Advanced Imaging Technology - Yes, It's Worth It
Cross-posted from the TSA Blog
There's been a lot of public discussion about TSA's deployment of new screening technology known as AIT. Public discussion and debate is good, and we at TSA have worked hard to inform, educate and adjust our screening protocols in the interests of security, efficiency, safety and privacy. Our FY 2011 budget request includes $573 million to purchase 500 Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units and to operationally staff, operate and maintain 1,000 units, which includes the 500 units we are deploying now. This is indeed an important investment decision and not something we take lightly. We don't take the threats we're facing lightly either.
We've greatly improved TSA's IED detection capabilities in bags through better technology and more rigorous training and testing of our officers. Getting to threats hidden on a body is more difficult, because of the limitations of metal detectors, and patting down everybody that comes through a checkpoint isn't an option anyone likes.
So starting in 2007, we began testing AIT at the Transportation Security Lab and TSA's own operational testing facility to study its capability to detect non-metallic items as well as metallic ones. Based on the success in the labs, we tested the units in the airport environment, where they proved effective in threat detection and they were accepted by passengers as a screening option. The airport testing also looked at throughput, staffing needs, real estate requirements, privacy protections, and reaffirmed all safety requirements were met for the public and our officers. We left no stone unturned.
All the work we have done in the past two years gives me confidence that this technology will significantly increase TSA's detection capability at the checkpoint. Using AIT, our officers are finding things like small packages of powder-based drugs hidden on the body. When I say small, I mean that one packet was smaller than a thumb print. We have also found small weapons made of composite, non-metallic materials.
Based on the intelligence reporting we see every day, this technology is absolutely essential to address the threat we see today. It can also be upgraded over time, either as the threats change or as the industry improves the threat detection software.
With our first 1,000 units we will be able to use AIT to screen over 60% of all air passengers each day. We take our responsibility to protect each and every traveler very seriously. We have used lessons learned from the past, and we deployed this technology only after we were fully confident it would work in an operational environment and after our acquisition process had undergone extensive reviews and approvals by DHS' Acquisition Review Board.
Which brings me back to the cost. At about 1.8 million passengers going through checkpoint screening a day - 650 million passengers a year - the annualized, full cost of purchasing, installing, staffing, operating, supporting, upgrading, and maintaining the first 1,000 units of this technology is about $1 per trip through the checkpoint.
Is it worth a dollar per passenger in the short term for increased long term security? You bet it is.
Gale Rossides is the Acting Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
There's been a lot of public discussion about TSA's deployment of new screening technology known as AIT. Public discussion and debate is good, and we at TSA have worked hard to inform, educate and adjust our screening protocols in the interests of security, efficiency, safety and privacy. Our FY 2011 budget request includes $573 million to purchase 500 Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units and to operationally staff, operate and maintain 1,000 units, which includes the 500 units we are deploying now. This is indeed an important investment decision and not something we take lightly. We don't take the threats we're facing lightly either.We've greatly improved TSA's IED detection capabilities in bags through better technology and more rigorous training and testing of our officers. Getting to threats hidden on a body is more difficult, because of the limitations of metal detectors, and patting down everybody that comes through a checkpoint isn't an option anyone likes.
So starting in 2007, we began testing AIT at the Transportation Security Lab and TSA's own operational testing facility to study its capability to detect non-metallic items as well as metallic ones. Based on the success in the labs, we tested the units in the airport environment, where they proved effective in threat detection and they were accepted by passengers as a screening option. The airport testing also looked at throughput, staffing needs, real estate requirements, privacy protections, and reaffirmed all safety requirements were met for the public and our officers. We left no stone unturned.
All the work we have done in the past two years gives me confidence that this technology will significantly increase TSA's detection capability at the checkpoint. Using AIT, our officers are finding things like small packages of powder-based drugs hidden on the body. When I say small, I mean that one packet was smaller than a thumb print. We have also found small weapons made of composite, non-metallic materials.
Based on the intelligence reporting we see every day, this technology is absolutely essential to address the threat we see today. It can also be upgraded over time, either as the threats change or as the industry improves the threat detection software.
With our first 1,000 units we will be able to use AIT to screen over 60% of all air passengers each day. We take our responsibility to protect each and every traveler very seriously. We have used lessons learned from the past, and we deployed this technology only after we were fully confident it would work in an operational environment and after our acquisition process had undergone extensive reviews and approvals by DHS' Acquisition Review Board.
Which brings me back to the cost. At about 1.8 million passengers going through checkpoint screening a day - 650 million passengers a year - the annualized, full cost of purchasing, installing, staffing, operating, supporting, upgrading, and maintaining the first 1,000 units of this technology is about $1 per trip through the checkpoint.
Is it worth a dollar per passenger in the short term for increased long term security? You bet it is.
Gale Rossides is the Acting Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
Labels: advanced imaging technology, gale rossides
posted by DHS @ 10:08 AM
6 Comments:
At April 1, 2010 8:51 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Technology is only as good as the people who use it, and I regret to say that I don't have much confidence in the the majority of the TSA staff I have met when I have traveled by air.
Despite the rules on carrying liquids (3 ounce containers, all in the same plastic bag), I often have found that screening missed other bottles or containers that were in a pocket or in a bag. My hairdresser was allowed to board a flight to LA with two pairs of shears in her carry-on bag! How do you miss two pairs of six-inch blades?
We go through all this screening as part of "security theater," but I find it hard to believe that any of this will lead to catching the real threats to security. The scanners may only cost "$1 per trip", but that's not the only cost for implementing these kinds of screening devices. We're wasting billions of dollars in money and lost productivity to harass innocent travelers. We would do better to put more money and research into intelligence and targeted screening of likely threats.
At April 3, 2010 7:11 AM ,
john said...
Yes ...this would definetly help thinking the lonterm security goals
At April 3, 2010 8:34 PM ,
Fake Book said...
As a generally nervous airline passenger citizen I would like to encourage the TSA to deploy this technology as quickly and widely as possible. I hope this won't be one of the great technologies that the too vocal and generally uninformed privacy crowd opposes and kills. I also had an idea to pay for the technology - could TSA offer alternate lines at airports where you pay a fee (maybe the dollar mentioned in the article) to go through a line with these machines with the idea that it moves faster?
At April 5, 2010 10:36 AM ,
Dlace said...
The Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) is necessary in my opinion, but steps must be taken to secure images from leaking out or any other form of tampering that could cause any harm or humiliation to passengers. When it comes to safety we can never be too careful my feelings have strengthened this viewpoint after the bombings in Moscow on their metro system. Is it worth having a person in a room that cannot see you except for the image that is projected on his screen for peace of mind to travel? I believe that it is worth the extra hassle. Some people have argued that it is an invasion of privacy issue, but I disagree with such an argument. Once the consumer purchases a plane ticket they are subject to the standards of searching that the airlines and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). If the traveler does not want to be subject to the AIT then there are other modes of transportation that they can utilize such as car or train.
Another argument used by skeptics is that the cost of these machines is not worth the benefit. As the article above has outlined this is just not the case. When 1,000 units are purchased it will only raise the price per ticket by about $1. Now, who could possibly say that $1 is not worth the benefit of making sure that terrorists’ attacks do not happen again? As for me I would gladly pay that extra dollar to pay for these AIT’s than having to pay for a ginger ale or a bag of peanuts.
The price of safety can be expensive and intrusive, but you just have to weigh the pros and cons and see if it is something that is worth the cost. In this instance I agree with the Department of Homeland security (DHS) and TSA in that the AIT’s are worth giving up a little privacy and the cost of an extra dollar per ticket. If this system prevents one attack on this country then it is worth every penny, because how can you put a dollar amount on human life and in this instance hundreds of human lifes.
At April 5, 2010 1:12 PM ,
Dlace said...
The Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) is necessary in my opinion, but steps must be taken to secure images from leaking out or any other form of tampering that could cause any harm or humiliation to passengers. When it comes to safety we can never be too careful my feelings have strengthened this viewpoint after the bombings in Moscow on their metro system. Is it worth having a person in a room that cannot see you except for the image that is projected on his screen for peace of mind to travel? I believe that it is worth the extra hassle. Some people have argued that it is an invasion of privacy issue, but I disagree with such an argument. Once the consumer purchases a plane ticket they are subject to the standards of searching that the airlines and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). If the traveler does not want to be subject to the AIT then there are other modes of transportation that they can utilize such as car or train.
Another argument used by skeptics is that the cost of these machines is not worth the benefit. As the article above has outlined this is just not the case. When 1,000 units are purchased it will only raise the price per ticket by about $1. Now, who could possibly say that $1 is not worth the benefit of making sure that terrorists’ attacks do not happen again? As for me I would gladly pay that extra dollar to pay for these AIT’s than having to pay for a ginger ale or a bag of peanuts.
The price of safety can be expensive and intrusive, but you just have to weigh the pros and cons and see if it is something that is worth the cost. In this instance I agree with the Department of Homeland security (DHS) and TSA in that the AIT’s are worth giving up a little privacy and the cost of an extra dollar per ticket. If this system prevents one attack on this country then it is worth every penny, because how can you put a dollar amount on human life and in this instance hundreds of human lifes.
At April 9, 2010 2:21 PM ,
mkissel said...
I do not understand why people appose the new technology. It is not as intrusive as most people think and the people using the machines are going to be trained to read the images. nobody else will be able to see the image and from the pictures that I have seen as an example image that have been released are not much more intrusive, I would rather have the image taken than be patted down by someone I do not know. Also people will have to chose if they would rather have better flight security or more privacy.
Post a Comment
Thank you for leaving a comment at the Blog @ Homeland Security. Submitted Comments will be reviewed before posting. See more about our Comment Policy.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home