I can’t help but think that this is yet more theatre, more about being seen to do something, than actually, you know, doing something. It is clear that there are still people out there trying to blow up planes but they are not being very successful. This may be because of the heightened security, but it is worth noting that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was, like Richard Reid the shoe bomber, thwarted by a combination of his own errors and passenger/staff action. The ‘security’ checks ordered by the TSA and others failed in both these cases, and I am quite sure they will in the future. It is intelligence which will stop these attacks, as it did with the 2006 Heathrow plotters. Not more security theatre.
It is the sudden reflexive nature of the responses to these attacks that is most perplexing. After someone thought of putting a bomb in a shoe we all had to take our shoes off[1]. Now someone hid something in his undies we can’t keep stuff in our laps for the last hour of the flight[2]. Bruce Schneier sums this up perfectly.
Often, this “something” is directly related to the details of a recent event. We confiscate liquids, screen shoes, and ban box cutters on airplanes. We tell people they can’t use an airplane restroom in the last 90 minutes of an international flight. But it’s not the target and tactics of the last attack that are important, but the next attack. These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning.
In fact, go and read his whole article. It really is very good. A more amusing phrasing of the same sentiment comes from Emanuel Derman.
I had a fantasy in which the Fed and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) switched roles.
If a bank failed at 9 a.m. one morning and shut its doors, the TSA would announce that all banks henceforth begin their business day at 10 a.m.
And, if a terrorist managed to get on board a plane between Stockholm and Washington, the Fed would increase the number of flights between the cities.
However, on the specific subject of body scanners there are two rather large flaws. Firstly, and most importantly, they likely will not work against just these types of bombs. Both the Department of Transport and the Home Office know they don’t work and yet they are still being installed at a cost of ~£100k each. A few million quid wasted on pointless theatre which will do nothing but inconvenience passengers, make people more fearful and suspicious, and allow airport security staff to have a good ogle of your bits.
It is this last feature which leads to the second big flaw.As the Guardian points out, the scanners can’t be used on under 18s because of child protection laws.
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.
The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a “pseudo-image” of a child.
Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.
“They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way,” said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the “prevention and detection of crime” but the purpose had to be more specific than the “trawling exercise” now being considered.
As important as all this is, it is a little amusing to see the Government’s knee-jerk plans being foiled by previous badly thought-out legislation. Hoist by one’s own petard indeed.
Finally, to help understand the risk which is driving all this downright shoddy decision making, comes this excellent infographic from Gizmodo. (Clicky picky to embiggen).
1 I know not everyone did. Almost every time I fly I see people getting told not to bother if they are old, or infirm. This is, of course reasonable, but not as reasonable as just letting people keep their shoes on.
2Although, as widely expected, these rules have been ‘relaxed’ due to their being unworkable.
