This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/world/europe/brussels-attacks-rekindle-debate-over-airport-security.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Brussels Attacks Rekindle Debate Over Airport Security Brussels Attacks Rekindle Debate Over Airport Security
(35 minutes later)
PARIS — In the hours after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, many countries quickly added soldiers and police officers at airports and rail and subway stations, hoping to reassure passengers and deter other potential terrorists.PARIS — In the hours after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, many countries quickly added soldiers and police officers at airports and rail and subway stations, hoping to reassure passengers and deter other potential terrorists.
But despite a series of episodes in recent years that have targeted transportation hubs worldwide, security experts predict that the latest attacks will revive — but not resolve — a thorny public debate about the benefits of ever more costly and intensive screening systems meant to identify terrorists among the millions of people who travel each day.But despite a series of episodes in recent years that have targeted transportation hubs worldwide, security experts predict that the latest attacks will revive — but not resolve — a thorny public debate about the benefits of ever more costly and intensive screening systems meant to identify terrorists among the millions of people who travel each day.
“It’s always about achieving a balance between what is achievable and what is practical,” said Norman Shanks, a consultant and former manager of airport security at Heathrow Airport near London.“It’s always about achieving a balance between what is achievable and what is practical,” said Norman Shanks, a consultant and former manager of airport security at Heathrow Airport near London.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, travelers worldwide have grown accustomed to measures scrutinizing everything they carry with them into an airport, from the soles of their shoes to shampoo bottles, for potential weapons or traces of explosives. But such measures have mainly been focused on preventing terrorists from carrying out an attack aboard an aircraft, rather than an attack on the airport itself.Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, travelers worldwide have grown accustomed to measures scrutinizing everything they carry with them into an airport, from the soles of their shoes to shampoo bottles, for potential weapons or traces of explosives. But such measures have mainly been focused on preventing terrorists from carrying out an attack aboard an aircraft, rather than an attack on the airport itself.
As the dual explosions at Brussels Airport made vividly clear, fully securing the public areas of a large, sprawling site like an airport is a daunting task. In the United States, the federal agency responsible for airport screening, the Transportation Security Administration whose budget is $7.3 billion this year spends much of that money on security screeners at checkpoints and on equipment that can detect bombs or banned items like knives.
But the responsibility for security in public areas of airports is shared by the local authorities and the T.S.A., leaving vulnerabilities in the public areas where passengers check in and drop off their bags.
“We really need to re-examine how we allocate our resources,” said John C. Cohen, a former acting under secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Department of Homeland Security and now a professor at the Faith-Based Community Security Program at Rutgers University.
But as the dual explosions at Brussels Airport made vividly clear, fully securing the public areas of a large, sprawling site like an airport is a daunting task.
The attack on Tuesday was not the first time that terrorists had targeted the easily accessible areas of a major European airport.The attack on Tuesday was not the first time that terrorists had targeted the easily accessible areas of a major European airport.
In 2011, a suicide bomber killed 37 people in the arrivals hall of Domodedovo International Airport, Moscow’s busiest. A series of similar attacks occurred in the 1980s, striking airports in Frankfurt, Paris, Rome and Vienna.In 2011, a suicide bomber killed 37 people in the arrivals hall of Domodedovo International Airport, Moscow’s busiest. A series of similar attacks occurred in the 1980s, striking airports in Frankfurt, Paris, Rome and Vienna.
In 2013, a shooting at Los Angeles International Airport killed a checkpoint security guard and wounded several other people.In 2013, a shooting at Los Angeles International Airport killed a checkpoint security guard and wounded several other people.
Some countries in recent years have introduced additional layers of security at airports, including mandatory checks of passengers and baggage at building entrances and even of arriving cars, taxis and buses. Such measures are now common at many airports in Russia and Israel, for example, as well as in much of the Middle East and parts of Africa.Some countries in recent years have introduced additional layers of security at airports, including mandatory checks of passengers and baggage at building entrances and even of arriving cars, taxis and buses. Such measures are now common at many airports in Russia and Israel, for example, as well as in much of the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Analysts said that such checks could serve as a deterrent to some attackers, but that they were far from foolproof. Kenneth S. Kasprisin, a former interim director of the T.S.A., said airports should expand screening of vehicles coming into airports, particularly larger ones.
But analysts said that while such checks could serve as a deterrent to some attackers, they are far from foolproof.
“There are countries where people have to present their passport and ticket at the airport entrance,” Mr. Shanks said. “That is designed to keep out non-travelers, but it won’t keep out a bomber, because bombers can still buy tickets.”“There are countries where people have to present their passport and ticket at the airport entrance,” Mr. Shanks said. “That is designed to keep out non-travelers, but it won’t keep out a bomber, because bombers can still buy tickets.”
Such an approach also assumes that the employees charged with performing those checks are appropriately trained to spot a potential threat.Such an approach also assumes that the employees charged with performing those checks are appropriately trained to spot a potential threat.
“Sadly, at many airports where I have seen screening on entry, the staff performing this haven’t actually been very efficient or effective,” Mr. Shanks said. “If you are a potential bomber, you can monitor how well people are doing their job and exploit those weaknesses.”“Sadly, at many airports where I have seen screening on entry, the staff performing this haven’t actually been very efficient or effective,” Mr. Shanks said. “If you are a potential bomber, you can monitor how well people are doing their job and exploit those weaknesses.”
Others warned that adding new security choke points outside airport terminals, rather than diminishing the threat, might simply move it to another location.Others warned that adding new security choke points outside airport terminals, rather than diminishing the threat, might simply move it to another location.
“If you look at the areas of the world that have experience with suicide bombers, they often tend to blow themselves up at security checkpoints, where there are lots of people standing densely packed together,” said Philip Baum, managing director of Green Light, an aviation security consulting firm in London. “If we start creating more queues of people to go through more checks, we just create new targets.”“If you look at the areas of the world that have experience with suicide bombers, they often tend to blow themselves up at security checkpoints, where there are lots of people standing densely packed together,” said Philip Baum, managing director of Green Light, an aviation security consulting firm in London. “If we start creating more queues of people to go through more checks, we just create new targets.”
Security experts have long argued that the most effective way to diminish threats to airports and other large public spaces involves a combination of tools, including greater use of surveillance cameras, bomb-sniffing dogs and, in particular, training more security personnel in the use of behavior-monitoring techniques.Security experts have long argued that the most effective way to diminish threats to airports and other large public spaces involves a combination of tools, including greater use of surveillance cameras, bomb-sniffing dogs and, in particular, training more security personnel in the use of behavior-monitoring techniques.
“At the moment most airport security check points are about identifying prohibited items,” Mr. Baum said. “So much time is spent taking liquids and aerosols and gels off of people who pose absolutely no threat, rather than differentiating between people and recognizing that different people pose different threats.”“At the moment most airport security check points are about identifying prohibited items,” Mr. Baum said. “So much time is spent taking liquids and aerosols and gels off of people who pose absolutely no threat, rather than differentiating between people and recognizing that different people pose different threats.”
Mr. Kasprisin, the former T.S.A. official, said officials should increase the number of bomb-sniffing dogs and the use plainclothes or uniformed officers who monitor crowds for suspicious behavior. He said airports should also invest in technologies that can, among other things, detect changes in the behavior of people in crowds.
“This doesn’t mean that you are going to stop them all, but you can have an impact,” Mr. Kasprisin said.
But the use of behavior analysis remains controversial in many countries. Civil rights groups argued that the approach is too subjective and risks exposing some travelers to unwarranted profiling based on their race or ethnicity.But the use of behavior analysis remains controversial in many countries. Civil rights groups argued that the approach is too subjective and risks exposing some travelers to unwarranted profiling based on their race or ethnicity.
Mr. Shanks, the former Heathrow security chief, argued that closer analysis of the suspects in the Brussels attacks as they entered the departure hall could have raised suspicions for a properly trained security officer.Mr. Shanks, the former Heathrow security chief, argued that closer analysis of the suspects in the Brussels attacks as they entered the departure hall could have raised suspicions for a properly trained security officer.
Images from the airport’s closed-circuit television cameras, Mr. Shanks noted, showed that two of the three suspected bombers wore single black gloves on their left hands, and that none of them appeared to have any hand luggage in addition to the bags they had loaded onto airport trolleys.Images from the airport’s closed-circuit television cameras, Mr. Shanks noted, showed that two of the three suspected bombers wore single black gloves on their left hands, and that none of them appeared to have any hand luggage in addition to the bags they had loaded onto airport trolleys.
“Someone who is trained in behavioral analysis would have found that unusual” and probably would have flagged the men for additional screening, Mr. Shanks said.“Someone who is trained in behavioral analysis would have found that unusual” and probably would have flagged the men for additional screening, Mr. Shanks said.
Ultimately, analysts said, the debate over how or whether to further enhance airport security forms part of the broader political discussion in Europe and elsewhere about how to strike the appropriate balance between safety and liberty.Ultimately, analysts said, the debate over how or whether to further enhance airport security forms part of the broader political discussion in Europe and elsewhere about how to strike the appropriate balance between safety and liberty.
“It is certainly possible to implement security to such a point that your free society grinds to a halt,” said Simon A. Bennett, director of the civil safety and security unit of the University of Leicester in England.“It is certainly possible to implement security to such a point that your free society grinds to a halt,” said Simon A. Bennett, director of the civil safety and security unit of the University of Leicester in England.
“In theory, we could decide to have people queuing up outside the terminals,” Mr. Bennett continued. ‘‘We could strip and cavity-search every flier. But who wants to be cavity-searched just to be able to travel where we want?”“In theory, we could decide to have people queuing up outside the terminals,” Mr. Bennett continued. ‘‘We could strip and cavity-search every flier. But who wants to be cavity-searched just to be able to travel where we want?”