Invasive Security: Does it Work

Bruno Gerardo

Introduction to Canadian Aviation (MOS 1022F)

Dr. Suzanne Kearns

23 November, 2011

Abstract
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in terror as America was under attack. As a result of these events, the aviation industry was restructured to improve reliability and security of commercial air travel. Although the new security changes have improved the overall safety of air travel, concerns have been raised that the changes introduced are invasive to privacy, and are an infringement of individual rights. Biometric and advanced imaging technology have been criticized for this reason, however, they have been effective at preventing further terrorist attacks. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the security measures that have been introduced as a result of September 11th 2001, and evaluate the effectiveness of the changes and how they impact both safety and privacy. Keywords: Biometrics, Advanced imaging technology, September 11

Invasive Security: Does it Work
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in terror as America was under attack. Early that morning, four commercial airliners departed from Newark and Boston with arrivals at San Francisco and Los Angeles were taken over by nineteen hijackers (National Commission, 2004). Two of these aircrafts collided with the Twin Towers in New York City resulting in the destruction of both buildings. An additional aircraft flew into the Pentagon in Washington D.C, and the final aircraft was over taken by passengers that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (National Commission, 2004). These events caused 2,996 causalities and affected the lives of countless individuals across the world (National Commission, 2004). As a result of the events of September 11th, 2001, major safety concerns have been addressed in regards to the reliability and security of commercial air travel.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, critical flaws were exposed in the aviation industry that required an in-depth analysis of airport security (National Commission, 2004). It has become a major priority to evaluate and improve the security of air travel around the globe. The effects of September 11th, 2001 have not only affected the airlines in United States, it also changed the aviation industry on a national level (Blunka, Clarka, & McGibany, 2006). Airline companies experienced a significant financial loss because travellers were choosing alternative methods of transportation, as they were fearful of additional terrorist attacks (Blunka, et al., 2006). In order to increase the number of air travellers, the industry needed to regain their confidence in the security provided by the airline industry so that passengers would feel safe and protected (Gonzales, 2002). Security changes needed to be reviewed as the system failed and caused countless deaths of innocent lives. Countries throughout the world, especially in the western hemisphere, quickly developed new security regulations. Some of these regulations included new security measures, biometric technology, and advanced imagining technology (AIT). Although these regulations served to improve the safety of air travel, they also raised concerns of invasion of privacy (Campbell, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the security measures that have been introduced as a result of September 11th 2001, and evaluate the effectiveness of the changes and how they impact both safety and privacy.
Airport Security Flaws Prior to 9/11 The 9/11 Commission Report conducted in 2004, revealed weaknesses in aviation security prior to September 11, 2001 (National Commission, 2004). The al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the attacks were able to exploit these weaknesses in order to complete their mission (National Commission, 2004). The flaws uncovered in the system included that the pre-screening process did not focus on detecting potential hijackers; rather it focused on detecting potential aircraft bombers (Elias, 2005). The rules in regards to checkpoint screening and small knives were negligent (Elias, 2005). The overall in-flight security measures were inadequate as flight decks were easily accessible, and air marshals were nonexistent (Elias, 2005). An industry-wide strategy regarding how to comply with hijackers in a non-confrontational manner had not been developed. In addition, the protocols for executing coordinated military action did not address multiple or suicidal hijackings (National Commission, 2004). The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) also identified areas of change and made recommendations to improve security in order to reduce the likelihood of a future terrorist attack in the United States.
Security Changes Post 9/11 After September 11, 2001, the United States security system was restructured and many changes were introduced (National Commission, 2004). One of the changes was the Transportation Security Act, which was implemented in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in order to centralize security of the airport system, and create a federalized means of screening passengers at airports (Leo & Lawler, 2004). TSA officials increased from 16,000 in 2001 to 44,000. Furthermore, TSA increased the amount of funding for passenger screening and baggage screening (Leo & Lawler, 2004). Prior to September 11th, 2001, metallic detection portals and hand wand detectors were used as a primary source of screening (Elias, 2005). These tools were flawed as they had limited abilities, and could not detect non-metallic objects and plastic materials, which could be used as a weapon. The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II), which was previously implemented, was also upgraded to improve airline passenger profiling and to review security risks (Leo & Lawler, 2004). Several security changes were introduced after September 11th, 2001 that improved security and did not invade the privacy of passengers. One of the changes introduced was the list of prohibited items in carry on bags. In 2006, the Transportation Security Administration announced the 3-1-1 rule that restricts the quantity of liquids, gels, or aerosols allowed on the aircraft (Mead, 2002). It became a requirement that all liquids must be 3.4 ounces or less, 1quart size plastic zip-top bag, and that 1 bag per passenger was allowed (Mead, 2002). In addition, many changes were implemented that improved security on the aircraft itself. These changes included that flight deck doors were secured in order to prevent unauthorized access, as previously, passengers had access to the flight deck (Mead, 2002). As well, the number of air marshals present on domestic flights increased, and pilots now have the option to carry a gun if they are properly trained on how to operate it (Leo & Lawler, 2004). All passengers are required to show valid photo identification issued by the government prior to boarding an aircraft (Campbell, 2005). This change was implemented because the 9/11 hijackers boarded the aircrafts with improper identification. Finally, restricted areas in airports were introduced such as ramps and operational spaces now require special authorization to enter (Mead, 2002).
Privacy Concerns Although the new security measures have improved the overall safety of air travel, concerns have been raised that the changes introduced are invasive to privacy, and are an infringement of individual rights. Human Rights activist groups and watchdogs such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), believe that the government is violating the Fourth Amendment by implementing new measures such as, biometrics and advanced imaging technology (American Civil Liberties Union, 2002). The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their per- sons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason- able searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U. S. Constitution.).
Although these groups raise legitimate concerns in regards to privacy, there are numerous advantages to biometric and advanced imagining technology that outweigh the disadvantages as they serve to protect the society as a whole.
Biometrics
After the terrorist attacks, the government of United States implemented the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Act which requires all individual’s entering the United States of America to eventually have travel documentation that uses biometric identifiers. Biometrics is described as, “the automatic identification or verification of living human beings based on behavioral or physiological characteristics.” (Campbell, 2005). It consists of identifying an individual based on biometric measurements of hand geometry, fingerprints, deoxyribonucleic acid patterns and eye iris scans which are stored in government databases (Campbell, 2005). Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis is currently the most reliable biometric measurement available. Eleven of the fifteen countries in the European Union are using national identification and radio frequency identification technology (RFID) on their passports (Campbell, 2005). This system helps to identify individuals in a manner that is quick, reliable and allows government agencies to access criminal records and perform background checks. Currently, the United States utilizes digital fingerprints and photographs, which are, standardized measurements suggested by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (Woodward, 2000). According to ICAO, they recommended facial recognition as a standard biometric measurement (Woodward, 2000). ICAO also suggests that each country should be free to add a second biometric of its choice (Woodward, 2000). There are several important privacy concerns regarding the use of biometric technology. A major threat to personal privacy is known as, “function creep” (Campbell, 2005). In this process, the original purpose of collecting the data is broadened to include other purposes. Data can be used and collected for other purposes without the informed consent of the person providing the information (Campbell, 2005). For instance, in the United States, law enforcement agencies are allowed in twenty States to use DNA samples collected by biometrics for research studies (Campbell, 2005). In addition, certain companies and organizations are interested in gaining access to genetic date. In some cases, insurance companies would benefit from biometric data that indicates whether an individual will develop a disease (Campbell, 2005). Since biometric databases contain extensive amounts of personal information, it is likely that data will be used for reasons other than airport security (Campbell, 2005). This raises a number of ethical issues about the use of this information and questions whether these databases are being appropriately monitored. Other concerns relate to the tracking abilities of biometric technology. Members of the public fear that biometrics are used by the government of the United States to monitor their activities and invade their privacy (Woodward, 2000). Massive databases that contain detailed personal information make it difficult for individuals to maintain their anonymity (Woodward, 2000). A major disadvantage of biometric technology is that it cannot be used solely to determine terrorist behavior. Most scientists believe that since biometric technology does not consider the interaction between genes and the environment, it is not a reliable source of predicting behavior (Campbell, 2005). Therefore, if the airport security system relies solely on biometric technology, it will not be able to fully protect the public. Overall, the use of biometrics raises a number of ethical issues and privacy concerns. Although there are a number of disadvantages to this type of system, according to the Department of Homeland Security, biometrics have proven to make entry and exiting the United States more efficient and safe (McCormick, 2008). The implementation of the NEXUS card allows travellers to quickly bypass lines at airports and border crossings without sacrificing safety (McCormick, 2008). The biometric identifier is very difficult to steal or replicate and therefore, provides a higher level of security (Campbell, 2005). Travel documents cannot be duplicated which reduces the ability to perform identity theft (Campbell, 2005). Campbell (2005) stated that biometric has successfully identified many terrorists and has prevented further attacks. In 2004, the United States, implemented the National Security Entry Exit Registration program in which male citizens over the age of 16 from certain countries are required to give photographs and fingerprints when they enter the United States (Campbell, 2005). This program has successfully identified 11 individuals linked to terrorism and has provided evidence for terrorism related charges (Campbell, 2005).
Advanced Imaging Technology In 2007, TSA implemented Advanced Imagining Technology (AIT), as a result of the need for increased security, and numerous complaints regarding the aggressive nature of personal searches (Homeland Secruity, 2010). There are two methods of AIT known as backscatter and millimeter wave. “Backscatter (AIT) uses a narrow, low-energy x-ray beam that scans the surface of the body at a high speed. This method has been introduced as an alternative to personal searches because it is less intrusive since technology can penetrate through clothing in order to reveal concealed weapons. Millimeter wave technology bounces harmless electromagnetic waves off the body to create the same generic image for all passengers” (Homeland Secruity, 2010). This technology is currently used in 90 airports throughout the United States of America and can be found in many locations in the world such as Canada, France, Netherlands, Nigeria and the United Kingdom (Homeland Secruity, 2010). These machines are able to quickly detect security risks that may arise at a security checkpoint. The media has caused a public perception that AIT increases the risk of cancer, especially for pilots, flight attendants, and frequent flyers. According to TSA, the technology is safe and does not pose a health risk to the public because the x-ray dose produced is very low and is not harmful to human beings (Homeland Secruity, 2010). The backscatter and millimeter wave produce a 0.10 micro Sievert, which is equivalent to the amount of radiation an individual receives in seventeen minutes from the natural environment (Homeland Secruity, 2010). This technology also raises concerns of invasion of privacy as the scanners reveal detailed images of the individual’s anatomy. Viewing these images violates confidential medical information (Hindman, 2010). For instance, the images expose if an individual has a medical condition, uses specialized medical equipment, or is transgendered. These images are stored in large databases and have been leaked to organizations (Hindman, 2010). Travellers also fear that their images will be leaked out, which can cause stress and anxiety in air travel (Rothman, 2010). As well children are required to go through security checkpoints and therefore their images are also being stored. This is a breech of child protection laws that prevent the storage of nude images of children under the age of 18 (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2010). Although there have been concerns about the system violating privacy rights, overall, there has been positive feedback from the public regarding the AIT in airports. A poll conducted by the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) indicated that four out of five Americans support the use of this technology at airports throughout the United States (Homeland Secruity, 2010). Recently, TSA has reacted to public concern, by upgrading their software system to enhance passenger privacy (Homeland Secruity, 2010). The new and improved software system is more effective by creating generic outlines of a person and has the ability to automatically detect threats. The implementation of AIT has allowed visible minorities to pass security without having to remove turbans, hijabs, burqas, casts, prosthetic limbs, or loose clothing. Visible minorities are able to pass through the security system without facing harassment or discrimination as the technology is able to screen all types of clothing (American Civil Liberties Union, 2002). TSA is continuously striving to improve the technology in order eliminate health risks, improve privacy, and increase security measures.
Recommendations
Several recommendations are made in order to address public concerns regarding privacy and also maintain a high level of security in the aviation industry. Firstly, education to the public is required regarding how the data collected by biometric technology is utilized to reduce fear and anxiety of travellers. Secondly, it is important that the sole purpose of monitoring is to track potential terrorists such as travel patterns. The use of any other information collected by biometric or advanced imaging technology should require informed consent. Thirdly, informing the public of the advantages of advanced imaging technology systems as well as dispelling myths about health risks will help to regain travellers confidence. Finally, it is necessary to develop legislation that ensures images are stored properly, that databases are secured to prevent unauthorized access, and that images are stored in compliance with child protection legislation. It is recommended that the government take the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution into consideration when developing security measures. Overall, these recommendations will assist to reduce public fear and anxiety regarding privacy concerns.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the events of September 11, 2001, were extremely devastating, however, they caused many valuable changes to the airport security system. Prior September 11, 2001, there were major flaws in the security system including an inadequate screening process, weak in-flight security measures, and protocols that did not address appropriate hijacking response techniques. The 9/11 Commission Report made important recommendations in order to improve security and prevent future terrorism attacks. New security measures were introduced, such as prohibited items, increased presence of air marshals, and valid photo identification. In addition, biometric and advanced imagining technology was also introduced. Although these systems have proven to be effective, they have also been criticized for invading the privacy of the public. Human rights and watchdog groups support this view and indicate that the security system violates the Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution. These groups raise important concerns, however, there are numerous advantages to the security measures that have been implemented. Since September 11th, 2001, there has not been any terrorist attacks using aircrafts and the skies have been a safer place for passengers. Although there have been terrorist attempts, protocols have proven to be effective in preventing an attack. Furthermore, as terrorists can adapt to new security measures, it is crucial that the aviation industry to continue to explore and develop advanced technology in order to remain one step ahead of the terrorists. For this reason, passengers may have to sacrifice personal privacy for freedom and safety.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2002, June 12). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/facts-airport-security
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010, January 5). Airport body scanners to get code of conduct. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8440620.stm
Campbell, L. M. (2005). Rising Government Use of Biometric Technology: An analysis of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Prgram. International Society for the Reform of Ciriminal Law , 99 - 106.
Elias, B. (2005). Aviation Security-Related Findings and Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission . New York City: Congressional Research Service.
Gonzales, J. V. (2002). Flying While Arab: Passenger Profiling in the Aftermath of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks. International Travel Law Journal , 76.
Hindman, S. A. (2010). Full-Body Scanners: TSA’s New “Optional” System for Airport Searches . Issues in Aviation Law and Policy , 10 (2), 337-368.
Homeland Secruity. (2010, October 4). Fact Sheet: Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Health & Safety. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf
Jennifer G. Leo, J. P. (2007). A Study Of Passenger Perception And Sensitivity To Airport Backscatter X-Ray Technologies. International Business & Economics Research Journal , 6 (7), 11-17.
McCormick, C. (2008). North American Review: Congestion Charging, Delayed Funding Approval, Security, Passenger Processing and the Environment. Airports International , 41 (2), 14-19.
Mead, K.M. (2002a) Challenges Facing the TSA in Implementing the Aviation and

Transportation Security Act, Report Number CC-2002–088, Office of Inspector

General, Department of Transportation, Washington DC.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 Commission report including executive summary: final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Rothman, W. (2010, November 16). Leaked U.S. Marshal body scan images revealed. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40218074/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/leaked-us-marshal-body-scan-images-revealed/#.TshY4-vmZdg
Scott S. Blunka, D. E. (2006). Evaluating the long-run impacts of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US domestic airline travel. Applied Economics , 34 (4), 363-370.
Woodward, J. D. (2000). Facing Up to Terrorism. Biometrics Consortium Conference (pp. 3-11). Arlington: RAND publications.