Letters to the Editor
-
Actually, unpredictability is pretty key...
Unpredictability, if properly applied, can be critical in making a security screen safe.
Let's safe you can only effectively screen less than 20% of travellers. How do you pick the ones to screen? If you pick "Arabs," then the terrorists will make sure to recruit non-Arabs. If you pick Muslims, the terrorists will make sure to recruit non-Muslims. If you pick foreigners, the terrorists will find American allies. Any predictable screening method offers a 100% chance of evasion.
What if you roll a six-sided die, and screen people when you roll a "1"? Well, that means that 5 out of 6 terrorists will get through, but remember, we can only screen 1 out of 5 (or fewer) passangers anyway. Whereas predictable profiling provides a way to evade the screen 100% of the time, a random screen would ensure that terrorists are just as likely as non-terrorists to be subjected to screening, and that's the best you can do.
-
Actually, it's not as dumb as it looks
The TSA may finally be taking into account the Carnival Booth algorithm (link at end of comment) -- which suggests that strict screening based on a profile makes for *less* security, rather than more. The basic idea is that if you send someone through the system enough times, and they're *not* checked, you can be fairly sure they won't be on a later occasion.
This arrangement, and most specifically the announcing of this arrangement, seems to me to be explicitly targeted at people trying a Carnival Booth approach. If you aren't sure if you're facing the full reach of security techniques, you lose a lot of certainty that the person you're trying to send through will escape unsearched.
So, while it sounds ludicrous, and is written poorly, I think this may be an effort to counteract an attack on their previous poor idea of how to screen for terrorists.
Or, of course, they may just be dubiously competent, but hope springs eternal.
Carnival Booth algorithm:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm
-
Spelling mistake
But it turns out that it's all part of the grand plan, the -- dare we say it? -- "National Stragegy for Victory."
Should be National Stategy for Victory.
Unless that's how Bush had it on the big backdrop behind his big ears.
--cbelz
-
Not sure why Bin Laden would be laughing.
So long as all the proceedures they can choose from are, in fact, useful (I question the removal of shoes to some extent), randomizing your defensive strategy is a good idea from a game-theoretic point of view.
Other than being brown myself, thats my main reason for opposing racial profiling: there are plenty of delusional white kids you could convince to carry something onto a plane. If most of the people getting stopped for extra checks are middle eastern (and I'm not saying that that's neccessarily the case presently), then the terrorists know exactly who not to send to increase their chances of success. They would only need ot find a couple of non-middle-eastern recruits to inflict a lot of harm.
Sounds like TSA is finally making some smart decisions.
-
Actually, this is the first sensible thing they've done
Up until now, the entire focus of the TSA has been on security theater--doing visible things rather than effective things. In fact, there was never a security risk from knives or tweezers, but they wanted to make it look like they were doing something about the 9/11 attack. In fact, there is zero chance for a repetition of that attack. That attack was not about box cutters. It was about the hijack protocol of getting the plane down safely, first, and then negotiating. That protocol ended, informally but finally, over rural Pennsylvania. Passengers and crews will no longer permit hijackings.
The risk now is that someone will blow up a plane. The search protocols, based on profiles, are certain to fail. There's a paper in a security journal about that, but, simply enough, if someone wants to get a bomb on a plane, they'll use someone who doesn't fit the profile. It doesn't matter that the profile is secret--you just run people through until you find someone who doesn't get flagged.
Randomization of who is searched and how they are searched is essential to any effective screening methodology. Nobody is gonna use a notebook computer case to hold a bomb. They're gonna use a shaving kit.
Aside from securing the cockpit doors, this is the first sensible set of things they've done.
-
Announcment counts as well
One more thing......
While the federal government has been doing a poor job on security, the NYPD has done a fine job. One of the things they did recently was announce that they would search people entering the subway system.
Then they did it for a day or so, and stopped. This was not about the searches. it was about the announcement, and the possibility that searches could take place in the future. There's not a whole lot to be done to secure the subways, but one thing you can do is make people think twice about using them as a target. Even if they don't do it, announcing that searches will be randomized will have a deterrent effect.
-
Let's Hear It for Small Scissors
As one of many travelers who loved to put my travel time to good use by doing various handicrafts (knitting and needlepoint, I am happy to hear that my tiny thread snippers are no longer considered a safety thread.
-
Bush Administration "Justice" Department Conspired to Deny Texans' Voting Rights in Redistricting
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3497627.html
-
effect? nah...
This type of screening isn't effective at all. If I know that 10% of people get flagged for screening, that just means that I need to send 10 peopel to get 9 of them through.
I want to blow up a plane? Easy - 10 different people, booked on 10 different flights on 10 different days. More than likely I would be able to blow up 9 planes this way.
-
Oh yeah, the TSA stole my camera too
The TSA is claiming that now they will vary their routines to befuddle terrorists. There's nothing new, this is what they've been doing for a long time. Sometimes they ask everybody to remove their shoes, sometimes they don't. They said they are going to increase the super-intrusive style of searches. This is bad news for innocent Americans. They have done this to me 3 times: they press their hands up and down your chest real hard. Each time they did it to me I got really angry, but I succeeded in suppressing about 90% of my anger from showing. I did throw their Goddamned tray once afterwards though. Wait till it happens to you, it is worse than I can describe. It must be even worse for women, to have some TSA slob run her hands up and down your breasts while pressing hard.
What is the point? I'm 6 feet tall and slim, only weighing 158. I had an Izod shirt on that might as well have been a t-shirt, it was so form fitting. What could I hide under it? Nothing. At the same time the TSA pigs were rubbing my chest, dozens of fat Americans walked by the screeners. They weren't being subjected to this insulting search, and they were fat enough to be able to hide anything in there. Or a fat woman could have an auxiliary fake belly protruding an inch out from her real tub of lard. She could EASILY hide enough plastic explosives to bring down ten planes. If you think I am kidding, you are wrong.
I am so sick of political correctness. Maybe the TSA clowns won't ENJOY it as much, but they should PRESS THE FLESH of the obese people.
And don't start allowing screwdrivers and scissors back on planes, you Bush morons. Bush's people just said, "now we are more worried about explosives." So what. How does letting some fanatic stab you reduce the explosives risk? It doesn't. Some man in the U.S. is about to be the 1,001st person executed since 1976. He stabbed his victim with a pair of scissors. This was in the paper yesterday. How did scissors and screwdrivers suddenly become safe? Osama must be laughing his ass off in his spider hole/ cave.
I know Bush probably takes a screwdriver along on Air Force Zero because he's got a screw loose.
Congress, do your job and repeal this unsafe change and dare that piece of garbage to veto it.