TRANSPARENT SECURITY: time for a poker face


"...the archway was not the


Greco-Roman portal it purported to be, but rather it was a 21st Century archway metal detector..."


by Philip Baum O


n a recent trip to Macau, I ventured into one of the myriad of casinos that now make up the gambling capital of the world - with more tables, slot machines and, of course,


pundits than anywhere else on the globe, including the more renowned Las Vegas.


The first thing that caught my attention was the sheer number of people sacrificing their hard-earned (or, in some cases, ill-earned) money at green baize table after green baize table, each of which was being officiated over by an expressionless croupier, unfazed by either the scale of the losses or the occasional lucky triumph. Despite the splendour of some of the venues and the extreme tackiness of the others, both trying to make it all seem respectable, there was something quite disturbing about this industrialised fleecing of the general public, however willing the victims were. Then, donning my security hat for a moment, I started to consider the security infrastructure that must be in place when the financial stakes are so high. Suddenly the number of scrutineers roaming the floors became apparent; the technologies deployed, however, remained a mystery. All I could do was assume that a sophisticated CCTV surveillance system with the latest in video analytics was in situ. I had entered the casino through what had appeared to be an ornamental archway; but, it was only when I exited that I realised that the archway was not the Greco-Roman portal it purported to be, but rather it was a 21st Century archway metal detector. I had been screened on entry without even knowing it. OK, it’s not so shocking. After all, we are all routinely screened whilst oblivious to the invasion of our privacy. In London, commuters are reported to be captured on more than 100 different cameras on each journey they make into the city. Meanwhile, Google’s Street View project has been happily snapping photographs of our homes, and the odd passer-by, without our say so; many of the images of those people recorded in the process, some in amorous poses on street corners, are now the subject of art exhibits. Our conversations are recorded “for training purposes” when we make telephone calls for services and our personal preferences and geographical location are analysed every time we go online. And we comply...as we have little say in the matter. Even in airports we undergo surveillance without any pomp and


ceremony. Arrive at a British airport and, on going through Customs, you are likely to be screened on the move by passive millimetre wave systems. And in Russia, technologies are deployed at every international airport to detect radioactive materials. In neither of these cases are there overt warning signs or alternative search procedures offered. Yet, when it comes to security screening on departure, the story is very different as we go overboard to explain to people what is going to happen to them. The airport checkpoint is considered to be of fundamental importance not only to ensuring security in the skies but also in preventing an attack against a State that could have a cataclysmic


December 2011 Aviationsecurityinternational


knock-on effect. In previous editorials I have addressed the civil liberties debate which is never far from the headlines, but the issue of transparency is one rarely touched on, but of equal importance. The terrorist, like a good poker player, keeps his cards close to his chest. We know what he might or might not have, but we have no idea as to which approach he will take, or when he will take it. We, on the other hand, play with an open hand. Not only do we tell the passengers which technologies we are going to use and when we are going to use them, we go further by advertising the specific make and model of the technologies deployed. Even in the futuristic Checkpoint of the Future, being a concept I consider long overdue, we are already indicating that certain categories of passengers will be screened by whole body imaging systems (if the law permits!) whilst others will only be subject to screening by an archway metal detector; and, some bags will be screened by X-ray and others by more advanced explosive trace detection technologies. Surely if we are to make security unpredictable, we need to deploy a casino-style screening system, which has the added benefit of being aesthetically more pleasing? Our screening technologies ought to be part and parcel of the architectural design of the airport. There is no need for makes and models of X-ray machines to be on view; they help nobody other than the terrorist who can simply research the product, and thereby its limitations, at the manufacturer's website. Nobody is going to buy a CEIA metal detector rather than a Garrett one, or vice versa, because they see the name emblazoned on the equipment at an airport checkpoint...so why tell people who made the portal, or even that it is a portal?


Of course, the speed at which people flow through the checkpoint is impacted upon by the efficiency of the process of divesting metallic products from the person to avoid unnecessary alarms. So we will still need to tell passengers how to prepare for security, but that does not equate to telling people which technology they will be screened by or even, in a tunnel configuration, the precise point in time that they are being screened. And, talking of instructing passengers, I am still amazed at the obvious cost- saving, security-diminishing procedure used in certain States of telling passengers how to place their bags on the X-ray conveyor belt, granting them, in the process, complete control over the angle at which the X-ray beam will hit their bags. The stakes are high and the


chips are down. Now it’s our turn to play with a poker face.


www.asi-mag.com 1


LEAD EDITORIAL

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52