Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Hurricane Security and Airline Security Collide | Main | Man Arrested for Being A Computer Nerd » September 26, 2005Secure Flight NewsThe TSA is not going to use commercial databases in its initial roll-out of Secure Flight, its airline screening program that matches passengers with names on the Watch List and No-Fly List. I don't believe for a minute that they're shelving plans to use commercial data permanently, but at least they're delaying the process. In other news, the report (also available here, here, and here) of the Secure Flight Privacy/IT Working Group is public. I was a member of that group, but honestly, I didn't do any writing for the report. I had given up on the process, sick of not being able to get any answers out of TSA, and believed that the report would end up in somebody's desk drawer, never to be seen again. I was stunned when I learned that the ASAC made the report public. There's a lot of stuff in the report, but I'd like to quote the section that outlines the basic questions that the TSA was unable to answer: The SFWG found that TSA has failed to answer certain key questions about Secure Flight: First and foremost, TSA has not articulated what the specific goals of Secure Flight are. Based on the limited test results presented to us, we cannot assess whether even the general goal of evaluating passengers for the risk they represent to aviation security is a realistic or feasible one or how TSA proposes to achieve it. We do not know how much or what kind of personal information the system will collect or how data from various sources will flow through the system. The members of the working group, and the signatories to the report, are Martin Abrams, Linda Ackerman, James Dempsey, Edward Felten, Daniel Gallington, Lauren Gelman, Steven Lilenthal, Anna Slomovic, and myself. My previous posts about Secure Flight, and my involvement in the working group, are here, here, here, here, here, and here. And in case you think things have gotten better, there's a new story about how the no-fly list cost a pilot his job: Cape Air pilot Robert Gray said he feels like he's living a nightmare. Two months after he sued the federal government for refusing to let him take flight training courses so he could fly larger planes, he said yesterday, his situation has only worsened. Remember what the no-fly list is. It's a list of people who are so dangerous that they can't be allowed to board an airplane under any circumstances, yet so innocent that they can't be arrested -- even under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. EDITED TO ADD: The U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General released a report last month on Secure Flight, basically concluding that the costs were out of control, and that the TSA didn't know how much the program would cost in the future. Here's an article about some of the horrible problems people who have mistakenly found themselves on the no-fly list have had to endure. And another on what you can do if you find yourself on a list. EDITED TO ADD: EPIC has received a bunch of documents about continued problems with false positives. Posted on September 26, 2005 at 7:14 AM • 15 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. They put into production use, a system as useless and harmful as secure flight -- yet dispose of Able Danger as if it produced the terrorists itself. How can the government get everything so backward! This is insane... Tell me Bruce...why do they even put people such as yourself on a working group if they are not going to listen to you? For looks? Posted by: Savik at September 26, 2005 8:29 AM @Savik: I totally disagree. Competent people in any commitee, working group etc. is the minimum for a wrong policy to change (or, even better, be right to start with). Even if an organization doesn't listen to these people, and TSA is definetely not the only one, the public needs them so that an independent voice can be heard. So I wish more competent people, like Bruce, were in place. Not vice versa. Posted by: Dimitris Andrakakis at September 26, 2005 8:45 AM I am halfway through the report now and my first impression is that Secure Flight will meet its goal of transfering government money to contractors. Improving my or your security doesn't seem on the list: "So far, however, Secure Flight is being developed without the authorization and guidance of a clear, comprehensive and published policy document issued by a politically accountable senior official, stating the goals of Secure Flight clearly and to the exclusion of other goals, until such time as that basic policy document is amended." This just screams "Bad management". The story of pilot Robert Gray can be sufficiently explained by that. Posted by: MathFox at September 26, 2005 9:05 AM When I skimmed the report this morning from a link off of a Wired article, I got the impression that the few people at TSA that actually know what is the intended plan for Secure Flight don't want to talk about it; the rest of TSA doesn't seem to have a solid idea of what's going on. This is worrying, though I get some small consolation from the fact that some Republicans in Congress are getting increasingly annoyed at the answers (or lack thereof) to questions asked of DHS in general, and TSA in particular. Posted by: Jarrod at September 26, 2005 9:29 AM "I had given up on the process, sick of not being able to get any answers out of TSA, and believed that the report would end up in somebody's desk drawer, never to be seen again." --> Don't give up! You were dealing with the goverment, which means it is a slow political and painful process -- you knew that! If the key people, people with the right ideas such as you all give up, then there won't be any hope of fixing the process... ceo Posted by: CEO at September 26, 2005 9:58 AM I suspect that the basic scheme is to counterfeit security. Contractors will make fortunes pretending to provide security, in return kicking back to election campaigns. Meanwhile, parasitic schemes will operate in secrecy, using available information, licit or not, to advance hidden agendas. As an example, if a politico wanted to give his enemies list the force of law, what better way to punish his them than to add their names to a blacklist? They can't fight back, as there is no legal recourse to being secretly named on a blacklist, and no accuser to confront in court, since the identity of the accuser is always secret, even if it is mere software. The Bill of Rights, I'm afraid, is becoming, to use the phrase made popular by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 'rendered quaint'. Posted by: Roy Owens at September 26, 2005 10:13 AM The grounding of pilot Robert Gray is obviously an attempt to quiet the squeaky wheel. It would be nice for him to know who grounded him and why so he could face his accuser(s) in a court of law. The faceless corporation has now turned into the unknown corporation. I know I'm going to get roasted here for saying this, but I'm less interested in how the data is acquired and used and more interested in who's responsible for the mess when it breaks. I need someone accountable for his actions. Posted by: jammit at September 26, 2005 10:31 AM There are a couple of good recent Wired articles about flight screening failures: Nun goes through 9 months of hell: Two lists: Posted by: Glauber Ribeiro at September 26, 2005 10:36 AM the history of the tsa is the history of lies told to congress and the american people. if it intended to work in good faith with its advisory panel, it would have provided the panel with all the information relating to the task, right? right? its abject failure to do this reveals the panel inquiry as a dog and pony show from the gitgo. ah gonna tell you nuthin so's you kin write nuthin bad about me! Posted by: another_bruce at September 26, 2005 11:32 AM Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but what would be used as the unique identifier within such a database? Would it be an internally defined code, some kind of officially granted number from the individual's country of origin, or something as generic as a name? Also, how difficult is it in the United States and elsewhere to produce and travel on false documents? This whole system seems as though it might be fairly easily circumvented. Posted by: Milan Ilnyckyj at September 26, 2005 11:35 AM I just posted an update, with some more links. Posted by: Bruce Schneier at September 26, 2005 11:52 AM Bruce, thanks for the updated links. How about those people who are not on the the no-fly list, but are ALWAYS 'randomly' selected for additional checks at the airports, sometimes being held for 2 hours before getting 'cleared' . Is there a way to address that, my guess is NO .... *huge sigh* Posted by: Muhammad Khan at September 26, 2005 1:50 PM My guess as to one of the primary goals is to increase passenger traffic (by making passengers feel they are secure) Posted by: Arik at September 27, 2005 10:49 AM As the years have passed since 9/11, I have begun to wonder more and more if Homeland Security has really done that much to secure the US at all. Seems like it has just become a big La Brea tar pit - a bunch of agencies got pushed into it but they're so mired in confusion, bureaucracy and political wrangling that nothing is really being accomplished - the FEMA fiasco just reinforced my belief. Anyone know of a HSA program/agency that has actually improved? I know the party line is that HSA is effective because there hasn't been another terrorist attack in the US, but there was a long hiatus between the World Trade Center bombing and 9/11 - so I have a hard time buying that. Also - thanks, Bruce for hooking me up with Wiley. Looks like that might work out. Posted by: Nell Walton at February 13, 2006 8:25 AM Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Steve Woit.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments