Airport security measures must be pro-active and must anticipate every possible move the “terrorist” could make—if airports and passengers are to be kept secure. The question is how?

Post 9/11 airport security has been perceived quite differently, triggering the abrupt rise in apprehension levels and airport security thresholds. Since then, the see-saw struggle between airport security machineries around the world, and the “terrorist”—seen as a collective entity bent on breaching airport security defences—has continued unabated. The latest reminder that this struggle is unending was the 2009 Christmas Day event in which a Nigerian “terrorist”, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on way from Amsterdam in the Netherlands to Detroit in the US. Twenty three-year-old Umar had an explosive device sewn into his undergarments, and was prevented from detonating the device, just short of landing at Detroit, by the passengers and crew of the flight.

Had Umar succeeded in his dastardly plan, at least 300 lives would have been lost; the toll could possibly have been much larger had the aircraft crashed into an inhabited area (Osama bin Laden later claimed responsibility for the failed attempt in an audio tape aired by Al Jazeera channel). President Barack Obama was left defenceless and had to admit that the incident had been the result of a “systemic failure” in security as US intelligence agencies failed to detect the “red flags” that would have placed Umar on the ‘no-fly’ list. He admitted that information which could have prevented Umar from getting into the plane had not received the attention it deserved. The President went on to admit that the US government “failed to heed warnings”. Expectedly, in the aftermath of the incident, airport security machineries across the globe embarked on feverish reactive actions—some of which are being debated.

Immediately after the incident, the US announced that passengers flying from (or transiting through) at least 14 countries—listed by Washington under either “state sponsors of terrorism” or “other countries of interest”—will be subject to additional security screening at airports from which they board US-bound flights. Visitors from these countries, including Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen, will be “patted down” and all their hand baggage searched before boarding. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the agency responsible for security in all modes of transportation in the US, added that the new directives on enhanced security screening will increase the use of relevant technologies.

Full Body Scanning

Frenetic activity and heated debate currently centres on full body scanning or Whole Body Imaging—a controversial security measure using different technologies. Full body scanners include backscatter, X-ray, thermal and millimeter wave technologies, each of which have challenges associated with explosive detection. Backscatter Passenger Imaging uses low intensity X-ray technology; an example is the Rapiscan system which works by bouncing X-rays off an individual’s skin to produce an outline image of the person’s body and shows items stowed in pockets or concealed on the person.

Millimeter Wave Technology, on the other hand, involves projecting radio frequency energy over the passenger’s body creating a 3-D image and revealing the smallest concealed item. Iscon Video Imaging’s proprietary thermal-boosted infrared detection technology shows objects and clothing without any harmful radiation by detecting the temperature differential between clothes and a hidden object. In comparison, a door frame metal detector or a hand-held metal detector can find out only objects made of metal. The debate on the use of these full body scanning technologies stems from the fact that the images from both systems render the subject more or less unclad to the viewer.

Full body scanners provide security officers with a naked image of the passenger being scanned, in the hope of spotting any potentially dangerous substance concealed on that person that escaped metal detectors. The scanners will not detect substances hidden in a body cavity, and experts disagree on whether the technology would have seen the powder Umar is accused of concealing in his underwear. Officials in many other countries are resisting adding the scanners in their airports, mostly citing privacy concerns.

In the US, groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center oppose full body scans, and the American Civil Liberties Union calls them a “virtual strip search”. Scanners minimise tactile pat down contact between the security officers and the passengers. Thus, using new full body scanners reduce the time it takes to screen people. It takes only two seconds to reveal and pinpoint a hidden object on a human’s body. However, many places have not been using these full body scanners due to the fact that it shows a perfect outline of the passenger’s private areas. The use of these scanners not found acceptance in some places on children due to child pornography laws. The protagonists for these technologies argue that both systems can have security blocks built in that prevent the recording or storage of an image and that the images are rendered unrecognisable, thus prevent misuse of the equipment.