The Delusion of the Moment: Passenger Screening Technology
OK, as I sit here waiting for Pres. Obama to speak (again!) on the attempted airplane bombing, I find myself perplexed by a very basic question. Perhaps I am missing something. But the indictment of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab alleges that he carried a device containing PETN and TATP, among other ingredients, onto Flight 253 in Amsterdam.
The indictment doesn’t say how much explosive material he was allegedly carrying, but news reports consistently cite 80 grams of PETN--which is just under 3 oz. (Not clear how much TATP he is charged with having carried.) In any case, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has ordered 150 backscatter scanners, full-body imaging machines, to help prevent another similar attempt. Over the next 12 months, TSA plans to order another 300 such scanners.
But wait... All passengers are allowed to bring 3 oz bottles of liquid onto the plane in their carry-on baggage--where it would not be noticed by a whole-body scanner, which scans the body, not the bag. And it would not be noticed at all period because it is legal.
Now, granted, it might be easier to have a bomb already assembled (more or less) and attached to one’s person. But it’s hard to know without knowing more about this device. It’s possible that a terrorist could just put these explosives in their plastic baggy and breeze through the scanner. And, in any case, these much-discussed whole-body scanners may not even notice this kind of device if it is in one’s underwear and not in the carry-on bag.
I dwell on these tedious details to make a point: This whole shared delusion about the need for more and more invasive screening is very curious. Bruce Schneier described the strangeness today in his CNN essay, “Stop the Panic on Air Security”:
We’re doing these things even though security worked. The security checkpoints, even at their pre-9/11 levels, forced whoever made the bomb to construct a much worse bomb than he would have otherwise. Instead of using a timer or a plunger or another reliable detonation mechanism, as would any commercial user of PETN, he had to resort to an ad hoc homebrew—and a much more inefficient one, involving a syringe, and 20 minutes in the lavatory, and we don’t know exactly what else—that didn’t explode....
We’re doing these things even though airplane terrorism is incredibly rare, the risk is no greater today than it was in previous decades, the taxi to the airport is still more dangerous than the flight, and ten times as many Americans are killed by lightning as by terrorists.
Now back to waiting for Obama and more rhetoric about zero tolerance for something 100% guaranteed to happen again.... Is it too early for a drink?
Demian Neidetcher said on January 07, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Amanda, sorry I don’t have much to contribute other than you’re nailing it. This is great stuff, needs to be said and please keep it up.
Mike said on January 08, 2010 at 4:35 am
All security- whether it is a full body scanner or a lock on your front door- is mostly about giving one the “illusion” of security. Without this practical illusion of safety, we- as individuals and as a society- could not function. For example, we have to be able to turn off the lights at night, knowing-or at least, believing- that the alarms and locks in our home will work properly and effectively prevent a criminal from entering. If we didn’t have this illusion, we would worry ourselves silly- probably needlessly- every minute of the day. Life would hardly be worth the effort.
In point of fact, absolute security is probably an impossible target and no administration could honestly promise such a thing. And we are wrong and foolish to expect it. If your adversary is clever enough, he will find a way to outwit the security devices. This is a fact of life and something as adults we must come to grips with. That is the bad news but it doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands in resignation.
There is a bright side. Firstly, if everybody- not just the police or agencies but all of us- keep a heightened degree of vigilance- not hysterical panic and over-reaction- we have a better than average chance of preventing a disaster. A thousand pairs of eyes means a thousand filters and checkpoints that a potential terrorist must avoid.
Secondly. adequate training can help to minimize the consequences of an attack. This requires civil training- things to watch out for. in effect, training people to observe, as well as first aid training and procedures in an emergency. This kind of training should be free of charge, and should work at all levels, home, school and the workplace. A kind of new nationwide Civil Defense Program? All of us must be able to look catastrophe in the face without blinking.
One of the best films I ever watched was a training video on hotel fires. Many of the facts were gruesome and, on the surface, quite discouraging. And yet, knowing now what I know about “the opening and closing of windows of opportunity” I now feel more confident that, in such a situation, I would do the best I could do. Maybe I would fail, but at the very least, I can base my decisions on accurate information and not blind panic.
Thirdly, the public has a duty to report suspicious behavior and in an emergency, act independently to save lives. Additionally, the public needs to feel certain that authorities are actually listening and following up on any leads, no matter how unlikely. This also requires security staff that are easy to contact, that can interview and evaluate the validity of reports and, when necessary, implement follow-up action. The idea that the public is only recipient of protection and not a participant is a fundamental flaw in the present system.
Can anybody imagine how difficult it was for the Nigerian father to go to the American authorities and report his own son? And yet, in the end, it seems to have been a failure of the authorities to take this important lead seriously.
And finally, if the authorities constantly upgrade their standard operating procedures and follow them with regards to security protocol, then our illusions of security may be based something more than wishful thinking.
izmir web tasarım said on March 21, 2010 at 9:59 am
Thanks for helpful information you catch up us with your instructional explanation.