3 ms·

I'm not the best person in the world to write about TSA experiences, given that I have a prosthetic, and so the TSA's general assumption is that I'm a futuristi

I'm not the best person in the world to write about TSA experiences, given that I have a prosthetic, and so the TSA's general assumption is that I'm a futuristic cyborg capable of firing bolts of directed energy from it. That said, I've actually had different iPad experiences based on the particular iPad case I used at the time. n = oh, about 4, so take this with a grain of salt. But when I used a generic, black leather case, I had no problems leaving it in the bag. After awhile I became a bit more stylish, and I bought a case resembling an old-school composition notepad (by Portenzo, makers of awesome iPad cases). That flashy little number got my bag searched on a consistent basis, until I developed the good sense to just take it out of the bag and put it in a separate bin. Seems that the case is just clever and novel enough to set off the "This guy is up to something" alarm with TSA agents. All of which makes me think that they're looking for anomalies. If something becomes standard enough, they gradually start to let it slip into the background. If they've never seen something before, they'll on it like flies on a dungheap. To me, this seems like a frighteningly simplistic security stance -- but what do I know?

yajoe 15y ago
Yes, they seem to look for "fingerprints." Your second cover may have interfered with the fingerprint just enough. I overheard one TSA agent mentoring another on the x-ray machine just a couple days after the iPad 2 was available. The first TSA agent got confused looking at the new iPad2, and the second agent explained how many batteries each had. I overheard something like "iPad 1 had 2 batteries and the iPad 2 had 3, and the batteries should be in these spots." Did you know there were multiple batteries a few days after shipping? I was impressed. My expectations were low to begin with, but the second TSA agent had legitimate technical knowledge. Edit: I'm not supporting TSA or saying this is the right approach. This anecdote seemed to support your supposition for how they screened items. I still was impressed an x-ray tech knew the insides of an iPad 2 better than even engadget. Thank you for making your point, though :)
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  That seems impressive, I agree, and I'm all for giving credit where it's due. But the problem with looking only for "fingerprints" is that you're inherently narrowing your search spectrum. By doing so, you're actually making the job easier for terrorists -- whose goal, roughly speaking, is to move to wherever the spotlight isn't shining. Bruce Schneier does a much better job explaining this phenomenon than I can ever hope to. But essentially, there's a good argument to be made that totally random searches are superior to fingerprint searches. Terrorists operate on probabilistic scenario analysis. They will only attempt a plot if they're close to 100% sure that they can pull it off, because a failure embarrasses them in the eyes of their sympathizers and would-be financial benefactors. It makes them look like amateurs, and nobody wants to fund an amateurish organization. So even doing something like randomly screening every Nth passenger (where N changes daily) inherently reduces the odds of success by a fixed daily percentage. Terrorists are more scared of dice rolls than they are of fingerprint searches. I'm no security expert, and for all I know, some combination of random searches and fingerprint searches is the optimal portfolio. I can, at least, understand the logic there, and it makes some sense. But focusing solely on fingerprints creates loopholes everywhere else. And it seems that the TSA has become more and more laser-focused on fingerprints in recent years.
  - mark_integerdsv 15y ago
    Not long ago some Israeli security hard cases explained how they handle this issue at Ben Gurion. You can probably still find it online somewhere, basically their monitors are highly trained in profiling and they use psychology and hyper profiling to spot potential threats. I want to say it works like a bomb but...
    - jonnathanson 15y ago
      I've heard bits and pieces about the Israeli methodology, and I've also heard critiques of its potential for application in the US (mostly, centering on the idea that our population is too big, too diverse, and too spread out to accommodate the training and consistency of the Israeli program). Whatever the case, one thing does seem fairly clear: that the Israeli investment in people, rather than machines, seems to be paying a good dividend. And I'm tempted to say that we'd be better off staffing airports with better people and slightly older / less intrusive machines, rather than cutting-edge machines and bottom-of-the-barrel staff.

yajoe 15y ago

Yes, they seem to look for "fingerprints." Your second cover may have interfered with the fingerprint just enough. I overheard one TSA agent mentoring another on the x-ray machine just a couple days after the iPad 2 was available. The first TSA agent got confused looking at the new iPad2, and the second agent explained how many batteries each had. I overheard something like "iPad 1 had 2 batteries and the iPad 2 had 3, and the batteries should be in these spots." Did you know there were multiple batteries a few days after shipping? I was impressed. My expectations were low to begin with, but the second TSA agent had legitimate technical knowledge. Edit: I'm not supporting TSA or saying this is the right approach. This anecdote seemed to support your supposition for how they screened items. I still was impressed an x-ray tech knew the insides of an iPad 2 better than even engadget. Thank you for making your point, though :)

jonnathanson 15y ago
That seems impressive, I agree, and I'm all for giving credit where it's due. But the problem with looking only for "fingerprints" is that you're inherently narrowing your search spectrum. By doing so, you're actually making the job easier for terrorists -- whose goal, roughly speaking, is to move to wherever the spotlight isn't shining. Bruce Schneier does a much better job explaining this phenomenon than I can ever hope to. But essentially, there's a good argument to be made that totally random searches are superior to fingerprint searches. Terrorists operate on probabilistic scenario analysis. They will only attempt a plot if they're close to 100% sure that they can pull it off, because a failure embarrasses them in the eyes of their sympathizers and would-be financial benefactors. It makes them look like amateurs, and nobody wants to fund an amateurish organization. So even doing something like randomly screening every Nth passenger (where N changes daily) inherently reduces the odds of success by a fixed daily percentage. Terrorists are more scared of dice rolls than they are of fingerprint searches. I'm no security expert, and for all I know, some combination of random searches and fingerprint searches is the optimal portfolio. I can, at least, understand the logic there, and it makes some sense. But focusing solely on fingerprints creates loopholes everywhere else. And it seems that the TSA has become more and more laser-focused on fingerprints in recent years.
- mark_integerdsv 15y ago
  Not long ago some Israeli security hard cases explained how they handle this issue at Ben Gurion. You can probably still find it online somewhere, basically their monitors are highly trained in profiling and they use psychology and hyper profiling to spot potential threats. I want to say it works like a bomb but...
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    I've heard bits and pieces about the Israeli methodology, and I've also heard critiques of its potential for application in the US (mostly, centering on the idea that our population is too big, too diverse, and too spread out to accommodate the training and consistency of the Israeli program). Whatever the case, one thing does seem fairly clear: that the Israeli investment in people, rather than machines, seems to be paying a good dividend. And I'm tempted to say that we'd be better off staffing airports with better people and slightly older / less intrusive machines, rather than cutting-edge machines and bottom-of-the-barrel staff.