8 ms·
Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
- DrJ 15y agoI wish we could get rid of the TSA and spend that resources somewhere else, CIA, FBI, NSA, hell send it to DoE, NSF, maybe fund (more) research in practical(?) renewable energy. But killing the TSA is never going to happen. No career politician is going to commit political harikiri to shut it down. - I do not mind the free hand rubs at the airports though.
- pitdesi 15y agoCompletely agree with you, except for one point... Ron Paul (a republican candidate for president) wants to abolish the TSA: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/188271-ron-paul-proposes-abolishing-the-tsa-in-plan-to-restore-america- http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/188271-ro... This is not a place for political discussion (so please don't make it one, people!), but he certainly qualifies as a career politician, having been in congress 35 years. EDIT: lots of downvotes... I'm just stating a fact in response to the DrJ's statement... what is the cause for your downvoting?
- ams6110 15y agowhat is the cause for your downvoting Probably people reading an endorsement of Ron Paul in your post, though none is really there.
- cookiecaper 15y agoHeh, I thought it was probably the implication that Paul was a career politician although he is primarily a gynecologist. He continues to deliver babies when he's in Texas and he has spent a few terms out of office (practicing medicine) since he was first elected in the 70s. Maybe that's a self-interested assumption that exposes my own leanings, though.
- aeturnum 15y agoI think the downvotes may be because you don't note the difference between saying you support a thing and actually pushing something through. It's quite easy to say you support something that will never get to the floor and score political points - many politicians use this technique to score points with their "base." Ron Paul, in particular, has a number of professed views which are untested. Until Mr. Paul has enough political capital to disband the TSA and does so, it's disingenuous to credit with doing it.
- Natsu 15y agoI've thought about that and I wonder if it couldn't be gotten rid of by scaling back its activities over time and merging its duties into another organization until it gets swallowed whole.
- nextparadigms 15y agoRon Paul wants to shut it down.
- lukifer 15y agoAmerica's had a decade of airport frustations and no new (successful) attacks to re-inflame their fears. While it may be impossible to undo the existence of the TSA, a "common sense" reform initiative would probably be very popular, possibly even bi-partisan. Sadly, the biggest obstacle would probably be the fear of eliminating jobs, which no politician wants to be known for, even if those jobs are mostly a waste of human labor. This is a broader problem of government bloat, and probably out of the scope of this discussion.
- mahyarm 15y agoBefore the TSA, we had xray luggage scanners and metal detectors world wide. Now how the majority of the public interacts with the TSA at airports, you go through a metal detector or body xray and xray luggage scanners. What else has changed?
- pppp 15y agoI'm afraid most of what the government does is theater - meant to distract us while they line their own pockets.
- lhnn 15y agoI'm afraid because I know that's what they're doing, and they know that's what they're doing.
- toast76 15y ago..and they know you know. Yay for democracy!
- martingordon 15y agoYou're afraid. Mission accomplished.
- robobenjie 15y agoI agree with most of the points in this article, but saying that all people who forge boarding passes will use latex gloves seems false. From my point of view the point of multiple screenings is to increase the difficulty and complexity of pulling off a particular attack. Sure, individually you can think of a way to counter each one, but as you add constraints you reduce the pool of people willing and able to pull it off. (So now you need a person who wants to cause terror, who is willing to blow themselves up, who can forge simple documents, who remembered to wear latex gloves, who can act cool enough to avoid extra screenings when walking past guards with machine guns, etc, etc, etc). Sure some eliminate more than others, but you multiply enough .95s together and you get a small number.
- nlawalker 15y agoThe thing is, it's not a bunch of .95s. It's a .00000001 and a bunch of .9999999s. If a person wants to cause terror and is willing to blow themselves up, they're probably already very resolved and willing to do virtually anything else necessary to bypass the security measures you mention and any others.
- WettowelReactor 15y agoOr if all else fails they can blow themselves up at the security checkpoint, or on a train, or on a bus, or metro, or .... Really once a person has decided to blow themselves up their options for committing terrorism are exceedingly large. Luckily this group of people is surprisingly small but or reactions to to the risks are way overboard.
- johnthedebs 15y agoYou seem to be looking at this the wrong way. Instead, consider that once a person has decided they want to cause terror so much that they are willing to blow themselves up, they'll go to great lengths to make sure their one opportunity to do so succeeds. These chances of passing these screenings aren't independent. They aren't just die rolls where a terrorist needs to roll 6 five times in a row for their plot to succeed. If they can improve their chances on one screening they can and will improve their chances on the rest (which was the point he was trying to make). Now consider how much time and money is spent for each additional screening that's put into place, both for those putting it in place and the millions that have to jump through all the extra hoops each day to travel. Worth it?
- redthrowaway 15y agoThe submission might attract more attention if the headline made mention of the fact that Schneier is the person doing the testing.
- 0003 15y agoWho here did not think of Bruce Schneier after reading in the lead paragraph: "...that’s the conclusion of Charles C. Mann, who put the T.S.A. to the test with the help of one of America’s top security experts"?
- ams6110 15y agoI respect Bruce Schneier as an expert in cryptography and computer/network security. But nothing I've seen him say about physical security seems like anything more than obvious common sense, delivered in a sort of pompous, sarcastic tone. I also don't think the people in charge at the TSA are so stupid as to not have considered that someone might alter a boarding pass. I'm reminded of a post here a few weeks ago, I don't recall the subject exactly but I believe it quoted Henry Kissinger, who said until you are on the "inside" of these agencies, you have no idea of the things they know, and that many things that don't make any sense from an external viewpoint DO make sense once you have all the information.
- gergles 15y agoPlease elucidate what information could possibly excuse the fact that is trivial to completely run around the "no-fly list".
- WettowelReactor 15y agoAs someone who has been on the inside that last quote is almost all a smoke screen. In reality they do not know as much as they claim and many idiotic policies are there for idiotic or political reasons. Besides since government should be accountable to its people we should fully call to task idiotic or irrational behavior and the excuse of "you wouldn't understand" just does not cut it.
- DevMonkey 15y agoThe last time I went through the airport they did the hand wipe thing. I said "You think terrorist are smart enough to wear gloves when working with chemical explosives?" She shrugged and said "All Clear!"
- bshep 15y agoI'm surprised she didnt give you a more thorough screening after the comment.
- iamandrus 15y agoI'm surprised he was even let through the checkpoint after that comment.
- Zarathust 15y agoI am surprised your reaction is surprise
- tlrobinson 15y agoYou think terrorists are dumb enough to make such comments?
- pdubs 15y agoVery similar to "The Things He Carried" by The Atlantic back in 2008. Bruce Schneier shows how worthless the TSA is. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...
- mootothemax 15y agoFantastic article! One point I've read elsewhere is that successful Islamic terrorists are a single-use resource, what with their habit of killing themselves during the attack. This means all their terrorism skills are lost with the successful attack, and the pool of competent terrorists shrinks. Not to mention, the wealth of experience and on-the-ground information is lost as well.
- DanBC 15y agoThe people with the knowledge are the bombmakers etc; the people carrying the bombs need very little knowledge apart from "push the button at the right time".
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- InclinedPlane 15y agoThe most successful terrorist attacks against the US did not use bombs, they used commodity weapons and teams that required thousands of dollars and weeks of specialized training.
- anamax 15y ago> teams that required thousands of dollars and weeks of specialized training. The folks who ran that training are still alive.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoYes, the civilian flight instructors in the US, I imagine they are probably still alive. What's your point?
- 15y ago
- ck2 15y agoWhy wouldn't terrorists hijack private planes now? Some of them are quite large. If we want to see the TSA go away, start hassling the billionaires. But airports are so passe anyway, TSA has moved onto buses, trains and now car searches, journalists are way behind.
- nathanb 15y agoI'm a little disappointed with the article when compared to my expectations given the title. Besides using a fraudulent boarding pass, the journo didn't "test" the TSA in any meaningful way. This wasn't like the experiment where a guy got a gun on a plane using his wheelchair, for example. While the article has great information and I agree with almost all of it, I would like to see people demonstrating the uselessness of the TSA rather than just talking about it.
- bigtech 15y agoAgreed, but this is a major building-block in that it allows evildoers to make multiple trips through security to deliver small amounts of items without detection.
- DanBC 15y agoAttempting to get a weapon on board a plane carries a risk of being shot. In the head. I'm not that surprised that people don't try it.
- shareme 15y agoyou do not have to sneak a 'weapon' on board a plane to bring it down..911 attacks was mainly focused on social engineering to get victims to cooperate with terrorists..if there was no cooperation attacks would have not succeeded
- akira2501 15y agoWhat? The attackers had an easier time because hijackings didn't usually involve flying into a building / killing everyone on board. Prior to 9/11 most hijackings were about taking hostages, flying to a friendly country, then awaiting your ransom. As a passenger, your job was just to sit tight, don't do anything stupid, and wait for the resolution. The hijackers didn't have to socially engineer anything, they just relied on the assumptions of the time. After 9/11, passengers got more aggressive. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were shut down and restrained by alert passengers.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- yread 15y agoI don't understand. The agents at the gate always check the boarding pass validity (with the code scanner) and check the name on it against my ID. I haven't tried it but i can imagine that the system wouldn't allow two boarding passes with the same code. Is it that here in Europe we do things properly or did I misunderstood the faking of the boarding pass?
- brk 15y agoIn the US they do not re-check ID's at the gates. Your boarding pass is scanned by a barcode reader, and the computer does seem to pick up invalid passes, but I don't think that is the point. The TSA has made some kind of a big deal about only allowing "ticketed passengers" into the gate areas. However, their check of this comes down to ensuring you have a piece of ID that matches the name on a piece of paper you bring from home. To use an example from the story, you could have 20 people who are not travelers each smuggle a component of a bob through security (a portion of a liquid, ptex, etc.) and then give those components to a single flyer with a valid ticket (who would have presumably gone through security with NO contraband at all, so as not to burn his identity if he accidentally went through a line with an alert agent). There is also the simple matter of basic vulnerability testing. If you have to spend $500 on a ticket to get a trip through the TSA line, it's very costly to test the edges of the system. If you can go through the line 4x per day at 3 different airport terminals, or multiple airports that are in close proximity to each other, then you can easily run 100 test scenarios in a week about how the lines are managed, processed, etc. As an example, I travel frequently and don't like dealing with the full-body scanners. In most airports at the busy times they "randomly" select some passengers to just go through the metal detectors because the body-radiators are slow. With about 80% accuracy I can watch how the lines are being handled and time my fiddling around with items on the xray belt to be "randomly" selected to skip the full body scanner. It takes a few cycles of observation to start to see the patterns though.
- spolsky 15y agoIn the United States two people look at your boarding pass: the TSA (at the entrance to security screening), and the airline (while boarding the plane). The TSA also checks your ID. In most airports, the TSA is NOT online and merely looks at the printed boarding pass to make sure the name matches what is on your ID, your flight is for today, etc. In most cases the airline does not bother checking ID again, assuming that the TSA checked it. You would not get on a plane with a fake boarding pass, but you do get into the secure area. Because IDs are not checked by the airline, forging a boarding pass would allow you to board a plane with any name you want on the ticket -- the name on the ticket doesn't have to be your "real" name (it doesn't have to match your photo ID). This means that the TSA's various "no fly" lists, which are just lists of names of people that they've compiled that are "too dangerous to fly", are easily defeated.
- ims 15y agoThis article makes some big leaps. It says in the fourth paragraph: "Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent more than $1.1 trillion on homeland security." It seems to imply that this is mostly because of wasteful TSA-like spending. The Department of Homeland Security's FY11 budget authority was around $56 bil. The TSA only accounted for 14% of that money. [1] Just for perspective -- top 5 slices of DHS's FY11 pie: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (20%), U.S. Coast Guard (18%), Transportation Security Administration (14%), Federal Emergency Management Agency (12%), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (10%). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the TSA... I think we all feel a little silly as grownups waiting around in a security line in our socks. But I don't think all the hand waving about "security theater" is really justified. And there are probably quite a few things that fall under "homeland security" that aren't so controversial. Disaster response? Maritime search and rescue? Enforcement of fisheries conservation regulations? Border protection? [1] All numbers from DHS's "FY 2011 Budget in Brief"
- dpeck 15y agoThere have been quite a few articles over the last decade pointing out that the creation of DHS as a whole has been quite a waste of time and money with little benefit. Katrina showed many of the problems with FEMA, though it seems to have improved since then. I'm not sure why enforcement of fisheries conservation belongs under DHS, and as someone who does a good bit of offshore fishing I'm not very happy with they way they over-regulate/enforce on recreational fishermen who would have a hard time making a dent in most populations while (seemingly) turning a blind eye to commercial efforts destroying them. Others I don't have any insight into, but it seems that DHS has mostly the creation of a huge number of bureaucrats who's major responsibilities involve insuring that the money allotted is spend so that the same or more can be requested for the next fiscal year, with the actual agencies under it getting a smaller piece of the pie and more barriers to actually doing work than before.
- ims 15y agoYou're probably thinking of the National Marine Fisheries Service under NOAA for recreational fishing (under Dept. of Commerce, not Homeland Security). The Coast Guard, under DHS, enforces Magnuson-Stevens and the other conservation acts farther offshore where the commercial vessels fish. And your point is well taken about DHS (as a department), but administrative organization seems to me to be a completely different problem than sinister-sounding "security theater," which is how the article paints pretty much all efforts associated with "homeland security".
- tlrobinson 15y agoI like to think the TSA and their ridiculous measures actually are there purely for the "security theater"... both to reassure the ignorant public, and to misdirect potential terrorists. Of course, I also hope the TSA, DHS, etc have more effective measures in place behind the scenes. I don't know if that's the case, but it would make sense to keep them secret.
- miles_matthias 15y agoThe article didn't mention what happened when they tried to use the photoshopped boarding pass to board. Maybe they had another real boarding pass somewhere else? Maybe they didn't actually board a plane? Their system makes sure you're supposed to be on the plane when they scan your boarding pass to get on the plane right?
- po 15y agoThey didn't try to use it to board the plane, he just wanted to show that you don't actually have to buy a plane ticket to be waved into the 'secure' area of the airport.
- miles_matthias 15y agoThat's what I thought. I just didn't see them be explicit about that.
- Osiris 15y agoYou don't even need photoshop to modify your boarding pass. (These steps work with Opera, I'm not sure about other browsers) 1. Go to print your boarding pass 2. View source 3. Modify any information (such as adding something to show First Class/A-List/etc) 4. Click Apply Changes to make the changes to the HTML show up in the page 5. Click Print A perfect boarding pass with any information you want. What could someone do that's on the watch list? By a ticket under an assumed name, then print out two boarding passes, one with their real name that matches their ID, then another with the assumed name. Since the no-fly list check is only done when the ticket is purchased, use the real ID with real name boarding pass at security to get through (they won't check you against the list). At the gate, go ahead and give them the real boarding pass with the fake name (they won't check your ID at that point). * I am in no way advocating that you do this, just that it's possible and demonstrates a weakness in security
- apaprocki 15y agoDo you have references that the list is only checked at purchase time? As for the security hole.. you have a credit card under the assumed name as well? If they were smart they could simply flag first time fliers and anyone who flies under a ticket purchased by someone else for extra checks. Cash ticket purchases require real ID at the ticket counter or Western Union and presumably you'd get checked there as well.
- ianferrel 15y agoIt's trivially easy to get a credit card under any name you want. Most credit cards will generously offer to give you more cards with your family members names on them. Just make up a name and you get an additional card with that name. The bill still comes to you, but that's on the credit card company's end.
- philwelch 15y agoHere's a story about someone doing exactly that, not to buy airline tickets, but to wreak other havoc with "Michael Jackson"'s credit card: http://www.zug.com/pranks/mj/ http://www.zug.com/pranks/mj/
- mgkimsal 15y agoWhen will we get congressional and presidential candidates vowing to shut down the TSA? "I'll shut down the Dept of Education!" was a bit rallying cry for Bachmann a couple months ago, partially with the justification that "It was only started in 1979!". Well, the TSA was started less than 10 years ago, so let's shut that down first.
- mgkimsal 15y agoAnd yeah... the next wave of 'terrorist' attacks won't be airports, but probably consumer-level areas or something that directly affects a large number of every day people (or, just, threatens to): malls, restaurant chains, etc. I posited this idea to friends/family back in 2002: have a large number of geographically distributed attacks on salt/pepper/condiments at chain and independent restaurants around the country at the same time. Dozens/hundreds would get sick or die, and confidence in the food supply would be disrupted for weeks at minimum. "terror-proof" condiment dispensers would be developed, and required on flights (cause our anti-terrorists will still be focused on flying), and it would cost probably $500 in drugs to spike salt/pepper shakers around the country. People thought I was crazy (or a terrorist), but I could swear I read of this being reported on (on a small scale) in 2005 or 2007 - Miami perhaps? I found this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/20/eveningnews/main7169266.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/20/eveningnews/main71... but it's from 2010 and it's not what I was thinking about.
- tikhonj 15y agoI remember something about injecting toxins into off-the-shelf medicine (maybe Aspirin?). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? Apparently this was longer ago than I thought: 1986. Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/19/us/batch-of-rite-aid-aspirin-pills-recalled-in-search-on-cyanide.html http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/19/us/batch-of-rite-aid-aspir...
- mgkimsal 15y agoNo, that was way long ago, and may have been inspired by the tylenol stuff before it in some way. No... I just can't find the story I'm thinking about now. All references to restaurant food poisoning are now coming up with that dec 2010 incident. :/
- gerggerg 15y agoThe 3 oz liquid rule was always a bit laughable to me too. Print 6 fake boarding passes, bring 6 friends, give them 3 ounces of whatever, take 21 ounces on the plane. Makes no sense to me. And still I have to buy a special tiny tube of toothpaste for the safety of the nation.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]