Whenever I discuss the TSA’s obtrusive screening procedures, I can usually get people to sympathize with my point of view or at least understand where I am coming from. The inevitable response, however, is "Yes, I see this as a problem too, but can you offer a better or alternatively viable solution?"
I think that’s a fair question. Up until now, I have answered it this way: The questionable functionality, potential health risks, and civil liberties concerns stemming from the TSA’s full body scanner program should be enough to give us pause and critically evaluate this technology before making it the primary airport passenger screening mechanism in this country. While I would be willing to take the risk of bypassing passenger screening altogether, I realize that the vast majority of Americans are not comfortable with this and therefore I think a fair compromise is using traditional metal detectors for primary screening and a choice of a pat-down or full body scan if you set off the metal detector.
But people are simply not satisfied with that answer and as I mentioned yesterday, more than 80% of the American public support full body scanners (probably the 80% who don’t fly…). So how about this solution: ramp up the TSA’s canine team to improve the TSA’s ability to detect explosives?
I’m well aware of Nazi imagery that a fleet of government agents with dogs evokes, but having a team of K-9 dog detectors at each airport would not only be cheaper than the costly full body scanners, it would be more effective at detecting bombs.
K-9s have been used to detect bombs aboard airplanes since March 9, 1972, when TWA received a telephone call that a bomb was aboard a JFK-LAX flight. The plane had just taken off and promptly returned to New York. On the ground, a K-9 quickly located the bomb, which was defused 12 minutes before it was set to detonate.
The military and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have used well-trained K-9s for decades and the TSA does have a canine program (prior to the creation of the TSA, the FAA had a K-9 program for nearly 30 years).
Again, while I still advocate for a much more limited security paradigm in the U.S., being sniffed by a dog would be much easier, quicker, safer, and more effective than the use of full body scanners. Plus, the civil liberties concerns are not nearly as grave as a virtual strip search without probable cause. While it remains an open question whether the TSA’s AIT machines are able to detect material hidden in body cavities, K-9s can…
Excellent Matthew. This may be the first actual solution I have seen to this mess. Well done.
I’d love for this to be implemented, but sadly I’m not hopeful that such a rational, efficient, and cheaper(!) solution will be even considered.
K9’s, bomb sniffers, body scanners all have their limitations. If you conceal your bomb or drugs in a plastic such as PFA nothing is going to smell its contents.
The problem with dogs is that they have short attention spans, have false positives on the order of 1-75%; you can’t tell when they are having an off day. Dogs have routinely been used by the police to intimidate suspects if you are worried about unlawful search and the like.
Its one thing to open a bag and search it because of a false positive. Given the perception that a K9 can smell drugs in a body cavity, what do you think will happen if you are the victim of a false positive by a dog?
@Michael: Indeed, there is no perfect method of securing airline passengers and as I mentioned in my post, there are certainly drawbacks to the K-9 program.
But as with the nude-o-scopes, if the dogs found something, there would not necessarily be an immediate overreaction, but rather a closer and more detailed search.
There’d have to be a lot of dogs trained because you are right–their attention spans are short. But even if costs more to train dogs, I’d rather be sniffed quickly then have to take off my shoes and take out my liquids and stand like I’m being arrested for 20 seconds while I am scanned by a machine that sees through my clothes.
K-9s are less intrusive. Period.
If we’re so concerned about security (I’d dispense with the TSA altogether but have often conceded that is not viable), why not train a lot more dogs?
can i touch your junk?
No.
It’s funny, my wife was just going on and on on this same subject with the same views you have – more dogs is the answer.
BTW, as an explosives expert I will tell you that explosives hidden in a body cavity have been proven in an Al Qeada assaination attempt, not to be effective. Too much of the explosion is contained.
@Glen …
Yes but some people have a different opinion.
See the following CBS news story about such an attempt
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml
In particular the quote:
“This is the nightmare scenario,” said Chris Yates, an aviation security consultant.
On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.
People are allergic to dogs.
@Mark: I’m allergic to the TSA.