After what happened over Detroit, how worried are you about it happening again? In the aftermath of September 11 we watched Congress rush through the Patriot Act, and people were more than willing to give up on a lot of their civil liberties to gain what seemed like advantageous safeguards against terrorist threats from both outside and inside the country. Since then there have continued to be terrorist threats form both, and there probably will continue to be.

In the aftermath of Detroit’s bombing attempt, what are you willing to give up at airport security checkpoints? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man suspected of attempting to blow up Northwest Flight 253 as it got close to Detroit, would have been found out had Amsterdam and Lagos airports been using “millimeter wave” scanners rather than just the standard metal detectors.

But should these “millimeter wave” scanners be used? Some are against their use because they are said to show the person as “naked” to whomever is watching the scanner- and to those who are walking around behind the scanner.

"Absolutely without a shadow of doubt this is a good thing. But one solution will not address every vulnerability. It needs to be a set of solutions," said Chris Yates, analyst for Jane's Aviation.

So increasing the set of solutions for finding weapons or threats with passengers on the way into the airport is something analysts are in favor of.

"Some passengers are reassured that there's new technology there and are prepared to give up some measure of their privacy for it, and others have been outraged by it," said Kevin Murphy, product manager of physical security for the British Qinetiq Group.

"I don't anticipate myself that there'll be a rush to buy new equipment because airport operators are strapped for cash at the moment and the equipment itself, whilst good, is not a solution to the problem," he continued.  

Metal detectors cost around $15,000; “Millimeter wave” cameras cost around $150,000- simple math will tell you that any airport operator looking to take care of their bottom line is going to stick with metal detectors.

And as for the privacy concerns, I don’t think this is nearly as big of a deal as anyone is making it out to be. Yes, Germany declined to use the scanners because they were considered an invasion of privacy, but are they really showing people “naked?” – Like, is there going to be live porn going on with the airport scanners having perfect x-ray vision? Doubtful.

And the other concern is the health effects of the x-rays involved, which is a pretty minimal concern when you look at all of the other things going into our bodies on a regular basis- one round of an x-ray doesn’t seem like a big deal in the long run.

So, how do we respond to this? Airports are interesting beasts, federally monitored with private businesses all operating out of the same hub. They have to be sensitive to privacy concerns while at the same time protecting everyone- I’m sure that when the cost comes down they will find a way to make it happen. It’s money, as ususal.

Photo Credit: Dan Paluska (via Flickr under CCL)