Liquid scanner at the airport
Continuation. Beginning: Convincing the Public of Safety – 1
People vs. Machines
Here is how Kip Hawley, head of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration under George W. Bush, responded to those who complained that seniors were being searched at American airports: "You can't tell al-Qaeda: if you give us someone who looks 90 years old or nine months old, you can pass freely. Because, I guarantee you, they are watching. They will notice, and then they will come."
Schneier objects: "In any large country, there are literally millions of potential targets (…), and terrorists have hundreds of potential tactics." In search of new arguments, the security expert has already held six competitions among his blog readers to invent an unexpected yet realistic threat.
In 2007, he asked them to think about terrorist attacks in aviation and selected three semi-finalists who described the possibility of an attack using alkali metals, detonating gas, and toxic dimethylmercury. None of these threats are protected against by the security measures currently in place at airports.
Now the expert community is advocating for further reduction of strict control measures. Hawley himself ultimately inclined to this point of view, having published a large column in August 2013 calling for abandoning what he considered excessive restrictions. For example, he believes that a total search of passengers can be dispensed with.
In Hawley's view, the list of prohibited items should be radically reduced, leaving only explosives and toxic substances. Hawley even advocates for passengers to regain the right to carry pocket knives and manicure scissors in their carry-on luggage, as well as baseball bats – it is impossible to hijack a plane with them after cockpit doors were additionally reinforced after 2001. "The mission of the Transportation Security Administration is to prevent catastrophic attacks on the transportation system, not to ensure that every individual passenger is free from danger during travel," Hawley urged coming to terms with reality in another article.
Relaxations should also affect the "plastic bag rule" – it can be abolished, because "modern technologies allow detecting liquids that pose a threat in carry-on luggage," the former head of U.S. transportation security is confident. "With the right liquid explosive, you would need to bring far less than 100 milliliters onto the plane," analyst Douglas Laird agrees with the uselessness of restrictions in a conversation with Lenta.ru. He calls the complete ban on carrying liquids, which is easy to circumvent in the absence of "naked scanners," "mostly a show."
Such X-ray scanners based on backscatter, which allowed security services to obtain an image of a virtually naked passenger and which sparked fierce public criticism, were decided to be abandoned in the United States as of June 1, 2013. The German government reviewed plans to use "naked scanners" two years earlier – journalists again proved that if desired, a bomb dummy could be carried through these devices. Instead, security authorities prioritized the use of "more modest" passive wave scanners and detectors for explosives and narcotics.
Rafi Sela, former head of security at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, is even more categorical on the issue of the liquid ban. "I don't want to scare you, but does anyone check the people who deliver water to airports? If I want to bring a dangerous liquid onto a plane, I will NOT carry it through the checkpoint. There are at least seven zones in the airport where such a transfer can take place. So what is the purpose of the liquid ban? To convince the public that it is safe. Guards are so busy catching bottles that they forget to watch for real threats. The more items you ban, the less chance you have of catching explosives," he writes in a letter to Lenta.ru.
However, the Russian state, ignoring world experience, has no other ways to combat terrorism. "I am sure that the media should convey to the public the inevitability of these 'draconian' measures, otherwise it [the public] must prepare to live in constant fear," throws up his hands criminologist Shelukhin. According to him, it would be preferable for these restrictions to be temporary – until Russian transport security agencies optimize their inspection techniques, which would allow them to analyze liquids for danger as well.
Another (but also technological) approach is now being tested by the International Air Transport Association. In cooperation with the International Council of Airports, it has developed the Smart Security program. It is expected that its implementation by 2020 – through the use of state-of-the-art technical means and the introduction by airlines of frequent passenger recognition systems – will minimize waiting time in line when passing through the security cordon. The program also will free travelers from the need to remove shoes, belts, and outer clothing and give them the ability to carry unlimited quantities of liquids in their carry-on luggage.
The Smart Security program, as Ben Vogel, editor of the analytical publication Jane’s Airport Review, explains to Lenta.ru, is aimed precisely at the preliminary collection of intelligence information and risk analysis. The system itself will focus on tracking only a small minority of passengers – those who raise suspicion. “In such a system, technology will still play a role, but X-ray scanners, metal detectors, and so on will no longer be the first line of defense,” he is confident. The USA, Canada, Great Britain, and European countries are already exchanging information about travelers who have purchased tickets, and airlines of these countries must search for individuals on suspicious person lists among their clients.
In Israel, for now, they do without preliminary compilation of passenger lists to which some level of trustworthiness would be assigned. The recipe of the Jewish state is interviewing each passenger. If he has any malicious intentions, the former head of security at Ben Gurion Airport is confident, specialists will be able to decipher them – thanks to their knowledge of body language, ability to establish eye contact with the interlocutor, and distinguish the anxiety of a late passenger from the nervousness of a potential bomber.
To be continued.
Alexander ARTEMYEV.
lenta.ru