Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Smart Security, a joint initiative of the International Air TransportAssociation (IATA) and Airports Council International (ACI), envisionsa future where passengers proceed through security checkpoints withminimal inconvenience, where security resources are allocated basedon risk, and where airport facilities are optimized, thus contributingtoward an improved journey from curb to airside.
The present
Today’s passenger and cabin baggage securityscreening works, but at great cost to the aviationindustry, to authorities, and to passengers.
Given the predicted growth in air travel, continuouslyevolving threats, and passengers becomingincreasingly dissatisfied with queues and intrusivemeasures, today’s model is no longer sustainable.
The future
To address this issue, ACI and IATA have joinedforces to define a future where passengers proceedthrough security with minimal inconvenience, wheresecurity resources are allocated based on risk, andwhere airport facilities are optimized.
This will be achieved through the introduction andintegration of risk-based security concepts, advancedscreening technologies, and process innovations.
The benefits
Security effectiveness is paramount if SmartSecurity is to be successful. By implementing newtechnologies and processes, the project strives toincrease the detection capabilities of the checkpointand the effectiveness of human resources. Allstakeholders benefit from an improved ability tocounter threats, including governments, industrystakeholders and the traveling public. And landsiderisk is reduced through the reduction of queues onthe landside of the security checkpoint.
There are many additional benefits for all, including:
Better passenger experience. Passengersbenefit through faster, more convenient, and lessintrusive security screening. Airlines and airportsmay have higher customer satisfaction frompassengers due to fewer departure delays.
Improved operational efficiency. Airports andscreening authorities can reduce costs or benefitfrom better deployment of their resources. Airports
may also benefit from increased revenueopportunities through reduced wait times. Bothairlines and airports may be able to offer reducedconnection times through efficient transfer screening.
The journey
IATA and ACI are working in close cooperation withindustry and government partners. A roadmap forthe long-term future of passenger screening hasbeen defined and received support at the ICAOHigh Level Conference on Aviation Security inMontreal on 12-14 September 2012, and wassubsequently supported by the ICAO Council.
Testing and evaluation
The Smart Security program aims to validate anddemonstrate the operational viability of these inno -vative concepts through laboratory tests, operationaltrials, computer simulations, and other researchmethods. Smart Security solutions must also demon -strate security effectiveness through testing andevaluation to ensure regulatory requirements are met.
Since 2012, Smart Security solutions have beentested and evaluated in partnership with forward-thinking governments, airports, airlines, and solutionproviders. Several of the trial concepts are nowpermanently installed and fully operational.Research, testing, and evaluation will assist the industryto remain in line with new developments.
Guidance materials
The knowledge gained and lessons learned fromvarious trial and research activities in many locationsare summarized into guidance material, with theobjective of giving other airports and screeningauthorities a head start in adopting innovativesecurity screening solutions.
2
Smart Security
ConceptPassenger screening refers to the securityprocedures that inspect individuals for prohibiteditems prior to allowing them entry into a security-restricted area to board their flight. Passengerscreening should provide effective security whilemaking the experience as pleasant as possible forthe traveler.
Traditionally, passenger screening processesfocused mostly on the detection of metallic threatsusing walk-through metal detectors (WTMDs)supplemented by manual pat-downs.
Today, security scanners can address the threat ofexplosives and other non-metallic threats in a singleprocess while better respecting the privacy ofpassengers thanks to the anonymized format ofimages and advanced detection capabilities,reducing the need of full body pat-downs.
Solutions
Different deployment models can be considered:
• Security scanner as secondary measure:Passenger security scanners can be used toscreen those who set off the WTMD alarm or areselected for additional screening. Thisconfiguration is expected to be the most commonin the near future as a way for airports to speedup alarm resolution and enhance passengerperception of alarm resolution while limiting anypotential negative impact to checkpoint flow.
• Security scanner as primary measure: In thismodel, passenger security scanners replace theWTMD as the primary screening device.Regulatory changes and the improved efficiencyof passenger security scanners should graduallyincrease the attractiveness of this model.
• Enhanced lane: The majority of lanes useWTMD as the primary measure, with a smallnumber of lanes operating security scanners asthe primary measure. The lanes with security
scanners are used for processing passengersselected for enhanced screening.
Results and benefits
With over 1,000 passenger security scannersdeployed at checkpoints worldwide, the followingbenefits have been highlighted:
• Advanced detection algorithms better supportdetection and decision making.
• Varying the algorithms and sensitivity settings ofthe equipment increases detection, deterrenceand unpredictability.
• Operational flexibility is maximized as securityscanners can be deployed as both primary orsecondary measures, in isolation or alongsideother equipment.
• Positive passenger and security officer feedback.• The level of future proofing is improved with theability to add new algorithms as threats evolve.
Integrated approach
Further benefits from using security scanners willbe realized if attention is given to the followingcomponents:
• Cabin baggage screening: The speed of cabinbaggage screening should be coordinated toavoid creating flow disruptions and bottlenecks.
• Alternative measures: Advanced algorithms orvariations in the deployment of passengerscreening solutions should be considered tomaintain the unpredictability of the screeningprocess, which is a key deterrent.
3
Passenger Screening
Smart Security pilots have demonstratedthat an airport using a security scanner asa primary screening device can processover 300 passengers per hour per lane
while enhancing security.
ConceptConventional stand-alone, single-view X-rayequipment has been the standard for a long time,but is highly dependent on the screener’s trainingand experience for detection. This results in:
• Extra passenger divestment requirements(laptops and liquids, aerosols and gels, or LAGs).
• A higher number of complex images to be viewed.• Challenges detecting prohibited items from asingle-view image.
• A high proportion of bags sent to an unassistedsecondary search.
• Greater reliance on the screener’s abilities.• Additional burden on loader position to correctlyposition bags to achieve the best possible image.
Advanced screening technologies will allow foreffective threat detection while reducing the burdenfor passengers with items to divest. Decision supportand, to some extent, decision automation will allowofficers to focus on those images that require theirattention the most, and help them to make decisions.
Solutions
Assisted secondary search: By implementing asecondary screening workstation in the cabin bagsearch area, the security officer allocated to thesecondary search is able to review the X-ray imageof the bag while performing a hand search. This canaccelerate the bag search by allowing a targetedsearch where regulation allows it and foster bettercommunication between the X-ray operator and thesecondary search officer.
Dual/multi-view X-ray: Dual/multi-view X-raysassist operators by providing images of multipleangles of the same bag. Capabilities are nowexpanding and enabling the deployment ofadvanced equipment intelligence.
Computed Tomography (CT): CT screeningequipment is becoming mature enough for large-scale implementation. CT capacities include theability to produce 360 degree images from the bag,
and to produce slices from the bag to provide thescreener with an unobstructed view of content. Thisenables more items to be left in passengers’ bags.
Equipment intelligence: Automated TargetRecognition (ATR) algorithms can examine cabinbaggage for threats (e.g., bulk or liquid explosives).They can also look for specific items to support the X-ray operator, for example providing virtual separationof a laptop from a bag. Advanced screening equipmentis a key enabler of equipment intelligence deployment.
Results and benefits
Dual/multi-view, CT and other emerging X-raytechnologies, depending on the features deployedand the equipment intelligence evolution, maydeliver the following benefits:
• Better threat detection capabilities.• Fewer secondary bag searches.• The ability to use automated explosive detectionsystems (EDS) and to vary the algorithms used.
• Reduced divestment requirements.• Improved efficiency due to the reduced numberof images per passenger.
• Future proofing for additional threats.• Reduced burden on loader position.
Integrated approach
Dynamic lane: Innovative screening equipmentcould be vital in a risk-based environment. By allowingdifferent types of algorithms to be used depending onthe risk level associated with an individual passenger,the screening equipment will be able to screen bothhigh-risk and low-risk passengers in the same lane.
Centralized Image Processing (CIP): Advancedscreening technologies and equipment intelligence,combined with a CIP environment (see page 7),would further enhance operational efficiency.
Checkpoint Environment: To get the maximumbenefits from these new technologies, innovative laneconfiguration and advance automation may have tobe considered.
4
Cabin Baggage Screening
ConceptAlternative screening methods can enhancedeterrence and the overall effectiveness of thesecurity checkpoint, while at the same time supportoperational efficiency and an improved passengerexperience through a layered approach.
Alternative detection methods include:
• Explosive trace detection (ETD).• Explosive detection dogs (EDD).• Unpredictable approaches.
Solutions
Explosive trace detection: Residue left from themanufacturing, handling or transporting ofexplosives is hard to remove. ETD equipment candetect trace amounts of explosives on a person, theirclothes or their belongings.
The detection capabilities ofETD are well recognized and avariety of solutions areavailable. The portability ofthese, together with theunobtrusiveness of theprocess, makes ETD anefficient and passenger-friendly way to resolve alarms and/or introduceunpredictability across the checkpoint.
Explosive detection dogs: Dogs are alreadydeployed wide range of transport settings and canbe used to identify passengers who may becarrying, or have recently been in contact with,explosive materials.
With the ability to easily move about the terminalwhile assessing a large number of passengers in ashort space of time, dogs offer greater operationalflexibility than fixed screening equipment.
The main limitation with using explosive detectiondogs is the length of time that they can maintaineffective detection capabilities.
Passengers generally res -pond well to dogs and theiruse is seen as fairlyunobtrusive compared withother checkpoint measures.
Unpredictable approaches: The role ofunpredictability is important as checkpoints becomeincreasingly constrained and new threats emerge.
Unpredictability can be applied to primary screeningequipment through the use of algorithms and stan -dard operating procedures for manual processes. Itcan also be applied to the selection methods andapplication of alternative measures such as ETD.
Benefits
Depending on the deployment method used,benefits may include:
• Enhanced detection of threats.• Improved checkpoint deterrence value.• Flexibility in resource and space allocation. • Flexibility to adapt screening percentages to theprevailing threat level.
• Reduced need for more invasive procedures suchas full pat-downs.
Integrated approach
Alternative screening measures will likely have themost value when implemented in an unpredictableway, and in coordination with other primaryscreening approaches.
The combination of measures applied shouldensure that the checkpoint remains as predictableas possible from a passenger’s perspective, butunpredictable to those with ill intent.
5
Alternative Detection Methods and Unpredictability
Unpredictability in the checkpoint improvessecurity effectiveness, ensuring individuals
cannot learn security methodologies oruse coerced or deceived individuals as a
tool for improper intent.
ConceptDue to the growing number of passengers, additionalsecurity requirements, and increasing capacityconstraints, airports are considering innovative waysto keep passengers moving through the checkpointand to optimize their resource utilization. Improvementsin the checkpoint environment are an importantelement of Smart Security as they could contribute to:
• Improving the passenger experience through afaster flow and clearer communication.
• Increasing operational efficiency through greaterautomation and resource optimization.
• Strengthening security by enabling the introductionof new screening technologies and methodologies.
Coupled with advanced checkpoint environmentsolutions, dynamic IT infrastructure (also known asa Checkpoint Management System, or CMS) couldhelp better coordinate and share information,monitor performance, and enable the technicalintegration of all checkpoint elements.
Solutions
• Automation: Automatic document scanning,tray handling systems, and flow control gates canoptimize staff utilization and therefore reduceoperating costs.
• Configuration: Innovative lane layouts, such asparallel divestment stations or tray loadingsolutions, can improve throughput and operationalefficiency, as well as deliver an improvedpassenger and staff experience.
• Risk-based: Integrating lanes with supportingtechnologies, such as radio frequency identi -fication (RFID) trays and biometrics can enableseamless differentiated screening without theneed for dedicated lanes for each passenger type.
• Checkpoint design: The checkpoint environ-ment can be improved by making it more appeal-ing to passengers and staff, resulting in a bettersecurity screening experience.
• Passenger feedback: Solutions to collect andanalyze passenger feedback will enable aconstantly improving checkpoint environment.
Results and benefits
Trials and implementations at a number of airportshave produced the following results:
• Innovative divest solutions: The utilization ofcheckpoint equipment has significantly improved byallowing multiple passengers to prepare at once.
• Automated reject lanes: Screeners areenabled to maintain control of cleared and un-cleared bags in both a conventional and CIP setup thanks to automated reject lanes.
• Environmental improvements: A calm andquiet checkpoint environment reduces passengerand staff stress and improves passenger and staffsatisfaction scores through ergonomic featuresand less industrial-looking lanes.
• CMS – Performance review and assessment:Management decisions are supported by easier staffperformance monitoring, assessment of equipmentdeployment or modification of processes.
• CMS – Resource planning and supply:Efficient resource planning and staff allocation atthe checkpoint are allowed thanks to historicaland live data feed.
Integrated approach
It is crucial to consider the overall checkpointautomation and design when planning to install CIP,passenger security scanners, identity managementor risk-based differentiated screening.
6
Checkpoint Environment and Management
By implementing a combination of checkpoint automation, innovative design,
and repack area reconfiguration, aparticipating airport has successfully
increased its passenger security satisfaction score more than 20%.
ConceptIn the traditional checkpoint process, every opensecurity lane requires an X-ray operator at the samelocation to scan and assess the contents of handluggage and other items as they pass through themachine. Often, however, the machine is not working toits full capacity, resulting in sub-optimal lane throughput.
CIP allows all X-ray machines to be networked toprovide airports with an enhanced ability to ensurethe X-ray machine and the X-ray operators viewingthe images are working to their full capacity. Thismakes cabin baggage screening more efficient andcost effective.
In practice, the X-ray image is collected, queued, andpresented by an image processing system to thenext available officer who can be stationed away fromthe lane in a centralized location or even still withinthe checkpoint. Depending on the X-ray operator’sdecision, the tray will either be allowed back to thepassenger for reconciliation, or diverted to a bagsearch point.
Solutions
Several variables should be considered whendetermining the deployment model to utilize. Theserepresent what may be operational today and whatmay be possible in the future. Different deploymentmodels can be considered:
• Resourcing: X-ray operator numbers can beflexed up or down to achieve higher throughputsor resource optimization.
• Image stream: In general, airports will haveoperators assess images from passengercheckpoints but, in the future, there could be a moreintegrated approach with operators viewing imagesfrom other operations (e.g., staff, crew checkpoints).
• Location: X-ray operators can work from one ormore dedicated CIP rooms (either onsite at the air-port or offsite as part of a larger operation) or, canremain located within the checkpoint.
Results and benefitsA significant number of airports have trialed and aredeploying CIP in accordance with their operationaland regulatory requirements. Depending on the modeldeployed and the business needs, CIP can deliver:
• Increased lane and checkpoint capacity.• Improved resource utilization.• Reduced operating costs.• Delayed capital expenditure related to expanding/building new security areas.
• Improved working conditions for security officers.• Greater flexibility in security officer resourcing androtations.
• Integrated data collection for better checkpointmanagement.
• Enhanced passenger experience through shorterqueue time and quicker access to the checkpoint.
• Increased security effectiveness.
Integrated approach
The full implementation of CIP is not possible withoutan image management system to gather, sort,display, and transmit the images between the laneand the CIP location. The benefits of CIP can bemaximized in conjunction with innovative lane design,automated reject lane, and RFID trays (or similar).The upcoming integration of the ATR algorithm willdefinitely extend the opportunity and benefits offeredby CIP in an integrated environment.
Decision automation algorithms, such as autoclearalgorithms, could also enhance the efficiency of CIP.These would automatically clear such non-threatimages as a tray with keys and a coat. Autorejectalgorithms would automatically reject an image if athreat is perceived, without presenting the images tothe X-ray operator, thus reducing the number ofimages to be reviewed.
7
Centralized Image Processing
With the introduction of CIP, one airporthas increased its passenger throughput
from 180 passengers per hour on aconventional lane to over 400 passengers
per hour on a CIP lane.
ConceptThe approach to aviation security must evolve tocounter emerging threats.
Risk-based security is the concept of applyingdifferent measures depending on the assessedlevel of risk. In the context of the passengerscreening checkpoint, this may mean varying theway that passengers are screened based on anumber of factors.
Risk-based security initiatives will transition aviationsecurity from a somewhat predictable model to amore flexible and targeted concept that will enablescreening resources to adapt to changing threats.Retaining elements of unpredictability will enhancethis approach to maximize the security outcome.
Solutions
Risk-based threat detection: As the primarythreat to aviation has shifted from metallic items,such as guns and knives, to non-metallic items,such as solid and liquid explosives, advanceddetection technologies should be integrated withinthe checkpoint.
Risk-based passenger differentiation: Tobalance the effective use of resources, differentsecurity measures can be applied to passengers atthe checkpoint. While some passengers will benefitfrom an expedited screening experience, others willbe selected for enhanced screening.
Risk assessment may be achieved through behavioranalysis and questioning techniques, ticket purchasecharacteristics or the flight routing. Per passengerpre-screening analysis may also help to categorizepassengers according to risk, either through the useof passenger data, or through membership in aknown traveler program. A combination of the mostappropriate methods for the risk and regulatoryenvironments can greatly contribute to thesustainability of the entire security system.
BenefitsAdvanced technology that allows risk-based threatdetection is already benefiting the industry byproviding the ability to detect those items that areof greatest threat today while future proofingagainst the threats of tomorrow.
Data-driven risk-based differentiation models havealready been implemented in some States whileother stakeholders are still considering the bestdifferentiation models for their existing and futureneeds.
Risk-based security practices do not need to bebased only on the use of passenger data.Nevertheless, the use of data has the potential tooffer a more objective approach to screening,enabling resources to be targeted appropriatelydepending on what is known about the passenger.
Today, all key aviation stakeholders recognize theneed for a more risk-based approach to aviationsecurity, as the current system will not besustainable in the long term.
Integrated approach
The development of risk-based differentiation inaviation security contributes to the efficiency ofsecurity measures deployed at airports by ensuringthat screening measures are tailored to the riskprofile of each passenger. This is done by switchingthe detection algorithm of thesecurity scanner (and/or on the X-ray machine) or by guiding thepassenger toward additionalverifications. As such, dynamiclanes or dedicated lanes wouldfacilitate greater operationalflexibility. This approach couldoffset random selection.
By defining the risk in advance, airports areallocating human and financial resources asrequired.
8
Risk-based Differentiation
Guidance documentsThe knowledge gained and lessons learned fromthe Smart Security trials and research activities aresummarized into a comprehensive set of guidancedocuments that provide a wealth of information andbest practice examples for stakeholders intendingto introduce Smart Security concepts in an airportenvironment.
The guidance documents below cover the full rangeof Smart Security solutions, and touch upontechnology, process, human factors, risk-basedscreening concepts, regulatory perspectives, andimplementation considerations.
Workshops andshowcase eventsSmart Security is not a “one-size-fits-all” solution;components can be combined in a wide variety ofconfigurations. But the set of variables that need tobe considered to define an optimal configurationgiven a specific regulatory, business, operationaland cultural context can be quite challenging.
To help stakeholders understand how they couldachieve maximum benefits from implementingSmart Security solutions in their own, specificenvironment, IATA and ACI facilitate workshopsaround the globe.
Where possible targeted recommendations forairports to achieve measurable improvements insecurity effectiveness, operational efficiency, andpassenger experience are provided. This enablesthe development of a business case for checkpointoptimization.
ACI and IATA also host showcase events, in closecooperation with airports that already have achievedSmart Security implementations, to facilitate hands-on knowledge transfer to the wider aviation securitycommunity.
9
FacilitatingKnowledge Transfer
“Smart Security has demonstratedthat many solutions exist today to make
security checkpoints more effective,efficient, and passenger-friendly. Our
customers want to see theseinnovations adopted by governmentsand industry as speedily as possible.IATA and ACI stand ready to assist.”
Alexandre de JuniacDirector General and CEO, IATA
“The Smart Security program hasmade tremendous progress throughtrials and pilots, and is now able tooffer advice and guidance that will
benefit all airports. Through thedelivery of regional workshops,
comprehensive guidance materials,and information sharing sessions, the program’s innovations are nowbeing brought into the mainstream,
while work continues on new areas of research.”
Angela GittensDirector General, ACI World
Risk-based Differentiation:Management and Networking
Risk-based Differentiation:
Data
Risk-based Differentiation:
Filtering
AlternativeMethods forScreening
Cabin BaggageScreening
PassengerScreening
CheckpointEnvironment
CheckpointManagement
Centralized Image
Processing
While there is a lot that can be done today atsecurity checkpoints to improve securityeffectiveness, operational efficiency, and thepassenger experience, the Smart Security programcontinues to look for innovative solutions that willdefine next-generation passenger screening.
Continuing the research, testing, and evaluation ofindividual components to assess their feasibility andbenefits, as well as testing several components incombination with one another, will all help toachieve this goal.
Pilot programs
Smart Security has partnered with forward thinkingairports such as Amsterdam Airport Schiphol,Hamad International Airport, Dublin Airport, LondonHeathrow Airport, and Melbourne Airport, toconduct pilot implementations where several SmartSecurity solutions are combined in an operationalenvironment to demonstrate the benefits anddocument the lessons learned.
The following solutions, some of which are nowpermanently installed and operational in airports,have been or are being tested:
• Innovative use and integration of advanced andnew security technology and passengerprocessing systems.
• Use of biometrics and data for passengerdifferentiation.
• Adaptable risk-based screening capabilities.• Dynamic lane screening.• Efficient resource allocation.• Seamless integration of security processes intothe passenger journey from curb to boarding.
• Process efficiencies.
In the next few years, work will continue at airportsto test and implement new solutions.
Future research
For each of the Smart Security components,additional work and research continue to be carriedout or have been identified to be completed in thefollowing areas.
Passenger screening
Although the core performance of security scannersis improving, further enhancements are needed. Inaddition, future research should focus on integrationwith other components. For example, the use ofbiometrics for identity management and verificationcan enable risk-based differentiated screening tobe applied on a per passenger basis. This may becoupled with variable algorithms on a securityscanner to apply different levels of screening.
Another potential area for integration is the inclusionof explosive trace detection or other detectionmethods into security scanners to enhancedetection capability, improve security effectivenessand reduce passenger touchpoints.
Further research in passenger screening shouldcontinue to focus on finding and developingsolutions and technologies that will reduce the needfor divesting such items as belts and shoes.
Cabin baggage screening
Future research should focus on improving theintelligence of the screening equipment whilekeeping the false alarm rate as low as possible.
By efficiently assisting the X-ray operator’s decisionin all aspects of cabin baggage screening,advanced equipment will allow a further increase insecurity while improving the passenger experiencewith reduced divestment and fewer bags sent tosecondary search. Further work will also need to becarried out in hardware and software decoupling toallow for independent upgrades and easiercertification, as well as checkpoint solutions tailoredto an airport’s needs.
10
What’s Next?
Alternative detection methods
With ETD already used in some States as a primaryscreening measure for crew, future work is neededto determine whether the same principle could beapplied to passengers as part of a risk-basedscreening approach.
As explosive detection advances to the extent thatstand off screening and dynamic adjustment maybe possible, further research will be required toevaluate how this technology interacts with othercheckpoint elements for optimal checkpoint design.
Operational unpredictability will also be assessed.Covert unpredictability combined with dynamiclanes will make the checkpoint more robust.
Unpredictability, new screening equipment, andalternative detection methods offer the opportunityto move the current prescriptive regulations to amore flexible, outcomes-based approach. Ratherthan checkpoint methodology, security outcomesshould be the focus.
Checkpoint environment
Future research should focus on evaluating theoptimum working environment, which will allowofficers to focus on their core security duties andreduce the need for extensive manual handling.
Improvements in the checkpoint environment willalways be a work in progress as designs adapt to newthreats and the associated detection technologies.These changes in screening technology and theintroduction of additional elements, such as biometricsand video analytics into the passenger journey, willfurther facilitate the development of enhancedautomated solutions.
Future trials may even move away from theconventional screening approach, exploring innovativecheckpoint configurations. This could includephysically separating passenger and cabin baggagescreening processes and reuniting passengers withtheir belongings at the end of the process.
In addition, research on predictive modeling andoptimal staff allocation must be conducted toassess any possible benefits relating to checkpointreactivity and adaptability.
Centralized image processing
Research has been carried out on human factorelements. This included assessment and informationprovision concerning how time on task, imageinspection times, time between images affectedsecurity officer performance. It demonstrated thatCIP, compared with traditional screening, does nothave adverse effects and could even enhancesecurity depending on how it is implemented.
This work and future studies will contribute tounderstanding the feasibility and benefits of moreextensive networking, both on an airport andcountry-wide level, including networking operationscentrally across several airports.
Taking the networking concept even further, somestakeholders are now considering whether imageassessment for cabin and hold baggage can becombined. Further work is needed in this area todevelop the concept.
Risk-based differentiation
Risk-based passenger screening exists today. But tofacilitate wider adoption, States will likely seek furthercollaboration and agreement on issues, such asmutual recognition and equivalence, standards for riskassess ment, interaction with existing security arrange -ments, and flexibility to counter emerging threats.
The ability to measure the effectiveness of risk-based procedures, the potential impact of falsepositives on the traveling public, and data protectionand privacy are also key elements to be considered.
Further work will take place on identity managementand the ability to track and trace passengers andtheir belongings through the checkpoint, providingStates with a full end-to-end risk-based passengerdifferentiation model.
11
Potential Future Research
This is just the beginning.Work with us to deliver the future.
www.iata.org/smart-security
www.aci.aero/smart-security
