Category Archives: A Security Theater

Frequently “security” is to make people feel better rather than actually making them more secure. This is frequently called “Security Theater”. The TSA is a prime example. I reversed the letters of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) to stand for what it really is: “A Security Theater”.

Quote of the day–Anonymous

Posted on by

Why can’t people just do what they’re told? When we do our taxes do we ask why line 35 is subtracted from line 22? Do we argue with the judge when he makes a decision or a cop tells us not to stand in a certain place? No.

We are subjects of the government that is supposed to care of us. Whether the rules are stupid or illogical, do what you’re told by authorities. The rules are for your own good.

Life will be a lot simpler if you do what you’re told.

Anonymous
October 24, 2009 7:01 PM
Response to “Bag Check” Cartoon
[I’m just not quite sure if this person was serious or sarcastic. I’m about 80% sure it was serious. And that is extremely scary to me.

And the TSA has a blog? What a hoot! I wish I had the time to go play with them more. I left a comment at the above link but due to moderation it hasn’t shown up yet. I essentially just left a link to What TSA really stands for. So it may be that won’t make it past moderation.–Joe]

Update: The comment made it through moderation and I’m getting hits from it. There is also a automatically generated link to this post as well that is getting a few hits.

I wonder if this is my fault

Posted on by

I appears there is an interesting new show coming soon to a security theater near you:

First it was shoes, then water bottles and snow globes.

Now dried baby formula, makeup, talcum and other powders have joined the long list of seemingly innocuous household items drawing closer scrutiny from airport screeners as potential security threats.

Federal authorities haven’t banned powders toted by passengers or set limits on the size or amount they are allowed to carry on planes in their hand luggage.

But the Transportation Security Administration is now paying closer attention to common powders and has outfitted O’Hare, Midway and other airports around the country with new kits to test them for explosives. Passengers should be aware that after belongings are X-rayed, TSA officers may test a small sample of any powder in their possession.

I wonder if my post contributed to that. I know it got some attention by “government employees”.

If it was my fault I’m not going to say I am sorry. One of the ways you get people to rethink their security systems is to overload them with false positives. If I could only demonstrate that it were relatively easy to bring down a plane by grinding up you hair into a fine powder and making an improvised explosive device out of it using a couple coins as tools…

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran’s surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China’s electronic police state. Twitter’s anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents — anonymity that many governments want to eliminate.

Every year brings more Internet censorship and control — not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries.

The control movement is egged on by both law enforcement, trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals, and by media companies, trying to stop file sharers.

It’s bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. No matter what the eavesdroppers and censors say, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.

Bruce Schneier
August 3, 2009
Building in Surveillance
[Schneier doesn’t mention this but the concept of “bad civic hygiene” has wider application than just surveillance technology. It also applies to the TSA, gun control, and even government provided health care (do you want health care decisions for gays made by people like Fred Phelps–or vice versa?). It’s another way of expressing concern about failures of my Jews In The Attic Test.

Some people have a lot of concern about Microsoft contributing to this sort of thing. I have been, and am, involved in projects that have the potential to cause concern. I have been very pleased to see that not only the corporate policy is appropriate to protect innocents but also the attitude of the people I work with is on par with my standards in this regard.–Joe]

Security theater on the ground

Posted on by

Via Ry.

As I have pointed out before it’s not really possible to keep explosives off of airplanes. Of course it’s not going to be any easier to keep them out of buildings on the ground. This obvious truth has just been demonstrated:

Government investigators smuggled bomb-making materials into federal buildings past the police agency charged with protecting those buildings and found numerous other gaps in security, according to a congressional report.

The Government Accountability Office said investigators carried bomb-making materials past security at 10 federal buildings. Security at these buildings and a total of about 9,000 federal buildings around the country is provided by the Federal Protective Service, a target of the probe.

Once GAO investigators got the materials in the buildings, the report said, they constructed explosive devices and carried them around inside. For security reasons, the GAO report did not give the location of the buildings.

It’s Security Theater. I hope you enjoy the show because you are paying enough for it.

A baby step against the TSA

Posted on by

The ACLU has filed suit against the TSA claiming they are:

…subjecting innocent Americans to unreasonable searches and detentions that violate the Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

The way I see it any search by the government without a warrant is unreasonable. When it was the FAA requiring the airlines to do the searches it was questionable at best. But as soon as it was a government entity doing the searches it was way over the line.

What the TSA is doing isn’t nearly enough but it’s far better to get a small win that a big loose in the courts and for their efforts in trying to make that happen I applaud them.

Unfortunately, I’m not King of the United States and able to send the TSA clowns to the dungeon for their costly Security Theater at tax payer expense.

Terrorist-Proof Airlines

Posted on by

Via email from Rob:

WELCOME TO TPA
(Terrorist-Proof Airlines)

We at TPA, Terrorist-Proof Airlines, are in the flying business!

We can absolutely guarantee no WALK-ON GUNS, KNIVES, BOX CUTTERS, SHOE-BOMBS or other weapons will ever be carried onto OUR FLIGHTS!

Book your next flight with TPA, the safest airline in the industry.

Image here (not safe for work).

The claims are a bit exaggerated but still it makes for an amusing presentation. It would be much more effective and cheaper than existing airplane security. But neither the government nor the general public are interesting in effective security. They only want the appearance of security. People are willing to spent billions on ineffective security but you don’t even hear a hint of something like the above as part of the solution. Why is that? Is “modesty” that important to people? Existing security has been repeatedly shown to be a complete sham yet people are not willing to do away with it for fear of an attack–yet they will not even consider doing something much cheaper that is effective.

[heavy sigh]

As I have said before, it’s irrational to expect people to be rational.–Joe]

$15.7 Billion Theater

Posted on by

I mentioned this to Breda in chat at the Gun Blogger Conspiracy and she said, “….sigh well, I’m going braless next time”. If it weren’t for the extremely high risk of getting arrested I would go completely naked through the security check point just to make a point.

There is bill in the house (H.R. 2200) which would give TSA authority to spend $15.7 billion over fiscal years 2010-2011. That’s $15.7 billion to spend on A Security Theater.

I guess this shouldn’t be too surprising. The Democrats frequently spent tax money on the arts–including those promoting nudity.

More Word From Israel

Posted on by

From our friend Howard;

Friends:

Good morning (in your time zone) from Jerusalem. The biggest ever Civil Defense preparedness drill has begun.

Please note the item below in Ha’aretz about the PA (Fatah) Hamas clash in Kalkilaya (West Bank) yesterday. Our American taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted.

The American trained and equipped PA/Fatah Security Services operation was a textbook example of how not to conduct a raid. The first three killed were Fatah officers. So much for the element of surprise and a rapid strike. The Presidential Guard (aka Force 17 from the days of Arafart) were called. These are the crème-de-la-crème of the PA Special Operations command forces. It took them over 6 six hour to end the firefight. They managed to kill two Hamas and the innocent, poor shmo landlord of the building the PA forces attacked.

These are the same kind of dedicated fighters who shed their uniforms, abandoned all the American supplied arms, munitions, communications gear, secret documents and files and fled rather than stand and fight Hamas in Gaza. Now the Obama Administration is rushing to train in Jordan and equip 3 more brigades (?) of PA police/infantry and Spec-Ops counter-terrorists.

Words elude me.

Have a good week.

Howard

HEADLINES FROM THE HEBREW PRESS

HA’ARETZ

1. SENIOR MOSSAD OFFICIAL APPOINTED MEDIATOR IN CONTACTS FOR SHALIT’S RELEASE: “IT WON’T BE HOCUS POCUS”

Hagai Hadas appointment attests that his functions will not be limited to negotiations, but also operational aspects of release. “We must be prepared for extended and exhaustive negotiations,” he commented after his appointment. (…).

2. SECRET INTELLIGENCE UNIT 8200 MAJOR COMMITED SUICIDE BY SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE HEAD IN HIS OFFICE.

3. SIX KILLED IN CLASH BETWEEN PA POLICE AND HAMAS CELL

Following clash Hamas called on its members: Confront PA as if you’re confronting the occupation.

Words fail me too. Just thought you should know. It sounds all too much like the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that’s going on here.

More evidence of security theater

Posted on by

Breda conclusively demonstrates TSA is nothing but security theater. As conclusive as that story is I could tell better stories than that–but the statute of limitations hasn’t expired yet.


TSA, it’s A Security Theater.

Safety Shmafety

Posted on by

We in the pro-freedom camp (Americans) spend too much time arguing about safety.  Or rather, we argue safety far too often in the terms laid down by our enemies– the enemies of liberty.  Though the statistics are often on our side, we’re granting the basis for the argument (that government exists to promote the physical safety of the individual) to the enemy.


Wrong premise.


Too many police departments, for example, call themselves Departments of Public Safety and the like.  That’s not their function, per se.  Their proper function is to enforce the law and the primary purpose of law, in the uniquely American sense at least, is to promote and protect your rights.  That this function has been corrupted over the years does not change the original intent.


The American Revolution was indeed fought for safety, but the safety so dearly bought therein was a rather different kind of safety from that promoted by the neo-Fascists.  It wasn’t the kind of safety taught at your local public school.  It wasn’t the kind of safety we’re training for in a fire drill or in a drivers’ education class.  That kind of safety is properly the responsibility of the individual or of private interests.


The kind of safety for which the Revolution was fought and for which the constitution was written is safety from government interference– safety from the enemies of liberty both foreign and domestic.


Historically, out-of-control governments have presented a danger to public safety far greater than all common criminal activity and standard physical danger combined.  Some government or left-wing hack asserting that we need more government intrusion as a means of promoting “safety” is a bit like advocating mass sex orgies for the promotion of abstinence.


When we’re arguing safety and public policy then, we need to make it clear beforehand which particular kind of safety we’re discussing– the safety of subjects owned by the government (the safety of tyrants and sycophants) or the safety of a free people.  They are near polar opposites.

A Security Theater

Posted on by

A report from Breda who gets the rubber glove treatment because of her leg prosthesis.


I commented and gave her a link to What TSA really stand for and then I noticed that TSA is improving their security procedures:



Prepare yourself for airport security to get a little more personal. It’s the first publicly noticeable step in a multi-phase government plan to help keep air travel safe. New rules for air travelers.

Starting today, in addition to handing over a boarding pass and ID in the security line, passengers making reservations will have to provide their full name, just as it appears on the government ID they plan to use when boarding the plane.

Travel agent Nancy Nemecek said “when you make your reservation you need to give your name exactly, and that means first name, middle name, if that’s what’s on your ID, and your last name.”

It’s part of a Transportation Security Administration program being phased in called Secure Flight.


“Secure Flight”? You have to use your full name on the ticket and that makes the flight secure? Yeah, right.


But the TSA is good for something. Penn and Teller can play with them.

We Get it, Already

Posted on by

This is an open letter to all the talk show hosts, pundits, party hacks, cheaters, scumbags, sick twisted freaks (you know who you are) and pro-freedom bloggers.  We could spend the rest of our lives cataloging the outrageous behavior of nasty, America-hating, ignorant, self-loathing, cultist, freedom-hating, anti-human, leftist politicians including Progressive Republicans.  We know they’re bad, OK?  If there are three or four people who still don’t get it, that’s all right.


I’d rather try to figure out how we’re going to get some principled Americans nominated so we’re not always forced to choose between bad and worse– between more socialism slower, and more socialism faster.  This last national election was a real puker.  The Republican Party is, at the moment, just as lost, dumbfounded, selfish and clueless as ever.  They’re a herd of does, staring blankly into the headlights of an on-coming truck, and the worst part of it is; they don’t even suspect that they’re clueless.  They in the Republican leadership think they have some really clever answers, which amount to more of what got us into this mess.  I recently heard it described as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  That fits very well.  The Republicans have some really super great, super ultra smart ideas for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  No really, listen…  (all the while we have this simple, proven model for success, and it’s being ignored.)


We need to change that.  You need to change it.  I need to change it.  There isn’t anyone else.  I suppose, since it’s up to us, it will have to be on the local level for most of us, being as we’re not billionaires.  That’s OK.  We can still do what we can do.  A lot of people are jazzed up right now.  They just need somewhere to start.  Well, pick a place, a local issue or a local politician that needs a hand (or a very public spanking) and get to it!


That there are clueless people is not the issue.  There will always be the clueless.  They’ll sit on the sidelines, worrying about who likes them and who doesn’t, trying to figure out where the “center” is so they can position themselves in it and claim superiority for having done so, while someone else does the lifting.  Are you a sitter or a lifter?


I have a bad feeling that things could come to blows before this government is brought under control, and I really don’t want that to happen.  Do you?  This country is far too important in the grand scheme of things.


And with that; I don’t have much more to say on here, other than to repeat myself or talk about the weather and what I did last weekend, unless it’s to tell you what I’m doing on the local level to influence politics.  Now I think I have some calls to make.


(Note that I placed this in nearly every one of Joe’s categories. It’s relevant to everything we do and every opportunity we want for our kids in the future)

Quote of the day–Jeffery Rosen

Posted on by

This summer, I talked to security experts on both sides of the political spectrum, and had several conversations with Chertoff, in an effort to answer the following question: Is DHS achieving its mission of making us safer? My reluctant conclusion is that, although Chertoff has performed impressively in an impossible job, the department is hard to justify with any rational analysis of costs and benefits. On the contrary, it’s arguably one of the most expensive marketing ventures in political history–an enterprise that seeks to make us feel safer instead of actually making us safer. The best argument for DHS is that the illusion of safety may itself provide tangible psychological and economic benefits: If people feel less afraid, they may be more likely to fly on planes. But even if conceived on these terms–as a more-than-$40-billion-dollar-a-year pacifier–the department is hard to defend, since there’s no good evidence that it has, in fact, calmed Americans down rather than making us more nervous.


Jeffery Rosen
December 24, 2008
Man-Made Disaster—Six years on, the Department of Homeland Security is still a catastrophe.
[$40 Billion a year pacifer? Yup. That sounds about right for government work.


H/T to Bruce Schneier.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

Why be rational, when you can stoke fear instead?


Bruce Schneier
December 16, 2008
Buying Fake Nintendo Consoles Helps Terrorists
[This applies to so many things.–Joe]

Go Becky!

Posted on by

Becky Ackers has the TSA’s number:



But none of these facts seem to matter to the TSA. It needs something to justify its existence: Despite six years of patting down passengers, it hasn’t reported uncovering a single terrorist. No wonder it latched onto the nonsense about liquid bombs. Ferreting out and confiscating everyday substances not only makes work for 43,000 screeners, it also fools us into thinking this protects us.


The TSA has always been a political, not practical, response to 9/11. It hassles us at checkpoints not because of penetrating insights on security or some brilliant breakthrough, but because politicians handed it power. Specialists in security didn’t invent the TSA; the Bush administration imposed it on us. So we might hope the incoming president would abolish this absurd agency.


Unfortunately, Barack Obama wants to improve the TSA rather than send it packing. His suggestions for that improvement? Passengers still aren’t screened against a comprehensive terrorist watch list, his website proclaims. Such a list must be developed.


Why? The watch list has already kept Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts off planes: Will a comprehensive list bar Republican congressmen, too? That’ll protect us about as well as unionizing screeners will – another change the campaigning Obama said he favors.


And the best part:



Becky Akers, a freelance writer and historian, is finishing a book about the TSA.


Remember what TSA stands for.

Unintended consequences of the TSA

Posted on by

Via Bruce Schneier:



They both say there are organized rings of thieves, who identify valuables in your checked luggage by looking at the TSA x-ray screens, then communicate with baggage handlers by text or cell phone, telling them exactly what to look for.

“This is a laptop here, VCR here and it’s located in this area of the bag. Here’s the color of the bag. They give them all the information they need to know.”

“He was going through the bag like he was searching it? Yeah searching it.”

Sky Nguyen knows firsthand. He took this picture of a TSA screener with his camera phone after he saw the agent steal his iPod.

“You saw the Nano in here? Yeah inside here between the glove and palm.”


With 20/20 hindsight it makes perfect sense. With 10’s of thousands of low paid people having access to property you normally have locked you have a huge attack surface (please excuse the geek talk).


As Bruce said:



Someone should investigate the extent to which the TSA’s security measures facilitate crime.


TSA is a crime. It’s government searching without a warrant. It’s also nothing but A Security Theater.

What people really care about

Posted on by

The new machines being proposed for airplane security give results like this:



Never mind What TSA Really Stands For, that almost for certain it can never be effective security, and it costs billions each year that could be spent on something more effective, the response is:



After the machines were introduced at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport last year, officials there said they had few complaints from passengers, saying most approved because lines moved faster.


Sheep.

A job for the Queen of Snark

Posted on by

Via Bruce Schneier:



New Contest: Can You Out-Lame the TSA?


Last week, in response to my article about the idiocy of airport security, the head of the Transportation Security Administration, Kip Hawley, essentially conceded the main argument of my article, which was that America’s aviation security system is not designed to catch smart terrorists, but stupid terrorists. Here’s what Hawley wrote last week:


“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.”

Not quite believable. And yet he really said it.

And so, a contest: How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors?


…


So, go to it. E-mail your entries to Goldberg.Atlantic@gmail.com.  The Goldblog reader who comes up with the funniest application of the Hawley Principle wins a subscription to the Atlantic.


Here are my entries. They are probably too close to the truth to be funny but still I figure it’s worthwhile to mock politicians in public anytime you get the chance:




  1. Gun “buy-backs”, restrictions on the type of guns, and carrying of guns don’t slow down a violent criminal any. But getting guns out of the hands of small stature women, the elderly, and the infirm will at least prevent those people from being able to go out and commit violent crimes.


  2. Hundreds of millions of meals are prepared each day in the U.S. by unlicensed food preparation people. These people prepare food for small children, the elderly, trusting family members, and unsuspecting friends. Food borne illness and accidental poisoning are exceedingly rare given the vast numbers of meals prepared without inspection by the health officials. Licensing and inspecting the professionals who prepare only a small portion of the total meals won’t stop anyone but a minority of incompetent capitalists but at least it raising the cost of doing business will encourage more people to obtain their meals from those who are unlicensed and less tainted by capitalistic inclinations.

If Tamara enters I will concede–sight unseen.

It’s the government–we can trust them

Posted on by

Remember the post from last week? In the article I linked to they said:



It’s not an image people would find invasive.


And:



It’s not possible to save an image or get it out of the machine, it’s physically not possible.


That was in Australia and this is the same technology being tested in Europe:



I wonder why the picture they share with us to demonstrate their technology is cut off the just below the breasts–NOT!


They are arguing about it now but I fully expect arguments that it is “for the children” or “the good of everyone” will prevail and within a year or so it will be back to normal Security Theater as usual with most everyone thinking they are safer when in fact they are not. But maybe it will save the little old ladies from getting their feet broken by TSA quite so often.


Update: Via a comment from Barron we now have more of the picture:



Nice, huh?

I’m not that brave

Posted on by

Jeffrey Goldberg tests TSA and finds it full of fail.


He does, and writes about it, all kinds of things that I knew were possible but didn’t have the courage to do. Read it and laugh–or maybe cry.


TSA–A Security Theater.