Schneier removed from TSA oversight meeting at TSA request

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/congressional_t.html

by zdw • 14 years ago

630 96 14 years ago

vgnet• 14 years ago

I couldn't find a peep about the meeting in TSA's blog. I find it ludicrous that they can boot a top tier expert without enough time to replace him by anyone that could bring similar points to the discussion.

pavel_lishin4• 14 years ago

I think you're confused. Their blog is not an information-dissemination service, it is a marketing instrument.

dangrossman2• 14 years ago

You would've gotten the same message across without also insulting vgnet by omitting that first sentence.

joshz• 14 years ago

I guess if anybody is to confirm that it's in fact a circus, it'll be the TSA themselves. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

wpietri• 14 years ago

The committee membership is here:

http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/

That's over 20 different states represented there, so odds are good you can contact one of the members and be listened to. Let 'em know this is bullshit, and that if we're going to spend money on security, it shouldn't be on theater.

kungfooey• 14 years ago

Thanks for the link. I just emailed my representative on the committee.

donw• 14 years ago

Send a physical letter -- it has far more impact, especially if handwritten.

cliveholloway• 14 years ago

When I heard Schneier had been invited I actually thought the government was going to take this seriously.

Obviously this is now going to be just another whitewash. sigh

jerrya• 14 years ago

What is the point of an oversight hearing if you refuse to let your top critics testify?

cheald• 14 years ago

Theater, of course.

jergason• 14 years ago

Sent Jason Chaffetz (my representative) the following email:

Disgusted With The TSA

I was looking forward to seeing the TSA respond to Bruce Schneier's criticisms in the Oversight Committee meeting today. He is one of the world's experts on security. The news that he was dismissed from the committee makes me think the TSA is much less interested in actual security than in their own appearance, which fits the definition of security theatre very well. Please hold the TSA accountable for their gross misuse of power. Please make them answer to actual security experts on their policies. Thank you very much.

davidw• 14 years ago

Phone calls and real mail are supposedly more effective.

DanielBMarkham• 14 years ago

There used to be an old, old joke on slashdot. Whatever the topic, somebody would say "I, for one welcome our new X overlords"

I, for one, welcome our new security overlords.

For some reason, it doesn't sound as funny anymore.

There was a story recently about how all sorts of various agencies now want their own drones to watch the citizenry as we go about our normal lives. I'll never forget an interview the reporter had with a Congressman. His basic stance was something along the lines of "Boys will be boys. This is just all sorts of other agencies wanting to get in on the UAV bandwagon."

My point is this: I don't think our elected representatives take any of this very seriously at all, no matter what they might say during an election or on TV. I don't think it bothers them for one second that the TSA gets to pick it's own witnesses for each day, or that gradually we're turning into a security state. I just don't think it really registers on their radar.

raganwald• 14 years ago

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-x-ov...

fabricode• 14 years ago

I thought the overlord joke was from the Simpson's, but it turns out that they got the idea from 70's high camp: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-x-ov...

More on topic: I believe that one of the main reasons why they don't take it seriously is because they are literally above the law here. They don't have to go through the same process that ordinary travelers do. I can't find an authoritative source, so either all of Congress or only those senior members traveling with a security detail are exempt, but either way, those in charge don't understand the full impact it has on ordinary people's lives.

alain94040• 14 years ago

Not true. Here's one famous case: Senator Kennedy was on the no-fly-list for a while, so security theater applies to congress members as well as you. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug...)

rtrunck• 14 years ago

They presumably weren't always above the law and, one would hope, remember the pains of the TSA.

retroafroman• 14 years ago

Rep. Jasn Chaffetz famously got into a big fight with TSA when he was asked to go through the millimeter wave scanner, having just previously embarked on a fight to get rid of them.

talmand• 14 years ago

It's only because currently the politicians belong to a "protected" class that do not have worry over such policies, they are above them. But as history shows, eventually most of these protected class will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us and suddenly they will care. But by then it will be too late.

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

I found the comment that points out that having both parties in the same hearing who are under oath and currently engaged in a lawsuit, might find themselves making statements or responding without the benefit of having their counsel present. Then one might turn around and subpoena that testimony into the lawsuit and add it in as evidence, fairly compelling.

That being said, it is how the game is played. If one of your representatives are on the committee I would recommend writing them a note, or calling their office, to express how you think they should oversee the activities of the TSA.

One of the issues which needs more coverage is that Security Theatre is not 'harmless mostly, possibly helpful' it is in fact 'harmful mostly, possibly helpful'. This sort of theater cuts into business productivity, makes folks on the planes grumpier, causes millions of dollars in losses when folks miss planes, and erodes the citizens trust in their legitimate law enforcement agencies. It is not harmless, it is harmful and that message needs to get to Congress.

shareme• 14 years ago

if that is true than no TSA rep involved in the lawsuit can also appear before congress..I mean common use some logic please!

The TSA excuse for exclusion is sham in of itself

asr• 14 years ago

Actually, I'm pretty sure there's no compelling legal reason for the TSA to do this. If what the TSA says is admissible in a later trial (which it likely would be[1]), it will be admissible whether or not Schneier is present at this hearing. The legal angle would explain why Schneier wouldn't want to testify, but he's apparently game.

Coming from the TSA, it amounts to "we are afraid to face questions from someone who will know enough to ask hard questions." Which I agree is unsurprising, but it's not exactly a compelling defense of their position.

[1] Under, for example, Rule 801(d)(1)(A): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801

bluedanieru• 14 years ago

we're turning into a security state

This kind of thinking is dangerously misguided. You're not "turning into" a security state, you are a security state. "Freedom of speech zones" and all the other newspeak bullshit, the OWS crackdown, SOPA, ACTA, etc., to name but a few, are not stepping stones on the path to tyranny. They are tyranny. You guys have already arrived. You're there. And your society will not be able to do anything about it until it realizes this.

So quit talking as though it's something that's going to happen if you're not really careful, and start talking as though it has already happened and something needs to be done about it.

3pt14159• 14 years ago

I've had a few drinks, so this may come back to bite me in the ass one day, rather than show my usual constraint, but:

Hell yeah. They have had the right to read the subject lines of emails for decades they have been listening in on conversations since the Patriot Act. It's at the point where I, as a Canadian, have vowed not to take a flight into the states due to privacy (both in terms of fingerprints as well as those stupid scanners) until the law changes.

This is starting to impact peaceful, intelligent people. It isn't showing the economic ramifications yet, but it will 10 to 20 years from now. The smart people from Canada (and, presumably, the rest of the world) don't want to come anymore. The US can suffer this in the short term, but in the long term, especially with long term obligations like SS and Medicare/Medicaid, it cannot.

cheez• 14 years ago

Duh.

sedev• 14 years ago

I probably shouldn't be disappointed, by now, that the TSA continue to live up to the reputation that they have around here. The agency is pretty much a pure creature of cognitive bias at this point - of sunk cost fallacies, of the desperate impulse to cover one's own ass, of irrational fears and irrational responses.

I flew over the weekend. I reached a bit of a breaking point about taking the TSA seriously when I heard one of the screeners refer to a contraband item (a bottle of water) in luggage as a "party foul." Everyone but the higher-ups knows that it's an absolute farce and a waste of money. It's a great example of why the tops of hierarchies should _not_ be insulated from the consequences of their decisions - rather, the opposite.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA? The body scanner program in particular has been roundly criticized by civil libertarians (both conservative and liberal), has generated credible concerns from professional scientists as to health risks, and has been repeatedly demonstrated by physical security experts to be ineffective.

Schneier is an effective writer, particular when his audience comes with built-in respect for his accomplishments, but his broad disdain for virtually all of airport security† probably reduces his effectiveness in making a case to the wider public. He's easy to caricature, and traffics professionally in an image of "security muckraking" that suggests he'd oppose the TSA no matter what it does.

† A disdain I share, mind you.

JoshTriplett3• 14 years ago

Because Schneier in particular has shown numerous weaknesses in airport security systems. And what you've described as "disdain" amounts to treating airport security like any other kind of security system, evaluating it critically, and correctly realizing that it has almost zero value, a huge cost (in both money and time), and a huge impact on civil liberties.

In other words, he has very effective criticisms, which makes him unsuitable for hearings designed to publically demonstrate a lack of effective criticisms.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

This comment basically presumes that I disagree with Schneier and that the way to rebut my point is to re-argue what Schneier has argued. But I agree with Schneier, as do I think most people --- particularly security-minded people --- who pay attention to the TSA. My point is that Schneier has a lot of credibility with nerds and a lot of credibility with Jeffrey Goldberg but perhaps not as much credibility elsewhere as, say, an FBI agent who also disdains the TSA.

mikeash• 14 years ago

Schneier is effective because he tells a different side of the story from most. The civil libertarian angle is already pretty well covered. People take it as a security versus liberty tradeoff and the population has, in general, resoundingly chosen to favor security. I don't think there are any new arguments to be made there. The civil libertarians will say that this stuff is bad, the TSA will say that it's necessary to keep us safe, and nothing will really happen.

Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security. Not because it infringes on liberties, but because it's just not effective, and the money could be used more effectively. This approach is, I believe, the only way to convince an unreasonably frightened American public to back change.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

Schneier has less expertise in airport security than other professional security and law enforcement people who also disagree strongly with the TSA's approach to airport security.

My point isn't that "it's bad security" is a losing argument; my point is that Schneier isn't the only qualified person making that argument.

larrys4• 14 years ago

"Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security."

My question is how did it happen that Schneier was invited in the first place to testify? Did he propose it to them and got picked (and now withdrawn)? Did congressional staffers choose him?

"Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security."

Expert compared to?

He's been quoted and he is well known. But I've been quoted and I'm well known in what I'm good at. But there are others who know what I know. But they aren't as good at promotion as I am.

DanBC2• 14 years ago

> Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA?

I don't think he is presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA. I think the problem is that he would have been the only critic of the TSA to speak before the committee.

(http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/tsa-oversight-part-iii-ef...)

Mind you, the chair's comment seems scathing.

> The work of our two Committees has documented a recurring pattern of mismanagement and waste at the Transportation Security Administration. Add to this an unending string of video clips, photographs and news reports about inappropriate, clumsy and even illogical searches and screenings by TSA agents. Americans are right to demand answers from TSA about the return on investment of their tax dollars.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

TSA, TSA, Coast Guard, DHS.

If you showed me a witness list that read:

TSA, TSA, Coast Guard, Schneier, DHS

... I would suggest that the purpose of that hearing was to set up Bruce Schneier.

rhizome2• 14 years ago

Can you point me to any of these caricatures? Are you sure we're all talking about the same Bruce Schneier?

sp3322• 14 years ago

Here are a bunch, some better than others: http://www.schneierfacts.com/

njharman2• 14 years ago

He is a expert witness. One of the more renown security experts. He's not "making a case to the wider public". He is testifying before a congressional committee (or would have been).

jpdoctor2• 14 years ago

> Schneier is an effective writer

He also has technical credentials a mile long.

In truth, this is an outrage.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

None of those technical credentials involve airport security.

larrys4• 14 years ago

From his bio, I would reduce his mile long credentials to the following:

- wrote a best seller "applied cryptography"

- wrote "secrets and lies" (not a best seller)

- wrote "beyond fear"

- wrote "schneier on security"

- publishes a monthly newsletter

- chief security officer of bt.com

The rest of the bio:

http://www.schneier.com/about.html

...essentially amounts to what publications and others think of him as a result of what he has done (above) I'm guessing. What I would call "assumption of legitimacy".

"Described by The Economist"

"Described by Wired"

"Called by Fortune"

"Regularly quoted in the Media"

"Testified on security before Congress"

"Written op eds for major publications"

"crypto gram has 150,000 readers ..."

Now I don't know enough about security and haven't read any of his writings to independently know whether Schneier is an expert or not. And I'm also guessing that many of the media and others that give him credibility also don't know.

After I was quoted in major media everyone else came out of the woodwork and wanted info from me on what I know about. That of course doesn't mean I am not qualified. But it's really not that hard to get the ball rolling on being an expert once the ball is rolling.

burgerbrain• 14 years ago

Is there a list of other people the TSA is not allowing to testify? I would say the TSA has just given Schneier a pretty solid endorsement.

scythe• 14 years ago

>Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA?

It has less to do with whether he's the most effective critic of the TSA and more to do with whether he's the most effective critic of the TSA who is [was] going to be present at the hearing. All the qualified scientists and concerned LEOs in the world aren't going to do us any good if Congress doesn't listen to them. The hearing is already heavy on shills and light on saints, we need all of the voices we can get.

It would be cool if you (or anyone) could list a few people who might be really convincing, and we might be able to get them to contact Congress -- it's too late for this hearing, tho'.

With that said, this narrative about the TSA getting Schneier removed from the hearing is helpful to the cause, since it exposes the TSA's nasty manipulative tactics, so I'll be sharing this link around, and I hope you'll join me.

jodrellblank• 14 years ago

Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA?

Who is presuming that?

Bud• 14 years ago

I found it quite illuminating to peruse the list of the shills^H^H^H^H^H^Hwitnesses who are going to be allowed to testify:

Christopher L. McLaughlin, Transportation Security Administration, Assistant Administrator for Security Operations

Stephen Sadler, Transportation Security Administration, Assistant Administrator for Intelligence and Analysis

Rear Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security & Stewardship

Stephen M. Lord, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Director, Homeland Security

jjcm2• 14 years ago

(meta comment - downvote so it doesn't appear in the discussion)

Kill the name calling. We all agree on the ethical standing of these peeps. No need to state it, let's keep HN authoritative and professional. Great list of the witnesses though - really eye opening as to who they allow in.

philwelch2• 14 years ago

Quick clarification: Stephen Lord doesn't work for DHS, he works for GAO, which is an agency established by Congress to maintain, as the title says, "government accountability". His jurisdiction is over DHS. This isn't to say he's a good guy, since GAO is mostly bean counters, but there it is.

jimmar• 14 years ago

When the GAO issues a report saying that your department is ineffective, people listen. They may be bean counters, but they are fairly well respected bean counters. The reports that I have read really help identify problems in government entities.

WiseWeasel• 14 years ago

So I guess they answered the question in the title of the hearing before it even started: theater.

bdunbar3• 14 years ago

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic," replied the Doctor. "If you can keep it.”

Feels like we've lost it: the monarchists have won it back.

The pity is they're not even very good monarchists.

nknight2• 14 years ago

No, a lot of our extant problems would not be present under any reasonably sane (not necessarily benevolent) monarch, very likely including some of the more useless security apparatus. We'd just have different problems.

bdunbar3• 14 years ago

I was not implying that we'd be better off with a monarchy.

Only that the rascals in charge _want_ to be a monarchy, and they're not very good at it.

sp3322• 14 years ago

From a comment on that page by "greg":

Based on their logic, the TSA should also withdraw from the hearings as they're involved in the lawsuits.

stblack• 14 years ago

Canadian here -- a non-American perspective: your President has no cojones. If he had a pair, the TSA is one of the things he could have easily remedied, or better controlled.

njharman2• 14 years ago

Your assuming that security theater, a large target for public's anger, and a ready source of media distractions aren't all very valuable tools for The Office of the President.

1984 was a very good instruction manual.

stcredzero• 14 years ago

It's not like there's a lack of deserving decoys out there. However, the TSA has the advantage of "reaching out and touching" people literally by the multi-millions. The current situation was put in place by George W. as well. They may be the best outrageous government agency the current administration could hope for to look good by comparison to.

jjcm2• 14 years ago

Darrell Issa (one of the committee leaders) is fairly active on twitter. Let him know your concerns: https://twitter.com/#!/DarrellIssa

gkanai• 14 years ago

I also emailed my rep. (Carolyn Maloney, D-NY) who is on the TSA oversight board.

Schneier removed from TSA oversight meeting at TSA request

Related Stories