Are we losing freedom to obtain security?

Since the tragic events in September, we as a nation are going through a healing process and moving on, but not forgetting. We are looking to a bright day when we won't have to be afraid of going about our business. We are hopeful of preventing similar attacks from happening to our children or our grandchildren. In a word, security seems to be foremost on the minds of most Americans, especially those that travel by airplane.

The wheels are in motion to resolve this issue powered by the twin cylinders of Congress and the airline industry. Last week (11-16-01) the House of Representatives and the Senate passed a compromise bill - HR3150 Airport Security Federalization Act - that deals with airport screening, checked bags, and airplane security measures. Even more importantly, the bill also creates a new agency in the Department of Transportation that will have jurisdiction over security and develop a database to allow cross-checking of names on linked watch lists of federal law enforcement agencies. And of course, you will be charged $5 per round trip to offset the cost to implement the program. For more information by the Secretary's Rapid Response Team on Airport Security see http://www.dot.gov/affairs/airportsec.htm.

What does this all mean to you and me? It means that we will be inconvenienced by longer lines at the airport to check everyone and everything that enters the terminal and an airplane. But hey, we need to do something to prevent mentally unbalanced or politically crazed people from forcing their demented or dangerously skewed visions on us.

Solving the Air Safety Problem

Here's what the Congress and the airlines think we need to do to solve the dilemma:

• Create a department of transportation security under the DOT to devise rules for safe air travel.
• Create trusted and watch lists for airlines and airport security personnel to use to screen passengers. The airlines and a federal agency such as the DOT will share the list.
• Make all baggage screeners federal employees and perform extensive background checks on them.
• Beef up inspection of checked bags by sending all of them through explosive detectors and use X-ray equipment to look for a list of unacceptable items.
• Devise a plan for a safer cockpit including stronger doors, a switch for the crew to alert the pilot of problems, and a method to allow ground control of jetliners.

The government has wanted the airlines to implement some form of these security measures ever since the hijacking incidences such as the destruction of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988. The airlines always refused claiming it would be too expensive and the passengers would not stand for the inconvenience. The government was probably right.

Now, the Congress and the airline industry have the public's consent to move quickly to make flying safe again. It makes sense to move forward and improve the screening at baggage check-in, at the entrance to the terminal, and during boarding. These checkpoints help weed out dangerous items that are knowingly or unknowingly brought on-board an airplane.

We should also develop more secure methods to protect the pilots from forcible entry into the cockpit by deranged individuals who aim to commandeer the plane. After all, the pilots deliver us and our commodities safely to the assigned destination - and that's a good thing.

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) also would like to see the development of a sophisticated radio-control system that would allow jetliners to be controlled from the ground in the event of a hijacking or other emergency. The group thinks that this might have prevented the September terrorist attacks. However, others contend that the ground-based control would be expensive to build, and would be fraught with potential for technological disaster and not be foolproof against a terrorist takeover.

This may not be foolproof and it may be expensive. But it is another roadblock to would be terrorists - and that's good.

Federalizing all employees of an airline or airport is also helpful toward overall safety. We need to know that we can trust these people, and background checks will help. These people provide security to airline passengers because they look for dangerous material, subdue out of control people and make sure that airplanes are safe.

I don't think I have a problem with creating a transportation security czar position, although I could be convinced otherwise. This position seems important because we need someone to oversee and coordinate efforts to keep the movement of people and commerce safe.

However, I don't agree that putting all citizens in a database with some form of biometric information (see "Watching the Watchers" for more information), provides any real security, it just gives us rules and procedures that make us feel secure.

The airline industry does not agree. NATA unveiled a security identification program that would involve the use of two identification cards, one for what they term "trusted passengers", the SkyD travel card, and another they call the SkyGuard card, that would be for aviation workers, flight crews and student pilots. The cards would contain a photo as well as biometric information, including fingerprinting and/or retinal identification.

According to NATA, the SkyD travel cards could be issued on a voluntary basis to passengers who undergo a simple (how simple is unknown as of yet) background check based on publicly available information. Cardholders could go through a fast or easy pass lane through airport security checks.

The SkyGuard card would require extensive background checks and could cover a variety of workers and aircraft operators. This system would use technology that Lockheed Martin Information Systems developed for the U.S. Department of Defense. Using PC-based workstations equipped with a fingerprint scanner and modem, organizations would capture fingerprint images and personal identification information, transmit this information to the Lockheed Fingerprint Registry Service Center for processing. Lockheed Martin could maintain separate databases for every user group to ensure privacy and control, and these groups may also share databases with other organizations to increase effectiveness of the search process. Lockheed also will interface with the FBI, state, and local law enforcement agencies to process criminal background checks as needed by the organizations.

The Air Transport Association (ATA), which represents the carriers that fly most of the U.S. passenger traffic, also wants the government to implement the card-based system for passengers. They call it a smart card, but they want it to become part of a federal information system that would fall under the auspices of the newly created Office of Homeland Security. The Homeland Security office would, in turn, coordinate the screening of potential smart card users with the departments of Justice, Defense, Transportation and other government agencies. Airline reservation systems would be screened with this new government system.

The newly created card would have personal information embedded in it but providing the information would be voluntary for U.S. passengers. It would include biometrics (for definitions of possible biometrics for aviation security refer to "Improved Security Through Technology") such as fingerprints. Additionally, the ATA wants the U.S. government to mandate such a system for international passengers. The ATA suggests that an agency like the Immigration and Naturalization Service could run the program for international passengers. The ATA wants this enhanced control so they can focus on people they know very little about.

However, the creation of a travel card system makes one very large assumption - terrorists are not smart enough to create an identity that fits into the norm and thus escape notice. Today's terrorists are not loners, social misfits or unabombers; they work in sophisticated groups, take years to establish their identities, and are typically well funded.

How does Europe deal with security?

Most European airports have a major police or military presence. The government or airport authority has responsibility for screeners not the airlines, like it is in the United States. In contrast to the United States, Belgium requires screeners to be citizens; France requires screeners to be citizens of a European Union country. The Netherlands does not require that screeners are citizens, but they must have been residents of the country for five years. Why? because citizenship eases the ability to conduct background checks on candidates for screener jobs.

The Federal Aviation Administration requires that screeners in this country have 12 hours of classroom training before they can begin work, France requires 60 hours of training, Belgium requires at least 40 hours of training with an additional training for equipment like X-ray machines. Many countries including Belgium, France, Canada and India allow only ticketed passengers through the screening checkpoints. Only post 9-11 was this true in the U.S.

The Israeli airline El Al, considered by many to have the tightest security measures, places an armed, plainclothes sky marshal on its flights. On the ground agents interrogate passengers, asking them why they are flying to a particular city, who they know at their destination, and even why they paid for a ticket with cash.

Obviously, it would be a tremendous financial burden (which would, in the finest of capitalistic traditions, be passed on to the customer) to hire sky marshals for all flights, all the time. Airlines have addressed this situation reasonably by putting sky marshals on selected flights.

Security of a Smart Travel Card

How much security does the flying public obtain by providing fingerprints, or some other form of biometric information, to a centralized database? Probably none. This is especially true if terrorists are able to circumvent the security feature. Some will argue that these are extraordinary times (yes the President has called this a war) and require extraordinary methods. These procedures may infringe on our civil liberties but some say they also provide us with security.

There is plenty of precedence about restricting civil liberties from presidents that held office during wartime. You only have to go back to FDR and World War II or Lincoln and the Civil War to find popular leaders who temporarily took away some civil liberties. They allowed searches, seizures and surreptitious investigations. So it may be reasonable to assume that our government needs to act covertly and perform tasks normally not done to provide citizens with a sense of security and well being. So go ahead and interrogate individuals that have possible links to terrorist groups. It is for our protection.

However, all the extraordinary measures taken in times of war are just that - extraordinary and therefore by definition - temporary. Do we need a system under the control of the DOT or Homeland Defense that requires a travel card to move about for business and pleasure? Once implemented, the program will not go away easily, even after the political climate changes. If we allow this system to take hold, will it be at the cost of our civil liberties? Will we be able to move about without fear of the government abusing what it knows about us? What seems to be indisputable is that we must always have a system of checks and balances to prevent any one agency of government like the DOT, from becoming too powerful, siphoning away our civil liberties.

Vote in the Poll

Analog Main | Product of the Week | Columns | Editorial | Tech Notes

		Click here to get your listing up.