Why are we spending $7 billion on TSA?

[think]

To be clear that's over $7 billion per year for TSA:

Why are we spending $7 billion on TSA?

By Bruce Schneier - 9:12 AM ET, Fri June 5, 2015

Editor's note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and chief technology officer of Resilient Systems Inc. His latest book is "Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World." He blogs at schneier.com and tweets @schneierblog. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)News that the Transportation Security Administration missed a whopping 95% of guns and bombs in recent airport security "red team" tests was justifiably shocking. It's clear that we're not getting value for the $7 billion we're paying the TSA annually.

But there's another conclusion, inescapable and disturbing to many, but good news all around: We don't need $7 billion worth of airport security. These results demonstrate that there isn't much risk of airplane terrorism, and we should ratchet security down to pre-9/11 levels.

We don't need perfect airport security. We just need security that's good enough to dissuade someone from building a plot around evading it. If you're caught with a gun or a bomb, the TSA will detain you and call the FBI. Under those circumstances, even a medium chance of getting caught is enough to dissuade a sane terrorist. A 95% failure rate is too high, but a 20% one isn't.

For those of us who have been watching the TSA, the 95% number wasn't that much of a surprise. The TSA has been failing these sorts of tests since its inception: failures in 2003, a 91% failure rate at Newark Liberty International in 2006, a 75% failure rate at Los Angeles International in 2007, more failures in 2008. And those are just the public test results; I'm sure there are many more similarly damning reports the TSA has kept secret out of embarrassment...

Full editorial:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/05/opinions/schneier-tsa-security/index.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. The obvious conclusion is that TSA is underfunded

Think I'm joking? You'll see...

[think]

3. Thanks for that utterly depressing but realistic outlook dang it....

[HassleCat]

11. Well, sort of

In the interests of full disclosure, I worked for TSA from 2004 to 2010. One big problem is TSA goes for some expensive equipment that doesn't work, and they throw away some equipment that does work in favor of new technology. Remember the old "puffer" machine, the one that blasted you with little squirts of air? It worked pretty well, but it did require careful cleaning and calibration, so they tossed it out. Now they have body scanners that can be fooled quite easily.

They also waste a great deal of money on duplication, which is typical of the huge intelligence and security apparatus. TSA has its own staff of intelligence analysts, and they basically pick up reports and alerts from other agencies, re-write them so they're meaningless, then pass them down to the officers on the screening floor. We used to get upset when we assembled for pre-shift briefing and got some "intelligence" that told us to be on the alert for something, from someone, somewhere, at some time, maybe. Or not. I used to follow up on these vague alerts by doing Internet research and passing out more detailed info to my team. They made me stop doing that, of course, because it wasn't "approved."

And there are certain threats TSA has trouble finding. Some of the equipment upon which they rely is being used to look for threats way, way outside the design parameters of the equipment. Some of the techniques and procedures are also completely messed up, because they're written by people who sit in an office and have no idea what happens at ground level. For example, we spent an enormous amount of time hassling diabetics with insulin pumps, until we finally complained so loudly and so frequently that the procedures were changed.

Would more money help? Probably not, because I'm pretty sure they would spend it on consulting fees and different technology. They get fooled by contractors all the time, sold a bill of goods, and spend tax dollars on some blue sky idea. What they need is more officers and better training, but they hate spending money on pay and benefits. TSA consistently ranks near the bottom of federal agencies when they do surveys of job satisfaction and morale. The solution of course, is to continue the beatings until morale improves.

I could go on for another 100 paragraphs, but you get the idea.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I'll bet the Israeli TSA- equivalent would pick up 90%+

And spend way less. Perhaps we should look at what they do?

But if we didn't have the theatrics of big technology, Fox News would say bad things.

[HassleCat]

15. Yes, they do

They rely mostly on behavioral observation. They also use profiling based on appearance and ethnicity, a tactic that would be useless and illegal in the United States. They have a different threat, a different security environment, and a different approach. In one sense, their situation is tougher, because you know Israel's aircraft are an attractive target. On the other hand, the environment is more uniform, more monolithic, less diverse, more straightforward.

[philosslayer]

27. They profile

no thanks.

[Chathamization]

14. Guh, that sounds exactly like many of the organizations I've worked for.

Always interesting to see how universal problems like this are.

[rock]

2. What's money?

I mean your money that the government spends.

[HassleCat]

4. Be careful

This guy is a professional TSA critic. He is a cyber security expert, so I have no idea how he comes to be an expert on airport and airline security. He's basically correct when he says 20 percent security is good enough, but that will mean somebody will bring down an airplane. I worked for TSA, so I know about poor management, low morale, high turnover, lack of training.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Is this serious? What system would you put into place to handle security at airports?

[think]

7. The TSA had a 95% fail rate when tested and costs $7 billion a year. Yes, that's a serious problem.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Yes, it is serious problem, what is a new program which would not cost as much money?

[think]

21. Perhaps you should email the security expert who wrote the editorial.

[Thinkingabout]

22. I guess the answer is even the security expert did not have the answer.

So, they can be critical but we will still have TSA.

[think]

25. See post 11 written by someone who actually worked in the TSA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026783798#post11


With a 95% fail rate for an agency costing $7 billion a year there are plenty of reasons to be critical.

No?

There is plenty of room for improvement and it doesn't have to cost billions for high tech solutions that make big profits for contractors without making the airways safer.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/former-president-vonetex-llc-admits-paying-kickbacks-connection-tsa-contract-high-tech

Former TSA Agent Explains Full Body Scanners Didn't Work, But Did Let Him See You Naked

~Snip~

“They're shit,” he said, shrugging. He said we wouldn't be able to distinguish plastic explosives from body fat and that guns were practically invisible if they were turned sideways in a pocket.

We quickly found out the trainer was not kidding: Officers discovered that the machines were good at detecting just about everything besides cleverly hidden explosives and guns. The only thing more absurd than how poorly the full-body scanners performed was the incredible amount of time the machines wasted for everyone.

~Snip~

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140131/08552826058/former-tsa-agent-explains-full-body-scanners-didnt-work-did-let-him-see-you-naked.shtml

[Thinkingabout]

26. Congress in the past few years has been a failure also but I don't see a lot of Congressional

members resigning except for those with huge problems.

[lostnfound]

10. The one we used to have before 9-11. I doubt the one we have today would stop box cutters anyway.

The buildup of the TSA amounted to corporate welfare for the makers of those expensive body scanners and perhaps some social manipulation along with it.

[truebluegreen]

17. I don't think there was any "perhaps"

about the social manipulation. It was and is all about keeping the citizens scared, and in line.

[Thinkingabout]

20. Are you scared? I'm not, I just perfer safety. Flying is something you choose to do,

part of your ticket price covers the cost of security. You don't have to go through TSA unless you fly.

[truebluegreen]

31. "Scared" That's funny.

If I were "scared", I wouldn't live where I do. Dealing with TSA, however, is a pain in the ass, and a pointless albeit expensive one. QED

[Thinkingabout]

32. So, what is your alternative perhaps less costly way.

[truebluegreen]

33. I'd refer you to Hassle Cat for suggestions

since he/she knows far more about this than you or I. But it is clear that what TSA is doing involves a lot of pointless but expensive BS, from equipment to analysis...and at the same time, I can tell you that I've flown into and out of various other countries and felt far more effectively, but less obtrusively, scrutinized than in any American airport. TSA, for starters, needs better-educated and better-paid employees.

[Thinkingabout]

19. The system which failed?

[Logical]

34. You assume is is making us safer I assume? nt

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. Is the news story legitimate?

Think about it. You have a stunning security breach? Do you announce that breach to the world? That doesn't seem terribly smart.

However, if you wanted terrorists to show their hand, you'd loudly announce that we have the most horrible airport security out there, in the hopes that they'd show up at airports and get caught.

However, the terrorists are probably one step ahead on that one, and won't show up at the airport in the thought that the news story is a bluff, which is a good thing, because the news announced that 95% of guns and explosives were finding their way through TSA.

Is the news story legitimate? Think about it. You have a stunning security breach? Do you announce that breach to the world? That doesn't seem terribly smart.

However, if you wanted terrorists to show their hand, you'd loudly announce.....

[Exilednight]

8. There's no reason to doubt it. I travel quite a bit, and find this number to be quite realistic

Watching TSA work for about twenty minutes. It's ineffeciient and overpriced with all that money going to contractors.

[HassleCat]

12. It's real

I worked for TSA and had direct experience with the "red teams," the testers who try to sneak simulated threats through the screening process. In most cases, the screening process is too rushed, and the equipment and procedures not well suited to finding the threats. In some cases, the test pieces contained threats that could not be seen, even knowing they were there and looking directly at them.

[Oktober]

23. These stories have been around for years...

... This one just seemed to gain some traction.

It was a fundamentally broken system from day one...

Personnel, technology and management just blown out of the water and utilized in the worst ways possible...

[Logical]

36. You really think there are terrorists trying to kill us? nt

[PeoViejo]

9. TSA: Keeping us afraid

so that the PTB can pursue their militaristic misadventures without much push-back from the Proles.

It's really very simple. They will conjure-up another false-flag op, whenever a vote in Congress is needed to fund their game, just like they did before the last vote, and many before it.

[Populist_Prole]

24. Bingo

I can't tell you how many people I've heard that defend all this authoritarian muck and meekly utter the "well, they keep us safe" meme.

[Logical]

37. Yep! So the patriot act and spying on Americans can continue. nt

[liberal N proud]

16. 3 reasons - make someone rich, pepetuate the fear of terrorism, illusion of action

Someone is making a bundle from the whole program from scanners to x-rays and everything in between.

We must keep the public aware that there are terrorist out there even if you don't watch FOX, you need to be made aware.

Having screening at the airport, provides the illusion that someone is actually keeping you safe while you travel.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Because the "Home of the Brave" is very afraid of bogeymen.

[valerief]

29. Isn't it to enrich the weapons and surveillance industry? nt

[raouldukelives]

30. Bingo. As always, it is to enrich the owners of those corporations. nt

[Blue_Tires]

35. Because it's a jobs program, plain and simple...