TSA eyes 'Randomizers' to sort security lines
Jul 11, 2013, 4:42 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,685
TSA eyes 'Randomizers' to sort security lines
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...lines/2508349/
The Transportation Security Administration is planning to use electronic "Randomizers" to help it funnel fliers into airport security lines.
In addition to providing a bias-free way to route travelers into different queues, it also would make it more difficult for potential security evaders to game which security queue they get sent to.
The TSA issued a Request for Information (RFI) late last month in which it has asked interested vendors "to share ideas and suggestions for procuring Randomizer systems ... ." The systems, if adopted, would be deployed at most medium and large commercial U.S. airports, according to the RFI.
HAT TIP: TSA will use electronic 'Randomizers' to randomly route passengers to screening lines (Government Security News)
"The Randomizers would be used to route passengers randomly to different checkpoint lines," the TSA says in the RFI.
When asked about the motivation of the Randomizers, the TSA said in a statement to Today in the Sky that it "employs a multilayer approach to security, utilizing measures that are both seen and unseen, and will always incorporate random and unpredictable security measures."
That's consistent with what the agency has said in recent years about its efforts to keep potential security evaders off balance.
Presumably, a randomizer would make it more difficult for a would-be terrorist to angle for a queue with a specific explosive detection device or screening procedure.
Additionally, such a device also would give the TSA an automated way to manage security lines with fewer worries about bias or profiling.
Among the requirements spelled out in the TSA's RFI is the ability to "randomize" passengers to queues without using labels — or even colors — that could indicate any bias for or against any traveler.
For example, the TSA's RFI reads that a successful Randomizer would "display the binary result to the Passenger and Transportation Security Officer using symbols that do not have negative connotations (No usage of 'Yes/No,' 'O/X', usage of the color combination of Green and Red. An example of an acceptable signal is an arrow using the same color scheme)."
In addition to providing a bias-free way to route travelers into different queues, it also would make it more difficult for potential security evaders to game which security queue they get sent to.
The TSA issued a Request for Information (RFI) late last month in which it has asked interested vendors "to share ideas and suggestions for procuring Randomizer systems ... ." The systems, if adopted, would be deployed at most medium and large commercial U.S. airports, according to the RFI.
HAT TIP: TSA will use electronic 'Randomizers' to randomly route passengers to screening lines (Government Security News)
"The Randomizers would be used to route passengers randomly to different checkpoint lines," the TSA says in the RFI.
When asked about the motivation of the Randomizers, the TSA said in a statement to Today in the Sky that it "employs a multilayer approach to security, utilizing measures that are both seen and unseen, and will always incorporate random and unpredictable security measures."
That's consistent with what the agency has said in recent years about its efforts to keep potential security evaders off balance.
Presumably, a randomizer would make it more difficult for a would-be terrorist to angle for a queue with a specific explosive detection device or screening procedure.
Additionally, such a device also would give the TSA an automated way to manage security lines with fewer worries about bias or profiling.
Among the requirements spelled out in the TSA's RFI is the ability to "randomize" passengers to queues without using labels — or even colors — that could indicate any bias for or against any traveler.
For example, the TSA's RFI reads that a successful Randomizer would "display the binary result to the Passenger and Transportation Security Officer using symbols that do not have negative connotations (No usage of 'Yes/No,' 'O/X', usage of the color combination of Green and Red. An example of an acceptable signal is an arrow using the same color scheme)."
Jul 11, 2013, 4:58 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,967
I would be in favour of this if it were done the way CATSA handles flights to the US from Canada.
WTMD is primary for all lanes; during the periods when the MMW is active, there is a randomizer mat. Those selected are given the choice of a non-TSA style patdown, or the MMW.
A very small percentage of travellers is actually scanned, from what I have witnessed at various airports, and then only after they choose from a non-invasive patdown or the MMW. There is no indication however from the article that the US would go this route ie reduce the amount of people being scanned; it would just reduce the ability to self opt out.
WTMD is primary for all lanes; during the periods when the MMW is active, there is a randomizer mat. Those selected are given the choice of a non-TSA style patdown, or the MMW.
A very small percentage of travellers is actually scanned, from what I have witnessed at various airports, and then only after they choose from a non-invasive patdown or the MMW. There is no indication however from the article that the US would go this route ie reduce the amount of people being scanned; it would just reduce the ability to self opt out.
Jul 11, 2013, 5:02 pm
#3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Orlando
Programs: DL 4MM/PM, UA 1MM/Gold, AA Paper
Posts: 1,386
More of our tax money going to waste courtesy of the TSA! I wonder how long these possible "Randomizers" will be installed before they are shipped off to a warehouse because they do not work, are ineffective and increase wait time to get screened. I would say it is unbelievable but it is the TSA we are talking about.
Jul 11, 2013, 5:18 pm
#6
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
I am actually concerned about this as it would take away the opportunity to pick lines/terminals that do not send one to body scanners. Also, I am surprised about how much money that they are willing to spend on something this simple. Could this mean that perhaps they are planning on using fewer body scanners though, and using randomizers to justify not sending everyone to them?
Jul 11, 2013, 5:25 pm
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,685
I am actually concerned about this as it would take away the opportunity to pick lines/terminals that do not send one to body scanners. Also, I am surprised about how much money that they are willing to spend on something this simple. Could this mean that perhaps they are planning on using fewer body scanners though, and using randomizers to justify not sending everyone to them?
The system shall 6) initiate the randomizer function in a hands-free manner and be transparent to the passenger
Jul 11, 2013, 6:37 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
More of our tax money going to waste courtesy of the TSA! I wonder how long these possible "Randomizers" will be installed before they are shipped off to a warehouse because they do not work, are ineffective and increase wait time to get screened. I would say it is unbelievable but it is the TSA we are talking about.
But, this RFI also acknowledges that the wTMDs are here to stay because the TSA can't handle the amount of passengers during rush hours all going through the PornoScopes.
The joke is on us for allow this to persist and for allowing our elected officials to allow this to persist.
Jul 11, 2013, 7:10 pm
#10
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
So, you get randomized to the nude-o-scope but you can't raise your arms to surrender. What then? Grope, I presume.
Or you get randomized to the nude-o-scope and it detects an "anomaly."
What then? Grope again, I guess.
So doesn't scenario #1 become a de facto SDOO?
And couldn't a person just declare a bodily "anomaly" and decline the NOS?
Or you get randomized to the nude-o-scope and it detects an "anomaly."
What then? Grope again, I guess.
So doesn't scenario #1 become a de facto SDOO?
And couldn't a person just declare a bodily "anomaly" and decline the NOS?
Jul 11, 2013, 8:04 pm
#11
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I could present a large number of issues, dealing with the esoteric nature of how randomness really works, but all you really need to imagine is this scenario:
Incredibly attractive passenger approaches the checkpoint. Inappropriately creepy TSO sees attractive passenger, rolls dice, then says "congratulations, you've been 'randomly' selected for enhanced screening", regardless of what number was actually rolled. Voyeuristic joy ensues.
Hey, it worked for Dr. Venkman.
To be effective, it's not enough that the process in place be adequately random; the process also has to appear to be adequately random. (This is one of the positive aspects of Security Theater as it is practiced in places other than US airports.)
Walking up to a Big Complicated Box and having the passenger press The Big Red Button in order to generate a randomized result to determine what kind of screening they receive may seem overcomplicated. But it visibly eliminates most opportunities for creepy TSOs to manipulate the process.
Jul 11, 2013, 8:15 pm
#12
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 569
This was suggested on the TSA Blog years ago (by gsoltso, perhaps?). The problem is ... I know just enough about probability to know why this could be problematic.
I could present a large number of issues, dealing with the esoteric nature of how randomness really works, but all you really need to imagine is this scenario:
Hey, it worked for Dr. Venkman.
To be effective, it's not enough that the process in place be adequately random; the process also has to appear to be adequately random. (This is one of the positive aspects of Security Theater as it is practiced in places other than US airports.)
Walking up to a Big Complicated Box and having the passenger press The Big Red Button in order to generate a randomized result to determine what kind of screening they receive may seem overcomplicated. But it visibly eliminates most opportunities for creepy TSOs to manipulate the process.
I could present a large number of issues, dealing with the esoteric nature of how randomness really works, but all you really need to imagine is this scenario:
Incredibly attractive passenger approaches the checkpoint. Inappropriately creepy TSO sees attractive passenger, rolls dice, then says "congratulations, you've been 'randomly' selected for enhanced screening", regardless of what number was actually rolled. Voyeuristic joy ensues.
Hey, it worked for Dr. Venkman.
To be effective, it's not enough that the process in place be adequately random; the process also has to appear to be adequately random. (This is one of the positive aspects of Security Theater as it is practiced in places other than US airports.)
Walking up to a Big Complicated Box and having the passenger press The Big Red Button in order to generate a randomized result to determine what kind of screening they receive may seem overcomplicated. But it visibly eliminates most opportunities for creepy TSOs to manipulate the process.
Jul 11, 2013, 8:27 pm
#13
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Jul 11, 2013, 8:45 pm
#14
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Programs: AS 100K, UA MM, AA MM, IC Plat Amb, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 3,146
And it still works this way -- at least at GDL, where I entered in May. Part of me wonders whether this process (which appears to be totally random) isn't influenced behind the scenes by someone who thinks I should/should not be subjected for further screening. The process does appear to be random, but truthfully, there's no way for me to ever know.....
Jul 11, 2013, 9:32 pm
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,685
And (as a part of Security Theater) it is the appearance that is the essence of the issue. As a software engineer, I'm acutely aware that (given only deterministic processing) computers cannot generate truly random numbers. Rather, computers generate numbers that appear to be random. For this reason, they're called pseudorandom numbers.
And it still works this way -- at least at GDL, where I entered in May. Part of me wonders whether this process (which appears to be totally random) isn't influenced behind the scenes by someone who thinks I should/should not be subjected for further screening. The process does appear to be random, but truthfully, there's no way for me to ever know.....
And it still works this way -- at least at GDL, where I entered in May. Part of me wonders whether this process (which appears to be totally random) isn't influenced behind the scenes by someone who thinks I should/should not be subjected for further screening. The process does appear to be random, but truthfully, there's no way for me to ever know.....