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
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?
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
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. 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.
You missed the whole point. It is all security theater. Things that they can do that if you don't look to closely MIGHT make things more secure. But upon closer inspection don't really provide any additional level of security. It is a theater act to make people say "By golly they are doing something proactive about this terrorist thing."
Face it, a terrorist is not likely to try to walk through a security check point with something that screams "this is a dangerous weapon, I must be a terrorist, arrest me." If they want to plug holes in security then they need to start with the support crew that have access to the aircraft on the tarmac and the luggage handlers.
Of course they can't do anything about that, they can't even prevent the luggage handlers from stealing whatever they want from the bags they handle. But nobody says much about that anymore. And they seem to think that occasionally catching ground crew smuggling guns and drugs in airplanes is going to make that problem go away.
The best option to improve security is to let people get training and a permit that allows them to carry a weapon anywhere. If you have a significant portion of the population armed at all times then the chance of terrorist getting much further than "I have a bom..." before someone drops them would reduce the chances of such act to virtually zero.
It would probably make most people a lot more polite as well.
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