Hacker News Reader

Comment by EpicEng | Hacker News Reader

Why we don't take a page out of the Israeli's book is beyond me. They have been dealing with this for much longer, have made the mistakes we are currently making, and have learned from them.

Their airports don't have long lines and pat downs by ill-trained employees (lines of course exist, but they are shorter and not what we in the US are used to). Instead they hire fewer, educated and skilled persons, many of whom are, behaviorists to determine potential threats. It works; the last successful airport attack in Israel was in 1986, and they have prevented many since.

I remember reading about this in an interview with an ex Israeli defense minister years ago, but I couldn't find that article. This one sums it up though: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.is...

View on HN

The profiling the Israelis do would never fly in the US.

Plus, all it would take is a few media reports about people missing or not being allowed on a flight and the system would come crashing down.

From what I've read, the Israeli system basically works like this:"if I'm not convinced I'm getting the entire truth, we're going to keep doing this until I do, plane leaving or not".

Well, I'm not saying we just copy what they do blindly. The situations are different. That doesn't mean we couldn't employee some of their tactics. Particularly, I've always liked the idea of trained personal (behaviorists) who have a quick chat with every passenger while doing away with much of the security dog and pony show.

I think the problem is that the most effective techniques used by the Israelis are the ones that wouldn't fly here in the US.

However, I'm sure the TSA reached out them for information on other things.

> "if I'm not convinced I'm getting the entire truth, we're going to keep doing this until I do, plane leaving or not"

That's pretty much how it is in the U.S. too.

That's true.

I'm not saying TSA agents let suspects onto planes, but the difference in Israel (from what I've read) is that the security agents use it to a much greater degree.

For example, if you fit the wrong profile, they will not let you board even though they have little to no evidence of any wrongdoing. If it turns out later that you're "clean"? No repercussions to the agents and you'll get zero traction if you try and complain about it either to the security organization or the press. The Israeli public accepts that fact.

If that same thing happened here in the US, I don't think Americans would stand for it. Sure there have been examples of the TSA doing it, but the backlash is pretty severe and they don't seem to do it as often.

The Israeli airport security process reminds me more of the border control agents in the US (CPB). Those guys can pretty much turn away anyone they want for little to no reason (even ban you from entry permanently) and they are given that prerogative.

> For example, if you fit the wrong profile, they will not let you board even though they have little to no evidence of any wrongdoing.

It may not be exactly the same, but that's not too far from what happens in the US either (I would know - it happened to me).

The main difference between Israel and the US is that in Israel, the racial profiling is done openly.

That's not to say that people are happy with the racial profiling there either[0], but it's legal to do it explicitly.

[0] http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/arabs-say-they-endure-d...

From what I understand, when you get pulled aside for questioning in the US, it works the same way... whether it's supposed to or not.

The USA spends about $6.93 per passenger on security. Israel spends about $56.75 per passenger on security.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

EL AL spends $56.75, not Israel. The in-airport security when not flying EL AL has nothing to do with EL AL so these numbers don't seem that relevant.

While I think the TSA is largely a sack of shit, Israel's solution is hardly a panacea.

Israel has basically 1 major airport, and 2 minor airports. They further are based heavily on profiling. I don't expect the Israeli model would fit well to the US, which has 19 airports with more traffic than Ben Gurion, and a much more dynamic set of threats.

Israeli security is based on profiling, but not racial or religious profiling. They profile primarily on the nations you have passport stamps for. If you've been in a country that is known to harbor and train terrorists, you're gonna get the microscope. I feel like this is healthy profiling.

From what I've read, a lot of the profiling is by country of origin and somewhat by ethnic group.

They won't come out directly and ask if you're Jewish, but they will ask you where you were born, where your parents were born and what their last names were.

If you're Jewish you're in the "low risk" bucket. If you're not, you get extra scrutiny. I wouldn't be surprised if an Arab from Palestine gets a lot of scrutiny.

What about Oklahoma City? Does this put the US on that list?

What amount of security screening is going to stop a truck full of explosives from going off?

None. Screening is not the only tool out there. What happened to good old fashioned detective work?

In both law enforcement and journalism, we are no longer willing to fund proper investigative work.

You could be right about that, I'm certainly no expert, it just seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I was oversimplifying things in my head. However, it's hard to imagine that we wouldn't be more secure hiring educated behaviorists to have a quick chat with passengers before they board a plane.

> However, it's hard to imagine that we wouldn't be more secure hiring educated behaviorists to have a quick chat with passengers before they board a plane.

"quick chat"?

Would this would be a "quick chat" where they can ask anything they want, lying is a felony, and choosing not to answer would get you locked in a back room for "secondary screening" until ten minutes after your plane leaves?

Perhaps not that extreme, but I'm not aware of an inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. You don't get to fly. You're coming up with problems with a theoretical implementation that doesn't even exist.

And let's not go overboard on the "ask anything they want." These would be educated, skilled individuals. Asking inappropriate questions would not be per procedure. It is in everyone's interest to have safe flights, and if you're being difficult just to be difficult then tough shit, that's what you get.

Perhaps not that extreme, but I'm not aware of an inalienable right to fly on an airplane.

How about a combination of you paid for a ticket and freedom of movement is a basic human right?

I'm not against reasonable and proportionate security, for air travel or anywhere else. But the kind of arguments some airports and airport security organisations have been making in recent years boil down to giving up all your legal rights to anything and not being guaranteed a service you've clearly paid for or even any sort of compensation if they deny you passage on some arbitrary grounds. (Sorry, one of our staff felt you raised your voice to them and we have a Zero Tolerance(TM) approach to that kind of thing -- look, it's right there on page 74 of the impractically long agreement you couldn't possibly have read before the web page timed out when you bought your ticket.)

If you'll pardon the pun, that kind of reasoning would never fly under normal legal conditions. Courts in almost any jurisdiction would throw out a contract where you paid for something but weren't guaranteed what you paid for or some sort of reasonable alternative or compensation if for good reasons it wasn't possible to provide it. And if it wasn't provided and not for a good reason, you would probably be entitled to compensation for any consequential losses as well. I don't see any reason that airports, airlines, or for that matter government-mandated security organisations, should be held to a lower standard, or not held to any standard at all, just because someone mentioned words like "air" or "travel".

    How about a combination of you paid for a ticket and freedom of movement is a basic human right?

Neither are. We have passports. We have laws in place which restrict movement if needed. Just as driving is not a right, flying is not a right.

> Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. You don't get to fly.

Who would be left to fly once we got rid of all the jerks?

> It is in everyone's interest to have safe flights, and if you're being difficult just to be difficult then tough shit, that's what you get.

Why don't we work on making car travel safe first, since that would actually be a net-win on saving lives? Why are safe flights so much more important than the 50,000 people that die on the roads each year? More people die from driving in one week than from one plane crash.

>Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk. You don't get to fly.

And if that was the extent of it, fair enough. Unfortunately, sometimes it's a little less "you don't get to fly" and a little more "I'm sorry sir, but we're going to have to detain you for several hours of invasive questioning".

>These would be educated, skilled individuals. Asking inappropriate questions would not be per procedure.

Maybe in CandyLand, this would be the case. Here on Earth, things do not always occur according to ideals.

Well I'm not proposing that we detain people who won't answer a question. Again, I'm not proposing a carbon copy of the Israeli system.

    Maybe in CandyLand, this would be the case. Here on Earth, things do not always occur according to ideals.

Well, yeah, of course, but there's nothing you can do to prevent that. You could make that argument of literally any system. Of course some people will do the wrong thing. The idea is that you correct it and do what you can to prevent it.

> The idea is that you correct it and do what you can to prevent it.

The US Government does not share this idea with you. It's much better to sweep it under the rug, because to admit to fault would hurt the public's confidence in The System(tm).

YouTube has very many videos of people being awkward assholes just for the sake of it, and then being outraged by the response they get no matter how mild and polite that response is.

While it probably would be a good thing to drop the security theatre and to have better training there are going to be a bunch of Americans who resent the idea that someone is asking them a question before they board a plane.

>These would be educated, skilled individuals.

I'm pretty sure TSA was created with the same thoughts.

Well I suppose I'm hoping for good execution.

> Don't want to answer a few questions about your trip? Fine, you're either a threat or you're just being a jerk.

2013 called, they want their "If you got nothing to hide"-argument back.

> Would this would be a "quick chat" where they can ask anything they want, lying is a felony, and choosing not to answer would get you locked in a back room for "secondary screening" until ten minutes after your plane leaves?

Good point, but it's sadly not that different than the way things work now. The difference would seem to be the TSA wouldn't need a provocation, whereas technically now they sort of do.

Looks to be more than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_airports

Look at the numbers:

Rank Airport Passenger numbers 1 Ben Gurion Airport 13,134,070 2 Eilat Airport 1,400,067 3 Sde Dov Airport 658,741 4 Ovda Airport 136,791 5 Haifa Airport 68,968 6 Ben Ya'akov Airport 15,782

Meanwhile in the US, Birmingham is the #72 airport, and the one closest to Israel's #2.

Harrisburg, PA is #105, and closest to Sde Dov.

Lincoln, NE is #204, and closest to Ovda.

Source: http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allc...

Yeah, the threat models are different, and again, scale.

Too true. I was in Israel just a few years ago visiting family and my cousin that is now out of the army, but still works for the army, told me the safest place in the world is the Israeli airport. Between the cameras the officers and the checkpoints it sure seemed that way.

From memory: there was a checkpoint driving up to the airport where my cousin had to tell the guy where he was from, purpose for going to the airport etc, that was brief. Then when I got into the airport there was just sorta a mash of people rather than a line and eventually there were 3 or 4 people taking id, and asking you questions about your visit. Again very brief. From there metal detector and then to the gate.

My fear is that the TSA does do a lot of the same camera stuff and the charade that they put on at the metal detector/body scanner is in fact just a charade.

the safest place in the world is the Israeli airport. Between the cameras the officers and the checkpoints it sure seemed that way.

I can't tell if this is an attempt at humour or not.

There are tons of sleepy country villages with zero crime - not even theft, and a part-time law enforcement officer who covers a large area.

Funny story: a professor I know was once asked at an Israeli airport whether he spoke any hebrew, when he answered: "no, but I would love to learn", the security officer didn't know what to do for a couple of seconds.

Anyway if what I hear from my friend who is a social worker in the Occupied Territories about security at Israeli airports I sure hope the US doesn't take a page from Israeli's book.

Among many other reasons, it's partly a question of scale. A quick Wikipedia check[1] shows Israel has 28 airports, the US has a few more than that, as of 2011 it was 19,782.[2] You just can't expect the same level of quality with the same policies with the difference in locations and passenger volume.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_airports

[2] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...

You're grossly overstating the commercial aviation fields in the US.

TSA applies to commercial aviation. Most of those US fields are general (civilian, private, noncommercial) aviation, and the overwhelming majority are little more than dirt strips (33.3% were paved as of 2006).

For commercial transport, you want to look at the "certified" line of that table, which shows 547 fields. From the footnote: "Certificated airports serve air-carrier operations with aircraft seating more than 9 passengers. As of 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) no longer certificates military airports."

According to Wikipedia's list of US airports, sorted by enplanements (this is apparently a word), there are 87 airports with > 1 million enmplanements/year. At the low end, that's 2740 daily, or about 30 largish flights (100 seats each). CHS, Charleston International Airport (South Carolina) is the 87th on this list.

Another 296 airports are listed with traffic ranging down to 1,124 passenger boardings/year. Of these, 201 have more than 100 boardings/day on average.

> TSA applies to commercial aviation

It hasn't been that way for a while. They have been expanding to things like sporting events, trains stations, etc.

In the context of my comment: commercial as opposed to general aviation.

As a society, you have to allocate the limited supply of educated and skilled people wisely. I'd rather have them teaching, doing medical research, or starting startups than doing better traveler screening.

America has a huge number of graduates who are unemployed or working at menial jobs, the supply is far from limited.

>It works; the last successful airport attack in Israel was in 1986, and they have prevented many since

I'd be willing to bet that shutting down all airports permanently would prove successful in preventing attacks. The question is, at what cost?

Well that seems like a silly leap. I'm not sure what "cost" you're referring to, but you're right in that some of what they do wouldn't fly here. That doesn't mean we couldn't take a hybrid approach. It seems pretty plain that much of what we do now is comical.

Of course it's a silly leap. I was trying to illustrate that the argument of "Strategy X prevented crime" doesn't necessarily make it a preferable alternative.

As to the cost: I'm a twitchy sort of fellow. If I had to self-diagnose I would probably attribute it to OCD or some such thing, but regardless... what are these behaviorists looking for? Do I get profiled based on the fact that I probably look "sketchy" in public, regardless of my actual intent? Sounds like a cost to me (though perhaps one you personally would never consider).

Behaviorists? That sounds like a mix of bullshit and racism.

Not sure I understand what you're getting at... there exist people trained to cue in on the behavior of others. What does race have to do with it? Care to elaborate?

He's calling the training and abilities of such people into question. And I think it's a legitimate concern. Have we performed any studies on such behaviorists to determine if they are better than people with no training? Are they succumbing to personal prejudice? (That's where race comes in.) How do we even evaluate such things?

Schneier has written favorably about the Israeli approach (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.htm...) while more recently has pointed to research which calls the UK and US approach into question (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/06/behavioral_pr...). Schneier's take is that the Israeli approach does not scale to the US (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/adopting_the_...). If I understand his point, it's not so much the training of looking for behaviors, but the amount of time spent with each person. I am personally skeptical that anyone can be trained to identify behaviors indicative of terrorist activity, and that such a person would not just succumb to their own personal biases.

This here is making perfect the enemy of good, blended with the pathologically compulsive Hacker News "data needed!" tic.

I think it's garden-variety skepticism of a rather broad claim. "Behaviorists" ticks my charlatan-radar. I'm not arguing for perfect - how do we even know it's good? And I would like to point out that I sought out some sources on the subject, which points to lots of research.

Israeli security is based heavily on explicit racial profiling that is illegal in the US[0]. Their model is also great if you happen to be white and Jewish, but not so great if you're Arab[1].

In any case, we don't need to speculate. The TSA has actually been trained by former security officers from El Al, which is how we ended up with things like the "Behavioral Detection Officers", who have been accused of relying on race as a primary indicator[2], instead of "microexpressions" (which are themselves a rather suspect idea to begin with).

Perhaps we could hire and train better officers (which would require paying them better wages), but that would be a rather unnecessary expense, given that the TSA itself has admitted that there is "no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US"[3].

[0] That doesn't prevent it from being practiced in the US, but it's illegal.

[1] http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/arabs-say-they-endure-d...

[2] http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/11/15/aclu-calls-fo...

[3] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...

> Why we don't take a page out of the Israeli's book is beyond me. They have been dealing with this for much longer, have made the mistakes we are currently making, and have learned from them.

They've also decided that they're okay with alienating to the highest possible degree a huge chunk of their population and most of their neighbors with their security measures. I wonder how different their methods would look if they were adapted to the American situation, and how an already fatigued American populace would react.

I don't understand why people bring up Israel whenever there is a TSA discussion. When the obvious answer is to just abolish the TSA, and do way with any security theatre. Why does air travel need so much more protection (an infinite amount more) than pretty much anything else in our lives?

How about you do it like the rest of the developed world does and just not have a whole load of useless security theatre? Everyone's happier and you don't become the laughing stock of the 'free' world.

That would increase costs and require higher competency. It won't happen.

What we need is to expand the TSA-Pre procedures to everyone who isn't a suspected terrorist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com