TSA: Wasteful and Insecure
I travel a great deal so I frequently find myself in the company of TSA agents who check my boarding pass, remind me to remove my shoes, jacket, belt, laptop, liquids, and all items from my pockets (including the previously inspected boarding pass), and then screen these things, as well as myself. Every time I find myself standing in line, in my socks, I inevitably contemplate the efficiency of the system. It’s only half an hour or so per flight, but when you multiply that number by all the people traveling in the United States, it’s a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money. And this comes not only from the TSA, but also in the form of lost productivity of all the people standing in line in various states of undress. One has to wonder whether it’s worth it.
It’s likely that on an individual level, we’re merely annoyed by the time and hassle of the present security routine, after all, it’s difficult to imagine how many resources are being used as you hurry through the lines. Lucky for us, this organization made a fantastic flowchart to help us see how much time and money we’re spending collectively on TSA, and, more importantly, what kind of results that investment is yielding. Judging from the price (over $60 billion) versus results (very few that are discernable), the question is: what do we do? Clearly we want to be safe and we want to prevent any terrorist activities, but it doesn’t seem that the current system is working, to say nothing of efficiency.
Perhaps in this situation, more is less. That is, maybe if we’re willing to give up more information about our travels and our lives, we’ll have to endure less time-consuming and haphazard scrutiny at the airport. For example, I recently had an interview with U.S. Customs and Border Protection as part of the Global Online Enrollment System (GOES), which preauthorizes approved frequent travelers to enter the US more quickly. I allowed them to do a background and credit check, and then met with an officer for an interview so that he could determine whether I posed any security risks (I’m happy to say I do not). Essentially, I opted for a reduction in privacy in return for not spending half an hour several times a week in line. For now it only applies to in-bound international flights, but I hope it will become more widespread.
At bottom, we have to give up some freedom and information in exchange for security. There’s no avoiding it. So the question is whether we want to do that in half-hour, invasive (not to mention ineffective) increments, or to go through a longer process once that looks further into our lives. Because the cost of the former comes is in small, redundant bits, we tend to overlook it, but in terms of hassle and time spent collectively, the second is a far better option.
That said, similar approaches to cutting time and money spent on security checks for domestic travel might be worthwhile. If individuals could agree to being tracked to a higher degree in order to gain quicker passage through security lines, it would allow TSA (or perhaps another group in charge of security) to know more readily who is and is not on flights. That way we could stop the inanity of having to take off our shoes, being x-rayed, and limiting liquids to theoretically non-explosive amounts.
After all, when you consider the approach to security so far, who knows what the next step might be—will we have to wear certain clothes only, carry only certain kinds of luggage, or no luggage at all? Instead we need a comprehensive approach that addresses concerns more fully, rather than the reactionary, piecemeal approach we have at present.

The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone - Especially Ourselves

Interesting point og view. Especially regarding social economic loss.
(As a constructive feedback to the text: Being a foreigner, I was not familiar with the abbreviation “TSA”, so I had to leave your site to google it.)
Your article assumes that travel is safer now with the TSA in place than it was before. I’ve yet to see any evidence of that. What I have seen are arbitary rules enforcement, making up rules on the spot, and general unpleasantness.
I’m in Canada, and the difference between a flight bound for the US and one that isn’t are remarkable. I have to say, I’m more fearful now of getting hassled by the TSA because I forgot to remove a metal hair clip or because my last name sounds vaguely Middle Eastern (in point of fact it isn’t) than of the plane being hijacked.
I’m old enough to remember when travel to the US was a friendly experience — world’s longest undefended border, shared history and culture, and all that. Not anymore.
Welcome to Bruce Schneier’s personal hell
Too many link’s to post, but start here –> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/harms_of_post-9.html
I think the TSA are worse then terrorists. If I were killed by a terrorist this year, they would in fact be stealing from me the approximately the 40 years of life that I have remaining. Since the TSA, on a daily basis, steals more then that in total from people, I consider them to be a far, far worse menace to society. The fact that they do it from many people in 30 minute increments does not justify their behaviour or make it better. Ultimately the crime of murder is a theft of time from us, and it is the same crime that is committed by the TSA, making the TSA worse then the terrorists that they are supposed to protect us from.
I am not sure I understand your reasoning, Dan.
The shoe, etc… inspections aim to minimise phisical threats to/ on the flights (i.e., bombs, arms and so on).
The interview, on the other hand, seems to be about blocking the entry of problematic individuals, such as terrorists, in the country.
So, we are talking about different risks, here. Unless I misunderstood something…
“inspections aim to minimise physical threats to/on the flights”
—>
Which is, in and as of itself, part of the problem. It is a truism in the security field that There Is No Such Thing As Perfect Security. To expand a bit on Dans’ point, it isn’t just about inspection, its about “how much inspection”. Consider our recent past
- metal detectors
- air puff thingies (which proved to not work)
- back-scatter x-ray (dubious value)
- shoes (‘cos of the shoe-bomber)
- liquids (‘cos of heathrow)
to be crude, imagine what’ll happen when someone tries to smuggle a stick of dynamite onto a plane by shoving it up his behind – will we have mandatory proctological exams?
(oh, btw, this isn’t far-fetched – there was an assassination attempt that used this technique — http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-5347847.html )
You clearly have not thought about how your “solution” would scale. You are happy to exchange procedural risk (this background check cannot remain secure if done for hundreds of millions of people) and abuse of highly sensitive personal data (what makes you think there *IS* a technology which could make the repository of such data for hundreds of millions of people secure) in exchange for what you experience as an annoyance. I see it as a cultural ritual: it has some use and occasionaly some entertainment value. (BTW. I start to think your blog is crowdsourcing: throw out half baked ideas and see which ones resonate?)
“Solution” not scaling –>
Good point, ‘cept I see it as replacing one type of Security Theater with another. Neither is optimal, but having been through the GOES process myself, I can pretty much validate that its pretty much stuff thats already out there and/or accessible by the TSA folks.
The point being, its forcing the TSA/whoever to use *some* intelligence behind their screening process.
That said, the best aproach is to actually take all the money spent on this, and spend it on threat prevention: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/harms_of_post-9.html
I’ve often wondered if all this “protection” isn’t so much for the benefit of society as a whole but is really aimed at and demanded by the Corporatocracy. 60 billion dollars could buy a lot of things… universal pre-school for 3 & 4 year olds… free college for about half of all full-time college students… massive infrastructure upgrades to roads and transit systems and so much more – http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/what-does-60-billion-buy/
60 billion is a theoretical number made up of partially br adding up time lost by individuals standing in line multiplied by how much thatbtime is worth to them (say how much the earn per hour).
You can immediately see what that number is inane on a practical level and certainly can’t be converted into universal day care.
Nor is it reasonable to equate safety to money or convenience. By nature, the acts of being safe are less convenient. It takes more time to stop and look both ways before crossing a street but we do it anyway.
All of which sounds like Im in favor of the ridiculous lengths the TSA is being forced to go to. I am not. I just think you need to recognize facts. Either you want the to feel safe – then you let TSA do what it does, or you recognize the fact that all of their efforts will only marginally improve your safety and you move back to more reasonable safety measures.
Background checks and a database of personal information is just another step in giving the government power it was never intended to have in the name do a mythical unicorn called security.
My point – if we want to feel secure we need to shut up about our inconveniences. If we can face reality that there is no real safe and we are living in a time of higher risk, we can get rid of the inconvenience.
I agree…travel has become worrisome and more complicated than it should be. Clearly, there is efficiency at stake, since whoever has terrorist intentions continues to find other ways to harm the common man all over the world. With the onslaught of one restriction after another for traveling, I worry for what is to come in the future. And again, with all that money, perhaps we can help people find jobs and become better equipped to afford gas and other life staples.
Or we could just profile passengers since 98% of all terrorists are Muslim, not grandmothers, toddlers, or Americans. To date not one terrorist has been captured, stopped or apprehended by a TSA agent. Indeed, there has been an increased amount of crime—theft, rape, assault and sexual molestation by TSA agents at airports around the country.
Security at JFK estimates 50 thefts a day by TSA agents. In at least one public incident regarding a terrorist who did attempt something on board a flight, both passengers and TSA agents claimed U.S. government officials avoided the TSA check-in and used their authority to walk the terrorist on the plane, suggesting yet another “inside job” or planned attack.
Americans don’t have to exchange freedom for security. They choose to. Numerous organizations (journalists for one) have proven it is possible to bypass security. Dogs, which the most secure airports in the world use, are better at detecting terrorist threats than TSA, yet few American airports will use them.
Americans are more fearful of being politically incorrect and offending a brutal, annihilation oriented culture/faith/regime than they are of protecting their own sovereignty, privacy and respect. So, don’t expect the TSA to go away. I expect it will only get worse.
“Muslim…not Americans”. I guess you don’t consider Muslim Americans to be Americans.
You bring up the point that no terrorists have been caught, but many may be deterred and I believe this is really the agenda. The TSA is not out there attempting to apprehend bad guys, that’s the job of other agencies, theirs is deterrence. Having shared this, I do feel that profiling would be another excellent tool and that the PC attitudes of a number of Americans hamstrings our best attempts to stay safe.
you can place the evidence for ‘Terrorists Deterred by Heavy-handed Security Checks’ in your file with the evidence for (God, Zeus, Fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Alien abductions, Ghosts, Afterlife, etc) — there should be ample room in there.
johnrstafford is right. This is a way for corporations to have the government pay for their security. If events happened, fewer people would fly and that would cut into profits.
The main purpose of the system is to keep people on edge. Studies have shown that when people are afraid, they tend to vote more republican. That is why the entire republican campaign is built on fear, not positive change.
The TSA efforts are useless and expensive. Many studies have demonstrated that the system is easy to foil. Any serious terrorist could succeed in spite of this security theater.
Myself, I would prefer that a small amount of disaster be accepted. I could see 3 or 4 airplane incidents a year occurring as being acceptable. That would still make flying safer than driving.
Hi, Dan,
Actually, if you’re in Global Entry, TSA does now (at some airports) speed security for domestic flights as well. They call it “Precheck” (see: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/escreening.shtm) and it basically requires you to provide your GOES PASSID to your airline, which encodes it on the boarding pass, and the first TSA agent is supposed to (usually) direct you to the precheck line where you don’t have to take off shoes, belts, light jackets, etc. and don’t have to remove laptops.
I’m not thrilled about the whole privacy/convenience tradeoff, but having also bit the bullet and joined Global Entry, it’s nice to know that if I’m safe enough for expedited entry into the US from abroad, I’m also safe for expedited travel within the US.
Yet everyone forgets that terrorists are not idiots.
If there is a way to get into a “bypass airport security for life” group, then what happens is that people who are concerned about their privacy have to endure these tedious waits and screening, whereas the malevolent can simply figure out what the rules are, and then live by them (or fabricate lives that look like that), and be assured that they get through security.
Why? Because unlike regular occasional travelers, they have a very real incentive
if you think all terrorists aren’t idiots you haven’t seen Monkey Dust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CO&hl=es-419&v=gFhGnO0uYqY
I hit the link in Schwartz’s email trying to find my way into the system: I’m sick of pulling out the laptop and taking off my shoes. And I don’t care what the government knows about me. But negotiating the various webpages I got into has persuaded me that the time and effort it would take to get one of these passes isn’t worth the savings in time and hassle given the number of trips I take and the airports from and to which I travel.
Dan,
As an Israeli, you surely know that the best solution is to profile. While you might consider this a form of giving up your freedom too, at least you don’t have to spend hours proving that you are not a threat. Obviously that is the most efficient and in my view fairest way to protect travelers.
“At bottom, we have to give up some freedom and information in exchange for security. There’s no avoiding it.”
Do we? Why? Who says it makes security more effective rather than merely more invasive?
What it would enable is more sophisticated discrimination. What is to stop the government from allowing you to fly if you don’t meet certain credit requirements such as a debt to income ratio? Or if they don’t like the last few books you’ve purchased from Amazon. Straw men perhaps, but realistic given this country’s history of abuse of power.
Airport security is the result of the availability heuristic at work. The media makes it out to be worse than it is in reality. We see disproportionate coverage on TV and believe we need ridiculous security measures “to be safe”.
In reality, many more people die ANNUALLY during day-to-day activities than in all the terrorist attacks against the U.S. for the past 22 years combined. That includes such things as suffocation, poisoning, driving, fires, drowning and suicide….each of which have thousands or tens of thousands of fatalities annually.
I think any rational approach to living has to allow for “reasonable risk” associated with whatever opportunities present themselves. At some point the cost in time, money, or other resources to negate or minimize risk completely overwhelms any possible benefit of the activity.
So, seat belts and airbags are appropriate levels of risk management for driving. Having to take a driving test, a breathalyzer, and file a safety inspection checklist every time you start the engine would be overkill.
So the question is: Assuming it’s even marginally effective in exacerbating terrorist threats, what level of risk management is appropriate?
And I’d say we’ve more than crossed that line.
Did I really type “exacerbating”? Dang… I meant assuaging or ameliorating!
Anyone who sacrifices liberty for security shall obtain neither. – Thomas Jefferson
it’s all about making the public feel safer, not actively increasing security. the suggestion of privatising it would not necessarily guarantee it would be cheaper, more efficient or reduce the personal abuse that passengers suffer (in order to feel ‘safer’). terrorists / hijackers / bombers will find a way no matter waht you do…
Great post! Just went through security in Seattle. Exactly 1/2 hour wasted time! Would love tone able to go through a prescreen process. Thank you for all of the posts that I enjoy.charlie
Background and credit checks are ok, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. Real time monitoring is required, but it is impossible to make it perfect.
I find myself giving up more and more of my freedom. Bit by bit. Little by little. I am tired of it. The whole topic is wearying. People who are dishonest (in example–terrorists
) will always find a way around the systems in place while those of us who are honest (in example–traveling for adoption in China–me), will wait in long lines, undress as asked and be touched by complete strangers in places friends don’t even touch, just to get from A-Z. I have no answers, but appreciate the conversation.
A valid discussion of tradeoffs that, unfortunately, assumes a benefit to the existence/operations of the TSA, which underperforms other security firms/operations around the world. As for the “cost” of allowing the TSA into our pants, I refer you to Ben Franklin (attrib.): “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
Let us remember that we ended up with the TSA because the privatized system of minimum wage rent-a-cops failed in a big way. I tend to agree with Schneier’s observation that the biggest improvement in airline security is knowing that the passengers will fight back. That said, there is no guarantee that a privatized system will be more effective at reducing the need to fight back than the present public system.
As a former Federal law enforcement agent and temporary sky marshall anyone who thinks that the TSA is making airline travel safer has fallen for their PR. The Israel’s do it much better, but then they don’t have millions of liberals who think profiling is bad and that hundreds of millions of Americans and others should put up with this invasion of privacy to protect those that really should be put through this process. When was the last time senior citizens or families traveling with kids tried to blow up an air plane? Not to exclude others, but how about coming up with a better process? The Global Entry and body scanners are a step in the right direction. If we took all the salaries of TSA and dedicated it to research I’m sure we can do better.
Sometimes I wonder if the whole “security process” isn’t, in reality, a way to create a “stress scenario” under which a potential terrorist/threat would display noticeable signs which could then be detected by trained and watchful scrutinizing eyes… who’d then frustrate the malicious intent. You know, faking against emotions is so very hard to do.
Here we go again. All we need to do is privatise security screening and everything will be ok. Ho hum. There will be the same wastage, we’ll still be hassled by the same morons and inefficiencies will still be there.
The only difference will be that our money will be going into the coffers of corporations who will make a fortune . (I was going to say make a bomb but this is not the right context lol).
I’d rather see money going into the coffers of a government than corporations who are even more self interested and self perpetuating than government departments.
This is a great article. It is interesting to note how many complaints are coming about as a result of TSA’s poor service. I also heard that their employee turnover rate is extremely high. Maybe brining in the private sector would make operations smoother….
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my weblog so i got here to go back the choose?.I am attempting to find things to enhance my web site!I assume its good enough to use some of your ideas!!|
I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is needed to get setup? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very web savvy so I’m not 100% certain. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks|
Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful article. Many thanks for providing this information.%7
Dan;
judging by the volume of spam in your blog now, I think it’s time WordPress offered a Flag as Spam / Innappropriate for comments… or at least block URLs from being used by posters.
cheers, Kris.
Many thanks for writing this fantastic write-up..Cherished your content. Remember to do sustain writing