4 ms·

I've been very critical of the TSA, but if (since) that's the threat model, that actually highlights the benefit of security theater. As Schneier points out, th

I've been very critical of the TSA, but if (since) that's the threat model, that actually highlights the benefit of security theater. As Schneier points out, there are essentially no terrorists. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, and it's arguably better to just let the needle go through than to screw up all the hay. But if the terrorists are mainly just causing fear instead of harm, doesn't it make sense to counter it by making people feel safer instead of actually making them safer, especially if you practically can't do the latter? Food for thought...

hash-set 10y ago
I don't feel safer when government puts a soft glove around its forceful nature, though. Look, we need to keep bombs off of planes, I understand that. But TSA isn't all that successful at it--they failed pretty miserable in their last penetration tests. TSA Pre-Check seems to me to be the acknowledgement by government that they went too far in the direction of inconveniencing frequent fliers and in true government fashion, they devised a heavy-handed system that kinda sorta deals with that issue except it costs you your privacy. I don't know what the answer is. I despise our increasingly totalitarian nation, though. I also despise the leadership that flies on private jets and never has to see a TSA line but who get to decide for us what is best.
LukaAl 10y ago
I thought about that. But if finding a terrorist is like trying to find a needle in the haystack, Schneier suggestion (as well as any other expert in security will tell you), the best solution is truly random search. If it is truly random, the terrorists have no way to predict if they will be checked and if it is frequent enough, it will be sufficient to change their behavior. As for the point of sense of safety vs. real safety (impossible) is a well taken one. But this false safety could be dispensed with much lower costs for the citizens (both in terms of money and inconvenience).
- ethbro 10y ago
  > random search Or in other words, ignore concerns about profiling and implement an Israeli style security operation. I think it has a lot to be said for it. Profiling + politeness + a firm boundary on mandate (e.g. no drug convictions by airport security) doesn't seem that bad. Especially compared to what amounts to the same thing except with a vast security army of more poorly trained agents. Ethnically profiling selection without ethnically profiling assumption isn't a nuance I'd trust the average TSA agent to perform well.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    I think by "truly random" he means uniformly random, i.e. the exact opposite of profiling.
  - thescriptkiddie 10y ago
    Racial profiling is the opposite of a random search.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      If we want to be technical, it's a weighted random search based on historical observations. It would be the exact opposite if 100% of the ethnically profiled individuals were terrorists.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Well the Israelis profile single white european women in their 20's and 30's as one of the highest risk threat actors because historically they are been the ones that knowingly or unknowingly been used to smuggle munitions or explosives pass security. Being brown skinned an arab or a muslim isn't what would put you on top of their threat ranking.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  >If it is truly random, the terrorists have no way to predict if they will be checked and if it is frequent enough, it will be sufficient to change their behavior. If we are talking about suicide bombings, I don't see how this changes anything. If they don't get through, they will just blow themselves up as soon as they get randomly selected.
  - moises_silva 10y ago
    Agreed. To reinforce the comment I just made above to the parent. Someone willing to blow him/her self up will take any odds pretty much, and then kill whoever he can in the line once he/she is selected. I guess some kind of protocol can isolate individuals from the rest while the decision of being selected or not is made? that could just slow things down anyways though, so not sure how would something like that would look like.
- moises_silva 10y ago
  I'm curious on your reasoning here. What makes you think truly random search will be sufficient to change their behaviour? frequent enough means not always, hence, they can simply send multiple parties and then odds might be good enough that not all of them will be caught by the random search (again, depends on the frequency of search you left undetermined). What kind of odds do you think will stop a person willing to blow him/herself up?
knz 10y ago
To be fair to the TSA, they have requested that they are armed.

hash-set 10y ago

I don't feel safer when government puts a soft glove around its forceful nature, though. Look, we need to keep bombs off of planes, I understand that. But TSA isn't all that successful at it--they failed pretty miserable in their last penetration tests. TSA Pre-Check seems to me to be the acknowledgement by government that they went too far in the direction of inconveniencing frequent fliers and in true government fashion, they devised a heavy-handed system that kinda sorta deals with that issue except it costs you your privacy. I don't know what the answer is. I despise our increasingly totalitarian nation, though. I also despise the leadership that flies on private jets and never has to see a TSA line but who get to decide for us what is best.

LukaAl 10y ago

I thought about that. But if finding a terrorist is like trying to find a needle in the haystack, Schneier suggestion (as well as any other expert in security will tell you), the best solution is truly random search. If it is truly random, the terrorists have no way to predict if they will be checked and if it is frequent enough, it will be sufficient to change their behavior. As for the point of sense of safety vs. real safety (impossible) is a well taken one. But this false safety could be dispensed with much lower costs for the citizens (both in terms of money and inconvenience).

ethbro 10y ago
> random search Or in other words, ignore concerns about profiling and implement an Israeli style security operation. I think it has a lot to be said for it. Profiling + politeness + a firm boundary on mandate (e.g. no drug convictions by airport security) doesn't seem that bad. Especially compared to what amounts to the same thing except with a vast security army of more poorly trained agents. Ethnically profiling selection without ethnically profiling assumption isn't a nuance I'd trust the average TSA agent to perform well.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  I think by "truly random" he means uniformly random, i.e. the exact opposite of profiling.
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  Racial profiling is the opposite of a random search.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    If we want to be technical, it's a weighted random search based on historical observations. It would be the exact opposite if 100% of the ethnically profiled individuals were terrorists.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Well the Israelis profile single white european women in their 20's and 30's as one of the highest risk threat actors because historically they are been the ones that knowingly or unknowingly been used to smuggle munitions or explosives pass security. Being brown skinned an arab or a muslim isn't what would put you on top of their threat ranking.
alasdair_ 10y ago
>If it is truly random, the terrorists have no way to predict if they will be checked and if it is frequent enough, it will be sufficient to change their behavior. If we are talking about suicide bombings, I don't see how this changes anything. If they don't get through, they will just blow themselves up as soon as they get randomly selected.
- moises_silva 10y ago
  Agreed. To reinforce the comment I just made above to the parent. Someone willing to blow him/her self up will take any odds pretty much, and then kill whoever he can in the line once he/she is selected. I guess some kind of protocol can isolate individuals from the rest while the decision of being selected or not is made? that could just slow things down anyways though, so not sure how would something like that would look like.
moises_silva 10y ago
I'm curious on your reasoning here. What makes you think truly random search will be sufficient to change their behaviour? frequent enough means not always, hence, they can simply send multiple parties and then odds might be good enough that not all of them will be caught by the random search (again, depends on the frequency of search you left undetermined). What kind of odds do you think will stop a person willing to blow him/herself up?

knz 10y ago

To be fair to the TSA, they have requested that they are armed.