The first 100 people to sign up at the link in the description will get $50 off their

first two weeks of Blue Apron.

In 2015, a bombshell report came out detailing how the TSA, the agency responsible for airport

security in the US, missed 95% of drugs, explosives, weapons, and other prohibited items sent through

their scanners in a test.

In 2016, the test was repeated with the same result.

The following year, 2017, the test was repeated again with an improved success rate, but still,

it let 70% of prohibited items through.

In fact, within the US, there's no evidence that the TSA has ever prevented a terrorist

attack and outside the US, there are very few examples of physical airport security

thwarting an attack.

Airport security slows people down, increases cost, and yet does little to actually improve

safety so it's safe to say that airport security is broken, but why?

Since the purpose of aviation is to get from one place to another, it's tough for a single

country to regulate the industry.

Instead, the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency, does.

All but two UN member countries, Liechtenstein and Dominica, are part of the ICAO so its

regulations are more or less universal.

They're the ones responsible for making sure that air transport works the same way

all around the world, but what they require for airport security is rather inconcrete.

They simply say, “measures need to be established to prevent weapons, explosives or any other

dangerous devices, articles or substances, which may be used to commit an act of unlawful

interference, the carriage and bearing of which is not authorized, from being introduced,

by any means whatsoever, on board an aircraft engaged in civil aviation.”

Essentially, all they require is that before a passenger gets onboard a plane, the airport

assures they don't have weapons.

While the ICAO does determine whether this requirement has been fulfilled, it's up

to each country to decide how they achieve that.

In the US, airport security works like this.

After check-in, a passenger first goes to have their documents checked, puts their bags

through an x-ray scanner, and walks through either a metal detector or millimeter wave

scanner.

There are potentially additional steps such as a pat-down or explosives residue test for

some, but these three steps are how the process works for most.

It is though, important to note that, if you so choose, you can skip the metal detector

or millimeter wave scanner step of the process and receive a pat-down instead.

This is fully compliant with ICAO regulations since it does effectively screen an individual

for weapons.

In fact, an airport could hypothetically be compliant with ICAO regulations only by conducting

physical bag-searches and pat-downs since this does screen for weapons even if this

would be slow, invasive, and unpopular.

Some small airports actually do this for bags—they physically search them instead of passing

them through an x-ray.

The words “security theater” are thrown around a lot in regards to US airport security.

This term is used pejoratively—it means that the TSA's function is only to make

airports look secure, but here's the thing—on paper, the TSA has done its job.

There has not been a single death on a flight leaving from a US airport since 9/11 as a

result of terrorism.

In fact, in the same time period, there has not even been a single attempted terrorist

attack on a flight leaving from a US airport—all have been on flights originating from abroad.

So maybe the TSA is doing its function.

Maybe the mere threat of being caught has been enough to thwart terrorists or maybe

terrorists have moved on from attacking airplanes.

The US is certainly a prime target for terrorism, but there are more controversial nations.

Israeli airport security is considered to be the best in the world.

Despite being situated in one of the most politically contentious countries in the world,

no airplane leaving from Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport has ever been hijacked or bombed.

It's been attempted, but this airport's security is simply nearly impenetrable.

What's most fascinating is that this airport is hardly using any super-advanced technology—they

use the exact same metal detectors as the US and Europe—but they've focused on the

human factor.

Israel has come to realize that its unfortunately easy to get weapons through airport security.

Plastic explosives, non-metallic knives, and blunt weapons are just tough to detect so

rather than focusing on the weapons that could be used for an attack, they focus on the people

who could use them.

At Ben Gurion airport, security starts before passengers even get to the airport.

Cars pass through a security checkpoint a mile away from the airport entrance where

guards inspect cars and look for any suspicious looking individuals.

The minute passengers arrive at the airport, they're being watched already.

Highly trained plainclothes officers roam around in the check-in area again searching

for individuals acting abnormally or nervous.

Then, before passengers are even allowed to check-in, there's the interview.

Anyone who's passed through Ben Gurion airport knows how intense this interview is but its

likely the single greatest factor leading to the safety of Israeli airports.

Passengers are first asked standard questions like what their jobs are, why they came to

Israel, how long they stayed for, if they packed their own bags and all the while, the

security agent watches the passengers face for reactions.

They'll also probe deeper—asking why the passenger has been to various countries stamped

in their passport.

They'll then ask oddly specific questions—which school they went to, when they last moved,

what kind of car they have.

These are all to see if the passenger is being honest about who they are.

If the security officer senses hesitation or finds a hole in their story, they could

deem the passenger a higher risk.

Once passengers have completed their interview, a barcode is placed on the back of their passport

that starts with a number from one to six.

If it starts with a one, the passenger is deemed a very low risk—this is almost only

given to Israeli citizens—while if it starts with six, the passenger is deemed a very high

risk and will be subjected to extremely thorough screening.

While a lot of the risk determination has to do with the interview, profiling also plays

into it.

According to the Israeli security system, passengers are deemed higher risk if they

are male, if they are traveling alone, if they are young, and most of all, if they are

Arab.

Israel unapologetically uses racial profiling in their risk assessment which has led to

international condemnation.

Israel, meanwhile, argues that this technique is effective.

After all, the country has recently been at war with many of its Arabian neighbors.

At the same time, though, its almost impossible for an Arab traveller to pass through Ben

Gurion airport without getting deemed a number six security risk.

Western non-Israeli individuals are also generally considered to be a higher security risk typically

receiving a four or a five.

After the interview, passengers are finally allowed to check-in.

Their checked bags are put through a standard x-ray and then are placed in a pressure chamber.

The chamber's pressure is lowered to the level of a pressurized aircraft, about the

equivalent of six to eight thousand feet of altitude to set off any explosives designed

to trigger when a plane's cabin pressure is lower at cruising altitude.

Meanwhile, the passenger passes through a standard x-ray or body scanner.

For the majority of passengers, this physical screening process is exactly the same as it

would be in North America, Europe, or Asia—they just walk through the scanners and grab their

bags.

Those deemed a higher security risk—above three or four—likely would have their bags

manually searched and then the highest risk individuals—five or sixes—are often taken

aside for another round of questioning and a pat-down.

The security doesn't even stop once passengers board the plane.

Like the US, Israel has a system of air marshals—armed security guards on planes—but unlike the

US, at least in the case of El Al, Israel's national airline, there are air marshals on

every single flight.

They sit among the passengers, often near any that were identified at the airport as

high risk, and they have alert buttons that communicate with the pilots in case of an

attempted hijacking.

If the marshals press this button, an alarm will go off in the cockpit and the pilots

will often send the plane into a dive to knock the hijacker off their feet.

This technique has successfully prevented terror attacks in the past.

These air marshals secure the plane from the inside, but another system protects the outside.

El Al's planes are installed with thermal flares that deploy when a radar detects an

incoming missile.

Thermal guided missiles will then target the flares instead of the plane.

El Al and the other Israeli airlines also stay secure by having security officers at

their destination airports.

For departing passengers to Israel, they repeat much of same security process as at Ben Gurion

Airport—conducting interviews, profiling, and assessing the risk of each passenger.

At many foreign airports, these agents also physically screen luggage before handing it

off to the regular airport security.

El Al, despite being the flag carrier of one of the most controversial nations in the world,

had its last and only hijacking in 1968 and even this incident resulted in zero deaths.

It and the Ben Gurion airport are testaments to the fact that truly secure security is

theoretically possible, but is it possible worldwide?

Here's the thing about Tel Aviv's airport—its not that big.

20 million passengers pass through it each year making it only as busy as San Diego or

Berlin airport.

These are not small airports, but they're not on the same scale as the world's largest

like JFK, Heathrow, or Dubai.

It's tough to determine if a system like what Israel has implemented could scale up

to be used universally.

What's sure is that certain elements of the Israeli system would not work—most countries

could not justify a system that relies so heavily on racial profiling.

In many countries and US states, practices such as this are simply illegal, but still,

airports and countries around the world are watching Israeli security methods closely.

The US has already implemented a system of security interviews for many international

flights to the US however these are generally conducted by less trained contract workers.

Brussels airport, after its terrorist bombing in 2016, now positions officers trained in

behavioral detection at its entrances.

Plenty of other airports have sent delegates to Ben Gurion airport to evaluate their security

techniques as well and have quietly made changes to closer emulate Israel.

But few ever stop to question if we even want an increase in airport security.

If it comes at the expense of time, maybe we don't.

As mentioned, the US has not had a successful terror attack on an airplane since 9/11.

Worldwide, airplane hijackings are now almost nonexistent, but security has a consequence.

In the most direct way, tickets for every single flight leaving from a US airport include

a $5.60 fee that goes towards paying for security.

This may n ot be much in the scope of a multi-hundred dollar flight to Europe or Asia, but if the

US ever wants to get to the point where Europe is of having $10 or $20 budget airline tickets

between domestic destinations, this fee has to go.

A study found that the TSA's average cost per life saved—how much money it spends

to stop one human death—is $667 million.

You can certainly say that you can't put a price on a human life, but the security

that saves these lives costs lives.

The plane is empirically the safest way to travel—its hundreds or thousands of times

safer than driving—so stopping people from flying is in and of itself deadly.

Economists found that the increase in airport security in the US post 9/11 can account for

6% of the decline in air travel.

Given that, in 2002, more than 500 people died because, as a result of longer security

times and more extensive searches, they chose to drive over fly and were involved in a fatal

accident.

Flying being easy helps everyone—it lets people travel faster and it helps airlines

as businesses, just as long as it doesn't result in a decrease in safety.

In Israel, passengers arrive three hours before their flights just to clear security which

means plane travel is inefficient while in some places in Europe, airports encourage

travelers to arrive a mere hour before their flight.

The goal is to keep security fast, efficient, but also secure.

No country or airport has the perfect system but to achieve this, one likely needs to combine

elements of the strictest security systems with those of the fastest.

Israel can get away with invasive, unethical, yet effective security measures because they

need to.

They are a country seemingly constantly at war.

Many other areas of the world just aren't big targets for terrorists, though.

Its hard to know whether or not security measures are effective.

There's no control group of developed countries that don't have airport security to compare

to.

The most effective security systems stop attacks by the mere threat of consequences rather

than through physical screening so maybe airport security works.

In the US and Europe and Asia and all the other developed, safe areas of the world,

one must therefore ask whether airport security is actually saving lives or ending them.

If you've been watching this channel for a while you know about Blue Apron.