Pants Analysis

Bruce Schneier writes about security, and is a “security technologist”. He writes here for CNN about aviation security post the pants bomber. Well, with respect to Mr Schneier, I’m a security technologist too, I suppose, and I think he’s just wrong. I was tempted to say “plane” wrong, but too many of those jokes get irritating quickly.

Mr Schneier suggests that the plot was half baked using “home brew” explosives. While true that the device failed to function as intended, its clear to me that the device could have worked. AbdulMutallab’s predecessor, who attempted to kill a Saudi Prince in August got his device through airport security and into the presence of his target and it functioned. Had either device been on an aircraft at altitude I think it could have brought it down. Playing down threats suggesting they are less of a threat because of home brew explosives doesn’t hold water – about 90% of all IEDs in Afghanistan are currently “home brew” explosives and they are doing the job they are intended to do. One lucky failure doesn’t take away the threat.

Mr Schneier makes some valid points about risk assessment and the the human  predisposition that makes danger difficult for us to assess. That’s fine but suggesting that consequently we shouldn’t bother scanning passengers simply doesn’t follow. Should we do away with the metal detectors and baggaae screening too? Of course not.

His parting remark that we as a society should be focusing on the “general risk of troubled teenagers” is a little farcical for a security technologist, is it not?

Bottom line One: The device such as found in the pants bomber poses a threat that is very real to the passengers on that plane with him. It also poses a threat to the aviation business generally. It perhaps doesn’t pose, in the big scheme of things, much of a threat statistically speaking to the hundreds of thousands of air passengers who fly on any given day. But the threat to the economy of the world if, lets say six or seven, airliners fall out of the sky is very real and worth spending some money on and applying some security technology to.

Bottom Line Two: The device can be detected by millimetric wave technology, and there is also technology that can do this without the privacy issues that seems to concern many. Integrate this with the already in-place metal detection arches and you have a quick easy, not too expensive solution.

I think it is time this subject was approached with some common sense. A lot of commentators are suggesting this sort of security technology is a step too far and intrudes on our rights and dignity. Its not, its only a step too far when such a big deal is made of it. As an individual, I prefer it that the people I fly with have been through effective security checks. Period. I’m very happy if the ninnies (and terrorists) who don’t like this don’t fly with me. More space on the plane for me.  Its true there are more ninnies than terrorists, but that’s fine with me too.