Transportation Security and Intrusiveness of Security Screenings America's land, seaways, and air transportation systems are structured in such a manner that enhances efficiency and enables easy access, the two features that also at the same time make these transportation systems susceptible to attacks. The expenses and difficulty of protecting the entire transportation systems from attacks raises a critical issue for legislators and other policymakers in the government: in that how much money and effort should be utilized towards preventing attacks in the country compared to the alternative of pursuing and defeating terrorists wherever they are. While completely proofing the entire transportation sector from attacks is an almost impossible task, strategies can be formulated to significantly reduce the risk of attacks. The emphasis by policymakers should be put in coming up with the resources to build a prevention, protection, and rapid response system that can greatly reduce the likelihood and consequences of terrorist acts without overly interfering with civil rights, business and travel. After the September 11 attacks, legislators responded immediately by establishing the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), nationalizing all airline baggage and traveler screening responsibilities and mandating more armed federal air marshals on commercial flights (Elias, Peterman, & Frittelli, 2015).

In late 2004, the Transportation Security Administration implemented changes to increase its ability to detect explosives and other unwanted materials through its screening procedures after 2 Russian passenger aircrafts had exploded midair in what was thought to be terrorist attacks by secessionists Chechen women who had carried the explosives underneath their clothing. The TSA's new screening procedures entailed more pat-downs, more authority for officials to refer persons for additional screening and the deployment of more explosives detection equipments for passenger baggage screening. Passenger inspection is important to the overall security of the country's transportation system after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The organization charged with ensuring proper baggage and passenger screening and inspection to prevent the carrying of weapons and other prohibited materials on board airlines is the Transportation Security Administration. Just five months after the implementation of the new screening procedures, the TSA had screened over 289,000,000 passengers out of which 46,000,000 where referred for further screening. Of the passengers who were referred for further screening, barely 1500 complaints were filed regarding the issue representing only 0.03% of passengers (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2005).

Processing passengers and identifying possible threats remains a huge challenge to the TSA and the individuals charged with guaranteeing public safety and to the experts tasked with formulating ways to detect deception. In fact, since the 9/11 attacks billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on improving screening procedures and also developing equipments to detect prohibited materials, yet the effectiveness of such interventions remains average at best. Events such as the 2009 attempted bombing of a Detroit bound aircraft shows that the TSA and the country's security apparatus still has some way to go with regards to ensuring public safety (Ormerod & Dando, 2014).

This paper reviews the intrusiveness and nature of transportation security as one of the main homeland security issues that affect the U.S. Specifically, this raises an important question: are the screening practices in transportation security justified? This paper tries to explore the efforts of security measures in relation to this research question.

Transportation security

As was mentioned above, the Transportation Security Administration was established immediately after the September 11 attacks as a measure to devise strategies to prevent attacks on the country's transportation security systems while making sure that the civil liberties of individuals to move is not violated. Within 12 months of its creation, the TSA had taken over the security responsibilities of all of the country's airports and had recruited, trained and stationed federal employees to process all commercial flight travelers and baggage. As of now, the Administration screens all passengers going through the nation's entry and exit ports via its Secure Flight Program. The TSA has also gone ahead to deploy the latest technologically advanced machines to stay ahead of the new ways of concealing weapons, explosives and other prohibited materials and still continues in its efforts to screen all land, marine and air cargo (Homeland Security, 2015).

Since the September 11 attacks, five more attacks have been attempted at America's air transport system resulting in increased efforts to secure the system. Screening procedures have increased to entail use of metal detectors for travelers, screening for explosives in baggage, and X-ray screening among a host of other measures. Under the aforementioned Secure Flight Program, the TSA checks passengers by running their names...

Other passenger screening methods such as more pat downs and the utilization of full-body scanners have enraged numerous travelers and flight groups, who deem such practices as violations of the right to privacy (Bajoria, 2010).
Terrorist acts on the nation's transportation systems can have serious negative effects on the country's infrastructure and the economy.

Intrusiveness of Security Screenings

There are several types of security screenings that are considered intrusive and they include:

Body Scans

Even though advanced screening machines were added to passenger screening systems to deter threats, such equipments also drew a lot of criticism from the public. Members of public and civil rights groups were concerned with the intrusion of privacy and alleged adverse health impacts that could result from constant exposure to such machines (Accardo & Chaudhary, 2014). However, the issues surrounding privacy in airport screening procedures have been around for years. For instance, in 2012, EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Invasion Centre) filed a lawsuit against DHS (Department of Homeland Security) alleging that its new screening procedures were invasive, illegal, and not effective. The privacy centre opined that the then new passenger screening procedures were in violation of the Privacy Act, the Fourth Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. The court however ruled that the scanners could still be utilized if the TSA continued offering passengers alternative means of screening. However, many manufacturing firms have taken it upon themselves to address the privacy concerns through various additions to their scanners such as: obscuring the face of the passenger, or making the image less graphic. The computer software used for screening was also modified such that the images could in no way be saved, sent elsewhere or printed. Other manufacturers have also come up with ATR software (Automated Target Recognition) by not exposing the image created in the scan and therefore allowing greater efficiency and privacy in the process.

Pre-Flight Screening of Passenger Information

After the September 11 attacks the nation's efforts to improve security has also faced the dilemma of either increasing public safety or protecting civil rights. One of the measures that has also elicited criticism from civil liberties group is the use of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) by the Transport Security Administration (TSA).The system was deployed as a way to increase both domestic and international flight safety and has proven quite effective in that regard. However, passengers and rights activists are claiming that the deployment of the prescreening system violates the civil liberties of travelers (Alberto & Bogatz, 2015).

Civil liberties group are claiming the second DOT (Department of Transportation) proposed version of the system might infringe the First Amendment freedom to worship, associate and speak. However, the main concern with the system is that it may result in racial profiling and discriminatory practices. A multifaceted analysis by congress has been proposed before the deployment of the system. First, is the assessment of whether the new security measure is truly effective (and does not just offer a false promise of enhanced security). Second is that any proposed security system should be used in a manner that does not discriminate against any individuals, meaning that persons should not be referred to questioning or exposed to intrusive searches based on the color of their skins, their religion or ethnic extraction. Finally, if a measure is evaluated and found to be truly effective, concerned authorities (DHS, DOT and the TSA) should work collaboratively to ensure that its use minimizes the burden to basic rights and freedoms. Opponents of the system argue that CAPPS II might not be a genuinely effective security program, and that it may needlessly subject persons to discrimination and violation or liberties (Alberto & Bogatz, 2015).

Conclusion

In conclusion it is important to note that these new screening technologies not only have critics but there also individuals who think the technologies are more effective security deterrence measures. Since full body scanners do subject all individuals getting into airports to security checks, it is understandable for citizens to be concerned about the deployment of such systems. Efforts to strengthen transportation security should be balanced such that measures are only implemented if they are proven to be truly effective and that the Transportation Security Administration makes efforts to minimize the level of intrusiveness.

References

Accardo, J., & Chaudhry, M. A. (2014). Radiation exposure and privacy concerns surrounding full-body scanners in airports. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 7(2), 198-200.

Alberto, V., & Bogatz, D. (2015, November 10). Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening

System ("Capps Ii"):…