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."
A company which is trying to rake in millions by providing a "You paid more so you can skip the line" service, which promised shoe scanners etc, has to resort to trying to give a (rather small, given the need to get TSA approval) prize purse to make their business model work?
Test your net with Netalyzr
I suggest...
Do Nothing.
It will be just as effective, and much cheaper.
When do I get my money?
Anywhere in Europe or Asia ought to work. No "divesting of shoes" anywhere I've traveled outside the USA.
Stop taking token (and largely meaningless) security actions as a way to both justify jobs at the TSA and to keep the American people in fear.
There ya go, no need to take shoes off or all that other ridiculousness.
Not treating paying customers like criminals and removing the reasons the American government gives other peoples to hate us? Nobody's going to attack you if they like you, right?
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
I'll kick in a few bucks to the pot myself if it results in some actual time-saving.
Maybe if we get it up to $500,007 dollars, they'll get it here sooner.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Drop the current checks. No more stupid liquid rules, no shoe removals, no taking the laptop out of the bag. Go back to metal detector and X-ray machines if you like, but acknowledge that you cannot protect against EVERY POSSIBLE THREAT and focus on the most likely.
Over 50,000 die each year in the US on the highways. If the same "zero tolerance" rule was applied to cars, then all cars would be required by law to remain at speeds below 15mph, would be covered in big foam bumpers, and would require five point safety harnesses and helmets. To maintain the effectiveness of automobiles, we don't do this. As part of acknowledging that risk exists and that we're responsible for our lives, we make tradeoffs.
Absolute security is impossible. It also makes people complacent.
Nobody will ever succesfully hijack a plane the way those were in 2001, because we've all seen a possible outcome. The TSA is the embodiment of the old saying that generals always "plan for previous war".
Where do I collect my check? Or is the painfully obvious exempt?
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).
Time to dust off my plans for the automated-anal-probulator(tm)! Coming soon to an airport near you...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Easy. Nationwide concealed carry licenses with no restrictions on where to carry. Background check thru NCIC, then fingerprint check as well. People who have carry permits already (38 states have some provision IIRC) are involved in less crimes by percent than sworn police officers...
:)
In fact, I think I'll use my Florida permit next time I fly as my "state issued picture ID".
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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!
I have this new invention called freedom and peace of mind. It allows people to travel without being paranoid or fascist. It's amazing. It's costs nothing to implement and only requires everyone to pull that giant corncob out of their asses.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Naked airlines. No carry-on.
Where can I claim my prize?
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Apparently, Aperture Science (my favorite science company) has technology which can facilitate the speedy transferal of people and objects from point a to point b. You can read more about it during their next "Bring your daughter to work" day!
http://aperturescience.com/
I mean, they are paying for someone's idea or someone's implementation (equipment design and the like)? If the former, $500K sounds good; if the latter, $500K is pocket change: research ain't cheap.
Anyway, I have one idea: how about reverting back to the pre 9/11 era modus operandi? I mean, c'mon, it is not like a "hijack-and-ram-into-building" stunt is going to work again anyway... The only real worries should be bombs and guns on board, which we managed in an acceptable way back in the 90's.
Another idea is to stop messing with the political affairs in other countries. But that doesn't sound appealing to their prospective neocon customers, does it?
fp?
Institute a nude only polcy at the airport, and no carry on luggage allowed. Your ticket is duct taped to your chest, if you set the metal detector off they tazer you and throw you into a wood chipper.
I have nothing compelling to say
But the inner garments are fair game? Interesting. Very interesting.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
(see attached diagram)
The travelers arrive in the entrance hall here, and are carried along the corridor on a conveyor belt in extreme comfort and past murals depicting Mediterranean scenes, towards the rotating knives.
The last twenty feet of the corridor are heavily soundproofed.
The blood pours down these chutes and the mangled flesh slurps into these...
I like microcars
How about we end the Security Theater?
If containers of fluids are dangerous, why are they just thrown away next to the security lines? When the hell is a knife going to help you against a group of 50 angry people in a small enclosed space?
If you search the people getting on the plane, what about the luggage? If luggage handlers can steal stuff from luggage and sneak it out of the airport, what is to prevent that same person from sneaking a bomb into the plane, in place of the stuff they stole? If we are going to search the pilot, why not search the mechanic, and make sure he didn't sabotage the plane?
If you have a security check, then the line to get thorough the check becomes a target. It doesn't matter where you move that check, since it takes time to go through, you have a bunch of people there, and thus a suicide bomber would just blow themselves up there.
Why do Americans not care about their 4th amendment rights to not be searched, and why is simply wanting transportation sufficient cause or not unreasonable?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
1. Replace TSA administration wit people who will approve step 2
2. Eliminate the facade that is security the check.
Thomas Galvin
Are people in other regions of the US seeing this recent development? For what it's worth, I was traveling with United.
My userid is prime!
I say we skip the current terrorist threat and jump straight to the next one. Christians are obviously going to be the next problem (look at them, how they congregate every Sunday, beady shifting eyes, you KNOW they're up to SOMETHING).
UP AGAINST THE WALL TERRORIST! NOW!
Or maybe let's celebrate our diversity and not use knee-jerk reactions as policy, eh?
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.
- Tell TSA whiteshirts to "work faster"
- Add more lanes
- Actually use all the lanes you already have
Boom. Where's my $500,000 ?You have to take the laptop out to go through the X-ray machine separately.
The whole thing is a farce- I know (hypothetically of course) of many cases when the scanners haven't spotted knives, lights, liquids, even bullets. Maybe they only spot those sorts of things with the "Evil bit" set??
A simple way to speed up the security queues is by giving more space for taking off coats/shoes/whatever and putting it back on again on the other side.
Then by abolishing the daft rule of "if a man is being searched, then no other men are allowed to go through the scanner" (Same for women). Why on earth not? If the next man "beeps" the scanner, then they can wait to be searched. Not difficult.
http://blog.grcm.net/
There are many people after this prize and you need to stand in line. To expedite processing please remove your shoes and place your keys and watch in the basket.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
the winning technology must meet a number of criteria including TSA approval and it must reduce inconvenience
Isnt that the problem? That those two conditions are mutually exclusive? If you have one, you automatically do not have the other.
a) We take this seriously.
b) The terrorists are nasty people and they're doing this to you, not us.
c)Keep the whole War On Terror in your face. A scared citizen is a controllable citizen.
If they had the space and could get away with it, they would make everyone strip and get the Rubber Glove.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Don't make me chug my coffee in the line waiting to go through the metal detector, thereby holding everyone else up.
Repeat after me:
My beverage is not a national security threat.
Mod up a fleet a Roombas to carry minature bomb-sniffers or even spectral-analysis units (beam that data to a central CPU for the intense processing needed). Let Roombas approach shoes, sniff them and move on. Central CPU directs them back for another whiff if need be.
Load those Roombas with floor wax and you have the cleanest, safest airport in the county.
You may donate my winnings to the NASA program dedicated to robotic missions on Mars.
Lock the God-D@mn Cabin door, and shoot the first co-pilot stupid enough to open it.
please send check to AIK
1. Take all the money spent buying security theatre (TSA salaries, machinery, Airport reconstruction) and place it into a fund. There's $5,000,000,000 to start with each and every year. 2. Use minimally invasive metal and bomb detectors to deter the obvious threats. 2. Should an aircraft go down as the result of Terrorist actions, pay everyone on board $1,000,000 from the fund. From just the TSA's budget, we could handle 5,000 deaths a year from terrorist actions on airplanes. How much are we willing to pay for each life saved? Ask an inner-city hospital. /frank
And the worms ate into his brain.
Use the knowledge you already have. It's not that tricky.
OCO is Loco
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.
"Sure, be nice, it may make it a lot harder to motivate people to blow themselves on your plane..."
Come again?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
The problem is not the speed, but the humiliation, lack of concern for privacy, and the sheer irrelevance of the checks.
Show me your papers, please!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
As another poster mentioned the restrictions on hand luggage have recently been lifted (at all bar a few airports) but there are still restrictions on carrying liquids onto a plane. Even water. This is particularly ridiculous when you discover that only applies to flights leaving UK airports, but can take what you want on coming home.
It also applies to medicines:
My mum has multiple sclerosis and the Rebif medication she takes is temperature/pressure sensitive meaning it must be taken on board the plane along with ice packs to keep it cool. The whole thing comes in a pack with quite long needles.When traveling before the liquid restriction she was only required to take a letter from a doctor to confirm that it was essential to carry the medicines on board, although from experience nobody bothered to read it. After the restriction on liquids was put in place she was refused the right to take it on board unless she "tasted" the substance in the ice packs to prove it was not dangerous. Which it is, but only for consumption.
Tastability, to my knowledge, is not an established indicator of a substances ability to combust.
Thankfully, being aware that the substance was toxic, she point blank refused. Eventually they relented and let her through making the whole unpleasant experience rather pointless. I'd have to question the sense - and legality - of coercing people to consume toxic substances as a means of "security".
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
I spent some time in Israel for an archaeological dig and some SCUBA diving. While there I had my bags searched at pretty much all of the major shopping centers, transit centers, and large public places. Somewhat inconvenient, but nowhere near what we face here in the US. I never really felt as though it was as intrusive as what we have at our airport.
And at the Ben Gurion, in Israel, I went from being in line at the ticket counter to at the gate in under thirty minutes. This included one hand-search of my bags (only more intrusive than in the US because I had to stand there while they went through it, as opposed to here where we get a flyer put in our suitcases and some extra TSA tape on our opened-and-poorly-repacked boxes). Every item. Including SCUBA gear. And a security checkpoint after the check-in. They managed to be faster and more efficient and more thorough than they are here in the US.
It isn't the lack of technology that is making it hard on us (hand searches and little chemical swipes to check for explosive residue were Israel's low-tech and fast solution), but the clunky process and arbitrary regulations.
Let the private companies do what they feel is necessary to secure the safety of their passengers without the great inconvenience. They have investments to protect like their plans and customers but they realize that if they annoy their passengers too much they will choose another airline.
I don't travel that much but every time I've done so in the past five years, it has taken a maximum of 15 minutes to get through security. On the contrary, the boarding and deboarding process always takes at least 20 minutes because people are shuffling in the aisles, taking their coats off/putting them on, stowing gigantic carry-ons, standing up after the plane lands and blocking the aisle before the doors are open...
I think the $500,000 should go to someone who speeds up the amount of time it takes to get on and off a plane. That's where the most time is wasted.
Modern trains are apparently quite fast, and they can't be flown into buildings.
Simply put? Put security checks back where they were before 9/11. Everyone, not just Americans, but people everywhere, have learned from history in the most basic sense; that when someone whips out a knife or a gun, jump them and beat the shit out of them. Pilots, in the meanwhile, have sturdier doors, and at least in the US, Air Marshalls are flying on random flights (which isn't really much more than they did before). So in essense, we don't NEED those checks anymore.
Hell, someone could walk into the lobby area with a bomb vest and kill far more than could board a plane by simply being there, without aircraft ever being involved.
Or crap, just get everyone in the US hooked on PCP, that does away with natural senses of fear altogether, and when there's no fear, there's no terror, let alone terrorism.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!