Airport Security vs. Cyborg Steve Mann 748
CompaniaHill writes: "The New York Times (free reg, etc.) has a story on University of Toronto engineering-professor-turned-cyborg Steve Mann's recent run-in with humorless airport security. Apparently his preplanning and documents were sufficient to get him through the Toronto airport security on his way to St. John's in Newfoundland, but not sufficient to get him through the St. John's airport security on his way home. Two days later, after strip-searches, forced removal of implants and x-raying and other ill-handling of delicate hardware, he returned home in a wheelchair. Mann's lawyer is attempting to recover the cost of the $56,800 in damaged hardware, while his doctors are studying his body's response to the removal of the implants, some of which he has had for over twenty years."
Re:Forced removal of implants? (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't worry-- they only use their powers against terrorists and bad guys, right?
wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope all the facets of this incident are followed.
Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipment. (Score:5, Insightful)
That they destroyed his equipment and pulled off is electrodes was wrong, and they should be held accountable for this. No airport security agent should ever be unprofessional like that (which is why I support the federalization program currently in progress in the US). But the guy had to be inspected.
Martyr Not The Freak (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Mann is clearly trying to push some of these issues by going about like this daily. I suppose I'm a luddite in this regard, but I find the fact that he is _so_ reliant on his tech that he is unable to navigate as a human being (w/o all his electronica) a bit sad and tragic.
Re:Forced removal of implants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, that's not just bitter, that's just savage. I'm really disturbed just reading that. I feel that there is a lawsuit here based not only on equipment damage, but also on humiliation and emotional abuse. I mean, how can they possibly have the right to do that? I understand that you give up some civil liberties when there is suspicion at an airport, but those guards cannot cause you harm for no reason, I cannot believe they'd have that authority.
Re:Forced removal of implants? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they suspected he had a bomb, it seems to me that there should have been a process that they followed, not just snapping things off at random! " Gee, what's this?" "Oh, just the power to my...pacemaker! "
But then again, did anyone see the problems the WWII veteran with a *CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR* went through? Pretty much similar -- and this is a medal for which there are 40 living recipients.
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand them wanting to check him out, and maybe even a strip search is in order, but when they had documentation signed by his doctor stating everything he's said, and they were unwilling to accomodate his requests to speak in person to his doctor or colleagues, yet still will not make an exception... there is a problem. Furthermore, their disregard for sensitivity of his equipment is a travesty. He may very well be suffering serious problems now because some $10/hour monkey didn't know when to quit.
That poor bastard (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is something that's not really going to sound right, but "rape" is the best word I can think of to describe this. Where the hell were this guys lawyers? How could the security dudes not realize what an incredib;e achievement Mann's gear is? I repeat: that poor bastard.
Re:The article (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is, what could there be in a computer system that would be sensitive to X-rays...
Maybe flash memory is potentially vulnerable, but laptops contain that... can't think of much else...
Re:Is this the whole story? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not going to hear from the guys who actually did this, unless it's as a dark silhouette with a disguised voice on Dateline in a few months. I'm not waiting until then to make my decision on which side is right.
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:4, Insightful)
With the possible exception of the X-ray issue, I point out that the bomb/drug-sniffing equipment is there for precisely that eventuality.
Let's give the drooling fucknozzle behind the counter the benefit of the doubt for a moment and think about what would have been reasonable.
At most, they should have stripped him to check where all the wires/electrodes went, and run the sniffer over each electrode to make sure nothing naughty was concealed beneath the electrode, nor anything else that didn't get X-Rayed.
Upon finding no explosives and no drugs, they should have let him put his clothes on and travel.
All of which is beside the point, which is that the goon should have started by reading the goddamn papers Prof. Mann was carrying, that authorized him to carry the gear on the flight.
(...and called his supervisor when he realized he couldn't understand the words with more than one syllable, and let the supervisor make the call.)
Re:That poor bastard (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the airlines generally aren't claiming responsibility for much of anything these days, it is logical for us to question who is protecting us. I would demand to have background check conducted by an independent agency done on the security staff and the result to be made public. That is, who can we trust to assure us that these security staff people don't work for some potential terrorist group when they are away from the workplace? ah yes, these cyborg implants will advance our own technology base and perhaps one day make a fine weapon. (Ok, a bit melodramatic but you get my point.)
As a member of the wearable computing mailing list (Score:2, Insightful)
Where Does it Say Removal of Implants?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah sure, he should have done that. Then they would have said "Whats that in your skin?"
RIP, out come the connectors. The point is, by reading the article, if they really don't have the authority to grant any exemptions then they sure as hell don't have the authority to strip search or harm anyone who hasn't put up any physical resistance. I mean, what reason could they have for detaining him without allowing him to speak with his doctor or colleuges?
Were they afraid he was going to goto the phone and blow someone up? Or shoot someone? If he was going todo that he would have blown up or shot the guards long before they strip searched him.
What if Mann were disabled? (Score:4, Insightful)
What if a person required such tools in order to move, breathe, or even think? Would this not be the equivalent to destroying an experimental respirator which has already been O.K.'ed by a doctor?
Don't get me wrong, NOT searching would leave the possibility for a person claiming to be sick to be used as a bomb - but to RIP electrodes from a person's skin is reactionary, cruel, if not downright monsterous.
They could have just denied him access to the plane instead.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Big-o Deal-o. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's think about this hypothetically. You're a security guard. Your job is to ensure that planes don't blow up. Six months ago thousands of people died because security failed, so there's pressure on you to be extremely careful.
So this guy shows up at your post and the metal detector goes off. The guy says he can explain, and pulls up his shirt to reveal wires all over his undershirt leading into a couple of boxes, also concealed underneath his clothing. He then helpfully informs you that he's a cyborg, and that he has a letter from his doctor.
Personally, if I was in this situation, I'd have two concerns. First, this guy's telling me he's a cyborg, which frankly gives me doubts about his mental stability. Second, he's got wires and batteries and all kinds of crap concealed under his clothing. Sure, he's telling me that it's a computer, but it looks like a bomb to me. The boxes are screwed shut, so I can't see what's inside them, and he won't let me run it through the X-ray. These are also custom boxes that look like no computer I've ever seen.
Now, how're you going to determine the truth of the matter? I seriously doubt a security guard is keeping up on the state of wearable computing, so you're not going to recognize Steve Mann. Mann's got a note from his doctor and other documentation about this equipment, but you have no reason to think that these documents are credible. Maybe you call your boss to see if he knows anything about this, and more likely than not your boss hasn't been informed, because the message has been lost in the corporate fog. Or maybe he has been informed, but he's in the bathroom and you can't get him on the phone.
So you're standing there at the checkpoint, with a man in front of you whom you have many reasons to believe might be wearing a bomb, and you have only his word that it's a computer.
I don't think anyone in this situation would just let him hop on the plane. Maybe you disagree, and that's fine. But in that case I sure hope you aren't working in airport security.
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:3, Insightful)
Sheesh - I try to avoid things that might even remotely cause problems.
This seems like a reasonable request for expieremental 1-off equipment.
Cheers!
Mann is a jackass (Score:5, Insightful)
However a few times they showed him going into retailers like walmart and gap with a consumer video camera (just to start shit). When an employee asks him to not bring the video camera in, he starts being a little smart ass about it. like "Well don't you have video cameras in here, why can you video tape me and I can't video tape you", "What if I told you that my glasses we're a video camera, would that be ok?". generally not agreeing with the store and making a jackass out of himself.
I also saw him take off his glasses constantly, he would slip them off to do something, then put them back to walk around (then look around like a space cadet ), but it did not seem that he was in any way disoriented without his gear. So I don't buy that all of a sudden once his stuff was busted up by the security guards (which we're just trying to do there freakin job) that he started bumping into things, or at least not more then normally.
I think what happened at the airport is that for "I'm cyberman" reasons he opted to keep his gear on, got shit from the security guards, proceeded to be a complete smartass while thinking, "if they fuck with me, I have it all on film", but when they broke his gear and is alibi that's when he really god pissed. I'm sure he was already expecting shit, but maybe hoping he could have covert footage of it to show the 8 o-clock news as well.
-Jon
Re:Living as a cyborg (Score:3, Insightful)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:3, Insightful)
The airlines want cheap security. So, you get cheap workers. As long as the airlines are doing the work, and paying the wages, the pressure is to keep wages down. Low wages, poor workers, high turn-over (You know that turn-over was really high 100%+ for airline security staff last year don't you?)
See
[californiaaviation.org]
Pay is low, and turnover high-- 500% at one
airport-- and their training is often minimal. Federal inspectors have repeatedly been able to easily get weapons and potential bombs past them. (This is from a PBS study done before 9/11/2000)
The old security system was a race to the bottom. Airlines didn't really care about security. They just wanted us to feel better.
The new system might not be better, but for different reasons. Personally, I think it will be, but that's just my opinion.
The personnel they can command will be better, and the ability to fire workers that don't perform will be better. Generally, treat your workforce better - get better performance.
Nearsighted Law Enforcement Officials (Score:2, Insightful)
There has to be a way to securely identify the implant to the authorities. Maybe a serial number that is unique to the item, given by the manufacturer and then stored on a databse somewhere. Then, when walking through a scanner, it can sing like a canary about it's legitimacy.
Hell, pacemakers and implantable defibrillators already do this -- you hold an interrogator to the pacer and it gives up the manufacturer's name, serial number, mode, and cardiac rhythm data that it has stored.
There must be a secure and private way that this can be made to work on a large scale.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This guy is creepy (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Not even then.
If you're interested in gaining control of an airliner, the last thing you want to do is attract the attention of security personnel. As such, you have to look normal. Since Prof. Mann looked anything but normal, there's a fairly low probability that he's a hazard to air travel safety (although one could legitimately question the RFI radiated by his equipment if it couldn't safely take an X-ray). A quick check of his ID -- hell, even a quick Web search on his name -- would have quickly confirmed that the man was absolutely no trouble at all.
Prof. Mann was detained not for being a potential threat, but because he questioned The Rules.
Believe me, the guy you want to keep off the plane doesn't look or act like Mann. The Bad Guys will be appear very normal. That's why Congressmen are being detained and strip-searched in airports, because they're acting normal; very suspicious these days.
Schwab
Re:Steve Mann, not "Dr." Warwick (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the article Mann sounds to me like he was being a complete jerk. In the first place the prices he puts on his equipment sound rather inflated. Just because you spend $500,000 developing a prototype does not mean that the prototype is worth that amount.
Second, the ability to pass through airport security unmolested would appear to be a necessary boundary constraint his technology has to meet if it is going to be viable. The claim that his wearable computer is sensitive to X-ray sounds to be more of an ego thing than a reality thing.
I travel with quite a bit of expensive gear, but it all goes through the standard security.
Mann was having trouble in Canada, not exactly a country where cops have a reputation for habitually arrogant behavior.
I'm not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
No rational security guard or "manager" doing their jobs would have the knowledge or authority to make the kind of exceptions to security procedures that this guy expected.
I am highly concerned he was let through Pearson security so easily. Ripped from his skin? Disoriented and couldn't walk straight? Half a million dollars of equipment? Whatever. Cyborg? If it is that bad, he should not have been flying, not without a Transport Canada ruling, like are needed for other highly exceptional circumstances.
Give me a break. The "article" as well as the Slashdot lead in all sound *HIGHLY* one sided.
I give this side of the story a credibility rating of 2 out of 10, and the possibility that Professor Steve Mann is a pompous jackass a 7 out of 10. That the people in St. Johns did their job as we've requested them to do? 8 out of 10, losing points for putting his video glasses in with the baggage and not keeping track of his possessions.
Tidbit for you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, this was never the case to begin with and people have all been largely lucky up to this point. As it has always been, but people didn't realize it until the 11th was that the moment an agressor takes over a plane/ship/etc. and holds you hostage, your life is forfeit and you must win it back either by your actions or someone else must win it back for you. With this in mind, I do not believe that people will placidly sit still with agressors with knives or even handguns. They can nail a few but they're going to be beaten to a bloody pulp by the rest.
Re:Okay, they shouldn't have fucked up his equipme (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason it's not a playground for fascist
butchers is that they're all acting like Doug and
Dave MacKenzie.
Now in the U.S., you'd get the twice the brutality,
but you would have the comfort of knowing that it
was illegal, although of course no court in the land
would give a flying wahoo about that.
Re:Big-o Deal-o. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, but only half right. I wouldn't
expect him to be able to just walk through security, for exactly the reasons you describe.
The $10 an hour guy can't make that decision.
The problem his the report clearly states he
spent two days escalating to many
non-$10 an hour people who at some point should
have been able to verify his story, and figure out
a way to get him on the plane.
Let's also be real here, what terrorist is
going to spend two days escalting up the food
chain to hijack a plane.
The thing that concerns me the most here is
the lack of consistency. Anyone who travels has
seen this for years, both pre and post 9/11.
He had no major issues in one airport, and major
problems in another. If we're going to have
security, there should at least be an expectation
that if you were able to fly somewhere you can
return in the same state, and that's far from
the case.
Another reason to watch the contractors (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:again airport security are idiots. (Score:4, Insightful)
Before 9/11 the US doctrine towards hijackings was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, then negotiate. Needless to say, no one ever anticipated that particularly horrific use of airplanes (mainly most people felt that training a pilot for a one shot mission was silly).
Since then, airports and airplanes have been slowly attempting to adapt to this new "reality" and are trying to make it more difficult to get weapons on board to prevent a hijacking.
They are NOT trying to prevent a random/terrorist nut job who decides to walk into an airport and start shooting. (Just look at the Arrivals area of ANY airport and you see that there is little to no control of the entrance/exit.)
Rome and Istanbul *ARE* worried about terrorist/freedom fighters/seperatist groups that want to shoot a whole bunch of people. Because of this they have different doctrine.
Personally, I'd hate to see someone trying to use an M16 to stop a single individual. Automatic weapons are designed for filling a space with a lot of lead, not for target shooting. (Ask any Army person about "grazing fire".)
So, they're trying to adjust to the new threat and are slowly coming up with ideas that will work.
BTW - The possibility of another incident like 9/11 is almost nill. The whole operation depended completely on the element of surprise, the fact that the fourth plane failed once the passengers knew what has happening shows the difficulty of pulling off such an action.
Re:Another Cyborg Professor... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, Kevin Warwick is a pseudoscience publicity hack.
--
Evan
Treat it as a medical situation (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't allow him to board the plane yet, get him to stay for some days until management can confirm his documentation (call the universities, for example), then personally oversee his boarding the plane a couple of days later, after a reasonable, non-intrusive search.
Don't they have to do something like this when someone with special needs of medical attention/equipment needs to travel anyway?
If the guy happens to be famous enough to appear on the media, you might want to pay for the hotel and new airplane ticket just like when the airlines resell your ticket. But that's strictly a PR move.
Most likely, he takes charge of the extra expense on his trip, security takes charge of the extra expense of making a couple of phone calls and personally overseeing him for 20 minutes when he finally boards the plane.
No strip search, no destroyed equipment, little wasted time for other passengers and most likely no lawsuits.
Re:again airport security are idiots. (Score:2, Insightful)
As he walks towards the incident scene, he identifies himself as a US Air Marshall (he probably doesn't even pull out his weapon, no need to). Once he closes in on the drunk guy, 3 others stand up, as if on que, and overpower Skippy. His pistol is taken, Skippy's head is blown off to scare the crap out of anyone and now the terrorists are fully armed. Heck, if Skippy is a cowboy, he might even carry a backup weapon, which is now also in the hands of said terrorists.
All of this happened because we decided that to quell the American people, putting an armed air marshall on EVERY flight would be a good idea (I mean, it sounds really good). In effect however, this simply contributes to the problems that allowing the 4 9/11 flighs to be overtaken in the first place: fixed security systems can always be overcome. Remember Gen Patton, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."
They can be probed, studied, planned for, overcome and (in this instance) actually leveraged to gain more power. Clearly the people who are willing to do these acts are smart enough to figure these things out. I am a lowley industrial designer who has helped develope some equipment for special operations forces, I can't imagine what lovely ideas the snake eaters could come up with to overcome an Air Marshall.
Re:again airport security are idiots. (Score:2, Insightful)
From my point of view, this is the ultimate in security. Air marshals are a huge step forward, but the only way people ever really feel safe is when they know that the guy sitting next to them is on their side. An individual is much more likely to rush a hijacker if they know there are 10 guys right behind him. Strict security scans actually degrade this confidence because people see their fellow passengers interrogated and start to wonder "which passenger here is a terrorist? Who will really back me up?"
Re:I'd pay more for an unsecure flight. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would pay at least $10 more per ticket to fly on an airline that didn't have any airport "security" at all.
Me too. Hell, if there were no security - at least there'd be a few hunter-types packing guns on the flight. I'd trust a plane full of armed citizins over a $7 rent-a-cop any day.
Re:Tidbit for you... (Score:2, Insightful)