Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

10.21.2008

TSA’s Take on the Atlantic Article

Bruce Schneier and others have raised a number of good issues about TSA’s role in aviation security but veer off course when our work is described as ‘security theater.’ Some examples from a recent article in the Atlantic magazine are worth examining and I would put them in three categories as they represent three different layers of security: 1) items carried through checkpoints on the body; 2) watch-lists and boarding passes; and 3) behavior detection. The comments about TSA not hassling the reporter for carrying a Hezbollah flag or AQ T-shirt are more in the entertainment category along with the thought of splashing water on your face to simulate sweating as a demonstration that behavior detection doesn’t work.

Items carried on the person, be they a ‘beer belly’ or concealed objects in very private areas, are why we are buying over 100 whole body imagers in upcoming months and will deploy more over time. In the meantime, we use hand-held devices that detect hydrogen peroxide and other explosives compounds as well as targeted pat-downs that require private screening.

Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process. Dozens more people with security concerns are identified through finding altered or forged documents, including boarding passes. Using stolen credit cards and false documents as a way to get around watch-lists makes the point that forcing terrorists to use increasingly risky tactics has its own security value. Boarding pass scanners and encryption are being tested in eight airports now and more will be coming.

Behavior detection works and we have 2,000 trained officers at airports today. They alert us to people who may pose a threat but who may also have items that could elude other layers of physical security.

The bigger point is that there are vulnerabilities everywhere and we use multiple layers of different security measures to protect us all from instances where one vulnerability can be exploited. The standard for TSA is not perfection, but material reduction of risk.

Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if “all” we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.

Stopping the ‘James Bond’ terrorist is truly a team effort and I whole-heartedly agree that the best way to stop those attacks is with intelligence and law enforcement working together. Anyone who knows would tell you that TSA is, in fact, an intelligence-driven operation, working daily with our colleagues throughout the counter-terrorism community in that common effort.

Kip Hawley

Labels:

124 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Posted by Kip Hawley:
Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process. Dozens more people with security concerns are identified through finding altered or forged documents, including boarding passes. Using stolen credit cards and false documents as a way to get around watch-lists makes the point that forcing terrorists to use increasingly risky tactics has its own security value.


Please name one true "No-Fly" that has been stopped on a domestic USA flight by the NFL in the past 6 months. Or 12 months. Then please explain to me why this person isn't under arrest and charged with a crime to be tried in the judicial system. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to fly, then they surely are guilty of some crime and don't belong on the street. If someone is not wanted for a crime, then I don't see what business TSA has blocking them from travel. And please leave law-enforcement and arrest to the police and FBI; they are better trained, more experienced, and more competent at it than your average TSO.

Looking for fake IDs, fake boarding passes, and fake credit cards has nothing to do with TSA's mission to keep weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off of aircraft. Fake IDs and boarding passes are an airline revenue concern. Fake credit cards are a financial crime and identity theft concern that should be left to the FBI and other experienced financial-crime law enforcement agencies, not to power-tripping BDOs and TDCs looking for the Big Catch(TM).

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of innocent Americans have been harassed, delayed, and denied their right of free movement by your (that's you Hawley) No-Fly list with no effective means of redress or due process. You have created a papers-please society modeled quite well after the East German Stasi. When airlines tell the truth about why their customers are delayed, detained, and harassed, you threaten the airlines with fines. Instead of apologizing to the innocent victims and making immediate amends, you propose a massive government power grab called Secure Flight with a gigantic database that can store our travel habits, store our personal information, make that information vulnerable to identity theives, and be used and misused to draw incorrect conclusions about innocent Americans and deny them free movement and travel. What you never admit about Secure Flight is that it may result in SSSSelectee SSSScreening for any passenger who books or changes their flight within 48 hours of departure, and that because Secure Flight will be presumed correct in its watchlist matches, it will be even harder for the inevitable innocent victims to seek redress.

How do you justify the use of un-American secret blacklists to deny basic rights to schoolchildren? How do you justify the use of un-American secret blacklists to WWII vets who fought to protect the freedoms you are taking away every day? History will judge you, and that judgment will be written on the same pages as that of Erich Mielke and Wolfgang Schwanitz.

October 21, 2008 2:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute, does this mean I can bring normal-sized contact lens solution onto the plane then? In reading the Atlantic article I'm now more confused as to what is acceptable and what is not. If contact solution is allowed in larger than 3 oz sizes, why not dandruff shampoo, or special toothpaste?? The response to the article only goes further to show me that it IS all security theater. I've got an idea, how about CLEAR rules that are enforced the same way in EVERY airport. That would be helpful...

October 21, 2008 2:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip, how exactly are watch lists useful when a trivially forged boarding pass and fake id can get you past the checkpoint? I'm not impressed by claims of "encryption"... that didn't work out so well with DVDs. ID verification cannot be made perfect and it doesn't equal security anyway. I'm sure I don't need to mention the huge number of false positives your lists generate or the lack of any way to get OFF the list if you're mistakenly identified as a security threat or share the name of one.

I think the criticisms of BD are quite valid. You say "BD works" yet fail to give any supporting evidence. The Atlantic article offers empirical evidence that behaviour detection is, at best, a guessing game played by your undertrained (1 week of training? Please.) minions. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

The beer belly got through security. End of story. If your staff are already this lazy, is buying them expensive technological toys with our tax money really going to help anything? I can't wait for medical pins and forgotten jewelry (or another LED sweatshirt) to shut down airports. As for your fancy handheld explosives detection devices, remind me again why you prohibit liquids instead of, oh, I dunno, using the devices on carry-on luggage.

If all you do is stop dumb terrorists, you are not doing your job. Your job is to create an environment hostile to troublemakers that is simultaneously pleasant to regular travelers. Guess what? You fail on both. The atlantic article addresses areas of real concern, and here you are playing "spin the news story" I'd be impressed if you made changes in response to this article. I'm not surprised at all that all you've got to offer is excuses.

There's no such thing as perfect security, we don't expect TSA to be perfect. We expect it to be resourceful, adaptable, and human. You fail on ALL THREE. Your goons on the ground don't know left from right. They over-react to everything. They make up stupid additions to the already stupid rules. They're puzzled by basic electronic circuits and by solid state hard drives. Air travel in the U.S is more unpleasant than it's ever been and it is your fault.

The liquids rules: dumb

The prohibited items list: useless as a guideline

The lack of any passenger bill of rights document: unforgivable

Your undertrained wannabe cop TSOs: Need to be replaced en masse with thinking feeling individuals. With at least a college degree.


And Bob, would you remind us why TSA thinks it's safe to line up next to a trash can full of "potential liquid explosives" ? I've been waiting months for a REAL answer on that one.

October 21, 2008 3:01 PM

 
Anonymous txrus said...

Kip said...
Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process. Dozens more people with security concerns are identified through finding altered or forged documents, including boarding passes. Using stolen credit cards and false documents as a way to get around watch-lists makes the point that forcing terrorists to use increasingly risky tactics has its own security value. Boarding pass scanners and encryption are being tested in eight airports now and more will be coming.
*****************************
And of those referenced above, in all categories, how many have been tried & convicted of aviation-related security crimes? How many have even been arrested?

October 21, 2008 3:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your undertrained wannabe cop TSOs: Need to be replaced en masse with thinking feeling individuals. With at least a college degree."

So you wanna be treated like crap by college grads instead. A college degree would not help the checkpoint. Doesn't make any sense. You can become a police officer, a soldier, but not a TSO with a high school diploma.

I'm a IT guy and everyone I work with has a college degree. YOU would not want 90 percent of those people working at your local checkpoint.

Please... whoever you are, rethink this part of your laundry list.

October 21, 2008 3:42 PM

 
Blogger BlognDog said...

Once again, Kip, why can't you answer why you are unable to respond to formal complaints that are 2, 3, 4 years old and older?

The NFL? This no recourse, no responsibility, no due process form of harassment by a federal agency? This is one of the things you are braggin about? Keeping Cat Stevens and Ted Kennedy off a plane? I'd rather see either of them than you in the seat next to me.

October 21, 2008 3:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stopping the ‘James Bond’ terrorist is truly a team effort and I whole-heartedly agree that the best way to stop those attacks is with intelligence and law enforcement working together. Anyone who knows would tell you that TSA is, in fact, an intelligence-driven operation, working daily with our colleagues throughout the counter-terrorism community in that common effort.

So if this is correct you use fictional characters as your target for security? I suggest that you turn off the television and stop going to action/adventure movies for at least one year and instead read up on real terrorism from reports written by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and military. Since DHS doesn't have its own intelligence agency working for it that the other, professional organizations might have a better idea where the next threats are coming from.

So stop using Hollywood as your primary source of intelligence. I also am aware of how little regard the other alphabet agencies regard DHS and TSA. Got to improve your image if you want to be taken seriously.

Talk to the American people when a TSO stops a previously unidentified terrorist from engaging in airborne terrorism.

We heap scorn and hoots of derision in the direction of senior DHS management.

October 21, 2008 3:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm scared that by posting here I'll be put on some mysterious government list and be harassed every time I fly. That's not the hallmark of a free society. If only there was any kind of accountability for your agency.

Kip, you didn't respond to the claims in the article about how the reporter was able to bypass any security checks by printing out a fake boarding pass. That's a HUGE loophole that the No Fly List doesn't stop. Either fix that or stop trying to make us believe you're only engaging in security theater.

October 21, 2008 4:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have created a papers-please society modeled quite well after the East German Stasi.

Even the Stasi had to answer to the party. DHS and TSA answer to no one.

October 21, 2008 4:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Talk to the American people when a TSO stops a previously unidentified terrorist from engaging in airborne terrorism."

Here you go....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172008/news/regionalnews/airport_bomb_134003.htm

October 21, 2008 4:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Your undertrained wannabe cop TSOs: Need to be replaced en masse with thinking feeling individuals. With at least a college degree."


TSOs deal with constant training. Initial training, on-the-job training, daily training and testing EVERYDAY.

Some of the most brilliant people I've ever met do not have college degrees. Just because you have a degree does not mean you possess common sense, or that you are qualified.

I am a TSO. I am also a human being....a THINKING, FEELING human being. Please do not stereotype me to fit your needs.

October 21, 2008 4:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, lots of material here, Thanks Kip.

"we are buying over 100 whole body imagers"

Since these imagers do not see into body cavities (and we don't want them too), what is their use. Why not buy puffers and sniffers instead. Much less invasive AND more effective.
And since we are on the subject, when are you bringing the persons analysing the full body images out into the open, where the person scanned can see them?

What are "targeted pat-downs that require private screening"? Are you touching or looking at private parts? Under no circumstance is that justifiable.

"We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process."

Could you tell us the actual numbers, and explain what was the problem in each case? Let us know how many were arrested, how many were sent back to other countries, etc.

"Behavior detection works"

Could you show us a scientific reference for that affirmation? All I have seen are studies indicating it is not well-established that it works.

"don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever"

While I agree that most persons on Earth are not, in fact, clever, I actually think you are underestimating the people you should be targeting.

"Anyone who knows would tell you that TSA is, in fact, an intelligence-driven operation"

Sincerely, it does not look like it from where I stand.

October 21, 2008 4:58 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Kip said: "Items carried on the person, be they a ‘beer belly’ or concealed objects in very private areas, are why we are buying over 100 whole body imagers in upcoming months and will deploy more over time. In the meantime, we use hand-held devices that detect hydrogen peroxide and other explosives compounds as well as targeted pat-downs that require private screening."

So your response to such "threats" is to eviscerate the 4th amendment even more by requiring MORE strip searches and touching I'd expect only from my wife (or how I'd touch her)? I hope you enjoy that when you finally go thru a checkpoint after you're out of a job. It's pretty clear you don't go thru your own checkpoints.

Less than 3 months, less than 3 months ...

Earl

October 21, 2008 5:01 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

Anonymous (2:25pm) raises some thought-provoking questions that, in the truest tradition of this blog, will never get answered. We're just seeing the typical TSA reaction whenever they receive unflattering media attention: rehash the well-worn official platitudes, then insist that the TSA is Highly Effective so the criticism should be ignored. But the questions about how many "No Flys" have been arrested and convicted are interesting ones that bring up something I hadn't considered before.

The watchlists are indeed "effective" in their own peculiar way. The usual approach to arresting and trying criminals requires a lot of effort and expense, and (assuming the case isn't plea bargained) evidence sufficient to convince a jury that that the defendant is guilty of all elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. That's apparently too difficult when you're dealing with terrorism, which by definition demands shortcuts around the burdensome Constitution.

But what if you could set up a much simpler scheme that metes out administrative punishment (either being barred from flying or receiving "SSSSpecial" treatment each time they fly) to large numbers of individuals, with little effort or fuss on the government's part? There's no need for careful investigation or gathering solid evidence. Just some "intelligence" (whether or not reliable), or even a "suspicion" on the part of one of the thousands of agents with the authority to add names to the continually-growing watchlists.

Since the watchlists are classified and owned by various organizations, there's no expensive burden of verification. As long as the lists keep growing at a sufficient rate, the owners can put together spreadsheets and PowerPoint slides with incontrovertible quantitative proof that the lists are "effective." And because the TSA defines a false positive as a success, the mere fact that they interrogate and search large numbers of passengers based on watchlist hits is sufficient proof that the watchlists are "effective."

It doesn't matter one little bit that those "hits" may not be terrorists and may not threaten aviation in any way; and that there may not be any valid reason for their names to be on the watchlist. The fact that the TSA has done its job of hassling that person in response to the "hit" is sufficient proof that the TSA is effective in doing its job! There may not be grounds for arresting, trying or incarcerating those individuals; but the fact that someone (who we can't know) for whatever reason (that we can't know) believed that individual needed to be on the list is clearly grounds for administering the lesser form of administrative punishment. And by God, the TSA proudly and effectively Protects the Homeland by administering that punishment thousands of times a month! That's truly something for Kip to crow about!

Of course, there's the little problem of all those people who don't understand why they're on the watchlist and why they deserve administrative punishment. For that we have to turn to Kip's boss, Michael Chertoff. There's nothing wrong with the lists, so they'll just keep on growing. The fault is with the airlines, who don't collect enough private identifying information to use the lists effectively. If we'd just give up a little more privacy, all will be well. Thank you Secretary Chertoff. You're doing a heck of a job!

Finally, I hope Kip realizes that people like Bruce Schneier aren't just "liberals who hate America" and want to make the TSA (and Kip) look bad to aid the enemy. They (and many of us who write comments here) merely want the government to do an effective job of protecting the Homeland. It's increasingly clear that the TSA's intrusive and costly Security Theater, and the watchlists that put quantity before quality, aren't doing that. I think our only hope is that the next administration will do a thorough review of the Homeland Security bureaucracy with an eye toward effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

October 21, 2008 5:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Talk to the American people when a TSO stops a previously unidentified terrorist from engaging in airborne terrorism."

Here you go....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172008/news/regionalnews/airport_bomb_134003.htm


The guy wasn't a terrorist. He was a nut burger. Nice try though.

October 21, 2008 5:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip: Even if "all" we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.

And if all you do is hassle large numbers of people who aren't terrorists at all, are you still reducing risk?

October 21, 2008 5:44 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

So far Kip, in all the years the TSA has been in operation I have yet to hear of a single instance where an actual terrorist has been apprehended by checkpoint screeners. Surely had such an event taken place it would have been front page news from coast to coast. What I have seen, on the other hand, is a gradual erosion of my civil liberties at the checkpoint -- I have to show id where I did not have to show it before; I have to display my property in ways I never had to before; my property is subject to confiscation (oh I'm sorry, "voluntary forfeiture") at the whim of an undereducated security guard (I refuse to grant them the title of an officer); my first, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendment rights are routinely violated, all in the name of security. This while gaping holes in security are left unaddressed. We still fly on top of uninspected cargo. People still walk in and out of the "sterile area" of the airport without inspection. The Atlantic article shows that your boarding pass inspection is little more than a joke.

Kip, I'm not impressed. I'm not buying it. You have not proven either your bona fides or TSA's value add to our security. I'm just biding my time until January 20 when you are out of a job. Meanwhile I continue to go through the airport twice a week because my job demands it and I play nice with your hired minions because I need to get where I'm going.

Both candidates for the presidency have sworn to cut wasteful government spending. No matter who wins, I can only think that TSA's bloated budget ought to be the first thing to be cut.

October 21, 2008 7:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous at October 21, 2008 4:57 PM said:
I am a TSO. I am also a human being....a THINKING, FEELING human being. Please do not stereotype me to fit your needs.

I am not a customer. I am not self-loading freight. I am an American citizen. I vote in EVERY election that occurs in my local voting area and I have a long memory. Until the TSA stops stereotyping me as potential criminal because I just happen to give business to the airline industry, I will continue stereotyping every member of the TSA as of being questionable quality and ethics until proven differently.

How can the TSA improve?
- Screen the cargo.
- Secure the bags.
- Secure the tarmac.
- Eliminate DYWTFT?
- Prosecute TSOs guilty of illegal acts.

Until the TSA proves to me that they have their own house in order, everything they do is simply over-reactive window-dressing to make people think they are safe.

When the entire American populus realizes that they are actually American citizens, instead of consumers, it will be a good day.

October 21, 2008 8:12 PM

 
Anonymous Adrian McCarthy said...

Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures.

This is unprovable. The problem is that it's impossible to measure the effectiveness.

We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process.

Just because you've stopped people who were on the list from flying does not mean that you've made a flight safer. You don't know if those people actually belonged on the list. And you don't know if you've helped their plans by letting them know they're on the list. It also doesn't tell you how many dangerous people slipped through the screening.

There's little to no oversight of the list. Just recently a police department added 58 members of a peaceful, anti-war activist group to a government terrorist watch list. (It's not clear if this list is tied to the ones used for restricting flying rights.) Even so, how many cases like this do we not hear about? How many people on the lists are there without good cause? How many "bad guys" don't make it on the list? How many people on the list make it through security?

We don't know any of those numbers. I doubt we can even make good estimates. So it's impossible to claim that it's an effective measure.

What we do know, is that innocent people have been blocking from flying, at a minimum forfeiting the cost of their airplane tickets.

We do know that trusted pilots have lost their jobs because they got on the list.

We do know that circumventing security if you're on the list is trivial.

We do know that there is little transparency or oversight on the management of the lists (determining who goes on and who comes off).

We do know that--without oversight--the list could be used as a political weapon.

We do know that the process discriminates against the 20 million Americans who don't have a government-issued photo identification.

We do know that Clear Card has put travelers at risk of identity fraud by losing track of unencrypted data on laptops.

We do know that terrorists can figure out if they're on the list by applying for a Clear Card.

I find these facts far more compelling than Kip's gut feeling that the scheme is effective.

October 21, 2008 8:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow... It's mind boggling to me how difficult it is to make you people happy. It's almost as if you like being irrate about something. Here you have the Administrator of TSA telling you guys whats going on in airport security and all you do is ask moronic questions like "Wait a minute, does this mean I can bring normal-sized contact lens solution onto the plane then?"
You could ALWAYS bring your eye solution through the checkpoint no matter what size. If its a medical item then u can bring it on the plane. NEXT!
Someone else who was asking for proof that the BDO program works. They were shown a site that showed that it was effective against preventing threats and he goes on about how it wasnt a "terrorist" and that it was some looney tune clown. I guess it doesnt count then. Get a grip sir. I'm glad Kips running the show and not you.

October 21, 2008 8:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip,

Sounds like you're just being defensive here. How does the document checkers' scribble scratch on the boarding pass improve security? Many times when I board the plane, my boarding pass doesn't even have TSA's marking on it, because once passing security I'll go to one of the kiosks airside and change my seat assignment or flight (which prints out a new boarding pass). Or even if I "lost" my boarding pass, I could use one of those kiosks to print a replacement without speaking to anyone. Do you want to know how much the gate agent cares about whether or not my boarding pass indicates I've been cleared by TSA?; well, they don't.

If you've identified as many terrorist-related individuals trying to fly as you claim, what happens to these people? If they're terrorist related, shouldn't they be sent to jail? I haven't heard about a single terrorist-related arrest made as a result of TSA security measures or as a result of a BDO. Do you even know what you're really looking for? I'm not convinced; TSI's climbing on aircraft as if they were jungle gyms does not instill confidence in the traveling public.

Finally, explain why (in the article) someone was able to make up the bogus story they did to get passed security without ID or a legitimate boarding pass? Why is it that I could slip by just by sounding cooperative or even apologetic for 'forgetting' by ID while wearing a Osama bin Laden shirt, while if on the other hand I simply told you the truth that I believe in the U.S. Constitution and my right to travel without justification to the government then I'd be denied entry?

And yes, I'd love a three-once glass of water. Thanks Kip.



Rather than getting defensive toward the article, why don't you explain

October 21, 2008 10:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a joke.... Taking our shoes off is still ridiculous, but otherwise we'll be 'detained' and miss our flight if we don't comply.

The psuedo-cops that are in the TSA are stealing our stuff, too. I guess we're not out of our minds when our stolen equipment is showing up on eBay.

I'm all for reasonable security but having people who took a couple day-long classes in behavioral psychology won't help anyone to accurately tell who a terrorist is vs someone who has been in meetings for the last 48 hours working on brokering a deal. What a waste of time and money.

October 21, 2008 10:26 PM

 
Blogger Gunner said...

Nice puff piece. What you do is absolutely security theatre, no matter how loud you protest.

Thank goodness that you will be gone in January. You have singlehandedly destroyed air travel in the United States.

October 22, 2008 12:51 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Hey Kip I am surprised to see you making a post. I figured you would be too busy packing to address this blog.

I hope you plan on taking a vacation before jumping back into private life. I suggest a trip to Florida for a bit of fishing. If you do come down give a holler.

Ok now that the pleasantries are out of the way, Kip do you get dizzy spinning so much? Face it the TSA and by your position, you got pwned by this reporter. Such is life.

I will agree that the Hezbollah flag or a Bin Laden shirt falls to the entertainment category. I am pleased that the reporter was not stopped for those items. It is not the TSA's business what I carry, as long as it is not dangerous.

BUT, the fact he was able to slip by with a beer belly and a host of other prohibited items is pretty scary.

Quit screwing around with boarding passes and statutorily illegal ID verifications and stick to what you were mandated to do by 49 C.F.R. § 1540, screening for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.

If the TSA could just do that one little thing you won't have to worry about who is on the plane because they will be impotent.

You said “There are vulnerabilities where you have limited ways to address it directly. So you have to put other layers around it, other things that will catch them when that vulnerability is breached. This is a universal problem. Somebody will identify a very small thing and drill down and say, ‘I found a vulnerability.’”

I have a simple rule about security, if I can break it, hack it, bypass it or thwart it in any manner, it is NOT secure.

Keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries from the plane is not something you have "limited ways of addressing". I can think of a half a dozen ways off the top of my head to increase the contraband catch at the checkpoints without violating the law or the Constitution.

Kip I know you have one foot out the door but now is not the time to just pass whatever half baked idea Chertoff on down the line.

Kip it is still your job to lead the TSA. Now is the time to roll back the stupidity of play security and push REAL security.

Kip I have never thought you an idiot and frankly I find the KHIAI merchandise to be distasteful but as long as you keep saying yes to the stupidity from above this is how you will be perceived by the masses.

Now is the time to act Kip, they can't fire you, and they can't screw up your private sector job. Man up and do the right thing.

October 22, 2008 5:52 AM

 
Anonymous Bob Hanssen said...

Assistant Secretary Hawley, might I ask what is "your take" on this example of professionalism?

"Woman Claims Pasco Airport Security Agent Hurt Her Foot"

http://tinyurl.com/5d54uk

Please don't make excuses or have one of your public affairs people cut & paste from your previous speeches. Surely, with three months left before you're out of a job, you must be thinking "legacy". If we remember you at all, do you want us to remember you as someone who was embarrassed by a simple reporter or teeshirt wearer? How about Nat Heatwole? How about the 500 caught thieves who violated the public trust? How about all the chest-thumping when you catch a party-animal college student with a fake ID? How about 3 uniform changes and zero changes to checkpoint x-ray machines? How about harassing rail and bus commuters?

October 22, 2008 7:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ October 21, 2008 5:36 PM said..."The guy wasn't a terrorist. He was a nut burger. Nice try though."

Definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

The guy tried to board an airplane with a pipe bomb, a 7-inch folding knife, fireworks, nail-gun rounds and a one-way boarding pass. According to you though he was just a "nut burger". Sounds like he had violent intentions to me.

October 22, 2008 8:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Behavior detection works"

How long before TSA rolls out "Extispicy Officers"?

As good a method as Behavior Detection.

October 22, 2008 10:57 AM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Kip @"Even if “all” we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk."

At what cost?

If the cost of partially reducing the 1-in-a-billion risk of "dumb bombers" is 2,800,000 person-hours per day, the terrorists win each day they make us pay that cost.

There's always a cost when you tradeoff risk versus resources, and TSA does an absolutely terrible job of showing that its costs are worth the benefits.

Of course Kip, TSA, and the TSOs can laugh all the way to the bank as they spend the billions the US gives TSA.

October 22, 2008 11:00 AM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Also, if your take on the Atlantic article is that Jeffrey Goldberg is some James Bond-like super-terrorist, I think you've missed the entire point of the article: None of your boarding pass checking, behavior detection, or screening layers worked to detect someone using non-innovative ways to exploit long-exposed vulnerabilities.

Your "take" on the article is that is an opportunity to spout the same old PR fluff.

October 22, 2008 11:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures."

You keep repeating this but never back it up. You can't even explain why you think this is true. Please stop using my tax dollars to lie to me.

"We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process."

Name them. Arrests are public records and there are no privacy concerns with releasing the names of these "terrorist-related individuals."

Oh, wait. You can't name them, because you're lying.

And you do realize that the reference to a "James Bond terrorist" is that there's no such animal, yes? And that as a result most of what TSA does is an unconscionable waste of time and money? And that it's all pointless since you don't bother to screen 100% of cargo?

October 22, 2008 11:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even the Stasi had to answer to the party. DHS and TSA answer to no one."
Ever hear of Congress? That's who DHS and TSA answer to.

October 22, 2008 11:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I whole-heartedly agree that the best way to stop those attacks is with intelligence and law enforcement working together."

What does that have to do with TSA, which is neither a law-enforcement agency (phony badges and uniforms notwithstanding) nor an intelligence agency?

October 22, 2008 11:26 AM

 
Anonymous rmogull said...

Kip,

I'm a security expert/analyst with experience in both physical and IT security (and have spoken at many of the same conferences as Bruce). I have yet to encounter another security professional that isn't confident they could bypass security with dangerous items and circumvent all your layers of controls (especially if mroe than one work together). In our analysis, many of the layers lock up resources that could be better deployed elsewhere.

Look, I'm a realist, and any intelligent and determined attacker will always succeed when one side is only playing defense. That's not a criticism of your dedication or intensions, it's just the reality of the security equation.

The issue myself and many other security professionals have is that many of your control layers are ineffective, inconvenient, and those resources could be better utilized in more effective locations.

You are being asked to solve an impossible problem- balancing convenience with security. But the opinion of many outsiders with expertise is that you, at times, reduce convenience without adding security. That's called "security theater", and we have yet to see a point by point response to the many public criticisms.

October 22, 2008 11:32 AM

 
Anonymous Bob Howard said...

Explain the watch list to me. If I am Obama Bin Terrorist, I am not going to show up at the airport using that name.

October 22, 2008 12:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey TSA--How about trying to go just one week without lying to the public!

As recently as today, your page at http://tinyurl.com/6lfcj4 which was updated 10/22 and included a link to the Final Rule said providing date-of-birth was optional for passengers. (Of course, the link is now broken as of a few minutes ago.)

Yet page 13 of your final rules clearly indicates passengers will be required to provide this very personal information which will make them infinitely more vulnerable to identity theft. How long before the press release that an airline, TSA, or a TSA-hired private contractor has "misplaced" a list of passenger names and dates-of-birth, just like TSA's contractor did with the original CAPPS-II test data?

And your spin that Secure-Flight-Passenger-Data is not PNRs is an outright lie since all the key info from the PNR (including flight itinerary) is being transmitted to TSA by the airline. There is nothing to prevent you from changing the data-retention rules (or interpreting them differently) and creating massive travel dossiers on millions of innocent Americans that will be used and misused to draw incorrect conclusions and deny us basic rights.

Your papers please? Absolutely disgusting. I visited East Germany before the Wall came down, and am ashamed to see the USA moving in that direction.

October 22, 2008 1:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If its a medical item then u can bring it on the plane. NEXT!"

Unless a TSO decides not to let you bring it on the plane. The passenger has absolutely no recourse against a TSO who decides to make up his own rules. Kip Hawley thinks this makes us safer. Kip Hawley is lying.

October 22, 2008 2:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip Hawley stated:

The bigger point is that there are vulnerabilities everywhere and we use multiple layers of different security measures to protect us all from instances where one vulnerability can be exploited. The standard for TSA is not perfection, but material reduction of risk.


It is obvious from the statement above that Kip Hawley's dictionary is poorly written.

If a security layer has a vulnerability that can be exploited, it is not a security layer but a security flaw that needs to be fixed.

Obviously, nobody at the TSA knows the 99% reliability rule. If you have N systems with 99% reliability chained end to end, the resulting system is .99^N percent reliable. 2 = 98%. 3 = 97%. 100 = 36%.

The flying public is not seeing evidence of security flaws being fixed, but just more layers of exploitable flaws being wrapped around the existing system in order to protect the pre-existing flaws. This is where the whole 'Security Theater' issue comes from.


Has anyone heard when the TSA will actually comply with the 9/11 Commission's cargo screening requirements?

The reason NASA's Space Shuttle has such a complex launch sequence is because of the massive number of systems that must be operating properly before launch.

October 22, 2008 3:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at October 21, 2008 8:12 PM:

Regarding: Anonymous post: "I am a TSO. I am also a human being....a THINKING, FEELING human being. Please do not stereotype me to fit your needs."

In which your response was: "I am not a customer. I am not self-loading freight. I am an American citizen. I vote in EVERY election that occurs in my local voting area and I have a long memory. Until the TSA stops stereotyping me as potential criminal because I just happen to give business to the airline industry, I will continue stereotyping every member of the TSA as of being questionable quality and ethics until proven differently."

We are all American citizens! We all need to practice civility and humility, not some of the time but all of the time, and that alone would make such a difference. You can't honestly say that every TSO you've encountered has done something to warrant the abuse they receive and ditto for passengers. This is a vicious cycle that seems to have no end.

October 22, 2008 5:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even the Stasi had to answer to the party. DHS and TSA answer to no one."
Ever hear of Congress? That's who DHS and TSA answer to.


DHS has gone before Congress. Congress has instructed DHS to make certain things happen on or before a certain date. DHS has conveniently ignored Congress and hasn't complied. So, DHS and TSA answer to no one and are accountable to no one. Try again.

October 22, 2008 5:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The guy tried to board an airplane with a pipe bomb, a 7-inch folding knife, fireworks, nail-gun rounds and a one-way boarding pass. According to you though he was just a "nut burger". Sounds like he had violent intentions to me.

So will this guy see any terrorism charges? I think not. Read the article and see how the press portrays him. Come back when they catch a real terrorist.

October 22, 2008 5:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TSA has done a great job keeping us safe from all those tweezers they confiscated! Oh wait, they decided a few years later that they weren't a threat (duh).

No wait, TSA has done a great job keeping us safe from all those lighters they confiscated!! Oh wait, you can carry those aboard now too.

Wait, TSA has done a great job apologizing for it clear mis-steps and ineptitude, acknowledged its focus on hassling travelers without any resulting increase in security, and evaded discussion of its arbitrary policies by cloaking itself in flag-waving pseudo-patriotism!

Hmm, TSA, maybe "security theater" is on target, eh?

October 22, 2008 5:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, I see where you're going to try to jam SecureFlight down our throats now. I don't appreciate that at all.

October 22, 2008 6:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DHS has gone before Congress. Congress has instructed DHS to make certain things happen on or before a certain date. DHS has conveniently ignored Congress and hasn't complied. So, DHS and TSA answer to no one and are accountable to no one. Try again.

Proof please!!!

October 22, 2008 7:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is Mr. Hawley's idea of a job well done:

http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/31366239.html

This terrorist was obviously faking her injury.

October 22, 2008 7:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are all American citizens!

Except for those who are not.

We all need to practice civility and humility, not some of the time but all of the time, and that alone would make such a difference.

So who is in control? The passengers or TSA? Clue, it isn't the passengers.


You can't honestly say that every TSO you've encountered has done something to warrant the abuse they receive and ditto for passengers.

Call a waaabulance. TSA began abusing passengers first. Now the passengers have about had their fill of the abuse from the position of authority, aka TSA. They reap what they sowed and don't like it the least bit.

This is a vicious cycle that seems to have no end.

Yep, new TSA abuses/thefts/damages do result in the flying public becoming even more skeptical about the ability of TSA to function as a viable governmental organization.

October 22, 2008 10:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"If its a medical item then u can bring it on the plane. NEXT!"

Unless a TSO decides not to let you bring it on the plane. The passenger has absolutely no recourse against a TSO who decides to make up his own rules. Kip Hawley thinks this makes us safer. Kip Hawley is lying.

October 22, 2008 2:42 PM

My suggestion to you is to speak up and call for a supervisor. Instead of throwing a fit just explain why you need the item and unless the supervisor feels like getting sued then you will have your liquid medicine.
I think most of you folks are just finding ways to belittle the tsa when in the big scheme of things they are really trying to protect tax payers. Kip has a job to do and I'd like to see anyone else try and do a better job. TROLLKILLER (sry just wanted to make sure he saw this), can i ask what you would do differently at the checkpoints to make a safer, friendlier experience? You can even do away with the ID checks since you're so passionate about it. ;)

October 22, 2008 10:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DHS has gone before Congress. Congress has instructed DHS to make certain things happen on or before a certain date. DHS has conveniently ignored Congress and hasn't complied. So, DHS and TSA answer to no one and are accountable to no one. Try again.

October 22, 2008 5:13 PM

Are you making this up? Provide examples please. try again

October 22, 2008 10:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How can the TSA improve?
- Screen the cargo."

This is the biggest load (no pun intended), and yet I see it repeated endlessly. Cargo doesn't need 100% screening, 0r even 75% for that matter. You know why? Because there is no threat there. Name the last terror plot or arrest that involved air cargo - Ramzi Yusef 14 years ago? And even that plot was quickly rejected by the architects, read the 9/11 commission report (and please don't mention Pam Am 103, that was checked baggage, not cargo).

But why wouldn't terrorists want to use air cargo as a way to attack a plane you ask? Because the supply chain is so complex for one thing. Unless you have an insider working for you, you can never be certain if your bomb or jack in the box terrorist cargo will go on a passenger craft or an all-cargo craft, and if you'll kill your target. If you use an altimeter trigger, you might have your package sent in a pressurized cargo bay (used if certain types of cargo are present), so it won't work and you'll be discovered. If you use a GPS trigger, what happens if your package is shielded by the other cargo and container walls? Either no detonation or premature detonation.

But what if a terrorist mails himself? You know, to hijack a cargo plane? For one, how do you get out of your box, especially when you are surrounded by a few tons of other cargo, under a net, and/or in a cargo container? If you're a really unlucky terrorist, your "air cargo" is shipped in the back of a 18 wheeler. And just in case you are transported in a passenger plane, getting from the hold to the passenger compartment isn't as easy as Hollywood makes it look.

But, what if there is an insider helping the terrorists you ask? Then screening becomes a moot point anyway, as a cargo operator can just bypass the security protocols anyway.

So, instead of wasting our time and money on 100% screening, we need to be doing better background checks and employee screenings.

-Cargo Insider

October 23, 2008 8:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"DHS has gone before Congress. Congress has instructed DHS to make certain things happen on or before a certain date. DHS has conveniently ignored Congress and hasn't complied. So, DHS and TSA answer to no one and are accountable to no one. Try again."

Care to back that up with a credible source? Try again.

October 23, 2008 8:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to fly, then they surely are guilty of some crime and don't belong on the street.

You're assuming the majority of the people on the no fly are walking around in the U.S. in the first place. Ever consider that the majority are overseas where we can't just arrest them?

October 23, 2008 9:02 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Come back when they catch a real terrorist."

I'm going to explain this one more time: the purpose of TSA and it's security regulations are not to catch terrorists. If we catch a terrorist, that means FBI, NSA, CIA, and DOD have all failed. Our purpose is simply to create disincentives for extremists to even try and attack aviation in the first place. Can a smart, determined extremist get through all 16 (or is it 20 today?) layers of security? Sure. What we want him to have to go to so much trouble that he instead goes after another target, one that while tragic if sucessfully targeted (say a train) won't almost destroy an entire industry.

October 23, 2008 9:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ October 22, 2008 5:15 PM

"The guy tried to board an airplane with a pipe bomb, a 7-inch folding knife, fireworks, nail-gun rounds and a one-way boarding pass. According to you though he was just a "nut burger". Sounds like he had violent intentions to me."

"So will this guy see any terrorism charges? I think not. Read the article and see how the press portrays him. Come back when they catch a real terrorist."

Do you honestly believe everything the press says? Give me a break!

October 23, 2008 9:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Behavior detection works..."

What exactly is its success rate? How many terrorists have been arrested after behavior detection?

October 23, 2008 9:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we are buying over 100 whole body imagers"

I would read that as style consultants :)

New uniforms for everyone by the end of the year!!!

October 23, 2008 10:52 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous writes:

You're assuming the majority of the people on the no fly are walking around in the U.S. in the first place. Ever consider that the majority are overseas where we can't just arrest them?

Then there's no point in checking passengers already in the U.S. against the no-fly list, right? After all, if they're overseas, then there's no point in screening passengers already in the country.

Ok, we're obviously drifting from the point here ... which is a discussion as to whether or not a list of names is an effective security tool. If many of the names are people who are unlikely to ever approach a checkpoint, and if many more of the names are added for reasons that can't be publicly vetted (like the recent example of non-violent political protestors being added to the list), then the value of the list comes into question.

October 23, 2008 10:54 AM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

@Anonymous said...
"If its a medical item then u can bring it on the plane. NEXT!"

Unless a TSO decides not to let you bring it on the plane. The passenger has absolutely no recourse against a TSO who decides to make up his own rules. Kip Hawley thinks this makes us safer. Kip Hawley is lying.

October 22, 2008 2:42 PM

My suggestion to you is to speak up and call for a supervisor. Instead of throwing a fit just explain why you need the item and unless the supervisor feels like getting sued then you will have your liquid medicine.
I think most of you folks are just finding ways to belittle the tsa when in the big scheme of things they are really trying to protect tax payers. Kip has a job to do and I'd like to see anyone else try and do a better job."


#############################

I missed this the first time around.

You are wrong.

I did talk to a supervisor when he confiscated the gel-packs keeping 13 oz of my wife's breast milk from spoiling. The supervisor told me something that wqas wrong, but sounded plausible at the time: "Gel packs are allowed for medication, but not for infants". So I didn't pursue it further at that time. However, our trip had additional delays, and the breast milk warmed and spoiled. My wife cried as we poured it out. Looking further at your unorganized information, we discovered that breast milk is considered medication, so the supervisor was wrong, and caused us harm needlessly.

This damaging STL TSA supervisor had no fear of "getting sued", and the damage he cause is not fixable (TSA can't go buy another 13 oz of my wife's breast milk from anyone.)

Although your statement about the reasonableness of TSA seems plausible, I have direct experience which contradicts your claim.

To me, TSA is a mismanaged bunch of thugs who make up rules, spoiled our breast milk, and made my wife cry.

October 23, 2008 11:02 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say that forcing terrorists to use "risky techniques" such as altered or forged documents is another level of security. Clearly, if an individual can get through the security line, using a forged boarding pass, while also INTENDING to look and act suspicious proves this point wrong. So what if the practices are risky? It can obviously be done without a great degree of technical knowledge. I highly suggest you think more about this.
I am in no way criticizing the writers and participants of the article written in "The Atlantic." In fact, I commend them. They have brought to your attention a serious flaw in the security system now being implemented by the TSA. Unfortunately, you have chosen to brush this off as a foolhardy attempt to point out holes in airport security. It's terrifying to know that people such as yourself and your organization are given the charge of maintaining airport security.

October 23, 2008 11:19 AM

 
Blogger Stephen said...

Anonymous said:
> What we want him to have to go to so much trouble that
> he instead goes after another target, one that while
> tragic if sucessfully targeted (say a train) won't
> almost destroy an entire industry.

I think this is my problem right here. You are asking me, as a tax payer, to support efforts which, at their ABSOLUTE BEST, shift the boogeymen's plans off to another target.

Yay, a different set of people blew up. Its a tragedy, but at least the airlines won't suffer any bad publicity. Yes, this is what I want MY TAX DOLLARS being used to do. Not to save lives, but to shift costs.

Its arguments like that which really make me feel proud to pay my taxes like a good citizen.

http://www.metrics2.com/blog/2007/01/11/ua_airlines_carried_615m_passengers_in_october_sou.html

Some metrics. That article states 61 million or so domestic passengers in 2006. So every minute that you add to the time the average person spends standing in line at a checkpoint is 1 million man hours of cost paid by those passengers.

This is why its security theater. You can pick any place you want and say "terrorist boogeymen might attack here" and then you can shell out the cash to install layers of security.

In the end, all you do, is shift their target. You have done nothing to save lives, and you have done it on my dime.

-Steve

October 23, 2008 11:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2,000 behavioral trained officers at airports today? It's laughable, almost pointless. There are over 5,000 public airports in the US (Source: US Census: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003.) Do the math.

This is just one glaring point I noticed right off the bat.

Another one, most terrorists are not clever? I guess the bomb makers can't adapt to the changing scenario that the reactive US law enforcement comes up with.

They are on offense, we are on defense. It will be like that until the politicians above you realize that the TSA is a waste of tax payer money and that money would be better spent on intelligence gathering and good-to-honest police work. Adieu.

October 23, 2008 11:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a citizen of the United States I have zero confidence in the TSA to stop any threat against anything anywhere. This isn't the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence where patience may not pay off for generations. This is the real, day to day security and comfort concerns of people. Where is the oversight? Where is the error correction?

October 23, 2008 12:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip: you know in your heart that you are only partially in the right. Why not do your integrity a favor & own up to the flaws in the system, rather than desperately trying to spin the information? I would guess that you either truly believe what you are saying, or you sleep fitfully, wondering how long you can keep this up before someone decides to make you the scapegoat of such national disgrace.

October 23, 2008 12:14 PM

 
Blogger padraig said...

@ Anonymous

> Can i ask what you would do differently at
> the checkpoints to make a safer, friendlier
> experience?

Return to pre-9/11 security screening, which was about as effective at catching "dumb" terrorists and didn't cost $7 billion dollars a year. The previously mentioned nutbag would not have gotten through security screening in 2000.

@ Anonymous (different)

> Our purpose is simply to create dis-
> incentives for extremists to even
> try and attack aviation in the first
> place.

[tangent]
If you are in fact a TSA employee, posting on a TSA blog, why are you posting Anonymously?
[/tangent]

The problem with your equation here is that you are forgetting the entire context. You don't get to create disincentives in a vacuum.

For an extreme example, I can give you right now a 100% guaranteed method of eliminating all airborne terrorist events. Forbid air travel. This is obviously ridiculous, but so is assuming that you get to put up any disincentive barrier that you wish in the name of "making it harder to commit terrorism".

People often assume that "more security" = "better security". While this is true, it's a hugely incomplete examination of *effective* security, which has to take into account the money you're spending, how much security your countermeasures are actually adding to your security equation, and finally what the external costs are to your countermeasures.

October 23, 2008 12:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember that guy a couple of years ago who laser-cut a piece of metal with the words, "Kip Hawley is an idiot" and laid it inside his suitcase? When he went through airport security with it, he was detained and hassled by your TSOs for many hours. Can you explain how a citizen who exercises his First Amendment rights to free speech (or, in this case, expression) is a threat to the air transportation system? You've never really explained that, Kip. Might be a good topic for a future blog post...

October 23, 2008 12:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stopped reading this blog six months ago because what I saw was making me too upset. First, it showed that the TSA leadership gives TSOs absolutely free rein. If something generates sufficient media attention to embarrass the TSA leadership (e.g., the nipple piercing incident), they'll put out a press release resolutely standing behind the screeners and even commending them for "protecting aviation." The implication is that anything that happens is always the passenger's fault, since the TSA is infallible. Second, the TSA leadership is so disconnected from the public that they apparently believe that condescension is an appropriate public relations strategy (e.g., the claim that an electronic strip search is "innocuous," "family friendly," and "protects privacy," and the nasty responses from TSOs when people challenged that claim). Finally, it became very clear that the TSA's leadership and some of its employees regard the public as not merely a threat but incorrigibly stupid and deserving of treatment as children, animals, or criminals. So hundreds of legitimate questions went unanswered (or were addressed with some variation of "it's SSI based on robust intelligence"), and hundreds of constructive suggestions were (repeatedly) ignored.

I could not figure out the purpose of this blog, other than perhaps as a "designated protest zone" where the public could harmlessly complain to each other. Or, more likely, it's a way for the TSA leadership to assess threats (i.e., the ungrateful and disobedient public who fails to give the TSA proper respect) and to develop appropriate countermeasures.

Today I followed a link on Bruce Schneier's blog, which I didn't realize led here. I'm not surprised to find that nothing has changed in six months. Kip is still reacting to negative publicity with the same gobbledygook about "multiple layers" and empty assertions that "it's effective." And the other posts and comments look just as they did six months ago, even down to the very same questions and criticisms that presumably still have not been answered.

One thing that does seem to have changed (for the better, in my opinion) is that I'm seeing more open criticism of the TSA such as the Atlantic article. It appears that the declining Bush administration is no longer able to deflect criticism by yelling "9/11! 9/11!" and impugning the patriotism of the critics. Yes, we must never forget 9/11. But we must never let our leaders use it as a bludgeon to make us surrender our rights and liberties. I believe that most of us who question, challenge, and criticize what is openly visible at airport checkpoints genuinely want effective, competent security. So we become genuinely upset when what we actually get looks like inept, arbitrary, and intrusive security theater. And Kip, your agency's official responses to that criticism only reinforce the impression that what you provide is inept, arbitrary, and intrusive security theater.

That said, I believe the TSA has an impossible task. Measures that might provide an actual measure security-- beyond the hardened cockpit doors and passengers who stand ready to defend against any 9/11-style hijackers-- would probably be impractical. For example, we could fly in standard prison-style jumpsuits without pockets and carry only our identity papers and credit cards in clear plastic bags; and our baggage could go in separate cargo planes. But those measures make today's ID checks and rules on shoes and liquids seem trifling in terms of inconvenience, and would surely provoke even more outrage.

A certain amount of "security theater" is needed at airports. If it doesn't provide any genuine security, it does provide a minimum level of reassurance that is helpful. That's what we had on September 10, 2001, and it's essentially what we still have. The only difference is that it's been patched repeatedly (always in reaction to embarrassing breaches) with all the "pain points" about IDs, shoes, and liquids. And x-ray operators are more sensitive, which might actually provide some real security at the cost of a great many false positive "bag checks."

The patches are certainly inconvenient, inconsistent, and at times difficult and humiliating. The question that needs to be asked is whether those "pain point" patches provide any real security. The TSA naturally is afraid of that question, since it questions their existence. But their standard response of "It's classified SSI, but trust us" doesn't cut it, especially in light of GAO and Inspector General tests that consistently show failure. The same questions need to be asked about other measures, such as Behavior Detection Officers highly qualified by a whole week of training. While BDOs might indeed offer improved security, it's questionable whether one week of training is enough for them to reliably distinguish a terrorist among thousands of passengers suffering severe stress from air travel itself (including the TSA). The public record of "impressive" false positives doesn't instill confidence.

I have no problem at all with the concept of the TSA. The problem is with implementation, for which I blame the Bush administration appointees rather than the uniformed officers we meet at the checkpoints carrying out the seemingly absurd policies and procedures. Most of those officers are courteous, professional, conscientious, and more competent than the minimum-wage flunkies they replaced. Unfortunately, there are enough arrogant bullies to give the entire agency a horrible reputation (especially when their consistently leaders stand behind them in press releases). After all, the TSA's "security strategy" is "unpredictability." And you can't predict which kind of TSO you'll get when it's your turn to be screened.

I know the TSA will ignore this comment, and also that there will be no changes or improvements before next January. I can only hope that the new administration will ask the questions I posed (and others), and give us an improved TSA that merits the respect (and cooperation) of the public through competent implementation rather than through fear and intimidation.

October 23, 2008 12:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it worked against me.

I simply refuse to step foot in an airport until this insanity ceases.

I realize this is not possible for most people, but my travel dollars will be spent on buses, boats, and trains. Back to the 1950s.

October 23, 2008 1:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is a "terrorist-related individual"? You can't call him a terrorist because he's not. He's only "terrorist related" He's not associated with terrorist because then you'd call him a terrorist anyway.

When you say you stop dozens of "terrorist related individuals" what you are saying is that you stop dozens of people that are not terrorists.

Is there any evidence that shows any of these post-911 security measures are effective?

October 23, 2008 1:46 PM

 
Anonymous Mr. Gel-pack said...

Bruce Schneier responds to your non-response.

October 23, 2008 1:59 PM

 
Blogger Mike Benza said...

Regarding encryption: Please do it right. Encryption becomes insecurity when it's done wrong because people wrongly trust it. Consult professionals and the military, not corporations who simply say their encryption works.

October 23, 2008 2:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terribly sorry that you don't like the term "Security Theater" but this article proved that it is just that. REAL security would've stopped these folks for any number of things, fake boarding passes, forbidden items, etc. They just waltzed into the terminal, a supposedly "Secure" area.

If that isn't proof that this is just theater, I don't know what is.

October 23, 2008 2:41 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
TROLLKILLER (sry just wanted to make sure he saw this), can i ask what you would do differently at the checkpoints to make a safer, friendlier experience? You can even do away with the ID checks since you're so passionate about it. ;)


It worked... I was scanning the comments and saw you holler... :-D

I hope you won't restrict me to just the checkpoints because unsecured luggage is also a risk. Do to time constraints I will need to do this in several parts.

Part 1

Before we jump off on what is still wrong at the checkpoints let's start off with what has changed for the better.

I have noticed that posts about TSO yelling has dwindled down to pretty much nothing. Good Job Kip. You have reduced stress at the checkpoints with better behavior. Diamond lanes, good idea not sure if it working as well in practice but it is a good start. Laptop bags that you don't need to remove the laptop is another good idea, still needs some tweaks, but overall good.

Ok now to the things that need fixin. (Git R Done)

Screening
At the checkpoint, first screen EVERYBODY for weapons, explosives and incendiaries. This includes pilots and TSOs. We see too many news stories about crooked TSOs and drunken pilots. They are as much or a greater risk than the general population. No exceptions for anyone. (does not include legit LEOs in pursuit of a suspect)

Uniforms
Stop wasting money on pretty faux police uniforms with detachable METAL badges and use utility clothing instead. White shirts tend to look dirty faster but you can bleach the hell out of them to keep them white. Personally I don't care what color you use but they do not need to mimic law enforcement. There are too many TSOs that are not mature enough not to abuse passengers under the color of law that the faux police uniforms project. The money wasted on faux police uniforms could have been better spent on detection technology.

Forced ID verification
Stop wasting money and breaking the law by forcing ID verification. The only time my ID has any bearing is if a police officer, or other law enforcement agent, asks for the TSOs help in finding a suspect that the police officer has probable cause to apprehend. (BTW that would be acceptable under 49 C.F.R. PART 1540.5)

In any case my ID, even if I have a BOLO issued for me, has no bearing on the safety of the aircraft if I am properly checked for weapons, explosives and incendiaries.

The TSA can still ask for ID and if refused may proceed with a secondary screening. Asking for ID does not break the law, using it as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area does. Asking for ID can be used as an effective tool to make contact with someone to see if they have a nefarious intent. This is where the BDOs should be, not wandering the airport.

MMW and other detection devices
Bring the officer looking at the screen out into the open. If you can't trust the TSO not to make inappropriate remarks, FIRE THEM. My suggestion is you man the MMW with a registered nurse. Most people are not as shy in front of a health professional and a nurse would add value by being on hand in case of a medical emergency. (EMTs may be a better choice).

INFORM the passengers that they will be seen naked and give them the opportunity to opt out for a hand screening. Any time you hide what is going on people will automatically distrust you even if your intentions are good. I honestly believe the majority of people would still opt for the MMW instead of a hand screening if they knew what the images look like. There should be posters, not flyers showing what the images look like. My "The TSA wants to see me naked!" T-shirt should not get responses of "OMG is that what they see?" by seasoned and frequent travelers.

End of part 1.

October 23, 2008 2:46 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Blogger Bob, I am not sure I like this new setup for comments. It is not as intuitive as the old set up and may scare away the casual poster.

This blog needs the noobs and casual posters to get a better balance of the views by the general population.

Find the most technological inept person you can drag in front of the screen and see how long it takes them to figure out how to post. It took me extra time to figure it out and I am on the computer at least 18 hours a day.

One more thing, stick to the wide definition of "on topic". This blog has one topic and that is the improvement of the TSA. Just about anything you post is fair game.

I can understand with some posts, like the 9/11 post, that you don't want people pissing on your parade, and I really don't have a problem with limiting posts in that regard, but the posters on this blog are the TSA's conscience. Our job is to raise the red flags so the TSA does not become a Brown Shirt organization.

For all Kip's faults he did have the guts to open this blog and expose not only himself but the whole TSA organization to harsh criticism.

Make sure that his effort was not wasted.

October 23, 2008 3:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"""
"If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to fly, then they surely are guilty of some crime and don't belong on the street.

You're assuming the majority of the people on the no fly are walking around in the U.S. in the first place. Ever consider that the majority are overseas where we can't just arrest them?
"""

This is a job for customs and immigration, NOT for the TSA. The TSA is primarily (exclusively?) concerned with domestic flights or flights leaving the US. Immigration control is primarily concerned with allowing people to enter this country, or preventing them if there's sufficient cause.

October 23, 2008 3:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

someone said:

Definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

The guy tried to board an airplane with a pipe bomb, a 7-inch folding knife, fireworks, nail-gun rounds and a one-way boarding pass. According to you though he was just a "nut burger". Sounds like he had violent intentions to me.

---------------------

How many people a week get stopped for having firearms or knives in their carry ons. How many of them intended to use those items in flight? I am going to assume not many since we don't hear about those people being part of a terrorist plot.

The story doesn't seem to say if the guy intended to do mischief mid-flight or at his destination.

October 23, 2008 4:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Behavior detection works and we have 2,000 trained officers at airports today. They alert us to people who may pose a threat but who may also have items that could elude other layers of physical security.

Then could you please explain why whenever I go through security I see TSA agents socializing like it's coffee hour? Just today, I went through ORD and two agents were standing by the ID check. Were they examining people? Trying to identify suspicious behavior? No. They were standing there chatting, laughing and one even answered what appeared to be a personal cell phone.

Great use of my tax dollars...or downright disgusting.

October 23, 2008 4:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The argument that most terrorist are stupid because they are willing to strap a bomb to themselves is ridiculous and, if you think about, insulting to the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way to defend American values.

October 23, 2008 6:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever"

Please do forget that. Thank you.

October 23, 2008 7:16 PM

 
Anonymous James said...

"don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever"

Is there any evidence supporting this assertion?

Will we soon be asked again to forget that torture yields less accurate information than establishing a rapport with suspects, as we have so often of late?

October 23, 2008 7:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce Schneier has made a laughing-stock of your and the TSA. You would be best served to try and stop argue with him because you look like a tool.

October 23, 2008 7:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another fine job by the TSA when it comes to following your own policies. I didn't know the S in TSA meant subjective. Subjective in the way you check toiletries. I was kind of enough (more like stupid enough) to tell the TSA personnel I had toiletries and took them out of my bag. The TSA employee told me my toothpaste (the normal size) was too big and I couldn't carry it on so he tossed it. Fair enough, but the person I was traveling with didn't declare her toothpaste (same size as mine) and it went through the x-ray machine without a fuss.

So now I know, don't tell the TSA I have toothpaste or any toiletries for that matter. This is the first time in probably over 30 trips that I have been asked about toiletries.

October 23, 2008 8:16 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

Bob, now that you seem to be censoring more and only permit new post to the "in your opinion" correct topics means that we have to dig around trying to figure out what if anything has been posted.

Pi_ _ Poor way to run anything if you ask me.

Is it's TSA's desire to artifically limit post so you don't look like such an idiot bunch of people?

Your suceeding!

October 23, 2008 9:17 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

Bob, can you tell us what plans TSA has to rein in the crimminal element within TSA. Like the Supervisor that would not clear Mr. Gelmans gelpaks used to keep a babies milk cold, or the TSO who has been accused of making a woman remove ankle braces and standing causing serious injury to herself, or from a few months back, TSO NY's statement that if a medicine did not have a prescription it did not go, or the case where a child was seperated from the parents and given a full body pat down, and the list of crimminal acts could go on and on.

Then we have the true crimminals making a nice living stealing from checked baggage. One so skillful that TSA did not discover the thefts even after several months of stealing had happened.

Enough is Enough!!

TSA must find the means to stop these abuses.

So tell us, what action steps have been implemented to accomplish corrective actions. How will TSA discipline these bad actors?

Instead of cleaning house which is so dearly needed TSA rolls out another new program requiring people to give address and date of birth in order to travel by air. Another abuse of people wanting nothing more than to travel from point a to point b.

When are you people going to set up check-points on our nations highways? Surely you people can find some sorry excuse to violate other rights of citizens.


I' sorry but each and every new TSA program that has been created illustrates that TSA wishes to place extreme movement controls on the citizens of this country.

And yes, East Germany has been reborn! Sadly it was done by TSA in the United States of America.

What really confuses me is how any person who thinks they are a patriot can work for an agency that violates constitutional provisions at every turn.

Shame on you people at TSA.

October 23, 2008 9:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if TSA's approval rating is lower than that of the United States Congress?

If Vegas had a line on it I would take the action!

October 23, 2008 10:31 PM

 
Anonymous Joe in Australia said...

When I look at the TSA strategy it looks as though it focuses on means rather than ends. Al Qaeda's objective wasn't to smuggle box cutters aboard a plane, or even to hijack the plane. Their objective was to publicly humiliate the USA through a massive attack on an iconic building. They chose to use box cutters, but they could easily have chosen poison or explosives or garrotes. Al Qaeda had infinite flexibility in selecting their means; they were much more constrained in their ends. To the extent that their objective was determined by their ideology they had no flexibility whatsoever: they could not have chosen to humiliate the USA via a massive pray-in because that is inconsistent with the nature of their organisation.

Universal searches, no-fly lists, and bans on common items are techniques aimed at means, not ends. We know that a terrorist organisation's ends are unlikely to be restricted to a damaged or destroyed plane. The financial and organisational savings that would come from a focused approach would leave you more ready to address the genuine 9/11 strategy: a massive attack using captured assets as a force multiplier.

The USA is now very safe against a repeat of 9/11. No terrorist could now expect to be able to take over a plane with the cooperation of its crew; no crew would accept a terrorist's assurances that he intended to land the plane safely. A 9/11-style attack on a plane would therefore need to be one which incapacitates the crew while leaving the plane intact. This is risky and technically difficult and could not be accomplished using tweezers, lighters, or even box cutters.

It's still quite possible that a terrorist might attack a plane with the intent of destroying that plane. The payoff is smaller but the danger is real and security checks are still worthwhile. None the less there is a cost-benefit ratio. The USA can afford a downed aircraft better than it can afford, say, an extra hour's wait by every air traveler every day of every year indefinitely.

I firmly believe that eliminating shoe-removal, the no-fly list, and the ban on liquids would not make the TSA less effective. On the contrary: it would mean that your organisation was better able to fulfil its mandate.

If you want people to feel less ill-will towards the TSA (and I think that's the reason for this blog) then I suggest you cut the searches right back. Don't treat them as searches for everything you don't want on a plane: the list of potential weapons is not only ridiculously long but it is in fact ridiculous. Search for bad people and things that are clearly inappropriate - handguns, explosives, other genuine weapons. Use the money you save to pay for airport redesigns that minimise checkpoints and for next-generation explosives detectors that can operate invisibly and silently. Reduce or eliminate the interactions between the lowest ranks of TSA workers and the public - they're an inevitable source of friction. And, finally, tell people why you're doing this. Let them know that you're cutting back the visible things to concentrate on silent intelligence. They will not only thank you for the relief given to travelers, but they'll feel more secure.

October 23, 2008 11:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Several days ago we have read about a TSA employee that has stolen several hundred thousand dollars worth of electronic items from the bagage. Including a camera belonging to the CNN crew.

I am not criticizing you for that one employee. That can happen anywhere. I am going to point out something else.

If TSA screener was able to smuggle out on relular basis numerous items, including cameras and even a big metallic case on wheels containing camera equipement of CNN crew, whet would happen if he decided to smuggle in, let us say, a gib metallic case containing explosives?

What is your security worth if a single employee can breach teh security repeatedly in such an obvious way?

October 24, 2008 3:16 AM

 
Anonymous Andrew said...

The comments about TSA not hassling the reporter for carrying a Hezbollah flag or AQ T-shirt are more in the entertainment category

We'll, no, Kip; they should be in the entertainment category. Unfortunately your screeners have detained people for having shirts with pictures of guns on them, or pictures of giant robots, or pictures or bombs, or jewelry with little tiny gun pendants, or charm bracelets with things that look like guns ...

So, yes, in a perfect world, with competent security, it would absolutely be the case that that is entertainment. However your security has repeatedly shown the Global War on Screen Printing is something you don't consider mere entertainment.

October 24, 2008 5:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there is still a perceived thread of someone trying to repeat 9/11 which has been addressed by governments around the world in several ways.

In some cases the reaction is logic (like re-enforcing cockpit doors and changing policies how to deal with hijacked airplanes) and in some cases the reaction window dressing (perceived security for a perceived thread).

If we assume that the tread of terrorist taking over an aircraft to use it as Weapon of mass destruction is still real despite a changed policy of opening cockpit doors or allowing hijacked aircrafts being shot down than we need to address this thread in its totality and not just by focusing on part of the risks.

If we want to ensure that nothing can be taken onto an aircraft that can be used as a weapon, than we need to screen everyone that has access to the aircraft, not only passengers but also flight crews and ground crews. And we need to use uniform standards across the screening process.

We also need to ensure that civility is still there when we pass the screening area. The staff makes a big difference.

I quite often set up the pass through alarm (for no reason visible to me) and in some countries (like Oman) the screener apologizes for the alarm and screens me behind a separate screen, in some countries (like the USA) they shout at me and make me feel like I’m in idiot and in some countries (like Switzerland) they ask you to step into a separate cabin where they do a hand search away from the public).

Now for sure I feel better with the Switzerland option or the Oman option than being shouted at by a TSA employee.

Now after we have ensured that nothing can be taken onto the aircraft by screening everyone we than can address the points that nobody who could still try some act of terrorism should be able to enter the plane.

So again in many cases other parts of the world are way ahead of the USA and for years (even before 9/11) it was normal that you had to show ID when you were boarding an aircraft or that your ID number had to be part of the airline PNR so that the law enforcement can compare it again their database.

The ID requirement has widely been relaxed if you travel within the EU and is now only the case for immigration (i.e. towards government officials) or when an airline wants to ensure that they comply with immigration (i.e. they want to avoid a fine if you don’t have the right documents).

Does it make me feel less secure if I can print out my boarding pass online at home, go to an airport in Germany, pass through security and board the flight without ever showing my ID? No it does not.

It’s all about acceptable risk. When we cross the street we live with the risk that we can get hit by a car, when I board an aircraft

I live with the risk that the aircraft has an accident or is taken over by some terrorist and still I walk across the street and fly.

I agree that ever since the Patriots Fools Act has come into force the USA is slipping into a state that would make the Gestapo or Stasi proud and I also would go so far to say, that in effect the thread of future hijacks is low because in effect the terrorist won, our elected people took away most of our freedoms bit by bit.

But that is just my personal opinion.

Coming back to the TSA point, I think they have a valid job and they are most definitely doing a better one than others (like Dublin, Ireland for example where the screeners worse than the TSA).
But I think they need to improve by screening everyone and by ensuring that their staff knows what their job is and do it in a dignified way by having privacy screens and by just being friendly.

Now I meet a lot TSA employees who are pleasant enough but still there are a lot of them out there which think they are LEO’S and don’t understand that me traveling is actually giving them a job.

October 24, 2008 7:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the "nut job" with the pipe bomb. He also had marijuana in his carry-on-bag.

Regarding the No-Fly list. If your name matches someone who is ON the list, the simplest way to avoid this is to legally change your name.

October 24, 2008 11:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BERLIN (Reuters) – "Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, its interior ministry said Friday."

...............................
Germany apparently understands exactly what "Whole Body Scanners" show.

As I remembered TSA says the images are ok for young children to view. Based on that claim was a request to Nico, if I emember correctly, to have his whole family scanned and post the resulting innocent images here on this blog.

Nico refused! So just how innocent are these images?

TSA will not fully address this "virtual strip search".

This is just one of the many things that TSA has been less than truthful about.

October 24, 2008 12:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'll be happy to know that, in general, the higher the importance of the target, the more highly educated and disciplined the terrorist acting against said target will be - as per our own government's studies.

October 24, 2008 1:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Behavior detection works and we have 2,000 trained officers at airports today. They alert us to people who may pose a threat but who may also have items that could elude other layers of physical security.

Then could you please explain why whenever I go through security I see TSA agents socializing like it's coffee hour? Just today, I went through ORD and two agents were standing by the ID check. Were they examining people? Trying to identify suspicious behavior? No. They were standing there chatting, laughing and one even answered what appeared to be a personal cell phone.

Great use of my tax dollars...or downright disgusting.
___________________________________

First of all have you ever worked a job where people did not socialize?! There is nothing wrong with one friend at work talking to another, as long as it is not a constant occurance. Im not sure why anyone would care, unless they were their boss.
Also how is it that you can identify a personal phone from a work phone? All BDO's do in fact have a work issued cell phone. And guess what, it looks just like every other cell phone around. Maybe I should suggest that there be Homeland Security emblems on the phones so that people like you can find better things to do.

Maybe you should check out other government jobs too to make sure that they are not waisting your tax dollars. You and everyone else so concerned, should drive down the street next to your garbage men and make sure that they are working to your standards. You should go to your local PO and stand next to your mail man sorting mailing and make sure that they are getting their job done in a timely manner.
You should pull over the next time you drive by a cop on the side of the road who appears to be doing nothing and make sure that he is clocking the cars driving by.
Maybe go to city hall and make sure that no one is standing over the water cooler having conversations.
Those government workers better not be smoking on my tax dollars!

Who cares!

October 24, 2008 2:43 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Sorry for the delay but I had to do that work thing. You would think me being there would be enough, but nooo they want me to work too.

Part 2

MMW and other detection devices (continued)

Placing puffers and other explosives detection devices at the checkpoints and cargo/luggage entry areas need to be a top priority. How many of these devices could have been purchased for the cost of the faux police uniforms?

There is no excuse that the TSA spends a boatload of money and still does not have explosive detection devices at every checkpoint. The things only cost around $160k.

To put this in perspective, that is less than the cost of one of my commercial color laser printers.

Passive MMWs (SPO-7) are expensive, unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

Dang it time snuck up on me again. Will continue later.

End Part 2

October 24, 2008 3:18 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

This should be on-topic as I'm responding to a prior post here.)
________________

RB wrote...
When are you people going to set up check-points on our nations highways? Surely you people can find some sorry excuse to violate other rights of citizens.

Actually, that is left to OTHER government agencies at this time, not the TSA... US Customs and Border Protection, another division of Department of Homeland Security, is randomly stopping folks on boats and highways, folks who may have never left the country in their entire lives, and checking ID and Citizenship. They are doing it not fifty miles from where I live.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.html

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html

So far, the assistance of the TSA has not been needed for this where I live. The Border Patrol officers are requesting ID and citizenship on our public ferries that never leave the state just fine all by themselves. :o(

Way to go DHS! Good show!

Tom (1 of 5-6)

October 24, 2008 4:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, looks like the days of the Friday Puppy Post are gone.

Have to find something new to do over the weekend now!

October 24, 2008 5:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The USA can afford a downed aircraft better than it can afford, say, an extra hour's wait by every air traveler every day of every year indefinitely."

Really? What if somebody on that downed plane was YOU or somebody you care about? Would that not justify the extra hour waiting for your flight?

October 24, 2008 6:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then could you please explain why whenever I go through security I see TSA agents socializing like it's coffee hour? Just today, I went through ORD and two agents were standing by the ID check. Were they examining people? Trying to identify suspicious behavior? No. They were standing there chatting, laughing and one even answered what appeared to be a personal cell phone.Then could you please explain why whenever I go through security I see TSA agents socializing like it's coffee hour? Just today, I went through ORD and two agents were standing by the ID check. Were they examining people? Trying to identify suspicious behavior? No. They were standing there chatting, laughing and one even answered what appeared to be a personal cell phone.

Hey, at least when they are ignoring you, both your person and belongings are probably safer.

October 24, 2008 7:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted by anonymous:
Really? What if somebody on that downed plane was YOU or somebody you care about? Would that not justify the extra hour waiting for your flight?


Are you willing to lower all speed limits nationally to 20 mph, strictly enforce such limits, and forbid car makers from selling cars that go over 20 mph to anyone but the police? It would drastically reduce the number of road deaths (currently about 40K per year, way more than plane crashes or any terrorism in the USA). Sure, it might save one of your family members, but do you have any idea what the impact on the economy, your housing/commute situation, or on personal relationships would be?

Putting tens of millions of people through substantial extra hassle to avoid one downed aircraft just isn't rational. And such feel-good measures generally backfire because the steps rational people must take to work around the feel-good measures often decrease safety. Because flying is generally safer than driving, road deaths actually increased in the days following 9/11 when aviation was shut down, because people who would have flown were forced to drive.

My guess is that you could put together a valid study claiming that by pushing people away from flying and towards driving with the shoe-carnival, war-on-water, and general passenger mistreatment, TSA has actually increased road deaths by a number far greater than any reasonable estimation of the terrorism-related aircraft deaths that they have prevented with those policies.

October 25, 2008 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My guess is that you could put together a valid study claiming that by pushing people away from flying and towards driving with the shoe-carnival, war-on-water, and general passenger mistreatment, TSA has actually increased road deaths by a number far greater than any reasonable estimation of the terrorism-related aircraft deaths that they have prevented with those policies.

Perhaps. And I've speculated about that very thing myself whenever I've opted for a local vacation by car rather than subjecting myself to the ordeal of air travel. There might also be an equally valid study showing that checkpoints where crowds of people congregate in roped switchback lines waiting for TSA screening create a greater risk of death in a terrorist suicide bomb attack than from very specific terrorist threat screening is meant to prevent. This is something that I find very obvious and worrisome whenever I fly, but the TSA seems to ignore it.

But we'll never know. The TSA certainly won't do that study. And if someone does, Kip's spin-meisters will issue a press release declaring it irrelevant. The Homeland Security establishment seems to operate on the premise that anything related to the Global War On Terror must be exempt from rational cost-benefit analysis because that would "compromise intelligence" and "aid the enemy."

Remember that the TSA's mission at airport checkpoints is a very narrow one. It's the last-ditch measure to prevent the very specific type of terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11 after the failure of the "intelligence community" to prevent it before it got to the airport. They implement that mission by reacting to the methods used in previous publicized breaches in a highly visible, inconvenient, and intrusive fashion apparently meant to convince the traveling public that the government is "doing something to protect us." They insist that they're "one step ahead of the terrorists," when by definition their approach to airport screening is always one step behind the last terrorists. They exhort us to "trust them," and presumably believe that if they recite enough gobbledygook about "multiple layers" and "robust intelligence" they can drown out even legitimate and well-meaning criticism.

So even if someone could prove that the TSA's current implementation of airport security causes more death and injury by encouraging people to drive than any terrorist attack they supposedly might prevent, Kip's reaction would most likely be "it's their own fault."

October 25, 2008 12:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So even if someone could prove that the TSA's current implementation of airport security causes more death and injury by encouraging people to drive than any terrorist attack they supposedly might prevent, Kip's reaction would most likely be "it's their own fault."

1200 miles driven over two weeks instead of 140 to and from the airport. The thing is I relish the freedom to drink pretty much whatever I want to drink. Eat what I want to eat and carry what I want to carry without being questioned.

October 25, 2008 2:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those of you screaming about screening all cargo:

"Four full months before its first Congressional deadline, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is currently screening all cargo on narrow body, passenger carrying aircraft. Narrow bodies, like the Boeing 737s, Airbus A320s and thousands of regional jets make up more than 90 percent of all passenger carrying aircraft in the U.S.

This milestone is a significant one en route to screening all cargo on passenger planes. Congress has mandated through the 9/11 law that 50 percent of cargo on passenger carrying aircraft be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent of cargo be screened by August 2010."

October 25, 2008 5:21 PM

 
Anonymous Ronnie said...

I have seen a few posts here that have mentioned the "soft target" the lines @ the security checkpoints offer to potential bad guys. I too, have thought and worried about that...then along came the SPO. Thats the machine we used to passively scan all persons inside the treminal, but not specifically passing thru to the checkpoints. Then people evidently griped about that and the program was stopped.

You can't have it both ways! Make up your mind people! We (TSA)take measures to make you safer and you (Don Tin Convenienceme) snipe about the inmrovements. I can only believe that NOTHING will ever make you happy.

Ronnie TSO DEN

October 26, 2008 12:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't have it both ways! Make up your mind people! We (TSA)take measures to make you safer and you (Don Tin Convenienceme) snipe about the inmrovements. I can only believe that NOTHING will ever make you happy.

Ronnie TSO DEN


Ronnie, when TSA performs better than 50% in red team tests we might believe you are interested in protecting the aircraft.

October 26, 2008 4:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie, when TSA performs better than 50% in red team tests we might believe you are interested in protecting the aircraft.

It depends on wich red team test you are talking about.

You have the pre 9/11 (non TSA) from 1995 until September 11, 2001 red team test failures of 90%.. as Bogdan Dzakovic testified before the 9/11 Commission and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the US .

also, got oct 19 2006 at Newark airport. TSA had a 90% failure rate.

or you have the red team test feb 12, 14 2007 of DIA of 90% failure

Then you have the 2006 - 07 simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints.

-Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75%
-San Francisco International Airport screeners missed 20%
-Chicago O'Hare International Airport screeners missed about 60%

ALL airports mentioned above have been upgraded to the new "Security Evolution" making these test results void.

Also, Kip testified in front of the house in Oct 2007 that the red team test changed from fully assembled bombs to bomb parts. Making test data before 2007 void(since the test is different).

With this said.... When is TSA going to publish 2008 security evolution Red Team test results?

source: USA Today, International Analyst Network, 9News Colorado

October 26, 2008 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie said...
I have seen a few posts here that have mentioned the "soft target" the lines @ the security checkpoints offer to potential bad guys. I too, have thought and worried about that...then along came the SPO. Thats the machine we used to passively scan all persons inside the treminal, but not specifically passing thru to the checkpoints. Then people evidently griped about that and the program was stopped.

You can't have it both ways! Make up your mind people! We (TSA)take measures to make you safer and you (Don Tin Convenienceme) snipe about the inmrovements. I can only believe that NOTHING will ever make you happy.

Ronnie TSO DEN

October 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Regarding the SPO....

United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment.

October 26, 2008 7:50 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Ronnie: "I have seen a few posts here that have mentioned the "soft target" the lines @ the security checkpoints offer to potential bad guys. I too, have thought and worried about that...then along came the SPO. Thats the machine we used to passively scan all persons inside the treminal, but not specifically passing thru to the checkpoints. Then people evidently griped about that and the program was stopped."

You mean TSA reviewed the constitutionality of employing such searches, found that they were unconstitutional and stopped before they were sued and challenged?

Earl

October 26, 2008 9:10 PM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Anonymous: "For those of you screaming about screening all cargo:

"Four full months before its first Congressional deadline, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is currently screening all cargo on narrow body, passenger carrying aircraft. Narrow bodies, like the Boeing 737s, Airbus A320s and thousands of regional jets make up more than 90 percent of all passenger carrying aircraft in the U.S.

This milestone is a significant one en route to screening all cargo on passenger planes. Congress has mandated through the 9/11 law that 50 percent of cargo on passenger carrying aircraft be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent of cargo be screened by August 2010."


And how much cargo do those carry (do RJ's even carry cargo) compared to the heavy planes?

Does this still count trusted shipper? Does this mean x-raying liquids? What does it entail? Without specifics, screening could just mean a walk-by.

Pick the low hanging fruit with very little to haul and claim you're exceeding the goal. Bravo!

This has been a huge flaw that's been pointed our for years. Somehow, TSA always found resources for insignificant things yet let this gaping hole open for so long.

I can only conclude that it really wasn't a lack of resources but the fact that people wouldn't see this happen so there was no theater element to show people TSA was "protecting" them.

Robert

October 26, 2008 9:14 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Ronnie said...

I have seen a few posts here that have mentioned the "soft target" the lines @ the security checkpoints offer to potential bad guys. I too, have thought and worried about that...then along came the SPO. Thats the machine we used to passively scan all persons inside the treminal, but not specifically passing thru to the checkpoints. Then people evidently griped about that and the program was stopped.

You can't have it both ways! Make up your mind people! We (TSA)take measures to make you safer and you (Don Tin Convenienceme) snipe about the inmrovements. I can only believe that NOTHING will ever make you happy.

Ronnie TSO DEN


Wait... what?

Blogger Bob can you confirm this? If this is true I am very pleased and will offer praise on confirmation.

Now we need to get rid of the statutorily illegal forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area.

And before I forget, thanks for fixing the comments thingy.

October 27, 2008 3:33 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does this still count trusted shipper? Does this mean x-raying liquids? What does it entail? Without specifics, screening could just mean a walk-by.

The cargo on these aircraft is currently being screened by explosive detection systems, physical inspections, canines and other methods. These are the same methods that will be used to screen cargo on other aircraft.

Source:
TSA Meets Milestone

TSA Air Cargo Screening

You can now continue arguing. Thank you.

October 27, 2008 3:41 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Ronnie said...

I have seen a few posts here that have mentioned the "soft target" the lines @ the security checkpoints offer to potential bad guys. I too, have thought and worried about that...then along came the SPO. Thats the machine we used to passively scan all persons inside the treminal, but not specifically passing thru to the checkpoints. Then people evidently griped about that and the program was stopped.

You can't have it both ways! Make up your mind people! We (TSA)take measures to make you safer and you (Don Tin Convenienceme) snipe about the improvements. I can only believe that NOTHING will ever make you happy.

Ronnie TSO DEN


Ronnie I think you are missing it a bit. It is not that NOTHING will ever make us happy, it is NOTHING that violates the law, Constitution or creates more security holes than it closes will ever make us happy.

The deployment of the SPO creates a violation of the Constitutional protections that we as America enjoy.

For more information about the Constitutionality of warrantless searches using imaging devices please read KYLLO v. UNITED STATES 533 U.S. 27.

October 27, 2008 3:52 AM

 
Anonymous Al Ames said...

Anonymous, so you have 5 airports that have been upgraded. If the rest of the checkpoints still leak like a sieve, it doesn't matter that the rest are upgraded as terrorists can just go to some smaller airport that hasn't and get on.

Security is only as good as the weakest link.

October 27, 2008 11:35 AM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Anonymous: "The cargo on these aircraft is currently being screened by explosive detection systems, physical inspections, canines and other methods. These are the same methods that will be used to screen cargo on other aircraft.

Source:
TSA Meets Milestone

TSA Air Cargo Screening

You can now continue arguing. Thank you."


Thanks for the info. Let's just hope that TSA's inspections are much more effective than they are at the checkpoint.

Also another thing I noticed in the link: TSA seems to be playing with numbers.

Congress required 50% of cargo being screened by Feb 20009. TSA isn't claiming that, but rather that 90% of flights in the US (narrow bodies and RJs) are being screened. That doesn't mean that they met the 50% requirement and I don't see anything in the links you provided actually saying that.

It's pretty well known that the widebodies carry a LOT more cargo than a narrow body. I think if TSA really met the 50% requirement that they would say so rather than spinning it to look like they're closer to 90% when they say nothing about how much cargo is actually being screened.

October 27, 2008 11:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also another thing I noticed in the link: TSA seems to be playing with numbers.

Very good point Robert. I'm thinking we should just wait untell the dead line. I hope they make a blog about it in Feb 2009.

October 27, 2008 2:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, so you have 5 airports that have been upgraded. If the rest of the checkpoints still leak like a sieve, it doesn't matter that the rest are upgraded as terrorists can just go to some smaller airport that hasn't and get on.

You seem to be going off on a tangent. From reading your statement I can tell you did not understand what I was posting or my intent.

What I was posting (short version) is that NONE of the red team data that is public is valid.

Why post that information?

I want them to post the new red team data on the security evolution because I want to know the benefit of it. I do care about my tax dollars.

From your statement above, it sounds like you are saying that small airports have the same failure rates as their large counterparts. Please post the link.

When is TSA going to publish 2008 security evolution Red Team test results?

October 27, 2008 3:36 PM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Anonymous: "You seem to be going off on a tangent. From reading your statement I can tell you did not understand what I was posting or my intent.

What I was posting (short version) is that NONE of the red team data that is public is valid.

Why post that information?

I want them to post the new red team data on the security evolution because I want to know the benefit of it. I do care about my tax dollars.

From your statement above, it sounds like you are saying that small airports have the same failure rates as their large counterparts. Please post the link.

When is TSA going to publish 2008 security evolution Red Team test results?"


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. You seem to indicate that because a few airports have the new stuff that it's dramatically going to improve the red team results.

My point is that just because a few stations have new stuff doesn't necessarily make the whole thing secure because you have outstations that have the old stuff and may not be as effective.

How effective are the smaller outstations? Don't know ... TSA hasn't published that ... at least not as a run down of the effectiveness of all airport ops (though for some reason, I don't think they'd want to publish that or at the very least, make it easy to find). However, going on the average that's given from other airports, it's quite possible that they're not much better. In fact, even at smaller ones like ALB which had pretty bad rates, it stands to reason that the smaller ones really aren't that much better than the larger ones and that statistically, they line up.

You can compare the effectiveness of the new system vs. the old system all you wants once the stats are released. However, until they're deployed across the board, terrorists could still enter the system at one of the weaker links.

Robert

October 27, 2008 7:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ TrollKiller
Hey man, thanks for taking time to take up my "challenge." You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and you have some really good thought process going on up there. I guess all you would need to make your checkpoint ideas come to life is funding. I realize TSA has a pretty large spending budget, but lets not forget that just buying the equipment doesnt mean thats the last dime thats going to be spent on these bomb sniffers. The maintence alone for each machine in a years time would amount to the cost of the device. Contracted work is where the money is at. I'd also go with your medical personel working the MMW scanners but i think that people that went through medical school would want more money than $28,000 a year. So theres more money you gotta spend. Hopefully someone reading your ideas will take something from it though. Thanks again for your time =)

October 27, 2008 9:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In fact, even at smaller ones like ALB which had pretty bad rates, it stands to reason that the smaller ones really aren't that much better than the larger ones and that statistically, they line up.

Wow.. can't believe I missed that.LOL Thanks for the link Robert.

However, until they're deployed across the board, terrorists could still enter the system at one of the weaker links.

I understand what your saying Robert. The response was directed at al ames(maybe you two are the same person?). It seems the TSA is planning on upgrading all of their airports. Here is a pseudo time line I found.

600 AT X-rays and 40 Passenger Imaging to 21 airports - end of 2008

300 AT X-rays and 40 Passenger Imaging to 80 airports - 2009

I figure the time line ends at 2009 because they don't know what the 2010 budget is going to be like.

Also, all the airports have to have AT X-ray machines in order for Kip's liquids time line to work. Can't upgrade the AT X-ray software if the airport does not have one.

The last part is a presumption and I thought it would add to the discussion. Just something I noticed.

Source: TSA Ramps Up Deployment

October 28, 2008 3:45 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

@ TrollKiller
Hey man, thanks for taking time to take up my "challenge." You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and you have some really good thought process going on up there. I guess all you would need to make your checkpoint ideas come to life is funding. I realize TSA has a pretty large spending budget, but lets not forget that just buying the equipment doesnt mean thats the last dime thats going to be spent on these bomb sniffers. The maintence alone for each machine in a years time would amount to the cost of the device. Contracted work is where the money is at. I'd also go with your medical personel working the MMW scanners but i think that people that went through medical school would want more money than $28,000 a year. So theres more money you gotta spend. Hopefully someone reading your ideas will take something from it though. Thanks again for your time =)


I am not done yet I still have at least two more parts in me. I just decided to take a break over the weekend and look into raising chickens.

Part 3

It looks like my suggestions for liquids is already in the works so I will skip that.

Luggage and other cargo.
Luggage MUST be secured so we don't have another $200k embarrassment like last week. Thank God that man was just a thief and not someone that willing to put something INTO the luggage.

A simple and effective way to maintain the integrity of a screened bag is to strap it using a logo printed strap. Automatic strapping machines can be purchased for as little as $5,000. Not a lot of money to keep someone from molesting the luggage.

End part 3 I have to get to bed.

To answer your concern about the cost of using EMTs or nurses at checkpoints, I think it will be money well spent.

A medical professional will not only be able to reduce the trepidation of being seen "naked", they will be on hand in case of any medical distress by a passenger and be able to assist or supervise the screenings of those with medical needs.

We keep hearing stories about people being forced out of their wheel chairs, having their walking aids taken or medical devices being improperly handled. All those are bad publicity and bad procedures that could be avoided for a relatively small difference in pay. Not to mention all the good bonus press the TSA can get when one of their guys save a life.

I am not worried about the amount of money that the TSA spends it is how the spend it.

Buying faux police uniforms was a waste of money. Spending $3 million on those SPO imagers was wasted money. Spending money to redesign the checkpoints with mood light and music was wasted money. Having BDOs wandering the airport is wasted money. I could go on all night but I really need to sleep.

The point is if the TSA had not wasted that money the TSA could afford to enhance security and safety.

The TSA being a Government agency runs like one and is unwilling to think like a business. In the business world we look at thinks we can buy off the shelf to get a job done. That strapping machine is a good example. Kip said on his latest post that there are 2000 lanes. Strapping machines cost $5k each and I bet I could get it down to $3k or less if I were buying 2000 of them.

Even if you bought them at the full $5k price the total for 2000 lanes is only $10,000,000. I am betting there are fewer luggage screening areas. So the cost would be even less.
(Blogger Bob if you could get that number I would appreciate it.)

So for $10 million we could eliminate a whole security hole.

BTW I am not forgetting the cost of the strapping, ($160 a roll) but I would bet my bottom dollar that I could get the strapping machines for free if I contracted to buy the strapping from that vendor due to the high volume.

Ok I seriously have to get to bed, company cookout is tomorrow and the owner cooks up some great burgers. Can't oversleep and be late.

October 28, 2008 4:23 AM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Anonymous: "Wow.. can't believe I missed that.LOL Thanks for the link Robert."

No problem. :)

"I understand what your saying Robert. The response was directed at al ames(maybe you two are the same person?). It seems the TSA is planning on upgrading all of their airports. Here is a pseudo time line I found.

If I quoted something directed to someone else, I'm sorry. Quite easy to lose track scrolling up and down between the posting area and the latest post, espeically when trying to do it in the presence of a 4 year old. :)

600 AT X-rays and 40 Passenger Imaging to 21 airports - end of 2008

300 AT X-rays and 40 Passenger Imaging to 80 airports - 2009

I figure the time line ends at 2009 because they don't know what the 2010 budget is going to be like.


Fair enough. Seems like it's going in a good direction. Downside is that there are around 450 airports with commercial airline service in this country. If the same rate of 60 is used (just ballparking this as we don't know the budget and who knows what'll be cut with the current bailouts), we're looking at another 6 or 7 years. I hope we don't have to wait that long for better tech.

"Also, all the airports have to have AT X-ray machines in order for Kip's liquids time line to work. Can't upgrade the AT X-ray software if the airport does not have one."

True, but one has to ask what has TSA really been spending its money on for the last 6-7 years that the old tech that was around since pre-9/11 (or longer) is just getting replaced?

"The last part is a presumption and I thought it would add to the discussion. Just something I noticed."

Fair enough.

Robert

October 28, 2008 4:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TSA's take is:

We are right and they are wrong. We've got layered security. What do they have? A faux beer belly so as to smuggle extremely dangerous liquids past the checkpoint? So now are guys with a beer belly (real not the fake) suspected terrorists? How do you ascertain if a guy with a paunch is for real? Ask him to lift his shirt? What if he removes his shirt are you going to fine him for 'interfering' with the security process?

This is just another change of scenery for security theater.

October 29, 2008 10:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terrorists aren't "dumb". They are highly intelligent, dedicated and dangerously fanatical. They are working diligently for the next strike on America. Meanwhile, we can't even field a uniformly applied policy regarding 3 oz. bottles of liquid nationwide. We could learn a lot from the Israelis.

October 30, 2008 2:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip: Anyone who knows would tell you that TSA is, in fact, an intelligence-driven operation, working daily with our colleagues throughout the counter-terrorism community in that common effort.

If the TSA is "an intelligence-driven operation," why is intelligence so visibly lacking at airport checkpoints?

October 31, 2008 2:52 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

I have the solution and it won't cost but a little bit.

If the goal is to stop the stupid terrorists, why don't we just put doors in front of the gates. We can mark the doors "PULL" when they really are PUSH. Anybody that can't figure it out is a stupid terrorist.

Ta-Da. I think I am ready for a Government job.

Make sure you let the new President know that he should appoint Trollkiller to Kip's old job.

I will be selling "Trollkiller is an Idiot" T-shirts the minute I am appointed.

October 31, 2008 11:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In reply to Bruce Schneier's response to this post, Kip wrote more:

Thank you, Bruce, for the opportunity to continue this conversation on watch-lists and checkpoints. I have to give you credit for the clever squid analogy but would like to use some more ink to clarify some of the issues you raised.

“It is simply impossible that the TSA catches dozens of terrorists every week.”

TSA, through the airlines’ matching systems, does identify dozens of people on the Selectee list every week. Selectees are those identified by intelligence and law enforcement as needing extra attention because of ties to terrorist activity. Think of them as facilitators, or people identified during an investigation. The facts don’t suggest that the person would likely attack a given flight; otherwise they would meet the no-fly definition. We do not ‘catch’ them; we identify their travel and give them a little extra scrutiny when they come through the security checkpoint.

“It [behavior detection] does work, but I don't see the TSA doing it properly.”

Bruce, now you are clouding the water – based on incomplete knowledge of what we do as well as what others do. More than a dozen countries have come to us to help them get started with similar efforts. It works and we are world leaders in deploying behavior detection.

“[T]he real benefit of behavior detection isn't whether or not you do it but whether or not the bad guys believe you're doing it.”

We are doing it alright. We have 2,000 trained Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) all over the country, plain clothed and in uniform. BDOs detect, by behavior alone, dozens of people a day whose activities require law enforcement involvement. I can practically hear you asking, “OK, but have you caught any actual terrorists or real bombs?” Yes we have. Most publicly, the person in Orlando who came into the airport with everything needed for a working IED. He was identified almost as soon as he entered the airport and was stopped well before he was even close to the checkpoint. And yes, BDOs have alerted on people whom another agency was working and we have had to do a quick 'never mind' so as not to compromise that effort. (Most of the time, when someone of interest is moving in an airport, it is well-coordinated in advance.) We have had BDOs identify at least one person attempting 'suicide by cop' who had a simulated IED on his body, non-terrorist criminals who were escaping from crime scenes, people of counter-terrorism interest carrying large, undeclared amounts of cash, and a regular assortment of drug couriers and others who are attempting to conceal either items or identity. They represent good practice for our BDOs and TSOs who stay sharp on understanding smuggling techniques and how they might apply to terrorist techniques. Any deterrence value is gravy.

“Optional security measures don't work, because the bad guys will opt not to use them.”

Optional security measures do work. The choice is not between getting scanned and just walking straight through; it is a choice between the scan and up-close-and-personal physical screening.
We use what we call ‘decision gates’ to force a terrorist to make a tough choice in as many places as possible. To a terrorist, facing these choices adds unwelcome complexity and generates opportunities for them to make a mistake or get noticed by a BDO. The case you mention, referencing passing through a Whole Body Imager, is a good example. You, like over 95% of passengers, can and do choose to go through the WBI -- quick, no touch, no talk, effective. Or, if you choose not to, you get to talk to us and have the more intrusive, hands-on pat-down and get tested with other kinds of explosives detection technology.

“Fake boarding passes”

We are deploying scanners to help with boarding pass integrity and operating metrics like wait times. To you, eight airports might be 'nonsense,' but to us it’s a welcome start. Since I last wrote, one more airport and airline (Alaska Airlines in Seattle) came on board. Important to note is that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is requiring all airlines to move to this technology by 2010, so there is impetus beyond TSA to get moving on this.
Secretary Chertoff said last week that, of the fewer than 2,500 actual people who are No-Flys, more than 90% of them are non-U.S. citizens. If someone is on the No-Fly list, they were put there because the intel and/or law enforcement community has good reason to believe they are a direct threat. If one of them is in the U.S., the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) knows about them (as well as TSA and other agencies) and precautions are taken as necessary.
Since most No-Flys who try to travel start outside the U.S., there are other means to tie identity with the boarding pass. We regularly stop No-Flys who try to get on planes coming here. The system works and we are safer because of it.

“Stopping the 'James Bond' terrorist”

Thanks for not taking a shot at me on my risk management point that even if we are just stopping dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk. You didn’t go for a clever rhetorical gimme, but instead raised the good point about transferring risk to outside the airport environment. That is a worthy discussion for another time.

Thanks Bruce.

Kip

#######################

Just when is the right time to talk about the opportunity costs of TSA?

November 5, 2008 5:05 PM

 
Blogger GSOLTSO said...

Anon said ""Behavior detection works"

How long before TSA rolls out "Extispicy Officers"?

As good a method as Behavior Detection."

Wow, were you Caananite, Hittite? Maybe Mesopotamian? Where did you dig that obscure word up at? You must read even more than I do. BDOs operate on scientifically proven and researched procedures, not reading a kidney, scrying or other assorted unproven methods. I give you like, 100 Boggle points for obscure/dead words. Nice!

November 17, 2008 9:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think some of you are confused. FAM does not do the screening!! It is not responsible for lines in the airport.

Others think that FAM Director is covering the issues up?? How's do you reach that conclusion?? He couldn't be more open about it.

Others think he is not addressing the problem. Yet they fail to indicate that these are incidents that occurred over a year ago. What do you know about the current efforts to prevent these problems. Others want these efforts posted. Yeah right that is the smart thing to do!!!

Have any of you tried to deal with a non performing federal employee?? The federal system is a major problem. The screening of potential employees is important but it isn't 100% fool proof. Just look at the idiots who have posted nonsense on this blog! Yet I would bet that many are federal employees. Some with too much time on their hands.

November 17, 2008 2:41 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home