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."
Solution: Don't like the dogs? Walk through the scanner and get some creepy TSA guy to fondle your junk.
Speaking of which, where's the Muslim outrage at these scanners seeing through the burka (etc). I thought women weren't supposed to reveal their figures to anyone outside of their home?
And lastly, isn't there some kind of exception in these Abrahamic holy texts specifically for working dogs? AFAIK dogs have been used for farming and herding all over the world by all religions and cultures. In fact, I recently saw a documentary (on dogs) that claimed it was the advent of the working dog that ushered in the age of agriculture. Essentially, all of human civilization owes its origins to the relationship between man and dog. Surely these religions could make exceptions to bomb-dogs (as working dogs) just as they would for a herding dog or assistance dog.
+1
It's the dirty little secret that the TSA doesn't want you to know: Bombs carried into the passenger cabin would likely be ineffective in bringing down a modern airliner.
The "underwear bomber" wouldn't have succeeded (source: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/boeing-747-exlposion-test-video-shows-underwear-bomber-failure-2589249.html ).
In 1994, Ramzi Yousef set off a bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 it failed to bring down the aircraft (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434 ).
Is it a good idea to keep bombs off planes? Absolutely - But planes are remarkably resilient. There's a reason a 737 costs $75M. They're incredibly well engineered.
Not to mention I ought to be able to travel within my own country without answering to a government official about the purpose of my trip.
I think we all just need to accept that some people are going to be struck by lightning, some people will die from trees falling on them, some people will die of food poisoning, and some people will die in exploding planes. People will go 80mph, driving with one hand while nursing a coffee and puffing a cigarette, while passing other vehicles going in the opposite direction also going 80mph only 5 feet away and think nothing of it. We should take the stupidity/bravery that allows us to do that and use it to just get on the damn airplane with our fingers crossed.