Is travel safer after our Christmas wake-up call? Probably not

by Charlie Leocha on January 8, 2010

reviewer1-590x250
I listened attentively to President Obama’s presentation and the discussions with Janet Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, yesterday and sadly, I heard no different rhetoric. This speech by President Obama could have been delivered by President Bush, however, Bush would have thrown the word “terrorism” into the mix.

Americans have heard the same speeches coupled with the same knee-jerk band-aid responses that won’t make anyone safer, but will complicate travel.

Going all the way back to the Commission on 9/11 all of the Presidential speeches have a similar ring. Nothing seems to have changed as far as the teleprompter is concerned. Same words. Same platitudes. Same soothing, “We’ll take care of you.” Same “Good job, Brownie.” This time it was Obama excusing a roomful of intelligence and security chiefs.

Heck, according to the President, no one is responsible. It seems, these isolated extremists just happen. Basically, the word from Washington is that we need to fine tune the intelligence operation and bureaucratic sharing.

I’m all for that. Let’s get to doing the fine tuning. But we need something more — someone to lead the operation.

Prior to the Obama administration, there was a vilified vice president who was an absolute fanatic about counter-terrorism activities. We need someone with the same intensity and laser focus in this administration. We might not like this new director, just like few felt warm and fuzzy about our former VP, but the important thing is that the bad guys fear him. We are missing that these days.

The first step in shoring up our national security is finding a boogie man as fearful to al-Qaeda as VP Cheney was. We want the bad guys to keep their heads down and quake with a fear of discovery. What I didn’t hear from Obama after his meeting with his secretariat of security was the name of the man in charge.

At the airport level we don’t need full body scanners, more pat-downs and more hassles. We don’t need more security theater. The effectiveness of these whole-body scanners is suspect and the violation of privacy and dignity is clear.

The new regime of limited profiling will make airport security far more efficient immediately.

Experts suggest that the explosives used in this Christmas bombing attempt would not have been detected because of the low-density of the materials.

Even assuming that the whole-body technology “could” have “detected” the explosives in a perfect world, chances are the powder spread in panties could have been confused with many other items. If a scanner operator had the time to really analyze the image on their screen, he or she may have been able to see something amiss. However, small 10-second glimpses of changing body shapes over an extended period of time would test anyone’s ability to discern carefully hidden contraband or explosives.

There are other machines under development that “will highlight in red any contraband hidden on a body” without strip searching the passenger thus eliminating privacy and dignity issues.

I am sure that new “chemical trace scanners” capable of detecting explosives and the presence of those who have been handling explosives can be developed. Currently, this technology is undergoing testing. It would target the bad guys and preserve privacy and dignity. Plus and according to the manufacturer, can be fitted to much of the security equipment already in use at airports.

SpectraFluidics says its threat-detection system, originally invented at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has successfully detected trace levels of explosives including pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN, the chemical allegedly carried by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab during an attempted attack on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight.

The successful series of tests marked a milestone for SpectraFluidics, which according to a news release is developing its detection system for both a portal and hand-held configuration. Officials say the technology is expected to be released in 2010.

In conclusion, here are my suggestions for Obama’s minions —
• Put someone in charge with a laser focus on counter-terrorism.
• Don’t add to the hassles, invade privacy and violate dignity of everyday travelers with whole-body scanners. Shift to less-invasive technologies.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: airport security, chemical trace scanners, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, terrorism, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, whole-body scanners

  • Hapgood

    The unfortunate reality is that invasive hassles that violate privacy and dignity are effective measures when applied to airport screening. No, they’re not effective at protecting aviation from terrorism, for the reasons you noted. But that isn’t the purpose anyway. Once a terrorist is allowed to walk into a checkpoint, the system has failed; TSA screening is very unlikely to stop him.

    The intrusive hassles are effective at reassuring a critical mass of travelers who might be afraid of flying for fear of terrorism, because it shows that the government is “doing something” to ensure the safety of aviation. The more visible and intrusive that “something” is, the more reassuring it is. If officers in uniforms emblazoned with images of the Sainted Twin Towers pat you down, put you through a scanner that can display your naked body to an officer securely hidden away (to protect privacy), paw through your carry-ons, and confiscate items you had no idea were prohibited, it can only mean you’re getting a very thorough, very rigorous inspection that obviously must provide excellent protection from terrorists! And the rituals of removing shoes, laptops, belts (and soon wallets) provide walk-on roles in the security theater production– reassuring opportunities for all of us to “do something” to help protect aviation and ourselves.

    That obviously isn’t going to bamboozle everyone who flies into Believing. But many of us fervently want our Leaders to protect us, and the TSA’s increasingly burdensome charade successfully panders to that wishful thinking. It’s a quick fix that’s far easier than fixing the real problems of ponderous parochial bureaucracy (which Bush’s “Homeland Security” shuffle has merely exacerbated), and it meets an actual need for reassurance. Measures that aren’t so intrusive may not meet that need.

    So you and other travel bloggers, and Bruce Schneier and other genuine security experts, can write gigabytes of criticism based on facts and science, explaining exactly why the “enhanced screening” is a colossal waste of dollars and time. But it won’t do any good. Enough people want to Believe the charade is effective. And those people not only won’t listen but will eagerly offer up even more of their liberty, privacy, and time on a silver platter in to get more reassurance. They’ll even rally to the defense of the TSA when a critic “aids the enemy” by speaking the truth they don’t want to hear. And, most importantly, “enhanced airport screening” provides a facile way for the people and institutions who failed to evade accountability for their failure by passing it on to everyone who wants to fly.

    Airport “security” will thus continue to be “enhanced” with reactive patches after each (inevitable) failure. And of course, those patches will only make travel ever more difficult without providing any real security. There is nothing we can do about that. That’s the reflexive reaction of the entire political and bureaucratic establishment in this country, and it also reassures a sufficient number of people who want to Believe.

    That leaves one and only one thing we can do: Refuse to fly, whenever that’s a practical option. We may not have a choice when it comes to business travel or visiting far-flung family. Airline and TSA executives know this, which is why they’re so intent on making flying such an ordeal. But when it’s time to plan a vacation, give serious consideration to destinations that don’t require flying. With planning and research, visiting nearby places can be every bit as exciting as distant trips. And you’d avoid a lot of needless hassle and discomfort, while saving money and employing the only available avenue for expressing dissatisfaction with the ineffective charade. And it can’t hurt to let your Congresscritter (and everyone else) know you don’t find the security theater reassuring, and you’d rather they spend those billions of dollars on fixing the real security flaws.

  • Pingback: Is travel safer after our Christmas wake-up call? Probably not : All TravelsTourism Infomations

  • Terry

    Maybe the sheep amongst the public would be more concerned if they were required to (re)read George Orwell’s “1984″, before, or in conjunction with, purchasing an airline ticket. Then again, maybe they wouldn’t understand “1984″ and fail to see that the overpriced ‘security measures’ are simply ‘Big-Money’, ‘Big-Industry’ and ‘Big-Brother’ acting in collusion with ‘Big-Rhetoric’.

    Orwell wrote his novel in 1948 as a warning to where we were headed with governmental control of the public (not the terrorists–the public). Looks like not enough people listened, because “Big-Brother” is watching you. Literally.

Previous post:

Next post: