There was an explosion at an airport recently. Pretty much everyone heard of it, Brussels. On March 22, 2016, the terrorists killed 32 people and injured more than 300. These different explosions and shootings are starting to become a more common occurrence in airports. Since airports have been created, there has been around 23 terrorist attacks on airports. The shocking part was that the people did not even go through security. The terrorist set off explosions before the security check points so they did not have to be checked.
What could be the answer to stopping these explosions? When does airport security violate personal freedom? There is always two sides to every argument. Some people think that the airports already have too much security that is intrusive on people’s privacy, and others believe that Airports should increase security.
Increasing security in all airports is a solution that a variety of individuals believe would solve the terrorist problems that have been occurring in airports. This would make it so that people would have to take more time going through security. Increasing security would make it easier to catch the terrorist and the people who are trying to take guns, explosives, or other dangerous items on the airplane. Perhaps airports could place different stations of security at every entrance. This would be to try and stop what happened in Brussels from happening again by making every person that enters the airport have to go through security.
“Wagner suggests U.S. airports establish pre-terminal screening before travelers enter the facility. “That is a common approach in many countries around the world — you cannot even get in the terminal until your bags and your person have been pre-screened,” he said. “That is, through an X-ray machine both for the bags and for the individual.””
On the other hand some people think that some of the security that we have in the airports is senseless and that the rules should decrease. Throughout the years since 9-11, airport security has increased with difference machines and rules that are to stop terrorist attacks. Many people think that some of these rules and regulations are unnecessary. I have heard different complaints that the airports will let people take knitting needles on an airplane, but they will not let a person take a small scissors on the plane. For some people this precaution does not make sense because it would seem that a knitting needle would do more damage physically if used as a weapon than a small scissors.
People also complain about the pat-downs that occur at the airport security. The women who are going through security feel uncomfortable having a man pat them down, but they do not know that they could request a woman security person to do the pat-down. In the TSA rules it states, “Travelers have the right to request that the pat-down be conducted by an officer of the same gender, although there is no right to shorter wait times. Sometimes travelers will have to wait until an officer of the same gender becomes available.” Some people even think that the pat-down is an unnecessary procedure that is carried out when there are many different machines that check over a person’s body already.
There is new technology that is out and starting to circulate throughout airport security. One is a large machine that will “pat down” people instead of a human doing it. It is a machine that a person steps inside of and after the doors of the machine closes it will blow puffs of air on the person. “The puffer machine is what the TSA calls an “explosive trace portal,” a state of the art device capable of detecting traces of explosive residue on a person’s body or clothing.” This could solve the problem that most people have with hands on contact. This could also be better than the human pat down because it can detect more chemicals that a person could be hiding on their bodies.
Perhaps another way that airports can make sure that the same attack that happened in Brussles never happens again is by placing security outside the airport before people enter the building. This could cause more problems in the long run.
Tom Symonds states in his article Brussels attacks: Airport security under the spotlights again, “Passengers will wonder why there are no security scanners at the door of the airport, or the entrance to the car park. Should we move the line of security? The problem is that this simply moves the place where the queue forms. And queues are the ideal soft target for a terrorist.” So, the solution that many people think would be the best idea would actually make people more vulnerable to the terrorist attacks.
There are many different ideas that are beginning to sprout about getting more airport security. A few of the airports around the United States and around the world have increased their security. Time will tell if this increase in security will actually help protect people or give terrorist more of a challenge to bring explosives into an airport.