Vanity Fair On the TSA and Security Theater 256
OverTheGeicoE writes "Perhaps it's now officially cool to criticize the TSA. Vanity Fair has a story questioning the true value of TSA security. The story features Bruce Schneier, inventor of the term 'security theater' and contender for the Most Interesting Man in the World title, it would seem. With Schneier's mentoring, the author allegedly doctors a boarding pass to breach security at Reagan National Airport to do an interview with Schneier. 'To walk through an airport with Bruce Schneier is to see how much change a trillion dollars can wreak. So much inconvenience for so little benefit at such a staggering cost.'"
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.
That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.
Accident Waiting to Happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Security isn't very good at the White House either:
Citation:
Ozzy Osbourne, from the biography "I Am Ozzy"
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
This method requires competence on the part of the interrogator though, so in effect that leaves out TSA employees.
And now that they're unionized, good luck with that. When was the last time we saw government voluntarily reduce its size and scope?
The only way this is going to be fixed is by wiping out the whole department. There's a primary coming up a candidate who would do that.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
I have lived in Israel, and went through their vaunted security dozens of times. My own observations led me to suspect this was security theater of a different kind, and my suspicions were later verified by a friend who once worked as one of those security screeners. Their trained goal is to make the passengers think they can't pull one over on the security personnel, and it seems that's enough.
That being said, they do screen baggage very carefully.
Part of security is intimidation. If you don't think you can breach the defenses and don't try - that's a win. But trying to use Israel as an example of 'how to do' airport security will fail for the simple reason that the Israelis are trying to protect only one large airport (Ben Gurion) - not hundreds of large ones and thousands of smaller ones. Some things just don't scale.
Further, Israeli security is openly racist -if you look Arabic, you're chances of getting most carefully screened is much higher than if you're Caucasian appearing. That wouldn't (so to speak) fly in the US.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
The terrorists have already won. FTFY. They have caused a state of irrational fear. They have changed the lives of every single American alive. They have cost us in the lives of American soldiers in a pointless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have spent BILLIONS on these wars. They have caused us to spend BILLIONS of dollars in an largely ineffective program of trying to reassure people that they will be safe. While we may not be able to say that they have destroyed our economy, I think that it's a pretty safe bet that a good part of the reason for our current economic stress is either directly or indirectly related to this. One good example is the airline bailout following 9-11. Our Constitution has been gutted and people's rights have been trampled into the ground.
IMO, the real terrorists now are the war contractors, our elected officials and the fucking sheeple who put them there.
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that their airport security model is superior, and maybe it can scale to large airports in the USA, but if we have dozens of airports with more traffic than their busiest airport, scaling is very far from a simple task.
Source [wikipedia.org]
Re:Get a clue Big Sis (Score:5, Interesting)
It does strongly prejudice against people who are from and/or have traveled to particular countries
Exactly right. I'm as WASP as they come, and I was pulled aside at Ben Gurion when my passport showed entry visas for Egypt and Jordan. While the questions were very serious, at all times I felt like I was dealing with an intelligent, skilled professional whom I immediately respected. I have no such sense when I'm being barked at by some TSA goon.
Venezuela, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard good things about the Venezuelean security screeners (I think it was Venezualean, I heard about it second-hand) ... maybe it was just a single case, and not the way it's all done, but rather than the 'standard 3' we used to get asked (did you pack your own bag, etc.), they'd ask questions like 'What's the color of the inside of your suitcase?'
They were presenting at a conference, and the screener (coming in at customs), asked them to give the presentation to them. If it's someone claiming to be visiting as a tourist, you ask them what hotel they're staying at (and you can check the reservation), and what sites they plan on seeing.
I admit, it's possible to be prepared for all of these questions ... but when they're less predictable (giving the screener the ability to improvise), and it's not just yes/no questions, it's harder to plan for.
Re:Oh man.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:provide conceal carry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh man.. (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right. Words have power. To be able to talk about something, you need words for it. You could try describing what you mean, but the problem is you'll always be side-tracked.
If you start describing the ban on bringing coke-bottles onto planes, you'll end up discussing if that particular ban (the ban on fluids) makes sense or not. While perhaps interesting, this is a different discussion from the one about security theatre. By using the phrase, you can talk about the general concept: security-measures that are very visible, and frequently annoying, while having questionable impact on actual security, without getting into specifics about precisely *which* policies you consider to be security-theatre.
Similarily, if you want to discuss the problems of excess political correctness, you cannot do so by using a single (or multiple) examples of silly statements that you consider to be PC-nonsense, because doing so would have a near-unity chance of derailing into a discussion of your particular example as opposed to the general tendency.
Other examples ? racist (1871), sexist (1965), prude (1704), apatheist (new, not found a definitice source for first appearance), shill (1916), fundamentalist (1920), neocon (1979 neo-conservative, a decade later shortened)
Each of these words are useful, because they let you talk of a phenomenon (or an ideology or idea) as a whole, without needing to resort to explaining-by-example, which has a huge risk of turning into a discussion about the example instead of discussion about the phenomenon.
Security theatre is well-defined, the meaning of the term is clear, and it describes a tendency that it's useful to be able to talk-about. As such, there's no reason to be skeptical of the word just because it evoked an emotion in you. (I bet "shill" and "racist" also evokes an emotion, they are still useful words though)