It's worth noting that since this article was published (2008) the TSA has begun scanning boarding passes at the checkpoint (at least at some airports) and confirming the name that appears on their screen is also the name on the boarding pass and the ID. The 2D barcode on the pass is encrypted to prevent the Photoshop trickery.
But, it's only taken them years to even attempt to plug this gap. Schneier wrote about the issue in 2003[1] and a kid got his house raided by the FBI in 2006[2] for making a fake boarding pass generator. I wonder why they didn't raid Adobe's headquarters, I hear they produce a wonderful tool for forgery too...
I think he's referring to TSA officials not being trained very well, and that their biggest indicator of a potential threat is the name and race of the passenger.
My guess is that he meant that the TSA typically treats certain people differently because they're threats, and adult white guys somewhat more deferentially than everybody else.
There is a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" aspect here, and frankly the TSA's, and the average anxious air traveler, have an appreciation of irony I could only describe as absent. I wouldn't be surprised at being asked to turn it inside out. Or surprised at a Middle Eastern college student raising a cry of profiling/discrimination.
In ideal world there would be no racial profiling at security checkpoints. In reality there is, even if it's not institutionalized. The whole security escalation from 9/11 is related to hostilities from people of Middle-Eastern origin, and deep down every TSA guard knows that. TSA might have policies in place to avoid profiling, but everyone knows that it's planes from Saudi Arabia that trigger bomb scarces, it's Yemeni flights that are checked extra good, and it's overwhelmingly Arabic names on the no-fly list.
That's a good point, but not entirely true. I'm half Lebanese. Despite being "randomly selected" often, my Beirut-born brother has taken a box cutter on every flight he's been on since 9/11 just because he can.
I am all for talking about it if it involves you.
Go public and say: Here's what happened. Here is why security sucks. This ensures that you get attention and reduces the chances that the govt. will stupidly punish you (aka punish the messenger) for having broken the law.
But given that the govt. is gung ho about prosecuting anyone who so much as mentions something about attacks on the Internet (see recent GPS tracking of Redditor by FBI), I don't recommend making 3rd parties with innocent intentions public without their permission and subjecting them to trouble.
From the article..
--
I once asked Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, about this. "We actually ultimately do have a vision of trying to move the security checkpoint away from the gate, deeper into the airport itself, but there’s always going to be some place that people congregate. So if you’re asking me, is there any way to protect against a person taking a bomb into a crowded location and blowing it up, the answer is no."
--
The implications of this reality have to be considered. The TSA does not exist to protect passengers on the planes. The TSA exists to prevent terrorists from getting the planes themselves and using them as weapons. If terrorists wanted to kill you, the passenger, then they would indeed do so as you waited to be screened through security. I guess you can take some comfort in the fact that they don't hate you, personally, for your freedoms...
Or CDG or ATH or many other (if not most) European airports.
Screening at the gates makes a lot of sense in terms of traffic flow, as you don't get huge queues, and airline personnel hold the plane if there are security hold-ups. Also if there is a breach, you only have to shut down a few gates rather than the whole airport.
The problem is that this will br very difficult to retrofit in many existing US airports because they weren't designed with that in mind.
excellent point. there was also a revolt against the TSA back in 2004/2005 and i think this one is shaping up even louder. airlines, pilots, flight attendants, passengers, parents, and seniors are all on the same side here. and politically, beating up on the TSA is going to be popular on both sides of the aisle.
Its probably articles like this one that pushed TSA to go to its current extreme.
What I don't understand is that they are screening pilots for weapons, who once they pass the screening, are then given control of the plane, which itself can be used as a weapon.
Some have said we can trust those working at the airport not to place dangerous things on planes because they get background checks. But apparently the ones entrusted with a very big weapon, the pilots, have to be checked for small objects.
And, of course, these scanners don't do cavity checks, another way things can get on the plane. Are those coming next?
I'm just glad they have those bomb-proof plastic bags to contain exploding liquids that do get through security.
Of course, the real problem is that we are afraid to give more attention and ask a lot of questions of passengers that certain criteria. Seems all we know how to do is look up names on a list. Anything more complex is too much to handle.
As I understand it, Israeli security asks suspicious passengers a lot of questions about their trip and background. And they've had very few problems considering the hostile situation they're in.
"Its probably articles like this one that pushed TSA to go to its current extreme."
This logic is flawed. Security by obscurity isn't security. If the article wasn't published someone sufficiently clever just as well could have come up with the same ideas.
What I don't understand is that they are screening pilots for weapons, who once they pass the screening, are then given control of the plane, which itself can be used as a weapon.
Because there are often two or three crewmembers in the cockpit. If one of them is subverted and can carry weapons aboard, they can establish control over the cockpit by killing the other crew. By preventing weapons from entering the cockpit, one is preventing this scenario. The problem is that searches of the pilots are easy to circumvent. Simply have a terminal worker sneak in a weapon and give it to the pilot. If this ever happened, the reinforced cockpit doors would very much work against us. This is a very good reason to pay pilots much more than $19,000 a year!
29 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 71.4 ms ] threadBut, it's only taken them years to even attempt to plug this gap. Schneier wrote about the issue in 2003[1] and a kid got his house raided by the FBI in 2006[2] for making a fake boarding pass generator. I wonder why they didn't raid Adobe's headquarters, I hear they produce a wonderful tool for forgery too...
[1]http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0308.html#6
[2]http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/28/fbi_returns_to_fake_.ht...
Goldberg has continued to blog and write about this topic. here's his most recent: "The War on Terror Meets the War on Pedophilia; Terror Wins" http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-war-...
As an adult white American-born male who's subjected to the same "security theater" idiocy, I have to discount this sort of racialist argument.
Dark-skinned Jeffery in the same shirt: a worldview or political statement of potential jihadist.
There is a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" aspect here, and frankly the TSA's, and the average anxious air traveler, have an appreciation of irony I could only describe as absent. I wouldn't be surprised at being asked to turn it inside out. Or surprised at a Middle Eastern college student raising a cry of profiling/discrimination.
You can consider profiling to be the collateral damage from the aberrant behavior of unchecked few.
TSA is quite uneffective.
Regardless, if someone is doing this on purpose, but without malicious intent, you may want to avoid naming them on a public forum.
But given that the govt. is gung ho about prosecuting anyone who so much as mentions something about attacks on the Internet (see recent GPS tracking of Redditor by FBI), I don't recommend making 3rd parties with innocent intentions public without their permission and subjecting them to trouble.
Agreed that this is sad.
The implications of this reality have to be considered. The TSA does not exist to protect passengers on the planes. The TSA exists to prevent terrorists from getting the planes themselves and using them as weapons. If terrorists wanted to kill you, the passenger, then they would indeed do so as you waited to be screened through security. I guess you can take some comfort in the fact that they don't hate you, personally, for your freedoms...
Like at Schiphol?
Screening at the gates makes a lot of sense in terms of traffic flow, as you don't get huge queues, and airline personnel hold the plane if there are security hold-ups. Also if there is a breach, you only have to shut down a few gates rather than the whole airport.
The problem is that this will br very difficult to retrofit in many existing US airports because they weren't designed with that in mind.
Check out http://www.wewontfly.com
"all frisks that avoid the sensitive regions are by definition symbolic"
I'm inclined to agree.
"Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe!"
What I don't understand is that they are screening pilots for weapons, who once they pass the screening, are then given control of the plane, which itself can be used as a weapon.
Some have said we can trust those working at the airport not to place dangerous things on planes because they get background checks. But apparently the ones entrusted with a very big weapon, the pilots, have to be checked for small objects.
And, of course, these scanners don't do cavity checks, another way things can get on the plane. Are those coming next?
I'm just glad they have those bomb-proof plastic bags to contain exploding liquids that do get through security.
Of course, the real problem is that we are afraid to give more attention and ask a lot of questions of passengers that certain criteria. Seems all we know how to do is look up names on a list. Anything more complex is too much to handle.
As I understand it, Israeli security asks suspicious passengers a lot of questions about their trip and background. And they've had very few problems considering the hostile situation they're in.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel...
This logic is flawed. Security by obscurity isn't security. If the article wasn't published someone sufficiently clever just as well could have come up with the same ideas.
Because there are often two or three crewmembers in the cockpit. If one of them is subverted and can carry weapons aboard, they can establish control over the cockpit by killing the other crew. By preventing weapons from entering the cockpit, one is preventing this scenario. The problem is that searches of the pilots are easy to circumvent. Simply have a terminal worker sneak in a weapon and give it to the pilot. If this ever happened, the reinforced cockpit doors would very much work against us. This is a very good reason to pay pilots much more than $19,000 a year!