Business travel
The new TSA regulations
Making air travel safer?
Apr 5th 2010, 21:16 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE WAKE of last year's attempted "Christmas bombing," America's Transportation Security Administration implemented new procedures requiring extra screening for people coming from or travelling to 14 countries. On Friday, Janet Napolitano, America's top homeland security official, announced the end of that policy. The temporary rules that kicked in this January will be replaced with more nuanced rules that "utilize real-time, threat-based intelligence along with multiple, random layers of security, both seen and unseen, to more effectively mitigate evolving terrorist threats," Napolitano said.
Civil liberties groups had criticized the temporary measures as discriminatory and too broad. But there seemed to be broad consensus that the new measures represented a step in the right direction. "American Muslim organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, airline and travel industries," and even a Republican senator, Maine's Susan Collins, expressed support for the changes to the Obama administration's policies, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has a good post explaining the new rules:
This means, to make up an example, that if the National Security Agency picks up chatter that a young man from Yemen who has traveled recently through France plans to crash an airliner, that information, properly vetted and sourced, would be passed along. And individuals who fit that particular category—young men from Yemen who've traveled recently through France—will be subject to any number of secondary security checks, ranging from full-body scans to physical pat-downs (that might have caught the Christmas Day bomber) to a few individual questions.
But even the enthusiastic Mr Ambinder offers a caveat:
Will this get every bad guy? No. In Donald Rumsfeld's parlance, it will do a better job of getting the known unknowns, but the unknown unknowns will have to be caught by the rest of the security system, which is sophisticated in some areas and spotty in others, and relies heavily on deterrence.
This seems like the right attitude. Even the best conceivable TSA procedures aren't going to catch every potential terrorist. Some of the most important counter-terrorism work happens well before a bomber shows up at the airport. And Jack Bauer-style fantasies aside, it is much better to stop an attack in the planning stages than it is to try to stop it once the plan is already in motion. What do you folks think of the (admittedly vague) new rules? Would you rather see blunt country-based profiling, even if it means a longer wait at security?
In this blog, our correspondents inform and entertain business travellers with news, views and reviews that help them make the most of life on the road. Sign up for our weekly "Gulliver's best" newsletter to have the blog's highlights delivered to your inbox »
Advertisement
Doing business in audio
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- France and Germany: The Frangela show
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Please someone take away the ridiculous liquids policy! I had to fight for a 110ml tube of baby sunscreen in carry-on b/c if the luggage was lost my baby would be fried at the destination.
Anyway, to the point here. The thing with these blunt measures is that they lead to finding a way around them. Profile people from Yemen - well we create a passport that says you are from Australia. Having said that, I think there are definite hot-beds of activity and there should be some profiling based on your origins, residence, etc. Coupled with the step-up in behind the scenes intel.
While I understand the scepticism of the other posts, we need to encourage this sort of behaviour from the DHS. We need to collectively escalate the pressure for intel gathering, analyzing, and more importantly disseminating. In the meantime, they are more concerned with someone being gay rather than that person being the best arabic language expert!
comment
Just a quick note on cash payments... I keep hearing this over and over and I would like to put it out there: Although one-way trip sounds suspicious, cash payment does not. In many African countries, people still use cash to purchase tickets due to not having credits cards, or businesses not accepting credit cards due to high levels of fraud.
I agree with the comments above, this system will work only when the databases are linked and the agencies are sharing information. But I'm glad to hear that US government is making a move towards more intelligible screening than just profiling based on country/religion.
As the prior comments note, this will work if government agencies share intel. I'm sure that won't be any problem...
As an aside, why don't we ever criticize the US Government's handling of the armed forces? If we hate gov't control of things, shouldn't we be fair and criticize socialized defense? Bring on the privateers!
As a frequent traveler, both domestically in USA and to SE Asia, leave the profiling in place. If I have to arrive at an airport 30 minutes or even an hour earlier in order to offset the probability of losing my life; DAH!!! this is just common sense.
Based upon the U.S. Govt's inability to run the post office, social security, medicare, and Lord help us, now health care ! I do not have a deal of faith in their ability to catch people such as the Christmas bomber.
This just ain't going to work! The case last Christmas involved a man whose father had informed the Americans that he was going to do something bad. The would-be bomber then paid cash for a one-way ticket, and boarded without luggage or a passport, and still the Yanks failed to ring any alarm bells.
How the hell do they think they'll manage to pass around the information needed to prevent another bommbing attempt? Until the American intelligence services' infrastructure changes, airline security will not change.