Slashdot Mirror
$500,000 Prize for Faster Airport Security Checks
coondoggie writes "A security company is willing to fork over $500,000 in prize money to the person or company that comes up with an innovative
technology to speed airport security lines. The company making the offer, Clear, says the winning technology must meet a number of criteria including TSA approval and it must reduce inconvenience by, for example, allowing for no divesting of shoes or outer garments."
I don't recall if I had to remove my shoes, but I do recall security procedures in the UK being at least as inconvenient as those in the US. One of the most rediculous was only being able to bring one piece of carry-on including your laptop (ie. you must choose between a laptop and a carry-on bag).
Like most government million-dollar prizes (such as for the next-generation of battery technology), the prize is a bonus. The government, or in this case the security company, also agrees to purchase X units at whatever it costs you to build (including start-up costs, and usually a profit margin of 6-10%). So, if you have a good idea, and invest your time in making it work, the company will end up giving you millions, but you know that $500,000 will be upfront as an interim reward.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It's probably insufficient money to buy you a congressman or two to introduce the necessary changes to the laws concerned.
Because changing the laws or TSA guidelines to drop these required checks would probably be the best way - or at least the way that makes the most sense. The checks at airports don't provide much real security - mostly, they are there to provide a (false) sense of security. According to several reports, the checks don't actually catch most real threats at all (and even very low-tech threats like knives slip through a lot of the time), and are just costing everyone involved a lot of time/money. Also see snake oil security.
Not that the EU is much better in this regard btw - the ridiculous bans on liquids on planes are still in place, even though the European Parliament wants to lift those (at some point).
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
1. Walk through detector for both metal/explosives. Appendages like those found on drive through car washes "lick" the shoes.
2. Carry on scanned same way, with automated "tongues" sampling the residue on the bags.
3. KEY: Everyone, and I mean everyone, on board gets their own Taser. Its clipped into the seat in front of you, right next to the phone! Locked of course until released by the captain (or head flight attendant (the one with the dirty knees?? (had too))). These would be the newly developed "Taser in a shotgun shell" where the entire electronics package is delivered to the target, rather than the wires running from the gun to the target.
4. Profit!!!!
So you breeze through the detectors, which should catch 99% of the nasties coming through, and for the 1% they miss, you've got enough non-deadly force, non-going through the skin of the airplane causing explosive decompression, armed passengers to quell any threat.
Worst case scenario would be a Taser battle in coach!
I guess this is more of "an innovative use of existing technology" rather than "an innovative technology" other than the new "Taser in a shotgun shell", but it meets the criteria.
Where's my half mil?
Transfer responsibility from the feds to the individual airlines. That's it.
Let the airlines make whatever policies they wish, implement them as they wish. Anything from 'Come on aboard, no questions asked!' to strip searching and anal cavity inspections. The customers will reward the airline whose policy makes the most sense with lots of money.
The other side of the coin is that the airlines' insurers would work to make sure that the policies were effective. If your plane gets hijack, and flown into a building, your premiums go WAY up.
I just wanted to clarify a small part of this issue that you don't realize. Some places have notices that say you consent to search by coming through their line. However, the difference with the 4th amendment rights is people are stupid enough to GIVE them up, which is what is happening. Someone can say "I want to search you" but you can reply "I am not giving up my 4th amendment rights/where is your warrant" and if they do any form of searching/even touch you for any reason other than arrest, they just violated your rights.
Instead, we get retards that say "oh, okay, take a look, I have nothing to hide". Likewise when they ask you if you have anything harmful, even if you don't, thats asking you to give up your 5th amendment rights. Want to know why lawyers get through lines faster? It's because they ask the people who ask them a question this: "are you asking me to give up my right to the 5th amendment by answering your question" to which they have to answer no. Or, the security people know not to even bother asking (which is more common).
Welcome to logic, and where it is missing.
Bah. My plan was going to involve divesting of all clothing altogether. Show up at the airport naked, and you won't have to waste time taking off your shoes.
Mythbusters recently tested the myth that a person with no prior flight experience could be talked into landing a plane by themselves. It was tense (even though they were using a highly realistic simulator), but they finally proved that the myth was plausible (even though the situation has never come up in real life). One interesting point with this, though, was that their expert told them that all modern planes have such sophisticated computers that they can land themselves without any human help.
Assuming this is true (or so nearly true that a little R&D could make it true very soon), the best solution would be to strongly lock the pilot's cabin prior to boarding. Then, if a hijacker tried to take over the plane, the pilot could just press a "We've been hijacked" button and the plane would 1) send out an automated signal informing control towers of this fact, 2) divert course for the nearest airport, and 3) land the plane with no further assistance from the pilot.
This way, even if the hijackers managed to force their way into the cabin, they would be powerless to disable the "We've been hijacked" controls and the plane would land anyway.
This doesn't take into account a plane bomber, but it eliminates the possibility of another 9-11.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.