9 ms·

Reassessing Airport Security

106 points by Garbage 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
One thing to note is that the testing was done by people with detailed knowledge of operational procedures, therefore they knew the weaknesses and took advantage of that. In other words, if you got 100 semi random travelers and tried to have them sneak things thru fewer than 95 would succeed. Now, that's not to say the TSA isn't incompetent and shouldn't improve its procedures and policies, but rather the 95% is an exaggerated value. One other observation to make. When driving down the highway over the speed limit and a patrol car becomes visible, it's quite clear the car would not catch every infringer, yet, nearly everyone slows to comply with speed limits. In other words, as Bruce says, you don't need 100% effectiveness for the system to be effective.
- bargl 11y ago
  I got the opposite from the original CNN video. It appeared that they were using "basic" hiding techniques for these items. They weren't trying to go and reinvent the wheel by using techniques they know will get through TSA screening, but they used techniques that they figured TSA would be able to find, and they just failed. I'm going to go re-watch the video to see if I missed something though. I'll edit this if I learn something new. Edit: I looked for some more detailed articles and I found this quote, however it is coming from the TSA not the testing agency. > The goal of the Red Team is to build tests that push the boundaries of our people, processes, and technology. We know that the adversary innovates and we have to push ourselves to capacity in order to remain one step ahead. With that said, our testers often make these covert tests as difficult as possible. It’s not like they’re using a cartoonish bundle of dynamite with an alarm clock strapped to it. These items are extremely hard to spot. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/tsa-fails-security-tests-gets-new-director.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/tsa-fails-secur... Edit 2: I'm an idiot the TSA was the screening agency, or at least these tests are frequently referred to as internal tests. I didn't know the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (IG) was a part of the TSA.
  - a3n 11y ago
    Even if they were using full-on, ninja terrorist techniques, you would expect screeners to train to those standards. If they train to and pass those standards, then Joe Terrorist shouldn't be a problem. They did use that excuse in the past. Lame after-the-failure excuse making.
- jhildings 11y ago
  So, if you were someone who wanted to get through the security with some kind of dangerous object, wouldn't it make sense to map out those weaknesses? Therefore they also need to be tested against.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  But isn't it a risk/reward question? I slow down because to me the high risk of getting a $125 ticket isn't worth the ten minutes I'll save driving, if I see the police car. However, if I were a nefarious evildoer, I may be willing to take a higher risk of getting caught in order to do whatever it is I want to do.
- lifeformed 11y ago
  Those operational procedures aren't secret knowledge though. Someone who really wanted to get something through can get their hands on that information.
- lifeformed 11y ago
  Those operational procedures aren't secret knowledge though. Someone who really wanted to get something through can get their hands on that information.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  1. There is a vastly greater prevalence of drivers travelling over the speed limit than there are of airline hijackers. 1. It's trivially easy to distinguish vehicles travelling over the speed limit than hijackers. One might even suggest that speeding enforcemnt is significantly enabled by the ease, and low false-positive rate, of detection: speed radar. The two situations aren't comparable.
juliangregorian 11y ago
I just re-entered the US via JFK last night. There was an employee going up and down the line promoting "Global Entry" (skip the line). All I could think was how utterly farcical the whole thing came across.
- kgrin 11y ago
  Global Entry is for immigration/customs, not TSA security. The trade-off is: they do a background check and take some biometrics, and in exchange you can skip the conversation with an immigration agent where they ask you where you're been, etc. - you just answer the usual customs-form questions at a kiosk. It's actually a pretty reasonable trade-off, and speeds the process of going through Customs - which, unlike some of the TSA stuff, is in no way unique to the US (having gone through immigration/customs in 20+ countries, I can say with some experience that the US is far from the worst...)
mark-r 11y ago
While I agree that the $7B spent on TSA is a waste, I can't agree with his conclusion that we should spend it on other security measures. That just leads to more "wiretap all the citizens" initiatives.
- __z 11y ago
  Bruce Schneier is completely and 100% against wiretapping all citizens.
- privong 11y ago
  He does say "I'd rather see that money spent on intelligence and investigation". And I think it's evident from his other writings that "intelligence and investigation" refer to focused and targeted efforts, rather than dragenet surveillance.
  - mark-r 11y ago
    Undoubtedly that's what Bruce would prefer, but what do you think are the odds it would turn out that way?
    - privong 11y ago
      Similar to the odds that money would actually be taken away from the TSA's budget :)
- omgitstom 11y ago
  7BN is like 250K for each public school in the US
erbo 11y ago
The TSA was created for one purpose and one purpose only: To remove liability from the airlines if someone tries to blow up a plane or bring a weapon onto one for evil purposes. (At the same time as it was created, the airlines had liability retroactively removed after 9/11; without that, they'd have been sued into smoking craters by the families of the 3,000 people who died.) The fact is, nobody in this country has been willing to die to blow up an airplane since 9/11. If there had been just ten people willing to do so, then, from the statistics, nine planes would have been blown up, and, when the tenth guy was caught, he would have blown up the airport instead. The TSA is a failure, and an infringement of civil rights besides. Everyone responsible for it, up to and including members of Congress, should, by all rights, be fired and forfeit all salary and pension benefits.
- fredgrott 11y ago
  no, not a failure..No planes blown up and No huge Airlines liability..like it or not the politicians who made the law do not have the same expectations we do
  - grecy 11y ago
    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      Homer, catching the essence of Idiocracy before Idiocracy...
  - Vexs 11y ago
    That statement is like saying "This antivirus works really well on my computer that's not connected to the internet, I haven't gotten a virus yet!" If there was a threat, the TSA would probably do a pretty crap job at stopping it, every test that's been run against them shows it, not to even mention the myriad of people that accidentally bring a pistol, knife, or whatever through the checkpoint and discover it when they land!
nabla9 11y ago
If somebody wants to kill air travelers, TSA screening checkpoint line is the most attractive target. Just fill big suitcase with explosives and wait until you are middle of the TSA screening line during holiday season.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >If somebody wants to kill air travelers, TSA screening checkpoint line is the most attractive target. My other favorite example is that in a lot of buildings, including school buildings, the standard fire drill AND bomb evacuation drill has everyone move outside, often into a single area which is far less controlled than the building being evacuated.
- aetherson 11y ago
  Or, like, any other public transportation option. Busses and trains are not magically immune to explosives. Especially when they have literally zero security and you could easily bring an entire suitcase full of dynamite onto them. The fact is, there just aren't enough people interested in that who have the necessary skills to actually obtain explosives without alerting the FBI to their existence.
  - jerf 11y ago
    If you just want to blow something up there's nothing even all that special about "transportation". Planes are special, because they have an unusual characteristic; taking control of a plane gives you an extremely powerful weapon that you can point anywhere and deliver incredible destruction. There aren't very many other things that two or three people can do that will credibly take down a skyscraper. As it gets harder to deliberately crash a plane and there's ever more drive-by-wire, though, that threat diminishes, and the airport threat diminishes with it. Hypothetically if planes were completely ground-controlled, there would basically be no reason for airport security at all... blowing up planes isn't that intrinsically interesting, really. There'd be a certain amount of inertia to the concept, but that's it. (Yes, I know it used to be done, but post-9/11 I can't help but think that terrorists would view that as a pathetic second-best effort now.) (Though I'd appreciate some serious security around the ground control station, though. Taking over one plane is one thing... taking over "all the planes in the area" or even "all the planes in the sky" would be something else!)
rquirk 11y ago
While we're at it, can we be allowed to carry bottles of water through security? At least in Europe, having to pay 3€ for a 50cl bottle of water after passing through the checks is clearly just a money-making scheme and has nothing to do with stopping terrorism.
- jheitmann 11y ago
  You can do that today. Just freeze it: https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=gel%20ice%20pack https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=gel%2... I learned that from one of the TSA line prep barkers. They were putting such a jolly spin on their spiel and it sounded so ridiculous that I assumed it was a joke. But, both happily and sadly, nope.
- freehunter 11y ago
  I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US we can carry an empty bottle through security. I did once accidentally leave a large, full bottle of contact lens solution in my carry on, though, and it passed right through. Maybe that's the trick.
  - hn9780470248775 11y ago
    I typically don't bother to remove "liquids and gels" from my baggage. The detection rate is less than 50%, and even then, they'll only find the most obvious offending water bottle (or whatever). You shrug, say "whoops", and move on. You could probably claim contact lens solution as a "medically necessary liquid," which is exempt from the rules anyway.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >You could probably claim contact lens solution as a "medically necessary liquid," which is exempt from the rules anyway. That's not a loophole that could be exploited. /s On a side note, could one seek to get water treated as a medically necessary liquid? It is, and the rules say nothing about being limited to only counting medically necessary liquids that cannot otherwise be obtained on the other side of security.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
My favorite part about the TSA is that you can pay about $80, fill out some forms and show a couple of pieces of identification and now you can bypass most of their security. It's just a money making scheme; being able to pay money to bypass most of their security shows their security doesn't do anything useful (otherwise why would you be able to pay to bypass it?).
- jamestnz 11y ago
  The TSA Precheck program, you mean? At $80-100 a throw, I'm not sure it's a very good money-making scheme. For starters, when someone enrols in the precheck program, they must undergo both a background check and an in-person interview... how much of the $80 fee do you suppose that leaves? And even once approved, you're still subject to metal-detector scans upon boarding, you just get to skip the whole shoes-belt-laptop game. Oh and they can still "randomly" subject you to those checks if they want to. So I don't really agree that it's some crude "anyone can just pay and receive carte blanche access at the airport" scheme. Here's another good one: for nationals of APEC member countries, there's the APEC Travel Card[2]. Frequent travellers can pay for one of these cards, and they gain access to dedicated expedited immigration queues (or, in the absence of a dedicated APEC queue at your airport, you get to use the pilot/aircrew lane). The card costs $150 and is good for 3 years. For business travellers making multiple flights per week, access to programs like these is a godsend (I used to fly internationally at least once per week for work). I do agree with you that all the "security theatre" stuff is a transparent sham, but the existence of programs like precheck isn't proof of that. [1] http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2012/02/29/tsa-pre-check-TM-begins-john-f-kennedy-international-airport http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2012/02/29/tsa-pre-check-T... [2] http://travel.apec.org/abtc-summary.html http://travel.apec.org/abtc-summary.html
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    > At $80-100 a throw, I'm not sure it's a very good money-making scheme. For starters, when someone enrols in the precheck program, they must undergo both a background check and an in-person interview... how much of the $80 fee do you suppose that leaves? So I haven't gone through it but several people I know have and all of them report that they fill out forms, show identification and that's it. The "interview" is always a very short questionnaire and background checks are incredibly cheap to do nowadays. > And even once approved, you're still subject to metal-detector scans upon boarding, you just get to skip the whole shoes-belt-laptop game. Oh and they can still "randomly" subject you to those checks if they want to. The metal-detector scan is incredibly fast, no one is ever in that line and you don't have to remove your laptops, shoes and other related equipment. You just go through and you're done 99% of the time. > So I don't really agree that it's some crude "anyone can just pay and receive carte blanche access at the airport" scheme. I don't agree with that either hence why I never said it so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
vermooten 11y ago
My last TSA check took < 5 minutes, everyone courteous and professional. Ain't no thang. The bigger ballache for me (I live in the UK) is waiting at customs, sometimes 90 minutes in a line.
- viraptor 11y ago
  Try Melbourne, Australia... 2.5h last time in the "not privileged country" line :/
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    Australia is basically the hell-hole of the first world.

106 points by Garbage 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

One thing to note is that the testing was done by people with detailed knowledge of operational procedures, therefore they knew the weaknesses and took advantage of that. In other words, if you got 100 semi random travelers and tried to have them sneak things thru fewer than 95 would succeed. Now, that's not to say the TSA isn't incompetent and shouldn't improve its procedures and policies, but rather the 95% is an exaggerated value. One other observation to make. When driving down the highway over the speed limit and a patrol car becomes visible, it's quite clear the car would not catch every infringer, yet, nearly everyone slows to comply with speed limits. In other words, as Bruce says, you don't need 100% effectiveness for the system to be effective.

bargl 11y ago
I got the opposite from the original CNN video. It appeared that they were using "basic" hiding techniques for these items. They weren't trying to go and reinvent the wheel by using techniques they know will get through TSA screening, but they used techniques that they figured TSA would be able to find, and they just failed. I'm going to go re-watch the video to see if I missed something though. I'll edit this if I learn something new. Edit: I looked for some more detailed articles and I found this quote, however it is coming from the TSA not the testing agency. > The goal of the Red Team is to build tests that push the boundaries of our people, processes, and technology. We know that the adversary innovates and we have to push ourselves to capacity in order to remain one step ahead. With that said, our testers often make these covert tests as difficult as possible. It’s not like they’re using a cartoonish bundle of dynamite with an alarm clock strapped to it. These items are extremely hard to spot. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/tsa-fails-security-tests-gets-new-director.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/tsa-fails-secur... Edit 2: I'm an idiot the TSA was the screening agency, or at least these tests are frequently referred to as internal tests. I didn't know the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (IG) was a part of the TSA.
- a3n 11y ago
  Even if they were using full-on, ninja terrorist techniques, you would expect screeners to train to those standards. If they train to and pass those standards, then Joe Terrorist shouldn't be a problem. They did use that excuse in the past. Lame after-the-failure excuse making.
jhildings 11y ago
So, if you were someone who wanted to get through the security with some kind of dangerous object, wouldn't it make sense to map out those weaknesses? Therefore they also need to be tested against.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
But isn't it a risk/reward question? I slow down because to me the high risk of getting a $125 ticket isn't worth the ten minutes I'll save driving, if I see the police car. However, if I were a nefarious evildoer, I may be willing to take a higher risk of getting caught in order to do whatever it is I want to do.
lifeformed 11y ago
Those operational procedures aren't secret knowledge though. Someone who really wanted to get something through can get their hands on that information.
lifeformed 11y ago
Those operational procedures aren't secret knowledge though. Someone who really wanted to get something through can get their hands on that information.
dredmorbius 11y ago
1. There is a vastly greater prevalence of drivers travelling over the speed limit than there are of airline hijackers. 1. It's trivially easy to distinguish vehicles travelling over the speed limit than hijackers. One might even suggest that speeding enforcemnt is significantly enabled by the ease, and low false-positive rate, of detection: speed radar. The two situations aren't comparable.

juliangregorian 11y ago

I just re-entered the US via JFK last night. There was an employee going up and down the line promoting "Global Entry" (skip the line). All I could think was how utterly farcical the whole thing came across.

kgrin 11y ago
Global Entry is for immigration/customs, not TSA security. The trade-off is: they do a background check and take some biometrics, and in exchange you can skip the conversation with an immigration agent where they ask you where you're been, etc. - you just answer the usual customs-form questions at a kiosk. It's actually a pretty reasonable trade-off, and speeds the process of going through Customs - which, unlike some of the TSA stuff, is in no way unique to the US (having gone through immigration/customs in 20+ countries, I can say with some experience that the US is far from the worst...)

mark-r 11y ago

While I agree that the $7B spent on TSA is a waste, I can't agree with his conclusion that we should spend it on other security measures. That just leads to more "wiretap all the citizens" initiatives.

__z 11y ago
Bruce Schneier is completely and 100% against wiretapping all citizens.
privong 11y ago
He does say "I'd rather see that money spent on intelligence and investigation". And I think it's evident from his other writings that "intelligence and investigation" refer to focused and targeted efforts, rather than dragenet surveillance.
- mark-r 11y ago
  Undoubtedly that's what Bruce would prefer, but what do you think are the odds it would turn out that way?
  - privong 11y ago
    Similar to the odds that money would actually be taken away from the TSA's budget :)
omgitstom 11y ago
7BN is like 250K for each public school in the US

erbo 11y ago

The TSA was created for one purpose and one purpose only: To remove liability from the airlines if someone tries to blow up a plane or bring a weapon onto one for evil purposes. (At the same time as it was created, the airlines had liability retroactively removed after 9/11; without that, they'd have been sued into smoking craters by the families of the 3,000 people who died.) The fact is, nobody in this country has been willing to die to blow up an airplane since 9/11. If there had been just ten people willing to do so, then, from the statistics, nine planes would have been blown up, and, when the tenth guy was caught, he would have blown up the airport instead. The TSA is a failure, and an infringement of civil rights besides. Everyone responsible for it, up to and including members of Congress, should, by all rights, be fired and forfeit all salary and pension benefits.

fredgrott 11y ago
no, not a failure..No planes blown up and No huge Airlines liability..like it or not the politicians who made the law do not have the same expectations we do
- grecy 11y ago
  Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Homer, catching the essence of Idiocracy before Idiocracy...
- Vexs 11y ago
  That statement is like saying "This antivirus works really well on my computer that's not connected to the internet, I haven't gotten a virus yet!" If there was a threat, the TSA would probably do a pretty crap job at stopping it, every test that's been run against them shows it, not to even mention the myriad of people that accidentally bring a pistol, knife, or whatever through the checkpoint and discover it when they land!

nabla9 11y ago

If somebody wants to kill air travelers, TSA screening checkpoint line is the most attractive target. Just fill big suitcase with explosives and wait until you are middle of the TSA screening line during holiday season.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>If somebody wants to kill air travelers, TSA screening checkpoint line is the most attractive target. My other favorite example is that in a lot of buildings, including school buildings, the standard fire drill AND bomb evacuation drill has everyone move outside, often into a single area which is far less controlled than the building being evacuated.
aetherson 11y ago
Or, like, any other public transportation option. Busses and trains are not magically immune to explosives. Especially when they have literally zero security and you could easily bring an entire suitcase full of dynamite onto them. The fact is, there just aren't enough people interested in that who have the necessary skills to actually obtain explosives without alerting the FBI to their existence.
- jerf 11y ago
  If you just want to blow something up there's nothing even all that special about "transportation". Planes are special, because they have an unusual characteristic; taking control of a plane gives you an extremely powerful weapon that you can point anywhere and deliver incredible destruction. There aren't very many other things that two or three people can do that will credibly take down a skyscraper. As it gets harder to deliberately crash a plane and there's ever more drive-by-wire, though, that threat diminishes, and the airport threat diminishes with it. Hypothetically if planes were completely ground-controlled, there would basically be no reason for airport security at all... blowing up planes isn't that intrinsically interesting, really. There'd be a certain amount of inertia to the concept, but that's it. (Yes, I know it used to be done, but post-9/11 I can't help but think that terrorists would view that as a pathetic second-best effort now.) (Though I'd appreciate some serious security around the ground control station, though. Taking over one plane is one thing... taking over "all the planes in the area" or even "all the planes in the sky" would be something else!)

rquirk 11y ago

While we're at it, can we be allowed to carry bottles of water through security? At least in Europe, having to pay 3€ for a 50cl bottle of water after passing through the checks is clearly just a money-making scheme and has nothing to do with stopping terrorism.

jheitmann 11y ago
You can do that today. Just freeze it: https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=gel%20ice%20pack https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=gel%2... I learned that from one of the TSA line prep barkers. They were putting such a jolly spin on their spiel and it sounded so ridiculous that I assumed it was a joke. But, both happily and sadly, nope.
freehunter 11y ago
I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US we can carry an empty bottle through security. I did once accidentally leave a large, full bottle of contact lens solution in my carry on, though, and it passed right through. Maybe that's the trick.
- hn9780470248775 11y ago
  I typically don't bother to remove "liquids and gels" from my baggage. The detection rate is less than 50%, and even then, they'll only find the most obvious offending water bottle (or whatever). You shrug, say "whoops", and move on. You could probably claim contact lens solution as a "medically necessary liquid," which is exempt from the rules anyway.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >You could probably claim contact lens solution as a "medically necessary liquid," which is exempt from the rules anyway. That's not a loophole that could be exploited. /s On a side note, could one seek to get water treated as a medically necessary liquid? It is, and the rules say nothing about being limited to only counting medically necessary liquids that cannot otherwise be obtained on the other side of security.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

My favorite part about the TSA is that you can pay about $80, fill out some forms and show a couple of pieces of identification and now you can bypass most of their security. It's just a money making scheme; being able to pay money to bypass most of their security shows their security doesn't do anything useful (otherwise why would you be able to pay to bypass it?).

jamestnz 11y ago
The TSA Precheck program, you mean? At $80-100 a throw, I'm not sure it's a very good money-making scheme. For starters, when someone enrols in the precheck program, they must undergo both a background check and an in-person interview... how much of the $80 fee do you suppose that leaves? And even once approved, you're still subject to metal-detector scans upon boarding, you just get to skip the whole shoes-belt-laptop game. Oh and they can still "randomly" subject you to those checks if they want to. So I don't really agree that it's some crude "anyone can just pay and receive carte blanche access at the airport" scheme. Here's another good one: for nationals of APEC member countries, there's the APEC Travel Card[2]. Frequent travellers can pay for one of these cards, and they gain access to dedicated expedited immigration queues (or, in the absence of a dedicated APEC queue at your airport, you get to use the pilot/aircrew lane). The card costs $150 and is good for 3 years. For business travellers making multiple flights per week, access to programs like these is a godsend (I used to fly internationally at least once per week for work). I do agree with you that all the "security theatre" stuff is a transparent sham, but the existence of programs like precheck isn't proof of that. [1] http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2012/02/29/tsa-pre-check-TM-begins-john-f-kennedy-international-airport http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2012/02/29/tsa-pre-check-T... [2] http://travel.apec.org/abtc-summary.html http://travel.apec.org/abtc-summary.html
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > At $80-100 a throw, I'm not sure it's a very good money-making scheme. For starters, when someone enrols in the precheck program, they must undergo both a background check and an in-person interview... how much of the $80 fee do you suppose that leaves? So I haven't gone through it but several people I know have and all of them report that they fill out forms, show identification and that's it. The "interview" is always a very short questionnaire and background checks are incredibly cheap to do nowadays. > And even once approved, you're still subject to metal-detector scans upon boarding, you just get to skip the whole shoes-belt-laptop game. Oh and they can still "randomly" subject you to those checks if they want to. The metal-detector scan is incredibly fast, no one is ever in that line and you don't have to remove your laptops, shoes and other related equipment. You just go through and you're done 99% of the time. > So I don't really agree that it's some crude "anyone can just pay and receive carte blanche access at the airport" scheme. I don't agree with that either hence why I never said it so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

vermooten 11y ago

My last TSA check took < 5 minutes, everyone courteous and professional. Ain't no thang. The bigger ballache for me (I live in the UK) is waiting at customs, sometimes 90 minutes in a line.

viraptor 11y ago
Try Melbourne, Australia... 2.5h last time in the "not privileged country" line :/
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Australia is basically the hell-hole of the first world.