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?
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.
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).
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
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
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 ?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.
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.
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
I think that had more to do with your foot hygine than with any change in policy.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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."
"This one goes in your mouth, this one goes in your ear, and this one goes in your butt."
Pause
"Oh wait, this one...no...uh...THIS one goes in your mouth."
- "Idiocracy"
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Not wearing pants will get you put on the no fly list. I'm not sure how the TSA handles sweatpants, or other garments which have no fly though.
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
Modern trains are apparently quite fast, and they can't be flown into buildings.