Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search



Advertisements
About these ads


Can high tech plug the gap?



  • Print
  • E-mail newsletters
  • RSS

By Mark ClaytonStaff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / January 12, 2004

RANDOLPH, MASS.

As cargo ports go, the Port of Boston isn't large. But its 100-plus acres of containers plucked from ships and stacked like giant Lego blocks illustrate a problem that keeps security experts awake at night.

In any one of those 40-foot-long boxes, a terrorist or his bomb could be hiding - a veritable needle in a metal haystack. The current insecurity of shipping containers was highlighted anew by last month's terror alert and last week's news reports of authorities' fears of a radiological "dirty bomb" attack.

And the consequences could be enormous. By some estimates, detonation of a dirty bomb hidden in a single container could close every US seaport for longer than a week and throw the nation into recession while authorities delayed shipments and searched for more such threats.

Yet where there's fear, there's also hope. In this case, it's a technology that turns cargo boxes into "smart" containers that can detect and report break-ins. Smart containers won't come cheap. But the real challenge facing the government today, observers say, is to figure out more quickly what technologies will work, set standards, and to get these systems deployed - before terrorists act.

"For would-be terrorists, the global intermodal container system ... satisfies the age-old criteria of opportunity and motive," Stephen Flynn, director of the Council on Foreign Relations task force on homeland security, told a Senate committee in March. He warned of an "almost complete absence of any security oversight in the loading and transporting of a box from its point of origin to its final destination."

The US is awash in intermodal containers: Some 16 million arrive each year by ship or by trailer from Canada or Mexico. They're vital for bringing goods from abroad. But their ubiquity and relative anonymity make them tempting channels for terrorists.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, federal agencies from the US Customs and Border Protection to the Coast Guard have been trying to develop ways to sniff out the threat. Even with beefed-up inspections, new X-ray equipment, and computer analysis of shipping documents, however, only about 4 percent of containers are physically inspected annually, experts say.

Indeed, smart-containers are quickly becoming the security industry's holy grail, though nobody is yet sure which technology is best.

This month the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is expected to announce a new test of smart containers. It will feature as many as 400 containers fitted with tracking and detection devices making their way through major US ports, according to those connected with the project.

That's good - but still agonizingly slow deployment for something the nation desperately needs, several experts say.

Many believe that a dirty-bomb attack - among authorities' greatest fears - would be easy to accomplish by shipping container.

In October, Robert Bonner, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, recounted a little-publicized port-security war game in 2002 that envisioned a terrorist attack with dirty bombs sent in shipping containers. One hypothetical bomb was detected. The other blew up in Chicago and closed every US seaport for more than a week, caused the Dow stock index to drop 500 points, and caused $58 billion in damage.

But tucked under the arm of Robert McGowan, president of NaviTag Technologies, is something that could help. It's an electronic prototype no bigger than a box of chocolates. In a few seconds his tracking unit can transform an inert, or "dumb," shipping container like the one he's standing beside into a smart container. It can sense if the container is broken into and instantly report to headquarters. NaviTag recently won a government grant to produce its technology.

Page: 1 | 2 Next Page

  • Print
  • E-mail newsletters
  • RSS

Photos of the day

02.09.10 »