Schneier on Security

George • September 23, 2008 10:41 AM

The TSA’s “leaders” apparently believe the traveling public are as stupid as they are. They think we don’t notice that all the supposedly “dangerous” liquids they confiscate are sitting there in a trash can in the middle of the checkpoint where they could endanger the screeners (never mind the passengers). They think we don’t notice that cases of water bottles destined for sale at extortionate rates in the “sterile area” pass through the x-ray scanners, while the very same bottles purchased by passengers at normal prices have to be thrown into that trash can because x-ray scanning can’t distinguish between water and explosives. They think we don’t notice that an umbrella that the screener on the outbound flight found acceptable has to be checked or “voluntarily abandoned” on the return flight because that screener decides it’s “dangerous.”

Actually, I think it’s more likely that they recognize that we do notice the very visible illogical absurdity and inconsistency that they continually and proudly display for all to see. But FEAR and notions of “patriotism” lead responsible loyal citizens to ignore it, accept it, and even defend it as an essential part of the “Global War On Terror.” The TSA’s own voluminous web page about the liquid restrictions even includes an admonition not to “over-think these guidelines.” The fact that they need to say that suggests that even they recognize that the restrictions are absurd and illogical, but we’re just supposed to ignore the illogic and accept on simple faith that “these rules were developed after extensive research and understanding of current threats.”

I think the appropriate response is just what Bruce is doing. The TSA effectively admits that the liquid restrictions can’t stand up to any rational scrutiny. But they want to terrorize us into accepting them anyway. Refuse to be terrorized! Take every opportunity to point out, criticize, and question the TSA. That’s not to “aid the enemy” and undermine it, but to insist that airport screening be both effective and cost-effective (in terms of dollars as well as hassles). The imminent departure of the Bush administration is an appropriate reason to change our approach from cowed acceptance to accountability.

The naked Emperor is standing at every airport checkpoint. Rather than averting our eyes as he commands, it’s time to start pointing and chuckling at the visibly diminutive “manhood” that he so proudly and arrogantly displays!

George • September 24, 2008 12:08 PM

@A_CAT_IS_FINE_TOO!: “I would much rather see the “liquid ban” come back, it is simpler to enforce and understand: if you don’t need it to live, you don’t take it with you into the plane. How many of you will die if you don’t brush you teeth on an airplane (given that I have never seen it done on any flights I have ever been on, none)? How about that perfume? Or that makeup?”

That would actually make sense if passengers could rely on checked baggage and its contents arriving intact and complete on the carousel soon after their flight. Anyone who has ever had that NOT happen will immediately become convinced of the need to carry on anything they’re unwilling to do without either temporarily or permanently. You may not need it to live and you may not need it on the plane; but you may need it at your destination, or you may not want to face the difficulty and/or expense of trying to replace it at your destination.

Most of us could accept the liquid restrictions if we were convinced that they provided effective protection against a real threat. Evidence for such an assertion (beyond the TSA’s usual “it’s classified, so trust us and remember to be very afraid”) is unconvincing for many. And the GAO’s most recent test showed that screeners around the country consistently failed to detect liquid explosives even though they were consistently successful at confiscating innocuous liquids. In this case there seems to be a widespread belief that the “balance between security and ‘ease of travel'” is way off. Again, the appropriate response is to be skeptical and to demand convincing evidence that the balance is appropriate. “Trust us” doesn’t work.

@David Keech: “Maybe the TSA should go back to asking the question “Is it dangerous ?” rather than “Is it a liquid ?”

Obviously that’s too difficult a task to assign to airport screeners. Banning all liquids in containers larger than some arbitrary size (and at some checkpoints, in a manufacturer’s labeled bottle) is much easier for screeners to implement.

I actually suspect that the people who devised the “3-1-1” rule really thought they had devised a brilliantly elegant, simple, and foolproof reaction to the liquid bomb threat. At least that’s how it seemed to all the Homeland Security officials who saw the classified PowerPoint charts about it presented in secure meeting rooms behind locked doors. Unfortunately, once it was declassified and put into place at real airports and imposed on millions of real people, situations emerged that the officials focused solely on reacting to a threat never even thought to think of of in their secret meetings: Peanut butter? Jelly? Yogurt? Shaving cream?….. So it ended up as just another arbitrary rule subject to the inconsistent and capricious “interpretation” of individual screeners. The TSA’s only reaction was to blame passengers and admonish them “not to over-think these guidelines.”

I also suspect that the TSA is correct when they assert that their rules are valid reactions to “robust intelligence.” The problem is that when the “robust intelligence” works its way through the Homeland Security bureaucracy and finally emerges at your local airport checkpoint, it has degenerated into arbitrary, absurd, and ineffective Security Theater that does nothing but infuriate passengers (except for the few who feel “reassured”) and waste time and money. It’s like the children’s game of “telephone.”

George • September 25, 2008 11:48 AM

@A_CAT_IS_FINE_TOO!:”The loss of you checked baggage is not a matter for the TSA but your airlines…”

Irrelevant. The fact is that there’s a good (and increasing) probability that your checked bag won’t arrive on the carousel. And the new airline airline fees for checked bags don’t make taking that gamble any more appealing. The best rule of thumb is that you should check only items that you’re willing to do without, either temporarily or permanently.

Perhaps the best solution is to travel only with a credit card and identity papers, and buy everything you need at your destination. Airports could have barrels at the departure entrance where travelers could deposit their lightly-used items for donation to local shelters for the homeless or battered women. This approach would make “security” as well as flying much easier, more pleasant, and safer for everyone– and it would also help out the needy. I wonder how many people would go for it?

@A_CAT_IS_FINE_TOO!:”The bottles in the trash are a continued, albeit lessened, threat and that is something that needs to be addressed, but the TSA has other priorities right now, trash collection isn’t one of them.”

Other priorities? You mean like new uniforms, mood lighting, and a PR campaign about how their virtual strip search machines protect our privacy?

But seriously, if the confiscated water, lip gloss, and peanut butter are so dangerous that they can’t be allowed on airplanes, shouldn’t they worry about having all those “explosives” piling up at the checkpoint where they might kill screeners (never mind the passengers)? If they aren’t concerned about that– as they probably shouldn’t be, since it’s obvious that the risk is minimal if it exists at all– shouldn’t they be concerned that the visible barrel of “contraband” undermines confidence in the TSA because anyone with half a brain would ask the same question Bruce is asking? Or do they have so much contempt for the traveling public that they don’t care if we all can see it’s a crock?

The last question is the scariest of all, since good security requires that we have confidence in and cooperate with the TSA. In theory, we do have the common interest of protecting aviation from the terrorist threat. So treating passengers as contemptible enemies can only undermine whatever effectiveness the TSA might have. Fear has been a very effective tool used by the administration to assemble a formidable Homeland Security bureaucracy that includes the TSA. But given the track record of that bureaucracy, it has to offer us something more than fear, intimidation, contempt, and obvious stupidity.

George • September 26, 2008 11:26 PM

And of course, a significant proportion of those items in the trashcan are items in containers of 3 ounces or less that would have been permitted had their owners placed them inside a quart-sized Victory Baggie. But because the owner failed to put them inside a quart-sized Victory Baggie, the screener deemed them “contraband” and consigned them to the hazardous material disposal container located in the middle of the checkpoint.

Other passengers who witness screeners confiscating the items as required (and possibly also witness the complaints of the owner) are duty-bound to shut their eyes and hum a chorus of “God Bless America,” and patriotically heed the TSA’s admonition not to think about either what we’re seeing or the lack of any sense. For what good is security theater if the audience doesn’t give the players the obligatory standing ovation?