Speedier Screening May Be Coming To an Airport Near You 163
First time accepted submitter Rickarmstrong writes "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is pushing for private contractors to create a screening machine with 'screen and walk' capability for use at the nation's 160 international airports and thousands of federal facilities. The agency recently requested information from high-tech companies and other private firms about any new technology that can help speed up the security checkpoints managed by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Protective Services."
More pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice to think that they are attempting to address an obvious problem, but with the TSA, I suspect this is going to be just another opportunity to line the pockets of politically connected people...
Question: if the lines got shorter, how would they gather an audience for their security theater?
Re:More pork? (Score:4, Insightful)
The obvious problem is with the existence of the TSA to begin with, but bureaucracy doesn't work to eliminate itself, only to grow and consume ever greater amounts of resources.
Re:More pork? (Score:5, Funny)
The obvious problem is with the existence of the TSA to begin with, but bureaucracy doesn't work to eliminate itself, only to grow and consume ever greater amounts of resources.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy!" - Oscar Wilde
Re: (Score:3)
One of them watched the old "Total Recall" with Arnie. Even though the movie was rated R they didn't take advantage of the obvious opportunity with their "walking screening device".
Re:More pork? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I too suspect the motive is misplaced, but I'm assuming they're looking for a street-viable implementation and are willing to use the airports as a test bed.
Look at the requirements - they want to scan through leather jackets. Couldn't the airport just insist you send those through with your baggage?
The specs call for very little crowd participation.
I saw faster screening at Orlando (Score:2)
For a small fee you can pay a company to allow you to skip the line of people waiting to be scanned. This allows you to walk up directly to the screening section rather than wait 30 to 45 minutes in line with the masses. Capitalism at its best. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
If your money is worth more than your time, you'll wait, if your time is worth more than your money, you'll pay. That's a fundamental decision every time you say something like "I'll pay someone to change my oil because I don't want to spend 20 minutes and get dirty doing it myself", or "I'll eat out so I don't h
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (Score:5, Informative)
I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.
Now if you'll just bend over, I need to insert this probe for national security reasons. Or you could pay me $20 and I'll find someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.
They don't let anyone avoid security screening merely in exchange for money. "Fast-track" passengers pay for the privilege, but also go through a security vetting process to be eligible. That's different from paying to skip a long line, which is no more artificial than this: "Here, sit in this cramped seat with no leg room surrounded by screaming babies for the next 12 hours. Or, you can pay $$$ for a first-class seat, and I'll find someone else to put back here in Economy."
Re: (Score:2)
They don't let anyone avoid security screening merely in exchange for money. "Fast-track" passengers pay for the privilege, but also go through a security vetting process to be eligible. That's different from paying to skip a long line, which is no more artificial than this: "Here, sit in this cramped seat with no leg room surrounded by screaming babies for the next 12 hours. Or, you can pay $$$ for a first-class seat, and I'll find someone else to put back here in Economy."
They don't let you skip the security scan, but they let you pay money to skip standing around in a needlessly long line. That's the artificial creation, the wait. They've made the scanning process much MUCH longer than it has to be. "Please take out any laptops, and any liquids and your shes and ... now step aside for enhanced screening and now put everything back on... "
Paying to upgrade to a first class seat makes more sense. There is only so much space in a plane. So if you want more space, you'll
Re: (Score:3)
Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency,
That is the whole point. And while I understand the time/money trade off, what I object to is that this market shouldn't exists in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is a long and boring reason why government agencies doing this isn't racketeering. You see....
*points behind you* TERRORIST!!!! *ducks out of nearby window when you look away*
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
Forgot to add that this system doesn't scale. If a larger number of people decide that time is money, then the skipping line will get congested and we'll all be back in the same boat again.
The true solution for congestion is to either speed processing or increase the number of processing lanes. Everything else is just a money grab
Re: (Score:3)
The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.
But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize they more-or-less do that now [tsa.gov], right?
Re: (Score:2)
Except when they deny you without telling you why, with no real appeal process, because you can't JUST get pre-check, you have to get one of the other certifications instead. The most common one is Global Entry, which allows expedited customs. Have you ever forgotten to declare something small coming back into the country and they find it (even if it's not prohibited)? Then you're permanently banned from this program. Ever had someone ship you something from overseas and accidentally misdeclare customs (out
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you don't need Global Entry, there's a program that just takes a criminal background check [tsa.gov] (but doesn't help with international travel). You just need a Known Traveler Number. So unless your "failure to declare" was actually felony smuggling, you should be good. Assuming, of course, that there's not someone with a similar-sounding name on the arbitraty No Fly List.
Re: (Score:2)
The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.
But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.
Well, as a matter of fact, the process you propose has been in use for over a year [cnn.com] at a few airports and airlines, and is expanding [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No, it hasn't. My parents have gone through security as "TSA Pre" travelers. There's remarkably little difference between that and normal travel, from what I've seen, and at most, no more difference than the difference between buying a first-class ticket and a coach ticket (separate line). Yes, in theory, you have to do a few less things, but you still get in line, stick your bag on a belt, walk through a magnetometer o
Re: (Score:2)
true. it will all become just another tax.
maybe they'll end up charging you based on how long you want to wait in line. once people are sorted into 15 mins / 30 mins / 1 hr lines, they'll dynamically reallocate resources to make sure all lines move as planned.
Oh yeah, they can/will also charge depending by destination. If you're flying SF->LA and miss you're flight, you're out $100, but if you're flying SF->Sydney and miss your flight, that's $1000 at least. I imagine you would be willing to pay a lot
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not flight. Are you flight?
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping the flight deck doors secured (with felony criminal charges to await any crew that opens them under duress) and having a flight full of passengers ready to beat the carp out of any would-be hijackers [globaltimes.cn] are enough to keep the flight reasonably safe.
I'm sure the crew members under duress aren't very concerned about potential felony charges upon landing if they open the doors. I'm sure they are trying to balance the odds of dying immediately if they refuse to open the doors and in short order if they do. I'm sure landing and being arrested for criminal charges would be a near-best case outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
My bigger concern would be pilots being pressured into opening the door from the inside. They aren't in any immediate danger of harm, but might feel obligated to open the doors to "help those poor people on the other side." Yes, what might be happening on the other side of the doors might be horrible, but they should know that they'll be shielded from any liability so long as they immediately report it in and make an emergency landing the first opportunity they can.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd second this but also add that crew should also be held legally to hold no liability for anyone injured because they refused to open the cabin doors. For example, terrorist tries taking over a plane and says "If you don't open these doors, I shoot this woman!" Crew doesn't open the doors. Woman is shot. Woman's family sues the flight attendants, pilots, airline, etc over not opening the doors. At that point, the judge should be able to say "This was a terrorist situation and the law clearly exempts
Re: (Score:3)
Time/money/value decisions are something you make dozens of every day.
Exactly. As noted in the movie Volunteers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Perverse incentive. If people can pay money to skip the lines, then longer lines are good for profit.
Much like ISPs: If your $40/month package is good enough for everyday use, a bit of gaming, netflix and the occasional torrent, who is going to pay for the $100/month package? The obvious solution is to make sure the $40/month package is sufficiently rubbish that anyone who can afford to pay more will do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What company is that?
It is CLEAR. It effectively allows you to skip the part where the TSA agent looks at your id and and ticket and agrees that you are who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Once my line was super backed up so they shunted me through the CLEAR line. I went to take off my belt and shoes but they shrugged and just motioned me through. Nice security you got there. ATL for those who keep track.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if people receive background checks when they belong to "elite" airline miles programs. But many first class and other people in those programs for sure can go through the fast line.
Re: (Score:2)
newspeak removed (Score:1)
A friend of those in government wants some money and the government is calling out for a product which comes mysteriously close to some useless device which said friend is about to sell.
That will actually improve security. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the first tech I've heard of that actually leads me to believe it might cover a real security hole. In this case, the grab a couple semi-automatics and gun down the crowds waiting to get through security hole.
Re:That will actually improve security. (Score:5, Informative)
The question I have is, why hasn't this happened?
If you accept the argument that terrorists principal goal is to create, well, terror, then you would expect terror attacks with the only real goal of creating chaos and news.
Given the chaos and headlines created at the mall in Kenya or the hotel in India, you would expect something like that to happen in the US. It's not hard to get ahold of guns, there are presumably a fair number of motivated attackers, and there are plenty of targets available.
As an example, coordinated attacks on 3-4 shopping malls simultaneously would be in the news forever and probably have a non-trivial economic impact from people avoiding malls alone, let alone the expected costs of all the security you'd expect to be demanded/added.
Either security is that good or the actual threat just isn't there. I find the former hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that the biggest change was that we hunted the terrorists. I don't want to know how many billions we spend per al-qaeda member killed, but even with such a poor exchange rate, we've spent an insan
Re: (Score:2)
The threat isn't there. Most of the potential terrorists have realized just how futile such things are now. They look at 9/11 and 7/7 and see that if anything it just made things worse for Muslims. Much better to go off and fight somewhere like Syria or Afghanistan where they can make more of a difference.
Re:That will actually improve security. (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been a lot of Americans of Somali descent recruited to return to Somalia and fight for al-Shabab, so I don't think it's unrealistic to think that there are people already here who could be recruited to do this. I don't think you need or would even want to recruit people from overseas to do this.
Domestic mass shootings, despite the political rhetoric surrounding them, are always the work of a single individual suffering from some kind of mental illness. They lack all but the most rudimentary planning and execution, they're only quasi-rational. The net effect is that nobody sees them as part of an ongoing threat or conspiracy. There's not this feeling that they are deliberate attacks by a larger organization or with a larger purpose in mind.
A mass shooting by a terrorist organization I would expect to have superior tactics and organization. I would also expect that if they were identified as being terrorist attacks that the perception of threat would be much greater because the attacks would be seen as the result of rational planning and execution, not apparent one-time actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Domestic mass shootings, despite the political rhetoric surrounding them, are always the work of a single individual suffering from some kind of mental illness. They lack all but the most rudimentary planning and execution, they're only quasi-rational.
Sorry, but this is a complete cop-out.
Mass shootings, whilst never rational (no form of violence really is) can be very well planned. The case of Columbine or Charles Whitman in the US or Anders Brevik in Norway. Whilst Brevik and Whitman were quite disturbed, they weren't incapable of planning or forethought. In fact in their cases, the planning seems quite rational even though the goal was quite mad.
Gun nuts like to blame mental illness because it draws attention away from the fact ready access to g
Re: (Score:2)
I think it makes more sense to compare these spree killers with the attackers in Kenya and India. The latter had more sophisticated plans and training, including planting weapons and ammunition ahead of time. The spree killers did none of these things.
Whitman's success was largely due to his training as a Marine sharpshooter, not to any planning or organization. The "planning" of Columbine was about as sophisticated as an elementary school snowball fight.
As disturbed as Breivk is, his case actually come
I know how to make it go faster... (Score:2)
...simply remove all of the screening apparatus in the airports. It is vastly just "security theatre" and does nothing but costs taxpayers time, money, and aggravation. To say nothing of the of the decline in tourism and business dollars due to the obtrusiveness.
Oh, yeah, and the total violation of basic human rights and decency with that large, gaping wound it leaves in the 4th Amendment (among others).
Re:I know how to make it go faster... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless. Along the way we found out that you needed locking, reinforced cockpit doors in the bargain, and now we have those. Why not just go back to x-raying luggage, and maybe run the humans past the explosives sniffer? Non-invasive screening of humans seems fairly reasonable. I wouldn't want to let people on my multi-million-dollar aircraft without it, if I had one :p
Re: (Score:2)
Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
Because then there would be no need for all those expensive and ineffective machines, and how would the politicians get their kickbacks?
Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.
And because then people might get the idea that they have the right not to be run rough
Re:I know how to make it go faster... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
Bro, do you even government? Nothing is ever that simple. There are always at least two goals. In this case, there's the jobs program, and there's also the erosion of those inconvenient civil liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
Inside joke? I'm on the outside and it's painfully apparent to me how the utterly unemployable (and only them) land jobs in positions at the TSA, the DMV, or some other state-run shithole designed to make my life a living hell.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... (Score:5, Informative)
How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless.
Yeah, but then how would they be able to justify forcing people to throw away their bottles of water, shampoo, etc.? "That might be a bomb, throw it in that trash can over there!"
I went to SF for a conference, and bought a snow globe for my in-laws, as is my habit when I travel. They wouldn't let me take it because it could contain "bomb making materials", which is ludicrous. They told me I could either surrender the package, or go to the post office to mail it. If I went to the post office, I'd miss my flight and it was a $4 snow globe, so I told them I'd surrender it. I was highly frustrated and busy putting my stuff together that they had pulled apart, so I was too distracted to notice that they kept not just the snow globe, but the bag that had all of the other souvenirs I had bought, including t-shirts and Ghirardelli chocolates I got for the rest of my family. The TSA is a pack of thieving, security-theater perverts. [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I use expensive, specialized tweezers in my work, for which I must travel. Not knives—tweezers. On the occasions where the TSA wants to take them, I first destroy them (wrench them apart), so that they cease to have any value. I don't like thieves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless. Along the way we found out that you needed locking, reinforced cockpit doors in the bargain, and now we have those. Why not just go back to x-raying luggage, and maybe run the humans past the explosives sniffer? Non-invasive screening of humans seems fairly reasonable. I wouldn't want to let people on my multi-million-dollar aircraft without it, if I had one :p
It sounds like you've travelled through a decent airport.
One of the fastest international airports I've ever gotten through was KLIA (Kuala Lumpur International Airport) in Malaysia. I was running late due to a delay on a previous leg on a different airline, I managed to get checked in, through immigration and security and to the gate in less than 30 minutes. KLIA is not a rare example either, Changi Aiport (Singapore) is the same. Both KLIA and Changi have security at the gate, this is just a simple X-R
Re: (Score:2)
I am ok with that.... as long as they do it exactly like bars do....
That is, screen first, then sell the tickets on the other side of the checkpoint; that way they only sell tickets to people who have already been screened for extra safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Tickets are non refundable. Beyond lost sales in the future and bad word of mouth they have nothing to lose from you walking out without boarding.
The TSA of course knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is one industry that does not care one bit what the public think of them, its airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
However this security measure would be exactly as effective as all their others, and is every bit as needed. So I think it makes a lot of sense, at least as much sense as having a TSA in the first place.
How about 'None'. That would be good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.
How do cockpit doors achieve behavioral compliance conditioning?
one.... (Score:2)
There are actually other things they should do but that costs more money and it's easier to put security theater into play than actually dealing with the problem. You could get more effective use of just good metal detectors and a few trained dogs with handlers than all this BS that they've put us through, especially since underwear boy set himself on fire. The whole liquids thing was because of a "credible threat" that never panned out. Taking your shoes off was the whole Reid affair. [wikipedia.org] Honestly I think
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually other things they should do
Nope. Get these worthless, immoral government thugs out of airports; the end.
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually other things they should do
Nope. Get these worthless, immoral government thugs out of airports; the end.
Who says I was talking about the government?
Re: (Score:2)
Speedier screenings? Let me guess... (Score:1)
They will start giving the TSA goons a couple hits of meth before going on-shift?
Total Recall? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Total Recall? (Score:4, Funny)
Are they asking for proposals for the scanner from Total Recall?
No, they're asking for proposals for the scanner from Airplane ;)
Yup, first thing that came to mind (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Ala first Total Recall... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but why didn't they push for something like this before?
Because there wasn't deemed to be a need for it (especially if you go back about 13 years), and/or it wasn't worth the effort. Both are arguably still the case.
TSA Speed (Score:3)
I was once at an airport, I think it was LAS... people were all piled up in a clusterfuck right after of the entrance to TSA where they check IDs, even though there was about a mile of Disneyland spiral queue that was not being used. A helpful TSA agent started to open up the spiral queue, and was actually rebuked by a superior because "that's not the way they do things", and everyone that went in the queue had to rejoin the mosh pit of people.
And then they closed two of the four open screening lanes because "it wasn't busy enough to justify having that many open". We had to literally jog across the airport to catch our flight after being stuck in that mess for 50+ minutes.
I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.
Re: (Score:2)
>I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.
niether, because the technology will be chosen and operated by people with heads up their asses
Walkthrough screening device... (Score:3)
How about all those metal detectors they already have.
1. Shut down the body scanners
2. Drop all the silly ID checking
3. Everyone goes through a metal detector
4. Luggage goes through an x-ray machine, looking only for weapons or explosives.
No weapons or explosives? On you go.
Re: (Score:2)
How about all those metal detectors they already have.
1. Shut down the body scanners
2. Drop all the silly ID checking
3. Everyone goes through a metal detector
4. Luggage goes through an x-ray machine, looking only for weapons or explosives.
No weapons or explosives? On you go.
To be fair, there are other items that should not fly.
Corrosives, flammables, even organics in some cases. One of the biggest problems customs inspectors in Australia is the movement of plant and animal material that may contain pests between Australian states.
As for an ID check, well checking boarding passes is a good idea... So if I have to show my license or passport at the same time it's no trouble. A simple ID check prevent some low life from taking off with my boarding pass (well not mine, but
Re: (Score:2)
They had that already. The problem was that the metal detectors were too slow because every time it beeped somebody had to figure out why, then try again. The whole point of the body scanners was to make the screening faster.
Now with the body scanners it is the X-ray machines that are the bottleneck. They typically run with multiple X-ray machines per body scanner because the scanners are so much more efficient.
dom
who are you? where do you live? surely not in USA. In USA they replaced two metal detectors with one phone booth screener, so even if the phone booth is faster on a per-machine basis they cut the throughput in half. Now I have to wait to put my luggage into the machine until I'm ready for the phone booth, because if I let it go in right away then it will sit on th eother side unattended so people will steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
You either work for a scanner manufacturer, or you have never actually been through an airport security line. The metal detectors are AT LEAST 2x as fast (in terms of passengers per hour) than the scanners.
Can they keep the cost below $1 trillion? (Score:2)
They already have such a machine (Score:2)
Will it still amount to technological strip search (Score:2)
I have no issue with security checks...nor to pat downs (of which I have had a few hundred, as I've opted out for years now). I have a *huge* issue with the expectation (tragically routinely met on a day-to-day basis) that people blithely consent to what amounts to a strip search without probable cause in order to board a plane. IAAA, and the 4th Amendment *should* mean something to people. Fear and dogma drove the adaptation of a technology that offers absolutely *no* substantive safeguard, costs a stunnin
Create new em screening machines? (Score:3)
Right, like the ones that everyone hated, caused cancers in some TSA personnel (unadmitted by the TSA), and were pretty useless, since over and over, people demonstrated that they could smuggle weapons past them? And that are now retired, after tens of millions of tax dollars wasted on them?
Or like the new submillimeter machines, which have close to the same problems, that it's been demonstrated that you can smuggle weapons past them?
Here's a better way to spend money: fire all the managers and execs, and bring in some professional security managers. Ones that will, for example, come down like a ton of bricks on the screeners who do extra screening on good looking women, or pull vibrators or other sex toys out for their "amusement" value?
Go look at the archives from , by a guy who just quit the TSA after some years, and all what really happens back there.
Oh, and the boxcutters that the 9/11 hijackers were supposed to have had were *ILLEGAL* and should have been found before all this crap.
Keep the TSA on the job, guys, the terrorists have won, completely. America, the home of the cowards and the unfree.
mark
Re: (Score:2)
I for one think box cutters should be legal. Just watch somebody try to pull some shit with a box cutter today.
Just make a machine that does "Ping!" (Score:2)
I used to work in a lab with nitric acid and azides and those nice sniffer dogs and complicated explosive-detection machines (that puff air at you) never detected anything. Even though I probably had more materials indistinguishable from explosives on my clothes than an average terrorist.
Then once I tried replacing an auxiliary laptop battery with clay. Nothing from those X-Ray scanners as well.
So... (Score:2)
They are going back to letting us leave our shoes on, our laptops in our bags, and using simple metal detectors?
New machines? (Score:2)
Thank goodness. I thought it would be something along the lines of not changing latex gloves between passengers.
And a pony! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean an OB/Gyn exam... same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
At the gates, metal detector, and on other side guards with bomb sniffing dogs.
That's really all they need....I'd feel perfectly save doing that, I'd not get irradiated, groped or detained unnecessarily.
But I guess that would be too simple for govt. and wouldn't cost nearly enough for the feds to spend, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
I think a walk-and-screen system would work well, but only if it outlined peoples' bones in blue and highlighted any contraband items in red.
Re: (Score:2)
9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or bef
Re: (Score:2)
If it was simple it'd be done.
Utterly false. The primary purpose of any government agency is to increase the reach and the budget of that agency. It is really that simple. Bomb sniffing dogs can find stuff "vacuum sealed" - you'd be amazed how few molecules a good scent hound needs. No one is going to hijack a plane with merely a sharp object while passengers still remember 9/11.
Plus the threat is minor: if we had the courage to simply continue business as usual when a plane blew up, they wouldn't even be terrorist targets: terroris
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree that the threat is minor...part of that is due to the work of various government agencies, lucky, and our international relations. I disagree with your targets stuff,
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency
I admire your charming naivete. I hope life keeps treating you so well that you never develop my hardened cynicism.
As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know?
Well, I respect the opinions of the airline pilots I've discussed this with at length (while the hardened cockpit doors aren't perfect, they're enough), plus there have been a few incidents since 9/11 where passengers perceived a threat and "dogpiled" the supposed hijacker.
What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?
Now we're into movie plot threats. What if the terrorists are actually shape-shifting reptoid aliens, like the New Zeala
Re: (Score:2)
To quote the man who invented the phrase "movie plot threat"
The 9/11 terrorists used small pointy things to take over airplanes, so we ban small pointy things from airplanes. Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoes, so now we all have to take off our shoes. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security said that it might relax airplane security rules. It's not that there's a lessened risk of shoes, or that small pointy things are suddenly less dangerous. It's that those movie plots no longer capture the imagination like they did in the months after 9/11, and everyone is beginning to see how silly (or pointless) they always were...
The problem with movie plot security is that it only works if we guess right. If we spend billions defending our subways, and the terrorists bomb a bus, we've wasted our money. To be sure, defending the subways makes commuting safer. But focusing on subways also has the effect of shifting attacks toward less-defended targets, and the result is that we're no safer overall.
Terrorists don't care if they blow up subways, buses, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, schools, churches, crowded markets or busy intersections. Reasonable arguments can be made that some targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because most people commute daily. But the United States is a big country; we can't defend everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would an attacker want to get your vial of biological agent on the plane? Wouldn't it make more sense to open it in line ahead of the ticketing counter, where it would spread in more directions more readily? If you wait until you're on the plane, you're missing the opportunity to infect the other destinations that airport serves.
Also let's not forget that the best delivery agent of biological warfare is an infected human host.
Did your Libertarian bashing get in the way of your argument, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
What you described would possibly work today....
Although, they do xray the luggage still in my scenario, but what they do today could be fooled with what you described pretty much just as much as it could with my less intrusive methods.
And, that vacuumed sealed explosive had better be 100% air tight, and t
Re: (Score:2)
If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage?
The dog will still get you. The container, your luggage, and yourself will reek of explosives/drugs/whatever. You can't wash that shit off. Attempting to do so just makes it worse, actually. And your use of a plastic container makes it worse as well. Plastics are notorious for absorbing and retaining odors.
What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword?
Your luggage is inaccessible during the flight, as usual.
Your carry-on is x-rayed, as usual.
Your sword is going to be plainly obvious on your person.
Your concealed knife won't get you into the cockpi
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't 9/11 happen due to box cutters? Not even bombs or guns, or big knives. Of course, there are the shoe bomber's now. But those horrific tragedies were able to happen due to lowly box cutters. Recently, I traveled across my state for work with a co-worker. We had to rack some servers at the DR site. His bag had numerous tools like pliers and screw drivers in it. My bag had an unopened Arrowhead water bottle. I was pulled aside and received a personal screening while my co-worker waited for me, putting his shoes on, and holding his bag of pointy metal objects.
Be honest: Are you browner or hairier than him?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, is the new scanning done in series or parallel to the old scanning?
Re: (Score:2)
also it won't matter because they'll just reduce the number of lanes, or mess it up some other way. like when they installed the nudie scanners / phone booths, but replaced two metal detectors with each phone booth. it cut the throughput in half, to the point where the luggage machine is no longer the bottleneck. Just more $$$ down the pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause you might have a gun inside your uretra!
My penis gun has a hair trigger once it's cocked, but after a few shots I'll need a few minutes and a tuna sandwich to reload.