Hoax bomb threats reveal gaps in aviation security

A SURGE in bomb threats has targeted hospitals, malls, colleges and other institutions across the country, but with over 100 hoax calls in a few days and their multi-dimensional effects, the aviation sector is the most vulnerable to disruption.

These hoaxes impose enormous indirect costs on society, disrupting operations, inciting fear and diverting crucial resources. They have created mayhem in the aviation sector, with estimates indicating that the economic cost of a single hoax ranges from lakhs of rupees in the domestic sector to as much as Rs 15-20 crore on international routes.

These threats create a ripple effect of consequences, including stress and anxiety for passengers, unexpected delays and disruptions in tourism and business activities. Additionally, Indian carriers face a competitive disadvantage. Security and intelligence resources are strained and diverted from genuine terrorist threats, which can have disastrous consequences. The consistency of the hoaxes and the sophistication and planning involved suggest the involvement of a non-state actor or a deep state influence in the attacks.

Hoaxers and terrorist groups employ anonymising tools and networks to evade detection, such as the Tor network and VPNs, which mask their IP addresses and encrypt communications. They use end-to-end encrypted services and operate on the dark web to ensure that their messages are unreadable to outsiders. Caller ID and email spoofing complicates traceability. They route communications through multiple proxy servers and relay chains, use public wi-fi and compromised devices to avoid detection and rely on burner phones and disposable email accounts, botnets for distributed and automated attacks, making it challenging to pinpoint the source of threats.

Investigations into recent hoaxes conducted by security agencies reveal a pattern in which threats are communicated via social media or phone calls, often followed by a surge of similar threats occurring in a short time frame. The investigations have traced the originating IP addresses to locations in London and Germany, where users are employing VPNs to conceal their online identities and send tweets from remote servers.

Dealing with such acts is a challenging proposition. Along with strict adherence to the standard operating procedures, comprehensive response plans and modernisation of rapid response teams through regular simulation drills are essential. Public awareness campaigns should be encouraged to educate citizens about the seriousness of threats and the legal consequences of such acts. Technological advancements should be fine-tuned, including the development of AI and machine-learning algorithms that analyse threat communications to identify patterns indicating hoaxes versus credible threats. These algorithms can analyse communication patterns, detect anomalies and identify potential bomb threats in real time, enabling prioritisation for immediate response. Additionally, integrating data from various sources, such as social media, past incidents and intelligence reports, allows for a rapid assessment of threat credibility. Communication interception and analysis tools are also crucial as they trace the origins of emails and phone calls — even those using anonymisation techniques —and help identify perpetrators swiftly. Furthermore, sentiment analysis can detect the tone and urgency of threats, assisting in distinguishing serious threats from likely hoaxes.

FIRs have been registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1)(d) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, in connection with the recent hoax bomb threats. The BNS enforces strict penalties to discourage hoax calls. Section 353 addresses public mischief, penalising those who intentionally spread false information that incites fear or disorder, with false bomb threats punishable with up to three years of imprisonment. Section 351 pertains to criminal intimidation through anonymous communication. Additionally, Section 113 of the BNS covers terrorism, targeting anyone who threatens economic security with the intent to instil terror. This section should be revised to encompass hoaxes that qualify as terror acts in a broader context. The authorities should not hesitate from applying stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whenever necessary.

Besides putting hoaxers on the no-fly list, the Centre should collaborate with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and the ministries responsible for civil aviation, information and broadcasting, and information technology to enact deterrent legal amendments. It should also examine the anti-hoax provisions of other countries to establish stricter regulations that specifically address hoaxes, thereby creating a robust deterrent against such acts.

International cooperation is essential in addressing bomb hoaxes and it should focus on creating joint global task forces that unite law enforcement, military, intelligence agencies and cybersecurity experts. This collaboration enables effective identification, tracking and neutralisation of hoaxes through shared resources and expertise. Additionally, fostering public-private partnerships with entities like telecommunications companies can enhance efforts to trace the origins of bomb threats. Legal measures must include harmonised legislation across countries for consistent prosecution of hoaxers and stronger extradition treaties to ensure that offenders are held accountable, regardless of their location.

Meanwhile, no information should be taken lightly. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie, resulting in over 250 deaths. The US government received a specific threat regarding a planned attack on the flight. Despite heightened security measures, including a passenger surcharge and public warnings, the bombing occurred. The warning, along with a pile of papers, was found in the airport after the attack.

The risk of a genuine attack, however minuscule, remains too significant for any government or security agency to politically ignore. With stringent SOPs in place, the only viable solution and decisive action is the rapid arrest, prosecution and punishment of those indulging in hoaxes.

If malicious, these hoaxes lend credence to the age-old claim that terrorists simply want “a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead”. In this context, the stakes are too high and the cost of inaction is unthinkable. And, India is watching impatiently.