New questions raised about full-body scanners

Aviation security experts say the machines may miss items that metal detectors catch; airline passengers may also be able to hide materials in the groin or body cavities; critics do not dispute that the imaging technology is superior to metal detectors at finding hidden nonmetallic objects, but some say it should be used only in conjunction with metal detectors and other technologies

As the U.S. government begins deploying whole-body scanners to replace metal detectors at airports nationwide, some security experts worry that the new technology could make it easier, not harder, to sneak weapons and explosives onto airplanes.

In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) decided to double its investment in the new machines, with a goal of installing 450 across the country by the end of the year, 950 by the end of 2011, and 1,800 by 2014.

The machines are best-known for the privacy issues they pose, because they can peer through clothes and present screeners with an image that some have likened to a virtual strip search. The government has addressed those concerns by obscuring the faces of those being screened, preventing examiners from seeing the passengers, and allowing the option of a physical pat down.

Ken Dilanian writes in the Los Angeles Times that TSA has not been able to ease concerns among some aviation security specialists about the body imagers. “I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” said Rafi Sela, former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority, who is now a security consultant (see “Security specialist: Canada’s new airport security scanners a waste of money,” 23 April 2010 HSNW).

The TSA would not talk about specific capabilities but says the body imagers will better enable screeners to find nonmetallic weapons, including concealed powdered and liquid explosives that do not set off metal detectors. “No technology is going to be the silver bullet, but this is a significant enhancement,” said Robin Kane, assistant administrator for the TSA’s Office of Security Technology.

Officials hastened deployment of the scanners after Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly smuggled a powdered explosive sewn in his underwear onto a Detroit-bound flight from Amsterdam last Christmas, but failed to detonate it.

Stephen M. Lord of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) told Congress in March, however, that the TSA’s classified testing shows it is unclear whether the technology would have detected Abdulmutallab’s bomb.

The GAO also noted that unlike metal detectors, the body imagers rely on TSA employees to accurately read the image, as they must do with X-ray images of carry-on bags.

Dilanian quotes Clark Ervin, former DHS inspector general, to say that classified tests show that X-ray screeners routinely miss threats. The rate of detection for baggage X-rays is “disastrously low, and it’s no better than it was on 9/11 — that’s the scary thing,” he said.

Two of the $170,000 body imaging machines are in place at Los Angeles International Airport, nineteen at Chicago’s O’Hare, and four at Baltimore Washington International Airport, the TSA says. The extra staff needed to operate them eventually will cost several billion dollars, the GAO says.

The technology, although effective against certain threats, is too easily beatable, said several aviation security experts, some with ties to competing products.

“I think it is a mistake to use this as a primary screening tool,” said Rich Roth, a former Secret Service official now with Maryland-based CTI Consulting. “The things it can miss are more likely to be used as a weapon than the things it can catch.”

Art Kosatka, chief executive of Transecure, a Leesburg, Virginia, airport security consulting firm, said the machines will not detect material concealed in the groin and in body cavities. “You can get metallic items by that screening technology that you can’t get by metal detectors,” said Douglas Laird, former head of security for Northwest Airlines.

Dilanian notes that many security experts have a financial stake in the debate: Laird is now a consultant whose clients include CEIA, a metal-detector maker; and Sela consults for clients that market different security measures.

A consulting firm run by Michael Chertoff, the former DHS secretary and an advocate for the imagers, has represented vendors trying to market the technology, though it no longer does, said J. Bennet Waters, a firm member and former TSA official.

Kane, who spent twenty years in the Coast Guard before joining the TSA in 2005, says the imagers have “met our requirements,” and can detect small items hidden on the body.

In a testing center at Washington’s Reagan National Airport, he showed a reporter photos of small items that had been detected on passengers, including a one-inch-square packet of cocaine. “Not all of these were in easy-to-find places — they were artfully concealed to get past security,” he said.

The critics do not dispute that the imaging technology is superior to metal detectors at finding hidden nonmetallic objects. Some say, though, that it should be used only in conjunction with metal detectors and other technologies. “Every machine can be beaten to one degree or another,” said John Huey, who in a widely circulated blog post blasted the TSA’s decision to deploy imagers. “What you need is layers of machines.” Huey has a patent for such a multitiered security system.

TSA Testing Radiation-Free Full-Body Scanner

A full-body scanner that shows only objects and clothing on bodies using thermal detection instead of X-rays? Iscon Video Imaging said it is introducing two new airport passenger scanners it says are less visually intrusive of passengers than millimeter-wave systems.

“The Iscon system is a next generation imaging and detection system that creates a temperature differential between clothes and a hidden object,” said company founder and President Izrail Gorian. “We’ve eliminated the two most prevalent concerns about airport scanner technology–radiation exposure and privacy issues.”

The Iscon system is being introduced in two configurations. The whole body scanner portal, Iscon 1000D, is less expensive than other systems and takes up less space, the company claims. A complete scan and detection takes 30 seconds.

Then, to detect objects hidden in “difficult” hiding places, the company offers a handheld system, “GameChangeIR,” for use in conjunction with a metal detector.

“The GameChangeIR simply automates the intrusive, time consuming pat-down, which is a welcome advancement for airport security personnel as well as any passenger who has been unnecessarily subjected,” said Gorian.

It is easy to deploy and can be operated with minimal training. The company envisions its use beyond airports, at government and corporate buildings and retail establishments for example.

Air security firms likely to boost sales, deals

ATLANTA (Reuters) – The renewed focus on aviation security is likely to boost sales for providers of whole body imagers and other detection equipment and spur mergers and acquisitions in the sector.

The failed Christmas Day attempt to blow up a U.S.-bound airplane has spurred increased orders worldwide for detection gear and baggage-scanning devices. For example, Britain introduced whole body imagers at Heathrow airport on Monday.

The higher demand will benefit companies such as L-3 Communications Holdings Inc, OSI Systems Inc, American Science & Engineering Inc and Analogic Corp.

“All countries are taking a much closer look at this particular technology and also other methods to address this kind of threat,” said Brook Miller, a vice president at Smiths Detection, a unit of Britain’s Smiths Group Plc that supplies X-ray machines and other detection equipment to airports.

Smiths Detection is seeing increased interest not only in its body imaging product that is undergoing U.S. lab testing but also in its overall suite of aviation-security products, and it expects its $800 million-a-year business to grow.

“We anticipate this (rising interest) pushing our commercial options a little bit further, a little bit faster,” Miller said.

L-3 and OSI Systems, currently the only two qualified vendors for whole body scanners to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, told their earnings conference calls last week that increased sales of the devices, which have raised privacy concerns since they can see through clothing and spot hidden items, provide upside to revenues this year.

“There’s really been no bust for most companies” following the increase in demand for infrastructure security products that came after the September 11, 2001, hijack attacks, said Tim Quillin, an analyst with Stephens Inc.

“There’s plenty of things to worry about which will drive long-term demand for security products,” he added.

Quillin said a body imaging system from American Science & Engineering is also likely to gain TSA certification because it is similar to OSI’s product.

ACQUISITIONS COULD COME

At the same time, the move to more rigorous screening measures could also drive mergers and acquisitions in aviation security, a market made up of a few larger players and other smaller companies.

“I think we are in the beginning stages of a re-acceleration in the consolidation of the defense markets,” said Michael Lewis, senior vice president for BB&T Capital Markets Equity Research.

Stifel Nicolaus analyst Stephen Levenson said American Science & Engineering and Analogic could either initiate or be on the receiving end of aviation security deals.

“They both have plenty of cash available and they could both be targets — or they could be buyers if they find the right technology and the transaction that makes sense,” Levenson said.

BB&T’s Lewis said L-3 could play the role of consolidator in a bid to gain market share. L-3 has already stated it is looking for acquisitions in areas such as systems that gather and monitor defense intelligence.

“L-3 has the financial wherewithal to be able to reach deep into its pockets and invest in an area where it sees great opportunity,” Lewis said.

“As a result of the expected increases that we should see in this (security) area, I think L-3 has a great chance to take additional market share versus its pure competitors.”

(Reporting by Karen Jacobs, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

DHS: Let’s Capitalize On “Renewed Urgency”

The “urgency” felt by other nations about terrorism may have “dissipated over time” since the 9/11 attacks, but the recent Christmas Day attack has “renewed” that “sense of urgency,” and now is the time to take advantage of it, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano, just back from a weekend of meetings overseas with her European  counterparts, said there is now an unprecedented “consensus” among European countries that something needs to be done to boost security at airports and elsewhere.

“One of the differences [now] is urgency and international recognition that the terrorists will look for any gap they can find in the system,” she told reporters in Washington on Tuesday. “Now we need to use this as an opportunity, as a catalyst as it were, for international efforts.”

Napolitano said that, before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to blow up a U.S.-bound flight over Detroit, the international community had agreed to work together to fight terrorism, but the consensus was “not at the level we are talking about.”

There is a “recognition by these nations that there were passengers from [at least] 17 countries on Flight 253, all of whom would have perished if Abdulmutallab had been successful,” according to Napolitano.

But she said preventing attacks like the failed Christmas Day bombing requires a different approach than stopping attacks like the 9/11 plot, which she described as “a large-scale conspiracy involving the takeover of airplanes and then flying them as weapons into buildings.”

The Christmas Day plot “was a very different kind of thing from a detection, information-sharing [and] passenger-vetting type of environment,” she said. “So that is why it is necessary to use December 25 as the catalyst in saying, ‘Nations of the world, we all have an interest in this. The international aviations system is international in every respect. It is only as strong as its weakest link. We need to get together this year, right now, and move to get the agreements that have been discussed for years.’”

She said governments around the world — including those of the Netherlands, England, France and Germany –- have recently initiated steps to add whole-body imaging, more K-9 teams and other security measures at their airports.

“When [the] system has its weak links, we must address them without delay,” she said.

Asked whether the privacy laws of European countries could be an obstacle to U.S. security and information-sharing efforts, Napolitano said the United States and European countries can reach agreements “in a way that deals with their privacy issues.”

“Discussions we had in Europe were not only [about] getting information but standardizing the kind of information that we get,” she said, adding that discussions she had over the weekend focused on being able to identify passengers ahead of time and being able to “run passenger lists against the terrorist watch list, the no-fly lis, and the like.”

She said there’s only so much the U.S. government can do without help from international partners.

“Our department, despite its name, is not solely responsible for this effort,” she said, adding that it’s a military, intelligence, law enforcement and “diplomatic” effort.

She said the role of DHS is to protect air travelers, prevent illegal entry, enforce immigration laws and utilize local law enforcement as “force multipliers.”

“We don’t do screenings at international airports, just as we don’t prepare the no-fly list — we receive the no-fly list,” she said.

However, according to one U.S. official, DHS now has greater ability to recommend that authorities in other countries interview specific passengers before allowing them to board planes.

Before the Christmas Day attack, DHS was able to recommend “secondary screening” for people on the “no-fly list” and “selectee list.” But DHS was unable to recommend “secondary screening” for people on the broader “TIDE” database, which has nearly 500,000 names on it. That has now been changed, according to the U.S. official.

Napolitano alluded to this change on Tuesday.

“One of the things we have done is taken a particular part of the State Department’s database … which is where had that [information] been available in Amsterdam [before the attemped attack] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would have been pulled aside for secondary questioning, or we would have recommended to the Dutch that they pull him aside for secondary questioning,” she said. “We have now pushed that particular kind of information out internationally.”

Asked whether DHS itself has a “renewed sense of urgency” about terrorism, Napolitano insisted that terrorism has always been her department’s “top priority.”

“The attempted attack on the 25th of December was a powerful illustration that terrorists will stop at nothing to kill Americans and that counterterrorism remains our top priority,” she said. “This administration is determined to thwart those plans.”

FOX NEWS

South Korea To Step Up Safety Checks At Major Airports

SEOUL, Jan 27 (Bernama) — South Korea said Wednesday that it will intensify airport safety checks by establishing high-tech detectors that can more effectively screen passengers at major international airports this year, Yonhap news agency said.

Liquid bomb detectors and whole-body screeners will be installed at the nation’s main gateways including Incheon International Airport during the first half of this year, according to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The move is aimed at stepping up safety checks amid fears that local airports could also be vulnerable to terror threats after a bomb attempt was reported last month at a U.S. airport, the ministry said.

The measures are also intended to tighten safety precautions ahead of the planned of the Group of 20 summit in November when heads of states from the world’s major advanced and emerging economies gather here, it added.

Liquid detectors will help scan for liquid-based bombs more effectively while whole-body imaging devices will allow airport staff to detect bombs or other weapons made of non-metallic materials without touching passenger’s bodies.

The stepped-up safety checks have become a source of some controversy, however, as critics claim the whole-body scans violate individual privacy, and could amount to virtual strip searches and “naked” pictures of passengers.

Reflecting such concerns, the ministry said that it will strictly prohibit body images from being stored, printed or transferred, while the face and other parts of a passenger’s body will be blurred to protect privacy, it added.

Five crucial travel strategies for 2010

This year, planning your travels isn’t just about finding the best price, though that’s certainly on everyone’s mind. There are also new practicalities to consider that could have just as big an impact on your travels as how much you pay for your ticket. But in a year that will be marked by economic uncertainty, there’s a lot to consider before you take out your credit card and book that trip.

How do I get a good deal this year?

Situation: No one, not even the airlines, knows if travel will pick up this year, or if it will continue to struggle. Consequently, no one knows where fares are headed in 2010.

Fewer people are flying than two years ago, and the airlines reduced capacity to match the drop in demand. This, along with low fares, allowed carriers to keep their planes relatively full in 2009. But it’s those same low fares that cast doubt on 2010: The main reason people were flying is because tickets were cheap. If fares go up, will people still travel?

In this environment, airlines will be extra vigilant in looking for ways to increase revenue while offering competitive fares. So-called holiday surcharges are already in place for several dates this spring, and it’s fair to assume airlines will continue the practice as the year goes on. These surcharges allow carriers to pinpoint specific, high-demand dates with $10 to $20 surcharges while keeping base fares low.

Strategy: For one thing, keep track of those surcharges, and see if you can avoid flying on popular holiday travel dates. The airlines are banking on these high-demand days, and flexible travelers will benefit from adjusting their schedules accordingly.

Most importantly, compare, compare, compare. It’s a time-worn adage, but it’s also as relevant as ever this year. Airlines are in tough competition for a reduced number of travelers, and it’s fair to assume we’ll see lots of fare wars and competing sales as the summer travel season approaches. Start benchmarking fares to your destination as much as two or three months ahead of time, and monitor them for a few weeks to see what happens. When you find a price you like, you’ll know just how good a deal you’re getting.

Further, this is a year where discounted last-minute flights may play a larger role in the airline business. Carriers will no doubt try to push up fares in advance of flights, with the hope that public uncertainty about pricing trends will lead people to book early rather than risk watching their fare go up. If you have a strong enough stomach, you may be rewarded with a deal if wait until a week or two before your trip to book your flight. (Caveat: This won’t necessarily apply to the most popular destinations, such as Europe.)

Dealing with fees

Situation: We will certainly see fees go up this year—in fact, we already have. The only questions are which fees will rise, and by how much? Baggage fees, in particular, stand to rise incrementally throughout the year. Each time it seems the airlines have maxed out their first- and second-bag fees, they tack on another few bucks. If there’s a limit to how much the airlines will charge, they clearly haven’t hit it yet.

There is also a growing consensus that more airlines may adopt the Ryanair model of checking in online—and charging a fee to travelers who don’t. This makes sense from a business perspective, but empties the wallets of travelers who can’t access a computer. But it could be a way for especially desperate carriers to bring in some extra revenue, so long as they can tolerate some consumer outrage.

Strategy: Keep factoring ancillary fees into your fare comparisons, and consider airlines that charge fewer fees than the competition. Most importantly, keep up with all the new fees so that you know exactly what you’ll be paying, and try to travel with only a carry-on if you can.

United has an annual bag fee program that may work for frequent travelers. For $249 a year, you can check an unlimited number of bags on all United flights. If you know you’ll be traveling a lot, and United’s service and fares work for you, this could be a good money-saving option. So far, no other carriers have come out with a similar program.

Choosing an affordable destination

Situation: It’s been a rough few years for several prominent vacation destinations. Las Vegas, in particular, has struggled amid the recession, but hotel rates have dropped across the country in cities like San Diego, Chicago,New York City, and Hawaii.

Unlike airlines, which can be more flexible with how much capacity they offer, hotels are stuck with a set number of rooms. Sure, hotels can close floors or simply sell fewer rooms, but this fixed inventory forces hotels to lower rates in order to keep their rooms full.

Strategy: In 2010, the real bargains will likely be on the ground, and savvy shoppers would be wise to start any search by looking for great hotel deals and worrying about airfare later. Most travelers take the opposite approach—airfare first, hotel almost as an afterthought—but unstable fare pricing in 2010 suggests this may not be the way to go. In fact, this is a good year to base your destination choices on price, since some destinations may offer deals too good to pass up.

Within hotels, high-end properties have generally seen larger price drops than other properties. This has resulted in price compression, where the difference between rates at high-end hotels and those at middle-of-the-pack accommodations has shrunk, making upscale rooms more accessible to budget-conscious travelers.

Lastly, take a long look at vacation packages this year. For the same reasons above, online travel agents likeExpedia and Travelocity will look to sell bundled packages as a way of clearing unsold hotel inventory. This desperation could lead to some pretty good deals on vacation packages, especially in some of the harder hit U.S. cities.

But what about Europe?

Situation: Transatlantic travel is one of the areas hit hardest by industrywide capacity cuts over the past 18 months. As demand for travel dropped off, so too did the number of passengers flying across the Pond, leaving airlines with half-empty planes flying long, costly routes. But now, people thinking of a vacation in Europe face a market with decidedly fewer flights, and the potential for a very expensive summer travel season.

Further complicating the matter is high demand for flights to the U.S. from Europe. George Hobica, at our sister site Airfarewatchdog, has noticed very high Europe fares lately, and attributes this to a weak U.S. dollar attracting budget-conscious European travelers. This spike in demand, of course, also affects fares for U.S. travelers looking to head to Europe.

Strategy: This could be a tough year for Europe travel, especially if airlines don’t move quickly to restore some of the transatlantic capacity. Carriers will likely be hesitant to do this for two reasons: 1) A reluctance to trust early signs of recovery, and 2) the fact that they can charge more on popular routes with limited seats.

For U.S. travelers, the best way to grab a deal may be to price the ideal route for your travels, such as Chicago to Rome, and then price a flight to one of Europe’s main hubs such as London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, or even Reykjavik on Icelandair, with a connecting flight to your destination on a low-cost carrier. This latter option may be less convenient, but it could save you some serious money. Bear in mind that many European low-cost carriers charge exorbitant fees, so make sure you factor these costs into your comparison (and pack light if you can).

Airport security issues

Situation: This year, it’s just as important to pay attention to the practicalities of air travel as well as the price. Last year ended with a close call on Christmas Day, and 2010 began under a cloud of security issues and questions about airline safety.

Things have quieted for the moment, and travelers flying domestic routes shouldn’t experience much out of the ordinary. Passengers entering the U.S. from other countries, however, can expect to encounter long waits and, in some cases, additional screening at the airport. For U.S. citizens, prolonged security lines should be the worst of it, but there is a chance that you’ll be selected for random screening.

Strategy: You simply need to give yourself extra time. You may not need it here in the States, but consider it an investment in peace of mind. Abroad, give yourself an extra two hours or more beyond what you would normally budget. Again, you may not need it, but you may also be glad you arrived early.

Beyond time, be prepared for some new experiences. The Department of Homeland Security is expected to add roughly 300 whole-body imaging scanners to U.S. airports this year. These scanners can see beneath your clothing and detect some non-metallic items such as bomb-making materials and composite knives. They also create a greyscale image of your body, which many people feel is a violation of privacy. For the average traveler, this will be a very new and potentially unsettling aspect of airport security, but it appears these scanners will nevertheless become a part of the flying experience.

Lastly, keep an eye on the news, as the security situation is constantly evolving. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and foreign security officials may make policy changes, for better or worse, and you don’t want to be surprised at the airport. Make sure you pack in accordance with current restrictions so your security wait time is minimized. Use common sense and check anything that might invite time-consuming additional scrutiny.

By Carl Unger, SmarterTravel.com

Demand for body scanners boosts R&D in industry

ORLANDO, Fla., Jan. 14 (UPI) — The security industry’s rush to secure a slice of the new global business in body scanners at airports and entry checkpoints in buildings has given a new impetus to research and development of all the related gadgetry.

Business worth billions of dollars is set to be generated from 2010 onwards because of the stepped-up security after the Christmas Day incident involving Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab aboard a Detroit-bound flight.

Abdulmutallab was indicted last week on charges of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Dec. 25, 2009, by igniting a package of explosives concealed in his underwear.

The resulting security clampdown shifted attention on technologies deployed to rule out repeat incidents. Body scanners, used in some but not all airports in Europe, North America and elsewhere, are currently the hottest commodity in the security industry, industry analysts said.

From simple scanners that cost a few thousand dollars to machines priced above $200,000 apiece, manufacturers have found an unexpected upturn in buyer interest in the equipment.

A rise in demand has also led to more investment being poured into research and development. Industry sources cited investments worth tens of billions of dollars made by speculative entrepreneurs diverted away from banks, bonds and stocks by low interest rates and poor yields.

One of the manufacturers, Orlando-based Brijot Imaging Systems, Wednesday unveiled two new whole-body imaging machines that preserve privacy and safety of those being scanned.

The device, known as a passive millimeter wave security checkpoint screening system, now comes in two new variations: SafeScreen and MobileScan, Brijot said.

“With the launch of these two products, Brijot takes its imaging systems to the next level by directly addressing the key deployment-related issues — throughput, portability and footprint size,” the company said.

With its small footprint, Brijot added, SafeScreen answers the infrastructure and operational needs of many airports and other facilities that have limited space to incorporate large-scale technologies.

SafeScreen is a compact device that can be used with existing passenger screening equipment for an added layer of security to enhance primary screening capabilities and throughput. It detects smaller objects, offers a low total cost of ownership, and requires minimal training and maintenance, said the company.

MobileScan, the first fully portable whole-body imaging system, is a self-contained unit on wheels that can be plugged in and made operational within minutes. MobileScan is ideal for both primary screening and secondary screening, or for use in conjunction with intelligence for random screening.

Both systems can detect metallic and non-metallic items such as liquids, explosives, weapons, drugs or cash without emitting any radiation or energy, making the systems safe, while protecting personal privacy. Brijot said no anatomical details are revealed during the process.

Mitchel J. Laskey, Brijot president and chief executive officer, said SafeScreen and MobileScan address the changing demands of the marketplace.

© 2010 United Press International, Inc.

Body Scanners May Not Catch All Weapons

Lost in all the hype and hysteria following the Christmas Day attack and subsequent security overhaul is this: Whole-body imaging, a major aspect of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) airport security overhaul, is far from perfect. In fact, many are wondering whether they are effective enough to warrant widespread implementation, and if that implementation is even widespread enough.

NPR reports that while whole-body imaging does a great job of detecting objects concealed beneath clothing, it performs poorly with items hidden in body cavities. According to NPR, whole-body imaging machines “use X-rays that penetrate through clothing and about an inch into a person’s body,” unlike X-rays, which use far higher and potentially more harmful levels of radiation to look beneath the skin. Body scanners can also miss explosives materials that aren’t dense enough to reflect the machines’ low-level X-rays.

Steven Smith, who designed early versions of today’s whole-body imaging machines (also called backscatter machines), told NPR, “In general, body scanners are able to give you the same degree of detection capability as frisking someone would, but it is far less invasive.”

But that’s the problem: If all body scanners offer is a quicker, friendlier version of frisking, do they really have much to offer airport security?

Well, yes, they do, just not as much as people might think or, more crucially, hope. Quickly frisking each passenger at a given airport would obviously be a new and effective security element, and, ignoring the privacy issue (and the cost, of course), this is a no-brainer from a security standpoint.

But if the capabilities of whole-body imaging only go so far, then so does the government’s plan to implement them. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano recently pledged to install 300 of these machines, if not more, here in the U.S. Combined with the 40 or so that are already in place, that brings our national total to somewhere around 350 by year’s end. Which sounds like a lot—until you consider there are roughly 100 primary and secondary airports in the country. That averages out to less than four machines per U.S. airport. And if you think JFK is only getting four body scanners, think again.

The problem, as security consultant Bruce Schneier points out to NPR, is that there simply aren’t enough scanners to cover major airports like JFK or Atlanta and small airports like, say, Burlington, Vermont. This puts DHS in a tough position: If these scanners really are part of the future, where do we put them? Obvious locations like San Francisco International, or off-the-beaten-path airports like Manchester, New Hampshire? As Schneier notes, “The 9/11 terrorists didn’t go through security in Boston,” he says. “They went through security in places like Maine.”

So if the new technology is so full of holes, why bother? If it doesn’t catch everything, and can’t quickly be placed at every security checkpoint at every airport in the country, and comes with a host of privacy issues, is it worth it?

I can’t and won’t pretend to know the answer to those questions. But if the body-scanner debate reveals any certainties, it’s that when it comes to air crime, there’s no silver bullet.

Posted on January 14, 2010 at 10:59 am ET by Carl Unger, SmarterTravel.com Staff

Senior House lawmaker urges diligence on aviation screening technology

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has told President Barack Obama that it is critical that new aviation security and screening technologies are fully tested and certified before receiving major investments, as the government moves to bolster aviation security.

“Your predecessor’s experience with explosive trace portals should serve as a cautionary tale,” Thompson wrote to Obama in a letter dated Jan. 8. “By the time that the plug was pulled on this ineffective screening technology, the Transportation Security Administration [TSA] had expended nearly $30 million.”

In the wake of the failed terror attack on Christmas Day, some have advocated for expanding the use of whole body or advanced imaging technology at airport checkpoints to improve aviation security. However, others remain worried about privacy implications of technology.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Jan. 7 said that even before the failed attack DHS had plans to deploy 300 advanced imaging machines, in addition to the 40 that are currently in use. Thompson urged Obama to “continue engaging the American public in a national discourse” on the further deployment of whole body imaging technology and “other promising technologies.”

In addition, Napolitano said that DHS, the parent agency of TSA, will establish a partnership on aviation screening technology with Energy Department to develop new and more effective technologies.

Thompson also said that one of the most dramatic areas of security improvements since the 2001 terrorist attacks involves screening technology and protocols. However, Thompson said the official avenues for testing and evaluating emerging technology aren’t flexible enough and that the process for reviewing new screening technologies must be reformed to deal with emerging threats in a forward-thinking way.

Meanwhile, Thompson said the failed attack brought security challenges “into stark focus,” and in addition to screening technologies he identified issues related to information sharing, the terrorist watch list, and personnel vacancies that he said “need immediate attention.”

Thompson said the results of the Obama administration’s preliminary review of the failed attack are “frank, informative and could provide a basis for critical security enhancements and process improvements.”

“However, progress is unlikely if timely actions are not undertaken by the entire intelligence community, the Departments of Homeland Security and State and the Congress,” he added.

The Homeland Security Committee has scheduled a hearing on the incident for Jan. 27.

By Ben Bain

Detection systems market at a crossroads

In the wake of the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner over Detroit last month, there has been a lot of public outcry for enhanced screening measures at airports, particularly as it pertains to body scanners. However, more traditional screening methods such as metal detectors and baggage X-rays, may remain the most prevalent solutions if Congress enacts legislation that prohibits the use of body scanners as a primary screening method.

Despite that fact that President Obama ordered the Department of Homeland Security to acquire nearly $1 billion worth of advanced-technology, including body scanners in sweeping changes earlier this month, a bill currently sits on the floor of the Senate that would render that technology useless.

H.R. 2027, also known as the Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009, “prohibits the use of whole-body imaging technology as the sole or primary method of screening aircraft passengers. Allows its use only if another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing a passenger from boarding an aircraft.”

According to Justin Siller, a market analyst for IMS Research, the legislation was passed in June by the House and currently awaits a vote before the full Senate. Siller believes that if the resolution passes that there will not be widespread implementation of body scanners across the nation.

“It’s two markets, the millimeter wave and the backscatter (body scanning technologies) and metal detection,” he said. “The metal detection (market) will continue to grow well if (it) remains the primary screening option. If it doesn’t, basically the markets will reverse and you will see these other technologies growing at a rapid pace while metal detectors will slow.

The two types of aforementioned technologies, millimeter wave and backscatter X-ray, both essentially provide users with a full body image of a subject using different methods. The millimeter wave or ultra high-frequency wave is transmitted from two antennas simultaneously as they rotate around the body. The wave energy reflected back results in a three dimensional image of the person. With a backscatter X-ray, the radiation that reflects back from an object is used to construct a two-dimensional image of what it being scanned. Both Smiths Detection and L-3 Communications have millimeter wave scanning systems available on the market, while Rapiscan and American Science & Engineering offer backscatter X-ray systems.

Another type of technology that was being used in pilot testing by the Transportation Security Administration, but have now been banned for use include trace portal detection systems, also known as “puffers.” These systems were designed to shoot multiple puffs of air at an airline passenger, thus flushing out particles that could be analyzed for explosives or drugs. According to Siller, these systems are not being phased out by the TSA due to reliability problems.

BY JOEL GRIFFIN, ASSISTANT EDITOR

SecurityInfoWatch.com

Next Page »