TSA's Sloppy Redacting Reveals All 605
A travel blog breaks the story of a poor job of redacting by the TSA: they posted a PDF of airport screening policies, with certain sections blacked out — not realizing that simply laying a black rectangle over the text is hardly sufficient. Cryptome has posted a copy with the redaction removed (ZIP).
wow (Score:4, Interesting)
CIA Badges look pretty easy to fake......
why are they so scared about xray monitors? (Score:3, Interesting)
photographing EDS or ETD monitor screens or emitted images is not permitted. [...] Whenever possible, x-ray machine images must not be visible to the public or press. When physical constraints prevent x-ray images from being fully protected from public viewing, TSOs must ensure no member of the public or press is in a position to observe an x-ray monitor for an extended period of time. Passengers and other unauthorized individuals must not be allowed to view EDS or ETD monitors and screens.
Huh. Now...why would that be?
First guess, they don't want the "terrorists" to see how good/bad the x-ray devices are.
Second more cynical guess: Xray machines are mostly useless and the TSA doesn't want the public to realize it's a bunch of voodoo?
Re:Actual Link to the zip (Score:3, Interesting)
Since they mangled the link in the story, I'm pretty sure it's mostly Slashdot-effect-proof. Or I guess that would be slashdoteffectproof. :)
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, when releasing material that is partially blacked out, in most departments the procedure is to simply black it out on a hard copy and then photocopy the hard copy or scan it if it is to go online.
The reason that we often see these types of failed redaction is that they attempt to black out the text before it is printed, then you can scan it. If you don't black out the text prior to printing it is possible that the scanner picks up on subtle hints as to what the text might have been.
Take a black marker and go over a printed page, you can probably tell a bit what was printed there. That may be preserved through the scanner.
The best way to protected text in this manner is either to remove the text completely, or black it out prior to printing. I've never cared for the sloppy style of blacked out text, as it causes problems (not exhaustive):
1. Spacing can give clues
2. The censor might be overzealous because of the spacing thus withholding more information than necessary
3. They forget that black over text does not remove the text in electronic copies.
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
Or just get rid of the white ink WAIT A MINUTE+++ath0
NO CARRIER
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhh...the people in a checkpoint line are far more densely packed than people on a plane, so ignoring that factor in your analysis is a bit of a mistake. Not to mention that, as the GP said, there's no security (or at least none that would stop a luggage bomb) before you reach the checkpoint, so size isn't a huge issue.
But ignoring all of that the goal of terrorism is to cause terror, and where do people feel safer, a plane, or the security line before a plane?
Re:Don't click! (Score:1, Interesting)
There is information even within misinformation.
Re:Silly (Score:4, Interesting)
On what planet is it necessary to keep facts like these secret?
Is it necessary to reveal them in this manner, or would the interest of the public be served by simply knowing that:
1. TSOs follow a procedure when explosives are discovered
2. X-rays have a test procedure
3. Only certain personnel are allowed to clear indivudals
4. Aircrew are subjected to modified screening procedures.
Is it relevant to know the details of those items? If it was related to my FOIA request, perhaps, but I think we should keep in mind that an open government doesn't require fully open records to meet the spirit of an open government.
If I somehow needed a database from a military hospital for a court case I was involved in, I would hope that any patient records would be anonymized if they weren't necessary for the trial.
Just as we don't necessarily need to know the exact metrics which cause an x-ray machine to fail an inspection unless we were specifically interested in the testing procedures of x-ray machines.
Re:The TSA redacting process (Score:5, Interesting)
The TSA is to security what Micheal Vick is to Pet Care
Slashdot should have a facility to nominate quotes like this for a Slashdot Hall of Fame.
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the first time I've seen it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to manage an E-discovery group at a
lawfirm. We would receive stuff like this from
opposing council all the time.
People really are that stupid.
Re:why are they so scared about xray monitors? (Score:3, Interesting)
reminds me of a comic i read, where some female security personnel would crank the metal detector sensitivity to 11 when a choice man showed up...
You think that's a joke? Portable breathalizers can be made to give false positives by chirping the radio while the suspect exhales. The TSA just makes the job of making an excuse a whole lot easier: Push the button. You don't need any reason beyond "seemed suspicious." Other kinds of security personnel need to manufacture a reason first. :\
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Small Arms Ammunition allowed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, flying with a checked and properly declared firearm is a great way to keep your stuff safe. You are required by federal law to use locks that the TSA can't open so you don't have to worry about them stealing stuff from your case.
No, pilots DO need to be screened... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, pilots DO need to be screened, because the chance of ONE cockpit crew member going bad and wanting to take the plane out is much better tha the chance of ALL the cockpit crew members wanting that.
That means that with zero screening the "bad pilot" could bring on board a weapon (gun, grenade, knife, flammable liquid, acid, whatever) to either take out the rest of the cockpit crew or the controls.
If the "bad pilot" is unable to get something more dangerous than normal on board, he has less chance to destroy the plane - and the others have a better chance to get him "under control."
There is no reason to allow anyone past the security chokepoint without being screened, but ESPECIALLY those who will be out of view in the cockpit and able to kill of the rest of the crew or damage the aircraft beyond being flyable.
Gotta think these things through, people.
--Tomas (Ex-USAF)
One interesting redacted section (Score:5, Interesting)
iv. If the individual's photo ID is a passport issued by the Government of Cuba, Iran, North
Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, or Algeria, refer
the individual for selectee screening unless the individual has been exempted from selectee
screening by the FSD or aircraft operator.
This section proves that the US Government and the TSA DO target certain groups (in this case people from certain countries) for extra screening (regardless of the individuals who may be members of these groups)
Are people with a Lebanese or Algerian passport more of a risk than other people? Or is it that these passports are easier for the bad guys to legitimately obtain than any other one?
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
If I was a security guard and I thought you were wearing suspenders [twenga.co.uk] under a shirt, I'd be interested in speaking to you further as well.
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even more complicated than that:
- It's a well known military adage that you attack your enemy where it is weakest, not strongest.
A bunch of (relatively) poorly armed civilians attacking well armed, well prepared military targets is at best a form of ritual suicide.
I would change the definition of terrorist to be somebody that purposefully attacks civilian targets and/or willingly accepts civilian casualties with the objective of terrorizing the civilians into compliance.
Note that this definition does include state actors - states often act as terrorists.
Even under this definition, you can still say that some in the Resistance during WW2 were terrorists: the executions of "collaborators" were done to induce compliance in others by terror.
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
And flying a plane into the WTC? Osama viewed himself and his group as being at war with the U.S. They had bombed the U.S.S. Cole, the U.S. had attacked their training camps with cruise missiles. The question is whether attacking enemy civilians during a time of war should be classed as "terrorism"? Most people would not call the attacks of Germany and Britain on each others civilian populations during WWII "terrorism", even though the blanket targeting of civilian populations did occur (ie. the bombing of civilians was not an accident, or "collateral damage", it was a deliberate act designed to kill and undermine moral).
Why was the bombing of civilian cities (those with no or little military infrastructure) during WWII considered valid, and yet now is considered "terrorism"? Or is there some further factor that people consider - that WWII was a "real war", but the violence with Osama was somewhat "less" of a war, and therefore targeting civilians was not justified?
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
You can perform a barrel roll in Boeing commercial airliners, and someone actually did so with a 707 when they introduced the model during an airshow. You can't do it in an airbus because the computers on those aircraft think they know better than you and will override you if they don't like what you're doing. This has, of course, caused a couple huge accidents. If a Boeing craft doesn't like you, it'll beep a lot, probably shout at you, but won't override you.
Re:Not the first time I've seen it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the people on the other side were like yourself: your credentials hold no water if you weren't involved enough to spell "counsel" - the word you used means something completely different.
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment re: spirits onboard reminded me of travelling into New Zealand - you're not allowed to carry spirits into Australia or New Zealand. The cause was a flight that crash-landed in Guam: the plane got down relatively safely, minimal people were hurt during the landing, but in the aftermath the duty-free spirits in the overhead lockers caught fire and the deaths quickly mounted up. A Kiwi on the flight survived and began campaigning for a change to the regulations regarding spirits on flights. To date only Australia and New Zealand have changed their regulations.
When I first encountered this I assumed it was a scam to get me to buy my duty-free at Auckland airport. The more I learned about it, however, the more I supported this measure. It's one of the few changes to air travel that actually make me feel safer. (And it turned out that duty-free was cheaper in Auckland compared to Bangkok - go figure...!)
Guam government webpage about the crash [ns.gov.gu], If it ain't on Wikipedia it never happened ;-) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have one better for you.
I upgraded my ticket at a kiosk for a flight. I love the $75 upgrades. :) My original boarding pass already had "SSSSS" on it, which means I was flagged to be checked. The upgraded ticket also had the "SSSSS" on it. I went through the metal detector. I was patted down, and questioned about my intentions on the flight (Umm, to get from Point A to Point B). Something trivial was taken from me and thrown in the bin, but I don't remember exactly what. My seat? Row 1, Seat C. That put me in the very first row, on the aisle. If I sneezed, the snot would have hit the cockpit door. If I was a security concern for any reason, is that really where you want me?
At one point during the flight, the pilot came out to use the restroom. The only thing between me and the controls? A petite stewardess. Obviously I had no intention of doing anything bad, since I'm writing this in freedom. :) But, come on, if there was even a hint that I'd do something bad, would it be appropriate to give me the perfect seat to do it from?
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is exactly why military planes aren't pressurized (at least not to the same altitude--when there is any pressurization). It's a lot easier to withstand holes if there isn't a significant pressure difference. Maybe airlines should consider changing the pressure levels of the cabins.
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I did WLAN installations at a range of airports as a hired consultant.
They only checked my police record before issuing me with an access to *all* areas on *every* airport in the country. Not even security officers matched my clearance.
To make it even 'worse': I had clearance to bring any item or equipment past the security checkpoint, except explosives. I had knives and all sorts of sharp/blunt objects.
On one occasion I also brought my car and got clearance to bring it on the same side as the airplanes. The security officer who was to inspect my car rolled his eyes to see it filled with ~60 boxes (containing WLAN AP) and decided it was too much of an effort to check the vehicle so I could just pass.
No interview, deep background checks, nothing before I got clearance. I suspect the cleaning staff have similar clearance (except their equipment might already be inside).
I guess I was just one of many... It then bothers me endlessly to be stripped of my toothpaste when flying civil (my clearance ended this summer, a ear after I switched jobs...).
Re:The TSA redacting process (Score:3, Interesting)
They are used for other purposes. Read this [csoonline.com]. Here is the important part:
1. Joe Terrorist (whose name is on the no-fly list) buys a ticket online in the name of Joe Smith using a stolen credit card^H^H^H^H. Joe Smith is not listed on the terrorist watch list.
2. Joe Terrorist then prints his "Joe Smith" boarding pass at home, and then electronically alters it to create a second almost identical boarding pass under the name Joe Terrorist, his name.
3. Joe Terrorist then goes to the airport and goes through security with his real ID and the FAKE boarding pass. The name and face match his real driver’s license. The airport employee matches the name and face to the real ID.
4. The TSA guard at the magnetometer checks to make sure that the boarding pass looks legitimate as Joe Terrorist goes through. He or she does not scan it into the system, so there is still no hint that the name on the fake boarding pass is not the same as the name on the reservation.
5. Joe Terrorist then goes through the gate into his plane using the real Joe Smith boarding pass for the gate’s computer scanner. He is not asked for ID again to match the name on the scanner, so the fact that he does not have an ID with that name does not matter. (Since Joe Smith doesn’t actually exist it does not coincide with a name on the terrorist watch list) Joe Terrorist boards the plane, no questions asked.
TADA. A terrorist, on the no fly list, just flew without even bothering to get fake ID. (Rendering all Real ID talk total nonsense.)
And note I erased 'stolen credit card'. The credit card doesn't have to be stolen. Names of CC purchasers are not checked against the no-fly list, as far as anyone knows. If they are, there are probably ways to fly without a credit card, and if not, getting a credit card in a fake name is easy enough.
Re:Well, at least the rest don't do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
And flying a plane into the WTC?
I was specifically talking about flying a plane into the Pentagon, but the U.S. military routinely strikes "military and economic targets" when we're bombing other countries. See: Iraq, Kosovo, and Iraq again. Guess what the Pentagon and the World Trade Center qualify as then?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Which is why we should never have engaged in torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
Or is there some further factor that people consider - that WWII was a "real war", but the violence with Osama was somewhat "less" of a war, and therefore targeting civilians was not justified?
There sure is a factor: American hypocrisy. It's why we have no qualms about bombing "military and economic targets", collateral damage, torture and indefinite imprisonment when we're doing it to others, but scream bloody murder when it's done to us. Look at what the U.S. has done based on the fear and rage of ONE day NINE years ago. Then remember that we've given Iraq and Afghanistan the population equivalent of a 911 every few weeks, or less. Meanwhile we give ourselves backslapping platitudes that sound just like the Soviets [salon.com] that invaded Afghanistan in the 80's.
And to all you wingnuts with mod points, show me where I'm factually wrong on anything I've said.