Feb-12-2009 10:30 AM
Airport security has been known to fail major quality tests over the past few years. Several news outlets have performed embarrassing expos. Immediately after the terror attacks on 9/11, airlines were responsible
for the screening of terror suspects. Passengers names were compared
to an extensive and detailed watch list of suspected terrorists. These
lists were mainly provided by US agencies.
The US government has said that it would take responsibility for the security screening of those traveling by air. Instead of airlines taking the brunt of the responsibility, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) plans to carry out screening to better help resolve the issue "when a traveller's name is similar to one found on a watchlist", the Department of Homeland Security has said.
The "Secure Flight" program, for instance, would improve aviation security while correcting problem of innocent passengers appearing on lists of suspected terrorists, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
"Secure Flight is a critical tool that will further improve aviation security and fix the major customer service issue of watch-list miss-identifications, a frustratingly common occurrence for travellers under the existing airline-based system," Chertoff said.
Even inside the airport, the success of the security screening process has sometimes remained dubious. According to Wired magazine, in 2001 and 2002, "screeners missed 70 percent of knives, 30 percent of guns and 60 percent of (fake) bombs." Scores of airport screening testers have been able to smuggle bomb-making parts through airport security.
And how do airport screeners fail to detect bomb-making parts? Experts suggest that when you break down a bomb into individual, indistinguishable components, it's parts are easily undetected. Explosive material in particular won't be seen as it's deadly bomb-like manifestation, when it passes through screener's unassembled.
Historical examples of terrorists who have bypassed security with deadly bombs include the Chechen female terrorists who exploded two Russian planes in August 2004 using unassembled bombs they brought onto the plane.
And yet, with the new measures taken by the TSA, the US government hopes to more easily identify suspected terrorists before they enter the airports. In 2009, it will be mandatory that airlines share the names, birth dates and genders of all passengers with the TSA when they make reservations. Perhaps governments, particularly the US government, are now screening passengers more thoroughly and intensely before they even enter the airport? It certainly seems so: the TSA will be more thoroughly involved with individual airline reservation holders, checking their information against watch lists.
The Department of Homeland Security claims that this information on the "vast majority" of passengers will be discarded after seven days.
Mr. Chertoff has also confirmed a list of 2,500 suspects who are banned from traveling. There is also another list of 16,000 names, mostly from other countries, who can travel only under certain restrictions, which include a supplemental verification of their identity.
There have been, of course, some outrageous additions to the list. Nobel Peace Prize winner and former South African President Nelson Mandela was once on the list, until Congress intervened. Worse, civil rights groups claim that the government watchlists have become bloated with hundreds of thousands of names.
Inside the airports, one of the flaws in the airport security screening process may be in fact be human error. We are not equipped to view and pick out random exceptions amongst a stream of indistinguishable data. The brain shuts off after a while of seeing indistinguishable shapes pass by on an electronic screen. Mind-numbing data has exactly the desired effect-screeners can't possibly focus on the data with increased accuracy for prolonged boring stretches of time.
There have been countless essays on the dubious effects of post-9/11 security. Anything could be used as a weapon. Not to mention the fact that anyone could be trained to be a weapon-in Judo, Krav Maga or any number of Martial Arts.
Technology has changed, however, and airports are aware of the screening risks. X-ray machines regularly insert random "test" bags into the stream of baggage, helping to keep screeners more alert.
But one has to ask about the limits of screening-how effective it is. There's no doubt that the post 9/11 airport security checks add a certain level of uncertainty into the fray. But might it not someday lead to security checks at malls, at restaurants, at sports events? Is the airport security check only the beginning?
Some experts think more money should be focused on computer-screening, since it has an increasing amount of success in determining lethal objects being brought into airports-rather than hiring huge security personnel.
Others believe more government money should be spent on investing in intelligence and pre-flight investigations, such as the TSA plans to do. Countermeasures that include investigating suspects before they arrive to the airport seem like legitimate, but legally tricky modes of screening for possible terrorist activities, and will likely have civil rights groups riled in the coming year.