I ended an article some days, "Security Theater Now Playing at Your Airport," ago with the question, "Which do we want – theatrics or safety?" This weblog entry pursues the topic.
As the anecdote in that article concerning Ann-Marie Murphy in 1986 implies, I am not calling for religious profiling so much as using one's brains to focus on the threat. Therefore, while I see the following news from Finland, "Passengers' Religion May Lead to X-Ray Scan," as a step in the right direction, I also see it as simplistic:
Airport security may soon start scanning travellers based on their religion or citizenship. A syndicate of regional papers reports that a policy of passenger profiling may be adopted if Finland begins using new -- and controversial -- electromagnetic scanners.
Finland's aviation authority Finavia is considering whether to invest in electromagnetic scanners. But their bulky size and prohibitive expense means they would not entirely replace standard metal detectors. This is why, explains Finavia's head of corporate security Jyri Vikström, they may use passenger profiling in addition to random scans. .
Comment: How curious if the cost of electromagnetic scanners is what prompts a more discerning approach to airport security. And in Finland - not the place one would expect such a cutting-edge decision, given its relative lack of terrorism. (January 17, 2010)
July 14, 2011 update: A key part of the security theater has been the Department of Homeland Security's program called "Screening of Passengers by Technique" (SPOT), which claims, based on the work of Paul Ekman, a University of California psychology professor, that facial expressions signal terroristic intentions.
But now the Government Accountability Office finds that the $750 million spent on training Transportation Security Administration employees how to "spot" has done no good. "SPOT officials told us that it is not known if the SPOT program has ever resulted in the arrest of anyone who is a terrorist," finds the GAO, "or who was planning to engage in terrorist-related activity."
Aug. 2, 2011 update: Could improvements to the system be on the way? Joe Myxter, travel editor for MSNBC, has details of a new kind of TSA agent, a Behavior Detection Officer, who will start work Aug. 3 at Boston's Logan International Airport.
Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) started on-the-job training for a pilot program that enhances the agency's already-existing behavior detection program. BDOs will ask a few questions and look for anomalies in every traveler passing through Logan's Terminal A, TSA spokesperson Greg Soule told msnbc.com. "Officers are trained to look for specific behaviors that would indicate if an individual is acting suspicious and has a fear of discovery," he said. ...
"I like the idea that TSA talks to people walking through," said Robert Strang, CEO of Investigative Management Group. "Just having communication with people is helpful. Rather than just looking at machines, you look people in the eye. ... To emphasize one-on-one communication for people coming through is a great idea."
Mar. 10, 2013 update: An unnamed former TSA screener at Newark Airport has some blistering things to say about airline security in a New York Post interview today.
A lot of what we do is make-believe. I've had to screen small children and explain to their parents I had no choice but to "check" them. I would only place my hands on their arms and bottom half of their legs, and the entire "pat-down" lasted 10 seconds. This goes completely against TSA procedure. Because the cameras are recording our every move, we have to do something. If someone isn't checked or even screened properly, the entire terminal would shut down, as this constitutes a security breach. ...
An excerpt from the "New York Post" story.
When there are internal tests, conducted by the Newark training department, it's easy to cheat because they use our co-workers. You could be working with someone all morning, and then they're gone. Word gets around the checkpoint. Someone will come over to you and say, "Hey, it's Joe. He's got a blue duffel bag."
What are the chances of you being on a flight where something happens? We always said it's not a question of if terrorists get through — it's a question of when. Our feeling is nothing's happened because they haven't wanted it to happen. We're not any big deterrent. It's all for show.
Most TSA screeners know their job is a complete joke. ...
Every time you read about a TSA horror story, it's usually about a screener doing what he or she is instructed to do.
Supervisors play absolutely no role in day-to-day functions except to tell you not to chew gum. Gum chewing is a huge issue with management. ...
Goofing off and half-hour-long bathroom breaks are the only way to break up the monotony. There is also a lot of ogling of female passengers by the male screeners. ...
People have been caught falling asleep on the job. They get written up, it's put in their file, and that's it.
Anyone boarding an aircraft should feel maybe only a teeny tiny bit safer than if there were no TSA at all.
Mar. 14, 2013 update: "TSA rethinks its approach to airline safety" reads the headline in the Los Angeles Times over a story by Wes Venteicher. The Transportation Security Administration, apparently, is reassessing airline safety with an eye toward identifying the most likely threats. Here's the key passage:
TSA is looking at ways to pre-check more people so that those it has identified as non-threatening can get through more quickly. Identifying the people who are threats, rather than objects that might be used as weapons, will be a more efficient and safer way to handle security.
Comment: If this is actually the case, it won't be a minute too soon.
Mar. 22, 2013 update: Security personnel at Edinburgh Airport have begun asking passengers what their religion is. In theory, a reply is voluntary, but passengers are not told this. From the Scotsman:
Iain McGill, of Leith, who runs his own employment agency, was waiting to board a flight last Friday, when he was randomly selected for a body scan. He said: "After I had been scanned they asked me what country I was resident in, what age I was and what my religion was. I didn't make a fuss as I didn't want to risk not being allowed on the flight. I was absolutely, definitely, one hundred per cent not informed I was not obliged to answer the questions."
Comment: I see religion as part of the mix of information needed to profile passengers, but this is crude and ineffective.
Nov. 25, 2013 update: The General Accountability Office (GAO) of the U.S. government issued a report on Nov. 8, 2013, Aviation Security: TSA Should Limit Future Funding for Behavior Detection Activities that confirms the security theater farce that is TSA. It spent about $900 million in 2007-12 on its "Screening of Passengers by Observation Technique" program (SPOT) in which 3,000 "behavior detection officers" (BDOs in the lingo) in 176 airports identified high-risk passengers by noting "behaviors indicative of stress, fear, or deception"; so far, however, the program has not turned up a single terrorist.
June 1, 2015 update: From ABC News: "An internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration revealed security failures at dozens of the nation's busiest airports, where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials," or 67 out of 70.
