FUSION OF SECURITY SYSTEM DATA TO IMPROVE AIRPORT SECURITY

Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation

National Materials Advisory Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security FUSION OF SECURITY SYSTEM DATA TO IMPROVE AIRPORT SECURITY Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation National Materials Advisory Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. DTFA 03-99-C-00006 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Transportation Security Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10748-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10748-2 A limited number of copies of this report are available from the National Materials Advisory Board, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Keck WS932, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-3505 or (202) 334-3718; Internet, http://www.nas.edu/nmab. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR TRANSPORTATION JAMES F. O’BRYON, Chair, The O’Bryon Group SANDRA L. HYLAND, Vice Chair, Tokyo Electron Technology Center, America CHERYL A. BITNER, Pioneer Unmanned Aerial vehicles, Inc. DONALD E. BROWN, University of Virginia JOHN B. DALY,1 Consultant, Arlington, Virginia COLIN G. DRURY, State University of New York, Buffalo PATRICK GRIFFIN, Sandia National Laboratories HARRY E. MARTZ, JR., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory RICHARD McGEE, Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (retired) RICHARD L. ROWE, SafeView (retired) H. BRUCE WALLACE, MMW Concepts LLC Staff GARY FISCHMAN, Director, National Materials Advisory Board JAMES KILLIAN, Study Director (until June 2006) EMILY ANN MEYER, Study Director (from November 2006) TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator 1 Dr. Daly passed away in April 2006.

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD KATHARINE G. FRASE, Chair, IBM LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, Vice Chair, Consultant, Chevy Chase, Maryland JOHN ALLISON, Ford Motor Company PAUL BECHER, Oak Ridge National Laboratory CHERYL R. BLANCHARD, Zimmer, Inc. EVERETT E. BLOOM, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired) BARBARA D. BOYAN, Georgia Institute of Technology L. CATHERINE BRINSON, Northwestern University JOHN W. CAHN, University of Washington DIANNE CHONG, The Boeing Company PAUL CITRON, Medtronic, Inc. (retired) FIONA M. DOYLE, University of California, Berkeley SOSSINA M. HAILE, California Institute of Technology CAROL A. HANDWERKER, Purdue University ELIZABETH HOLM, Sandia National Laboratories ANDREW T. HUNT, nGimat Company DAVID W. JOHNSON, JR., Stevens Institute of Technology ROBERT H. LATIFF, SAIC TERRY LOWE, Los Alamos National Laboratory KENNETH H. SANDHAGE, Georgia Institute of Technology LINDA SCHADLER, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ROBERT E. SCHAFRIK, GE Aircraft Engines JAMES C. SEFERIS, GloCal University SHARON L. SMITH, Lockheed Martin Corporation Staff GARY FISCHMAN, Director MICHAEL MOLONEY, Senior Program Officer EMILY ANN MEYER, Program Officer TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security Preface The Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation was appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to a request from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for a study of technologies to protect the nation’s air transportation system from terrorist attacks (see Appendix B for biographical sketches of the committee members). The committee judged that the best way to provide a timely response would be to produce a series of short reports on promising technologies, focusing on specific topics of greatest interest to the sponsor. This is the fourth of four such topical reports, all of which focus on air transportation security.1 The commit- 1 The previous reports, also published by the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., are Opportunities to Improve Airport Passenger Screening with Mass Spectrometry (2004), Defending the U.S. Air Transportation System Against Chemical and Biological Threats (2006), and Assessment of Millimeter-

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security tee believes that the air transportation environment provides a test case for the deployment of security technologies that might subsequently be used to protect other transporttation modes as well. This report focuses on what is commonly termed data fusion. The possibility of a terrorist slipping through a multilayered security system still exists, given the current configuration of security architectures across the vast majority of our nation’s commercial airports. This is not to say that the technology that is being brought to bear is not useful or effective. It is effective. However, from the committee’s vantage point, the various security systems and the technologies contained in them could be connected in such a way that they could extract significantly more information regarding possible threats. This could be accomplished in real time with each system operating in a more or less stand-alone mode. Much can be learned from the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) experience with data fusion, as the DOD has successful systems now deployed throughout all of its services. The process of achieving these successes, however, has been very gradual, and the initial programs were not always successful. An understanding of the successes and failures on the DOD front will allow those choosing to implement data fusion in a transportation security setting to avoid making similar mistakes. The committee acknowledges and thanks the speakers from government and industry who took the time to share their ideas and experiences in briefings at its meetings (see Appendix C). The committee offers a special thanks to Donald Brown and Cheryl Bitner, who were the major contributors to the writing of this report. As chair of the committee through May 31, 2005, Thomas S. Hartwick also greatly assisted the work of the current committee through his participation in many of its activities. Finally, the committee acknowledges the valuable contributions to the completion of this report from Gary Fischman, director of the National Materials Advisory Board, and from NRC staff members James Killian and Teri Thorowgood. James F. O’Bryon, Chair Sandra L. Hyland, Vice Chair Committee on Assessment of Security Technologies for Transportation Wave and Terahertz Technology for Detection and Identification of Concealed Explosives and Weapons (2007).

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security Arnold Barnett, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Grace A. Clark, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Philip E. Coyle, Science Strategies, Vijayan N. Nair, University of Michigan, Robert L. Popp, Aptima, Inc., Gerald M. Powell, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Andrew P. Sage, George Mason University, and James M. Tien, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Steven Berry, University of Chicago. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security Contents     IN MEMORIUM   1     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   3 1   INTRODUCTION   11      Statement of Task,   12      Committee Approach,   13      Background,   14      Shortcomings of Existing Systems,   15      Scope of the Report,   16      Structure of the Report,   17

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security 2   DATA FUSION FOR SECURITY OPERATIONS   19      What Is Data Fusion?,   19      Steps in Data Fusion,   21      Comparison of Decision-Data Fusion and Parametric-Data Fusion,   22      Individual Security Systems with No Fusion,   24      Decision-Data Fusion with AND or OR Logic,   26      Parametric-Data Fusion of Security Systems,   28 3   CURRENT DATA FUSION ENDEAVORS   33      Department of Defense Initiatives,   34      Research and Private-Industry Initiatives,   37      Transportation Security Initiatives,   38      Perimeter Surveillance,   39      Access-Control Systems,   40      Need for a Comprehensive Strategy,   40 4   OPPORTUNITIES FOR DATA FUSION   43      Opportunities in Baggage Screening,   45      Sources of Data,   46      Advantages,   46      Notional Model,   48      Opportunities for Pre-screening of Passengers,   49      Sources of Data,   49      Privacy Issues,   50      Opportunities in Checkpoint Screening,   51      Sources of Data,   51      Current Systems,   53      Opportunities for Fusion of Airport Perimeter Surveillance Systems,   54      Opportunities for Fusion of Airport Access-Control Systems,   54      Sources of Data,   54      Current Systems,   54      Human Sensors,   55      Airport-Wide Data Fusion Models,   57      Implementation Considerations,   57     APPENDIXES          A  Acronyms   61      B  Biographies of the Committee Members   63      C  Selected Presentations on Data Fusion   67

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security Figures, Tables, and Box FIGURES 1-1   Generic airport diagram showing various airport spaces and some likely sites for attacks,   14 2-1   Data fusion overview,   20 2-2   Notional individual security system response histograms and response profiles for the test sample—Security System 1 and Security System 2,   23 2-3   Conditional response profiles for each notional individual security system,   24 2-4   Individual security system operational mode with no data fusion,   24

OCR for page R1
Fusion of Security System Data to Improve Airport Security 2-5   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each security system—Security System 1 and Security System 2—for the test sample,   25 2-6   Example of a Bayes table for examining test results,   25 2-7   Decision-data fusion with AND logic,   26 2-8   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the AND decision-data fusion for the combination of two notional security systems,   27 2-9   Combining security systems with OR decision-data fusion logic,   27 2-10   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the OR decision-data fusion for the combination of two notional security systems,   28 2-11   Parametric-data fusion response values from two notional security systems,   28 2-12   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the parametric-data fusion for the combination of two notional security systems,   29 2-13   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for different modes of operation,   30 2-14   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for random permutations of security system measurements in different modes of operation,   31 2-15   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for random permutations of security system measurements in different modes of operation,   32 4-1   Notional diagram showing the various radiation and particle interactions with matter that are used for the detection of explosives material,   46 4-2   Notional flow diagram illustrating one way in which an explosive detection system (EDS) could be coupled to two existing alarm-resolving systems, nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR), and pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA),   47 4-3   Data can be fed to later checkpoints to achieve an airport-wide model of data fusion,   57 TABLES 2-1   Summary of Fusion Results for Different Modes of Operation for the Two Example Security Systems,   30 3-1   Data Fusion Projects of the Transportation Security Administration,   39 BOX ES-1   Definitions of Concepts,   4