Slashdot Mirror
Airport Security Prize Announced
Reservoir Hill writes "Verified Identity Pass, a firm that offers checkpoint services at airports, has announced a $500,000 award for any solution that will make airport security checks quicker and simpler for passengers. The cash prize will go to any individual, company or institution that can get customers through airport security 15% faster, at a cost of less than 25 cents per passenger, using technology or processes that will be approved by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Passengers must not need to remove their clothes or shoes, something that slows down processing significantly. "We're looking at moving things that are conceptual or in the lab to things that we can deploy," says company spokesman Jason Slibeck and added that over 150 individuals, start-ups, defense contractors and universities have shown an interest in the prize. One promising procedure is mass spectroscopy, which involves analyzing the mass-charge ratio of ions on a swab sample taken from a passenger's clothing or air collected from around them to spot traces of substances including explosives or drugs. The Pre-Registration Package Information Sheet is available online."
The summary says nothing about maintaining security. Just abolish it, or limit it to the bare minimum and then have an air-marshal on every plain to stop people with box-cutters.
You only get one bullet. It's preloaded, can't even be unloaded, maybe small caliber, maybe fairly low velocity, and has a 75% chance of being a blank. Tag the bullets, and maybe ink-tag the gun so it sprays the user when the trigger is pulled. Maybe even a point-blank "contact trigger", kind of like a nail gun -- you'd have to put the gun directly on someone to shoot them, avoiding aim problems in a crowded plane.
Turn them in at the end of a flight -- everyone got one while boarding, everyone better turn the same one over when leaving.
Anybody tries anything on the plane, and *bang* -- if a dozen passengers shoot at him, at least a couple are likely to nail him.
That's security through strength in numbers.
Who do I go see about collecting my $500,000?
John
Remove all Airport security. Lots more convenient, and probably about as secure.
Do I win?
Dogs?
Yeah, trained dogs..
Dogs can smell fear, and many chemical substances. You just have a pack of em and train them to bark ferociously when they "sense" trouble. Police dogs already have that kind of leeway.
Did I win?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
remove first class(shock!)
Put a seat facing the passengers, put an air marshal with a pistol and a shotgun. Give him mirrored shades.
Create a secured cockpit door.
Go back to the more general pre 9/11 security
Profit..I mean Done.
Maybe a lock down code on the auto pilot, so you can land the plane w/o pilot intervention. Auto pilot landing can be, and is more then most people know, done today.
oh, wait, you mean maintain the theater of security and speed it up? no, those two things are opposites.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The main problem with airport security is the people manning the checkpoints. Their goal is not to get you through in the quickest period of time. They are not professional, they do not care about the happiness of their customers and appear to get their kicks by making your life miserable with their "authority". If you complain about their behavior, is rectified or do you get a rectal exam for it? There should be bonus incentives for prompt and courteous service. Have random samples of folks that have been through security give feedback on their service. Run "tests" to ensure security. Make someone accountable for the service. Unfortunately, government agencies are never accountable for the service provided to citizens. Run it like a for profit business where the customer is the focus.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Stop the ridiculous liquid thing for a start.
Yes, there WAS a plot to do that. It was an epic fail from the start and there's no reasons to keep the restrictions in place.
Hey, I have a good one, everyone checks in *everything* and flies naked. Then we'll finally be safe.
I recently worked on a gig where many high profile business and political figures were attending. I walked through a SecureScan system. I'm a stagehand, so I had tools on me. I the scan operator could tell the difference between my 8" crescent wrench, my multi-tool, and my Spyderco knife as I walked through at a normal pace. I know because he only asked about my knife, not the other tools.
We are all just people.
The main purpose behind the security is to keep the population frightened and annoyed. A frightened populaton is easier to control. To claim the prize you need to demonstrate its effectiveness at keeping the population under control too.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If they float, they're a witch^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorist. If they sink, they're not. Seems about as valid as any other TSA methodology.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
From 2001
http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/fam-qual.html
Probably Pay band G salary. Higher grades do investigation and other duties.
Call it 75K after benefits.
that works out to about 30 an hour. Air flight that take for hours would be an addition of 120 + overhead So if you ahve 60 seats, two bucks or so a ticket.
I think even an 10% cost hike would be well worth it.
Plus you will need to pay fewer people for gate security.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A lot of the holdup are people who don't know the drill at airport security. You always have to take of your shoes, you always need to empty your pockets, you always need to take the laptop out of its bag, and you should just minimize how much metal you're carrying (before I enter security, I just toss all my pocket change into my carry on, rather than fishing for it at Xray, and then putting it back in my pocket). When you watch the experienced business travelers, they know the drill, and how to get to the other side of security quite quickly. To this end, I suggest that security use a soup nazi style of handling the line. You show up to the front of the line, shoes off, coat over your arm, carry on over your shoulder, ticket and ID in your hand (completely out of the wallet), step to the conveyor belt, a basket will be waiting for you, place everything in the basket, take two steps to the right, go through the metal detector, pick up basket en mass to separate re-dressing area where you will leave the basket, and then proceed to gate. Any breach in this protocol (fishing for ID, untying shoes, being told that you need to take your laptop out of your bag), and all your belongings will be returned to you, and you will be sent to the back of the line (don't worry, you should be back to the front in 20 minutes or so). Travelers with young children will be given a modicum of leeway, but not too much.
Seriously. Why are the Americans obsessed with searching for traces of drugs? Most so-called 'drug users' that drive the Americans batshit are harmless young cannibus smokers. And if they develop a machine that detects microscopic and molecular trace levels of cannibus (that's weed, you'all), well they are going to find it. Because roughly 10% of the people going through what they call 'airport security' are going to have molecular levels of exposure to cannibus. Seek and ye shall find.
So what are the stupid Americans going to do then when they find some young person with trace molecular levels of cannibus in their aura? Shut down the airport? Call out the National Guard? Taser the poor motherfucker over and over and make him or her flop around on the airport floor like a white shark dragged into a tuna boat? All of the above?
And what are they going to do when it happens again a half hour later?
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
Americans! Let us give you a hint about security. Forget about finding the molecular levels of cannibus on random college students. Concentrate on the people who are seriously interested in blowing up airplanes.
Here's another hint. No serious terrorist is going to try hijacking a commercial airliner any more. If they are serious about flying a big plane into a place where a plane has no reason to be they will spend the money to rent a private plane, or blackmail some corrupt CEO into letting them borrow the corporate jet. Which never get inspected by what these bozos call 'security'. Because they are corporate private property. Which according to what passes for logic in the American mind, can't be used for terrorist activities because it is corporate property. Inconceivable!
If the Americans were really serious about making their airports safe they would turn the whole operation over to the Israelis or even the British. After all, this would give them more time to go around tasering random young people found in the presence of molecular traces of 'drugs'.
You got that one backwards: we remove our shoes *not* because it's a security measure, but because it speeds up the lines. Too many shoes have enough metal to set off the metal detector, and it was becoming a problem to wand everyone.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Many Shoes actually trigger metal detectors because they have nails in it. It would be unreasonable to expect any security person to know which brands and models have nails at any given time.
Plus you can hide things in them.
I asked this same question, and they let me look at the x-ray machine at my sandals; which to my uprise, had metal nails in them.
Sweaters can hid thing and still not look baggy. When I did security for a large chain, they made us watch actual shop lifting films. In it people would put things under loose clothing that just made it look like tight clothing. The most amazing one was the guy that put a chain saw in his baggy pants and walked out of the store. If you didn't see it, you wouldn't know.
So within todays security context, both those things are reasonable.
I do find searching any person randomly an obscene abuse on the US contsitution.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A few times now, I've travelled on a plane with heavy computer equipment. Every time, i've checked in the main boxes minus hard-discs which I've taken as hand-luggage. Sometimes in fact, it's been so heavy the baggage at the end it's needed to be checked in via the heavy/awkward baggage drop as it's approached the 40kg mark. The thing is, every time I've done this, I've always made sure they known there's a computer inside my bag because to my mind, solid steel casing encasing circuit boards with wires coming out of it is about as suspicious a package as you can get.
What gets me is that no one seems to give a shit about what's in there - not once have they even looked to check when it goes through the ex-ray machine; lighting it up like a Christmas tree. They just assume that because it's being checked in with me, it's safe? I don't know, this is just my experience.
The discs I'm taking on as hand-luggage is a different story. I've had to explain to person after person that they're "hard-discs for a kom-pooo-ta!" not in fact weapons of mas destruction, nor agents of deadly nerve gas.
Now to my mind, if you can get a 40kg bag checked into a plane without any/many checks because it's not hand-luggage, you're just asking for trouble. The bombs that went of in Madrid were mobile detonated....what if after boarding the plane you don't suddenly "get a headache" just before take-off (of course they wont take off with your bag still in the hold), nip outside and blow the lot to kingdom come once at a safe distance? Baggage handlers aren't known for their efficiency, and imagine doing it on a plane with 300 passengers.
My point is, to my mind, this is a huge hole. Most plane hijackers have been willing to sacrifice themselves too, so just getting a "computer" into the hold would be enough...
throw new NoSignatureException();
But since so many people harbor the fallacy that firing a gun I'll make an exception.
I can tell you exactly what will happen. A quite hiss. You can not create a fiery disaster on a plane with a handgun, or a shot gun. Also, the person being shot at will die.
Of course, you have normal procedure.
I've seen it, so unless you can provide some counter evidence, STFU.
All this ignoring the fact the O2 masks are useless. They ahve never saved a life. Any aircraft incident large enough to cause deployment means the aircraft will desend rapidly, preferably under control, but not always.
Since there is air at the altitude the plane is flying, and the fact that in about 90 seconds you will be at an altitude with sufficient air, they really aren't need.
All other incidents render them moot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
See Fifth Element. Lock people in cabins and knock them out.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I call this prize throwing good money after bad.
Here's a novel solution: stop bombing people. Not only will we reduce the number of people that want to bomb us in return, we can save half a trillion dollars annually from slashing the military budget and closing every overseas military base. With all that extra cash we can afford all kinds of security, not to mention national health care, schools, repairing infrastructure, jobs... you name it. Of course, we also may find we don't need as much security.
...from a perspective not saturated by fear is to revert to the policies and procedures in place on September 10, 2001
Move the cockpit bulkhead back as far as the first class bathroom and enclose that and the boarding doorway in with the pilots. Board the passengers through another door entirely, and never shall the flight crew and passengers meet. At that point, who cares what happens to the passengers or their security? We'll never have another hijacking again unless someone wants to try and scale the exterior of the aircraft in flight. Good luck with that. As for my prize, I'll take cash in euros. I'm not to thrilled about the state of US money these days.
Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
I suggest remote controlled tazer suppositories. If you misbehave you get juiced! If you tamper with them you get juiced. Problem solved.
I had mod points, but wasn't sure whether to mod you flambait or something else - don't quite know what.
So, I'll reply instead, on the off-chance that it was a serious question.
I am not a Muslim. Hell, I'm not really much of anything. But I've picked up a few things about religions in general and people in general. Regardless of their religion, people will act as people do - and that often means having the strength to do what they believe is necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. Whether that's "right" or "wrong" to you depends on how it affects you or people you know or your belief structures - again, that's human.
Many Muslims believe lying is prohibited, regardless of whether the person being lied to is a muslim or not. That's fine, many other religions hold similar views about lies - the Ninth Commandment, anybody?
However, there appears to be room for a practice called al-Taquiyya (see http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter6b/1.html ) Other religious scholars in other religions have likely held similar views - the early Christians under Rome kept their beliefs secret, as a matter of self-preservation. I wouldn't mind betting that Jewish theologians have debated things like "passing for non-Jewish" in the Third Reich. A strange form of Christianity evolved in Japan between when the Jesuits were kicked out and when Japan started to become more open again, because families had to keep their beliefs secret or face persecution. People will do what's necessary.
Now, on the surface, there appears to be nothing wrong with al-Taquiyya at all. Indeed, in times of persecution or harassment, what's wrong with hiding matters and keeping private things private for the sake of your survival and the survival of your family? Allah will know your intentions, and won't object if it's a matter of survival. No hypocracy required - it's better to be alive and a good person who told a necessary lie than a dead good person who never told a lie in their life. You can't do more good works if you're dead.
The trouble is, people are people - and interpret things differently, and have different priorities. One person might interptet al-Taquiyya to permit them to do what's needful - to denounce the Prophet and Allah in order to avoid being stoned by an angry mob, for example, but only in direct self-preservation or direct preservation of another. Another might perhaps interpret it as permitting the denouncement of Allah and the Prophet in order to gain access to an aircraft, because they believe it's necessary to gain access to and blow up a passenger aircraft to advance the cause of muslims everywhere. From their perspective, they'd be thinking of the bigger picture.
So, no. Asking people to denounce the Prophet of Islam wouldn't do you any good as it wouldn't necessarily reveal those you wanted to reveal - they'd perhaps consider it necessary to speak words other than those in their hearts. It would, however, probably reveal a lot of people of other faiths who believe it's inappropriate to denounce other faiths. Let's see, false-positives, false-negatives... not particularly useful.
Hell, hand out box cutters to every passenger. Sure, some people are gonna get hurt but no planes will be hijacked ever again.
That's not an issue - the problem of airplanes being hijacked and used as weapons was solved at 10:03 AM on 2001-09-11 over a field in Shanksville, PA.
'Average' Americans figured out the security equation just more than an hour after the first plane hit Tower 1.
Everything since is a distraction.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We haven't seen them, but sadly, this is only because the people in power have gotten smarter about hiding they. Now, they put these camps in Cuba, various European countries, etc. Sure, they're not rounding up every Muslim in the U.S. this time, but they are periodically treating folks who live in Muslim communities like criminals, and it is highly likely that there are people who in the U.S. internment camps like Gitmo who shouldn't be there.
It's the New American Way: reduce the head count and offshore everything.... *sigh*
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What these guys want is a way to get cash for the few willing to pay. Meanwhile, I have a way to speed the lines for all, and the cost is minimal. But because it helps regular passengers, is ridiculously simple to implement, and impossible to patent, they don't want it. Maybe the TSA will have a prize....
The fact that scientists in a lab had limited success producing a combination of chemicals that could produce a small explosion (enough of a pop to make people panic, not take down a plane or kill anyone onboard) when they were asked to determine the "safe quantities" for TSA, shows that the plot was never realistic in the first place. Its a draconian restriction for an unrealistic threat.