The security at airports, and 3D body scanners in particular, have been in the news a lot recently. The reason I wanted to write about this is that it demonstrates the reactionary way some security is implemented, while actually making things worse for everyone.
It seems that there are two types of security measure: those that reassure the public that something is being done to protect them, and those that actually help. The former is usually a lot less effective than the latter.
Consider traditional airport security. The departure lounge of an airport is considered a “sterile” environment; all of those in it have been screened. For many years, the visible side of this primarily consisted of an x-ray of carry-on luggage and a metal detector for people to walk through. These devices were designed to prevent people bringing knives and guns on board. In addition, hold-baggage cannot travel in an aircraft without an associated passenger as, in general, people don’t want to blow themselves up.
After entering the departure lounge, a passenger has entered into the “sterile” airline system: people transit through different airports and arrive at totally different destinations via different airlines, often without re-screening in transit.
The question is: what type of attack will this actually prevent? Consider the holes in the sterile environment: the baggage handlers, terminal shop staff, flight crews, maintenance workers and the physical security of the airport perimeter.
The additional security measures brought in over the last few years haven’t really addressed the holes, they simply reinforce the idea that something is being done to protect the travelling public. First it was the shoe scanner. Then belts had to come off, liquids were banned and now we have full body scanners. All of these can be circumvented. All of this inconveniences the travelling public, which I wouldn’t mind so much if someone could convince me that there is a point to it.
I will, like most people, grudgingly comply, but I wonder what measures are put in place to determine whether the benefits justify the cost and who actually makes that call. It is possible to opt-out of the enhanced screening (at least in the US), but this means you will be patted down physically, which can be traumatic for some people, especially kids.
These new controls are also inconsistently applied across the network of airports and some airports can opt-out of the TSA programme. I have, inadvertently, walked through a metal-detector at Heathrow with a solid, stainless-steel watch and been through multiple airports with bottles of water. For any control to work, it has to be applied consistently.
This post may come as a surprise as security people are often portrayed as wanting to lock down the world but I am of the belief it is both impossible and undesirable to live in a 100% risk-free environment and a balance has to be struck between security and preventing people getting on with their lives. What I don’t like are controls that are inconsistent and not comprehensive.
Bruce Schneier has much to say on this topic here.
Here’s a video from the TSA on airport security:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fpOALc2RbI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]
The BBC have an article on the balance between civil liberties and security.
imho, the problem with airport security isn’t so much that they are so many inconsistent rules to follow, but because they are static policies which, given time, can be learnt and vulnerabilities exploited.
what they should consider is rotating and evolving the security policies so that checks are always different in order to make it harder for terrorists to find lapses in security.
Also ceramic is undetectable through a metal detector.
I think the rules are fairly consistent, they’re inconsistently applied. In rules are ineffective. Ceramic knives are a good case-in-point. The control is meant to detect knives and it doesn’t work with a whole class of weapon…
Sorry, my bad use of the english language, that’s what I meant
Also, I tried to avoid mentioning knives in case I was giving anyone any ideas.
I had the *ahem* pleasure of being randomly selected to try out the perv-a-tron at Heathrow. Interestingly despite having been scanned I was required to undergo a compulsory pat down too as my back “looked suspicious”.
So, if the scanner isn’t accurate enough to identify threats and a pat down is required in case of doubt, then this suggests that a pat down by a trained officer is more accurate than the scanner. Therefore why couldn’t I have opted for the pat down any way (an option in the US only)?
In any case, the implementation of the perv-a-tron is not consistent, not all security control areas are equipped with scanner, leading to different levels of security control into even the same flight-side area of the same airport terminal depending on which end of the terminal you choose.
Talking of inconveniencing the travelling public, I’ve flown quite a few times with my now 3-year-old daughter and each and every time the security staff find something new to confiscate from us (including items that we have previously travelled with). Memorable contraband goods include a tin of macaroni cheese, play dough (I guess it looks a little bit like plastic explosive) and some children’s cutlery, exactly like this http://bit.ly/gailyR. The first two I can kind of understand – the macaroni cheese was taken because of the water content, but the tin can that contains it is probably more dangerous as a blunt instrument.
However, the children’s cutlery is by no means as dangerous as many items I can pick up in the departure lounge (including the plastic cutlery at Stansted Wetherspoons). To top that, the security personnel told me that while this was prohibited, knitting needles are fine to take on board. Work that one out.
K.
That’s pretty bad. Not so long ago I got stopped while taking my umbrella through as hand luggage and ended up checking it in. It did actually arrive…