"Unpredictable Security"
 

Hi,

The TSA says it's moving to "unpredictable security" to make it harder for terrorists to game the system. I've heard fairly little discussion on how that works or whether it's a good idea.

This article http://www.crypto.com/blog/random/ by a computer scientist / game theorist named Matt Blaze (he's big in crypto, similar to Bruce Schneider, but less famous outside) argues that it's a bad idea.

I'm a chemical engineer by trade, and I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, but the analysis of how to approach the problem is interesting.

FWIW.

FormerDeltaMan, now flying AA

Unpredictable security = "We don't know what we are doing, and even if we did, we can't do it right. Since you don't know what we are supposed to be doing, we will say we are doing what we are supposed to and you won't know any better. Its about the layers."

Well that summed it up nicely, good job. ^

The layers- my local farm stand has them too- fresh eggs are the best.:D

Not sure about TSA, but the chickens do have a long history of doing what they are supposed to do.:p

brilliant. they do't always know what they are supposed to be doing either.

I find this condescending. The TSA is so obviously aiming for damage control, and the "unpredictable" plan is a thinly-veiled cover-up. I say "condescending" because the TSA is acting as if nobody can see through their incompetence.

We've been doing unpredictable screening for a long time. It's nothing new.

Yep.

"Some airports do, some airports don’t. Each airport is different."

EDIT: Welcome to FlyerTalk, FormerDeltaMan!

I'm aware of the long history of "unpredictable" programs. I just think it's a convenient way to say "we're inconsistent because we don't know what we're doing."

No doubt. Unfortunately, Ma and Pa Kettle really do believe, all too often, that the vagaries of TSA screening are intentional. You can fool some of the people all of the time....

Bruce

I knew I should have finished the GED
 

U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Screener Employment Eligibility Requirements
December 19, 2001

When the TSA takes over the responsibility for passenger screening operations all newly hired screeners must:

* Possess a high school diploma or general education diploma or have one year of any type of work experience that demonstrates the applicant's ability to perform the work of the position.

...

Maybe I can still get in on that one year of actual work experience thing :)

Seriously, it seems pretty clear there is a mismatch between the professionalism we want TSA to bring to the job, and the requirements for becoming a TSO in the first place. Of course not all TSO's - there's bound to be a college graduate in there somewhere.

Well I'm pretty sure a large majority of TSA agents were C or D students in both high school and university. They attract the same caliber of students as McDonald's.

The "unpredictable security" mantra is now a catch-all when you challenge the TSA.

In the thread on shoes in or out of the bins, I asked why there wasn't a directive sent to each airport stating the shoes are either all on the belts or in the bins and then everyone would be on the same page. A retort from a TSO said that it was designed that way for the unpredictability factor.

Right.

Because Al Qaida operatives are sitting somewhere thinking, "If only our shoes had been IN the bins, we would have succeeded in blowing up the plane."

Unpredictable my .... TSA embodies the words "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."

And those are the kind words.

...And those people are idiots.

You have to look at it from the TSA's point of view.

Terrorism is something they can't control, and they know it. There are just too many ways to do something, too many uncontrollable circumstances. But you can't just throw up your arms and do nothing - you have to do something to prove you are doing your job.

So you attack what you CAN have an effect on. But even then you can't balance out some peoples paranoia versus other people's laizze-fair approach. Not to mention you don't have the resources to do it, or the brainpower to figure it all out in any case. And to get the money, well you have to make it look like you are totally in control.

So you implement random policies. None of them are really going to stop anything, and you know that. But they are random, so they are not in your face enough to get travelers really riled up. And it makes it look like you are doing something really serious, even though it really is just a bunch of smoke.

It all comes down to the government. No, actually, it comes down to the people. The ones who want to hype security. Use it as a rock to throw in their political squabbles. Keep from actually doing anything productive by hyping up the unproductive.

What worries me is that this so distracts from real security measures, which is better security staffing, better monitoring, and eliminating the threats in the first place, instead of how to stop the bombs after they get in the airport.

Except for one problem. IF, by accident, TSA catches a tewwowist, Jan Nap will be on top of the Washington Monument screaming to the wind "We Gots One." When asked how, was it due to careful planning by DHS brass, the answer will be 'Well, we were doing random stuff and we caught him by doing, em, whatever it was we were randomly doing at the exact moment we happened to catch him by total accident." :td:

"Random" as your official security policy means replacing all TSO with some AARP members, a few volunteer Boy Scouts and two dozen bowls of goldfish will have the same chance of catching tewwowists as the Professional We Want To Unionize TSOs. "Random" is a billion dollar joke that is not funny.

Especially if there is so much adrenaline that she runs up the outside of the monument, and someone posts the whole event on U-tube. :D

Perhaps, but I have to bring up the fact that there are plenty of TSOs that believe that these random policies are the only thing keeping planes from falling out of the sky. The intrepid TSO warrior shtick is old and tired and the resulting power trip is vile.

You only have to go back and read the threads on Steve Bierfeldt's detainment over $4700 in cash to see what I mean.

First person you have to fool is yourself.

That's the whole problem here - they are trying just as hard to convince themselves they are doing the "right thing" by focusing security on all these little details as they are on selling it to anyone else. No matter how many different little preventative measures you take, someone is going to find a way around them. For that matter, even if you made air travel itself perfectly safe, then you still have outside factors - security in airports, trains, or just things to target aircraft from the ground or other aircraft. There is no way to prevent every possibility. Unpredictable Security Measures are not about more security, they are about propaganda.

When so much emphasis is placed by the government and TSA on the propaganda war, they are seriously neglecting the actual security issue, which is watching out for unusual activity, and more importantly, stopping the whole terrorism game before it even gets to terrorists. he only way you are going to stop the terrorists is to make terrorism itself more detrimental to their cause than helpful. This time they didn't blow up a plane. but they still achieved the same results - they created chaos, disruption, and caused people to be that much more disinclined to fly. If these acts stop creating that effect for them, there no longer is a purpose in them doing it.

Confused?
 

The TSA's statement that they will start "unpredictable security" left me confused. Hasn't this been the way they have been operating since the department's inception.

Based on my own observations, newspaper accounts, and FT posts verify the unpredictability of security. Some bad guys get through secuity to board planes and some don't. Is it their intent to increase the unpredicability of their security?

What am I missing?