Understanding TSA Math

At the end of every year, the TSA blogs about the weapons and explosives it prevented from getting on board airplanes. They are trying to brag about all the dangers they've stopped. But the opposite is true, when you do the math, you realize that they are stopping no dangers at all. The TSA stops less than half the bombs that get on board airplanes -- yet airplanes are not falling out of the sky due to the bombs that do get on board. Thus, mathematically, bombs aren't a danger. It therefore doesn't matter if the TSA stops bombs or not.

We know the TSA stops less than 50% of bad stuff from various sources. The first is the government's own tests, such as that described in a recent story where the TSA failed a shockingly 95% of the time.

Another is a statistic reported by the TSA where the number of firearms they stop every year is rapidly increasing. This does not match any other trend in society, such as the number of people carrying firearms. The only reason for such rapid growth is that the TSA gets better every year at detection. That means, historically, the TSA is letting an enormous number of firearms through. Since the graph isn't tapering off, we can assume they are still far from reaching 100%.

Lastly, there is anecdotes. I hear frequent stories of people arriving at their destination with knives and guns that they've accidentally carried through TSA security. Asking on twitter reveals many more. Lots of people admit to having carried loaded weapons through TSA security. Such stories are common -- but I've never heard of somebody getting caught -- being one of those counted in the TSA statistics in there charts. Anecdotal, albeit from small sample size, this seems to confirm that you have a less than 50% chance of getting caught.

This leads to a counter-intuitive result that the TSA is really not stopping any danger. If guns and bombs are getting on planes, but planes aren't falling out of the sky, it must mean that they aren't a danger.

I point this out because in the end, safety is an emotional thing rather than logical. No matter how much I do the math, people do not believe it. They believe bombs are a danger to airplanes in much the same way many don't believe the safety statistics compared to driving.

Of course, this does not necessarily prove the TSA is ineffective. The security theater may discourage terrorist wannabes. Also, racist profiling may be more effective at stopping certain weapons than for the general population. I have an Iranian friend who apparently gets felt up every flight [which, separate from math, makes we want to say "fuck you TSA"].

But I suspect the TSA really is useless. I suspect the real reason that terrorists haven't taken planes out of the sky is that it frankly isn't that great of a threat, and that the existence of the TSA is simply because police-states gonna police-state.

Video tells children it's ok for TSA to molest them

The government wants to see (or touch) your genitals before letting you fly on an airplane (I usually opt for the touch). Recently they produced a cartoon for kids explaining to them why it's OK for the government to have access to their genitals:

I'm not sure this is the message I'd teach my children: "Don't let strangers touch you. Unless they are from the government. Then it's okay."

The video makes the claim that the TSA are well-meaning people just here to protect you. This is false. The TSA is a branch of a government that exploited 9/11 in order to grab more power.

This last year, I've flown from Europe and Japan back to the United States. In these cases their security did not demand access to my genitals, yet the planes landed safe in the United States without crashing into any buildings. I'm pretty sure that for flights departing the United States that there is little marginal benefit to screening people's privates.

PS: I may have taken a few liberties in the interpretation of the video :)

Randomized TSA screening is stupid

Cyber-pundit Bruce Schneier has a post saying that automated randomized screening by the TSA is a good idea. He's wrong; it's a stupid idea.

Most airport screening is for smuggling, not terrorism. Countries automate the process to stop corruption, so that airport security can't shake down passengers for money. None of this applies to stopping terrorism in the United States.

The reason randomized screening stops smugglers is that it changes the risk/reward ratio. It's not worth smuggling a $1-million of diamonds through the airport given a 5% chance of them getting confiscated. It's not worth smuggling $100 of cocaine through the airport if there is a 5% chance of going to jail. It stops professional smugglers, those who do it repeatedly, because it means they'll eventually get caught.

This math works in the opposite manner for terrorists. Their goal is to die in fiery crash. A 5% chance of getting caught means a 5% chance of living. For some weapons, like guns, they aren't likely to even go to jail, as a thousand people a year accidentally bring weapons on the plane without severe consequences. For other weapons, like C4 packed in a Koran, the press generated from the attempted terrorist attack will be nearly as good as a successful attack. In any case, if their first minion gets stopped in a randomized search, the terrorist organization will just send a second one.

Thus, in the words of Bruce Schneier, randomized screening is just security theater. It has little deterrent effect on terrorists.

Schneier says that the automation is good because it's free from bias or profiling. But that's not "security" speaking but "left-wing populism". Bias and profiling is good from a security perspective. Focusing your attention on mid-eastern males is more secure. Punishing white grandmothers because you feel guilty about the unfairness of profiling is just stupid.

Certainly, profiling is bad for society as a whole. It's bad for crime, for example. If young black men believe they are going to jail anyway, fairly or unfairly, regardless of what they do, they are more likely to commit crime (as John Adams once pointed out). The more we treat an ethnic minority differently, the less they will assimilate, and the more likely they are their children will want to rebel. That government does profiling in some cases sanctions intolerable bigotry in others. Whatever your politics, there are good reasons to avoid profiling.

But just because profiling is bad in general doesn't detract from its value in the narrow case of "airport security". Automating selection certainly fixes the societal problem, but by destroying any usefulness selective screening has in stopping terrorists in the first place. Therefore, the correct solution is to get rid of selective screening altogether, not automate it to assuage your guilt.

---

Update: The ever awesome Sergey Bratus points to this NYTimes article that says, and I'm not making this up:

"If terrorists learn that elderly white women from Iowa are exempt from screening, that’s exactly whom they will recruit."

I think we have such a fear of being called "bigots" that we'll pretend to believe the plausibility of this statement (h/t Marsh Ray). We should just replace profiling with other security techniques, or simply live with the increased risk, not discard logic because we dislike the practice.

---

Update: Bruce Schneier responds, characterizing my argument as "profiling makes sense". No, my argument is "random selection doesn't make sense" -- regardless of the efficacy of profiling. I only mention profiling because I believe political correctness encourages people to thing wrongly about random selection. The correct policy is to stop the invasive screening, either from profiling or random selection.

TSA: you can't make this stuff up

It's unjust to call the TSA "Nazis" or "little Stalins". It gives too much credit to the TSA, and trivializes the horrors of totalitarianism.

Yet, sometimes, it's hard to avoid the comparison.

An example is the photo the TSA blog posted yesterday to prove that not only did the "Opt Out Day" protest fail, people in fact love the TSA.

The obvious analogy is the following picture from the Soviet era. It shows a caring "Papa Stalin" holding a happy girl (Gelya Markizova):

Soon after this picture, Stalin had her father shot and her mother murdered. The party continued to use this photo for many years afterward to show how everyone loved Stalin.

Propaganda pictures of adoring children just reaffirms the notion that TSA is totalitarian.

Postscript

Note the irony. I was detained for taking pictures in the security area on Nov. 23, this guy (Randy Bonhaus, the father of the girls) was encouraged to take pictures. If I were breaking the law, as the TSA claimed, then so was Randy.

Also note the obvious security weakness. If you are a terrorist conducting surveillance, just bring two girls holding a "We Love the TSA" sign. You'll be able to take as many pictures as needed to find a weakness in the security. (This was one of the many reasons the TSA used to claim why I couldn't take pictures -- because I might be a terrorist looking for weakness).

I was just detained by the TSA

Today, I was detained by the TSA for about 30 minutes for taking pictures while going through security. Taking pictures is perfectly legal.

I took pictures of the "advanced imaging" machines that see through your clothes – the machines that are the subject of so much controversy lately. I was quickly besieged by TSA agents shouting at me to stop taking pictures. I was then detained while they tried to figure out what to do with me.

I should point out that (as far as I know), taking pictures is perfectly acceptable. The following is a section of the 2008 TSA Screening Manual:

2.7. PHOTOGRAPHING, VIDEOTAPING, AND FILMING SCREENING LOCATIONS
A. TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers, or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming screening locations unless the activity interferes with a TSO’s ability to perform his or her duties or prevents the orderly flow of individuals through the screening location. Requests by commercial entities to photograph an airport screening location must be forwarded to TSA’s Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs. Photographing EDS or ETD monitor screens or emitted images is not permitted.
B. TSA must not confiscate or destroy the photographic equipment or film of any person photographing the screening location.

I wasn’t trying to cause trouble. I frequently take pictures of the screening area when I pass through airports. I work in the (cyber) security industry, so I’m interested in such things. In this case, I saw something I wanted to photograph and blog about (which I describe at the bottom).

Some sort of manager (old grizzled guy) was summoned to deal with me. He was dressed like the rest in a blue TSA shirt, but must’ve been one level more senior than the TSA employees who were shouting at me to stop photographing.

The old guy, with a couple other agents, escorted me through the normal process of putting my bags through the x-ray and going through the "advanced imaging" scanner. I was planning on asking to get groped instead, but I didn’t want to push it, so I meekly complied.

When I finally got through the machine, my computer and iPhone had been taken off the belt, and had been in possession of the old guy for several minutes. He was holding them at a station at the far end of the conveyer belt.

I asked him to return my items and let me go. He said no, and told me that I was to take a seat while they called people to figure out what to do. Several agents surrounded me preventing me from leaving, while there was a buzz around the main desk as they called people.


Over the half hour, people kept arriving, and we’d go through the following script (these aren’t exact quotes, of course, just my impression of what happened):
TSA: Why are you taking pictures? What’s your motivation?
Me: I find it interesting, and I want to post the pictures to my blog.
TSA: You can’t take pictures in this area.
Me: Well, I read the TSA guidelines on the web a few months ago, and they clearly state that people can take pictures in this area.
TSA: You can’t take pictures in this area.
Me: Can you show me the rules that say that I cannot?
TSA: (Nodding over to the main desk) They are checking on that now.

Some added the following:
TSA: You have to show us your pictures and delete them.
Me: I’m not going to delete my pictures.

Others added:
TSA: Show us the pictures you took.
Me: If I unlock my phone, I want assurances that you will give me the chance to relock it before you take it from my control.
TSA: We can’t give you any promises.
Me: So I’m not going to unlock my phone.

One random question was:
Q: When is your flight?
A: 4:30 (in roughly two hours)
The implied issue was that if I didn’t comply with their demands, they could detain me long enough to miss my flight. On the flip side, they weren’t happy having to deal with me, which was disrupting their routine. They certainly weren’t going to be happy detaining me for 2 hours to make me miss my flight.

I tried to act nonchalant, as if I didn’t care about the time, but I certainly did. This is Thanksgiving, the flights are full, so it’s unlikely the airline would be able to book me on another flight. If I missed that flight, it would mean missing Thanksgiving. On the other hand, it would be a better blog if the TSA forced me to miss my flight for doing something that is perfectly legal. So I decided I was willing to miss my flight, making me as calm on the inside as I was trying to project on the outside.

Another discussion I heard between a TSA agent and a police officer was something about escorting me back out through security (i.e. denying me access). I didn’t actually talk to him. I feel stupid now; I should have pointed out to him that I felt I was being illegally detained by the TSA.

While sitting there, I was drawn into other conversations, like this one with a higher level manager (she was dressed I in a suit rather than a uniform):
TSA: Don’t you have normal operating procedures at your work?
Me: Yes
TSA: How would you like it if somebody came to your work and disrupted your procedures? How would you like it if people took pictures of you at your work?
Me: I don’t work for the government. Government agencies need to be accountable to the public, and therefore suffer disruptions like this.
TSA: Not all parts of the government are accountable to the public, especially the TSA.
Me: Wow. No, ALL parts of the government are accountable to the people, especially the TSA. I’m not sure what type of country you think we live in.

This made me angry. Up to this point, I was trying to project a calm, relaxed attitude. I don’t want to be like those hippy douche-bag activists that try to provoke the TSA with their passive-aggression or belligerence. I wanted to be the calm, relaxed, easy going guy that while standing for principle, was nice about everything else. At several points, I pointed out to the guards that I wasn’t upset, that I understood their job, that I supported their work, and that I was willing to comply with anything that didn’t infringe my rights.

The final guy was "Duty Manager Jerry Estes" (finally, I remembered somebody’s name). We went through the standard script. He then claimed that the reason photographs aren’t allowed is because of the controversy over the images taken by the "advanced imaging" machines, and that absolutely NO images are allowed of the people in the machines.

This was bogus, of course. It actually would be a valid reason if I had photographs of the console showing naked people, but that was locked away in a back room somewhere. My guess he was just looking for another excuse to see the pictures I had taken.

He offered a compromise: if I were to delete pictures of people inside machines, then he would allow me to keep the rest of the pictures. I agreed (I was getting bored, and truly, I didn’t have a lawyer, so I didn’t know how far I could push this). So we reviewed the pictures, and he forced me to delete one. That one didn’t show a person inside of a machine, just a person in front of a machine, but I didn’t argue – it’s nearly identical to another picture.

After that, they let me go as if nothing happened.

Why I took the pictures

The reason I took the pictures was to blog on a typical security issue that, in the industry, is called "security theatre". Screening techniques are chosen to make the public feel safe, not to stop terrorists.

The "advanced imaging" machines that see through clothing are a good example.

First of all, terrorists can get around them pretty easy, but either putting C4 in a body cavity or surgically implanted.

Secondly, terrorists are not deterred by "random selection". The goal of the terrorist is to blow themselves up. Getting caught means not dying, but still has a (lesser) terror effect because people will get scared from the attempt. It’s a win-win for them.

Sure, random selection will deter us from bringing contraband (like nail clippers [well, allowed now]) onto a plane, but I doubt it’s a big deterrent to a suicide bomber.

So, I wanted a picture of the L3 Provision machine in order to include with my blog describing this.

Here all the pictures I took, minus the one I was forced to delete.

Postscript

According to (right-wing conspiracy theory) http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30286, the Obama administration is labeling people like me a "domestic extremist". Ok, I'm being a bit melodramatic here, I believe in accountability and am not trying to protest the security measures, but I'm not sure that law enforcement can understand the difference (especially since this post has been linked from posts labeled Resources for National Opt Out Day).

Ken Murray points out this link of TSA jokes http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-boston/tsa-tsa-tsa-oh-lord-almighty-tsa.

@eileenludwig points to TSA's own blog post clarifying that I can take pictures http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html.

My ornery curmudgeon of a father makes the recommendation that I look at their tag and speak to them using their names. It's easy for them to hide behind the character of a faceless bureaucrat when you don't know their name. But when you make it clear you know their name, they are more likely to fear that they will be held accountable for their actions. Intimidating as all hell.

Hey, I just remembered. I don't remember them looking at my identification (other than the normal check further back in line). I think the incident will be attributed to "annoying passenger" than "Robert Graham".

Here is another guy detained for taking pictures http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/17/so%E2%80%A6i-got-detained-by-the-tsa-at-the-airport-today/. He points out that video cameras probably recorded the entire incident.

Apparently, I could have called TSA public affairs at (571) 227-2829, and they would have told the TSA agents that yes, I can take photos.

Here is how senile hackers work:

• Google for how to to recover deleted images on iPhone.
  
• Google harder
  
• Google "iPhone undelete"
  
• Find page that says to start by jailbreaking phone
  
• Doh! Phone already jailbroken many months ago.
  
• "It's a UNIX system! I know this!"
  
• ssh to iPhone (no, the password isn't alpine).
  
• Robs-iPhone:~ root# dd if=/dev/disk0 | ssh root@192.168.1.2 'dd of=/tmp/dump.dmg'
  
• (wait 3 hours to transfer 8-gig iPhone image across slow 802.11b 11-mbps network)
  
• Ran PhotoRec on the iPhone disk image, wasn't able to recover image (or any thumbnailes)
  
• ....hunting for other recover software to run on the image...
  

This TSA Blog brags how the "Opt Out Day" was a failure, because wait times were actually lower than normal. But they are being disingenuous. Wait times are less because the TSA staffs up with a lot more people during Thanksgiving and Christmas high travel days. That's been true the last several years, which likewise had shorter lines on November 23 as well. In addition, according people I know on Twitter flying today, the TSA simply stopped using the controversial AIT machines in order to prevent the protest from working. That means the protest was a success, not a failure. Lastly, protesters wouldn't cause longer lines -- traffic would simply be redirected through the metal detectors. The protesters would simply cause fewer people to be imaged/groped.