Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
vanityfair.com
Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#2I'm afraid most of what the government does is theater - meant to distract us while they line their own pockets.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#3I 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.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#4I 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.
Completely 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-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?
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#5I 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.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#6The submission might attract more attention if the headline made mention of the fact that Schneier is the person doing the testing.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#7The 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!"
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#8The 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!"
I'm surprised she didnt give you a more thorough screening after the comment.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#9I 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…
The 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.
Re: Smoke Screening: Journalist tests TSA
#10I 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…
You 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?