TSA: The Tech Vs. Human Argument

Slate held a contest for readers to submit ideas on how the Transportation Security Administration could improve security at airports. The site received 375 submissions, which were judged by a panel of four judges: "Frank Cilluffo, the former special assistant to the president for homeland security; Clark Ervin, the first inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Douglas R. Laird, the former security director for Northwest Airlines; and renowned security expert Bruce Schneier," according to Slate.

The group picked four winners -- none of which, surprisingly, involved developing or deploying additional technology (unless you count third-place winner's suggestion of linking the no-fly list with airlines' ticketing systems). What does that say about technology's ability to tighten security?

In fact, much of the discussion lately about stopping terrorism has been focused on not technology and sharing information, but better intelligence. This -- from The Baltimore Sun -- is how the typical let's-not-rely-on-technology argument goes:

While the United States pours billions into weapons detection technology ($4 billion since Sept. 11), Israel invests in well-trained guards who conduct face-to-face interviews at each checkpoint. I'm not talking about profiling; the guards focus not on what passengers look like or what they are wearing but what they are doing. They are looking for suspicious behavior, not ethnicity. We should not rely on machines or lists but human instinct, honed by careful training.

Too much reliance on IT?