PIPE DREAMS FOR LAX? HAHN'S SECURITY PROPOSALS DEPEND ON TECHNOLOGY STILL NONEXISTENT.

Byline: Rick Orlov Staff Writer

New security measures called for in Mayor James Hahn's $9.1 billion Los Angeles International Airport modernization plan require technology that has yet to be invented or is only in the conceptual stage, the Daily News learned Monday.

City officials, already facing serious questions about their proposed security measures, acknowledged that the potential cost of new technology if it becomes available could drive up the price tag. Among the items not available are facial recognition, license plate readers, intelligent surveillance cameras, face-in-the-crowd software and nonintrusive vehicle and cargo inspection systems.

Despite official assurances LAX security could be improved using current technology, critics seized on the new questions as more evidence that the costly planning process is flawed.

``I'm concerned they haven't looked at everything we should, such as separate routes for truck hauling and the retrofit of buildings,'' said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who represents the LAX area.

``We have all this security based on devices that haven't been fully developed or costed out. It's a concern we have to address. These are issues that must be dealt with before we proceed.''

The modernization plan that would take more than a decade to complete seeks to deal with airline safety by separating and expanding runways and seeking to improve security while limiting passenger growth.

City officials said that to meet the heightened security demands as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, they based much of the plan on new technology.

``The answer is that not all we want is available today,'' said Airport Commission President Ted Stein.

``If, today, I could magically add water and everything will be there, I would do it. But, with saying that, the equipment we have today would be able to do the job we need. And, having a separate facility for passengers and luggage will increase security tremendously.''

Hahn was on vacation Monday. Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook said technology was not the issue.

``You could build the plan the mayor envisions with the necessary security today,'' Middlebrook said. ``But are there going to be opportunities with improved technology? Absolutely.''

In its report on security, the firm Science Application International Corp. notes that many devices are still in the development stage.

Josh Schubring, a security analyst working for the firm on the LAX project, said each piece of technology proposed for the airport is at least in the ``conceptual'' stage.

``We can't predict where technology will be in 12 years,'' Schubring said. ``Short of that, we're in the technology business and on the cutting edge and we know where the technology is headed. But to give specifics, no one can say that.''

Jack Riley, a researcher at the Rand Corp., which has questioned part of the LAX security planning, said it is a difficult area to deal with.

He said he has read and studied many of the security proposals - some of which are being used in high-demand areas such as the White House.

``But I think as far as real-time commercial applications, many are several years away if not longer,'' Riley said. ``Many of these are years away from reasonable use and application.''

The Rand Corp. review of the preliminary LAX plans was critical of the proposals, but Riley said it was intended to offer a starting point for discussion on security issues.

``What we proposed was systems already in place,'' Riley said.

One example of technology under testing is the facial recognition system that has been researched at the federal level for years and new firms have been started to try to market it.

``The technology is at a very preliminary stage,'' Riley said. ``To my knowledge, there hasn't been validations work done, meaning that it is not widely accepted.''

There are questions over whether the system could be fooled by someone either growing or shaving a beard or moustache or making other changes.

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union has questioned whether the system invades a person's privacy. In a May 2002 report, it said there needs to be careful scrutiny of such a system before it is put into use.

``In particular, a technology's intrusiveness must be balanced against the security benefits it would bring,'' the ACLU said. ``The burden is on the technologists to demonstrate that their solutions will actually be effective in making us safer.

``But it is abundantly clear that the security benefits of such an approach would be minimal to nonexistent, for a very simple reason: The technology doesn't work.''

Schubring said such considerations are up to the Department of Airports and policy-makers, while Riley said he believes the issue will be worked out in the courts.

Another factor is whether the cost of the equipment will drive up costs.

``We know what the cost is for the equipment that is out there now, that we would have to use if this other equipment isn't available,'' Stein said. ``One of the differences is that we are building to accommodate this equipment and the history of technology is that the costs will go down.''

Schubring said the costs will vary even without the question of technology issues.

``What you have is a rough estimate,'' Schubring said. ``Once you get into the practical aspects, that will be refined. It's a simple matter of now estimating how many cameras you will need to install as opposed to the specific numbers.''

Rick Orlov, [phone]

rick.orlov(at)dailynews.com