More invasive TSA searches

TSA announces a more invasive, process to streamline pat-downs http://dailym.ai/2mCzsIM via http://dailym.ai/android

So TSA still is only looking in one direction...what happens when a terrorist group decides to attack the airport instead of the airplane?  Just a few months ago, someone ran amok in an airport brandishing a machete.  TSA has no impact on this atrack.

TSA

The limiting factor for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been, and continues to be, it is only looking at the potential terrorist attempting to board an aircraft or train as a passenger.  If any other type of scenario is used, TSA screeners are not trained nor utilized in such a way as to be able to do anything about it.

Worse, the way TSA tries to use manpower as a way to justify its existence creates mind-numbing conditions for the screeners.   Imagine day-in and day-out having to look at thousands of people who are not happy to see you, who are late for their flights or are just in a lousy mood.  Now you get to rifle through their personal belongings (something even a sworn police officer couldn't do without probable-cause) because the supposed high-tech scanner just returned another false positive.

TSA is not seen by passengers as helping to make them safe, the screeners are seen as a nuisance causing the passenger to be late.  Unfortunately, having a large number of screeners touching passengers inevitably leads to this;

"Former TSA Agent: Groping Scandal Is Business as Usual"

The pat-down is the default setting when all else fails.  If a scanner is malfunctioning or down, then pat downs are the only recourse.  Even though TSA utilizes agents training to note behaviors indicative of a suspected terrorist, the fall back position of "better safe than sorry" forces many more passengers through pat downs then is necessary.

At the end of the day, the question is how many potential terrorist attacks has TSA stopped?  The answer is the majority of TSA doesn't even know.  TSA screeners receive no feedback whatsoever on their interdiction efforts so they continue to go to work without any idea on whether or not they have stopped the next 9/11.

Obama's War of Words

Words are an interesting thing.  In religion, words bind you to your faith.  In law, words bind you to legal commitments.  In politics, words are used to invoke emotions to persuade people to follow their political leaders.

Last month, President Obama said the following words "no boots on the ground" to promise no troops would be sent into Iraq.  Those words weren't chosen haphazardly.  The words were meant to invoke emotions of trust that no more troops would be sent into harms way.  The words also made no sense.

After failing to keep their word to the Iraqi people, the White House pulled out the US troops (the only thing keeping stability in a traditionally unstable area) leaving Maliki high and dry.  Once ISIS troops entered Iraq, it took away the ability of the White House to keep their "words".  Contrary to what the Col Chuck Horner fanboys would have you believe, you can't win wars or conflicts by airpower alone.  The only way to stop troops from occupying territory is by having other troops kick them out and taking over that same territory.  It is a basic principle of warfare dating back to the most ancient times yet one that modern war planners and politicians pretend is no longer applicable.  ISIS put boots on the ground and they only way to stop them is by having different boots on the ground to either push them or at least re-occupy territory ISIS took over.

The troop pull-out in Iraq greatly exacerbated, if not outright created, the situations were ISIS (now the Islamic State or ISIL) saw an opportunity to come in and topple an already unpopular Maliki.   In theory, the boots to counter ISIL should belong to the Iraqi Army but they have been unable to handle the job.  The US and Maliki have been trying to coax Iran into providing those needed boots on the ground.  Iran has an interest in not seeing the separatist movement in Iraq spread, however they are even more interested in not having their military forces involved in a full blown war.

So now if you are the National Security Council and want to keep your options open in Iraq but not contradict the President's words of "no boots on the ground", what do you do?  Well you can position nine (9) US Navy warships in the Persian Gulf.  The USS George H. W. Bush is on-station accompanied by one cruiser and five destroyers (carrier strike group), the USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44) and the USS Mesa Verde (LPC-19).  Now add the USS Bataan (LHD-5) with 1,000 Marines and you see that the White House has many options for striking targets in Iraq without "boots on the ground." (Source:  USNI)  But nothing is ever easy, especially for this White House.

Having all of that firepower on-station in the Persian Gulf does not mean the White House has a strategy.  Republicans as well as Democrats are bemoaning the lack of a strategy for Iraq.  The lack of strategy is perhaps why Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has come out on video as the leader of ISIL.  He may end-up stopping a Hellfire missile at some point but for now he is leading a very popular movement.  His words carry more weight than the President right now.  Why do I say that?

The success of ISIL in Iraq has rekindled fears of another al-Qaeda led attack on the United States.  In response to this "impending threat", the TSA has instituted a ban on all uncharged mobile devices.  The paranoia has gone global.  Uncharged mobile devices are now what liquid explosives were just a few years ago.  The problem is not with what is perceived as a viable threat, rather the "one-size fits all" way that the ban has been instituted.  Security agencies around the world are now more concerned with the potential weapon versus the behavior.

TSA especially has always taken the approach of everyone is a potential threat until proven otherwise.  Such an approach has a number of weaknesses.  First, all of the emphasis is placed on passengers boarding.  Little to none is placed on airport employees who could be compromised into hiding a weapon or explosive device on the aircraft.  Second, the TSA approach is a public relations nightmare. By summarily treating every passenger to increasingly more invasive screenings, you are in effect going against the most basic tenet of American law that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  This is why whenever a screener abuses their position of authority it results in a maelstrom of public outcry.  TSA basically has yet to find the words to create belief amongst Americans.  Even if they finally do, TSA is still is only looking at a small part of the problem.

If ISIL or some other al-Qaeda cell is activated, I submit they won't have to travel here (a basic premise of TSA is that potential terrorists will use the airlines to travel or as weapons).  More than likely, there are cells already in place and may not need to move by commercial airliners.  TSA may be thwarting the use of airliners as weapons but what about other potential weapons?  For example, according to a Cincinnati Enquirer article Ohio leads the country in hazardous materials transportation spills with over 25 percent of the spills in Ohio occurring in the Greater Cincinnati area.  Our railroad infrastructure is outdated and crumbling before our eyes, it would not take much for a terrorist cell cause a train hauling hazardous waste (to include spent nuclear fuel) to crash in a major metropolitan area.

Thanks to Micheal Bay and J.J. Abrahams (pictures instead of words), we tend to think of a terrorist attack as involving massive explosions resulting in huge numbers of casualties.  But who is to say that the next terrorist attack needs to look like something out of summer blockbuster movie?  Our power grids are extremely vulnerable to malware attacks and it would not take much to bring the Eastern Seaboard down.  Just imagine what few weeks without power to run refrigerators would do to the price of food and medicine!

Reports are coming out of West Africa that Ebola is spreading rapidly.  All it will take is one case of that to get on a plane and land here in the US.  How hard would it be for an al-Qaeda operative to arrange something like while we are busy making sure all mobile devices are charged?  Of course it is easier to use words to create a threat (uncharged mobile devices) which can then be portrayed as being neutralized by other words.

Words by the President who calls the situation on the Southwest border a "humanitarian issue" even though anywhere else illegal border crossings would constitute a state of emergency.  And words we don't hear, such as where are those immigrants being housed? (Answer, on military bases.  Out of sight, out of mind don't you know)

Words by a former President declaring a "war on drugs".  We still have troops and other clandestine operatives deployed throughout Colombia yet the flow of cocaine and now heroin are as strong as ever.  The war on drugs did produce some tangible results by increasing the number of Americans in prison for drug related crimes.  So many are in prison that Louisiana (of all places) is looking at reforming drug conviction laws (such as mandatory sentencing for possession) to address prison overcrowding.  The sale of illegal drugs produce such huge profits that the drug cartels are able to out-pay and out-finance most governments (even the US).  Terrorist groups need funding and what has always been obvious, but not spoken of much, is the relationship between the two groups.  Afghani poppy growers produce the raw materials for heroin.  Colombian and Mexican drug cartels have the infrastructure to move the heroin along with cocaine and marijuana.  If you can smuggle drugs, you can smuggle weapons.  Apparently, we don't have words for this potential threat.

President Obama lost a war of words with Syria, then Crimea and now Iraq.  He also lost a war of words with Central Americans seeking amnesty in the United States.  Now he has lost a war of words with the American people.

On this day, we gave up our rights

The fear of terrorism has overruled our own jurisprudence. Our laws are supposed to be based around the concept of innocent until proven guilty but DHS has flipped the script. Passengers are now considered guilty until proven innocent.

Link

Endless reaction to yesterday's threat

TSA, DHS and Secretary Napolitano are rehashing the same scenarios as justification for the pat-downs and full body scanners. A divergent group consisting of pilots, flight attendants, travel associations, civil rights groups and Muslim groups are all raising their voices against the security measures.

Police and corrections officers use pat-downs when dealing with suspected violent offenders who are likely to be concealing a weapon or contraband. Somehow TSA justified using pat-downs for people whose only offense is choosing not to go through a full body scanner. In the former scenario, the suspected has already demonstrated suspicious and violent behavior. In the latter, modesty or health concerns are the likely reason and certainly shouldn't be equated to criminal behavior.

The psychology of the behavior is also in question. There is no way for a pat-down not to be an intrusive, humiliating experience. No matter how much training TSA alleges has in conducting these type of searches, having to perform repeatedly over an 8 hour shift with upset passengers can only lead to abuses. The passenger doesn't want to be there and the TSA screener is getting frustrated. The TSA screener is going to put the passenger in their place and some will resort to rough handling. More incidents are likely to happen as we approach the holidays.

Now several groups are asking passengers to opt for the pat-downs are simply not fly at all. Airlines are already operating at the barest minimums for profit. These security measures may cause some to finally go out of business. All so we can be safer. In the meantime, the next "toner cartridge" is being planned out and TSA will be completely caught off guard.

Link

El Al apologizes for strip-searching U.S. professor

The TSA has been making headlines for "groping genitalia" of passengers refusing the full body scanners. Having no desire to be exposed to unnecessary radiation apparently means to the TSA that you like being groped and handled by total strangers. The stress of airline travel being already high, the TSA continues to find new ways to increase our collective desire to find other means of travel.

Much of what TSA is trying to do is based on the storied success of El Al whose layered security became the benchmark for other security services. Now El Al has gotten into the act. Professor Heather Bradshaw, who teaches neuroscience at Indiana University, was invited by Hebrew Union University to give a lecture in Israel. Upon her arrival Luton airport, El Al security personnel treated her as a terrorist suspect. She was subjected to a strip search and forced to remove her bra.

What in the hell is going on with people? Have we become so obsessed with the terrorist "boogeyman" that we are being forced to give up our dignity in the name of security? From the news reports, Professor Bradshaw was not belligerent or threatening in any way and produced her credentials showing the reason for her visit. She still was subjected to a humiliating search despite all of the supporting evidence showing she was not a terrorist.

When the TSA details of groping came out, many critics through insults about most of screeners being nothing more than perverts. Americans are adept are hurling insults at one another which may or may not be founded in reality. After reading about the El Al incident, I can't help but wonder what type of person is being attracted to security work these days. Hopefully these security agencies will spend as much time doing psychological profiles on their perspective employees as they do on passengers.

Link

Cargo threat

The news is abuzz about the ink cartridges bombs placed in cargo shipments in London and Dubai bound for synagogs in Chicago. The story illustrates a huge gaps that TSA and other security agencies continue to perpetuate. The TSA in particular focuses all of its manpower and technology on screening passengers while virtually ignoring cargo shipments. When airlines installed lockable cabin doors on their cockpits, the cargo industry was largely exempt. Part of the reason for this imbalance is the sheer volume of cargo. Ask any US Customs inspector working the ports on the East coast. They are lucky if they can stop 10 percent of the total volume of shipping containers for additional searches. The TSA is not equipped nor staffed to start checking cargo airports. But this latest threat does show that we are not as safe as we think, even with passengers removing their shoes.

European Airlines Say US Security Goes Overboard

The British introduced layered security to their airports a decade or more before we ever heard of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden. The Provisional Irish Republican Army's (PIRA) fondness for remotely detonated bombs forced British security to adopt new methods of what we now call homeland security. Therefore, I find their comments about our airport security procedures to be especially well founded. It has always seemed superfluous to me to remove shoes and pull laptops out of the luggage. We already are passing through scanners, metal detectors, and ion scanners (used for detecting chemical traces on surfaces). These additional steps really don't add anything to the process except additional time and opportunity for bottle necks whenever someone forgets to remove an item.

The article goes on to point out the biggest grievance I have with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), namely a complete lack of reviewing policies and procedures. Once a new policy or process is implemented, the TSA does not go back and review the efficacy of the new practice. Take removing your shoes as an example. This was done in reaction to Richard Reid's attempt in 2002 to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes. Only the United States requires shoe removal and other than Reid's failed attempt, I cannot find any other instance of an attempt to smuggle explosives in shoes. Of course while we were busy removing our shoes, Abdul Muttalab hid liquid explosives in his underwear. The two cases should have the TSA focused on detecting the chemical signatures and not the means by which they chemicals are being smuggled. While I hate to think of this what if someone figures out how to either swallow a condom filled with one chemical while hiding the other chemical in another body cavity? Sounds far fetched and gross until you realize this is how drug smugglers have been doing it for years.

The basic problem is unlike Europe, which has small countries with only a handful of international airports, we have dozens of international airports with scores of smaller airports. Getting our procedures consistently applied throughout is almost impossible. The TSA needs to seriously re-evaluate what threats they can stop and how best to detect those threats without inconveniencing passengers further. While TSA is busy insuring shoes are removed, how many other transportation nodes are being left vulnerable?

Link

10,000 TSA employees get secret clearances

John Pistole, the new head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), views his agency a counterrorism agency. "Counterterrorism" implies actions both taken to prevent and in response to terrorist actions. In some cases, counterrorism means killing the terrorist before they can act. What is really interesting is how checking people's toiletries is sufficient justification for granting 10,000 security clearances. It costs around $50,000 per background check and each individual needs an updated check every 5 years. All so they can throw out your tootpaste or shampoo.

10,000 TSA employees get secret clearances - Yahoo! News

Kennedy Airport security gaps

By now, you all have heard of Steven Slater who quit his job in a rather dramatic fashion. After cussing out a supposedly abusive passenger, he pulled the ejection slide, grabbed two beers and his carryon and leapt into infamy.

While the media focuses on whether or not his antics where driven by abuse, another story is going largely unnoticed. How did Mr. Slater jump from an airliner in a major airport and manage to get all the way back home (he was arrested by police at his residence)?

According to the New York Daily News, Slater managed to drag to carry on bags around security zones. He caught an AirTrain to his car and drove home. JetBlue waited 25 minutes to alert the Port Authority and the call was from corporate headquarters, not the aircrew.

The story emphasizes the glaring gaps in the TSA. Everything they do is focused on screening passengers. Very little is done to look at gaps in security along the flightline, maintenance facilities, and with service providers (such as food vendors and refueling vehicles). The greatest weakness is the aircraft itself, not the passengers. The TSA is a political answer to a very difficult problem.

As I type this, Secretay Napolitano is announcing a bill that will provide another 1,000 Border Patrol agents. The increase is to address illegal immigrants. The press secretary is standing right next to her correcting mistakes (is it me or does she look doped-up?). I don't see Secretary Clinton anywhere announcing any initiatives to create economic prosperity on the Southern side of the border.

How far we come

In yet another cost saving measure, the airlines continue to fall from the elegant means of travel to flying cattle cars.

"Just in time for the summer airport onslaught, Continental Airlines has decided to test what they call self-boarding, and what we call DIY air travel. Once travelers at Houston Intercontinental Airport swipe their ticket, a turnstile door will open to allow the passenger entry into the airplane. While automated boarding does not require the human touch, an attendant will be on hand to deal with the usual customer service problems.

And we can imagine plenty of problems. Does anarchy rule in this experiment? No longer will passengers be called by row or color-coded boarding pass. Instead, they'll be expected to make a dash through a turnstile. Amazingly, the TSA is onboard, as it were, with self-boarding. The practice is already in place at many international airlines, like Air France and Air New Zealand. You'll be glad to know that human pilots are still required to fly the plane. For now."

Airlines were once glamorous and air travel was elegant and sophisticated. Deregulation in the 1980s was supposed to bring competition to the airline industry and savings to the passenger. Instead as each company tried to undercut its competitor, fewer and fewer perks could be offered to the passengers. Rising fuel costs and increased ramp fees further reduced passengers incentives as the price of the ticket could not be raised without risk of losing the passenger to a competitor.

In my opinion, another important factor was the transition from stewardesses to flight attendants. The intent was to take the stewardess from an idealized position available only to attractive, slim women and open it up to everyone. In the name of equality, this was a necessary step but it carried an unintended consequence. Stewardesses were selected on looks and charm. Stewardesses conducted themselves as ambassadors for the airlines. The switch from stewardess to flight attendant eliminated discrimination based on looks and gender but it also eliminated some of the mystique which added to the travel experience.

Before I get hate mail, think about it this way. Anyone who meets the basic physical and aptitude requirements can join the military but only a select few can become a Navy SEAL. Both the engine mechanic and SEAL are proud to serve but which position holds mystique?

Stewardesses were glamorous and insured the passenger was comfortable as well as safe. Flight attendants became employees and while they are just as professional, there was something lost. There is a certain indifference now with most of the flight attendants. Many seem grim or tired which is another unintended consequence of modern air travel. Gone is the glamour and now flight attendants are just employees like the rest of us.

Of course the biggest change to airlines has been 9/11 and our friends at TSA. If air travel had become less glamourous over the last 20 years, the TSA has made it down right grueling. Long security lines with surly TSA personnel sets the tone for the rest of the experience. No one seems to think anything now of having to arrive two hours early for a flight that may not even last one. Flight attendants, already salty because of long hours and poor working conditions, now have to play cop and determine if the passenger is a security risk or just rude. Either way, the rest of us lose.

Air travel will not become the glamorous experience it once was. We are one more terrorist attack away from the few remaining airlines to go under. Hopefully other means of public transit, such as rail, will be revitalized as a result.

Screening Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT)

Cal Lightman is a fictional character but TSA is using techniques with even less scientific scrutiny.

"No scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behaviour, including intent," declares a 2008 report prepared by the JASON defence advisory group. And the TSA had no business deploying SPOT across the nation's airports "without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment", stated a two-year review of the programme released on 20 May by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the US Congress.

Airport security: Intent to deceive? : Nature News

Pilot Crashes Into Texas Building

There is an admonishment amongst military strategists not to fight the last war. TSA was created with one purpose in mind, to fight the last war. The agency was supposed to prevent another 9/11 by federalizing all personnel who would screen baggage and boarding passengers. The shortfall of course is would TSA have really be able to prevent 9/11 since the hijackers did not use explosives and carried items that would not have been suspicious prior to the hijackings. In theory, TSA screeners are supposed to prevent another large aircraft from being hijacked.

We now have this event in Austin showing that even light aircraft can be used as a type of cruise missile. Most people don't realize how many small airports, many unattended, operate within a few minutes flight time of their work or home. There is usually at least one municipal airport located in every county. Colleges and universities with aviation programs have airports. All of these are relatively quiet with small fixed base operations (FBO).

Having TSA in place at all of these airports would be cost-prohibitive and would not prevent this type of attack. Why? Remember the role of TSA is basically to screen for weapons and explosives. There is no way for them to determine the intention of a private pilot getting ready to take-off. We certainly don't need TSA or any other agency taking away more of our additional civil liberties by interviewing every pilot before they take off (but I won't be surprised if the President or Secretary Napolitano doesn't try to float this idea). Most small aircraft are parked at the airports with little to no security. The locks on these aircraft are easy for a pilot with a little lock picking skill to defeat. There are also countless farms with small aircraft stored in a barn or simple hangar.

The threat of a small aircraft being flown into a soft target will continue to challenge our safety and security for sometime. There is no easy solution without giving up even more of our freedom as well as our money.

Pilot Crashes Into Texas Building in Apparent Anti-IRS Suicide - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

TSA takes explosives screening to fliers

The reason Abdul Mutallab, better known as the "underwear bomber", was nearly able to accomplish his goal had much more to do with intelligence failures than the TSA lacking the ability to walk around airports to randomly swab people, From most open source accounts, Mutallab was known to be a threat who had become involved with an especially radical Islamic group out of Yemen. No less an authority than his own father came forward to express his concern that his son had become radicalized. According to press accounts, the CIA (and also the British MI-5) had sent a report to the National Counter-Terrorism Center to have Mutallab's name placed on the no-fly list, For some reason, that did not occur allowing Mutallab to fly to Amersterdam. Mutallab was apprehended overseas so why does TSA need to have "roaming" powers in domestic airports? The TSA has one of the worst reputations for customer service by any federal agency. The work is dull and monotonous, the pay is low, the promotion process is stressful, and dealing with angry passengers is no picnic. Roaming screenings will just add more opportunities for passengers and TSA screeners to clash with zero probability of catching the next "underwear bomber".

TSA takes explosives screening to fliers - USATODAY.com

Posted using ShareThis

TSA nominee withdraws amid

I was never convinced the answer to 9-11 was to create another bureaucracy. The recent attempt by Abdul Muttallab to board a Northwestern flight bound for Detroit with liquid explosives further dispproves a bureaucratic solution to terrorism.

TSA nominee withdraws amid 'political agenda'

Posted using ShareThis

A Fourth Amendment victory

Airport rules changed after Ron Paul aide detained - Washington Times

The knee-jerk reactions to 9-11 created the TSA and US PATRIOT Act, both of which seem to fly in the face of the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments. Whenever concerns about the Constitution are brought up, critics cite national security. The Bush Administration may have created TSA and the Patriot Act but the Obama administration isn't showing any signs of changing course either. The incident with Ron Paul shows what happens when rules are given out to without thought to the larger implications. TSA screeners have a thankless job are work with a constant set of changing rules and procedures. Add an overzealous screener and you get a violation of our Constitutional rights. I hope this incident doesn't just go as a foot note for the Obama Administration. I hope they take a hard look at our security policies.

Liquid Explosives

Over on the TSA blog there is a piece about liquid explosives and the agency’s effort to deploy better technology to detect these chemicals. Emotions and hyperbole run rampant on any discussions concerning liquid explosives. One camp believes the threat posed from binary liquid explosives (two chemicals carried separately when combined create a powerful explosive) is legion. This camp is made up of government officials and security experts that believe binary liquid explosives offer terrorists an effective and easy means of creating a bomb in mid-flight. The other camp tends to be scientists or skeptics who point out the principle of combining two liquids may seem simple but the actual execution cannot be easily achieved in-flight. The chemicals required are volatile and can be spilled before ever being employed.

Both sides quote various to reinforce their points. In trying to ascertain the validity of one side or the other, I was unable to find case studies of attempted smuggling of binary chemicals. The London case has not released details so we still are unaware of if binary liquids were truly used. Some would argue the lack of case studies is because of the success of chemical detection technology. I find that argument weak when you consider that most countries DON’T have bans on bringing liquids on board. Others may say the scientist and skeptics are right, liquid explosives are too difficult to mix on-board. Perhaps but I think the whole liquid explosives discussion misses a much more basic point; it isn’t the weapon that the terrorists are concerned about but the target. The target of course in all of these discussions is the aircraft. Trying to mix volatile chemicals on-board an airliner has a low probability of success. If attacking the aircraft is the ultimate aim, there are other means of attack with higher probabilities of success. Aircraft are most vulnerable to attack during take-off and landing. Different weapons could be employed against airliners under such circumstances. These weapons don’t rely on clumsy terrorists trying to mix the wrong chemicals or spilling the contents before they can be used to blow-up the aircraft.

For instance, there have been random reports since 9-11 of lasers being focused on the cockpit of airliners while in flight. The lasers would need to be aimed with some type of targeting system which in-turn implies high cost and sophistication. Such lasers are most likely vehicle-mounted making it easier to conceal and relocate for multiple attempts. The weapon would only have to temporarily blind pilots to create the potential for a crash. Certain lasers operate in a spectrum that does not emit a visible beam. Using sophisticated laser weapon may seem like something out of a novel but if previous reports are correct, certain groups may already possess the technology.

Of course this assumes the group wants to target the aircraft while in flight. Aircraft could be sabotaged while on the ground. Passengers can be attacked while still in the terminal. Chemical or biological agents could be introduced into the terminal air handling systems. Food supplies, as we now know, are extremely vulnerable to contamination. Navigation systems can be jammed or incorrect data can be sent. Navigational aids are airports could be destroyed or compromised. I’m not saying steps have not been taken to reduce these threats as well. My concern by focusing almost exclusively on one type of weapon (liquid explosives), we may be exposing ourselves to a completely different type of attack.

New Travel Scares

I’m a believer in effective mass transit as a means of reducing our energy needs and creating more jobs. Airlines continue to face troubling times with increasing fuel costs and decreasing profit margins. Compound the lack of free amenities on-board flights with ever increasing security restrictions and I just don’t see many airlines being able to remain viable.
Trains and buses afford a cost-effective means of transporting both commuters and travelers alike. By running trains on electricity reduces the reliance on foreign oil. More and more busses now run on either biodiesel or electricity as well. Trolley cars are becoming quite the norm to run local travelers and commuters around (Cincinnati is still pursuing trolleys for the Over-The-Rhine area). A comprehensive mass transportation approach just makes good sense.
Well I just read an article that makes me wonder if trains and buses aren’t going to become the next industry invaded by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). Ontario health officials are searching for 27 people who may have been exposed to tuberculosis while travelling on a Greyhound bus from Toronto to Windsor on Aug. 31. There's a "moderate risk" they contracted the disease, public health officials said Thursday. You read the entire article here.

People need to take more responsibility for their actions. If someone knows they have, or suspects they may have, a highly communicable disease like tuberculosis they need to stay home! Last year a US citizen flew from Atlanta on an overseas flight knowing he had TB but felt his need to travel outweighed the safety of others. Apparently the same thing happened on the Greyhound bus in Ontario. TB is contagious and with strains that are resistant to antibiotics, this case is very disconcerting. However, we can’t overreact and start adding even more restrictions to travel. Hopefully the Center for Disease Control (CDC) will team with the TSA to develop some reasonable safeguards for travelers.

TSA Blog

Transportation Security Administration has started a blog at http://www.tsa.gov/blog

A unique thing about this blog is it gives people the opportunity to correspond directly with TSA. Usually comments are a dialog between the blogger and their audience. In this case, comments are made on a forum where TSA officials can see them and if necessary take action. The premise in a good one and I salute TSA for taking an initiative which givers travelers an opportunity to bring up issues or seek clarification on policies.

Local Homeland Security Agencies

The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003 by consolidating agencies as diverse as the U.S. Secret Service to the U.S. Coast Guard, all said 22 federal agencies employing 220,000 people formed the new agency. The first real test of the Department of Homeland Security came just two years later when Hurricane Katrina stuck land. The lead agency for the disaster was the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which, by many accounts, arrived too late with too little. Over two years later and still the citizens of New Orleans are still trying to recover from the disaster. The response efforts to Hurricane Katrina brought to the forefront shortcomings such as lack of emergency communications, poor computer integration (system interoperability) and information sharing. These were all problems experienced during the Hurricane Katrina response but a recent New York Times article points out that these problems continue to permeate not just FEMA by the whole of the Department of Homeland Security.


The DHS disputes these charges and points out the insurmountable challenges of merging so many divergent agencies with dissimilar missions to meet the challenges of protecting the homeland. The realization of the complexities of these tasks is reflected in how the DHS is modifying recommendations in the 9/11 Commission Report. For example, the DHS recently changed its goal from inspecting 100 percent of all shipping containers arriving at U.S. ports to more random screening based on new technology to identify suspicious containers. The original goal had proved unachievable due to cost and time. Shipping containers illustrate one of the tendencies of homeland security to invest in emerging technology whenever faced with an insurmountable challenge. Another example is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) adding more and more technology to passenger screening yet only recently has additional screening or airport employees and aircrew been brought up. The Airline Pilot’s Association is against additional screening of pilot’s and aircrew flying as passengers citing the extensive background checks that airline aircrews already undergo. The association feels additional screening will add more delays with little increase in overall security. While the pilot’s association is concerned about their members, the issue brings up an important point. Technology being employed by TSA, regardless of the sophistication, is still only at the screening area. Terrorists, in theory, are still able to arrive at the airport BEFORE any technology can be used to detect their presence or the presence of any weapons. Security is already at a disadvantage if a terrorist, or anyone determined to commit violence, arrives at the airport without any prior warning. TSA should not be put into the position of being the first line of defense; they should be part of a continuum of security that begins with law enforcement and the local community. Reliance on high-tech solutions does not always add that human element needed to get advance warning of hostile intent by a formerly unknown operative.

Technology can be effectively used to overcome shortfalls such as insufficient manpower or time, however the reliance on technology has become the default setting for implementing homeland security especially at the local level. DHS grants last year totaled $1.7 billion to local homeland security programs in 2007. However, the majority of these grants are for purchases of technology and not for the more enduring programs such as training.

DHS grants are broken into five programs to be used in a regional approach to strengthening homeland security. Grant funding priorities include reducing risks of improvised explosive devices and radiological, chemical and biological weapons. They emphasize interoperable communications, information sharing and citizen preparedness. HSGP fiscal year 2007 funding totals were:

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)- $509.3 million

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)- $363.8 million

Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)- $746.9 million

Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)- $32.0 million

Citizen Corps Program (CCP)- $14.6 million

With the exception of the last category, DHS grants are applied to big-ticket items (such as new decontamination equipment, emergency medical response units, or equipment for detecting weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The problem with these grants is that assumes another attack along the lines of 9/11 by an outside organization such as Al Qaida. The technology purchased by these grants is of little use to a small community that may never face an Al Qaida planned attack but could very easily face a disaster created by a disgruntled employee at the local chemical manufacturing plant or food processing plant. The motivations may differ but the results are the same. Local homeland security agencies, along with their communities, need to have the ability to train and improve their interoperability. While technology does offer some opportunities for improvement in this area, it still comes down to people developing and maintaining the networks formed best by training and working together. The DHS grants force communities to create scenarios requiring high-end technology to justify the amount of the grant. In reality, the local homeland security agency would be better served by focusing on the Universal Task List (UTL), which has more irrelevance to many communities rather that trying to prevent the next attack from Al Qaida. This does not mean smaller communities may not be faced with discovering an active terrorist cell in their community, only that there are far more likely situations facing communities that aren’t related to terrorism but would require some of the same skill sets.

Technology, regardless of how advanced, has a limited life cycle, which may be shortened by the arrival of newer technology or by tactics that render the technology obsolete. Smaller communities may have state-of-the-art equipment today but find themselves unable to maintain it over the course of years. The other problem with technology is the need to continually train on the technology. Depending on the technology and its applicability to normal requirements, the equipment may get relegated to being used once a year or less. Immediately following the events of 9/11, Air National Guard bases received high-tech equipment for passive detection of threats to the base. The equipment was procured under emergency funding and sent out to the bases. Much of the technology sat dormant however since there was no funding available to set the equipment up. Similar gaps may occur in local communities that purchase high-tech items only to find out the cost of setting it up or maintaining is goes beyond the scope of the DHS grant.

Training tends to get short-changed in most grants due to the perception of training as a “soft skill”. Unlike equipment or personnel, training is harder to measure and account for in audits. It is difficult to establish a measure of effectiveness for training conducted through a grant. There is no empirical way to know for certain whether or not the training actually occurred or whether the students actually learned anything. Unfortunately, training personnel has a more enduring impact than technology and properly trained personnel build their own strategies flexible enough to deal with ever-changing threats facing the local community. Going into the seventh year since the attack on 9/11 the homeland may have more equipment to detect potential terrorists but it does not appear that local homeland security agencies are anymore capable when it comes to interoperability. Those enamored of technology will point out the numerous software applications out there to help improve interoperability and the latest routers to handling data from multiple agencies. What are missing in all of this are still the basics. The people of these agencies have to feel comfortable with one another and develop the necessary networks THEN the appropriate technology can be applied to streamline the flow of information. Even in the 21st Century, it still starts with a handshake and business card.