Schneier on Security

Mike Rose • January 12, 2012 7:11 PM

Actually, the real problem is that it’s a liquid/gel/icing/whatever in a fairly robust looking container. Anyone who’s ignited a line of gunpowder will know that it’s not the gunpowder itself that ‘explodes’, but the confinement of it. A pie or cupcake with a nitroglycerin filling is not as dangerous as you’d think. But the moment you confine it (say, with a jar), the threat increases enormously. Think quartz-glass-jar nitroglycerin-filled cupcake pipe-bomb.

Never thought I’d say this, but I’m agreeing with the TSA on this one. I hear a lot of ‘Well why didn’t the TSO swab it!?!?’. What if the explosive agent had been put under the layer of icing? The icing would act as an impermeable barrier and rigorous cleaning of the inside of the jar above the icing could have sufficed to return a ‘negative’ swab. They’d have to dig all through the cupcake to get a reasonable understanding of the composition (provided they are even able to swab for EVERY known explosive agent), and how well do you think that’s going to sit with travellers? They might as well just throw it away. It’s easier, costs less (passenger time has a value, as does the TSO’s salary which comes out of your taxes)

Besides, if they had swabbed it, you’d all be saying ‘TSO agent swabs cupcake thinking it’s a bomb!!! HAHAHA WHAT AN IDIOT’. Face it, there is a low, but non-zero threat of a terrorist attack using explosives on a plane as an attack vector. The government has decided that despite the low likelihood, the impact of this threat is enormous (massive loss of life etc.) which justifies the albeit marginally-effective mitigations. You may disagree, but I’d guess that if a terrorist actually got through and detonated an explosive on a plane, you’d be the first to blame the TSA for allowing it to happen.

Vek: So it would have been better if she had both of them confiscated in the first place? It’s called discretion. One TSO didn’t consider it a threat, one did. Be thankful for discretion, because it means that your friend was able to stuff her face with 1 jar full of sugar instead of no jars at all.

Mike Rose • January 12, 2012 7:52 PM

Bob – choking someone isn’t going to bring down a plane.

It’s not about eliminating all threats, it’s about dealing with each identified threat through risk management.

The likelihood of someone choking someone with a shoelace is higher than someone setting off an explosive (especially considering the TSA’s heavy handed approach), but the impact is far lower. One person dies, as opposed to everyone on the plane and possibly people on the ground too.

The real question is whether it’s all worth it. Whether the costs and inconvenience that the TSA poses to travellers is justified by the small but non-zero affect they have on flight security. Everyone will have their own opinion on this, but loudly bleating your own opinion like it’s some kind of universal fact is at best disingenuous. If you wish to make a difference, you live in a democracy, write to your congressman. If they disagree, then you may just have to suck it up and understand that the majority doesn’t share your worldview. That you’re the minority. That you have no right to impose your worldview on anyone else. That you cannot have everything your way, all the time.

Mike Rose • January 12, 2012 11:34 PM

@J – I agree, but what does this have to do with imposing your (subjective) risk assessment of the TSA upon others who disagree with you? What I’m saying is that you might disagree with the TSA, but if the majority agrees with the TSA (which is purely hypothetical here of course) and the TSA are not breaching your basic human rights, then put quite simply, you have no recourse. You have no right to change it in a democracy.

And I know that you can’t seriously be saying that the TSA breach any human rights. Is flying on a plane a basic human right?

No one is forcing you to be groped by a TSO. A TSO cannot come to your house or approach you in the street and start feeling you up. You’re the one who bought the plane ticket, knowing full well that as a condition of carriage, you are subject to additional security measures over what you would be subject to if you travelled by another mode of transport.

I agree that it’s unpleasant and is a complete overreaction. It’s security theater. It’s ineffectual. It’s a waste of money. But we all need to be careful of pulling out the human rights card in our arguments against the TSA, because if we overuse this card, when an actual breach of human rights occurs, it’s just going to be a cliché.