Does Airport Security Even Work?

When you go to the airport, you're likely being surveilled

more than anywhere else in your life.

Airports are really where the trade-offs

between security and privacy come into focus.

2015 and 2017, Homeland Security found

that TSA failed to stop mock explosives 95% of the time,

so are these current safety measures truly effective?

This is Incognito Mode.

[tenebrous music]

[machinery clicks]

One thing that we assume is just part of flying

is going through a body scanner,

but body scanners have only been in place since 2010,

that's not really that long ago,

and they're really only there because of one guy.

In 2009, a man accused of being a terrorist

flew into Detroit on Flight 253,

packed with powerful explosives in his underwear.

The man attempted to detonate the bomb

while the plane was descending into Detroit,

but it only caught fire and didn't actually explode.

This man flew from Yemen to Nigeria to the Netherlands

and then to the United States,

and at no point was he detected.

It's for this reason

that we all have to go through body scanners.

So, what do TSA agents see

when you go through a body scanner?

[Narrator] Technology that can see under your clothes.

Until 2013, some body scanners used x-ray,

which made a very clear image of your nude body

every time you went through

and TSA agents were able to see this.

They've since discontinued the use

of the x-ray body scanners

and now use a version that obscures

any sensitive areas on your body.

The types of body scanners now in use

are millimeter wave scanners.

Instead of showing your real body,

privacy software creates a 3D doll-like image

and then flags areas that agents might need to check.

Have you ever gone through one of those

and then an area of your body gets flagged

and checked for, like, no apparent reason?

Sometimes the machines aren't working

or the line for the machines is too long,

so then you know, an agent will just let a bunch of people

arbitrarily go through a metal detector,

which is what they used to use,

and then just as arbitrarily,

they say, Okay, that's all,

and everyone else continue going through the scanner.

So, all of these things just make you wonder,

what are we really catching here

and how airtight is this security?

It's really hard to prove that something is working

because of the absence of something,

and yet it feels intuitive.

Like, we're pretty sure, like,

this has to be doing something, right?

Like, knowing that you're gonna go through

all the surveillance and pat downs or whatever

when you go to the airport

has to be a deterrent to somebody somewhere.

Like, there's probably been some terrorist attacks

that didn't happen just because nobody tried

because these systems are in place, right?

Deterrence is a valuable tool in, like,

a security toolbox,

but it can't justify all intrusions into privacy,

so, like, we can understand that there's some amount of that

that is valuable and productive,

but it doesn't necessarily mean just anything goes.

We still wanna think about the balance of,

well, what is that measure that is having a deterrent effect

and is it worth the trade-off?

[tenebrous music]

You may have seen in the headlines recently

that facial recognition is expanding

to more and more airports.

Facial recognition is one form of surveillance

that relies on biometrics.

Biometrics are your personal identifiers,

think your face, fingerprint,

anything about you that's inherent to who you are,

and that's why people are so concerned

about biometric surveillance.

Those are things you can't change, can't hide,

can't do anything about.

You can imagine how bad it is

if somebody gets your social security number,

but now imagine they have your fingerprint

or your iris scan,

and that's when it gets into new, uncharted territory.

Once an entity has that data, that's you forever, right?

If that organization were to misuse that data,

or if it's stolen or whatever could happen,

once it's kind of out of your control,

there's a potential privacy risk

that just sort of endures through your whole life.

So, why is this a big deal?

Well, it used to be that all these databases were disparate.

They didn't all communicate with each other,

they didn't all share the same data.

That's starting to change.

We're gonna have a big, giant database

of everybody's photos, everybody's identities,

and the fact of the matter is we don't really know

how these systems could be used in the future.

One of the first rules of privacy and security

is to limit the creation of data in the first place,

and so facial recognition is just another way

of creating more data about you

that could eventually be abused.

People have said for a long time,

Well, what's the point of declining?

you know, whether it's a face scan

or other types of data collection.

The government already has all my data anyway, right?

For many years, the sort of response to that

was, well, in the U.S.,

you know, the way the federal government is set up,

each agency's data is siloed from the others.

Even if you had given data to one agency

or particularly, like, a state-level agency,

that doesn't mean all the federal agencies

or the whole federal government has that information.

You know, both sides of the aisle,

like, that has been viewed as a really fundamental right.

At times, there've been initiatives

to try to do, like, a universal ID within the U.S.

where sort of, like, all the checks and everything

would be built into this one card or document or whatever,

but there was always pushback to that,

again, on both sides, but particularly from Republicans

saying, I don't want the government in my business.

I don't want a, like, central point of control

of knowing who everyone is,

and that's why it has largely remained a state's directive,

but now like you're saying,

there's really a movement away from that

in this very sort of casual, like,

well, now this is happening

and all federal data is being centralized kind of way,

completely ignoring the fact

that there's been literally decades of debate about this.

In November 2024, a bipartisan group of 12 senators

that includes Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders

signed a letter asking the TSA for more information

about how they're gonna conduct oversight

of the expanding use of facial recognition

at airports across the United States.

The senators warn that soon,

hundreds of airports will have facial recognition,

but they also say people aren't aware

that they're able to opt out.

You're allowed to tell the TSA,

No, I don't wanna be subjected to facial recognition,

but the senators say they've received reports

of travelers encountering belligerent TSA officers

who don't wanna allow them to opt out,

which is their right to do.

When a bipartisan group of senators

sends the TSA a letter like this,

you can tell there's broad concern

over the oversight of TSA facial recognition systems.

The fact that the senators

even had to send a letter like this

just shows that there's very little information

about how effective these systems are.

Even though things seem to be moving

in this direction right now,

where all this data seems like it's being stockpiled

more and more by the federal government,

it's still worth being thoughtful,

you know, declining anything you want to decline

or you feel that you can

because there can still be value in that

and you kinda never know which way the wind is gonna blow

and what's gonna happen.

The data minimization concept still applies.

[machinery clicks]

If you've been to, like, a major airport recently,

you've probably had somebody come up and be like,

Hey, do you wanna sign up for CLEAR?

Do you wanna skip the line? Yeah, exactly,

and then who doesn't wanna skip the line,

but this isn't a government agency

that's operating the system.

This is a system called CLEAR

and it's run by a third-party company.

An alternative to CLEAR is the TSA PreCheck program,

which is basically the same thing,

but it's run by the U.S. government.

What is the deal with CLEAR

and why is there more issues

with a third-party company kind of doing this

instead of just the U.S. government?

Well, when something is a third party,

like a private company,

consumers may not have control

over what happens to that data,

either right away,

like, you've had your face scanned, you know, by this entity

and then maybe, you know,

a company is selling it to a third party,

or you know, sharing it with a partner, things like that,

but there's also been a lot of situations where over time,

a company that holds data

is then acquired by another company, goes bankrupt,

or merges with another company

and the data starts to change hands and change hands.

So, something like CLEAR,

short-term, it's a way

to get through airport security faster,

but you're entrusting this durable, non-changeable,

you know, biometric information with an entity.

You know, you don't know where that will lead over time.

CLEAR works by scanning various biometrics about you.

That includes your iris, your fingerprint,

and now they're starting to move

into full facial recognition.

In exchange for using CLEAR,

you're able to get through the line more quickly,

and the company claims

that using the facial recognition technology

will speed up things even more.

CLEAR's privacy policy says

that it will share your information with the government

if authorities issue a subpoena.

The may also share your information

in connection to an investigation

into potential illegal activity.

You're also trusting the company to safeguard your data

and you don't really have much insight

into how the company's doing that.

CLEAR's not subjected to public records laws

and that means it's a lot harder to get information

about how the company is storing your data,

treating that data,

and that they're not abusing it.

CLEAR says, what is it, in 10 minutes or something,

you can, you know, just sign up here

and you can walk right through,

so it really raises the point of that security screening,

taking shoes off, taking the laptop out of the bag,

all of those things.

Is that really keeping us safe

if we can so easily skip it?

Yeah, and it's also normalizing the acceptance

of additional surveillance in exchange for convenience.

It's not even exchange for security necessarily,

it's just an exchange for getting through the line faster.

I think that's a great point.

You know, like we were saying,

we as a society kind of created this challenge

of long waits at airport security,

and now look, here's this private company

that will solve it for us.

So, the worst-case scenario I can see here

is kind of already happening.

Like, CLEAR is not just at airports.

It's in stadiums, it's in arenas,

and so we're already starting to see this company's mission

creep out into the rest of the world

and it's becoming tied to the profits of a private company

that we have absolutely no control

over how they're gonna conduct themselves.

It's one thing for it to be the government,

where you have some say in it in a representative democracy

like we live in in the United States,

whereas a private company, you just have no control.

They're gonna do whatever they're gonna do

and mostly they're gonna do

whatever's gonna make them the most money

in exchange for our privacy,

and so it's gonna become increasingly invasive.

[machinery clicks]

Anytime you go to an international airport,

you're technically entering a U.S. border zone.

This means your devices

might be subjected to warrantless searches

by Customs and Border Protection agents.

In January, directly after his inauguration,

President Donald Trump signed an executive order

allowing agents to conduct enhanced vetting

of anyone entering the United States.

Trump's executive order empowers border agents

to use more aggressive tactics

when vetting travelers coming into the United States.

This might mean pulling people aside

into interrogation rooms

or searching their devices.

For example, in early 2025,

a French scientist was allegedly denied entry

because a border agent found text messages on his phone

that were critical of Trump and his science policies.

Now, when you're at an airport,

TSA isn't allowed to search through your phone.

It's only CBP officers that have the authority to do so.

While people have become increasingly concerned

about having their devices searched at the border,

studies show that since 2021,

there's only been a 0.1% increase in device searches.

I would say a large number

of the inspections that we have here

do not include any electronics whatsoever.

Is it within our authority to search those items?

It is, but we use our discretion

when we're looking to use that search parameter.

So historically, there's no huge cause for concern,

but that could change.

And when we're talking about these device searches,

there's kind of two levels of a search.

One is the agent just literally looks through your phone

and you know, some of the advice

is make sure it's on airplane mode

or make sure you just turn it off and stow it away

so they don't think to search it in the first place.

The other is a lot more invasive. Can you talk about that?

CBP agents could run, like,

more detailed digital analysis on it,

potentially even remove some of your data

or you know, copy your data off your phone.

It gives them more ability

to kinda map out, like, your accounts

and start to understand potentially

what other data you have stored elsewhere.

So, that's why that first check,

you know, when we talk about what might be suspicious,

what might raise some red flags

because you're in that first search

that you're talking about,

just sort of a casual flipping through,

you want everything to look cool and just look chill

because then it doesn't need to progress beyond that.

So, if a CBP officer wants to search your device,

can you say no?

Well, it depends on who you are.

If you're a U.S. citizen,

you can absolutely deny a search of your device.

Your device might be confiscated, you might have some delay,

but you'll still get in the country.

If you're a green card holder,

you may face some types of immigration consequences

for denying a search of your device.

For visa holders, they may be refused entry

and have their visas revoked.

[machinery clicks]

From the moment you enter a terminal

till you go to board your flight,

you're likely being subjected to surveillance from hundreds,

if not thousands of cameras.

That's something you've probably already thought about.

It's an airport. Of course you're gonna be monitored.

But the number of cameras seems to be increasing

at international airports.

At LAX for example, they recently upped the number

from around 1,000 to around 3,000 cameras,

and they have plans to expand that surveillance

to the 10-mile perimeter around the airport.

But it's not just the number of cameras.

These devices are also getting enhanced capabilities,

such as AI analytics that monitor crowd behavior,

individual behavior, unauthorized areas, and loitering.

It's very hard for humans

to grasp when we are being surveilled

by video surveillance nonstop,

and I think the incorporation of AI

into all of these systems,

it's even harder to grasp the depth

of the analysis and information that can be, you know,

extracted in near real-time

about just any footage that's coming in.

So, our instinct is to kinda think,

well, okay, even if we can understand

there's all those cameras everywhere, which is hard enough,

then it's like, Yeah,

but nobody can be watching everything all the time,

but AI actually makes it more possible.

Let's say an AI system,

this can happen anywhere, but an AI system in an airport

determined that you were acting suspicious.

Like, Oh, Andrew has a suspicious walk

in the terminal today.

You know, that is a very subjective decision,

so you know, as AI is integrated

into more and more systems,

these are the types of things

that we all need to be aware of, and be conscious of,

and be, you know, making proactive decisions as a society

rather than just allowing things

to kind of drift where they will.

We should address that. We shouldn't just leave that.

[machinery clicks] [tenebrous music]

Airports weren't always like this.

It's only since the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks

that the U.S. really ramped up security at airports.

TSA's 2025 budget is $11.8 billion,

and according to one poll,

three in four Americans say they trust the TSA

to keep them safe.

Is it important to take measures to keep everybody safe?

Of course, absolutely.

Security is paramount, especially at airports,

but do we really need to be throwing out our water bottles

every time we go through airport security?

Maybe not.

There may be other ways to do this that are better,

both for our security and for our privacy.

A big criticism of TSA and airport security checkpoints

is that they aren't really effective a lot of the time

and that the core thing that's happening

is what's called security theater:

this ruse to make everyone feel better

that isn't necessarily doing anything.

Yeah, whether the TSA is popular or not, I don't know,

but people definitely want good security at airports.

If it's achieving that goal, that's great.

I think it's hard to know

whether it's actually achieving that goal,

and so I think that's problematic on two fronts.

One, because that raises the possibility

of something bad happening

and it making all of the surveillance

and intrusions that we're subjected to at the airport

kind of for naught,

and the other is that we're giving up a ton of privacy

to have something that's not really working

the way that it should,

and so I think there needs to be a lot more clarity

in terms of how effective each and every system and process

that the TSA subjects the public to is

and whether or not it's actually increasing our safety

or whether it's just making us feel better.

Yeah, and I think that's a really good point

that it isn't all or nothing.

Each component can and should be evaluated

to see how effective it is.

Some could be taken away, some could be added.

It doesn't have to be in one direction or the other,

but if we're going to kind of create a problem

and a whole industry around airport security,

it needs to actually be accomplishing the goal.

You know, it's important to say that, like,

a lot of this in the U.S.

came from the September 11th attacks,

and so there was, like, a real tragedy

and a real reason behind all of this concern

and trying to step up security,

but just because there's a good reason to consider

or reconsider the security of something

and how you implement that,

you know, it doesn't necessarily mean

that where things have landed is the best way.

Yeah, exactly, and I mean, I am very sympathetic

to people being okay with surveillance

to avoid terrorist attacks.

I mean, we both lived in New York City on September 11th.

We are filming this right now in the World Trade Center.

The footprints of the old World Trade Center

are literally right behind us,

and so, you know, we're well aware

of the consequences of security failures,

but that doesn't mean that we need to live in a world

where intense surveillance any time you travel

is just how it has to be.

[machinery clicks]

So, what can you do if you're traveling through an airport

and you wanna protect your privacy?

Unfortunately, there's not much,

but there are a few steps you can take.

One, know your rights.

This is gonna change depending on who you are,

what your immigration status is,

and exactly where you're traveling,

but just make sure you're up to speed

on what agents can and cannot do.

Two, use a dedicated travel phone.

This is a device that is only gonna have things on it

that you're comfortable an agent searching through.

And third, don't sign up for CLEAR or other systems like it,

and opt out of facial recognition.

No matter how belligerent the agent gets,

you can always say no.

This was Incognito Mode. Until next time.

[emphatic music]