Adfero Group HSPI

While the United States successfully thwarted another attempted bombing of a domestic inbound aircraft by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the disrupted plot should tell Americans two important things: our intelligence and security agencies are doing excellent work, and continued vigilance is the price of security. We need every available tool to combat and protect against terrorists, and this means speeding up the rate at which America procures and implements counter-terrorism technology.

The CIA’s recent success in interrupting an al Qaeda-inspired plot to destroy an airplane bound for the United States with a non-metallic bomb is an important victory for American security. It is also a harsh reminder that while many of America’s terrorist enemies are dead, jailed or on the run, others remain committed to turning the aviation system against us. What does that mean for America’s ongoing aviation security efforts?

The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute welcomes you to join an HSPI Policy and Research Forum event featuring Kip Hawley, Former Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and author of “Permanent Emergency: Inside the TSA and the Fight for the Future of American Security.”

By Doug Doan
I previously criticized Kip Hawley for being too timid and for his rather late conversion to understanding TSA security is ineffective, expensive, and demeaning. My key point is that the problems that plague DHS/CBP/TSA are not so much policy driven, but leadership issues. Or, put more bluntly, a succession of poor and timid leaders that are unwilling to make difficult choices or align themselves with unpopular, but wiser, policies until they are safely out of office and pursuing consultant fees. This piece is in response to Jeff Sural’s recent post on Hawley and TSA.

Complaints about the TSA are numerous and perpetual. Everyone from the Congressional committees who created TSA to self-described security experts to the most recently inconvenienced passenger has a story, and an opinion, about what needs to be changed. But when a thoughtful critique, and significant suggestions for reform, come from someone who led the agency for three-plus years, we may finally be getting somewhere. Former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley’s piece this weekend in the Wall Street Journal should have excited anyone who follows the travails of TSA. Mostly silent on the subject since he left in 2009 as the fourth TSA administrator, Kip unleashed a whopper of a critique.

Since investigative reporter Josh Bernstein filed his story, “License to Terrorize: Failure to safeguard against sophisticated phony IDs leaves opening for bad guys to slip through air security,” the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has neither responded to nor acknowledged the report, and refused Bernstein an interview. But as much as TSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) want to hide from the shocking revelations of Bernstein’s investigation — that anyone with a good fake ID can make it through TSA security checkpoints as long as the name on the fake ID matches the name on the boarding pass — ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

By Doug Doan
Former TSA Boss Kip Hawley has written an important, but flawed, new book, telling us that TSA is a broken agency in need of urgent reform. The book offers thoughtful recommendations for reform, which is why I find it all so sad. The one big issue that Hawley does not much discuss is why he never tried to implement any of these urgent reforms while he was in charge of the very agency that he now tells us, correctly, is broken. And every other DHS senior leader, from the former Secretaries at DHS, Commissioners of CBP, and TSA, has either started, or joined, a consulting company advocating urgent reforms to the very organization that they once led. Let’s also admit that every one of them had the opportunity to implement the reforms that they now advocate in exchange for huge consulting fees.

If Congress paid even one-tenth the amount of time trying to “fix” its own problems as it does in its petty meddling in the operations of TSA, the general public would have greater confidence in both organizations. Both entities could benefit from meaningful oversight and process improvement. But the joint hearing this week by the House Oversight and House Transportation committees was a one-sided effort, seemingly designed to point out problems without offering any serious solutions to those concerns – and it confirmed (yet again) for me why the Congressional labyrinth of DHS oversight needs to be addressed.

Last week, U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett announced a $1 million fine against OHL Solutions for intentionally failing to screen cargo in accordance with TSA rules. The TSA investigation began in December 2010, and this fine was not a shock to many observers – even before that investigation began, several of us noted that serious TSA enforcement actions seemed just around the corner. But this enforcement action does give rise to a problem – since TSA security plans are so complex and unwieldy, how is it possible to comply with the letter of the law?

For the past few years, the country has endured a cupcake craze of sorts. Recently, a traveler in Las Vegas had her red velvet cupcake, which was baked into a glass jar for delivery/presentation purposes, confiscated out of concern about the contents of its frosting. Whereas cupcakes in similar jars and boxes had passed through other airport screening without concern, this time the cupcake was a “no go.” The facts are what may appear harmless may not be, and what TSA was doing was its job.

Here’s hoping TSA has a sense of humor in the stressful holiday travel season.

The TSA and the aviation industry acknowledge the unrealistic goal of screening 100 percent of all air cargo that enters, crosses or leaves the country. Some members of Congress, never to miss an oversimplified political solution to a complex problems, call for even more screening than we already (don’t) have.

It has been four years since Congress made the bone-headed move mandating 100 percent screening of passenger plane cargo. Serious risk management is not Congress’s bag, as the institution demonstrates often. Fortunately, some elements within DHS sought to forge a new path, wisely piloting a program to conduct risk analyses of inbound air cargo and to focus DHS’s resources on the high-risk cargo, rather than attempting to subject all cargo to the same level of physical screening. This “risk-based” screening has been successful for DHS in other contexts.

Last week, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee held a hearing reviewing TSA screening procedures 10 years after 9/11. The buzz word of the hearing was “risk-based.” This has been characterized in some reporting as TSA’s newest screening strategy. In fact, risk-based screening has been attempted at TSA and DHS for years. The “news” is TSA’s public re-commitment to risk-based screening after several check-point screening miscues went viral.

Kudos to TSA Administrator John Pistole and his team for launching “Pre-Check,” the new trusted traveler program developed by TSA with assistance from CBP and the travel community. With 10 years of experience since 9/11, it is time for DHS and TSA to develop a real trusted traveler program that recognizes that while we cannot eliminate all risk in the aviation system, passengers do present significantly different risk profiles.

When the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began using full-body scanners in airports, the now-iconic “naked” images spurred a public debate over privacy and security. As a result, TSA has started implementing new software in its Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines, removing anatomical detail and automatically targeting concealed objects on a generic outline. This technology will have at least two notable ramifications: airport security infrastructure footprint should shrink and the debate over full body scanners will shift away from privacy concerns.

DHS is by no means perfect. However, its organizational promise – that concentrating large operational agencies under one roof would improve security – has been met at the border. The DHS border screening model – identifying bad guys around the world, finding out in advance who is traveling, and making sure that the bad guys cannot pretend to be someone else – also applies to aviation security, though it has not been used much at airports. We’ve run out of ways to check all passengers for weapons, and everyone—including TSA—agrees that new approaches are needed.

International air carriers break U.S. federal law every day. Any cargo flown on a passenger plane in U.S. airspace (whether of domestic or foreign origin) must be screened for explosives. Yet, despite the law, some cargo flown into the United States does not meet the “100 percent” standard. To satisfy the cargo screening mandate, TSA has reinterpreted the law in an attempt to achieve 100 percent screening without physically screening all international cargo on passenger planes.

By Rob Strayer
The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging the Transportation Security Administration’s use of Advanced Imaging Technology machines is that they do not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What is significant is the D.C. Circuit’s holding that TSA failed to provide notice and solicit public comments on a new rule that passengers undergo a mandatory whole body scan or a pat down. The court’s decision will have potentially far ranging effects on the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that seek to implement new security measures.

“Wheels stop.” With those two words, the era of the Space Shuttle officially closed. Those two words are traditionally spoken by the Shuttle Commander as the orbiter comes to a complete stop. Today’s space shuttle landing means 6,300 people will be laid off and the Johnson Space Center’s Mission Control will fall silent. For now, we will have to wait until we see what the private sector can provide for a new era in human spaceflight.