News by Professionals 4 Professionals

Airport Security

Airport Security

This Alternative to the Laptop Ban Would Tighten Airport Security at Low Inconvenience

U.S. officials say they have uncovered evidence that the Islamic State was using Mosul University laboratories to develop bombs[1] that could pass through airport screeners undetected. When the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, captured Mosul, it also took possession of the modern screening equipment at Mosul s airport that would allow it to test its new bomb designs. This previously classified information is thought to be the reason that the Department of Homeland Security barred laptops and other electronics larger than a smartphone from the cabins of incoming flights to the U.S.

In March, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly implemented a ban[2] that affected 10 cities from the Middle East and Africa. The ban affects about 50 flights a day from these areas in total. Shortly after the U.S. announced the ban, the United Kingdom announced a similar standard[3] for incoming flights to its own territory. The Trump administration is also debating whether or not to expand the ban to European airports[4]. However, expanding the laptop ban to include Europe would be much more costly than the existing ban and would affect up to 65 million people per year.

The Department of Homeland Security and Congress should consider a cost-benefit risk analysis and seek out alternatives[5] to the ban. The benefit of a laptop ban is that it makes it harder to use a bomb on a plane though terrorists could overcome the ban by traveling from other regions not affected by the ban, or by designing bombs to go off remotely. On the cost side of the equation, this policy would likely result in several billion dollars in losses to travelers and tourism, as well as increased potential for losses from theft or damage to devices and possible aircraft fires from electronics in the cargo hold.

In terms of alternatives, there seem to be several options. First, the ban could be expanded even further, excluding large devices from planes altogether and extending the ban globally, as this would undoubtedly increase international security, though at even greater cost. Second, risk-based screening policies[6] could be applied at checkpoints that allow lower-risk passengers to proceed normally through airport checkpoints, but subject higher-risk individuals and bags to more stringent screening.

Third, an increase in bomb detection capabilities, like bomb-sniffing dogs or bomb detection equipment, could be deployed, though certainly at some cost. Similarly, airports could improve their baggage screening equipment to stop bombs. Indeed, the Transportation Security Administration is testing new 3D checkpoint scanning technology[7] to do just that. This technology, called computed tomography, has been used on checked baggage for almost a decade, and it is now small, quiet, and cheap enough to be placed at security checkpoints across the country.

The scanner works by producing a 3D image that can be manipulated for a more thorough analysis. Moreover, this technology is expected to speed up the long lines that currently exist in airports because liquids, gels, aerosols, and electronic devices could remain in passengers carry-on bags[8].

Computed tomography is an example of a potential alternative that the Department of Homeland Security should consider when looking to improve aviation security. Going forward, the department should constantly explore solutions to keep pace with the constantly changing threat environment.

References

  1. ^ the Islamic State was using Mosul University laboratories to develop bombs (www.cbsnews.com)
  2. ^ Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly implemented a ban (www.foxnews.com)
  3. ^ United Kingdom announced a similar standard (www.theguardian.com)
  4. ^ expand the ban to European airports (www.usatoday.com)
  5. ^ consider a cost-benefit risk analysis and seek out alternatives (www.heritage.org)
  6. ^ risk-based screening policies (www.heritage.org)
  7. ^ 3D checkpoint scanning technology (www.tsa.gov)
  8. ^ liquids, gels, aerosols, and electronic devices could remain in passengers carry-on bags (www.chicagotribune.com)

This Alternative to the Laptop Ban Would Tighten Airport Security at …

U.S. officials say they have uncovered evidence that the Islamic State was using Mosul University laboratories to develop bombs[1] that could pass through airport screeners undetected. When the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, captured Mosul, it also took possession of the modern screening equipment at Mosul s airport that would allow it to test its new bomb designs. This previously classified information is thought to be the reason that the Department of Homeland Security barred laptops and other electronics larger than a smartphone from the cabins of incoming flights to the U.S.

In March, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly implemented a ban[2] that affected 10 cities from the Middle East and Africa. The ban affects about 50 flights a day from these areas in total. Shortly after the U.S. announced the ban, the United Kingdom announced a similar standard[3] for incoming flights to its own territory. The Trump administration is also debating whether or not to expand the ban to European airports[4]. However, expanding the laptop ban to include Europe would be much more costly than the existing ban and would affect up to 65 million people per year.

The Department of Homeland Security and Congress should consider a cost-benefit risk analysis and seek out alternatives[5] to the ban. The benefit of a laptop ban is that it makes it harder to use a bomb on a plane though terrorists could overcome the ban by traveling from other regions not affected by the ban, or by designing bombs to go off remotely. On the cost side of the equation, this policy would likely result in several billion dollars in losses to travelers and tourism, as well as increased potential for losses from theft or damage to devices and possible aircraft fires from electronics in the cargo hold.

In terms of alternatives, there seem to be several options. First, the ban could be expanded even further, excluding large devices from planes altogether and extending the ban globally, as this would undoubtedly increase international security, though at even greater cost. Second, risk-based screening policies[6] could be applied at checkpoints that allow lower-risk passengers to proceed normally through airport checkpoints, but subject higher-risk individuals and bags to more stringent screening.

Third, an increase in bomb detection capabilities, like bomb-sniffing dogs or bomb detection equipment, could be deployed, though certainly at some cost. Similarly, airports could improve their baggage screening equipment to stop bombs. Indeed, the Transportation Security Administration is testing new 3D checkpoint scanning technology[7] to do just that. This technology, called computed tomography, has been used on checked baggage for almost a decade, and it is now small, quiet, and cheap enough to be placed at security checkpoints across the country.

The scanner works by producing a 3D image that can be manipulated for a more thorough analysis. Moreover, this technology is expected to speed up the long lines that currently exist in airports because liquids, gels, aerosols, and electronic devices could remain in passengers carry-on bags[8].

Computed tomography is an example of a potential alternative that the Department of Homeland Security should consider when looking to improve aviation security. Going forward, the department should constantly explore solutions to keep pace with the constantly changing threat environment.

References

  1. ^ the Islamic State was using Mosul University laboratories to develop bombs (www.cbsnews.com)
  2. ^ Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly implemented a ban (www.foxnews.com)
  3. ^ United Kingdom announced a similar standard (www.theguardian.com)
  4. ^ expand the ban to European airports (www.usatoday.com)
  5. ^ consider a cost-benefit risk analysis and seek out alternatives (www.heritage.org)
  6. ^ risk-based screening policies (www.heritage.org)
  7. ^ 3D checkpoint scanning technology (www.tsa.gov)
  8. ^ liquids, gels, aerosols, and electronic devices could remain in passengers carry-on bags (www.chicagotribune.com)

Rihanna’s Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking

And not for the reason you might think.

Most Popular Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking Jun 26, 2017

Yet again, Rihanna queen of DGAF[1], wine-toting pop star[2], and lover of life has done something extremely controversial. Wait, no: two things. She wore boots with no socks. And she went through airport security barefoot. I mean, I do that all the time. But I am a mere grubby human, too forgetful for comfort and sanitation. This is Rihanna, Lord of Barbados and the Dance, that we’re talking about! Aren’t her feet too precious to touch airport linoleum????????? I am freaking out. I am shaken like a $17 airport martini.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Here is the evidence:

Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking NO SHOES on her feet. Most Popular

Let’s break it all down a little bit.

First of all, location. Rihanna’s at LAX, and this looks to me someone who has never, ever upgraded, even to Economy Plus like a bog-standard airport security checkpoint. There are no velvet drapes, and there doesn’t seem to be a red carpet or any kind of valet service, so I’m assuming that at best this is, like, the pre-check line. Still, isn’t there someone carrying everything Rihanna could ever need and want (like socks) in some kind of purse magically enlarged by an Undetectable Extension Charm? If not, why not? Please report back. Second, metaphysics. I’m confused that Rihanna has to travel by air like everyone else. Doesn’t she just materialize wherever she needs or wants to go, kind of like a genie or sprite or whoever she is playing in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets[3]? On second thought, maybe that’s why she’s going through airport security barefoot. She’s probably never done it before. Now I am beginning to understand.

Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking There are NO SOCKS in these boots. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Third, smell. Apart from those once-upon-a-time rumors[4] that Brad Pitt was not a fan of deodorant, I have always assumed that celebrities are naturally equipped with bodies that are either odorless or naturally smell like vegan birthday cake. But since nobody upon this earth could possibly expect to wear shoes boots! without socks, and be fresh as a daisy afterwards, I have got to assume that something is going to happen fragrance-wise with Rihanna’s feet. Come on! Otherwise it’s just not fair to the rest of us mortals. Fourth, blisters. Boots + bare feet = skin bubbles of pain. That’s just body math. Be careful, RiRi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fifth, tinea. It just has to be said. Not everybody who goes through security without socks on is pure of heart/foot. You just don’t know who’s been there before you. The risk is high.

Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking

Sixth, spare airport socks. Doesn’t she have a pair in that purse? Seventh, sweat. That is what is in Rihanna’s boots right now. Eighth, fashion. To be fair, those boots don’t look particularly sock-friendly. If anything, Rih probably would have had to go with those mini-stocking things and we all know they basically slide right off when you take off your shoes anyway. And what is she supposed to do, wear socks ‘n’ ‘stocks, like some kind of MONSTER?

Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking

(Eighth-and-a-half, that velour tracksuit, though. Or is it a jumpsuit? Doesn’t matter. I’ll take five.)

Rihanna's Airport Security Style Is Truly Shocking Tracksuit? Jumpsuit?

Ninth, the TSA. This is all their fault and, by the way, so is that time I thought I caught a rash from the airport floor.

More from ELLE:

References

  1. ^ queen of DGAF (www.elle.com)
  2. ^ wine-toting pop star (www.elle.com)
  3. ^ Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (www.elle.com)
  4. ^ once-upon-a-time rumors (www.thecut.com)