Slashdot Mirror
Laser Scanner May Allow Passengers To Take Bottled Drinks On Planes Again
cylonlover writes "Besides having to remove our shoes, the volume limitations regarding liquids and gels in carry-on baggage has become a major hassle in the world of post 9-11 airport security. Hopefully, however, we may soon be able to once again bring our big bottles of water and tubes of toothpaste aboard airliners in our overnight bags. Britain's Cobalt Light Systems has developed a scanner called the INSIGHT100, that uses laser light to assess the liquid contents of containers, even if those containers are opaque."
Shouldn't we all be really terrified of the massive pile of super dangerous drinks bottles we have to pass on the way through security?
How about we just let people take liquids on planes again? You know, without the stupid scanner?
BTW, it clearly doesn't work on toothpaste or any other metal container.
>Laser Scanner May Allow Passengers To Take Bottled Drinks On Planes Again
Presumably it was the laser scanner that prevented this in the first place, right?
Can they develop a laser scanner to find my dignity again? While I hail these suggested improvements, the fact remains that these piecemeal changes are a smokescreen to the larger issue of the legality and effectiveness of our current airport security scheme.
Oh great, more crap the airports have to buy, which increases ticket prices, for zero increased safety. Super.
If "they" want to blow up a plane they will find a way to do it. The focus should be on "why" they want to blow up the plane. Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?
What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?
since when has the TSA cared about efficiency or practicality? or if it even works?
need i post a link to the video with adam savage claiming to have gone through the body scanner with a 12 inch razer blade?
According to Wiki, 46,514,154 passed through JFK International in 2010. Let's say they're very cautious about the false alarm rate and that it's actually 0.25%: that's still well over 100,000 false alarms per year. From one big airport.
What do they do then? Call in the bomb squad a couple of hundred times a day or let the passenger on the plane minus their alleged bottle of explosives?
It might be a good idea as an initial screen where any positives get passed to a more rigorous second layer of screening but this can take time, and bearing in mind it takes about 5 seconds to scan an item with this machine and that people can have three or four things to scan that could make an extra 30 seconds of time to screen each passenger bearing in mind time to get the items in and out of the machine. That might not sound like much but it'll just increase backups even further.
Besides, I take it "false alarm" means false positive. What about the rate of false negatives? Is it high enough to make it pointless?
There are exceptions for families with small children. They may bring milk and other drinks for the child (and yes that's of course a major security leak but who cares, it's theater anyway and the show must go on). Exact quantities I don't know but something like "a reasonable quantity for the trip".
I notice not many people here are saying we should do away with intrusive pat-downs and feel ups altogether. At least here in the US, we used to have something called the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search & seizure.
So... we have a fake problem based off what was essentially a hoax, but now the public and TSA are so heavily invested in the myth that when everyone realizes how stupid the policy is, rather then just saying 'ok, start carying liquids', they have to go with some expensive face-saving device so they can maintain the facade that this whole policy was worthless in the first place.
You know.. I really should have just tried to sell them dowsing rods instead... they are already being sold as bomb detectors... I am sure I could repurpose a couple sticks for detecting combinations of liquids that when mixed will blow up planes. I wonder if I can set them up so they poke the user in the eye in order to indicate a positive.....
Well if it means I can carry on a bottle of wine I bought instead of praying it doesn't explode on all my clothes then I might be ok with that.
You pack up your carry-on bag and show up at the airport. As you go through the security line you have to unpack everything. All liquids and gels have to be placed on one conveyer belt. Electronic devices are placed on another. Your belt, shoes, hat, jacket, are placed on another. Whatever remains is placed on yet another. If you accidentally put something on the wrong conveyer then you and all your belongings are dragged off to a private room by 3 goons who go through everything with a fine toothed comb, taking so long that you'll undoubtedly miss your flight. Each of those conveyers goes through an assortment of various gizmos that poke, prod, scan, irradiate, zap, spray, and shake all of your possessions.
If you sort all your belongings properly then you then proceed to one kiosk where you have your retinas and/or fingerprints scanned. Depending on the outcome of that (and probably the whim of a nearby screener) you're shunted to another line where your clothes are swabbed down and tested for lord-knows-what sorts of chemicals. Then it's off to another line to proceed through a nude-o-scope so the screeners can gawk at you. And since the nude-o-scope doesn't actually do what it's purported to do then you're also subjected to a full pat-down. After the final pat down you're interrogated by yet another agent who demands to know where you're traveling, who you're traveling with, why you think you should be allowed on board an airplane, etc.
After about 30 minutes of "processing" you're allowed to retrieve roughly 85% of your belongings (half of which are damaged or completely destroyed from the "screening" process) from a huge bin where all those conveyers dump everything into one huge pile.
Oh yeah, and if you're not smiling sincerely throughout the entire process then you're also subjected to a full body cavity search and then ejected from the airport no matter what the outcome of the search.
I won't go anywhere I can't drive to in my own vehicle. I won't stand for strip searching, irradiation and groping by government thugs.
And how many terrorists have the TSA ever stopped? The answer: ZERO.
The TSA is all about harassment in the name of the APPEARANCE of security. They will strip search a nun while allowing muslims (who were responsible for 9/11) through without a second look. Because of this, because of political correctness, if anything planes are LESS SAFE today than on 9/10.
Corporatism != Free Market
When you're a regular traveler, you adapt to jump through all the hoops. I have the laptop and liquid bag ready and everything like toothpaste, deodorant, contact lens liquid etc. are less than 100ml, I wear shoes that won't beep, belt that won't beep, put all my stuff in the jacket pockets, don't carry large amounts of loose change, drink up my soda before the security check and so on. You don't forget to take off your watch or any other of the million annoyances. I swear they have a "beep anyway" button though, just to annoy you.
Then you've got everybody else that only travel a few times a year. Oh, I need to take out the laptop I put at the bottom of my bag? Oh, I have to throw away the soda? Oh, I have to spend two minutes getting all the change out of my pockets? Oh, I have to untie my shoes and send through? Oh, you mean I can't bring my regular size tooth paste? They get frustrated and I get frustrated waiting for them, I wish there was a frequent traveller's lane (not the insanely expensive business express lane) where if you got say >10 stamps a year don't have to stand in line with the rest.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Breast milk and baby formula were always exempt from the TSA 3oz limitations. Originally the passenger bringing them on board had to taste it to prove it was safe (not sure how that would deter a suicide bomber), but even that requirement was later dropped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoiifBZD4E
Though he's not claiming to have gone through a body scanner with them, just that they were in his bag.
Just do like they used to - if it's a suspicious liquid that's supposed to be drinkable, you take a swig. If not, it doesn't go with you.
"I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder."
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I think I need to develop the Terrorist Detector 3000. It will just be a plain metallic arch (but a *cool* looking metallic arch). It won't actually beep or have any electronics inside but it will detect terrorist by Advanced Probabilistic Reasoning. Each passenger that passes through has a nearly-zero chance of being a terrorist so it will read negative on them. My device will be 99.9999% accurate! (Perhaps even more accurate than that.) What's more, the Terrorist Detector 3000 will only cost airports $50,000 each, saving them tons of money. Hey, it'll be just as good at catching terrorists as the TSA is right now!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I was already convinced this rule about liquids was bogus and mostly aimed at increasing the sales of beverages in airports, but a few months back I had a shock at just how stupid the system is.
I was taking a plane (international within Scandinavia) and I had noticed a bit late I had a very short time from landing to the departure of the train I wanted to get on. I had only a small piece of luggage, which I usually check in for convenience, so to cut the baggage claim I decide to carry it on the plane instead. Of course at the security checkpoint they notice there are a bunch of liquids inside (toothpaste, shampoo and the like), and I decide I'd rather buy them back upon arrival.
Funny thing, they take the 120 ml toothpaste tube, but leave a 500 ml bottle of liquid for contact lenses. I ask whether it is because it is almost empty (I thought the prohibition was based on containers, which is the case), but that was not it.
In fact I found out that there is an exception to the 100 ml rule: medical supplies, which apparently includes liquid for contact lenses (no, no special liquid; your average, run-of-the-mill, over-the-counter liquid for soft contacts; no prescription whatsoever). Security personnel did not perform any test whatsoever on the contents of the bottle (which was of a brand unavailable in that country, so they did not even recognise it). They did not even open it! It could have been sulphuric acid for all they knew.
So, next time you want to bring your soda on the plane, buy a bottle of contact lens liquid, empty it, and refill it with whatever you want.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
... gets to work on his new laser-detonated liquid explosive.
The last time I traveled with small children we had to drink from the bottle in front of the officers... they considered it a "proof" that it was edible. They said nothing of the high-power laser in my backpack.
I am almost certain the new 'convenience' that we already used to have but lost will be introduced after a company makes millions introducing some newfangled technology that rips off our government (really.. the taxpayers). It works like this:
Step 1: Add major inconvenience due to 'security'
Step 2: Consult with private consultants (read.. former government officials) on how to get rid of new inconvenience and make a ton of money
Step 3: Purchase new unproven technology for all airports with taxpayer dollars and make 'private industry' friends rich
This is how it worked with the backscatter machines and this is how it will work with the new 'laser scanners.'
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I swear they have a "beep anyway" button though, just to annoy you.
I've seen a presentation by a perceptual scientist who was doing a study for the TSA on false alarm rates (both false positive where they detect something that shouldn't have been detected, and false negatives where they miss something that should have been seen). It turns out that boredom in agents watching the scanner monitors is a serious problem and that if there aren't enough items to detect, the agents become complacent and the false negative rate goes up. False negatives result in serious security breaches, like guns getting on planes. Say what you like about the TSA, false negatives are a problem. So, according to this presentation, x-ray scanners have a mechanism to insert fictitious objects into the images to keep the agents sharp. That's why you get asked to go through your hand luggage every now and then even though there's absolutely nothing that could be considered suspicious: the false positive rate is raised so that the false negative rate can be reduced to near zero.
And, to bring this back to the quote above, this is, essentially, a "beep anyway" button, only it isn't under direct TSA staff control.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
> I fly several times a year between US, South america, Europe and Asia and I have never had any problems bringing anything I need on the plane.
Good for you AC. Though I bet you never travelled with a baby, did you?
I'll never forget flying with our 3-month old and having some TSA goon take the kid's bottle away. Every lucky passenger in coach got to hear our hungry baby scream most of the flight. But I'm sure it was worth it, right? No doubt, many imagined threats were stopped that day.
Ask me about my sig!
My wife got some kind of spa lotion set while on vacation and forgot to put it in her checked bag. Security told her to give it to them or she would miss her flight. She handed it over only to be told she had already missed her flight. She asked for it back so she could ship it home but they wouldn't give it back.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Oooh, look, we've got a Slashdotter who believes the propaganda. This should be enlightening.
How does your lying about the history and reality of binary explosives help whatever point you're trying to make?
Tell us how a 3oz prohibition, per bottle, helps with your Hollywood movie-script danger.
It's 3oz per bottle, not person. Bringing 6 bottles on board won't phase any TSA screener. The 9/11 hijackings were five men per plane. That's 90oz of binary explosive on board an airplane. Assuming it's possible to successfully mix it onboard, for the sake of argument, the TSA's rules have allowed way more explosive onboard than is needed to take the tail of the plane clean off from the rear bathroom.
Meanwhile, they don't even pressure-test checked baggage (like Israel does) for barometer bombs (something that actually has killed hundreds of Americans in airline terrorism) and 60% of penetration tests of the TSA have succeeded (or failed, depending on your perspective).
As a consequence, the US economy has lost over $600B (and climbing) in tourism revenue. Osama Bin Laden got the US Government to attack its own country with economic sanctions and blockades and infringe its people's liberties. Buy, hey, maybe they won't "hate us because we're free" anymore, since we aren't?
What level of evidence is necessary to convince you that this is all about propaganda and obedience conditioning? Is there no point where the critical thinking reflex kicks in, despite official pronouncements?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Just for information, the kid's bottle should have been allowed through. Most places I've been to appear to allow reasonable amounts of formula to be taken through security. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm
I always carry at least 2 1L bottles of water on the plane and constantly drink from them. Why you ask? Because planes usually have a very dry atmosphere and cause dehydration which can lead to exhaustion and illness. The two or three 4 oz cups that you get on a domestic U.S. flight just aren't enough.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-travel/air-travel-and-dehydration.aspx
On the Plane: Why Is Low Humidity a Problem?
Dehydration can cause problems ranging from mild discomfort caused by dry skin and scratchy eyes to potentially life-threatening issues, such as problems with breathing for people who have respiratory conditions like asthma. Dehydration can also lead to fatigue, says William L. Sutker, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
Being in a low-humidity environment has another caveat: You're at increased risk of catching a respiratory virus, such as a cold. Humidity in the air keeps your airways moist so the lining can help trap germs trying to enter your body. When the air youâ(TM)re breathing is too dry, the mucous in your airway canâ(TM)t do its job, and viruses or bacteria can enter more freely.
I have to imagine that not everyone in TSA management is a congenital idiot, and that some of them probably realize how silly the no-liquids rule is. But they also probably realize that they can't just abandon it without being accused of being "soft on crime" and various other silly problems, any of which might lead to the ultimate catastrophe: losing that coveted GS-99 civil service position and lucrative pension.
So what's a non-idiot to do? Simple: adopt a "new technology" that pretty much always blinks green when something gets put in its little hole, and blinks red occasionally just to pretend it actually accomplishes something. Such a device could easily scan a zip-lock bag containing a collection of liquids, and with further improvements could be integrated into the original X-ray apparatus so that it scans bags, too. For historical accuracy, it can claim to use N-rays.
As it happens, we already have liquid scanners just like this, although they are not heavily used. I accidentally tried to carry bottled water through the checkpoint X-ray at DCA 18 months ago, and after the goon squad got over the excitement, they explained that they'd have to dispose of it for me, but that first they would put it through a magic scanner (a suitcase-sized box with a cylindrical cavity and some buttons and lights) to be sure it was safe. To pass the time while being lectured, I asked if they would do something different to dispose of it were the scanner to say it was dangerous, and the responding goon assured me (with no trace of irony) that no, it all went in the same bin.
I have probably taken 300 flights since the "liquid explosive" scare. Since 2008, when I realized that the whole thing was ridiculous, I have never put my liquids into a quart-size baggie, nor have I taken them out for individual passage through the X-ray. In that time, I have been forced to give up my toothpaste in furtherance of the nation's security precisely twice. It's a small price to pay--a few bucks worth of toothpaste and a pious lecture about how dangerous the toothpaste might be, in exchange for significantly less hassle at the checkpoint. I have to imagine that the reason my approach works is that they really don't try very hard to find contraband of this sort. If I were a proper activist, I suppose I'd be willing to wear a "Toothpaste Smuggler" button when I fly, but I lack the courage.
Maybe they'll figure out that they can do this for other stuff, too. I must say that the full-body scanners are a major step backwards, since I can't even keep my passport and ticket in my pockets any more.
Not here in the good US of A. Somebody might see a nipple. And then, the terrorist have won!!!
Yeah, that's not going to fly (pardon the pun).
1) Adoptive and foster mothers (usually) can't breastfeed
2) Not all women can produce sufficient milk for their children (even the most productive mother has a hard time with triplets, and some have a hard time nursing just one baby)
3) Some American will sue the airline over indecent exposure if the woman on the same isle breastfeeds
4) Working women have a hard time breastfeeding. They usually must pump during the day to get enough milk flowing, and often the child starts to prefer the bottles they get during the day anyway.
I could go on, of course. The point is that even though "breast is best," it is not always possible due to individual circumstances and physiology. If you can do it, great ... but don't expect everyone to do the same.
You are right, that changes 1 and 2 were pretty much all the extra security we needed after 9/11. All the extra TSA theatre is not about making us any more security, it's about making money for various corporations and for the politicians they own.