TSA vs The Cupcake Lady

Folks, I really do believe TSA has the toughest job during the holiday season.  They screen millions of travelers from all over the world.  Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the TSA has successfully kept America's skies safe.  That being said, there a few times in which the commit some of the dumbest mistakes in the name of security.

According to the Washington Post,

"Rebecca Hains said the Transportation Security Administration agent at McCarran International Airport took her cupcake Wednesday, telling her its frosting was enough like a gel to violate TSA restrictions on allowing liquids and gels onto flights to prevent them from being used as explosives." Here's the question that's going through my head - "Seriously?"

As a former military law enforcement officer, I can appreciate the zero-tolerance enforcement standards TSA has. In some security environments, it is best to enforce the rules with no exceptions. I also get the logic this TSA screener had. He or she saw the cupcakes with the glazed frosting which by the way probably looked nothing the ones above and assumed it was best to "play it safe".

Here's where things get strange. The cupcakes are allowed by TSA's regulation. I got this off of their blog listing typical "holiday items" you're allowed to bring on the plane:

Foods: Cakes, pies, bread, donuts, turkeys, etc. are all permitted. Here is a list of items that should be placed in your checked bags or shipped: cranberry sauce, creamy dips and spreads (cheeses, peanut butter, etc.), gift baskets with liquid or gel food items (salsa, jams and salad dressings), gravy (mmm gravy), jams, jellies, maple syrup, oils and vinegars, sauces, soups, wine, liquor and beer.

Is there "more to the story"? Probably. I think Ms. Hains encountered a very strict screener who was performing their duties as prescribed by law. Nothing wrong with that. However, the question which never crossed the screener's mind and is indicative of every foothold we in security take was "Is my taking this cupcake worth having my boss and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security hearing about through the Washington Post?" There are times when as a security officer you have to stick to your guns and take a stand no matter who it is you said the dreaded "no" word to. I'm just not sure two cupcakes from a previously screened passenger (remember she went through two airports to get to this point with zero issues) is worth it.

So what do you do? There is no right or wrong answer. You have to be there to figure it out. Perhaps, I would have inquired whether she had the icing with her (i.e. Is the icing cup in your carry-on). Had she replied that she did, then I would have inspected the icing and made a determination from there. I do find it ironic this screener is with an agency which just implemented a risk based philosophy towards passenger search criteria which is supposed to use intelligence, behavioral, and travel pattern data to eliminate these sorts of things from happening.

For a complete list of prohibited items, go to http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

GRAPHIC: UAV fleet breakdown

Here's a pretty cool graphic from the folks at The Post.   It gives a breakdown of our current drone fleet.

The growing U.S. drone fleet - The Washington Post

Commentary: Is censorship a security tool or a huge mistake?

Recently, I learned the U.S. government was looking at legal options to compel Twitter to cancel the accounts of foreign terrorist organizations such as Al Shabaab and the Taliban who are very active on the social media site.  These unnamed officials believe these groups are using their accounts to recruit and promote their propaganda.  As an observer and a person engaged in dialogue (okay - its taunting) with both of these groups, I can attest to the sort of messages they are referring to.  Often, the messages are full of their "exploits" and fail to address their brutality within Somalia's or Afghanistan's civilian populations.  Nor do they address any real plans for Somalia's future given its current economic and political situation.

However, I find the request to be somewhat superficial and insufficient.  It's as if they have no concept of how global the Internet has become in both scope and depth.  I'm perplexed as to what good they foresee coming from this.  By limiting the use of Twitter and other major social media sites, these officials have failed to address other sites for which they have ZERO jurisdiction over and would still be accessible to Al Shabaab and the Taliban's intended audience.  What happens when another site comes along and replaces Twitter as the messenger de facto of major transnational terrorist organizations and their franchises?  What happens when these sites are created and maintained on servers, the U.S. government has no control over?  The United States does not nor should it ever have a firewall like the Chinese do.

Also, they negate how this plays exactly into what these organizations want.  It demonstrates to young, disillusioned, frustrated, and impressionable people how the freedoms our government is supposed to uphold above all else mean very little to it.  In other words, we would be behaving like the governments these groups originally rose up against and from whose failings they gained significant momentum.  Don't get me wrong - I despise what these organizations are and what they really stand for.  I wholeheartedly believe they have an interpretation of Islam that is fundamentally flawed and inherently destructive for the Ummah.  However, censorship like torture, no matter how well-intentioned, produces none of the results you expect to get.

My final question to these lawmakers is, "Can we include domestic terrorist groups and organized crime organizations to the list to be banned?"  They create and promote atmospheres of violence and fear to achieve political goals.  We seem to be proclaiming a war on terrorism and actually fighting only one enemy.  What about the Jewish Defense League, Hutaree, the New Black Panther Party, or the countless other domestic groups that have or are using social media?  The Jewish Defense League whose members attempted to kill a U.S. Congressman in 2001 still has an active Twitter account.  Hutaree, which received notoriety after its members were arrested for plotting events which they believed would bring about the apocalypse, maintained and utilized their YouTube videos to showcase their tactical prowess. Google any violent hate group and their popular slogans and you will discover they or their members maintain and use a vast amount of social media for the same reasons as Al Shabaab or the Taliban. Yet, we've made no moves until now to remove a single group from these sites.

What good does it do to allow them to keep their accounts?  Any casual observers of the Taliban's "tweets" knows they usually receive a "special" reply from a certain other Twitter account.  That's right - the folks at NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have an account and they get into a verbal skirmish almost weekly.  This is what Twitter is all about - the ability to say what you want and some other guy having the ability to quickly call "BS" on whatever crap you spewed out.  So while the Taliban uses this space to pass along its propaganda and possibly recruit active members or sympathizers (more likely), NATO has many people capable of answering back.  

Finally, it allows those people involved in intelligence to gather information we might not otherwise get.  It's like I used to tell younger cops - you want your suspect to keep talking even if he's lying because you can tell a lot even from a lie.  The FBI and Justice Department bust organized crime groups all the time using electronic surveillance.  Osama bin Laden was found because someone "talked on the wire".  People get careless the more they talk.  Take it from this former cop-turned-security pro - that's exactly what you want.

"Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered." ~Archibald MacLeish