El Al is frequently tossed out as an example of great security, but, really, they aren't that impressive:
o They have a grand total of 37 airplanes in their fleet.
o They engage in aggressive racial profiling.
o Their passenger pattern typically consists of people flying to and from Israel. It's pretty straightforward to identify the aberration in that crowd.
o By simply using the filter of "You are likely among the racial/ethnic/cultural target-crowd that is likely to be a terrorist" and then applying selective screening, you pretty much eliminate a fairly major vector for attack.
Admittedly, one of the reasons why profiling takes place at El Al, is that is because it works for that particular target. The United States, even if it were willing to engage in profiling, has a much broader set of attackers - you'd end up finding everyone included in your profile.
But, because the United States doesn't have the same straightforward problem of identifying who the _attackers_ are, they need to engage in "defense in depth" that El Al has the luxury of not requiring. Ergo - no large volumes of liquids (Note - the bottle size maximum is likely related to the highly oxygen reactive properties of the target liquids - you can't really combine them into one large bomb after the security checkpoint - and the small bottles aren't large enough to do _too_ much damage. A few people might be killed, or seriously injured - but it's unlikely you could bring a plane down within the restrictions of the TSA liquid size)
Shoes, likewise, with their metal inserts and large and easily concealed compartments, need to be scanned in the X-Ray machine.
Here are some simple steps that would dramatically increase security:
o Eliminate Carry On Luggage. This would be an issue on long flights for the work crowd though, as well as people carrying food/supplies for babies, anything valuable that they don't want to check, and people with medical requirements. Some Canadian Ports of entry were effectively doing that this week though.
o Full Body Scans with Back-Scatter/Millimeter Wave scans. This is way overdue, and the number one tactical failure of the TSA. Start your stopwatch - within 48 months 100% of inbound international passengers will be subject to some type of Full Body Scan or Pat Down. It will be interesting to see if the same thing will occur domestically.
o Full Pat-Down for all passengers - They actually did this at YVR a couple days ago. Slowed things down a little, but that's because they didn't have enough staff to do it quickly. They need to get over their tendency not to search sensitive areas if they want to ensure it's done with 100% effectivness.
o Bomb Sniffers/Dogs - I'm surprised nobody has automated this more effectively yet.
Note that any _one_ of these last three would have caught the Christmas Underwear Bomber - in fact, would likely have dissuaded him, and a large class of attackers, in the first place.
My problem with these (except the last one) is that they are invasive. Sorry, but I'm not willing to be treated as a potential criminal quite to that degree when all I want to do is travel from point A to point B.
As others have pointed out, the mm-wave scans amount to strip searches. A full pat-down just has too many associations with a criminal arrest. Eliminating carry-on luggage is probably more under the "inconvenience" category, but it is, as you somewhat note, an inconvenience that would be a significant problem for a lot of people.
Bomb sniffers -- especially if they're machines that are used passively -- sound like a good idea. Better scanning equipment that doesn't violate my privacy, but is able to do an adequate scan of both me and my belongings, without the need to take off my shoes or remove things (laptop, bag of liquids, etc.) from my luggage, or to limit the quantity of liquids I can carry... we need all these things.
With the amount of money supposedly being thrown at "making us safer" on airplanes, why have these scanners not been invented and mass-produced yet? It's been over 8 years since 9/11, and, technology-wise, we just have a few poorly-deployed pieces of technology (the air-puffer things, whatever they do, and the mm-wave scanners that have been a PR nightmare) and no actual universally-deployed solutions. I've been seeing signs at airports for a while now claiming that they're "working on" a solution that will let us keep our shoes on... but this solution hasn't materialized. Gimme a break...
Okay, I'm curious. How do you defend an airplane from someone with PETN stiched into their underwear carrying a liquid detonator in their (small) shampoo bottle without a Body Scan or Pat Down?
This attacker screwed up and got tackled before the detonator was able to set off the PETN - the next one will likely be smart enough to set off a bomb in the bathroom.
I actually am very interested in hearing what alternative approaches there are out there.
I honestly don't know. I'm not a security or explosives expert. Maybe you can't defend against an attack like that.
But maybe that's ok. Maybe preserving our privacy and avoiding making us all feel like criminals while we're traveling is worth a successful attack every now and then.
Yes, I know: easy for me to say, not having been on that plane, and never having lost anyone to terrorism. But I'd argue that the people who have been victims of terrorism (directly or indirectly) are way too close to the situation to be able to make a decision like that for the rest of us.
What is so magical about planes that make them such huge terrorist targets? How many passengers are on your average commercial flight? 200? 300? Hell, you could kill that many people just by setting off a bomb in the pre-security section of a decent-sized airport on a moderately-busy day -- and it would be comparatively trivial to accomplish.
I have always wondered why there aren't more visible chemical 'sniffers' in all airports as I've seen at NY's Penn & Grand Central Stations. They're not really in the way and there are specific security protocols in place if one of them go off. iRobot is already producing bomb sniffing bots for the military and I doubt it'd be too hard for the technology to be adapted for airport checkpoints.
Your last four points illustrate the real problem. We have the technology (scans) and the techniques (pat-downs and dogs) to make us safe. We do not have the will to implement them.
Either it costs too much or people don't want to give up their liberty (though really, the pat-down is the only one that should offend people).
Like too many things, this is a political problem and not a technical one.
Really? Full body scans, basically a technological stripsearch, wherein you and your children are examined in detail by some guy in some room somewhere, does not hold potential for offence?
Yes - given a choice between dealing with idiots who are damned and determined to get on an airplane with me with PETN stitched into their underwear and a liquid detonator, I'll take the bodyscan. Particularly as it actually makes things more convenient than the time-consuming pat-down that you need to go through now when flying into the US.
#1 - that's not to say that, for the privacy sensitive individuals, appropriate safeguards should not be taken. Penalties against displaying the information, no ability to save it, faces blurred. These types of scans can be made as secure as medical records - and those are far more sensitive than a faceless body-scan.
#2 - I'm interested in hearing about alternative ways to defend against the PETN in the underwear + Liquid Detonator. It seems to me to be the most straightforward attack vector possible on an airplane right now. I recognize we can't forsake all our privacy for a small amount of security, but neither can we forsake all our security for a small amount of privacy.
#3 - for those really opposed to the bodyscan, they can always subject themselves to a full pat-down. That has always seemed more intrusive to me, and less effective as well - as they sensitive areas (Groin, Chest) are never searched and would seem to me to be ideal locations for explosives.
#4 - I really don't consider Body Scans to be much of a privacy issue - Any nudist or burning man attendee will tell you that real-actual-nudity, even in person, really loses any excitement for the viewer after being in its presence for about 90 seconds. The people working a shift scanning will not be getting any visceral enjoyment from eyeballing scan after scan. (Particularly as they will probably be monitoring several dozen scanners over all the terminals simultaneously)
#5 This is all moot anyways - BodyScanning/X-Ray scanning is going to be a prime candidate for automation. I'm guessing within five-seven years, no human alive will be as effective at spotting issues on a Luggage X-Ray/Body scan as software, and so you will basically either sail on through under the observation of software (which only the most extreme privacy advocates would have an issue with), or be flagged and subjected to a pat-down/luggage search.
o They have a grand total of 37 airplanes in their fleet.
o They engage in aggressive racial profiling.
o Their passenger pattern typically consists of people flying to and from Israel. It's pretty straightforward to identify the aberration in that crowd.
o By simply using the filter of "You are likely among the racial/ethnic/cultural target-crowd that is likely to be a terrorist" and then applying selective screening, you pretty much eliminate a fairly major vector for attack.
Admittedly, one of the reasons why profiling takes place at El Al, is that is because it works for that particular target. The United States, even if it were willing to engage in profiling, has a much broader set of attackers - you'd end up finding everyone included in your profile.
But, because the United States doesn't have the same straightforward problem of identifying who the _attackers_ are, they need to engage in "defense in depth" that El Al has the luxury of not requiring. Ergo - no large volumes of liquids (Note - the bottle size maximum is likely related to the highly oxygen reactive properties of the target liquids - you can't really combine them into one large bomb after the security checkpoint - and the small bottles aren't large enough to do _too_ much damage. A few people might be killed, or seriously injured - but it's unlikely you could bring a plane down within the restrictions of the TSA liquid size)
Shoes, likewise, with their metal inserts and large and easily concealed compartments, need to be scanned in the X-Ray machine.
Here are some simple steps that would dramatically increase security:
o Eliminate Carry On Luggage. This would be an issue on long flights for the work crowd though, as well as people carrying food/supplies for babies, anything valuable that they don't want to check, and people with medical requirements. Some Canadian Ports of entry were effectively doing that this week though.
o Full Body Scans with Back-Scatter/Millimeter Wave scans. This is way overdue, and the number one tactical failure of the TSA. Start your stopwatch - within 48 months 100% of inbound international passengers will be subject to some type of Full Body Scan or Pat Down. It will be interesting to see if the same thing will occur domestically.
o Full Pat-Down for all passengers - They actually did this at YVR a couple days ago. Slowed things down a little, but that's because they didn't have enough staff to do it quickly. They need to get over their tendency not to search sensitive areas if they want to ensure it's done with 100% effectivness.
o Bomb Sniffers/Dogs - I'm surprised nobody has automated this more effectively yet.
Note that any _one_ of these last three would have caught the Christmas Underwear Bomber - in fact, would likely have dissuaded him, and a large class of attackers, in the first place.