By Sarah Welsh

Ever since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, airport security has been at the forefront of national concern. The United States has since taken numerous measures to tighten security in airports, hoping to prevent similar attacks.

But was this the right strategy? As part of his honors thesis project, University of Pennsylvania senior Hillel Neumark has been investigating the history of airport security and reflecting on what can be done in the future to ensure that security measures are effective and trustworthy.

Neumark, of New York City, is a science, technology and society major in Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences. He first became interested in airports because of their complexity.  

“In airports, there are systems upon systems and many processes that passengers aren’t aware of,” says Neumark.

He wondered why, in the post-9/11 era, many people view airport security in a derisive way.

“We don’t really trust it; we see it as unstable and illegitimate” he says.

With guidance from John Tresch, an associate professor in Penn Arts & Sciences’ Department of History and Sociology of Science, this line of thought took Neumark back to the beginnings of commercial flight and airport security.

Looking at historical congressional reports and other documents, Neumark found that discussion about airport security was largely non-existent until the 1960s, when the first hijacking occurred in American airspace. Even after that, most people seemed to believe that too much security would discourage people from flying.

In 1973, however, airports instituted a mandatory X-ray and metal detector screening, processes that have evolved into the screening passengers undergo today, Neumark says.

Even with technological advances, such as security cameras and devices to detect dangerous chemicals, many people still remain skeptical about the utility of airport security.

Until procedures become further institutionalized and trusted, Neumark says, airports can embrace certain strategies to gain the public’s trust.

For example, Neumark sees a problem in striving for 100 percent detection of objects regarded as potentially dangerous. That would mean any breach, no matter how small, could be interpreted as a failure of the system.

“Educating the public about the goal of airport security is very important, as well as setting reasonable expectations,” Neumark says. “If the goal is for people to get to their destination safely, that can and will happen almost every time, whether or not you forget to take your water bottle or pocketknife out of your bag.”

These small, infrequent breaches of security are “not grounds for an overhaul,” he says.

Somewhat counterintuitively, Neumark also says his research points to a recommendation for decreasing reliance on technology, which can always be thwarted.

“Throughout the past 45 years,” Neumark says, “airport security initiatives have spent billions of dollars constantly updating technology and focusing on getting the most high-end machines. But there is no silver bullet.”

Neumark says that a better approach to airport security should focus additional resources on other options, such as bomb sniffing dogs, to aid in finding security threats.

“K-9 units have proven to be tremendously effective and cost much less than splurging on brand new technologies that haven’t been proven effective yet,” he says.

Neumark will present his research at a spring research symposium.

Beyond his scholarly interests, Neumark’s Penn experience has included tutoring at the Writing Center and serving as a kosher liaison with the University Dining Advisory Board.

Neumark also spent the past two summers working as a paralegal on a large litigation case in New York where he was fully immersed in the court proceedings. His experiences there have solidified his plans to attend law school after graduation.