This paper evaluates key airport security challenges facing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the post-9/11 era. It examines the sweeping federal changes to airport staffing and screening protocols, the deployment and controversy surrounding whole body scanning technology, and the promise of emerging innovations such as T-ray laser scanners and privacy-preserving 3D detectors. The paper also addresses the critical gap in sterile-area employee screening, highlighted by a shocking weapons-smuggling incident at Orlando's airport, and argues that the TSA must enforce higher hiring standards to ensure both security effectiveness and respectful passenger treatment. Together, these reforms are presented as essential responses to an evolving terrorist threat.
Security concerns are adding to the woes of an airline industry already battered by high oil prices and labor union problems. Terrorists are becoming increasingly adept at evading conventional screening techniques. In the wake of recent security threats, there is also a growing consensus that it is now necessary to sacrifice some privacy concerns in order to guarantee overall safety. Comprehensive whole body scanning systems should be implemented, while innovative approaches such as the ultra-precise T-ray scanners should be introduced in the near future. Elaborate security protocols — including routine screening of airline staff — should be immediately enacted. Additionally, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) should maintain higher hiring standards, recruiting only people with the aptitude to balance job requirements without unduly compromising customer service.
Post-September 11, the security situation at airports has changed dramatically — not only within the United States, but at airports around the world. To prevent another tragic event like 9/11, all airports have strengthened their security policies. In response to growing public concern, Congress approved the federalization of airport security to eliminate inconsistencies with private security providers and to raise overall standards. Comprehensive screening systems, including Explosive Detection Systems (EDS), Explosive Trace Detection systems (ETD), sniffer dogs, and manual screening methods, are now in place (Garrick Blalock, 2005). More recently, the TSA has also deployed advanced computer systems such as CAPPS 2 (Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System) for pre-screening passengers. This has, however, triggered controversy, as passenger profiling or "group listing" could easily be misused or lead to discrimination. Other new screening tools, such as whole body scanners, have similarly been disputed as overly intrusive and a clear breach of passenger privacy. A brief overview of the airport security screening process and the pertinent issues provides better insight into these debates.
After the devastating al-Qaeda attacks of September 2001, security measures across all U.S. airports became far more rigorous. The TSA recruited as many as 55,000 new federal employees as screeners by the end of 2002. However, widespread public complaints that there were too many screeners led to a cap of 45,000. Federalization also dramatically reduced screener attrition, dropping it from nearly 100% under private management to less than 20%. As a backup measure, the TSA created and maintained a pool of more than 700 screeners who could be deployed to any airport across the country that experienced a shortage (Jeffery Price, 2009, p. 196).
Staffing and training issues continue to be a serious problem for the TSA, and the effectiveness of screeners in locating explosives or weapons remains disappointing. For instance, in 2003 — after all the new changes were already in place — Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials were able to pass through security at 15 airports across the country carrying weapons without being detected (Jeffery Price, 2009, p. 196).
The recent episode in which a Nigerian national managed to carry explosive substances hidden in a syringe concealed in his underwear demonstrated that airport security, despite its elaborate screening systems, is not foolproof. To address the threat of terrorists hiding explosives or dangerous weapons in their clothing, a more thorough check is necessary. Whole body scanning appears to be the best solution currently available. The use of whole body scanning is already in place at many U.S. airports, and it is necessary to make it mandatory at all airports across the country. In Europe, however, privacy concerns have limited its adoption to a small number of airports.
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, a Nigerian terrorist, passed through normal airport screening requirements at the busy Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam and was cleared, even though he had hidden explosives in his inner garments. Regarding the security lapse, Schiphol Airport spokesman Ad Rutten stated, "Everything was according to the rules. But the rules don't cover the risks yet" (Reuters, December 2009). The airport had 15 whole body scanners available, but none were in use on that day. Had those scanners been deployed, AbdulMutallab would likely have been detected and the threat stopped. Meanwhile, whole body scanning machines enjoy growing popularity among passengers; many choose them over the standard pat-down search. At the time of writing, the TSA had 40 whole body scanners deployed across 19 U.S. airports, with plans to add another 450 scanners distributed across all 450 airports in the country — a significant step forward in airport security (PBS).
There are currently two types of technology used for whole body scanning. The first is millimeter-wave scanning, which uses harmless electromagnetic waves to generate a three-dimensional image of the body. The second is the backscatter machine, which uses two X-ray passes to create a two-sided image. The use of X-rays is debatable because they are potentially harmful to human tissue. However, as Dr. Mahadevappa Mahesh, chief physicist at Johns Hopkins University, explains: "The radiation dose levels are quite low. Compared to a medical chest X-ray, you would need to go through these backscatter scanners nearly 1,000 to 2,000 times before the dose reaches the level of a typical chest X-ray" (PBS). The technology is also more convenient for passengers, as scans are completed in 15 to 30 seconds, dramatically speeding up the security clearance process and reducing wait times. These whole body scanning devices are therefore considered safe for travelers.
The remaining concern is intrusiveness. Privacy advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have cautioned that whole body scanning devices carry a potential for abuse. As Catherine Crump, an advocate with EPIC, stated: "What they're showing you now is a dumbed-down version of what this technology is capable of doing. Having blurry images shouldn't blur the issue." Chris Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU, expressed similar concern: "Screeners at LAX could make a fortune off naked virtual images of celebrities" (Jessica Ravitz). Dr. Mahesh, however, countered: "The person who is reviewing the public scan is not standing next to the scanner — they're somewhere remote. So there's far less chance of somebody seeing a supermodel walk through the scanner and then trying to sell her image to the National Enquirer" (PBS). There is also strong consensus among security professionals that, given the gravity of the security situation and the demonstrated intent of terrorists, it is now necessary to accept some reduction in privacy in order to guarantee overall safety.
"T-ray scanners and privacy-preserving 3D detection systems"
"Orlando weapons incident and gaps in employee screening policy"
"TSA workforce quality, education standards, and passenger treatment"
The airline industry is already in crisis, and security concerns are adding to its woes. Terrorists are becoming increasingly adept at evading conventional screening techniques, and the recent case of Umar AbdulMutallab — who successfully passed through one of the busiest and most secure airports in Amsterdam — is a case in point. There is a clear and ongoing need to review security arrangements and adopt new, advanced technologies that guarantee accurate detection of any potential threat.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.