|
I've only flown once since 9/11, so I haven't paid attention to
airport security. But if what I saw this morning was representative,
something's not right.
My oldest son was flying out of Atlanta to meet his grandparents.
We passed through security at three different points: the ticket
counter, going into the terminal, and at the gate. I've never seen
guards at the ticket counter before. But here they were, and someone
in front of us was told "You've been
selected for random screening." They were taken aside, and the bag
they had just checked was searched. That seems reasonable; unscreened bags are a clear risk.
What got to me, though, was at the gate. As people lined up to board,
there were a few security people with their wands just off to the side.
I wasn't paying close attention until I noticed a woman being
screened. Right next to her were two little kids: maybe 5
or 6, and they were being screened as well. The guard asked one of the kids to
take off her sandals. She did, and the guard waved her wand over them.
Anyone who's ever had to
get serious about security understands that security
mechanisms and procedures must be guided by threat models and risk
assessments. (See Bruce Schneier's Secrets
& Lies for a computers security-oriented treatment.) How likely is it that small children are going to be
used to smuggle contraband or bombs in their shoes? Is completely random
screening more or less likely to be effective than selective screening?
Right after 9/11 the FAA directed that cars shouldn't be
allowed to park close to terminals. The result: rows and rows of
already scarce parking were closed. Yes, someone with a bomb could
come to the airport and blow away part of the terminal. But how does
that relate to someone taking over an airplane and using it as a
weapon, the unique threat revealed by 9/11? What kind of risk
assessment lead from one to the other?
It's tempting to dismiss these kinds of steps as mere show. That's
not quite fair; appearance and perception are one part of the security
equation. 9/11 drove people away from air travel; people need to be
reassured that it's safe to travel again, and that need drives some of
the more visible security measures. But I think the wrong balance is
being struck by airport security policies: the cure may be worse than
disease. Air travel has gotten a lot less convenient, and in that
classic security risk vs. cost equation, something's out of
whack.
12:08:57 PM 
|
