Airport security
Guilden Gilbert writes to express concern about the reports of US government officials being able to get bomb-making materials past checkpoints at 21 US airports. Or specifically, why the media chose to make the information public:
"Shouldn't security agencies be working with news agencies so that instead of it reaching the airways as marketing for those with unstable minds, these weakness can be corrected from within? Every security measure has some weakness but I feel it is better that the public and more importantly those who may attempt a sick act, truly believe that the system is fool-proof."
I can see his point. Airport security will never be perfect, however much we might wish it was. That increases the importance of the perception of infallibility. Would-be terrorists need to think that if they try to get explosives on a plane, they will be caught.
That said, if the system has deficiencies that can be corrected, making those deficiencies public is probably the best way to ensure they get fixed. On balance, I'm on the media's side on this.
Archives By Date
Yep agree with you and the media.
Security by obscurity doesn't work.
Would say that airports need to be informed before it being made publically known however. Not so they can stop it being told but so they have a head start over the bad guys.
Obvious parallels with computer security/patching.
Posted by Marcus on 18.03.06 at 09:38
The real issue here for me is that I cannot see the difference between bomb "making" equipment...and a bomb.
On the main point, I tend towards Phil's conclusion, although it is indeed sad in this particular situation that public embarrasment (if that is what it is) is the only way to get something done.
I cannot see that working behind the scenes so to speak, has any value in this situation. I would rather we shout it out to the world that we have weaknesses in our systems and that we are correcting them.
It would be of little comfort to know after the explosion that "someone" was working on it. I would rather be in a position to make a reasonably informed decision as to whether I travel by air.
Going slightly off-post.the other real worry is that we tend to concentrate on air travel security.
...Fifty people on a coach?
...Two hundred on a train?
Makes you think.
Posted by Martin on 18.03.06 at 10:14
One thing I note is that it doesn't outline what bomb making materials they're talking about or how many tests overall have been conducted.
When people 'cannot see the difference between bomb "making" equipment...and a bomb.' it really opens up a wide range of possible interpretations.
The problem I see is that there are so many ways of making bombs it's hard to rule out and detect every kind.
When they describe the test as "components of an improvised explosive device and common household chemicals" what are they indicating?
I see some truth to Homeland Security's explanation of "While random items commonly found under a kitchen sink could conceivably be concocted into an IED [improvised explosive device], there are so many things that could go wrong with this hypothetical scenario that we find it highly implausible,". If you know a little bit about chemistry you'll know this is a believeable statement. As an example, the basics of homemade plastique can be made out of bleach, a couple pieces of a winemaking kit and a few simple electrical components. The process to create it however isn't likely something you could do on an airplane while in flight.
The questions that come to mind are how many times have these kind of tests been done? Was it done just once in each airport, or multiple times?
One of the main pitfalls of security is that it often relys on human interaction to detect flaws and risks. People have to be trained and continuously attentive.
From my limited knowledge these kind of tests are relatively standard and the prevention methods arn't always perfect.
Through constantly testing the system, you can find the flaws and take necessary action.
I see this as fear propoganda by the news agencies and an attempt by a politician to gain support for the bill he's promoting.
It's vague enough to scare people who don't know any better but doesn't give you much in terms of real numbers.
Read up on Florida Rep. John Mica and his bill and you'll find some interesting commentary on how it may ban certain visas to restrict the importation of IT based talent to the US.
ie:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10100016
Then of course rumors that Siemens just happens to be funding this particular politician quite a bit and this bill just happens to be in their interest:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00353797&Cycle=2002
Beyond that, I don't put too much faith behind "experts" described as an "ABC News consultant and terrorism expert.". Thats the best they could come up with?
These days everyone is an "expert".
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 18.03.06 at 11:49
Actually, on further contemplation and research I've noted that his bill is apparently riddled with loopholes so his goal isn't actually to limit importation of IT people but simply to make it look like he's doing something...
you'll note that this particular politician is getting paid the most out of any members of the house in contributions from Siemens and it's doubtful he'd want to piss them off.
too bad we don't have similar tracking of our own politician's campaign contributions
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 18.03.06 at 11:56
The US has spent so much time/effort reacting to terrorism but is finding that it can't guard every possible target and still maintain the freedom it claims to be protecting. The west has not given enough attention to being really proactive and minimising/eliminating those behaviours that trigger terrorism. So long as the people MAKING policy don't have to directly DEFEND it with their lives or the lives of their children, we are likely to see policies that favour economic trophies for the Haliburtons and body bags for the troops. Yep, I'm cynical about this.
Posted by stuart J Hayward on 18.03.06 at 11:57
Personally, I think reports like this are basically window dressing and misdirection to get the public's minds off of what's going on in Iraq and their plans to invade Iran (which I've been predicting since day one, by the way).
It's "See, people can get stuff that could maybe be used to makeBOMBS on planes! We need to protect 'Merica. We need to go to war with Iran, 'cuz it's bad."
Stuart, you're absolutely right. Money bags for the fat cats, body bags for the rest.
It's all bullshit and manipulation and garbage.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 18.03.06 at 12:21
Martin,
"On the main point, I tend towards Phil's conclusion, although it is indeed sad in this particular situation that public embarrasment (if that is what it is) is the only way to get something done."
I understand fully the point you and Phil make, however, I look at it in a similar vein to there being a public disclosure that the dogs that are being used at the airport for drug interdiction are not very accurate with their ability to detact narcotics.
I my view is this message gives more confidence to those who wish to import narcotics and knowing the dogs are not doing such a good job means that the risk of getting caught is now reduced.
I agree that the system should also be tested and the results of these tests should be used to improve the process not embarrass the agency responsible.
Again that is my view.
Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.03.06 at 15:40
Unless of course for the drug dealers it's all about bait and switch....
Truth is if any group of terrorist wanted to bring down an airplane it's really not that difficult to do. The cargo security systems are woefully inadequate. Or they can just hang out at the end of a busy airport and fire a rocket at them.
The key is in intelligence and I don't think we will be hearing too much in the press about the inner workings of the intelligence services.
Posted by SmokingGun on 18.03.06 at 16:15
Playing right into Bin Laden's hands...
Rarely do they tell you what he's actually saying in his speeches other than "Death to America".
The purpose of many of his terror attacks is to get America spending. BL realizes that in America's attempt to secure every exposed U.S. interest (which is impossible), they will ultimately spend all their money on security, not enough on social (and other important)programs and eventually bankrupt themselves...
The U.S. are well on their way... now they're raising the national debt limit to $9 trillion.
Posted by Bermudian on 19.03.06 at 18:35
Talking of the drug dogs at the airport. I flew in from Orlando last week and was waiting in the queue to clear customs when the sniffer dog past the American guy in front and sat down right behind him - which I undestand is the sign that he has detected drugs. The handler just pulled him away despite the dog continually trying to stay sat there. A bit later, the dog again tried to go and sit behind this guy. Now I'm hoping that the handler knew what he was doing and there was a drugs team following this guy once he got out of the airport so that whoever was receiving locally may also get arrested. On the other hand did he know someone on the inside ..........
Posted by Simon on 20.03.06 at 08:41
...Fifty people on a coach?
...Two hundred on a train?
Makes you think.
Posted by Martin on 18.03.06 at 10:14
About Europe. In the US the trains are concentrated to the northeast. Plane travel is far more common making the psychological impact greater. The psychological impact is really the nuts for terrorists, hence their name.
Simon,
Who knows what was going on there, but I can say from personal experience that the dogs aren't always correct. I took hell travelling across the US-Canadian border once because at the customs line the dog literally jumped up on me.
Why? I had a chocolate bar in my pocket. Luckily the customs agents were thorough in their search of me and my bags, but not too thorough if you know what I mean.
Posted by silencedogood on 20.03.06 at 12:36