Archive for the ‘Security’ category

Why Israeli airport security is so effective

March 27, 2016

Guest Post: Why Israeli airport security is so effective | Anne’s Opinions, 26th March 2016

(This is a guest post by Ralph Goodman. Ralph Goodman is a professional locksmith and an expert writer on all things locks and security over at the Lock Blog. The Lock Blog is a great resource to learn about keys, locks and safety. They offer tips, advice and how-to’s for consumers, locksmiths, and security professionals.

I noted that this article is particularly relevant in these days of increased terrorism such as the Brussels airport bombing, and even more so in the light of the latest news that an Israeli security firm’s advice on Brussels airport security went unheeded.)

 

Ben Gurion Airport

Ben Gurion Airport

Introduction

Anytime there is a tragedy in the world there is often a propensity within our humanity that leads us to anger and sadness. These are not the feelings that lead to answers. Without answers, there will be no end to the violence. In the wake of the terror attacks in Belgium, and the growing threat of lone wolf attacks across the globe, it is important not to lose sight of the main concern. Priority one should always be security. Keeping human life safe needs to be at the forefront of the world’s priorities well before blame, and certainly before hate. The question then becomes one of practicality. How can the world protect itself from the random violence of a few misguided individuals? The task seems insurmountable. But it is not. In fact, we do not even need to turn the knowledge of history. The answers we seek are being used at this very moment to keep the nation of Israel protected.

30 Years of Success

At this point, it has been more than three decades since any Israeli airliner has suffered a single hijacking or act of terrorism. Compare that to track record to the USA’s own Travel Security Administration (TSA), that when tested by Homeland Security failed to detect deadly threats 96% of the time. From these shockingly different rates of success, most people would assume that it must take an eternity to get through Israeli airport security. But that is not the case. Every passenger flying from Israel is not forced to take off his or her shoes and belts. There is no blanket pat down procedure for all travelers. You do not have to pour out your water, and there is not a body scanner that projects a simulated naked picture of every person’s body. In fact, most passengers pass through the security of Israeli airports faster than they would in the US. How is this possible? What are their policies? And is it possible to scale the success of this security to larger volume airports?

How They Do it

1. Personal Screening

The most glaring difference between Israel’s security and all other airport security is the personal attention every person receives. If you have never traveled through an Israeli airport, then this may seem invasive, and time-consuming. But with an average interview length of fewer than 30 seconds, it is hardly an inconvenience. The mentality of the security agents is that less than 1% of all of the people flying is a suspicious person, so there is no reason to treat everyone like a suspect. In fact, by limiting the number of people that need to be scrutinized, the vetting process can be done more efficiently and with greater depth. This personal interaction also begins before you get to the airport itself. People entering are screened before they drive in and park. Monitored before they enter the building. And interrogated with varying degrees of intensity upon entering. There are still metal detectors to walk through, but not every bag is screened. This shows a heavy reliance on the individual interaction between the security personnel and the passengers. With the track record they have, it shows that there may not be a need for anything more invasive or time-consuming.

2. Perimeter Patrols

Humans and remote controlled rovers monitor the outside of the airports. This allows the large area to be surveilled on multiple levels. The fences and surrounding areas are investigated for suspicious people and objects. If a planted item needs to be detonated, the unmanned rovers can do that remotely. The use of robots is meant to increase productivity by decreasing the time it takes to identify and neutralize a threat. These perimeter precautions also extend to the employees, which is a historically weak part of most airport security. Employees at Israeli Airports are scanned with biometric technology which checks fingerprints, and in some cases, conducts retinal scans. This solves any issues that may arise from non-passenger threats.

3. Air Marshals

airport2

Assuming that there is ever an active threat that boards a plane, at least, one Air Marshal is placed on each flight. Though there has never even been a bombing that needed to be thwarted on a flight, this security remains active. In the instance of all other security measures failing the plane will still be protected. Israeli security understands that there are many ways unsuspecting items can be turned into weapons. Glass can be broken to make a makeshift knife, and credit cards can be sharpened to have a razor edge. It may not have happened yet, but Israel’s Airport Security will be ready when it does. And in that situation trained military professionals that can neutralize a target in seconds. Though life is important, the marshals are said to terminate threats with extreme prejudice.

4. Profiling

Perhaps the most divisive methods used for security, profiling is also credited with being the most effective. Most officials are willing to say that race, gender, age, and religion are all factors in the profiling algorithm, but it is said that the methods extend far beyond just those features. Nir Ran, who is a former head of aviation security at the ISA (Israel Security Agency) and former Security Director at the Israeli Airline El Al, said “The passenger himself, arriving at the flight with a bomb in his suitcase will not necessarily be a Muslim, will not necessarily be a young man…on the contrary…in most of the cases… the people that were carrying the bomb to the plane were non-Muslim. [They were] young women” (VOA). If the people being stopped did not fit the profile that many think of as potential terrorists, then it could be said that these profilers are more unbiased than average citizens. This practice is not at all politically correct, but it has a proven history of working with the use of highly trained and intelligent workers.

Conclusion

The most important thing that we can learn from this effective security is that safety is possible. There are ways to protect life effectively, even in the chaotic times we live in. There is no way to doubt track record of these policies. Even if you do not think that profiling is morally right, there is no way to posit that it is not actively defeating terrorism. Because, although Israel may be a small nation, it is most certainly a target by the very same groups that are carrying out plane and airport attacks around the world. The morality of the practice must be balanced not only with your moral teachings but also weighed against the suspended liberties we have all endured. Being treated like a criminal without provocation, all in the name of security that does not protect us is a high and unnecessary price. Israel’s airport security embodies the humanity and personal attention that such complex issues need. There is no need for hate. There is not even a call for war. Security is possible with a reinvestment in education and training for the world’s transportation agencies. Have faith that peace can come without the loss of life or liberty.

European Governments Ignoring Security Warnings?

January 30, 2016

European Governments Ignoring Security Warnings? Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, January 30, 2016

♦ “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” — From a leaked German intelligence document.

♦ The mayor of Molenbeek, Belgium ignored a list she received, one month prior to the Paris attacks, “with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area,” according to the New York Times. “What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists,” Mayor Schepmans said.

♦ In October 2015, Andrew Parker, director general of Britain’s Security Service, said that the “scale and tempo” of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK.

The head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), Benedicte Bjørnland, was recently a participating guest at a security conference in Sweden, where she warned against further Muslim immigration.

One cannot,” she said, “assume that new arrivals will automatically adapt to the norms and rules of Norwegian society. Furthermore, new arrivals are not homogenous and can bring ethnic and religious strife with them… If parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments emerge in the long run,” she added, “We will have challenges as a security service.”

The changes Bjørnland speaks of — parallel societies, radicalization and extremist environments — are nothing new; they have been proliferating throughout Western Europe for years. The Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, which was home to two of the perpetrators of November’s terror attacks in Paris, is known as a “terrorist den.” Yet the mayor of Molenbeek ignored a list she received, one month prior to the Paris attacks, “with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area,” according to the New York Times. “What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists,” Mayor Schepmans said. “That is the responsibility of the federal police.”

This statement is, in many ways, symptomatic of the European failure to deal with the security problems that Europe faces. The problem is always supposed to be somebody else’s.

Anders Thornberg, the head of the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO), literally begged Swedish society for help: “The Islamist environments have grown considerably in the past five years,” he said “and tensions are growing between various population groups. We need all of society to help fight the radicalization, there are limits to how much faster a security service can run.”

These are sentiments that are rarely, if ever, voiced by official Norway or Sweden. Apparently, the fear of offending Muslim sensitivities has thus far overridden security concerns. But even Sweden, which sees itself as a “humanitarian superpower,” and up until recently had sworn to keep its doors open to all migrants and refugees, has had to reassess its policy. At the end of November 2015, Sweden’s Deputy-Prime Minister Asa Romson, reluctantly and in tears, said that the government had been “forced to take reality into account,” given the huge number of migrants that entering the country. Sweden (and Denmark) tightened their border controls a few weeks ago.

It is questionable, however, whether the warning cries of the Scandinavian security services will have any noticeable impact on the fundamental political course of their political leaders, especially if the latest statements by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven are anything to take into account.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Löfven declared that it was “wrong” to mix up either sexual assaults on European women or the threat of ISIS with the mass migration into Europe: “Sexual harassment is not automatically binding to migration and immigration. We have had sexual harassment in Sweden for many, many years, unfortunately,” Löfven told CNBC, thus pretending that the imported Middle Eastern pastime of Taharrush Gamea [collective harassment] of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, had nothing to do with migrants.

“What it now takes is to be very clear that this is not appropriate, it is absolutely out of line and we need to take a very clear message now to show to these young girls and women they are of course entitled to walk in the city… without sexual harassment,” Löfven added. No, the girls and the women are not the ones in need of a “clear message.” The men harassing and raping them are — especially in a country now known as the rape capital of the West.

The Swedish prime minister’s refusal to “deal with reality” — including that ISIS terrorists enter Europe together with the migrants — is disturbing and should be of immense concern to Swedish citizens. It also displays the huge gap in perception of the current situation between the Swedish Security Services and the Swedish government.

The head of the Swedish Security and Intelligence Services has every reason, it turns out, to beg Swedish society to help fight the security challenges Sweden is facing. Considering current Swedish government, he is going to need all the help he can get.

The additional gap between the genuine concerns of national intelligence and security services on one hand, and governments’ fear of offending Muslim sensibilities and venturing beyond the politically correct “narratives” on the other hand, is not confined to Sweden, but evident across Western Europe.

European intelligence and security services have warned for a long time that — given the increase of mainly Muslim migration and the ensuing growth of parallel societies and extremist environments — they cannot keep up with the ever-increasing threats of jihadist terrorism, which in the past decade have grown exponentially.

In the Netherlands, the Dutch jihadist movement began a far-reaching process of becoming more professional in late 2010, and adopted propaganda methods developed by British jihadists. “The increasing momentum of Dutch jihadism poses an unprecedented threat to the democratic legal order of the Netherlands,” stated the Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, in the autumn of 2014.

In Germany, the intelligence agencies warned in the early fall of 2015 that, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” Four major German security agencies made it clear that “German security agencies… will not be in the position to solve these imported security problems and thereby the arising reactions from Germany’s population.” Still, this dire warning, which was leaked to the German press, did not cause Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to change her open-door policy. While Germany has introduced border controls, 2000 asylum claims are still processed there every day.

In Britain, the MI5 has openly declared that it cannot stop all terrorist attacks on English soil. In October 2015, Andrew Parker, director general of the Security Service, said that the “scale and tempo” of the danger to the UK is now at a level he has not seen in his 32-year career. He warned that while the threat to the UK from ISIS is on the rise MI5 can “never” be confident in stopping all terror plots.

Little wonder. British police are monitoring over 3,000 homegrown Islamist extremists who are willing to carry out attacks on the UK, British security sources have warned. That is a 50% increase in less than a decade. Already in November 2014, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, told an international terrorism conference that 25% of the population growth in the UK had arrived in London in the last 10 years, and posing big challenges for the police force, who could not keep up with the pace of immigration.

The difficulties in properly monitoring so many extremists and effectively preventing them from committing acts of terror has also become a tremendous challenge, compounded by the sheer volume of extremists. Dame Stella Rimington, former head of the MI5, estimated in June 2013 that it would take around 50,000 full-time MI5 spies to monitor 2,000 extremists or potential terrorists 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That would be more than 10 times the number of people employed by MI5.

The situation is not much different in many other European countries. In Germany Hans-Georg Maasen, head of Germany’s BfV domestic security agency, claimed that his office was aware of almost 8,000 Islamic radicals in Germany. He said that all of these extremists advocate violence to advance their goals, with some trying to win over migrants, and that his office receives one or two ‘fairly concrete tips’ of planned terrorist activity each week.

Most European countries – such as Germany, Britain, and France – are operating at their highest terror alert ever. The intelligence services are trying to cope with a situation beyond anything one could have imagined a decade ago.

The fight against the terrorist threat is never going to be won, however, only by pouring more financial resources and manpower into the counter-terrorism effort, although that is of course a necessary first step. As long as the political leaders — the governments — of the national security and intelligence services refuse to openly address the threat, without shrouding the issue in politically correct language – as demonstrated by Löfven — they will never be able to reduce it, let alone eliminate it.