Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aerosol Spray to Identify Bombing Suspects

Posted by samzenpus on from the spray-the-terror-away dept.

RedHanded writes "Forensic chemists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have developed a color-changing spray that can identify people suspected of making or planting bombs. The chemical turns from yellow to bright red when it comes into contact with urea nitrate, an explosive residue that may be left behind on the hands of someone who has handled an improvised device."

16 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Basic hygiene by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many false alarms are they going to get after people don't wash their hands after visiting the bathroom?

    Maybe that is what they are looking for - poor hygiene = terrorist?

    Perhaps this chemical is the same one which makes the purple cloud of shame in the swimming pool (I know its a legend but still..)

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  2. bomb makers or... by Jherico · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bomb makers or maybe farmers who handle fertilizer? I don't envy being a false positive in Iraq.

    --

    Jherico

    What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

  3. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    zillion dollar spray defeated by less than a cent disposable rubber gloves.

  4. It's a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a good thing that terrorists never wash their hands.

  5. Congratulation! by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorists will now use gloves to make bombs. Innocent people will be falsely identified as being a terrorist.

    Mission accomplished!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Congratulation! by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will be on their shirts, or clothing from attempting to conceal it. Gloves won't hide the stuff either. If anything it would hid the person manufacturing it but then again a shower would do as much as gloves do.

      As for false positives, it isn't likely to be a problem. The stuff shows who the likely people are not who the person is. If you have a legitimate reason for the chemicals on you, you get to go. If you don't, then they look to see why you have it.

      It sounds like your pissed because they have found a way to track the people down after the fact and in some cases before the fact. Is that a bad thing for your or something? Would you prefer to just let them blow up innocent civilians unchallenged? Cause that's what happens, they kill more innocent civilians then military personnel.

    2. Re:Congratulation! by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't think it will be used on American civilians sooner or later? Kicking doors in and oppressive military tactics have come back to roost, look at abusive SWAT and cops... tazer usage is going out of hand, being used in the western work to nail kids (when I was a kid we used to get our ears boxed, not blasted with a tazer, and it worked better).

      If you're an American, and you hang out at the range, and the local scumbags decide to make that illegal, suddenly, having gone plinking or hunting is a crime... and suddenly, practicing your own rights for your own pleasure, without harming a single other man or woman, can get you shot or raided by the local jack booted thugs, all because some spray sells you out.

      I can guarantee they won't catch a single damn terrorist. Terrorists aren't the targets. They spent too much money training the real ones to kill them now.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    3. Re:Congratulation! by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't you think you are blowing things out of portion?

      Swat doesn't get called unless there is a barricade, ongoing threat of life or hostage situation. Cities don't have swat teams on standby to assist at traffic stops. They have cops on patrol that come off patrol when the swat team is called. Sometimes they go back and get their gear and sometimes their gear is loaded on a truck waiting for them on the scene. Swat forces havn't been abused in over 50 years so what makes you all the suddent think they will now.

      And as for the tasering of kids, These are stupid untrained cops and yes, they need to be dealt with, but they aren't a big problem. You can name 3 or 4 instances out of how many police forces and university forces in the last 3 years where this shit has happened. It isn't a major problem, it isn't like all the cops all around the country are doing it. There are more unjustified police shootings then taserings going on in a year. What makes you think it is a big problem now?

      If you're an American, and you hang out at the range, and the local scumbags decide to make that illegal, suddenly, having gone plinking or hunting is a crime... and suddenly, practicing your own rights for your own pleasure, without harming a single other man or woman, can get you shot or raided by the local jack booted thugs, all because some spray sells you out.
      Listen to what you are saying. If you do something and they make it illegal, and then commit that illegal act, suddenly you can get hassled by the cops. So what, your doing something illegal. Now there are ways to contest unjust laws and unconstitutional laws. If you think the answer is to just violate the law instead of taking care of it properly, then you deserve what you get.

      I don't see this coming around as something like you describe either. Lie detector tests have been around for a while, you don't see people getting pulled over randomly to see if they broke a law and then attempt to pull which law out of them. You have DNA that can link people to a crime, I don't see people being DNA samples manditorily in case you ever commit a crime. In fact, there are a lot of things that could be used in much the same manor as you describe now that isn't being used in that way. So tell me, what makes you think this is any different?

      I can guarantee they won't catch a single damn terrorist. Terrorists aren't the targets. They spent too much money training the real ones to kill them now.
      Ok, Now I understand the problem. Well, wake up alice, this isn't wonderland. You live in the real world. And if what you just said is even remotely true, do you understand the amount of people that would have to be lieing to you in order to keep it secrete enough to be effective? I mean you would have to have everyone in the program keeping it a secrete, anyone in the government or military who comes across them keeping it a secrete, what would happen if just one of them told? The jig would be up. So maybe they kill them so they cannot tell, where are all the missing bodies? Why are the soldiers killing them right now and dieing from it too.

      You need to wake up and just take a small breath of common sense. It is practically impossible for your lala land to exist.
    4. Re:Congratulation! by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1 in 10,000 isn't that bad for a false positive rate. But the false positive isn't conclusive evidence to anything. It is just one more way or reason to look at someone. I would be more worried about what it missed and no one looked at because it didn't go off then I would about having someone delayed an extra 20 minutes for whatever reason.

      You do realize that your 1 in 10,000 rate would only be one or two false positives a day in an airport that sees 10s f thousands of people. But I don't think this is the target audience for the stuff so it shouldn't matter. It is going to be when they suspect someone, they could spray him just before letting them go. If it is a match, well, you know what that means, if it doesn't turn red, then they aren't going to go any further.

      The real application I think this might have, seeing how it works on guns being fired too, is that in a firefight situation where the suspects run into a building and ditch the guns to act like they don't know what it going on. In this case, a few squirts, and you have a number of people who would probably know more about it. Now, you see three people standing in the vicinity of a road side bomb that goes off when the first vehicle in your convoy goes by, You can pursue these people and squirt, squirt, you might find someone of interest.

      I don't think anyone it thinking this is a cure all. It is just one more tool in the box for detecting wrong doers before or after the fact. It may be used to strengthen other evidence or to justify letting someone go. I don't doubt that it can be abused, but I doubt it would be wide spread in the abuse. Especially when people eventually go free and complain.

  6. That is why... by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...smart terrorists only use peroxide-based explosives (like the London subway bombing et al), oxidized halide based explosives (e.g. chlorate), and various other dirt cheap and ubiquitous explosives. While many of the most famous explosive chemistries might be subject to nitrate tests, the range of explosive chemistries that have been used at various times is far more diverse than nitrates. First World War mortar explosives are as dangerous today as they were back then, even if some of them do not contain nitrates.

    The fixation on the detection of nitrate and related chemistry is a bit of a blind spot in explosive detection technology.

  7. Alternative use: Detecting IEDs themselves. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I recall that troops in Iraq had already started using silly string to detect IED's.

    I wonder if a light spray of this stuff would make a hidden IED stand out as a bright red spot?

    And perhaps with red trails marking how it arrived and where the people who delivered it went when they left?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. marking spin by drDugan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    someone got the marketing spin engine revving to 50K RPM today:

    "that can identify people suspected of making or planting bombs."

    Bullshit. Using the spray may detect a chemical, (not people) which then people may use to suspect one another.
    Big difference.

    1. Re:marking spin by E++99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "that can identify people suspected of making or planting bombs."

      Why would you even need a spray to identify people suspected of making or planting bombs? If they're already suspected, then surely you know which people you suspect! Why is precise writing so hard for professional writers??? How about this -- It identifies people who have been in recent contact with certain types of possible explosives residue.

  9. I like their other test... by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The test for iron to tell if someone has handled a gun, or a grenade, or ... a wrench, or a wrought-iron railing, no?

  10. Re:You Know You've Read Slashdot Too Long... by SMS_Design · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, I'm concerned about the rights of bomb-makers. I, myself, made a few good ones when I was growing up out in the country. Mainly, though, I'm concerned about the rights of EVERY OTHER CITIZEN who will be needlessly harassed because of some bullshit test that will have 1000+ false positives for every actual bomb prevented.

  11. Now you don't need a bomb to cause disruption by Richard.D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go down to your local airport. Pick something that lots of people will handle, say the luggage trollies, or the paper towels in a bathroom, and sprinkle with urea nitrate. Leave before the avalanche of false positives at the security checks.