Feral Jundi

     “Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don’t take s— from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, ‘We’re not going to do this. You’re going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.”

     That, in a nutshell is “Israelification” – a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death. 

     First off, I will say that I can totally relate with what the TSA guys are going through. In this business, you will find yourself doing pat downs and screening folks on some contract at some point in your career. Believe me, it isn’t fun for the guys that have to do it and I am sure police and military folks can relate as well. The folks you are screening can get testy and annoyed as well. But that is our job, and our primary objective is to protect our people, and stop the bad guys from doing harm. We still think about alternatives though.

     So is there a system that protects life and limb without annoying people to death? That is the million dollar question, because even if this latest protest against TSA pat downs and revealing full body screenings actually causes more airports to choose the privatization route of security, the screening force will still be up against this very question.

     Or perhaps there is something else. Maybe private companies can better maintain customer service and satisfaction?  Maybe they can be as intrusive or as thorough as the TSA, and still not annoy travelers to death? Because at the end of the day, they still have the same job to do as the TSA, and that is screen out the bad guys and bad things.

     Now in the past, I have discussed the same issues that have been brought up currently, and it seems like every year travelers just get ticked off more by the new rules at airports. We are also experiencing record unemployment, foreclosures, and a recession and this has no doubt caused some folks to be angry and lash out at stuff like this.  Al Qaeda and company is not helping things out either by implementing their ‘system disruption’ attacks. All of these factors provide the perfect storm for outcry and protest, and I am wondering where it will all lead too?

     What will be interesting is if this outcry will translate into more privatization or even the ‘Israelification’ of airport security?  If this does happen, and private companies will be tasked with implementing this more mentally intrusive form of screening called ‘profiling’, then what will be the possible outcome there?  Will US travelers be alright with someone asking them twenty questions before boarding a plane, versus getting their ‘junk’ viewed or groped via full body scanners or pat downs?

    I have also had the opportunity to experience Israeli airport ‘profiling’ that everyone talks about, and I was impressed. For the most part, they just ask you a bunch of questions to see how you react to them. No one touched me, and no one put me through a full body scanner.  The big difference here is that I did not feel like I was mindlessly going through a screening system. I felt like there was a thinking security apparatus that really wanted to know what I was up to, and that they knew how to read me and all of my behavioral cues very well.

    If things do switch to behavioral profiling, or some form of profiling, and it is done by private security, then I think the training for such a technique would be pretty damn interesting. Who would teach the techniques, what legal mechanisms would be in place for protecting a screener/guard or the traveler, and how long would it take to achieve this proficiency are all questions I have.  Most important though, is it scalable and can we achieve the same quality of screening that the Israelis have?

    For that, I wanted to really emphasize the federal-private model below, because this is important. We have already witnessed the federal-private model as it applies to overseas contracting, and the issues have been identified as to how to properly regulate it.  But the problem for the overseas model has always been a lack of legal mechanisms and a lack of sufficient oversight and regulation (either due to poor funding, poor training or lack of manpower). Also, Best Value contracting would be the optimum way to contract companies for this, if any airport authorities are reading this.

     With that said, the TSA would have to switch to being more of a regulatory body than an actual security/screener provider. They will be up against the same scrutiny and issues that plague any of the other various government groups that deal with private industry, both domestically and abroad. The TSA has many lessons to learn from in order to get that federal-private model just right, and because they are still a relatively new agency of government, they still have time to get it right. –Matt

Opposing view on air security: Expand federal-private model

The ‘Israelification’ of airports: High security, little bother

National Opt-Out Day

Opposing view on air security: Expand federal-private model

By John Mica

When Congress established the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11, I helped craft airline passenger screening provisions.

Two models of screening were established. The principle model established an all-federal TSA screening force. The second model provided that TSA would certify, regulate and oversee private contractors to perform screening functions.

Initially five airports — one in each size category — were selected for the federal-private model. Those chosen and operating successfully since 2002 are San Francisco; Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Jackson Hole, Wyo.; and Tupelo, Miss.

The Government Accountability Office independently conducted performance evaluations of both models. GAO’s initial evaluations found that the federal-private model performed statistically significantly better than the all-federal model. Subsequent evaluations have shown the federal-private model performing consistently as well as the all-federal model.

Two years following the 2001 law’s enactment, all airports were permitted to apply to opt out of all-federal screening. Under this option, airports qualified by TSA can also take over screening functions, as Jackson Hole has done.

Sixteen airports currently operate successfully under the federal-private model. More airports have submitted applications, and others are considering opting out.

(more…)