The 'Israelification' of Airport Security

This article is about the difference between what we in the U.S. and the Israeli's call airport security. It's about actually addressing the problem (keeping bad people out of airports and off flights) instead of inconveniencing everyone except the bad people. You can find the Toronto Star article here. The word of the day is "Israelification."

While North America's airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.

That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience.

Where the US/Canadian approach to airport security is reactive and focused on however the last bad guy attempt was carried out, the Israeli method is to keep people behaving (or potentially behaving) badly out of the airport. That's why we're still removing our shoes to get through the security line, and why we're now facing limits on having things in our laps during the last hour of a flight. Because the American security approach assumes that the bad guy has gotten on the plane. The result is escalating inconvenience for travelers and little or no real obstacles for bad guys. The Israeli's don't care if you're black, white, Arab, Jew; they care how you're behaving and whether that behavior is suspicious.

The Israeli security expert in the article outlines three "security perimeters" travelers must get through before they even get to the airport terminal. Checkpoints on the entrance road, parking lot, and terminal entrance are staffed by trained personnel who are looking for odd behaviors. One word repeated throughout the article is "trained." The Israelis spend the money on training personnel to look passengers in the eyes to detect nervous, potentially dangerous behavior. Identification of suspicious behaviors requires lots of training. Americans avoid looking each other in the eyes in the grocery store, no less at the airport.

You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

There's that word again: trained. The questions asked at various points aren't terribly important; what's important is the traveler's reaction and behavior when asked. If you act suspicious, you'll get searched. And even then, the Israeli approach is preventative, not reactive. For example, if a possible bomb is found inside the terminal in the inspection area, that small area is all that has to be "evacuated." It's bomb-proof and can withstand the detonation of 100 kilos of plastic explosives. There's no need to try to evacuate an entire airport terminal. Every time some idiot in the US wanders in through an exit, our response is to try to evacuate the terminal and find said idiot. Most often, the evacuation takes hours and the idiot has left the building along with Elvis. If the intruder was planning to detonate something he has more than enough time to do so.

Why do Americans "settle" for such lousy security? The Israeli security expert says it's because we're "nice:"

"But, what can you do? Americans and Canadians are nice people and they will do anything because they were told to do so and because they don't know any different."

I think it's more because we collectively have the attention span of a gnat and we've been trained by our so-called leaders to go for the cheap, shallow, and largely ineffective approach to solving problems so we can refocus our attention on the latest celebrity gaffe. We should be demanding better from our leaders and our government. Much better.

On a lighter, related note, humorist Andy Borowitz has a plan, merging airport security with American health care reform: Full Body Scans to Double as Annual Checkups.

Who's The Security Risk?

So another dim bulb supposedly sent by al Qaeda has tried to blow up an American jet preparing to land in Detroit. Predictably, Homeland Security has "tightened" security rules in the aftermath. So far, we don't know much beyond the flight started in Nigeria, flew to Amsterdam, and then to Detroit. How this mope managed to get explosive materials on the flight remains to be seen, but the new rules we're likely to see will mostly make travel for the rest of us more difficult.

Am I missing something, or should we be doing things to make life difficult for al Qaeda and its hangers-on, rather than the vast majority of travelers? Some reports indicate this guy smuggled his explosives in his underwear from Nigeria. Now, everyone flying is going to be restricted to their seats for the last hour of their flight and won't be allowed to have anything on their laps during that time (including laptops and pillows). Presumably this would be to prevent the rest of us from setting fire to our pants (as this clown apparently did) while hidden by a blanket (or a laptop?). Wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that these jerks can't carry on explosives in their pants while the rest of us are carrying on laptops?

There's already been a report that U.S. officials were aware for two years that this particular Nigerian "could have terrorist ties." Despite that, he wasn't on any lists preventing him from taking commercial flights into the U.S. What's the point in knowing of potential terrorists if you don't think it's worth keeping them out of the U.S.?

What's wrong with this picture? If the Nigerian airport is unable or unwilling to adequately screen passengers leaving the country, wouldn't it make sense to prohibit flights originating there to land here? And if the passengers on this flight were also screened at the Amsterdam airport (which supposedly has a "good reputation for security"), what on earth happened?

In the meantime, the rest of the traveling public will be subject to more ineffective inconvenience and discomfort while flying. Bring on high speed rail service.

EDIT (12/29/09): As usual, Andy Borowitz gets to the heart of the matter with his "Department of Homeland Security Issues Terrorist ID Cards" article.

Everybody's Got An Opinion

So President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 and it seems like an awful lot of people have their underwear in knots over it. I was as surprised as anyone else when I heard the announcement, but I don't understand much of the reaction as presented by the major media outlets. Everyone seems to have opinions that they have no problem sharing with the rest of us. It's not really surprising. People in this country have opinions on just about everything, and most are not reluctant to "educate" everyone else about it.

There have been "man on the street" interviews with people, talking heads on commentary programs, etc. The loudest of the opinions seems to come down to a perception that the Prez hasn't done "enough" to warrant such an award. Like those folks on the street get a vote for Nobel Prizes. We are a society of critics and most of the critics think their opinions are much more valid than the next critic's view. I call it "the center of the universe" complex.

I can't argue that Obama has had a string of successes in the realm of peace in the past 9 or so months. I have no idea what factors the Nobel people consider in making the Peace Prize award. I can think of one possible reason for their decision. Comparison to the prior President, who made no effort to foment peace anywhere in his eight years. The satirical comedian Andy Borowitz made the point elegantly:

"(today)... NASA bombed the moon, saying it was the one spot President Bush missed."

As is often the case with satire, he's not far enough off the mark for it to be funny, per se.

The point is, perhaps President Obama has won this prize not for what he's accomplished so far, but because he's redirected this country's role in the world. Instead of dealing with international problems with landing craft and missiles, he's attempted to resurrect American diplomacy. Instead of unilateral actions, he's invited other nations to join with us to develop responses to world problems. Obama thinks about issues before opening his mouth, unlike his predecessor. The Prez is trying to talk with the Iranian and North Korean governments while the world had come to expect the leader of the most powerful country in the world to strap on his six shooter and rattle some sabers.

It's possible that the Nobel folks in Sweden feel greatly encouraged by that. Maybe it's the differences from the recent past that count most in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize this year.