SnallaBolaget

While I know I'm new here (I've already had that pointed out, rather sharply), I'm going to go out on what might be thin ice here, and pose a little question (it's a little lengthy, I'm afraid).

The scene, both here and elsewhere in society, media and social channels are chock full of criticism against the TSA, airport and aviation security - and security in general, in fact, but let's stick to the TSA and airport security here...
It's not just the frequent fliers that scream blue murder over the TSA's regulations, procedures and perceived violations (I'm not saying they're not real).

What is very rare is someone presenting any kind of alternative. Some of you have undoubtedly heard of Bruce Schneier, the IT security "guru" at BT, who's had a lot to say about airport security, but even the self-proclaimed "rockstar of security" has yet to bring anything constructive when it comes to an alternative to today's setup. That's not saying much, since the man isn't qualified to even look at a security checkpoint, but that's beside the point. Which, incidentally, is that there's are a lot of critics, both from within security and from outside the field, something that signifies the need for immediate change.

My question is, is there an alternative? What would it be? I'm not talking about something as simple as "disband the TSA", because you actually have to put something there to replace it. Airport security actually serves a purpose, believe it or not - it just doesn't serve it as it is carried out today. Also, please spare everyone the "investigation and intelligence" rap, because that just doesn't cover everything either - sure it's an important part, but you do need physical security to supplement and complete the picture.

Criticism is always a good thing, but what this debate is lacking is constructive criticism. So, if you were going to build the security checkpoint again, from the ground up, what would you do? Or, what would be a good idea to include, and what kind of procedures would be acceptable and effective?

-SB-

businesstraveller2

I think there are many alternatives, starting with improvements to the current technology. I do research in related areas and am looking into some ideas along these lines. What is clear is that the current nude scanners were designed to get the information as simply as possible with little regard for passenger privacy issues and with less than optimal regard for radiation exposure, especially to those who fly all the time like the airline crews and frequent flyers. As a frequent flyer who works on various aspects of imaging technology I find this an interesting problem that is wide open for technological improvements. In an ideal world the technology would interface well with security intelligence.

MDtR-Chicago

Metal detector plus baggage x-ray plus swabbing/wanding for resolution. Develop a puffer-style device that works reliably.

With that combination, we are already an order of magnitude safer in a plane than any other transportation.

Accept that, no matter what, there is still an extremely small chance a terrorist will blow up a particular plane and there will never be anything we can do to remove that tiny risk.

That's good enough for me. Use the billions of $ for real intelligence. Or to fight a real safety threat.

IslandBased

TSA as it stands has low morale, mediocre hiring standards and a very poor track record and attitude towards customer service issues.

Rigorous training, high standards of professionalism and zero tolerance for any misconduct would go a long way in solving their current problems with the public.

Lara21

Yes but metal detectors, baggage x-ray plus swabbing/wanding for resolution and a puffer-style device won't be considered effective, because those items won't be making certain people multi-millionares 4 to 5 time over like the nos machines are doing.

WindOfFreedom

Right, Lara. Also, the American mentality is to use a machine for everything.

I, for one, would jump at the chance to qualify for a trusted traveler card, complete with extensive background check and iris scan.

slsdi

People *have* made suggestions, but they are ignored by the "pro-scanner let's do something" people. Bruce Schneier, whom you dismiss, is considered by many to be an expert because he himself has tested & revealed many of the loopholes in airport security. Are you aware of how many "banned" items get through security that these new scanners will do nothing to stop? Are you aware of the other loopholes that these scanners will do nothing to close?

As a previous poster mentioned, some type of puffer that actually worked would be great to have since the scanners can't detect the explosives that are most likely to be a threat - unless the terrorist is stupid enough to do a poor job of concealing it on his/her body. Right now, we do use swab tests and this is probably the most "rigorous" thing we do, but realistically swabbing every passenger down thoroughly would be way too time-consuming.

The #1 thing that is needed is better use of our intelligence, and this means communication between agencies and appropriate use of secondary screening & no fly lists (actually getting people on the lists, removing people on the lists who shouldn't be there, no putting people on lists for retaliatory reasons). For example, we had knowledge of the underwear bomber but let him board the plane anyway. If a terrorist is at the airport, they are likely to get through most security measures (they do stay one step ahead - and the pornoscanners are easy to fool so no help there), and at that point we must hope they are incompetent and that passengers can stop them from doing mass damage. This is why there is such an emphasis on intel by security experts who criticize the TSA. However, it seems like the "anything for security" crowd and politicians who want to play the CYA game want something really visisble in place. I've even seen comments that communication between intel agencies can't be improved so therefore we have to continue with the airport as the last line of defense. All the money we throw at the TSA isn't worth anything unless we *make* this happen.

Think of it this way: suppose a suspected terrorist wants to board the plane you or a loved one is about to board. Will you be satisfied that your flight is secure if they passed through the pornoscanner without issue?

SnallaBolaget

Personally, I think this is extremely interesting. Obviously, people will always be wary of new technology, also especially when it's used in security, but as long as documentation, testing and trials over time are used and proves that the tech is safe and effective, then that distrust will subside eventually. What is worrying, however, is the current focus on x-rays. Yes, the doses are negligible, but over time, no one knows what the effects will be. Improving mmw tech would probably be a better option...or?

Another question is this; will technology actually solve anything? We've had the "wands" and the portals, the carry-on and luggage x-ray machines "puffers" and ED machines, and none of them have really improved, as such, the cooperation of the travelling public or the system itself. It's still the same as when the checkpoint model was first conceived.

What I'm saying is, is there a way that the public can actually be a "part" of the system, making a) screening easier and ore effective and b) making the "one in a billion" would-be terrorist stand out from the crowd?

I think technology might not be the answer, though nothing can be said against the fact that improved, more efficient and safer tech is never a bad thing.

-SB-

Boggie Dog

Screening at airports can be broken down into what items are to be detected.

Guns, knives and such are detected by WTMD and HHMD.

Explosive components can be detected by explosive swabs and ETP, although TSA tossed their ETP equipment in the trash.

WBI machines rely on the operator evaluation of the image to function and it is proven in other Red Team testing that TSA operators can not be relied to detect targets on other equipment that requires a human evaluator.

If TSA can detect explosive components, ETD & ETP, and detect metallic weapons, guns and knives, just what else do they need to interdict?

Both of these can be done without violating a persons privacy or dignity.

KansasMike

Here are my suggestions: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspo...-security.html

In short: Dump the grope searches and nude machines. Keep the metal detectors and keep the swabbing for bomb-related chemicals. Keep or increase the scrutiny of checked bags and INCREASE the scrutiny of air cargo and INCREASE the scrutiny of the people who service the planes (there is nearly zero now).

Drop the liquids bad and shoe carnival. There is no significant threat there.

Most of all stop overreacting! The whole point of terrorism is to terrorize. Unless you want to be fighting this war 25 years from now, we have to demonstrate to the terrorists that we will not be deterred.

SnallaBolaget

First of all, let's get a couple of things straight. There will never be a perfect security checkpoint. That's also why I said that it's a supplement, a compliment, a piece of the puzzle. It can't be eliminated, it needs to be improved.

I dismiss Schneier because he hasn't really done anything that wasn't known already. Loopholes? Well... he might have written about some of them, but I invite you to scrutinize the reports that were already in existence when he wrote his "essays". Anyway, Bruce is nice when it comes to PR, but he's not qualified, certified or otherwise experienced in physical security beyond his own musings. He's not even a member of ASIS. That's why I dismiss him. But enough about that.

An effective "puffer" would be nice, but the challenges surrounding that are numerous. For one, an effective puffer would be a closed "environment" of sorts, and then you'd have a whole range of issues right there - and that's a minor point. I get the idea, though, and it's not a bad one.

I just think, as I've hinted in another answer, that the major problem right now is that "security" is working AGAINST the public, as opposed to having the two come together to solve the problems at hand, and the need for security. There must be some way that John Q Public can be a part of the system, an integral such, creating in the process a cooperation that will work to root out the "exception", and stop it before it boards a plane - something, as you stated, that did not happen with the use of intelligence. That might come down to communication between agencies, but even when it comes to intelligence gathering, there's too much of an "agencies-vs-public" atmosphere. The way things are today, I'm not sure that spending more dollars on intelligence will do anyone any good at all.

Also, and this is my personal feelings, but I'll say it anyway - I don't think calling the scanners "pornoscanners" and NoS and kiddiepornmachines and whatnot else does the cause any good. It's a little childish, whiny and reminiscent of the way "those in the know" talked about personal computers, for example... Anyway, just an opinion. Free speech is free speech, at least a few places, still. So call'em what you want.

-SB-

That's probably the heart of the matter... and in just 5 words...

-SB-

WindOfFreedom

+10

RadioGirl

OP, you've acknowledged that you're new here, so take this as gentle advice. There have been numerous threads over many years where someone said much the same thing: "Everyone complains, no one offers alternatives, what would YOU do?" and then people have offered alternatives.

I suggest that you start by reading the most recent of those threads here: Replace the TSA... With what???? from October 31 2010. As one example of good reasoned alternatives, in post 31 of that thread, N965VJ has a comprehensive list.

Here's another thread from September 2010: New TSA Administrator (hypothetical) where a number of good suggestions were made under an assumption that TSA remained a gov't agency.

Or this thread, from October 2010: What would YOUR airport security look like? where, in addition to many many good ideas, is Post 22 where I list a bunch of other threads on the subject.

That's three in the last few months alone.

I think everyone here agrees that there is a need for reasonable, effective airport security. And I think we have provided LOTS of ideas for how to do it properly.

FWIW, my view is the same as MDtR-Chicago and Boggie Dog: WTMD, x-ray of baggage, and some means (swabbing, puffer) of checking for explosive residue, at least on a random basis. In fact, that's EXACTLY what is done in Australian airports for domestic flight and it seems to work.

TravelDoorsOut

do whatever Israel is doing, since they are the most "at risk" country and havent had anything bad happen in a long time. knock on wood!

MeVoy

+100

Plus: Drop the ID check and no-fly list. The ID check is merely a revenue protection scheme for the airlines and has nothing to do with security. A "no-fly" list has no place in a democratic society. If there is credible evidence that an individual is involved in a conspiracy to blow up an airliner, then there is sufficient basis to arrest that individual. Otherwise, he should be left alone to fly (or not) as he wishes.

Similarly, there should be no carry-on baggage search outside of the metal detector (random or otherwise) unless it is determined that the bag contains items that pose a threat to the security of the aircraft. Illegal drugs are NOT a security threat. Same for swabbing for explosives.

No need to remove computers from carry-on - any person seriously interested in using a computer as a ruse or device for the destruction of an aircraft should be quite capable of camouflaging it appropriately.

Some good old common sense and strict adherence to Constitutional protections should be basic to any security regime.

I say all this as a very frequent traveler who is quite prepared to accept the consequences of living in what we used to consider a free society.