More attempts to create a safe list

When you’re really frustrated and waiting in line to be screened by TSA, it’s perfectly understandable that you’d wish for a “safe” list. After all, you know you’re not a terrorist - they should let you get on your plane already.

But the frustration of standing in a TSA line can make people believe funny things. In fact, it’s probably the only circumstance under which it’s remotely logical to believe that a “safe” list is actually a good idea. The only way everyone will be safe is is everyone gets screened and if secondary screenings are conducted at random. The minute you create a loophole in that system, the really bad guys are going to exploit it.

This latest attempt - which is currently in operation at Orlando International Airport - uses retinal scans to identify passengers who have undergone a background check and paid $80 to be enrolled in the program. They present their eyeballs and then zip past the security checkpoint.

Yes, a retinal scan is impossible to fake. You can’t put on contact lenses and pretend to be someone else. But just because a system can correctly identify you as someone the system has deemed safe doesn’t mean you are safe.

For one thing - computers were built to be hacked. Just like you cannot build an unsinkable ship, you cannot build an unhackable computer. You can make it hard, but not impossible - and I guarantee you that Al Quaeda has some damn good hacks. Anytime you put the safety and security of passengers in the hands of a computer database - no matter how secure - you put those passengers at risk.

But there’s an even easier way to manipulate a “safe” list, one that requires no computers whatsoever. All it requires is that you show up at the airport and plant a bomb on someone who is on the list. People may watch their luggage closely at airports, but they’re not CIA agents. You can’t expect that every “safe” list passenger is going to notice and know what to do when some strange person puts a package in their bag while they’re not looking.

And finally, having a background check that says you’re not a terrorist doesn’t mean you’re “safe” any more than having a rap sheet with no drug offenses means you’re not a cocaine dealer. It just means you haven’t been caught yet.

It’s true that the TSA is there more for our psychological well-being when flying than for our actual physical protection. So instituting a “safe” list makes a lot of sense if you’re looking at them as a great big hoax designed to get people flying again. But if you want a transportation safety organization that actually makes you safer, then it must operate under the assumption that everyone is a suspect.

[Update: 1/6/06 @ 1:29pm

Q: Why is a four year-old boy on a terrorist watch list?

A: Because computers aren't perfect. They interpret everything literally, and they make errors all the time. Do you really want a computer database that identifies a four year-old as a terrorist to be responsible for determining who is and who is not a threat to national security?]