Security Theater: Effective or not?

Andrew

Is the United States on the right course for addressing security issues or is it just meaningless actions without any real effect?

Because Churba got his panties in a bundle.

Apreche

Secure cockpit doors are effective. Passenger education is effective. Increases in intelligence gathering are effective. Everything else is theater. Walking onto a plane should be the same as walking onto a train. You just get on.

Rym

Walking onto a plane should be the same as walking onto a train. You just get on.

I'm even fine with a metal detector and the explosives sniffers. I'm OK with xrays of luggage (including carry-on).

But taking off my shoes? Backscatter? Physical pat-downs? Having to remove my laptops for separate investigation? Without probable cause, these are way over the line. If these were options used specifically in rare instances where someone failed a behavioral profiling check, I would be fine with it, but our current system of semi-random and frequent checks is silly. There also appears to be no added efficacy of backscatter over a pat-down (nevermind the links between TSA officials and the companies that make these machines...).

Churba

Is the United States on the right course for addressing security issues

Not really, no.

or is it just meaningless actions without any real effect?

Also not really, no, for some measures. Yes, absolutely, for others.

But taking off my shoes? Backscatter? Physical pat-downs? Having to remove my laptops for separate investigation? Without probable cause, these are way over the line.

Taking off your shoes is theatre. Backscatter and millimeter wave machines are not theatre for the most part - but they're little more than an improvement over the metal detectors(as they're able to pick up non-metallic weapons, something that is actually important, as incidents like Qantas flight 1737 proves), and as of yet, are not quite implemented in a satisfactory manner. Pat-downs are sometimes justified, but rarely, and junk touching isn't really necessary or useful.

Because Churba got his panties in a bundle.

Leave my admittedly very fine lacy panties out of this.

Amp

Just wanting to pose a question. At what point do we sacrifice a persons privacy for security?

Apreche

I'm even fine with a metal detector and the explosives sniffers. I'm OK with xrays of luggage (including carry-on).

I'm OK with these things because they aren't much of a hassle, but they don't really do much. I would be fine without them. They do not do much to increase security at all. Also, the confiscation of non-dangerous things really has to stop. The explosive puffer machines have been found to actually not work. As in, they might as well be dowsing rods. The thing is, we absolutely need to add the Israeli security with the trained professionals talking to everybody who comes in.

Apreche

Just wanting to pose a question. At what point do we sacrifice a persons privacy for security?

Probable cause or a warrant.

TheWhaleShark

Backscatter?

See, I say get rid of the metal detector and explosive sniffer and just do the backscatter. Of course, there are issues that need to be addressed there first. In theory, the backscatter should be better.

Also, TSA agents should be competent. Like, very competent. And we need more of them. That, or stop these stupid wars of foreign aggression and deploy National Guard to our airports. They are major points of ingress and egress in this country; if people actually cared about border security, they'd realize that airports are part of the border too.

They do not do much to increase security at all.

Well, the thing is, there are people who want to blow up planes. We know that. We had instances of it way before 9/11, which is why we had X-rays and metal detectors in the first place.

If you take away scans like that, you basically remove any barriers for the bad guys, which makes it easier for them to do things. Security has made it such that the bad guys have to be far riskier and more dangerous than they have before. Take away all of that, and they can go back to a lower level of risk.

EDIT: Also, your hero Schneier agrees that current security actually does stuff.

The security checkpoints worked. Because we screen for obvious bombs, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab -- or, more precisely, whoever built the bomb -- had to construct a far less reliable bomb than he would have otherwise. Instead of using a timer or a plunger or a reliable detonation mechanism, as would any commercial user of PETN, he had to resort to an ad hoc and much more inefficient homebrew mechanism: one involving a syringe and 20 minutes in the lavatory and we don't know exactly what else. And it didn't work.

Yes, the Amsterdam screeners allowed Abdulmutallab onto the plane with PETN sewn into his underwear, but that's not a failure either. There is no security checkpoint, run by any government anywhere in the world, designed to catch this. It isn't a new threat; it's more than a decade old. Nor is it unexpected; anyone who says otherwise simply isn't paying attention. But PETN is hard to explode, as we saw on Christmas Day.

So screening for bombs does do something. Metal detectors and sniffers can be useful. Freaking out when something new happens isn't useful.

Rym

If you take away scans like that, you basically remove any barriers for the bad guys, which makes it easier for them to do things. Security has made it such that the bad guys have to be far riskier and more dangerous than they have before.

Or just attack softer targets. If they were smart, we would be fucked. Way more damage could be done for way less effort and cost than attacking a plane these days.

Apreche

See, I say get rid of the metal detector and explosive sniffer and just do the backscatter. Of course, there are issues that need to be addressed there first. In theory, the backscatter should be better.

It's true that the backscatter is very safe, however I do not think it is worth it. You shouldn't have to let someone look at your junk just to fly on a plane. Also, while it is very safe, many are reporting that the odds of it hurting you are about equal to the odds of terrorism. So basically, if we never have any terrorism on planes, the backscatter will kill the same number of people that terrorism would have. Even if it catches a terrorist, we'll be breaking even. Any security we put in has to have basically a zero chance of actually hurting people.

While the effectiveness of the security needs to be taken into account, so does the cost in lives, dollars, and time. Even if backscatter is effective, what does it cost in dollars and lives versus how much effectiveness it actually has? We should have only a few extremely effective security measures, and get rid of all these expensive and barely effective measures.

TheWhaleShark

Or just attack softer targets. If they were smart, we would be fucked. Way more damage could be done for way less effort and cost than attacking a plane these days.

Or do both. If it becomes that much easier to attack a plane, and you've learned how to circumvent much tougher measures, it'll take comparatively less effort to attack said plane than it ever has. So now you can get attacks on planes and attacks on soft targets.

Security can only reduce risk; it can never eliminate it. However, removing any security at all will certainly increase the risk of an event. The key is to have effective security and not this crap.

Basically, we're watching high school theater. We need Patrick Stewart in here to make this good.

Amp

Probable cause.

Care to elaborate I'm curious on the matter.

George Patches

If you take away scans like that, you basically remove any barriers for the bad guys, which makes it easier for them to do things. Security has made it such that the bad guys have to be far riskier and more dangerous than they have before.

Or just attack softer targets. If they were smart, we would be fucked. Way more damage could be done for way less effort and cost than attacking a plane these days.

This is the crux of our problem. Security screenings are almost entirely reactive and thus pretty useless. We need a lot more proactive methods of security.

Apreche

Probable cause.

Care to elaborate I'm curious on the matter.

You don't know what probable cause is?

TheWhaleShark

Also, while it is very safe, many are reporting that the odds of it hurting you are about equal to the odds of terrorism.

Who's reporting that? The only reliable information I've seen comes from the FDA, who have reported that the levels of radiation exposure from these devices are equivalent to minutes of flight at altitude. The risk is non-existent.

Will someone get cancer from these? Yes. But someone also got cancer just from flying, and someone else got cancer from their monitor.

Now, if we eliminated every other scan and just went for the backscatter, and it were done efficiently, I bet it would take a lot less time to get through security. No need to remove your shoes or even empty your pockets, really; the backscatter will catch it.

Victor Frost

Just wanting to pose a question. At what point do we sacrifice a persons privacy for security?

Do you want the terrorists to win?

Apreche

really; the backscatter will catch it.

No, it really won't.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights-failings-of-body.html

TheWhaleShark

We need a lot more proactive methods of security.

That's a very tricky area right there. We have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Being proactive necessarily means that you stop something before it happens. Things like sex predator stings and the like are examples of proactive security, and those are often controversial.

Basically, you can either treat everyone as though they're likely to be a criminal, or you can start using predictive metrics to profile people. People don't really like either of those options.

Churba

You shouldn't have to let someone look at your junk just to fly on a plane.

See, I can't see why people are supposedly so concerned about this - Though, I say supposedly because it appears to be a small group of noisy people on the net, with zero effect in real life, for example, the much hyped "Opt-out day" was a complete and utter fizzle.

Essentially, this is how it works. You stand there, you get scanned, though for the sake of it sounding cool, let's say you stand there and are bombarded with x-rays which don't go all the way through you because you're super hardcore. A person, in a room that it is not possible for them to see you - or anyone else - from sees what looks, essentially, like a mannequin. The mannequin has a dick, sometimes. Sometimes, the mannequin has some barbie-eqsue boobs(in terms of defined features, if not size). This person never sees you. The people who do see you, never see that image - or at least, should never see that image, which is one of the problems I feel needs to be addressed before we have widespread implementation of these machines, it should be damn near impossible to get them to record the image. There is hardly anything that could possibly identify you on the Mannequin image - and I only say hardly anything, because you never know, someone might have some sort of odd deformity that makes them visually distinct on the scanner, for example, having two penises.

Essentially, the only person that "Sees you naked" only ever sees an unidentifiable mannequin person, and never actually sees you. And Frankly, if I'm going to have someone laughing at my dick, I'd rather it be someone who I can't see or hear, and won't ever meet, just as a nice change for once.

Also, as I've said before on twitter, all anyone does by calling it a "PornoScanner" is provide compelling evidence that they have a crippling mannequin fetish.

No, it really won't.

Allow me to Summarise that video - Apparently, the Millimetre wave scanners(NOT the backscatter machines, which don't feature in that video, as best I can tell), specifically, are not that useful, because they don't pick up the components of thermite(Which would be picked up by the metal detector). I'm not entirely sure how useful thermite would be in bringing down a plane - there would certainly be a lot of noise, heat, some fire, and an emergency decompression, but we're trained to deal with all of those things. Without a hell of a lot of thermite, you'd not really be able to take down a plane - just induce an emergency landing at the nearest airfield, if possible, or at the absolute worst, you'd force a ditch, and while I'm not one of those who use the phrase "Ditch and Die", it's still going to be a far, far less than ideal situation to say the least.

Amp

Probable cause.

Care to elaborate I'm curious on the matter.

You don't know what probable cause is?

Not in the American definition. Though quick Wikipedia sorted that out. In that case at what point does it become relevant? A person acting shady? Large shoes? Skin tone?

@Sonic They will never win so long as we have apple pie...

Edit; @Churba no one laughs at my dicks

George Patches

Basically, you can either treat everyone as though they're likely to be a criminal, or you can start using predictive metrics to profile people. People don't really like either of those options.

Well then we can't be secure.

Churba

Edit; @Churba no one laughs at my dicks

That is because your mighty dicks both command great respect among the populace.

Jason

If you take away scans like that, you basically remove any barriers for the bad guys, which makes it easier for them to do things. Security has made it such that the bad guys have to be far riskier and more dangerous than they have before.

Or just attack softer targets. If they were smart, we would be fucked. Way more damage could be done for way less effort and cost than attacking a plane these days.

New York and Washington D.C. are far-away magical lands to most Americans. That said, I present Jason's Guide to Scaring the Shit Out of Middle America:

1) Find a small town of, say, 5,000 people.
2) Walk into the water treatment plant at 3 a.m. when there's nobody around, one cop on duty (asleep outside the donut shop a mile away), and no alarm (because why would you need one?).
3) Insert poison here.
4) Death occurs.
5) Terror accomplished!

Apreche

Jason, the only problem is that in order to actually poison the water supply you would need such a large amount of poison.

Andrew

Jason, the only problem is that in order to actually poison the water supply you would need such a large amount of poison.

Homeopathy Terrorism!

George Patches

There was actually a Tom Clancy book where a group of 16 or so terrorists sneaked into America through Mexico, bought automatic weapons on the black market, and went to 4 separate malls and just killed people.

Amp

Edit; @Churba no one laughs at my dicks

That is because your mighty dicks both command great respect among the populace.

If you have seen the Mighty Boosh then think Spider from the Beast and the Priest episode.

Apreche

Homeopathy Terrorism!

I heard a fish peed in the pacific ocean the other day. Nobody on earth drink any water!

TheWhaleShark

New York and Washington D.C. are far-away magical lands to most Americans. That said, I present Jason's Guide to Scaring the Shit Out of Middle America:

1) Find a small town of, say, 5,000 people.
2) Walk into the water treatment plant at 3 a.m. when there's nobody around, one cop on duty (asleep outside the donut shop a mile away), and no alarm (because why would you need one?).
3) Insert poison here.
4) Death occurs.
5) Terror accomplished!

Milk tankers. Put some C. botulinum in a tanker and let it go. Pasteurization won't destroy the botulism toxin, and it won't cause obvious spoilage. Kill countless children across the nation at the dinner table. Instant panic.

We've actually studied this scenario at various meetings, and looked at ways to combat such things.

Cremlian

And now our forums are on a FBI watch list...

George Patches

I heard a fish peed in the pacific ocean the other day. Nobody on earth drink any water!

You guys have homeopathy all wrong. That will make us better. If we want to poison everyone we need to add a small amount of something healthy, like vitamin C.