"Report on security flaws at Sea-Tac can provide a blueprint for change"

Sunday, August 24, 2003

Commentary
Report on security flaws at Sea-Tac can provide a blueprint for change 
By Mike Fancher / Times executive editor
The Seattle (WA) Times

 
Any news story about flaws in homeland security prompts some readers to ask,
"How stupid are you people? Can't you see you're just encouraging
terrorists?" 

Today's troubling account of security problems at Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport will have those readers smacking their foreheads in
frustration at us. So, here's an explanation of why we wrote the story and
the precautions we took in reporting it. 

Our motivation is to hold public officials accountable. In the aftermath of
the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, officials pledged to improve what
has been labeled "homeland security." They made promises to all of us,
notably regarding airport security. 

"If those promises aren't being kept, we need to let people know," said
James Neff, Seattle Times spotlight investigative editor. 

There is also the massive government spending involved. The Port of Seattle
recently announced a $140 million overhaul of the baggage-screening system
at Sea-Tac. That investment will help, but it won't be sufficient without
addressing the staffing and procedural problems identified in our story. 

Extensive investigation by reporters Cheryl Phillips and Chris Maag found
that, while Sea-Tac security is vastly improved from two years ago, problems
persist. 

The reporters reached this conclusion by gathering a lot of information
about how the system is supposed to work and then comparing the security
plan to what's actually happening. 

If the reporters wrote everything they know about airport security, their
story could conceivably be a blueprint for terrorists. "We're careful not to
give a level of detail that would enable someone to get around security,"
Neff said. 

"It's a balancing act that we perform on all stories, particularly those
that have to do with national security. We're journalists, but we're also
citizens. We're not going to do anything that would imperil anyone." 

To the contrary, the peril exists. By bringing the problems to light, our
reporting has the potential to prompt action that increases public safety.
"We want to make sure that Sea-Tac is as secure as they say it is," Neff
added. 

"We're not trying to scare people. Security is better that it was before
9-11 by far, but it isn't as good as they say it is, and it needs to be
better than it is." 

While the story withholds confidential details about the airport's security
plan, it is loaded with specific examples of where the system has fallen
short. "These security problems show that in some cases procedures are not
as secure as they should be," Neff asserted. 

Today's account relies heavily on interviews with current and former
screeners, supervisors and an administrator with the federal Transportation
Security Administration (TSA). Most of them asked to have their names
withheld for fear they would be fired for speaking out. 

"They've been told not to talk to us, but they are concerned. They are
anonymous (in the report), but their stories are consistent. It's remarkable
how consistent their stories are," Neff said. 

No incident of a security transgression was included in the report unless at
least two people independently confirmed it. "We're very confident that what
they are telling us is what's going on," the editor said. 

One encouraging aspect of the story, Neff said, is the reporters found
"nothing that can't be fixed." 

It's also encouraging that top TSA and Port of Seattle officials answered
our questions and the Port provided access and allowed a reporter and
photographer to walk the beat with one of its police officers. "They
answered our questions. That's to their credit," Neff said. 

Readers who still wonder about the wisdom of reporting security flaws might
feel better if they recognize the role they can play in helping fix the
problems. 

Today's story gives some insight into what to watch for, such as having four
security workers at each passenger lane. 

If you are at the airport and see something that doesn't seem right, point
it out. "If citizens know how the system is supposed to work, then you have
extra eyes and ears out there," Neff said. 

And try to have an extra measure of patience, despite the inconvenience. 

My 12-year-old twin daughters were randomly selected for additional
screening on a recent flight out of town. 

This was after we had already been at Sea-Tac for about eight hours because
a mechanical problem canceled our original flight. 

As their shoes were going back through the X-ray machine, I was tempted to
ask, "How stupid are you people? Can't you see they aren't terrorists?" 

But I know better than that. Airport screeners, like journalists, are just
doing their job.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************