Making Airport Scanners Less Objectionable 681
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that one of the researchers who helped develop the software for the scanners says there is a simple fix that would make scanning less objectionable. The fix would distort the images captured on full-body scanners so they look like reflections in a fun-house mirror, but any potentially dangerous objects would be clearly revealed, says Willard 'Bill' Wattenburg, a former nuclear weapons designer at the Livermore lab. 'Why not just distort the image into something grotesque so that there isn't anything titillating or exciting about it?' asks Wattenburg, adding that the modification is so simple that 'a 6-year-old could do the same thing with Photoshop... It's probably a few weeks' modification of the program.' Wattenburg said he was rebuffed when he offered the concept to Department of Homeland Security officials four years ago. A TSA official said the agency is working on development of scanner technology that would reduce the image to a 'generic icon, a generic stick figure' that would still reveal potentially dangerous items." Reader FleaPlus points out an unintended consequence: some transportation economists believe that the TSA's new invasive techniques may lead to more deaths as more people use road transportation to avoid flying — much more dangerous by the mile than air travel.
Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so now figure out how to make that image without exposing me to extra radiation.
Honestly, this whole thing is a joke and just shows how becoming too PC is a weakness. If we would just profile we wouldn't need half the security we have.
Porno is not the only concern (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd still cause cancer deaths at a rate exceeding the terrorist threat.
Flap over invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
I am embarrassed by people. Not because they're outraged about the scanners. But because it's over a little virtual nudity.
Worry about the incredible cost in hardware and training. Worry about some idiot cranking up the power, or a hardware flaw doing it for them. Worry about the infinite spiral of ineffective hoops in the security theater. Worry about what you're going to have to supper.
But, good grief, stop with the omg-naked and think-of-the-children crap.
Israel (Score:4, Insightful)
Airport scanners are a joke. Unless they can detect anything in and out of a person's body they can and will be bypassed when needed. So here's the plan, rather than creating a softcore security theater, we copy the security methods of countries that do it effectively. Namely, Israel.
Of course we could just keep doing crazier and crazier scans as people progressively game the system, only to fail because their devices are faulty, not because they really had any trouble getting on the plane.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep profiling seems to work for the Israelis. Or eliminate the search completely (other than the standard Xraying of suitcases). Your American odds of dying in an airplane bombing are 1 in 500,000. That is about the same as your risk of drowning in a tsunami or getting hit by a meteorite. I think I'd rather take that vanishingly-small risk, rather than take the 1-to-1 risk that some TSA officer will be playing with my ___, touching my wife's ___s, and/or fondling my kid's ___.
If you really want to be afraid, fear your car. Odds of dying in a car is 1 in 100.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
the last line of the summary says it all
may lead to more deaths as more people to use road transportation to avoid flying — much more dangerous by the mile than air travel.
if it is true, and flying is already safer than road travel, then why do we need all the security?
This misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
This misses the point. First (and least important), if you can distort the images, you can undistort them.
More importantly: people finally seem to be waking up to this simple fact: The government has no right to search you unless it has probable cause and a warrant. TSA, in fact, does not even have the right to demand an id. The right to interstate travel without government interference has been upheld by the courts: flying is a right, not a privilege. Nude scanners (even if distorted) and genital gropes violate your fourth amendment rights. Trying to make this violation more palatable is the wrong approach.
The right approach is to eliminate the TSA (and all of its regulations) and let the airlines and airports be responsible for their own security. As private companies, they have an interest in finding ways to guarantee security without humiliating their customers.
Fourth amendment, folks, use it or lose it.
Do I Trust It? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do I trust the scanner to:
- Actually mangle the image?
- Not save a "raw" image internally or transmitted someplace?
- Actually be mangled as described in front of out-of-sight invisible surveillance agent?
No, I don't. They've already been caught lying on all these issues, actually.
Wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that anybody will see the naked images, the problem is not even that these scanners are probably worse for your health than the terrorists, the problem is even not that somebody is touching 'your junk' and the problem is even not that none of these procedures are making anything any safer (they are not.)
The problem is that you are a human being, and if you allow yourself to be treated like cattle, they will.
The problem is that those Freedoms and Liberties are eroding and you are allowing them to take the Freedoms and Liberties away.
People died and killed others for this kind of stuff because it matters. You only have one life, do you want to be cattle or a human?
Re:Deadlier than the terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Matters not. Radiation exposure risk is cumulative over your life. If this kills more people than the terrorists, it really doesn't matter if something else unrelated also kills more people than the terrorists; there are still the same number of additional deaths directly attributable to these machines and only these machines.
Re:This misses the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Even if there were a safety exemption to the 4th amendment, this would not qualify. Air travel is the safest form of travel, even counting deaths due to terrorism.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:5, Insightful)
apparently they forgot that all they have to do to make these scanners less objectionable is to get rid of them.
Re:Flap over invasive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
if it is true, and flying is already safer than road travel, then why do we need all the security?
1) The elite prefer, at this time, to control the masses by fear. Americans are carefully social engineered to be cowards, and the elite like it that way. Otherwise, all the lives ruined by the elites might want to take a few with em on the way out. So, keep them scared.
2) Do you have any idea how much freaking money that "security theater" costs? Lots of campaign contributions later, it turns out we have a need.
Re:Israel (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason the US doesn't have a system like Isreal's is because they've taken a systematic look at the problem and have implemented a comprehensive, multilayered, efficient solution. In the US, we prefer one-step, silver-bullet type "fixes". Anything more complex would be argued out of existence.
Re:Deadlier than the terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing with analogies to medical xrays...people assume the risk of a chest X-ray because they have some medical problem and they voluntarily decide that undergoing a small amount of radiation is worth the information they will learn from the imaging. Any comparisons between the amount of radiation received from a medical x-ray and the amount of radiation imposed upon one by the federal government as a condition of using modern transportation is a gross category error. I don't care if these machines are the equivalent of 1 billionth of a chest Xray. The government should not be forcing me to be subjected to 1 billionth of a chest Xray. The government is not free to decide how much radiation I shall be exposed to. Or rather, it shouldn't be.
Re:Flap over invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deadlier than the terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, we're assuming that the numbers given by Rapiscan are in fact true - they didn't use cigarette company scientists to do their numbers.
No, I don't believe the FDA when they say that the scanners are "safe". I firmly believe they took Rapiscan's numbers at face value or adjusted their recommendations to be favorable to to Rapiscan - like they did for the Tuna industry and mercury intake. The FDA is beholden to industry.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
On a per TRIP basis, cars, trains, and buses are all safer than airplanes.
That's because takeoff and landing in a plane is FAR more dangerous than "takeoff" and "landing" in the other modes of travel. That raises the per trip fatality rate higher for planes.
but that type of incident isn't going to be stopped by the govt fondling people.
Re:This misses the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is an article about how the TSA does *NOT* have the right to ask you for ID. Even their own in house legislative guy says this. There is a copy of the letter he sent out on TSA letter head stating that.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9769089-46.html [cnet.com]
http://files.dubfire.net/warner-tsa.pdf [dubfire.net]
Should make for some interesting fun at the airport if everyone starts doing this. LOL
Re:A long losing battle (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that a terrorist (sorry, "freedom fighter") used an ass-bomb in an unsuccessful attempt on the Saudi Arabia's counter-terrorism minister.
Backscatter won't detect it. Groping (short of a finger up your asshole) won't detect it. Nope, we can only be safe if you drop trou and pull a goatse or let the TSA watch you take a shit.
Re:Israel (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we just go back to what we had before and just accept the fact that flying will never be 100% safe, but remains the safest form of transportation available? A hijacking will never be successful again, not after what happened the last time. People won't just sit there when somebody jumps up with a box cutter. Explosives will always be a threat, but realistically what's to keep a terrorist from walking into an airport with an explosive vest and detonating it in the security area? Will we install body scanners at all entrances and exits then? It's just ridiculous. Of all the ways to die in this world why are we making such a big deal out of this one?
At this point I don't believe it has anything to do with public safety, not really. I think terrorism is embarrassing to governments. A small group of people can't possibly be allowed to "beat" one of the greatest countries in the world with some home made explosives and box cutters. It's just plain embarrassing. So lets just keep ramping up security to show those miscreants who's in charge here, put them back in their place so they'll never make fools of us again.
Re:A false argument (Score:4, Insightful)
So, your argument boils down to: if we drop the theater and go back to metal detectors only, then 9/11 style hijackings in the US would be "common" again (mind you they only ever happened once on US soil, hence the date describing them)? Also mind you, they had no explosives, etc. Just box cutters.
Sorry, but no. Case in point, even with "enhanced" security we still had shoe and underpants bomber "terrorists" get through. Security hasn't gained us anything. Awareness of the fact that not all hijackings end up in safe landings has forced the public's hand in dealing with the threat in the air. We all but kill them now.
The attitude shift _alone_ will stop hijackings. Now random bombs in bags, ok, screen bags with dogs and sending them through scanners. Problem pretty much solved, or at least reduced to near zero, just as it was before.
Patented (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, so easy a "6-year old could do the same thing", and yet:
"The Livermore laboratory sent off a final application to the U.S. Patent Office on Nov. 23, 2006"
That provides insight to the absurdity of the patent process. Take something obvious, simple, and widely used, then say "Look! This is a brand new technique, just because no one has applied these algorithms to these sorts of images before."
Give me a break.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is, we don't really even need that! There were some very good measures put in place after 9/11 that prevented the use of commercial airliners being used as missiles against us, namely a locked and reinforced cockpit door and armed air marshals. This also prevents hijackings for any reason, such as extortion and the like. Either way, as long as these measures are in place, planes being used as missiles is mitigated. And I firmly believe I will not see it happen again in the US in my lifetime.
Now that the threat to the general public is diminished the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines. That way you can choose to pay for your security if you really want it, and competitive practices can find the optimal solution.
Larger City (Score:4, Insightful)
Any poor soul that gets a rush out of viewing those body scans needs to move to a larger city where getting laid is more than a twice in a life time experience.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is my objection. These images are stored and since it was a government project they are running windows and are easily hacked.
In 12-18 months non distorted images of celebreties and politicians will be on the Internet.
Re:A false argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can find scientists that warn lots of stuff. There are many more scientists that are telling those first scientists to shut up.
Research is ongoing as to which group should actually shut up, of course, but most info points toward the backscatter being less of a risk than the radiation you get during the plane ride.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cannot work, because they share a "post-screened" area. Therefore, all of the planes are at the security of the lowest common denominator.
But empirically, that's wrong. In the 1970's there were a lot of terrorists on planes, hence security. The problem is you're neglecting the goal of behavior modification. If people are far more reticent to fly, it creates a chilling effect on the whole economy.
Re:A false argument (Score:3, Insightful)
No, hijacking don't work anymore since every passenger knows they will die if they leave the hijackers alone. Even if you take away the sealed cockpit door (which isnt even a real nuissance, so keep it), you would need incredibly overwhelming force to subdue hundreds of passenger who know their only chance of survival is killing you. now you would probably need to get about 100 guys onto a plane and get into a full-scale wrestling match and choke every single passenger to death before you have control of the plane.
The mentality change in the passenger caused by 9-11 is preventing hijackings, not the security checks
Re:Rule 34? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Israel (Score:4, Insightful)
A reason why the US doesn't use the Israeli system is that it might offend some people. The US prefers to offend everyone to make it look like they aren't profiling.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that the threat to the general public is diminished the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines. That way you can choose to pay for your security if you really want it, and competitive practices can find the optimal solution.
Don't quite agree with this. If the terrorists were able to detonate a cellphone bomb while the airplane was on approach to an airport over a city, not only would it have caused the deaths of the people on the plane but also untold damage on the ground (zoning laws that prohibit dense development around airports would reduce casualties, but major airports are still close enough to major cities for the risk to be non-zero). And the terror value of a flaming airplane exploding in a huge fireball in a city would be much, much higher than even the Mumbai attacks, even if the death rate turns out to be lower.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we would just profile we wouldn't need half the security we have.
What do you mean by "profile"?
If you mean "apply extra scrutiny to certain ethnic and religious groups", that's completely and utterly useless.
If you mean "put all of the passengers under intense stress and watch their reactions", like the Israelis do, well, that works very well... but makes the security screening vastly more manpower-intensive and time-consuming. And, frankly, much more unpleasant than being briefly groped. I've flown out of Ben-Gurion airport a few times and I'd rather have a prostate exam.
The truth is that we simply don't need half the security we have. We should just roll it all back to pre-9/11 levels, keeping only the cockpit door locks. That plus the passengers' understanding that allowing their plane to be hijacked is likely to get them killed will mean that terrorism on airplanes will be restricted to killing passengers, making planes a low-value target. It's possible that the occasional Bad Thing will happen on an airplane, but it'll still be safer than driving.
Re:A long losing battle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rule 34? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for bombs; We have trained dogs, x-ray machines for packages, and all manner of technology for checking packages, but not all packages are checked. We need to implement higher controls on the baggage side of airport security, not the passenger side. Train more dogs, get more baggage x-ray machines, and train more TSA agents for the behind-the-scenes security procedures.
What we don't need is 40 year olds rent-a-cops with authority issues touching the crotch of seven year old kids before they get on their trip to Disney World in case their hiding a kilo of Cemtex in their pants.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors.
And yet they don't... no one has walked into an airport and blown that up, even though it would work GREAT. It's as if there isn't a vast network of resourceful bombers looking to cause as much harm as possible... only a handful of amateurs. It's exactly as if that threat was overblown in order to gain power though fear.
Who controls the TSA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem isn't the scanner (IMHO) (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the terrorist plots that have been foiled since Sept. 11.
Who foiled the shoe bomber? Passengers. Who foiled the underwear bomber? Passengers.
The TSA is meaningless; what we need, and for the moment have, are other people flying on planes who are willing to prevent another Sept. 11.
Re:A false argument (Score:3, Insightful)
If you remove the security, do you really think terrorists wouldn't notice and exploit it again? Read up on history, once hijackings were extremely common UNTIL rigorous security measures put an end to them.
No, hijackings were extremely common until United Airlines Flight 93 put an end to them.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that a economy that is reliant on transporting people around as air cargo need to be reevaluated.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people can be titilated by some really grotesque images. There's porn of old women, fat women, etc.
Reader FleaPlus points out an unintended consequence: some transportation economists believe that the TSA's new invasive techniques may lead to more deaths as more people to use road transportation to avoid flying
They already did when they started making everyone tale their shoes off and go through all the security theater. They're just raising the death rate further.
Odd how a transportation safety administration causes travel to be less safe. perhaps they should call it the Transportation Security Theater Administration?
3,000 people died on American soil from terrorism in this decade, but meanwhile 45,000 people die on the highways annually.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:4, Insightful)
I never understood why after somebody hijacked a plane with some fucking knives, we decided to make sure nobody could possibly defend themselves when the one person we are worried about brings a functioning laptop, breaks it and uses the sharp plastic to slit the throat of the guy next to him to show it can be a weapon, and quickly take a hostage. Everything can be a weapon if somebody wants it to be. The only thing the TSA has ever done is made it less likely anybody would survive an actual incident. Period.
Re:Deadlier than the terrorists (Score:1, Insightful)
No, you're missing an even more important point: when I get a dental or medical X-ray it's for MY benefit. I'm willing to accept a little more risk because I get some benefit out of it. Likewise when flying in a plane and receiving a slightly higher natural radiation dose due to less atmospheric shielding at altitude -- I weigh the increased risk against the benefit of traveling by plane.
What fricking benefit do I get when I stand in an airport scanner? I already know I'm not a terrorist or smuggler. It's a complete waste of time. There's no benefit for me. Zero. Who care's if the risk from the scanner is small or huge? I'm agreeing to all the risk for somebody else's benefit. It's all downside for me. Worse, it's effectiveness is dubious anyway.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:1, Insightful)
you want terror? find out all the major evac points for the airport - put a large transit vans packed with nail bombs right next to each one, hit fire alarm wait five minutes, res remote detonator.
Cheap , easy access to car parks, less security than inside.
Re:Deadlier than the terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how often do you get a chest x-ray? I can count the number I've had on one hand. Some people fly weekly.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>There are many more scientists that are telling those first scientists to shut up.
Okay I provided a link to the USC scientists who mailed a letter tothe White House and warning about the increased skin cancer risk. Where is YOUR link for scientists telling the USC scientists to shut up?
(waits)
Doesn't exist does it?
Your claim is false.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rule 34? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should prevent the TVs from broadcasting that, seeing as they're helping the terrorists win...
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
if it is true, and flying is already safer than road travel, then why do we need all the security?
1) The elite prefer, at this time, to control the masses by fear. Americans are carefully social engineered to be cowards, and the elite like it that way. Otherwise, all the lives ruined by the elites might want to take a few with em on the way out. So, keep them scared.
2) Do you have any idea how much freaking money that "security theater" costs? Lots of campaign contributions later, it turns out we have a need.
I called this over a year ago in the "Air Force One NYC Flyby" incident:
"We are a bunch of fuckin' wussy people."
- 3 planeloads of people let 5 men armed with hand tools take over airplanes - because that's what they've been told to do. As soon as the 4th planeload of people find out how they've been lied to, they take action and save many more lives.
- Hundreds of students cower under desks waiting be rescued from 1 man with 2 handguns, and the only person to do ANYTHING is an octogenarian who gets killed for his efforts to protect the strong, healthy, 18-22 year old "adults" hiding in fear. The most played interview is of a young man who was simply waiting to die. He is called "heroic".
- A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.
Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble, where former soldiers are considered security risks because the government trained them to kill, and the people whose "job" it is to protect us simply shrug their shoulders and pick up the bodies.
Wussies doesn't really cover it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1213517&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=27736123 [slashdot.org]
A year and a half later, it's only gotten worse. One of the victims at VT is now making his name running "investigations" on how easy it is to get guns at gun shows - even though the guy who shot him bought from gun shops and passed the background checks. Soldiers passing through to Afghanistan are being told they need to check their bayonets - while they KEEP their rifles and sidearms. And once you enter the "secure zone", you must either submit to the scanner or the search or be arrested - you can't simply decide not to fly.
It's not even a question anymore about whether something really bad is going to happen - the question is what are people going to do WHEN it happens.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:5, Insightful)
"In some ways, if we're relying on airport screeners to prevent terrorism, it's already too late. After all, we can't keep weapons out of prisons. How can we ever hope to keep them out of airports?"
-Bruce Schneier
Passengers did not foil those (Score:3, Insightful)
Both bombs failed because of incompetence. By the time the passengers were aware of them (from the fire, smoke, and smell), the bombs had already failed.
It's one thing to dislike the scanners, it's another to lie about events that actually happened.
Re:Flap over invasive (Score:1, Insightful)
* anyone with children will stop flying. anyone with sexual trauma in their life will stop flying. anyone remotely insecure will stop flying.
Huzzah! Is this supposed to be a negative? Sounds like a bonus to me.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm disgusted that this got modded up so high. I don't like the security theater either, but I'm not arrogant enough to propose that I should make up false arguments against these measures to scare people into turning against them. It appears that most, or at least a large enough number of people believe the extra "security" justified to continue having it. Convince them they're wrong or stfu, but don't start knowingly start spreading lies to support your belief. Firstly it just confuses the issue further, and secondly when you're found out, and you probably will be, it damages the credibility of all the rest of us who hold the same basic position but don't feel the need to make things up to support our arguments.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so objectionable about the scanners? From what I can tell, the radiation they give off is infinitesimal, the pictures they make are barely more detailed than silhouettes, and going through them is a quick and painless procedure. Maybe there are details I don't know, but I've been surprised at the outrage over the full-body scanners.
First off, you're using "infinitesimal" wrong. Regardless, there are numerous stories about how it's not as benign as it's being portrayed as. No matter the dose, people should not be forced into exposure.
But what it boils down to is that:
1. Citizens in a free nation should not be forcibly and deliberately exposed to radiation.
2. Citizens in a free nation should not have nude images taken of their bodies without their explicit permission.
3. Citizens in a free nation should not be have their bodies, including their genitalia, groped by strangers without explicit permission.
Specifically, this should not be a standard practice used on innocent citizens in a free country. Especially not as a prerequisite for something as common as air travel.
I can't fathom how anyone can find this ok. I find that to be one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole mess and it serves as a good reminder of why it's so important to stop these things early on. There are just far too many citizens can be relied upon to cry for more oppression by the state.
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because folks have an irrational fear of flying.
It's not so much an irrational fear of flying, it's a fear of not being in control of your own safety. Everyone thinks they're a safe driver and therefore on the safe edge of the bell curve when it comes to risks of driving. On an airplane, you can do everything to maximize your safety, at the end of the day, you have to trust that the pilot, mechanics, manufacturer, airline, inspectors, regulators, etc. are all doing their jobs properly, and that no extraneous factor (like unforeseen weather or terrorism) enters into the mix.
Statistically, you're safer on a per-distance basis, but human risk determination has a hard time balancing out these two situations.
- RG>
Re:Great...now just one more issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No they were approved by George Bush's former transportation secretary who is now on the Corporate Board of said company.
In other words he put Profit first and didn't give a frak if the machines' xrays caused skin cancer.
Re:Rule 34? (Score:3, Insightful)
While it is true that you can't keep all potential weapons off a plane you can at least make it very difficult to get anything large enough to do serious damage on board. That was what we were doing pre-9/11 and it worked fairly well.
Rather than trying to improve detection methods what we really need to do is improve the aircraft so that the small bombs people can sneak on board are not enough to take them out. It has been possible to do that since the mid 90s with bomb-proof cargo containers and passenger cabins. It makes everything heavier and costs more but basically it is well within our ability to make bombs on aircraft ineffective.
Other small weapons are already ineffective thanks to re-enforced cockpit doors and passengers afraid of dying.