7 ms·
The TSA's Dumb Air-Security Rules Are Not Based on Science
- senjutsuka 14y agoWhile we're at it, most fire investigation isnt either. We should change that since it often leads to imprisonment.
- davidcuddeback 14y agoI was surprised by this. Googling turned up this article from 1998: http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article9.html http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article9.html, and of course Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_investigation#The_New_Science_of_Post-Flashover_Burning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_investigation#The_New_Scie... . Wikipedia makes it sounds like science is making it's way into fire investigation, starting with the 2005 and 2007 experiments by the ATF, but it's not clear how many fire investigators have paid attention to the results. Thanks for pointing this out. I learned something new today.
- crusso 14y ago> I learned something new today. Same here. I've always wondered at the certainty of the proclamations of fire investigations. I assumed that the disconnect between what I thought could be determined after everything was burned to a crisp -- and what they claimed to know about how a fire started and progressed was a result of my ignorance... go figure.
- sadga 14y agoThat article is interesting, but extremely violates Wikipedia's editorial policy. The wording is inflammatory and opinionated, not encycopedic: "The bottom line was “The “old-days” of locating the point of origin of a post-flashover fire by relying on the “lowest burn and deepest char” are OVER![12] When word of the ATF experiments reached the fire investigation community, people began to examine the data more closely, because an error rate over 90% was simply unimaginable! In fact, the poor results should have surprised nobody. "
- laserDinosaur 14y agoIt appears the page has already been tagged as "It is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject." in 2011, but so far nobody has decided to tidy it up.
- raintrees 14y agoIf we assume the TSA is a political response, and we consider the statement "Politics is show business for non-pretty people"* then the TSA's policies being referred to as Security Theater seems much more expected. *yes, I took a liberty to avoid such a negative emotional content word
- zithtar 14y agoWhy would you avoid saying the word ugly?
- mattgreenrocks 14y agoIt's a terrible headline that panders to readers' own bias. Most of politics isn't based on reason, but more squishy things. It doesn't take much nuance to figure this out.
- hlreed 14y agoI would think that the word politics would carry more negative emotional content than ugly.
- crusso 14y ago> "Politics is show business for non-pretty people" It's worse than that, since I'd categorize the TSA as part of the blob of bureaucracy that is one step removed from politics or real political (democratic) accountability. Voters and politicians panicked after 2001 and acted to do "something". Unfortunately, it's been over a decade since that something was put into place and for at very least half that time we've known that it's a mostly misguided effort. How long does it take for the US government to undo mistakes like this, if ever?
- psadauskas 14y agoThe "War on Drugs" has been going on for over 40 years now, so there's your answer.
- crusso 14y ago
- Sottilde 14y agoGood article, although short and without too much actual research or science. Not a fan of the second page that only contains a few sentences, though.
- jeremyarussell 14y agoOkay so it wasn't just me.
- mikeash 14y agoIn other breaking news, the sky is blue, and water is wet.
- jszielenski 14y ago"Finally, there's the Federal Aviation Administration rule that all electronics, even headphones and e-book readers, have to be turned off during takeoff and landing, allegedly to prevent interference with the plane's navigation systems. But the scientific evidence for this worry is sketchy. Some devices emit signals that could theoretically affect an aircraft's electronics. Yet “there have never been any reported accidents from these kinds of devices on planes,” FAA spokesperson Les Dorr told the New York Times last year. Once again, irrational fear, not solid science, is dictating policy for millions of travelers." Actually, it is based on science. Cell phones flying by overhead while landing or taking off overload cellular base stations. So as a courtesy to cellular phone carriers, airlines require cell phones to be put into "airplane" mode. Digital Communications 101 son.
- drcube 14y agoWhat does that have to do with ebook readers, mp3 players or laptops?
- dkl 14y agoSome of these have cell radios in them.
- brk 14y ago* Cell phones flying by overhead while landing or taking off overload cellular base stations.* [citation needed] I've heard this, as one of many theories, discussed about the rationale for this rule. A plane typically has about 150 passengers and there is a narrow window of time during takeoff and landing when you can actually get cell coverage. I find it hard to believe that with the popularity of cell phones today that the towers would be overloaded by 150 phones (or, let's extrapolate to 1000 phones accounting for the takeoff/landing windows) moving rapidly across a couple of towers.
- mikeash 14y agoI believe this dates from the bad old days of analog phones and relatively dumb networks. I've read accounts (reliable? not sure, but believable) of people getting billed several times for a single call made from the air, because multiple cells picked it up and they didn't coordinate among each other. I don't believe this is a problem today. I fly small planes for fun and sometimes use my phone in the air to check weather. The biggest problem is that it doesn't work above about 5,000ft because the signal gets too weak. I never bother to turn my phone off, and neither do most of my pilot friends. I spent about fifteen minutes flying a plane with an instructor friend once while he chatted on the phone with his wife about when we was going to get home!
- akamaka 14y agoFor example, according to the TSA, the 11-inch model of the MacBook Air is fine to leave in your bag, but the 13-inch model must be removed. There's nothing inherently unscientific about this rule. Presumably someone has calculated the volume of explosive that's worth checking for, and then another person has translated that into simple, practical rules that can be quickly taught to a large number of border agents.
- smokeyj 14y agoThen they should be checking volume, not the monitor size.
- mseebach 14y agoBecause carefully and individually checking the volume of each and every MacBook Air that comes through makes a lot more sense than realizing once and upfront that there are two major versions of the MBA, and the 11" one is below and the 13" is above.
- jsight 14y agoI think his point is that this rule is applied very generally. Eg, a 11" MBA is ok, and 13" MBA is not, but a 11" Netbook that happens to be extra thick is also ok.
- glesica 14y agoSure there is, but not necessarily (only) in the way that was originally implied. Science, generally speaking, involves observation and inference. A scientific approach to airplane security would therefore (to simplify greatly) involve looking at what has happened in the past to inform our decisions for the future. In the past (2001), terrorists attacked airplanes using tactics and weapons we were unprepared for. It seems reasonable, then, to think that if there is another terrorist attack on an airplane it will follow this pattern: it will use tactics and weapons we are unprepared for. So checking 13 inch Macbooks more closely than 11 inch Macbooks (assuming taking the thing out of its case actually does anything) just means that terrorists should find ways to put a sufficiently-powerful bomb in an 11 inch Macbook in order to be successful. Our approach, therefore, is completely unscientific because it assumes that terrorists today will continue to use the tactics they used yesterday, or were planning to use yesterday, when we know from observation and inference ("science") that this is not the case. Note that there have been several attempted attacks since 2001. None have been successful, and none of them, not a single one, was foiled, even partially or with assistance from, TSA. Each of these attempts exploited a weakness in the TSA processes. Seems like the terrorists are better at "science" than the TSA are.
- kjhughes 14y agoI think that the public has moved beyond being comforted by security theater. Now, two other forces are propping up the absurdities: (1) bureaucratic self-preservation, and (2) leadership irrationality along the lines of "man, will I look bad if I support revoking [stupid TSA rule #1039237] and a terrorist then uses the opening in an attack."
- mseebach 14y ago> leadership irrationality Narrowly considering the rules of the game, it's not an irrational stance at all.
- kjhughes 14y agoSure, and narrowly considering the rules of the game, winning a pawn may appear to be rational ahead of being checkmated next move.
- daenz 14y agoSounds like the rules of the game are a problem. The desire to stay "in power" outweighs the desire to actually represent constituents accurately.
- rhizome 14y agoIron Law of Institutions: http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html (ignore the partisan aspects)
- daenz 14y agoGood read. I wish this kind of thing was taught and discussed in schools, but it seems like that would be "breaking the 4th wall"
- glesica 14y agoDoesn't hurt that quite a few politically connected companies seem to be making a boatload of cash from security theater.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- samspot 14y agoI didn't find this article to be very scientific. Although it claims certain rules are arbitrary it doesn't bother to point out what makes them so, which is what I was expecting when I clicked on this.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoIt's kind of difficult to show why something is arbitrary, usually the lack of any evidence to the contrary is good enough. I mean the example of having a certain amount of liquid but as long as you call it baby formula, it is ok, seems to be so clearly arbitrary that only the most pedantic would demand further proof. :)
- samspot 14y agoThe baby formula is an exception that I'm fairly sure will only work if you have an actual baby with you. Since most terrorists aren't carrying infants it is deemed an acceptable risk. Based on what I know about breastfeeding laws it may actually be illegal to restrict people from carrying these items. So based on what we know I'd say this rule isn't arbitrary at all. To me the better example of an arbitrary rule is laptop thickness. However we can speculate that someone has determined that objects greater than > 1 inch are more likely to carry explosives. We can argue that it's arbitrary, but aside from the TSA coming out and explaining the reasoning we will never know. And I'm not sure they are obligated to tell us.
- revscat 14y agoI have a sneaking suspicion that the TSA's existence is based upon science, although the science in question is sociology and/or mass psychology.
- jws 14y agoTimely. I just cleared security where I was effectively given my choice of magnetometer, backscatter, or groping. I suppose under some reality that is more secure than assigning magnetometer to everyone. They should do it there. (I'm not saying which airport. I like it this way.)
- potatolicious 14y agoI've been passing through SFO frequently. I take some minor schadenfreude in how uncomfortable some of the agents are when groping me. If I have to bend over and take their stupid, unconstitutional rules, I'll look them in the eye while they rifle through my pubes, no sense letting them off easy.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoMy fiance will never forgive me if we miss our flight because I tell a TSA agent, "Why won't you look me in the eyes when you make love to me?"
- physcab 14y agoTSA's security rules are a mix of deterrents and science. I worked on explosive detection devices for the TSA during my PhD. The banning of liquids and pastes are logical. There are some extremely volatile liquid and plastic explosives that would take your leg off if you dropped [1][2]. Or if they were used as primary explosives to ignite a more powerful secondary explosive. That could be disastrous if TSA allowed liquids in larger quantities. As for the detection technologies that are currently out on the market, all I have to say is that every single one of them can be confused and circumvented, which is why they have seemingly arbitrary rules. For example, xray technologies can easily confuse plastic explosives with a piece of cheese, which is why you have to take shit out of your bag. MMW wave technologies are confused by water substances, which is why you have to do a pat down if an anomaly is detected. My own technology that I worked on was primarily developed as a low-cost surface technique, so if you had explosive residue on your hands or baggage our detector would alarm. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa6fcun3kag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa6fcun3kag
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoSo having multiple containers having one container as long as the carrier says it is baby formula prevents such an explosion? I'm not entirely certain that they stands up to the "mix of deterrents and science" test, though.
- Corrado 14y agoI don't think that anyone is denying that liquids can pose a threat. The article stated that by allowing everyone to bring some small amounts of liquides defeats the purpose almost completely. All I would have to do is get 5 of my co-conspirators to carry on 5 little contains each of some volatile liquid and when we get past security we pour them all together to make one big batch of nastiness. This example, and many more, is why we say the TSA's security rules are useless and arbitrary. About the only way to ensure a risk free flight is to force everyone to fly naked, not allow luggage, remove the cleaning crew, etc... and I don't think there are any airlines that are willing to go that far. :/
- yason 14y agoAnd did anyone ever think that there would be a sound rational basis for the operations of TSA? Good morning to scientificamerican.com, too. The TSA is rolling on with its own mandate regardless of science and the opinions of thinkers, and they will do anything that they want and that can superficially be based on increasing "security"; that is, such claims that people are easy to persuade to believe if they're not left to think about it. I don't know how they fit in the big picture: they represent some fears or some power that people have invited into this world. But I can be pretty sure what the true reason is that compels them to justify their own existence. Follow the money.
- DividesByZero 14y agoThings like the TSA are great illustrations of the pervasiveness of the surveillance-industrial complex at the beginning of this decade. Security doesn't need to be a motivating factor, merely sufficient justification - after that things like back scatter body scanners, procedures that require more security staff and any other product or innovation the SIC comes up with can be shoehorned in. They've worked out they can make money off of people's fear, and there's a neat little feedback loop where more security makes people more paranoid, more afraid leading to more security. Good business, if you can get it.