Image: Transportation Security Administration
More In This Article
-
Overview
9/11: 10 Years Later
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The 9/11 attacks, the deadliest terrorist acts on U.S. soil, were the first to use airliners as weapons. More attempts followed, including Richard Reid's attempt in December 2001 to ignite explosives in his shoes on a flight from Paris to Miami, and at least 10 airliners were targets in a plot involving liquid explosives in 2006, forcing new policies regarding shoes at screening and liquids on airplanes. Then, on Christmas Day in 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate explosives in his underwear on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Each of these failed attempts to bring down airliners helped spur the adoption of new passenger screening techniques and technologies, especially in the U.S. In response to Abdulmutallab, for example, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) introduced about 500 advanced imaging technology units in December 2010, all of which scan ned bodies without physical contact. These include millimeter wave technology, which uses millimeter wavelength radio waves to generate three-dimensional images as well as backscatter scanners, which employ low-level x-rays. A host of complaints over how such technologies can invade privacy have led to plans to revamp these scanners, replacing images of passengers with generic outlines.
Before the 9/11 attacks, passenger screening involved metal detectors, but these were closer to the gates than they are now, "making it easier to stash or cache weapons such as the box cutters [the 9/11 attackers] used," says Joshua Marpet, security evangelist at security firm DataDevastation. "Now the checkpoints act as choke points, severely limiting the availability of stash spots."
» View a slide show on the history of airport screening techniques and technology
The advanced imaging technologies now used in U.S. airports would catch anyone using the same strategies the 9/11 terrorists did—"but realize nothing, and I mean nothing, is as important as trained professionals watching for something out of place," Marpet notes. "Technology assists the agent in his or her job. It is not the be-all, end-all."
A determined opponent can often find ways around technology. "Metal detector? Plastic knife—Grivory is a popular plastic, fiberglass-reinforced plastic, actually, used by Cold Steel to make nonmetallic knives," Marpet says. But might such a knife get caught on millimeter wave scanners? "Not if it's buried inside flesh, say, in a particular cavity."
People, on the other hand, often inadvertently give away clues. "You could have a fanatic who just doesn't care, or honestly wants to die—they might have good control of their reactions and not look out of place, but they will be, by definition, a fanatic, and that will cue inappropriate or 'out-of-place' behaviors," Marpet says.
So what use then are these new technologies? "Deterrence," Marpet says. "Crooks and terrorists go after the low-hanging fruit, the easy target...if the security technology and agents can make it more expensive in time, effort, expense to go after planes, terrorists will pick other targets."
One intriguing new passenger screening technology is terahertz scanning. These use terahertz rays, which lie between microwaves and infrared radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum. They can penetrate common materials, do not seem to harm living tissue and can identify compounds, such as hair gel or explosives.
"The ability to see the density of objects is awesome, and the use of that technology can be vastly more discerning as to weapon or pen or whatever than we have now," Marpet says. "I've seen plastic razors with it, and I don't think backscatter would even have touched it."
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add Comment"The 9/11 attacks, the deadliest terrorist acts on U.S. soil, were the first to use airliners as weapons. More attempts followed, including Richard Reid's attempt in December 2001 to ignite explosives in his shoes on a flight from Paris to Miami, and at least 10 airliners were targets in a plot involving liquid explosives in 2006, forcing new policies regarding shoes at screening and liquids on airplanes. Then, on Christmas Day in 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate explosives in his underwear on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, those other attempts were not meant to use the airplane as a weapon. It's a subtle but very important difference. Those others were meant to blow up the plane using explosives as the weapon. The bombs were the weapons, not the plane. It's an important distinction because those bombs could have been effectively deployed in a crowded mall, on a bus, train, etc. A bomb on a plane does not make the plane an effective weapon. Because you could as easily fake that there is a bomb. And again, using an actual bomb just blows up the plane and kills the people inside, like blowing up a bomb on a bus would do.
Terahertz? I encountered one unit that claimed gigahertz. Refused to go through it because there was no guarantee that it would not interfere with an internal cardiac device. Strongly suspect that such wave lenghts would in fact be very dangerous to the leads and prehaps the unit itself. Chances that the scanner has been adequately tested against such risks? Near zero given the cavalier attitudes by manufacturers and the blanket protection from negilence they have been granted. Will stick with purely manual procedures, thank you. Much more afraid of bad technology than near non-existant threat of terrorists but the military/industrial/mercenary/intelligence community lives to create the very risks they claim to prevent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, if you eliminated air travel altogether that would ensure perfect safety. I think it's time to think in terms of a cost-benefit ratio, in the same sense of whether or not it would be a good idea to install sprinkler systems in every home in the USA or whether all pedestrians should have to wear helmets. Both of these "precautions" would save some lives, but at a cost that exceeds the benefits by any reasonable measurement. Almost everyone would regard them as a ridiculous waste and that these funds could save more lives elsewhere. The enormous expense involved in screening air travelers at the extraordinary level we now practice exceeds the objective cost of several hijackings a year. A more modest program would free billions of dollars to be spent on preventing deaths elsewhere, as in early diagnosis and treatment of many cancers, better roads, safer cars, improving policing in high-crime areas, arresting undocumented drivers, deporting illegal immigrants while freeing up more jobs for Americans and countless other ways. The cost of obsessive ultra-effective air security is costing thousands of lives elsewhere. Why is a life lost in a hospital bed or on our nation’s streets or highways less important than one taken in a plane crash? America is infected with the idea that preventing a single act of terror is worth almost any price. This is an irrational response that ignores a myriad of other issues, including how 911 occurred in the first place.It's time to wake up and ask the right questions and spend our safety money where it counts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the terrorists have already won the War in America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are afraid of our shadows. We have terror- range alerts bombard us daily.
We cannot take mouthwash on a plane for fear it will somehow take over the plane.
The Police (special sections of them) can ignore ever right a citizen has and throw them in lockup till Sol goes Nova - their proof? They don't like the way you did your hair this morning.
I've heard people say they were going to cancel their already-planned mall-shopping trip because their was a high-terror-threat flag flying today.
By handicapping and strapping our nation, by making travel tedious at best...what is all this new scanner te4chnology doing to my body? Like Fluoroscopes and xrays of another era, how much long-term damage is resulting from this? (Ever noticed the correlation between young men with a 2-minute acne zap in the 50s vs mature men with throat and mouth cancer (my! isn't that where acne shows up?!?) epidemic due to 'their tobacco use' (another scam if you've ever actually looked objectively at the experiments used to determine hazard...try it.)
By taking away our sense of safety, our belief we can go where we want, when we want, with minimal hazard (and you notice all this tech IS NOT stopping the problem items from reaching the planes?) the terrorists have already won.
New screening techniques, there are now advanced video systems that monitor airport perimeters and doors used by employees to enter secure areas. It uses a computer to pick up on anomalies recorded by video cameras and alerts the humans monitoring the system. There for airport Screening technologies made us safer. http://www.techiecop.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole airport security effort is a farce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEliminate all of it.
It is a mystery to me how has induced mass hysteria gone to such lengths. The remedy of aggressive and constant screening is a lot worse than the threat we are told they want to prevent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should be no surprise or hidden truth that the security business is a fabulous business, probably moving as much money as drugs. And it is no secret who are getting rich through it. The difference here is that the money comes from our taxes.
The article is a splendid instance of availability bias. It proudly lists all the successes, but fails to list the costs. They range from the banal - time lost by everyone, staff that could do better things - to the deeply social: building a society around mistrust and fear. In order to do so a new round of "self-domestication" (BOEHM) has been initiated. Working in the background, unverified computer programs establish "good-citizenship ratings", ready to ensnare the citizen into a web of probabilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTerrorism and Islam are hand in hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as a moderate Muslim !!
A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim !
They are all born and bred on the Koran !
The biggest and probably fatal mistake we make. Is treating Muslims with values they despise!
OURS!
Their desire and main aim is an Islam only world without Infidels.
The only time Islam could be considered peaceful is when we are dead!
Mohammed's history shows him to be a psychopathic murderer who made his wealth by abducting people for ransom.
His legacy lives on.
There are 1.5 billion Muslims world wide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this+- 10 % are Jihadists That = +- 150,000,000
Only fools and liars can call this a minority.
The rest of the Muslim community are strategic support.
After all. Who else would they support ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally?
Get your head out of the sand.
Or, rather which one would you prefer to be killed by ?
Apart from stating the obvious. What do you suggest we should do ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen what planes would you prefer to fly on ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh ! of course ! YOU DON'T FLY!!! Do you ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this