
- huffmsa 10y ago
  Regrettably we found that the doors are as sturdy as promised in the real world last year with the suicide of that German pilot.
awinter-py 10y ago
schneier is discounting the possibility that terrorists hate standing on lines.

Thankfully, Amex Platinum benefits include a credit for Global Entry which automatically gets you TSA Pre-Check, so I've been whizzing through border patrol and TSA for a long time now. Unfortunately, it's a protection racket that requires participants to turn over their fingerprints into a national database, so it has all sorts of ethical and philosophical murkiness around it. In the end though, if you're traveling for business its one of those things you can't afford not to have because of how stupid the process for regular joes is. As a frequent traveler I can only agree with Bruce's conclusion here. TSA Pre-check is a failure, not because it doesn't provide enough security, but because the existing process for regular travelers is completely pointless. As any frequent traveler is already fully aware, the TSA is a big joke, and going back more or less to how we did airport security pre-9/11 with the better scanning technology is more than good enough for the realistic threat level and would greatly reduce traveler stress and increase airport throughput. The TSA is failed jobs program which has threatened the civil liberties of the average traveler for no gain whatsoever in national security. It's time to cut it back to something realistic.

sebleon 10y ago
TSA pre-check is actually a good honeypot for finding bad people. Regular TSA is a joke, so having these people skip it is fine. But coming up with a shortened list including most evil doers is golden. I'm sure they scrutinize the heck out of anyone that's trying to avoid detection.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  Someone that doesn't think it's worth paying the $85 fee for PreCheck is now an "evildoer"? There are a lot of people in this country that fly very rarely and for whom $85 is a lot of money.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    Not agreeing with them, but you misread what they said. They said that PreCheck itself was a self-selecting list of "evildoers" (i.e. the only people who pay for it are up to no good). As I said, I don't agree, but that's what they posted.
    - sebleon 10y ago
      To clarify, I meant that vast majority of evil doers would pay $85 for less screening (alongside a lot of normal people). While doing thorough background checks on all travelers is an impossible task, it might possible to do thorough checks on all Pre-Check members. This could be worth it for the TSA, even if 99% of PreCheck members are good.
      - Johnny555 10y ago
        I read it that way at first, but then went the other way because it makes no sense -- there's so little difference in screening between lines, why would a terrorist invite more scrutiny months before they are ready to act? Besides, an organized terrorist cell is not going to bring their bomb through security anyway, they are going to bring it in on a catering truck or one of the other thousand service vehicles that enter the poorly secured airport perimeter every day. There's no way to "body scan" a truck.
        calvano915 10y ago
        "There's no way to "body scan" a truck." I've seen something similar on a show in the past and found this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPfUSPVH6oQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPfUSPVH6oQ Up for debate is how reliable these scanners are.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

1024core 10y ago

Pre-Check is nothing but a fund-raising scheme by the TSA. They have an incentive to further slow down the usual screening lanes, so more people will buy into PreCheck! How is this not a bad incentive??

makecheck 10y ago

It’s so strange to read a TSA person make some reasonable criticisms on the one hand, and to then come up with ridiculous proposals such as adding REMOVAL OF SHOES to the pre-check lane?!? Heck, removal of shoes and other items is probably 75% of the entire travel delay (they should just sit there for a few minutes and watch people stumbling around). Just about the only sensible measure at this point is to return to a bullshit-rules list of length zero, and just say “right this way, please”.

themckman 10y ago

One thing I've noticed recently at SEA is that there appears to be some sort of privatized PreCheck. I've had some guy come around with brochures for the company offering minimal lines/waiting to get through security if you signup for whatever the program is. Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding the company online.

kristjansson 10y ago
These guys https://www.clearme.com/ https://www.clearme.com/ ? Seems weird to me, and quite expensive for what they offer...

peter303 10y ago

Maybe next adminstration will introduce profiling, which seems an absurbs oversight after spending tens of billions on security, not to mention the time cost. Yoing Arab men should get more ecrutiny than old ladies in wheel chairs.

na85 10y ago

TSA seems like a government make-work project.

JadeNB 10y ago
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with make-work; but surely it could be accomplished without an accompanying make-miserable?
- Filligree 10y ago
  If you're planning to spend money on make-work, then you might as well make a go at basic income. But in fact there's plenty of real work that could usefully be done instead. Fixing some of that crumbling infrastructure, perhaps? ...this is just grousing. None of us disagree, and nothing we say here will help. sigh
  - jliptzin 10y ago
    I wouldn't want TSA employees reallocated towards rebuilding our bridges and tunnels. That would cause extreme anxiety for me, at the very least.
- panzagl 10y ago
  It is funny how HN comes across as both pro basic income and anti government jobs programs.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Paying people is acceptable. Paying people to make me miserable is not acceptable.
  - plandis 10y ago
    It's almost as if different people have different opinions. If anything, that's a great reason to read HN :)
  - obstacle1 10y ago

goodells 10y ago

I find it difficult to believe that the bureaucrats that came up with this couldn't recognize the gaping hole and inconvenience that TSA PreCheck is. This could be interpreted as some acknowledgement of the security theater they're putting on, indicative of poor management/internal lack of faith at the TSA, or some combination of both. As an aside - I've never had the opportunity to rant about this before - the Dane County Regional Airport is laid out in such a way that there are two escalators that go up to the security checkpoints on the upper level, one on each side of the ticketing counters. One is TSA PreCheck, the other is not (yes, entirely 1/2 of the locations they have available are TSA PreCheck, and there are always lines at the other side). The signage is very poor and many, many people end up going to the PreCheck side, get turned away, and then need to walk 10 minutes to the other side of the airport to go through the regular lane. Of course this could be avoided if you enroll in that program, but for people who travel by plane infrequently, the cost/benefit ratio just isn't there.

pklausler 10y ago
Oh, come on. 10 minutes? BS. If you're shuffling behind a walker, dragging unwheeled luggage, and have to stop and take a dump in the men's room, maybe that's 10 at most. Any able adult can walk that stretch in Madison's tiny little femto-airport in a couple of minutes. It's not even a long frisbee toss. (I had to live there for six years and got to know those dozen horrible bus-station-ish gates all too well.)

danvasquez29 10y ago

I signed up for TSA PreCheck recently and have taken 3 trips with it so far, all to different locations. One thing that has stood out to me is that the security agents that check IDs REALLY check ID's. There's a notable difference in the length of time and scrutiny they put into it, and some even asked follow up questions like where I was born and where I was going, which just about never happens in regular security. It made me think that they were maybe taking advantage of the lower volume and lower stress environment and using behavior based analysis like the Israeli's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/israels-risk-based-approach-to-airport-security-impossible-for-e/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/israels-risk-base...)

jrockway 10y ago
I have also had PreCheck for many years, and have not noticed this. In fact, when the regular lines are long, they just bring people out of those lines and into the PreCheck lines. The big kicker is that they have PreCheck at SFO, whose security isn't even run by the TSA. It's just some random private company. PreCheck is basically the government admitting that nobody is interested in blowing up planes and that it's not worth the effort to thoroughly screen people (which they do not do in the regular lines either). Heart disease or a car accident is what's going to kill you. There will always be terrorist attacks. They don't matter in aggregate.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
> some even asked follow up questions like where I was born Why? Your ID doesn't have that information.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  I'd guess the parent has a "weird" last name. My significant other appears "white" but has an Arabic last name and is frequently asked these kinds of questions.
- knz 10y ago
  Passports do.

huffmsa 10y ago

Potential acts of terror stopped at the checkpoint by the TSA since 2001: 0 ---Edit--- Knitting needles confiscated and grannies fondled: Classified as it pertains to Homeland Security

niij 10y ago
It's there a source for this? I find it hard to believe that some idiot hadn't tried to bring something onboard in the past 15 years.
- huffmsa 10y ago
  They have and they succeeded, the shoe bomber guy and the guy who set his scrotum on fire.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    How is the shoe-bomber-guy a TSA success story?
    - huffmsa 10y ago
      He's not. Those two are really the only AQ tied incidents since 9/11 and they waltzed right past the TSA.
      - realityking 10y ago
        FWIW the shoe-bomber boarded his flight in Paris. Hard to blame the TSA for not stopping him.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- anubisresources 10y ago
  People have forgotten guns and knives in their luggage that TSA has confiscated, and TSA proudly advertises those numbers. What is noticeably absent is information about any attacks TSA has thwarted. Of course it's possible some attacks have been prevented by deterrence but I doubt that as TSA has a 95℅ failure rate detecting explosives and other weapons[1]. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u... Slate has another article from 2010 you might enjoy http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/does_the_tsa_ever_catch_terrorists.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

feld 10y ago

My TSA PreCheck experience: - no removing shoes - never bothered about my computer gear, screwdriver set, razor blades - completely through security in a few minutes Then I look at the people in he regular line while waiting for my friend and see everyone's personal space being invaded, bags rifled through, electronics and cables strewn about, harassed over the stupidest items It's a joke. PreCheck is proof they aren't serious about security. Anyone could pay the $75 and walk through with dangerous items. That said, I'll gladly continue to use PreCheck because if someone wants to attack an airport they'll attack the long security line which I won't be stuck in.

gcb0 10y ago
you are already paying a tsa fee on each ticket. and you not only accept the crappy and ineffective service you paid for, but you pay extra just to not be subject to what you paid for in the first place. you are a genius! California should try this model for the next drought.
monocasa 10y ago
I always took the precheck to be a clever setup for a useless organization. They have the completing concerns that they both need to A) screen enough people that our looks like they're doing something and, B) minimize inconveniencing the kind of people that Representatives actually listen to. By adding that fee to skip the line, they add a de facto class distinction on who gets screened.
hash-set 10y ago
I personally don't think an item is particularly dangerous lacking the intent to use it. I'm tired of the breathless stories about people forgetting their concealed weapons and then getting nicked for it. Yes, it's a dumb move, and maybe for some carrying a gun is irrational, but for others, it is a daily part of life and is necessary and they passed the background checks so what threat are they? None. Yet the government lays a heavy fine on these people for what is a minor mistake. And for the downvoters: I'm fine with how firearms are currently handled when it comes to commercial aviation, but I will note that if you own your own plane or have access to a private jet, there is NOTHING stopping you from carrying your gun right onto the plane! The horror! And many commercial pilots are also armed, so these 'prohibited items' are all over the airports despite what the public believes. What most concerns me is not the few dumbasses, but the breathless reporting of non-newsworthy events. We all just want to get where we're headed safely and not deal with a lot of bs.

LukaAl 10y ago

The problem with this article is that it fails to recognize the real threat model. The objective of a terrorist is not to blow up a plane, it is to scary people and do this by killing and injuring the highest number of people while minimizing the risk of being detected. If this is the threat model, why a rational terrorist should try to put the bomb on a plane? The Brussel Terror Attack has shown exactly this[0]. Terrorist killing themselves at the check-in counter (but they could have chosen the security lanes). Obviously, we need airport security because the threat model is not only terrorists but also hijackers and smugglers (and non-rational terrorists?). Obviously, the risk of using the hijacked plane as a bomb, like in 11/9 is still a risk, but other measures like reinforced cabin doors are more effective for that. So, basically, the TSA is a failure in making people safer and but a huge success in making traveler life miserable. TSA Pre-Check is nothing but them keeping on with their "good work". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Brussels_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Brussel...

literallycancer 10y ago
If the goal of terrorist organizations was to kill the most people, they would target critical infrastructure, like drinking water reservoirs or perhaps air traffic control towers, if they have a thing for airplanes. They will say they are trying to kill people to help their cause, but it's more likely that they operate as any other 'business'. They try to impress the 'investors' (e.g. Wahhabis with oil money), so they can get more resources and expand into other 'markets'.
kapitza 10y ago
Because the goal (or rather the means) of terrorists is to scare people. And it's much scarier to imagine your plane being blown up in the air. Reason has nothing to do with it. The number of deaths due to car accidents, even falling down the stairs, is much greater. The main impact of terrorism is the irrational fear, not the rational risk aversion. But it's much easier to stamp out terrorism by force, hard as that may be, than to convert human beings into rational animals. The goal of terrorists is to achieve power through violence. The gold standard would be the PLO, now the PA. The ANC also did extremely well with this strategy. There are two effective ways to combat terrorism. One is to surrender to the terrorists. Neither the PLO, nor the ANC, nor the IRA, is setting off any bombs these days. Works great especially if surrounded by a cloud of euphemisms. The other is to treat the terrorism as an isolated incident and counterattack on the political front. Consider the response to Timothy McVeigh or especially Dylann Roof -- textbook. Great stuff, America still knows how to do it. If terrorism is committed in the name of the Confederate flag, ban the Confederate flag and crack down on white nationalists everywhere. Even the peaceful ones. Especially the peaceful ones. No one ever said that the best way to defeat racist terrorism is to satisfy the legitimate grievances of moderate racists. But if the USG adopted this strategy, the GOP would probably grow a "militant wing" in well under a decade...

CWuestefeld 10y ago

Allow liquids to stay in the carry-on since TSA scanners can detect threat liquids. Wait a minute - is Hawley admitting here that the whole thing with throwing out all liquids before entering is a sham? Does anyone have more information on this?

jpalomaki 10y ago
According to TSA PreCheck page[1] the same liquid limitations still apply, you just don't have to put them on the belt. I don't think this is about them being able to detect the threat liquids. For the security checkpoint throughput it is important to avoid having to stop people and dig into their bags. I believe the reason for picking the liquids out of bag is just to make it faster for the security person to check you are not carrying too much. For PreCheck flyers this is not needed, since most of them are seasoned travelers and now the limits. [1] https://www.tsa.gov/precheck https://www.tsa.gov/precheck
byoung2 10y ago
Anyone who has traveled with a baby knows they can easily scan liquids inside the bag (e.g. formula and a gallon of distilled water). There is no need to even put them in a separate plastic bag. Sometimes they do a bomb residue test, however. I suspect throwing out liquids was a scam to sell you more drinks at higher prices after the checkpoint.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  I travelled through the US from Mexico to Europe last year. Bought a nice bottle of Mezcal at the airport in Mexico, had it in a sealed bag to enable travel. TSA agent didn't trust the travel seal, so he took it out of the bag, scanned bottle with some cotton swabs put into a device (my guess is HPLC), it was OK so he re-sealed my bag with TSA tape so I could carry it on multiple flights in Europe.

bluedino 10y ago

>> Timothy McVeigh was an upstanding US citizen before he blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building He was a paranoid, transient psychopath, anti-government activist, with more emotional and psychological problems than you could shake a stick at. He would be on all kinds of lists today.

marcosdumay 10y ago
Would he? I mean, the people that blew up the airport in France had formal training at the Al'Qaeda camps. The guy that tried to explode his underwear had most of those traits, and his father calling the authorities on him before the event. It shouldn't be hard for a police force to keep control of everybody that gets enough tools to make a bomb that passes the older airport scanners. Instead, we get the government reading our email and that joke of security.
willvarfar 10y ago
And, to pick another lone wolf, which lists might Brevik be on if he were at-large today?

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> What the Trusted Traveler program does is create two different access paths into the airport: high security and low security They're both low security. PreCheck just admits that and creates a low-hassle, low-volume lane.

Havoc 10y ago

I just don't get how the TSA manages to be so much worse than other country's border checks. Its like they've made it their mission in life to be as much of a pain as possible.

alistairSH 10y ago
FWIW, Munich is just as bad as major American airports, or at least it was this past September. Edinburg and Dublin both seem to be doing it well. Minimal hassle. Plus, the US "border" check in Dublin is smoother than (non-pre-screened) checks at IAD.
- coredog64 10y ago
  The US checkpoint in Sydney didn't strike me as too bad, especially considering they have to process an A380-load all at once. Auckland is just terrible though. You get off a plane from the US and they put you through an undersized security chokepoint before allowing you to move to another terminal.
- Havoc 10y ago
  >FWIW, Munich is just as bad as major American airports, or at least it was this past September. Strange - I was in Munich during September as well - Oktoberfest. You could see security staff was a little on edge but was fine otherwise. Just the usual strip everything metal & go through scanner.
ChrisBland 10y ago
I've spoken to a few people who work for dod/dia et al as it relates to DHS/TSA. They say they employ 3 types of people: 1) those that need a job and don't care 2) those that like having authority over others but couldn't cut it in other jobs, and 3) those with bad grades, bad pedigree, etc who are trying to work their way up DHS and transfer to another agency from within.
- r00fus 10y ago
  So pretty much the kind of people you wouldn't want to interact with. Wonderful.

endtheshow 10y ago

To me, the base assumption that the TSA has anything to do with security is just wrong. The TSA did the following. 1. It let the people feel better post 911 2. It created low skill minimum wage jobs to boost employment numbers. 3. It increased Gov. control over traveling with increased internal data on the movement of legitimate citizens. 4.surved to create the most intricate theater around. The only thing that, since 911 has stopped anything, has been onboard citizen action and stronger doors to the cockpit.

huffmsa 10y ago
Regrettably we found that the doors are as sturdy as promised in the real world last year with the suicide of that German pilot.

awinter-py 10y ago

schneier is discounting the possibility that terrorists hate standing on lines.