"Body scanning gaps cause for concern"

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Body scanning gaps cause for concern
By Marnie Hunter
Cable News Network (CNN)


A foiled plot to sneak a bomb through airport checkpoints and onto a plane
bound for the United States calls attention to gaps in screening measures
that are supposed to detect threats airport metal detectors miss.
 
Outside the United States, the controversial body-scanning technology is not
widely used, security experts say. But it is the best way to detect plastic
explosives hidden on people boarding airplanes.
 
"Since most of these airports are not using body-scanning technology,
including for American flights, I would say that this is an opening that was
probably intended to be abused by [the bomb maker] and those who planned the
attack," said Rafi Ron, president of New Age Security Solutions and former
head of security of Ben-Gurion International Airport in Israel.
 
The latest nonmetallic bomb to be discovered never made it to an airport and
posed no real threat to air travelers. It is similar to, but more
sophisticated than the device discovered in a failed attempt to bring down a
Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day in 2009.
 
That attempt hastened deployment in the U.S. of advanced imaging technology
(AIT), or body scanning, at airport security checkpoints across the country.
There are now about 700 machines in more than 180 airports nationwide.
Pat-downs are used when passengers decline body screening or when a scan
reveals a need for additional screening.
 
"It's not a perfect technology and there are several ways that it can be
bypassed," Ron said. "But at the same time it is the best technology that we
have available at this time."
 
Use of advanced imaging technology abroad is "woefully inadequate," said
Chad Sweet, a former CIA and Department of Homeland Security official and
co-founder of the Chertoff Group, a security firm that has worked with
clients that manufacture advanced imaging devices.
 
"In order to be optimally effective, we can't have gaping holes that
terrorists can exploit," Sweet said.
 
In addition to the 700 scanners employed by the U.S., Canada has about 50,
Australia is planning to install machines in July and the technology is in
use at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and in the United Kingdom, according to
Airports Council International. The council said there is no central
repository tracking the use of the technology worldwide. A spokesman for the
International Air Transport Association also was unaware of exact figures
and locations of the machines, but said it is not a common screening method
outside the U.S.
 
"We're not suggesting that AIT is the magic bullet. It's one of many layers
of technology, processes and people needed for a multi-layered defense,"
Sweet said.
 
He said the U.S. should step up deployment of the technology and increase
the use of behavioral detection officers and bomb detecting dogs in airports
as well as employ additional analysis of passenger data before travelers
even arrive at the airport.
 
Carrying on with that layered, risk-based approach to security is exactly
what the Department of Homeland Security is doing in response to the latest
threat, the agency said.
 
"These layers include threat and vulnerability analysis, prescreening and
screening of passengers, using the best available technology, random
searches at airports, federal air marshal coverage and additional security
measures both seen and unseen," the DHS said in a statement.
 
The use of intelligence to head off threats before they reach the critical
airport screening stage "has been proven very successful in this instance,"
Ron said. "On that level I think we have already established a good
foothold."
 
Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said it
is too soon to say whether the latest plot will lead to more stringent
security measures.
 
"I'm not sure we're there yet," he said.
 
"Preliminarily, many believe that you won't have to have anything different
than we have right now. The systems in place would have detected this.
That's the good news. The bad news is a lot of people don't like the systems
in place at the TSA."
 
And those systems have been widely criticized by privacy advocates in the
U.S. and abroad. In Europe, privacy concerns have long delayed
implementation of body scanning technology.
 
International airports with direct flights to the U.S. are required to meet
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) security standards and some
TSA requirements, but the use of advanced imaging machines is at the
discretion of each country.
 
Even in the unlikely event of global adoption of body scanning, the
technology has its limitations.
 
The machines are not designed to detect explosive devices concealed inside
the human body, and the DHS has identified some "vulnerabilities" in the
screening process, according to a summary of classified AIT testing
published in November. The office made eight recommendations that the TSA
agreed to as a result of the testing. Details of those recommendations are
classified.
 
In March 2010, the Government Accountability Office said that "while
officials said AITs performed as well as physical pat downs in operational
tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon
used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO
has received," noting that the results of the TSA's testing are classified.
 
No magic bullet, indeed. What remains clear is the need for a security
strategy that evolves quickly.
 
"Every time we think we have them, they come up with something new," said
Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-New York). "And they
don't stop."

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

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


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