Slashdot Mirror
The Sensible Body Scan Alternative
An anonymous reader sends in a CNN article that looks at airport security from more reasonable point of view, suggesting that looking for every last micro-gram of potentially explosive material is a waste of time, since very small quantities of explosives are unlikely to significantly damage a plane. The author also recommends incorporating parts of the Israeli method of securing airplanes — look for the bomber, not the tools. Quoting:
"Clearly everything should be done to prevent explosives getting on board an aircraft in quantities sufficient to cause structural failure and bring the plane down. But is it worth chasing lesser quantities that would result in zero or minimal damage? The enhanced pat-down that some find so offensive is designed to search for these small amounts. It often ends with a swab being taken to test for explosive residues. Technology does have a role to play, but imaging is not the solution. Operator fatigue sets in after short periods of time staring at computer images. That's why there are reports that contraband items have been smuggled through X-ray units used to scan carry-on bags. The aim should be to detect high explosive in quantities that are sufficient to cause significant damage. We don't need a machine that takes pictures of the human body. It makes more sense to develop a detector that clearly discriminates between high explosives and human tissue or water."
The goal is to make money for government contractors and politcians, not enhance safety. Inefficient, ineffective solutions produce much more profit for government contractors and the politicians that support them.
Could the underwear bomber have done any worse than what happened on Aloha airlines flight 243?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Absolutely correct. We have literally an army of trained interviewers who have the skills, and know how the opponent sounds. Many of them, currently, are underemployed. It would be a perfect union of skill and need, which would satisfy most requirements except one. When you screen people out, you make judgments based on a variety of factors. But since certain factors would be unavoidable certain elements in our country will fight screening as if we were going to use shamans and bone-casting to make the decisions. Thank the ACLU for the current mess, it's the only thing that satisfies their goals. Too bad for the rest of us.
And you are correct, I choose anonymity because I really don't need the headache that comes from the that same corner of the political spectrum whenever one of them decides to ride their hobby horse in my direction.
The Israeli method relies on very talented people taking a very close look at the brains of the passengers. It's pyschologically intrusive, as opposed to see-how-fat-you-are intrusive. Regardless, I don't think the TSA could hire enough people with those skills to handle the much larger (than Israel) air traffic that wanders through the US. Even more importantly, the US public (well, the more vocal part of the lefty punditocracy, anyway) won't tolerate even the notion that, gosh, further scutiny of someone might be called for because of things like where they're traveling from, how they're dressed, what they appear to do (or not) for a living, how they appear to handle - culturally - where they are and what's going on around them ... you know: profiling. The Israeli system works as well as it does because they're ready, willing, and able to say that word out loud without collapsing in a quivering heap of politcally correct jello. The current administration prefers to have Grandma groped and full-body-scanned because the alternative is to talk - out loud - about how judgement about people would be required. And we can't have that, because it's wrong to form opinions about people from the clues they present in their bearing, manner, clothing, habits, transactional history, blah blah blah.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The alternative should be to dismantle the TSA, put every single person who works for it on trial for treason, and have them executed.
The third can't happen, because the second wouldn't convict anybody. According to the Constitution you and I use to argue against them, only two things constitute treason: acts of war against the US, or aiding and abeting those who commit such acts. For all that can be said about the TSA, and pretty much all of it is bad, they still haven't managed to do either of these things yet, so there is no treason involved.
I applaud you for looking into the abyss, but the abyss is looking back into you, and you are letting it win. If you want to be better than what you're fighting, that starts with respecting their rights even if they do not respect yours.
I don't think Israeli solutions will scale. It's a fine idea to look at what they do and mine it for good ideas, but you can't argue that what they do will necessarily work for anyone else just because it works for them. It may not be effective, or it may simply not be practical, when applied elsewhere.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Who's been caught by the TSA?
Not a single terrorist has EVER been caught by the TSA while trying to board a plane.
And if they thought your can of Coke was really a threat, then why don't they treat you like a threat when they find it? Instead they just demand that you throw the POTENTIAL LIQUID EXPLOSIVE into a garbage can next to them.
It is 100% bullshit.
Although profiling is effective, there are some douchebag law-enforcement officers -stereotypically mostly in the South, but when hear their victims talk it becomes apparent that they're pretty much everywhere- who ruin profiling for everyone, even the honest law-enforcement officers. We need other methods, because abuse of profiling in the US has been way too great in recent years to trust law enforcement to do it properly.
That's not to say that current methods are any better: they aren't, and should be discarded summarily. But a move to profiling just isn't going to work; a third option has to be found.
Why you ask? Because the first person to point out how useless all of the scanning is will be singled out as anti-American by their opposing Congresscritters. Same problem when it comes to common sense with child porn laws and sexting by those under the age of 18. If you don't throw the book at the offender, you're not "thinking of the children!"
The machines will kill 16 people a year in cancer deaths, terrorists don't get that many. We have here a cure that is worse than the disease.
The most effective detector for hidden explosives is the bomb-sniffing dog. My unit used dogs to great effect in Iraq, and yes we did find bombs and hidden explosives on people, in cars, buried in the ground or in houses. Dogs can even sniff explosives from several meters away. So all the passengers would have to do is walk by a bomb dog and his handler on the way to the airplane. If the dog signals a positive, then that passenger could be taken aside for a more detailed search. An indication from a trained working dog is legal grounds for probable cause to search a person.
Dogs are so effective that DARPA even has a challenge to come up with a machine detector that could match a dog's nose. So far, no one has won the prize. I admit that dogs do have limitations such as needing rest, food, water and play time. But those limitations can be easily overcome with a little careful planning and cycling dogs in and out. The DEA and the US Customs services already use dogs at airports to screen luggage for drugs or illegal animal trade. So many airports probably already have the infrastructure to attend and care for working dogs. I honestly do not know why the TSA hasn't even openly considered bomb dogs as an acceptable alternative to full-body scanners. The TSA is obviously aware that the military and police have been using dogs effectively for many years.
FTA , "they never suffered any delays after interviews" - How many passengers do they serve a day? Can you imagine putting such a system in JFK?? I dont support the current pat down or radiation therapy , but the Israeli scheme is not scalable to US levels. Besides, I feel that attacks on Israel have been crude and their system works well to avoid them. The US fears of more sophisticated attacks ( or atleast wants us to fear ) and hence wants a nothing-suspicious-left-behind strategy. To summarize, I think it is easy to study the Israeli system and come up with a way to beat it!
khasim has a rock that repels crocodile. khasim has not been attacked by crocodiles.
You do not have this rock!
I strongly advise that you purchase a crocodile repelling rock from him, as you apparently cannot rule out the rock as preventing the crocodile attacks.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
As much as I admire the success of "the Israeli method of securing airplanes" on a day-to-day basis, it has failed abysmally in the decade-to-decade time frame. Not because it has permitted planes to be hijacked or blown up, but because it is still in place after so much time. It (along with the quality of the Israeli armed forces, its nuclear arsenal, and the insufficiently qualified support of foreign governments) has served as a kind of "enabling behavior", making it possible for the Israeli government to maintain hostile relations with its neighbors and even so many of its (non-Jewish) subjects. I'm not saying that the political situation in the Middle East is entirely (or even mostly) their fault. But their ability to make a state of war tolerable enough to live with decade after decade has kept them from finding a real solution. (Obligatory geek reference: ST:TOS episode "A Taste of Armageddon".) Likewise, the US government's efforts to make its "war on terror" tolerable for its people to live with - with no planes blowing up or other experiences of "war on US soil" - enable it to avoid dealing with the real root causes of this problem. Not Islam. Not Iraq or Iran. Not Israel. Running with the "i" theme I've got going here, I'd call it "industrial imperialism". If we want air travel to be safe - if we want our people to be safe - we need to look at that, not individuals' skin color or body cavities or religion.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I remember back when we had real trolls. Not these thin-blooded wanna-bes.
So you cannot parse basic English or you are completely ignorant of recent history or you're trolling.
And you even got some mod points. Interesting.
No. You said that the method used by the TSA worked. I said that it did not because it didn't catch any of the terrorists since the WTC attack.
You said something about fences and coyotes. I pointed out that the "coyotes" were still there and had not been stopped.
Now you're talking about whether the shoe bomber had been caught by the TSA. He had not. He was stopped by other people on the plane.
All that and you even started off this thread with "racist".
Feel free to wander around the subject, but the fact is that the TSA has never caught a single terrorist. Never.
But the shoe bomber got through the TSA's checks.
Therefore, the methods the TSA used did not stop a terrorist from getting a bomb onto a plane.
You have a problem with that. Whatever.
Racial profiling fails. It was gamed over 20 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair
Actually, Israel's system works because:
- they only have two international airports and only ten small domestic airports
- El Al and the other airlines apparently require you to turn up FOUR HOURS in advance for the profiling (done by highly-skilled, well-paid, well-trained people) to work.
Profiling won't work in the USA, because there are too many international airports, too many passengers who would not tolerate such institutionalised delays, and too many frankly stupid undertrained and undereducated people working for the TSA.
The Japanese have been working on this scanning technology years before 9-11. ...basically because they are totally paranoid about illicit drug use in their country, which is why model glue is right up there as a recreational drug in Japan. Millimeter wave scanning technology can be fine tuned and tell one substance from another quite easily. This kind of technology properly used could become the next kind of medical scanner, Imagine being able to detect the tiniest blobs of malignant cells before they even become a tumor... This is great technology but perhaps it isn't being used properly. They could just tone down the resolution a bit as they only need to detect the explosive... they don't need to see your goodies in high detail.
All of the terror acts that I'm aware of -- either successful (WTC, Pentagon, Somerset) or thwarted (shoe bomber, underwear bomber) -- got past TSA, which "responded" by ignoring their methods and focusing on peaceful American citizens. Sounds like aiding and abetting a war on America to me.
Have sexy agents of the opposite sex do the manual tapping method.
People will line up for the privilege. Some of them will even stand up for it.
Guys will. I doubt too many chicks will like this idea.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
You haven't met too many chicks have you?
Here's a tip: a shirtless South American in good condition (ie, not roid-abusing or overweight) is a RESET for the female brain.
Clearly you haven't thought this through, or you'd realize that "everything" includes ending air travel, or doing full medical-grade X-rays of every passenger. No, what should clearly be done is to reduce the risk of injury due to terrorism below that of things people put themselves at risk to every day, like car travel. The rest is a matter of educating people. At that point, by definition, the terror caused by the risk of someone taking down a plane is less than that of traveling in a vehicle, and we have won and the terrorists have lost. That's the way to win without subjecting the very people we want protected (us!) to any unnecessary hardship.
People just love to pose unreasonable puzzles for libertarian with the implication that if they don't immediately provide a perfect solution, the government is the default alternative without having to solve the same puzzle itself. The incentive for private business it to serve their paying customers, not to piss them off with unnecessary and humiliating procedures and to balance that with the potential expense of lawsuits in case security fails. The incentive for a government bureaucrat is all on one side: to set more and more stringent security rules because if security fails he may lose his job, if the customers are dissatisfied he doesn't lose anything. In any case, national security is a legitimate duty of the government, I don't know any libertarians who would like to privatize it.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.