You've said that security can be improved by randomly applying better detection measures. How might this work?
We know that terrorists watch our systems. When a system becomes routine and predictable, they will identify the vulnerability and go after it. The shoe bomber is an example and Abdulmutallab is another. There should be an element of randomness in which some passengers would be subjected to the more rigorous search methods based on the passenger's records and documentation and on behavioral assessments that security professionals make. Observations of people's behavior are just as important as the search procedure itself.
On top of that, you could have a computerized system that selects passengers at random for higher-level screening. This would not be an interrogation or an interview, and it would also apply to frequent travelers. We know that this type of randomness really is an impediment to terrorist planning, but it's also important from the standpoint of civil liberties because passengers are not singled out for any particular reason.
What are the chances that we'll see such an approach at airports in the near future?
There's a certain amount of receptivity to it, certainly on the part of the security screeners. Where it runs into barriers has more to do with public attitude and, to put it bluntly, posturing politicians. Americans prefer their security to be passive, nonintrusive and egalitarian. People feel more comfortable when exactly the same procedures are applied to every single person, which is of course the dumbest way we can do it. The minute you try to segregate people, it immediately raises allegations that this is somehow based on ethnic or racial profiling or there are other nefarious criteria that are being used to make these decisions.
With regard to the attitudes of politicians, sometimes people in Washington pretend that what we have at airports around the country is 100 percent prevention. The fact is there is no such thing as 100 percent prevention.
How much progress has been made with regard to air travel security since 9/11?
If you take the long view on this, security has had an effect on the number of hijacking attempts and airline sabotage attempts. There is no question that, as a consequence of screening measures and other factors, the number of attempts by terrorists has significantly declined over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s we were looking at a terrorist hijacking or an attempted terrorist sabotage of an aircraft something close to once a month. If you look at the post-9/11 environment, clearly there have been plots and failed attempts, but we're looking at one of these incidents per year. We have obliged our adversaries to make smaller devices and use exotic substances to try to conceal them, and that renders them far less reliable. Yes, Richard Reid made it onto a plane with his shoe bomb, and Abdulmutallab made it on with his underpants bomb, but the bombs didn't work. So we've decreased the number of attempts and increased their operational difficulty. That is a positive result, but we're running into this dilemma now as the devices get smaller and concealment gets better—the terrorists will work this out. The challenge is how do we deal with that in our society in a way that is acceptable to society?
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentAl-Qaeda says boo, and we jump. TSA is essentially part of the stimulus package. It also costs our country a solid chunk of change each year in travel inefficiency. I realize it is not politically correct to advance this opinion; but the TSA, by seeing us as the suspect every day, weakens us as a nation both monetarily and in terms of national moral. I do not feel safer, because there's always another way to make us feel unsafe (e.g. the recent mail attempt) and react in fearful fashion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe irony is that, as we tout our freedom in the face of our assailants (who rightly should be fought virulently), we become incrementally and almost imperceptibly less free and more controlled all the time. It's important to keep in mind the cost of this "security". We think we are safer with all the scanners, so we are lulled to forget about the real dangers that life poses by its mere existence; dangers that we send our youth to face head on while we stand docile in line.
I'm interested in civil discourse on this matter. All shrill and histrionic comments will be ignored.
Cheers.
I am a 68 year old handicapped frequent flyer with a great deal of metal in my body. Recent flights have been made in a great deal of pain due to the highly intrusive “pat downs”. Even though I offer to show them the are where a tendon is on the surface the then proceed to vigorously attack this area of my body. Purposly attacking a disabled American is not only unconsttutional it is against Federal law (ADA). BHO and Janet allowing this to happen is inexcuseable!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf memory serves (mine often does not), Lt. Col. North took a bit of heat for his testimony on Al-Qaeda from Sen. Gore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuper interview. Indeed, "We really need to fundamentally rethink the strategy of how we do this". If only the politicians would do this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, he's quite wrong about the "Underwear Bomber". Clearly, he has never looked at what these things show. They show anything under clothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, to "add randomness" is an ivory tower suggestion. This does nothing to screw up terrorists. They have specific needs, and mostly they are very primitive in capability. It is not the KGB we face. It is a bunch of people socked into a rote memorization world of rules. Creativity of that kind does not come easy to them.
Third, behavior is not a guide. There are plenty of drugs that make people calm, no matter what happens. The Underwear Bomber used drugs to calm himself. That is easy.
Last, the one thing we can do better is to target our searches better by profiling.
Aside from that, sooner or later, there will be successes. He is completely right about the debate. Because a major part of Al Qaeda strategy is to get the dinosaur to bankrupt itself. They saw it happen to the USSR. They want it to happen to us.
Is it truly rational for us to spend over $1 trillion on wars in response to 2,977 deaths and damage to buildings? Influenza kills 10 times that each year, and at least twice that many people under 50. But it is very hard for us to be rational about these things.
I am sure many Americans preparing to travel on Thanksgiving are having second thoughts about flying, because of the well publicized new so called security procedures implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Clearly, the groping of babies and grandmothers for explosives is a waste of resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo-called "security measures" at airports are nothing more than PR to reassure the irrational public that they are safe from terrorism methods that have been used in the PAST(not necessarily now or in the future). The only airport method that might actually catch terrorists is profiling. This is because no terrorist can know or anticipate whether he/she fits the profile. The public could be reassured by using traditional, screening methods (such as metal detectors, patdowns, explosive sniffers, etc) but on a random basis. Sometimes every passenger would be examined, sometimes every second person in the morning, every tenth in the afternoon etc. These are just examples. The pattern could be changed at any time quite quickly and easily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth a secret method (profiling by unidentified profilers) and a public method (metal detectors, etc.)are needed. No public method will ever be prospective, i.e., predictive of future terrorist techniques. Hence, they are basically useless except as PR. Besides, these public techniques need to be 100% reliable . It takes just one false negative (a failure to identify a successful terrorist) and the system will lose all credibility with the public.
I have a NEXUS card and am still subjected to inane and useless questioning on the US side (Where am I going? Why am I going there? How long will I be? Who cares? I'm a low risk and shouldn't be questioned at all.) What good is the card as a security device if I am still being questioned? On the Canadian side, after swiping one's card and displaying the card with one's photo on it, one is just waved through. US take note!! An airline card should work just the same way.
Since the US seems to have trouble getting anything right: education, prison, health systems are all in trouble. Is it any surprise that the "security" system is in trouble, too. And, sadly, it won't or can't be fixed.
I am very sorry about your troubles. My son's mother-in-law was (who wears a steel brace on her knee was strip-searched! A lot of this is simply "cover your ass" behavior and to seem to be thorough at one's job.I bet this method has yielded zero terrorists and a lot of people just like you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe TSA cannot exempt any category of person from examination. As soon as terrorists know that a category is exempt, that's where they could easily place a bomb.What you intend to say, I think, is that each of us is a profiler.It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the people in line with us at the airport are not terrorists.
No, the "groping" of babies and grandmothers is worthwhile. Most people don't remember that a while back a woman in England was married by a muslim jihadist. He got her pregnant, and put her on a plane with a bomb that she did not know about. The bomb was found because the brits had informants that tipped them off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe woman had no clue that the whole thing, the marriage, the baby, everything was just a ruse to get her to carry a bomb onto a plane and blow herself up.
The best person to get a bomb through airport security is a person who has no clue that they have one.
Could have sworn I saw a DARPA report that said not only were trained dogs still the best detectors of explosive materials, they are by far the cheapest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDogs and Hogs. Use their incredible sense of smell to whiff out explosives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother solution is to revert to the Delta style of aircraft and design them structurally to absorb an explosion midair. We don't need windows when we have individualized video screens that also could show different views out of the aircraft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA question: Is it possible for a reader to actually submit a question for the "Experts", or are the topics determined by the writers on Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this