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."

33 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Not profitable enough by rbanzai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not profitable enough by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's more than just the profit motive here, too. We can't racially profile in the US because thats racism, and that's not allowed. Additionally, we check for tiny quantities of explosives because where there's smoke, there's fire. That's how this works. It's virtually impossible to conceal explosives inside something without getting at least traces of dust on the outside, and so far that theory has actually managed to catch the few people who have been caught.

      Whoever wrote this is an idiot. They're on the right side of the debate, but their maddeningly short-sighted arguments are damaging their position.

      Grandma Mable gets scanned because the TSA isn't racist. My PS3 gets scanned because it'd be a great place to hide a bomb.

      If they want a good argument, look on here a few days ago when someone argued that the security checks cost more lives than they save due to displaced travelers being pushed off airplanes and onto the roads. That's a solid viewpoint.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:Not profitable enough by Moryath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Grandma Mable gets scanned because the TSA isn't racist

      Grandma Mable gets probed and pulled aside for a "random bag check" because people like you are idiots and too damn stupid to understand the idea of focusing resources where they will do the most good.

      The guy below says he is "not comfortable" with the government keeping "tabs" on citizens. I guess he's never applied for any job that required a real background check, where agents will actually go and interview friends, neighbors, past employers, etc. And I'm sure you and he both don't understand the level of infiltration and front-organization setups that go on in the incestuous relationship between US mosques, terrorist front groups (CAIR was founded by two Hamas members, "Islamic Society of North America" is a Muslim Brotherhood organization, half the "charities" in Dearbornistan MI are Hezbollah front groups, and so on).

      Political correctness gone amok is getting to be more of a danger to us than the pedoprophet's followers are!

    3. Re:Not profitable enough by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So let's say it is a setup, what is the problem with that?

      Rosa Parks did not randomly happen upon a bus, there is a long tradition of using the predictable actions of those in authority to get public support for your cause.

    4. Re:Not profitable enough by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, lets say everything you just typed is true.

      Who cares?

      The fact of the matter remains your rights as Americans are being trampled all over, and you're being treated like criminals regardless of whether you are one or not.

      And your world image is suffering (again) because of it. And your tourism industry is no doubt feeling the effects of it, too.

      Whether they're Libertarian, Democrats, or Republicans shouldn't matter. What the TSA is doing is wrong, and what you just typed is completely fucking irrelevant.

    5. Re:Not profitable enough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You CANNOT use the 'Israeli method' in the US. It doesn't scale.

      Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Israel has something on the order of 30 airports and only one major International airport. The US has - how many?

      Israeli security scans passenger lists and pulls out very personal information to quiz you with. You're going where? With whom? How many Americans will think that that that is OK?

      They will disassemble anything to bare metal if they feel the need. You want your iPhone to look like something out of iFixit? Again, this sort of thing would not be tolerated. The training required for this type of screening is orders of magnitude beyond that needed for a scanner monkey.

      It doesn't scale!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Not profitable enough by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Not profitable enough by glebovitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dunno. I'm not a libertarian and I think the TSA search policy is misguided, intrusive, and fucked up.

    8. Re:Not profitable enough by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a bullshit argument to make. The reason why you can't racially profile in the US is that we're sensible enough not to do it. Racial profiling does not work, never has and never will.

      It's especially ineffective against the Islamist extremists that are apparently more dangerous than anybody else for the simple reason that Islam is very diverse. Consequently it's not that tough to find people of any racial or ethnic background to recruit. The bigger issue is finding ones that are desperate and angry enough to go though with it.

    9. Re:Not profitable enough by gambino21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should at least put a link to the source when you copy and paste a large section of someone else's article. I won't bother to post a point by point refutation of this article because someone else already did.

    10. Re:Not profitable enough by RsG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your link contradicts your points.

      According to some of the sites you just linked to, they aren't allowed to eat dogs, and some of the more hardline ones don't keep them as pets. Working dogs are allowed, with sheepdogs and guide dogs for the blind both being cited as examples of this. This is what I found the first time I tried to google your point, and it's what the first links in the search you just made shows.

      Which means muslims should have no problem with sniffer dogs on a religious level. Now, a hypothetical terrorist might claim that being sniffed violates his religion, in the hopes of circumventing the sniffer dogs. Which is fine, because I covered that in my post: people who don't want to go the dog route can instead opt for the scanners.

      Congratulations, you're a fucking moron.

      Whereas you are incapable of polite discourse. If you can't frame your argument without resorting to ad homs, don't bother making it.

      Piece of advice: whenever a neutral party reads an argument between two people, they will almost always side with the one being less belligerent. You cannot convince a reader that your view is correct if you can only express your view by mouthing off. If faced with a debate where the other person hasn't insulted you yet, stay polite, and you'll sound more like a reasonable person.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    11. Re:Not profitable enough by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to the Union-Tribune, when asked if the TSA was set up by Tyner, the local administrator coyly replied, "I don't know that it was an actual set up--but we are concerned that this passenger did have his recording [on] prior to entering the checkpoint so there is some concern that it was an intentional behavior on his part."

      The TSA was set up just like the thousands of convenience store robbers are victimized by store owners having the audacity to have surveillance cameras running before the robbers walked into the premises to perpetrate a stick-up.

      Just like the set-ups of cops videoed beating handcuffed suspects.

      It's getting to where an authoritarian government goon can't even publicly strip a WW2 wounded vet or traumatize an autistic child without worrying about being "set up" by outraged bystanders recording the abuse.

      Thank goodness we have Progressives from both parties in control of the government to protect us! I know Obama will be appearing on nationwide TV any second now to announce he's ordered the insanity to stop.

      Any second now.

      Really.

      Just any moment.

      Stay tuned!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Not profitable enough by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the left, who traditionally value civil liberties more than the right
       
      Depends on your definition of left and right. Libertarians, usually understood to be on "the right", traditionally value civil liberties more than anyone else.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  2. Aloha airlines flight 243 by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could the underwear bomber have done any worse than what happened on Aloha airlines flight 243?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Aloha airlines flight 243 by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      +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.

  3. Re:Israel has an actual existential threat by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Who have they ever caught? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's virtually impossible to conceal explosives inside something without getting at least traces of dust on the outside, and so far that theory has actually managed to catch the few people who have been caught.

    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.

  5. No sudden attack of common sense in Congress by echucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"

  6. Re:ACLU will never let it happen by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Bomb Sniffing Dogs by bkmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Israel has an actual existential threat by ThePromenader · · Score: 3, Funny

    Send anti-gay religious wingnuts to protest at their funerals.

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
  9. Failure of the Israeli Method by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/
  10. Re:That's because profiling (like that) fails. by ianare · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except none of the two more recent trerrorists were Arab.

    Shoe bomber : Richard Colvin Reid, father black Jamaican, mother white English. Born in the UK.

    Underwear bomber : Umar Abdulmutallab, both parents Nigerian, born in Nigeria.

  11. Ah for the good old days. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember back when we had real trolls. Not these thin-blooded wanna-bes.

    Wait... so the TSA caught the shoe bomber, therefore the TSA can't catch any terrorists?

    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

  12. Re:Be careful what you wish for by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about a free market solution where I can select an air carrier that just does not bother with this crap?

  13. Profiling fails [Re:ACLU will never let it happen] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only way to do security of this type effectively IS the way other countries (like Israel) do it - and that is with profiling

    Except that Israel does not use profiling for airport security.

    Israeli security experts have repeatedly emphasized that, in their view, profiling is an open invitation to terrorism. Terrorists need only to find out what profile is being used, and then they're in; they just use a terrorist that doesn't fit the profile. Profiling fails.

    The Israelis use questioning. 100% questioning.

    The US, on the other hand, does use profiling. The last time I was detained for detailed questioning (because, for reasons beyond my control, I'd bought a one-way ticket at the last minute-- a profiling flag), every other person in the group was a middle-Eastern or Indian male. It was pretty darn obvious what the profile was.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  14. Re:The shoe bomber. by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have you had your head buried in the sand for the last couple of years? TSA didn't catch the shoe bomber -- the passengers and flight crew of the airplane did.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  15. simple alternative by corbettw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dogs. Put a bomb-sniffing dog at each security checkpoint. When the dog alerts to a substance, stop the line and use pat-down procedures (performed in private) on the individual(s) who caused the alert. This is cheaper and much, much more reliable than any scanner.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  16. Re:That's because profiling (like that) fails. by cgenman · · Score: 4, Informative

    The crotch bomber was Nigerian, not Arab. Timothy and the Unibomber were both US and white. Jim David Adkisson was both white and in his late 50's. The McCamy Law Firm bomber and the Well's Fargo bomber were also white.

    There are active terror groups in Spain, Ireland, Japan, China, India, The Former USSR, etc etc. Profiling just Arabs leaves out huge swaths of potential killers.

  17. Re:Israeli system cannot work in the USA by potat0man · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  18. *Everything* should be done? Really? by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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.

  19. Re:Be careful what you wish for by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, you technically can do this. You just have to pick one of the small charter companies that doesn't use the terminal, or fly yourself. The unfortunate part comes when you pay the bill.

    In other words, the groping and nudie pictures are just for poor people, not their wealthy and/or politically connected betters.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  20. Re:Israeli system cannot work in the USA by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the truth. Terrorism can't be completely stopped without turning the US into a police state, with cameras inside every home. Therefore some terrorist attacks are part of the price of freedom.

    Reasonable searches are fine, but machines that take naked pictures of passengers and invasive physical searches are not reasonable.