Slashdot Mirror
Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists?
itwbennett writes "In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, full body scanning technologies such as millimeter wave and backscatter are regaining popularity, writes blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a recent post. But, he asks, do they really work? The TSA seems to think so. It has just issued a contract to purchase more millimeter wave scanners from L3 Communications. Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber. Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."
aren't these the scanners known to have health risks and/or not work?
The government likes this war on terrorism so they will keep it going so they can do in the name of anti-terrorism whatever they like to do. Its like the neverending war from orwell's 1984.
There was an article that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn. So now you have kids (up to 17) - very impressionable and angsty kids - that will become the target of recruitment by terrorist organizations. Epic FAIL.
What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe. Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks. Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour? I would still fly. And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Disclaimer: I am an expert in millimeter-wave and terahertz imaging technology, both passive and active. I have posted here many times before, also as AC, for obvious reasons.
The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists. Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body. The proof is in the images. I will provide examples if asked.
As far as safety concerns, the active millimeter-wave systems are safer than your cell phone or laptop wifi. The x-ray backscatter systems give you a dose of radiation that is far less than what you receive while flying over a few states at 39,000'.
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy. I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side. I will answer any questions now, so please respond.
Unless they have nukes or something, terrorists are not much of a threat to the country. Recognize that governments never assume an actual responsibility to say protect you from crime. So what is happening here?
I suggest we are having a wave of terrorism to change the subject from the collapse of copenhagen. Some psych warfare.
Here is something to think about. There is a lot of talk about Yemen. So they talk about the underware bomber and Yemen. But the obvious factoid that he was recruited in Londonistan is never mentioned. And then we have supposedly released gitmo detainees to yemen with bad rsults. Of course, it is not mentioned that these people were released to the saudis. And sometimes the 9/11 people nationalities have actually been mentioned in the past.
Figure you are being taken for a ride.
That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
Could there? Has this actually been looked at? Because this guy wasn't carrying that much explosive. It may be that the worst case is a few people die and the cabin decompresses.
Trained dogs and handlers are the best bet.
Dogs can be trained to not only detect certain substances but also detect fear responses. So something concealed in a body might make it through but the dog may still alert to the fear response so the person can be pulled aside for a more thorough search. Of course dogs aren't high tech so they can't be a solution in the US.
Not a problem. Take a cruise ship. Loads of fun, great food, gambling, accommodations from basic to extreme luxury, swimming, tennis, dancing... I haven't been on a plane in decades and I've been to every continent except Antarctica in that time. You'd be surprised how reasonable the prices are, too, presuming you don't absolutely have to get that luxury suite. Though I highly recommend them. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm planning a trip back out east to attend a friends wedding in the spring (It's in MA and I live in OH).
First I thought about driving, it's roughly a 13 hour drive, straight through, not a quick jaunt.
Then I started thinking about flying. Lets see, the airport is 45 minutes away from where I live, plus it's a busy delta hub (Cincinnati) so you want to arrive early to make sure you get through security, so figure 90 minutes before flight. We're talking leaving 2 hours and fifteen minutes before my flight.
Now the flight itself is only a couple hours but in order to keep the fares down connecting flights out of say the Carolinas will probably be necessary. Quick check shows roughly 5 hours to take off from OH and land in RI.
Now, upon landing, it takes time to get off the plane, get your bags and get a ride to the hotel. Figure 20 minutes to get to baggage claim, another 20+ to get the bags and roughly 30 minutes to get to the hotel in northern RI (where my friend lives).
In total now, one way:
2 hours and 15 minutes to get from my house to the plane.
5 hours (roughly) to actually fly with a connecting flight.
1 hour and 10 minutes to get your bags and get to the hotel.
Total time, door to door, roughly 8.5 hours.
This doesn't include flight delays, which, frankly, always seem to follow me around. So all in all, it'll take me what, an extra 4 to 5 hours to drive it and I'll save a few hundred bucks in the process. I'll also be able to see some sights along the way.
It's just not easy to fly. The benefits are few when you're staying inside a quadrant of the country. Sure, if you're going over the ocean, driving might be difficult, but domestic flights just aren't that convenient.
Well - sounds better than the magic wand the Iraqis are using.
Even so - the millimeter wave approach would probably identify any wiring or fuses that are secondary to the explosives in the crotch. In the end though, the only real solution is full body X-ray scans.
Maybe they can offer the option to send the scan to your Doctor's office if requested. Probably catch all sorts of undiagnosed medical problems for every person who gets on a plane. You're probably going to get a similar dose on a high altitude flight anyway...
The idea of having a huge database of full body x-ray scans could be a medical researchers dream. I'd start with making a visual recognition system for tumours, pneumonia, spinal issues - the results could be pretty awesome.
X-ray densities just need to be kept really low, and with modern digital detectors, it's likely to be easily achieved.
The frightening thing is that the system itself probably did function. Most of us who've held a help-desk job will understand this when we think about it.
The call was answered correctly, got all the information, went through their checklists, and closed the call in under 15 minutes. The customer's computer was still broken, but the process was followed completely and correctly, so you won't be docked any points on your evaluation.
When she says the "the system worked" this is likely what she means. The process was followed and each person and part did what it was scripted to do.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
The defining moment for airport body scanners will arrive with a news flash that scanner operators had been secretly trading "nude" images of celebrity women. Expect it.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
I always thought bombing planes was a prestige thing. Like... hitting the pentagon or some such. Doing it purely because it is a little difficult.
If they wanted to do damage hit a few double-decker tour buses. The cost to the tourism industry would far outweigh w/e planes cost. Doubled up with the shit you have to go through to get to the US anyways less and less people would bother. Plus there are as many people in a mid sized plane as there are in a bus... (50~60people).
I suppose it makes less of an anti-america statement though.... perhaps blow up the liberty bell? That has like 1 guard and you can get within a few feet of it... hell, you could probably ram it with a car no problem.
Man, terrorists are dumb. Maybe it's just the problem solver in me, but I'm sure I could do a way better job. Same with school shooters.... I mean if you were going for a record or something, shooting yourself in the head halfway through isn't the best plan... I wonder if this type of thinking comes with some label I could get put in a small white room for...
Observing the lines at the airport, I've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line. They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity. Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster?
Link, please? The last update I heard on this topic was that the TSA (or some other three-letter agency) ran a test and discovered it was enough to blow a hole in the side of the plane, which would result in decompression, yes, but wouldn't necessarily bring down the plane.
I've skimmed most of your post because it's redundant. You're terrified of scarrrrry muslims. I get it.
The only two ways to avoid confrontation with Islam is to 1) convert to it, or 2) submit to its rule, if your religion is on the "permitted list", as established by a certain precedent involving Muhammad himself.
If this is what you actually believe is the reality, what are you going to do about it? Kill all suspected muslims? Or prosecute those who commit terrorism as criminals? Or just randomly kill muslims and hope they were criminals?
If you payed attention, the speaker in the first part of the video urges to "remember the lesson of Theo van Gogh... remember the lesson of the Jews of Khaybar". The first reference doesn't need an explanation, but the second one specifically refers to the event from which the very Islamic concept of "dhimmi" - the subjugated non-Muslim - comes.
I pay attention to extremists, but I'm not scared by them. They do not represent the majority of any population, unless that population is under extreme stress and can use those fanatics for their own goals.
The simple solution to all of this is to restore national sovereignty to the world, and to prosecute terrorists as criminals. If you want to have a bunch of frothing at the mouth religious zealots, then fine. The local population has the choice to pass laws or to reject them, to revolt against the government or not. This is the same right I expect the rest of the world to allow myself and my countrymen. This is called a Constitutional Republic or Democracy. It would be nice if they continued to exist.
However, this would also mean that if OPEC decided to cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world, we'd have to accept it and find alternatives. The real reason anyone pays attention more to Muslims than animists in Zaire who think all white devils should die is because they happen to sit on top of the world's energy supplies.
Anti-Western muslims would be allowed to have their views in the places they live so long as they don't act violently in accordance with their views. They'd be treated just as the KKK is in US. "Well, it's very nice that you hate black people, White Power Bill. But if you so much as beat a single black man up, we'll lock you away for eternity." Seems to work out well for everyone here.