More often than not, security systems miss the mark when they skip a vital step in developing their security standards and procedures.  They do not first clearly define the threat.  But only once you understand the threat, can you understand what is suspicious and then have a road map for procedures.

Take random checks as an example.  Think about how ambiguous it is when an officer is asked to “randomly” check a given number of people or objects.  Given the open-ended nature of that directive, the officer chooses what to check motivated by what amounts to whim: perhaps the officer has a non-confrontational personality and will avoid anything or anyone that appears troublesome.  What and whom he chooses to check could likewise be motivated by subconscious sexism, racism or some other psychological mindset.  With humans, there is no such thing as random.  A random check procedure can translate to a real vulnerability for a security system because it allows an officer to make screening decisions based on his own inclinations.

What’s more, a random check procedure is passive.  It requires no (more…)

The TSA is conducting a pilot program at Boston Logan airport where Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) will interact with passengers during the Travel Document Checking process to assess if further screening is required of the passenger.  The new security tool in this case is the conducting of a brief conversation and passenger threat assessment.

This approach is methodologically different from anything the TSA has done previously.  Although the TSA refers to it as risk-based assessment, actually this is a threat-based approach.  How so?  At this point, for example, pilots undergo less screening than do passengers; pilots are not required to remove their shoes.  Pilots represent a lower risk.  Certain nationalities are screened more intensely than others, as they are understood to pose a higher risk.  The policies as to how to deal with different categories of people comes down to the front line from the upper echelons TSA management.  All the screener has to do is identify someone as a pilot or as a ‘risky’ nationality and then follow the dictated procedure.

(more…)

I heard a nice analogy about engineers and basketball players recently that well describes the role of security: what it is at its best and at its less-than-best.

Some folks approach security as though it were an engineering project.  Security managers map out regulations and protocols to be adhered to by the letter.  Like an engineer designing a car or a building they consider budget and costing, throughput and appearance.  In this approach, there may be a security team but there is no clear opposing team.

In basketball, as this analogy goes, there is a clearly defined opposing team.  Indeed, the adversary is at the top of the coach and players’ mind at all times.  They spend hours upon hours studying the adversary’s every move and trait in order to understand and therefore best anticipate how they will play and how to win against them.

(more…)

There is debate across the globe as to whether aviation security is best provided by private sector contractors or by government agency employees.  Here in the U.S., although it may seem that the TSA is ubiquitous, private screeners operate in 16 airports that range in size and geography from San Francisco International to Rochester, NY and Jackson Hole, WY.

U.S. Congressman Mica who heads the House Transportation Committee believes big money can be saved by employing the private sector in place of the TSA.  A 2007 federal study showed that private versus federal cost 17% more.  A subsequent GAO report released this year revised that number to 3%.  But whether screeners are employed by the TSA or a private company, by law, everyone gets the same training, uses the same techniques and equipment.

(more…)

By now many of you have read the story about the 95-year-old woman in a wheelchair who was forced to remove her adult diaper before being cleared by the TSA to board a flight from NW Florida Regional Airport.  This is just one in a series of embarrassing TSA screening stories.  The problem is not incompetence or malice.  The officers followed procedures.  Alas, the procedures lack threat assessment and are devoid of an essential evaluation component.  That’s the problem, plain and simple.

Are there instances where a 95-year-old woman wearing a diaper could pose a real threat?  (more…)

The other day I was glancing through Inspire magazine, a product of the Al Qaeda public relations machine.  It’s a slick, professional publication directed at – one assumes – an audience of would-be-terrorists, and is full of interesting articles on how to make a bomb or conduct surveillance.

Even before the advent of WikiLeaks, the non-terrorist public has enjoyed a fair amount of access to information that in governmental circles is considered classified.  With the internet, it’s relatively easy to learn about the vulnerabilities of security technology, the configuration of IEDs and how much explosives it takes to bring down a plane.  And now terrorists in the know are sharing this kind of information directly with the public.

What I find disturbing (more…)

At a dinner party l gave last night, just as dessert was being served, someone posed the following question: as a society, what would be more devastating to us, blowing up an Airbus 380 midair over a densely populated city or, a presidential assassination?  Yes, this is a depressing choice but after a brief, stunned silence, there was much animated talk around the table.  The questioner emphasized that we weren’t talking about any particular president; partisanship had no place in this theoretical scenario.

One guest pointed out that the president represents an entire nation and as a figure head, political leader and chief administrator, his death would be devastating.  Everyone knows who the president is but (more…)

There is a marked difference between threat-based profiling and risk-based profiling.  Indeed, risk-based (unlike threat-based) profiling can beget racial profiling.  With risk based, we identify the potential or likelihood for threat given what we know from past occurrences, statistical data.  Perhaps the data show that there is a higher risk of violent crime at the hands of people who are less educated and poor, than people who are educated and wealthy.  The problem with this approach is that the group whose profile is ‘uneducated and poor’ includes members who are not inclined towards violence.  It also excludes those people who are educated and wealthy but are in fact capable of violent crime.  A couple of statistical bad apples and the next thing you know, you’re having to deal with an entire cart. (more…)

The amygdala, or as some prefer to call it: the A-Spot, are two almond shaped bunches of brain cells at the heart of security threat assessment.  Security threat assessment?!?  How so?

The amygdala, part of our limbic system, plays a role in the processing and recall of emotional reactions.  It sends impulses that activate the sympathetic nervous system.  It’s the amygdala that relays stimuli that in a fight and flight response, push an adrenaline rush.  It’s why our pupils dilate, heart rate quickens, we fidget and start to sweat when we perceive danger or threat.

(more…)

After he missed a flight for refusing to pass through a ‘naked  scanner’, Steve Bradshaw of the UK went about designing x-ray proof underwear for both men and women.  Al Qaeda has ordered 6 dozen pair to start.  (No, just kidding.)  But it is interesting to see the directions technology and innovation are taking us in our war against the terrors of . . . security screening.

Hm, is this a good idea?  Mind you, I would definitely purchase a pair as well as the matching T-shirt.  But it’s hardly a step in the direction of better security.

In this same article about the special undies (see link below) TSA Director Janet Napolitano is quoted as saying that the goal is ‘an integrated checkpoint that allows people to keep on their shoes, reduces the need for physical searches and maximizes the likelihood that we will prevent another aviation attack.’  Napolitano also said that in addition to refining technological tools, there should be more reliance on human and behavioral expertise to find terrorists.  Well, that’s an idea I can get behind.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366533/For-eyes-Inventor-creates-X-ray-proof-underwear-protects-air-passengers-modesty-TSA-airports-customs.html