The DHS's Latest Investment: Terahertz Laser Scanners

MrSeb writes "It seems like every time I set foot in an airport, there is some new machine I need to stand in, walk through, or put my shoes on. The argument can be made that much of this is security theater — an effort to just make things look safe. However, if a new kind of laser-based molecular scanner lives up to its promise and finds its way into airports as planned, it could actually make a difference. A company called Genia Photonics has developed a programmable picosecond laser that is capable of spotting trace amounts of a variety of substances. Genia claims that the system can detect explosives, chemical agents, and hazardous biological substances at up to 50 meters. This device relies on classic spectroscopy; just a very advanced form of it. In the case of Genia's scanner, it is using far-infrared radiation in the terahertz band. This is why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is so keen on getting it into airports. Understandably, some are calling foul on the possible privacy concerns, but this technology is halfway to a Star Trek tricorder."

Comments

Oops

[war4peace]

I should then quit smoking doobies prior to traveling. Bummer.

Re:Oops

[jimpop]

possibly before posting too! :-)

Re:Oops

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Invasive scanning without detection at 50 meters?
"Backscatter" vans are already roaming the streets of Amereica's cities. So I don't suppose that many months will pass before DHS has this equipment deployed into the hands of "local jurisdiction associates" sooner than later. Hell, they'll probably deploy this on drones, if they can manage the power-supply.

Then? They'll have your arse scanned and tanned before you are in earshot of the announcement: "papers, please!"

Good to know that there are Americans volunteering to die overseas, in the defense of such Liberty as this!

Re:Oops

[Sponge Bath]

If you eat enough Doritos before traveling, the laser will only detect cool ranch flavor.

Re:Oops

[war4peace]

Then I would never post anything...

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

See, then you'd just get arrested for possession of paraphernalia.

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution, take a little coke with you an hour early, and wipe it on the handrail on the escalator.
There should be residue on every single person in the airport, and they'll simply shut the machine down when it starts reading positive for EVERYONE.
Seriously - it's simple to foil the machines for so many substances - the same would work with a little gunpowder from a firecracker.

The fucking TSA is nothing but a Chertoff Charity - ditch it, and put that fucking thief in prison where he belongs.

Re:Oops

[pwnyxpress]

Invasive scanning without detection at 50 meters?

they'll probably deploy this on drones, if they can manage the power-supply.

Holy shit, look at that drone skimming the tree tops!

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Firecrackers tend to use flash powder, not gun powder.

Marijuana resin on the handrail would probably contaminate more people than coke would.

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash powder will register the same to a "trained" TSA agent as gun powder would so it really doesn't matter. The point is this machine will most likely give more false positives over the course of its use. and coast the tax payers hundreds of millions to implement with all the other failed tech they keep insisting is there to keep us safe.

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, spare us the police state rhetoric. We hear it often enough without you reciting it for us.

Blah blah blah Nazis blah blah blah soldiers dying. We know. What's the last thing you've actually done about it? Are you hosting any rallies near me? Done any investigative journalism? Or are you like every other whining fool, spouting off conspiracy theories, propping up straw men, and taking every bad possibility to its illogical extreme? Tell me: how does that help?

I don't care if you're right. I don't care if you're wrong. I just don't want to listen to people like you when you can't offer me anything concrete or constructive.

Re:Oops

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Do not go gentle into that good night/
Rage, rage against the dying of the light"

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

And where's YOUR protest? You know, the one you clearly started since doing nothing doesn't help?

Oh right, you, like the rest of us, don't feel like being a martyr and be thrown in prison to be 'made an example of' when you're disrupting the peace or whatever BS reason the police haul your ass away. The media would just smear campaign the shit out of you anyway, and the retarded public would be decrying your imprisonment the best thing since sliced bread, glad to get you off the streets.

But no, you keep on yelling at people anonymously on a forum. That's most certainly the best way to help.

Re:Oops

[ubrgeek]

And where are both of your signed-in posts, taking some ownership over things about which you seem so indignant.

At the very least, if you're going to post anon, at least both something funny.

Re:Oops

[trout007]

You answered your own question. Those of us that keep making the case for liberty over and over online and elsewhere is helping spread the word. Eventually this will lead to change.

Re:Oops

[charlesj68]

Holy shit, look at that drone skimming the tree tops!

"Jimmy, bet ya' a Miller Lite that you can't hit that thing with yer twenty-two."

Sounds good.

[Animats]

This sounds good. A device that can detect explosive compounds at a distance. That addresses the real problem. No more need to examine laptops, check documents, or pat people down.

Re:Sounds good.

[Hatta]

You're not naive enough to think that they'll stop, just because the original justification is no longer valid, are you?

Re:Sounds good.

[JohnFen]

That enhances the real problem.

FTFY.

Re:Sounds good.

[barlevg]

But will they really stop patting people down?

First the legitimate: these things don't exactly have any mechanism by which to detect box cutters.

Now the bureaucratic: as the summary states, much of airport security is pure theater. People aren't as likely to feel safe if they're only being screened by "magic laser scanners."

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

First point is not actually legitimate, as the security loophole that allowed 9/11 to happen was closed before 9/11 was even completed.

Re:Sounds good.

[dgatwood]

The paranoid part of me would point out that it can also detect various medical conditions at a distance. That's not necessarily a bad thing to find out about if you don't know you have cancer or whatever, but it has all sorts of ramifications, and falls under HIPAA....

That said, as long as it is not physically capable of producing a coherent image, it is significantly less invasive than the pedo porno scanners they use today, and really isn't that much different from the magnetometers except in the number of materials it can detect. I would view these as a significant improvement if these are physically incapable (because of hardware limitations, not software policies) of producing anything approaching an image.

If they can produce anything remotely approaching an image, then they are far worse than the porno scanners and should be banned. There's no valid reason for the device to be able to determine distance or even determine which direction the laser is pointing at any given moment if your only goal is to detect dangerous substances by their chemical signature.

I'm cautiously optimistic, yet very pessimistic all at once. On the one hand, this might be a significant improvement in privacy when going through an airport checkpoint. On the other hand this might significantly reduce privacy all the time, and knowing the DHS, if there is a way for them to screw things up so that they invade privacy more than necessary, they will find a way to do so. So the cynic in me says that this will probably turn out to be another few billion dollars of our money pissed down the toilet that should be spent on something more useful, like education, intelligence gathering, actual useful security changes, providing universal healthcare, feeding and clothing the poor, building highways, updating rail beds for high speed trains, or even just burning the cash for warmth....

Re:Sounds good.

[whitedsepdivine]

The real problem is the false positives of explosives. Laundry detergent and makeup can actually give a false positive.

Additionally, explosive residue shouldn't signify guilt. If I have gun powder residue on my shirt, does that make me a terrorist? No. I could have gone hunting, or even brushed against a police officer.

Explosives Molecules != Terrorist

But with the TSA it means you will be getting advanced grope down, and will miss your flight. Even if you pass your groping procedure, they may still contact the airlines and see if the airline will deny you.

Re:Sounds good.

[Znork]

Of course not. But most likely they will mainly be used to detect what taxpayers carry any residue of money, at which point they'll get a 'pat down' to remove any excess cash burdening the traveller.

Time to cut out the middle man; these machines are expensive and the producers have to be paid.

Re:Sounds good.

[jimbrooking]

HIPAA rules only apply to "covered entities": payers, providers and clearinghouses. DHS is none of these, so HIPAA doe not apply here.

Re:Sounds good.

[realityimpaired]

No, I think he was right... if they have a way to check for that kind of thing without letting a high-school dropout look at naked pictures of me, then I'm good with it.

The problem is, they've had a way to do that for decades... drug/bomb dogs have a *much* higher success rate than any technological innovation that's been introduced since, with the possible exception of the metal detector. Couple the two together, and you have a solution that's much cheaper than the current theatre, and much more effective. Sadly, low tech options don't usually increase their share price.

Re:Sounds good.

[what2123]

Glad someone was thinking the same thing. I shoot guns, and play with model rockets quite a bit (don't tell the DHS though). If it has the ability to detect at the level they are stating, then there will be many false positives. How will they know what the "zero" is on the scale?

Re:Sounds good.

[icebike]

If you can detect it at a distance, why not detonate it at a distance, in a blast proof, single passenger at a time hallway.

Problem would be self-solving.

Re:Sounds good.

[barlevg]

IIRC, TSA is funded not from taxes, but from "security fees" billed to the airlines.

Now, granted, the airlines pass that cost onto the consumers the same way retail businesses pass on the costs of sales taxes, so yeah, I guess you can call it a "tax," but it's not like it comes directly out of your paycheck.

Re:Sounds good.

[icebike]

Not to mention US passengers will take down and hog tie anybody who even mutters the word box cutter.

Re:Sounds good.

[MikeMo]

You have no idea if this laser backscatter machine gives false positives.

Re:Sounds good.

[Iniamyen]

Yeah, it's a good thing that the serious terrorists go around muttering under their breath at the airport about how they're planning on hijacking the airplane, before they actually hijack the airplane.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you won't be getting the grope down...it'll be MUCH more invasive than that if you flunk this little test they're fielding "for our benefit"...

Re:Sounds good.

[Em Adespoton]

Of course not. But most likely they will mainly be used to detect what taxpayers carry any residue of money, at which point they'll get a 'pat down' to remove any excess cash burdening the traveller.

Time to cut out the middle man; these machines are expensive and the producers have to be paid.

This isn't too far off... if this thing is used to detect narcotics, given that 90% of US bills have detectable traces of cocaine on them, leave any money exposed while being scanned, and you're likely to get a much more thorough examination and possible confiscation of your money.

Re:Sounds good.

[Em Adespoton]

You have no idea if this laser backscatter machine gives false positives.

No idea? I'd say that given standard statistical distributions, the machine is GUARANTEED to give false positives, unless it doesn't give any positives at all. Given that we live in a universe filled with entropy and this is a fairly advanced device, a 0 FP rate indicates an unacceptably high FN rate.

So the real question is to do with process and granularity of information provided, not FP rate.

Re:Sounds good.

[Em Adespoton]

Nah; just need to automate this by putting it in said hallway, and have the detector trigger the microwave radiation unit that causes your skin to feel uncomfortably hot. The individual hit by this will do the rest, as they struggle out of any clothing that is triggering the heat wave.

Re:Sounds good.

[Bucky24]

If you brushed against a police officer you may need to be taken in for questioning for "resisting arrest"

Re:Sounds good.

[MikeMo]

I say again, you are purely assuming, with no actual FACTS, that the machine will give false positives on "laundry detergent and makeup". While I agree that it is likely to give false positives, the rate at which it does so and the substances which cause it are unknown to those of us on slashdot. My point is that one should not be all upset about false positives until such time that real FACTS about them are available. Once can be concerned that there may be false positives, but one should not state categorically that "Laundry detergent and makeup can actually give a false positive" without those actual FACTS.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes he does. Given that it can detect very small amounts of chemicals, and those chemicals are found ANYWHERE outside it's nefarious use, there will be false positives.

Critical thought is as simple as labeling everyone a terrorist.

Re:Sounds good.

[geekoid]

FACT: there will be false positive.

The question you seem to be getting overly concerned about it "What happens when that occurs?"

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are "questioned" for resisting arrest, you are also going to need medical treatment.

Re:Sounds good.

[veganboyjosh]

Long before 9/11, i went with a friend and his father to pick up a family member of his at the airport. This was back when anyone--not just ticketed passengers--could go through security, all the way to the gate. my friend's dad was carrying a messenger bag type satchel that he got at a military surplus store. For some reason, it triggered some alarm or the other, or maybe he was just picked randomly, but the bag he had was putting off a chemical signature of TNT explosives, and he was given the option to leave the bag in his car, or not enter the secure area. All because of some residue from who knows what back when the bag was being used in the military.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are "questioned" for resisting arrest, you are also going to need medical treatment.

During which you'll probably wind up getting *another* rectal examination.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

... I shoot guns, and play with model rockets quite a bit ...

That's not a false positive: You really have been using explosive chemicals. The DHS says you must be a terrorist.

The false positive comes from all those people who tended their pot-plants before going to the airport. Garden fertilizer contains the same nitrates as explosives. (Guess what their fancy gadget measures?) Originally these nitrates could be boiled out of the fertilizer and used to make an explosive.

Re:Sounds good.

[Xacid]

"The DHS says you must be a terrorist."

While I haven't been a fan of the TSA - I'm pretty sure it'd just illicit a secondary screening. Rather, I hope there's common sense involved here. We'll see how that actually pans out.

Frankly, I see a lot of potential good in this. Two things we needed after 9/11 - cockpit doors and better explosive detection. Beyond that we were pretty much good, IMO. Depending on how rapidly this scans, what the health concerns are, and how the enforcing agency (TSA) handles this tech this may, surprisingly, make travel somewhat more bearable.

Re:Sounds good.

[julesh]

I say again, you are purely assuming, with no actual FACTS, that the machine will give false positives on "laundry detergent and makeup". While I agree that it is likely to give false positives, the rate at which it does so and the substances which cause it are unknown to those of us on slashdot. My point is that one should not be all upset about false positives until such time that real FACTS about them are available. Once can be concerned that there may be false positives, but one should not state categorically that "Laundry detergent and makeup can actually give a false positive" without those actual FACTS.

Ok, here's a fact for you. I don't knw what the problem with laundry detergent is, but a rather large number of cosmetic items (mostly nail varnishes) are produced from nitrocellulose, a high explosive. It is physically impossible to detect molecules of nitrocellulose from an explosive device without also detecting the ones that are used in nail varnish (and the lacquer on many guitars, and in wart removers, and in the plastic backing on some brands of playing cards). If it is sensitive enough to be useful, it will detect false positives because the false positives are actually caused by presence of the same substance in similar quantities to what they would have to be looking for.

Re:Sounds good.

[MikeMo]

You don't know what the new device looks for. You don't know if the spectroscopy technique being used can tell the difference, or if the software is specifically designed to avoid this issue. You seem to think that these people are stupid, and that only you and Slash denizens care about or are aware of the false positive problem. The real purpose of your original post is get people on Slash to like you, perhaps even to get your comment modded up, to get some warm and fuzzies by being like the rest of the crowd. You'd be better off learning to think critically.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I routinely use nitrocellulose (aka guncotton) and sodium azide (aka oh god the airbag just deployed) in the lab. They're both day-to-day essentials for biotech research. There's a number of others that are of concern that show up from time to time as well.

My pre-flight procedure involves taking a lengthy shower several times, washing my clothes on extended wash, getting a letter from my PI stating that I work with these chemicals and how to contact him if need be. I think I've garnered every possible response from the TSA.

I've been pulled aside from re-check. I've been given a more serious search. I've had my stuff gone through. I've had my stuff swabbed down. The letter has been read and ignored. The letter has been read and acknowledged. I had a shirt that came up particularly hot taken away from me (from a bag, not being worn) after which I was allowed to proceed without further concern.

The TSA doesn't need better data, or at least that's not their primary problem. They need better training on how to handle the data they get.

Posting AC because I'm pretty sure not all of that is okay.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're on some prescription drug that is seeping out of your pores and mimics something TSA is looking for, too bad.

Re:Sounds good.

[julesh]

You don't know what the new device looks for.

Let's make this simple. There are two possibilities:

1. The device looks for residues of nitrocellulose. If it does, then handling any of a number of common objects that contain nitrocellulose will leave enough of a residue of it on you to set off the detector.
2. The device does not look for residues of nitrocellulose. If this is the case, it will not detect nitrocellulose-based bombs.

Total Recall on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Someday soon, we will have Total Recall(original) type scanners, which show nothing but your skeleton and any hidden object you may have.

Re:Total Recall on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

What if my terror weapons of choice are elite karate chops?

YOUR MOVE DHS /do you think you can challenge the master?/

Re:Total Recall on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

What if my terror weapons of choice are elite JUDO chops?

YOUR MOVE DHS /do you think you can challenge the master?/

There FTFY

Because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Additional features

[Anonymous Coward]

Can it whistle when it detects traces of love juice on the terrorist's err customer's clothing?

Except for...

[strangeattraction]

Go and work in your garden with fertilizer and get some on your shoes or hat. Maybe your person. Next take a trip to your lovely TSA scanner and see if they let you on the plane:) The problem is the molecules they scan for are all over the place. There would be far more false positives than they would be willing to handle. If I remember correctly they where testing for nitriles by wiping with a cloth. So many people tested positive they finally gave up. Of course they have probably forgotten about that.

Re:Except for...

[MyLongNickName]

How is this a problem? If the device detects explosives then you are taken to a secondary more "personal" search. I doubt that the false positive rate would be that high that it would be undoable... after all, the TSA is basically doing a 100% search rate as is.

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it will also put you directly onto the "No Fly List" or "Extra Screening List" even if they don't find anything with the secondary search.

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could step on someone else's joint on the way in to the airport like this poor chap:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html

And remember, all american money has traces of drugs on them (namely cocaine), so now they can always have proof of some crime to detain you. While I see this as a good thing, I'm simultaneously worried too...

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

They might just haul you in anyway and waterboard you. What are you going to do about it, civilian? Any resistance beyond hesitating when singing the national anthem makes you a terrorist and the green light to kill you by unarmed drone will be lit.

Re:Except for...

[John Hasler]

> How is this a problem? If the device detects explosives then
> you are taken to a secondary more "personal" search.

How is that not a problem?

Re:Except for...

[h4rr4r]

It will be when some jerk/terrorist/bored teenagers decide to just mix fertilizer/gun powder with water and dump some on the floor at the airport.

Talk about impact per dollar spent. If you had to search every passenger many flights would be canceled or delayed and doing that at one major airport would impact the whole country, do it at Heathrow or O'Hare and you might be able to delay flights and disrupt travel for the people all over the world.

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not go tanning without suntan lotion and get accused for handling radioactive materials?
Oh, I know, you broke a lightbulb and a little mercury vapour got on your clothing.
Even better one, eat a lot of beans for a good methane buildup.

I don't live in the USA and never traveled there, so this whole thing strikes me as incredibly hillarious. But I'm curious, all the news are about the airport security and the Canada-USA border. Do people traveling from Mexic get the same treatment? What about people on cruise ships? What about people on private aircraft or private vessels? Do they go through the same checkpoints as the others? I have a hard time thinking of Paris Hilton or anyone of her set patiently standing in line with the others.

Re:Except for...

[ceoyoyo]

Good. Then you'll all get to deal with some of what I have to put up with when going into (or near) the US, and hopefully will vote for someone who will stop it.

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly my thought - fertilizer, or get some gunpowder/blackpowder (or heck, just break open some fireworks for it), heck - just make sure it's fairly finely powdered and if there's even the slightest breeze outside the airport (on the sidewalk even) toss some up in the air - everyone will get covered with it, and you'll get 1000's of people (at a busy airport) setting off the sensors.

Heck, rig up a 'tricked out' diesel truck with a couple of nice chrome exhaust pipes sticking up on either side of the cab, that in reality do nothing but spew some finely powdered nitrogen fertilizer/gunpowder into the air, and drive by and leave the scene... and then watch the news that afternoon ;-)

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Then you'll all get to deal with some of what I have to put up with when going into (or near) the US, and hopefully will vote for someone who will stop it.

Wait... you seem to be under the mistaken impression that voting in the US means anything.
We have the wonders of voting machines made by Diebold, etc, these days - its all decided beforehand, the sheeple voting is just for show.

Re:Except for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you'll get some "extra screening", after which your name gets put on DHS's list... so then can setup those warrantless phone taps on your lines, trap all your internet traffic, CC usage, etc, and enter your home (also without a warrant) when you go to work, to search for anything they can turn up.

Re:Except for...

[Confusador]

> How is this a problem? If the device detects explosives then
> you are taken to a secondary more "personal" search.

How is that not a problem?

How is it not an improvement?

We'd be fools to reject progress even while still fighting to have the problem corrected entirely.

Re:Except for...

[Xacid]

I've accidentally brought knives through screening when going on flights and haven't been deemed a terrorist. Yet anyway. A dumbass who forgets to empty out his pockets before heading to the airport - most definitely. I think the assumption every person who has something detected is going to be on a no fly list is a bit much. Not impossible - just improbable.

Re:Except for...

[sudon't]

Sure, not a problem. I wouldn't try to fly in the US on July 5th, though.

Ridiculous

[Mathias616]

Good luck getting through an airport if your job has you work with chemicals, explosives, etc. I hear a lot of EOD tech's in the military often complain about the difficulty they have getting through an airport because of residual traces of explosives being detected by dogs. If this technology is as accurate as it is made out to be then nobody could travel the week of July 4th because they are all terrorists hiding explosives in their rectum's. Break out the gloves and strip search that 11 year old in front of their parents! Seriously, the TSA and DHS need to be abolished, this sensationalist security crap is not doing anything but harassing everyday people and systematically making our country into a police state.

Re:Ridiculous

[sabri]

In that case, you can/should be able to be pre-screened by the TSA. They already have something in place for people with names that are similar to names on the no-fly list

If you work with explosives/chemicals, all you (would) need is a redress number and perhaps a pre-screen and you're done.

I agree with you that the current TSA system is not the best, but it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

"In that case, you can/should be able to be pre-screened by the TSA."

Every July 4th? What a wonderful day for a reminder about liberty.

"If you work with explosives/chemicals, all you (would) need is a redress number and perhaps a pre-screen and you're done."

What an easy way for terrorists bent on doing something with explosives to get a "free pass".

Screen everyone -- no free passes because you're in the military, the political class, or whatever other excuse. Either everyone is a risk, and thus everyone should get searched, or nobody should be.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

>it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).
[citation needed]

Never mind our entirely sufficient airline security pre 9/11 did only minimal checks. Every now and then a bunch of wackos blow up a plane. Big deal. Heart disease and traffic accidents do far, far worse.

So sometimes they get one through. No reason to live in constant fear and surrender all freedoms in a *futile* attempt to stop terrorists. I'm not saying don't put people through a metal detector or x-ray baggage or anything but this current crap is ridiculous.

Re:Ridiculous

[JohnFen]

That's a false dichotomy -- there are other options. But even if our choice is between doing nothing and doing what they do now, I would argue that doing nothing is the better alternative. By a long shot.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Your thinking is flawed and unfortunately too many sheeple think like you do.

"All you have to do is spread your cheeks and let them in", no big deal, right?

"All you have to do is show them your papers." "All you have to do is not act weird." "All you have to do is not be <insert 'evil' race here>." "All you have to do is stay in your house." "All you have to do is not be born genetically defective."

"All you have to do is die."

Re:Ridiculous

[nschubach]

Not to mention, if a terrorist really wanted to fly a plane into something else... they could just do it on a private jet which has no TSA screening. Heck, even a small craft (unmanned anymore) loaded with explosives could take off from any number of airports in the US and cause a tremendous amount of damage.

Re:Ridiculous

[whitedsepdivine]

Equality, everyone should be {insert bad thing here}, no free passes. Great logic man!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety (Benjamin Franklin)."

Re:Ridiculous

[G00F]

I agree with you that the current TSA system is not the best, but it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).

The alternative was the screening in place pre 911, which was not "letting everyone on an airplane without any checks". They checked for explosives on random people, they had everyone go through metal detectors and might esculate to the wand. They allowed secure private checked in bags, and they looked through carry ons. But I strongly disagree with you, in that I would rather have no screening than what we have now.

However, I am ok with non invasive screening that do not get personal, can cause health issues, or collect data. This sounds like one, just like the metal detectors (unlike the naked body scanners, or the xrays)

Sure, I foresee false positives, and if they have a proper path of escalation to cause the least discomfort to the travelers all will be fine. But this is the Government, it will involve what can only be called punishment.

Re:Ridiculous

[John Hasler]

> Seriously, the TSA and DHS need to be abolished,

Damn right.

Re:Ridiculous

[hoggoth]

For fuck's sake, anyone who's read Make magazine could make an unmanned explosive drone by buying a quadropter from Brookstone and duct taping a bomb to it.
Take off from a backyard.

Technology will not be getting any harder in the future, folks.

The TSA: Keeping us safe from yesterday's threat, today.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know if you remember the system we had before the Thousands Standing Around (my name for the TSA), but it worked fairly well. all we need to do is go back to that (x-ray for bags and metal detectors) maybe add random drug/bomb sniffing dogs here and there and make sure that lessons from 9/11 are never forgotten and we will be golden, especially with the reinforced cockpit door.

The fact that the cockpit door was never reinforced after that Iran hostage crisis is ridiculous this should have been taken care of long before 9/11.

Re:Ridiculous

[aaarrrgggh]

Not to mention the fact that if a terrorist really wanted to do something bad, all they need to do is bribe or hold someone with adequate clearance's family hostage.

The reality is that a significantly motivated person/organization can easily defeat any obstacles placed in front of them. It becomes an economic issue. If security costs $1MM, and can be defeated for $1k (including risk, human cost, etc), the security doesn't work. If the security costs $1k and requires $1MM to be defeated, it works. It is the orders of magnitude difference that is significant.

Right now we have an airport security apparatus that costs well over $1B more than the pre-9/11 costs. It is not statistically/demonstrably safer than the pre 9/11 security. 9/11 total cost was under $1MM to orchestrate... likely under $100k!

There is no such thing as perfect safety, perfect security, or perfect intelligence. Understand what acceptable risk is and we avoid wasting all this obscene money.

Re:Ridiculous

[Em Adespoton]

If this technology is as accurate as it is made out to be ....

Accuracy and sensitivity aren't the same thing. Maybe the detector isn't a binary detector (bad stuff detected vs clean) but instead gives a level reading for a number of compounds? If the level reading hits a certain level of a certain combination of chemicals, it gets flagged?

That's how I'd set such a thing up. Of course, this doesn't stop security from detecting at the lowest level, but since this is theatre in the first place, they'd most likely calibrate the device to a level that gives them precisely the number of people to detain as they can comfortably handle. It just changes who gets selected slightly.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Finish reading his statement. Emphasis on "or nobody should be."

Re:Ridiculous

[geekoid]

The quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That said:
Why do you assume it's true? Why do you state it as if it is a finished proof.

IT is not.

Do you doors have locks? well then, you can' even enter you own house without a key! You have given up essential liberty, for safety, there for you deserve nothing.

What's that, you have to wait while they do a safety check of the airline? OMG!!

Why don't you actually think about the subject instead of just post trite out of context statements?

You do know that it's a fact that people hijack planes, write? You do know that screening began because someone blew up a plane mid-flight with a bag of dynamite, right?

He also didn't believe light was created from the sun. You know, just to keep perspective that he was a man, and not some sort of fool proof machine.
"I am not satisfy'd with the doctrine that supposes particles of matter call'd light continually driven off from the Sun's Surface, with a Swiftness so prodigious!"

also this little gem:

"If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?" Turns out, less wicked.

Re:Ridiculous

[geekoid]

except they don't work that way. Big and public. Shut down the means of transportation.

I doubt anyone who read make can make a missile that could find and hit a plane in flight.

I would love to see someone get a brookstone quadcopter manege to hit a plane traveling at 100's of miles an hour. Or even one with enough lift to get enough explosives off the ground.

Re:Ridiculous

[geekoid]

Right now we have an airport security apparatus that costs well over $1B more than the pre-9/11 costs.

It is not statistically/demonstrably safer than the pre 9/11 security.
Actually it is.

9/11 total cost was under $1MM to orchestrate... likely under $100k!

So what? destruction is cheap, always has been.
Most burglars spend exact zero dollar in tolls to orchestrate a break in. Does this mean you should spend money trying to prevent break ins?

"There is no such thing as perfect safety, perfect security, or perfect intelligence. Understand what acceptable risk is and we avoid wasting all this obscene money."

Once again, you make the assumption it's an obscene money, but you clearly haven't done any kind of risk analysis based on the current data.
Heaven forbid you look at facts, you might change your mind! haha I kid, I doubt you are capable of changing your mind.

Re:Ridiculous

[geekoid]

Give me some arguments no how letting people on without any screening is a better alternative.

Be sure to account for the aircraft bombing and hijacking that took place prior to screenings.

Re:Ridiculous

[Martin Blank]

Actually, the costs without the wars has been over $1 trillion. If it were a billion, it wouldn't really be that much in the scheme of things, as it would be around $100 million per year since then.

What was the damage brought on by 9/11? Billions, and maybe even tens of billions. It was a lot of money, but did it justify a trillion dollars in spending? I tend to think that's a bit much. Lock the cockpit doors--that cost a few hundred million. Prevent non-passengers from going to the gate--that might have cost some terminal retailers and restaurants some money, but it might also have saved money by lowering operational costs such as cleaning and by shorter lines in the security scanners.

There are other things, but even in China, passengers no longer put up with hijackings. Absent someone willing to set off a competent bomb--something that was rare before 9/11 anyway--the risk is not really that much greater than it was, and is arguably lower. Said arguments generally come from people with much greater experience in the field than me, but the gist of it is clear to anyone who looks at it rationally.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so focused and concerned about a few hundred people on a plane? This isn't some one up game where terrorists try and figure out our overly complicated and bureaucratic security systems just to prove that they can bypass them. Wouldn't a hit on a train, traffic jam, busy building, airport, or ANY PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GATHER be a better target?

Even with 9/11, the ONLY thing safer than flight per mile is a bloody elevator. All we did was make it pointlessly safer as the cost of investing those resources in any of the far better value propositions. The only thing that makes airport security worth the cost is the possibly "feel good" feeling people get and "we are doing something" politicians. Beyond that, it has NO use, absolutely no use in comparison to pre-9/11 security.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorists got exactly what they wanted - we're "afraid of terrorists" and spending ungodly amounts of money invading other countries, making even more enemies, in the name of "fighting terror", taking away the rights/liberties of our own citizens... all from a terror attack (9/11) that maybe cost them $100K.

I'd say their ROI has been excellent. Ours, well... not so much.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hit something in the air when it happily lands and sit still for ages at the air port.

Re:Ridiculous

[chrismcb]

I agree with you that the current TSA system is not the best, but it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).

What is wrong with the alternative?
Why do we need the TSA or "security"?

Re:Ridiculous

[chrismcb]

What's that, you have to wait while they do a safety check of the airline? OMG!!

Ignore the 4th amendment, what do we gain for that "safety check?" Nothing? That is what I thought. You are giving up liberty to make some people FEEL safe, but there is no extra safety. It is worse than locking the sliding glass door. Locking the sliding glass door keeps out the nosey teenagers, but that is it. The security check is unconstitutional, and we get NOTHING in return. Nothing, except for a wait, and spent tax money.

Re:Ridiculous

[julesh]

There's an amateur technologist in NZ who made his own pulsejet powered GPS-guided cruise missiles. The technology isn't hard, and I'm constantly amazed no terrorist group has yet replicated it.

Re:Ridiculous

[JohnFen]

The current security procedures carry a heavy cost (not talking just dollars, but including loss of privacy, strengthening of authoritarianism, reduced efficiency, etc.). I argue that this cost is much higher than the cost of things like hijackings, terrorist acts, etc.

Even if all known planned terrorist plots were successful, the cost of that, counting people killed & maimed as well as property damage, would still be many orders of magnitude lower than the cost of allowing people to drive. We've collectively decided that the cost driving is lower than the cost of dramatically improving the safety of road travel. This is the same kind of computation.

I remind you that I don't actually recommend doing nothing. There is a lot that we can do that isn't nearly so onerous, and we should. At the same time, just as we don't shake in terror every time we get into a car, we shouldn't be reacting with such terror at the airport. And that's mostly what airport security does: propagate terror in the passengers by making such huge production out of things, and at the same time signalling to the world (and terrorists) that we are scared out of our minds as a society.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

work with chemicals

Heck I work with plenty of chemicals, PVC, HDPE, H2O, etc. and all I do is work on a computer

Re:Ridiculous

[whitedsepdivine]

The paraphrase is :
often mis-quoted and no defined original.

That said :
Door locks have nothing to do with what he was talking about. He was talking about the liberties outlined in the constitution. More specifically he was talking about people who were giving up on the concept of the Freedom in the United States, for British protection.

Being searched and seized is the 4th Amendment, and that is what the TSA is violating. A belief he was directly fighting for during the British’s invasion. Since at that time the British were searching homes in the area, and arresting people for no reason.

Why don't you actually research and understand the parallels in this paraphrase to the current events.

You do know that since the TSA's placement flights have gone down 10%, and car accidents went up 10% as people choose to drive more than flying. The amount of people who have died in this time period in that percent is much greater than the amount that died on 9/11. So who cares if planes get hijacked once in a while? It isn’t worth the cost of the TSA and our liberties. When someone acts up on a plane now, the passengers immediately step in.

Re:Ridiculous

[T Murphy]

then nobody could travel the week of July 4th because they are all terrorists hiding explosives in their rectum's. Break out the gloves and strip search that 11 year old in front of their parents!

[...]

this sensationalist security crap

Good thing I'm not going through airport security right now, I think my irony meter just exploded!

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Cruise missiles and pulse jets are fairly slow, so unless it is launched from a very short distance without approaching any country borders I am confident that traditional defenses will take care of it.

Besides, I guess that aiming them is quite difficult (especially if it only used consumer-grade GPS), and since you probably won't get more than one try (either due to the cost or due to you being captured) you will have to make the first shot count. Therefore it makes more sense to use a form of attack with high accuracy instead (such using a person to carry the payload).

And then we have the other reliability-related reason, and that you only need an explosives expert to build a simple device, while you need additional experts/skilled engineers to get it to fly as well. While a couple of them are likely to be talented, I doubt they have an abundance of experts in the relevant fields.

In Other News

[decipher_saint]

Poppyseed muffin sales have dropped to all time lows in the airport concourse. Terrorists suspected...

Re:In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Peterman: I'm afraid it's your urine, Elaine. You've tested positive for opium.
Elaine: Opium?
Mr. Peterman: That's right. White Lotus. Yam-yam. Shanghai Sally.

The false positives will be the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they finally deploy something like this that's invasive enough to spot all the dangerous molecules, they're going to be overwhelmed with false positives. The scanner will be right, but no terrorism or risk will be in play. Do these people have any idea how much trace levels of "dangerous" molecules you'd actually find if you did a broad long distance sweep of a whole airport terminal and everyone in it? Chem traces from cleaning your kitchen or working on car/garage products can look the same as traces from building chemical weapons and bombs. Same basic molecules involved. Take a perfectly legal trip to a handgun firing range and powder residue will be on your hands for a couple of weeks no matter how many shower you take, etc....

Re:The false positives will be the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a perfectly legal trip to a handgun firing range and powder residue will be on your hands for a couple of weeks no matter how many shower you take, etc....

[citation needed]

General consensus is 3-5 hours. GSR stays on the hands until washed off. now clothing is a different matter.

Can you say false positive?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a gawd-awful idea. Most people don't have any idea of some of things they can walk through just by stepping in a puddle (gasoline or diesel) or walking across a lawn (nitrates). Do both and suddenly you're suspected of being around an ANFO mixture...

IMO this will produce so many false positives that it's primary use will be to provide a bogus justification for profiling harassment of our more olive complected brothers and sisters.

Renovations at Dallas Love Field

[HockeyPUcX]

Sounds very similar to the renovations at Dallas Love Field - http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-06-19/Faster-better-airport-security-checkpoints-not-that-far-off/55693916/1

Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[tempest69]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years-Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html Because a police state is a safe state.

Make a difference?

[digitallife]

"it could actually make a difference"
I'm sorry, what? What kind of difference do you expect it to make?
Terrorist attacks on planes are EXTREMELY rare. I do not lose sleep over them. You and I are far, far more likely to die from a plane malfunction or pilot error than a terrorist. The only 'difference' I can see is yet another hoop to jump through at airports.

Re:Make a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the massive taxes that support the red-state pork barrel that is this security theatre. Big government coming at you from the right too.

Re:Make a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, when was the last time security to non-civilian areas was upgraded? Oh yeah, never.

And so what if they detect gun shot residue on me? I like to shoot guns. Does that make me a terrorist?

Re:Make a difference?

[proslack]

Does it detect box cutters?

Re:Make a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Terrorist attacks on planes are EXTREMELY rare.

See, the system works!

Re:Make a difference?

[Bucky24]

You're actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture then in a terrorist plane hijacking.

Re:Make a difference?

[Xacid]

Existing metal detectors should.

Re:Make a difference?

[Xacid]

Or a mob of angry passengers will deal with the situation if one was to brandish one on a flight and attempt to ruin their trip.

Bones

[Ashenkase]

but this technology is halfway to a Star Trek tricorder

he's dead Jim

Re:Bones

[gottabeme]

Jim is dead?!

Is this the same tech from the cat detector van?

[DeDmeTe]

from the Ministry of Housinge? It could pin point a purr from 400 yards away!

Freakin' Sharks

[uzd4ce]

And of course each laser will come packaged with a shark on which to mount it, thus further enhancing the airport security!

Weaponization

[Anonymous Coward]

Look. Here's the problem. You can weaponize anything. I can bring a coat on the plane and choke someone out. At the same time I can bring guns, ammunition, fertilizer, chainsaws, etc onto a plane and do no harm. At the same time I can weaponize my voice, become threatening and psychologically take over a plane or put other people in danger which will always remain undetectable.

It is up to the owner of the object, whether tangible or intangible, to have intent with the thing they're using. Until we can predict *what* people will do with something (also impossible) then searching for items is a useless quest bound to be snagged by outliers, different cases, etc.

So, knowing this -- know that you're never safe no matter what DHS does. It's all theater. The question is how far will you permit people to go in the name of "security".

All this security...

[camperdave]

All this security and I was still able to bring a Swiss Army Knife and a magnesium campfire starter in my carry-on luggage on a flight into the States recently.

Re:All this security...

[geekoid]

Alls that proves is that it's not as bad as people on /. seem to think it is.
Which implies /. derives tis opinion from sensational headlines and shaky summaries

This won't be used as intended

[DL117]

This will just be another drug hunting gadget that won't even encounter a terrorist

Re:This won't be used as intended

[Anonymous Coward]

Its intended to enrich the manufacturers so it'll probably be very successful.

Will this detect cancer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this device be able to detect cancer and other chronic diseases?

Will TSA be obligated to tell you that you have prostate cancer as you go through their checkpoint?

Laser?

[fahrbot-bot]

Um... Aren't you suppose to wear safety goggles around lasers? Geesh... Take off your coat and shoes, put on these goggles, stand over there with arms and legs spread, turn and cough. Hmm... Something beeped; must pat you down too... Just frelling strip-search me already. If the TSA/DHS could throw in a breast / prostate exam during the search, perhaps it could help with the health care budget too... Preventative care works you know!

Re:Laser?

[cnettel]

It's all dependent on the power. As the beam is concentrated, a direct beam into the eye can relatively quickly cause permanent damage. However, you can also easily enough disperse the beam a little, or use very low power. I would suppose that the beam is dispersed in an application like this, as you wouldn't want to identify explosives just within a narrow line of sight.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[h4rr4r]

So he walked over some?

I think the potheads would love this. They will start dumping shake at the entrence of the airport.

if it is so important then nationalize the company

[Dan667]

I bet if there is no profit to be made the tsa would quickly be dissolved.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[lightknight]

Hmm. Terahertz-triggers for explosives.

I don't care about privacy, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'll never walk through the airport scanners and request a pat down for one reason and one reason alone: health issues.
My mother's side of the family has a history of various illnesses, cancer being one of them.
Unless you can assure me that these things won't cause health issues as well, I'll go for TSA feeling me up.

Load of bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone with a background in spectroscopy explain how unlikely this is to actually work? Someone who isnt a conspiracy nut?

Re:Is this the same tech from the cat detector van

[Anonymous Coward]

Loony detector van, you mean.

Besides, you don't need a bloody fish license.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[Charliemopps]

Well, safer for the police anyway...

If you had not posted the link then

[bdwoolman]

I would not have believed the story. That is outrageous. Even more incredible was the guy serving hard time for having a poppy seed (well, three poppy seeds) stuck to his shirt. This, after consuming a bread roll at Heathrow. It defies all common sense. What a bunch of totally random bullies. Where is Franz Kafka when you need him.

I once went to Dubai. It was a pleasant enough hotel-land experience -- expensive. But after reading that piece in The Daily Mail I will never return. I was put off the place anyway by another article I read. Hmmm. Bet it is still around... Found it! They have a serious environmental problem and the beaches are befouled. More like Doo Bye.

Anyway, your link just goes to show you what these kinds of technologies can lead to, especially in the wrong hands. But law enforcement everywhere tends to get pushier and pushier. I hate all the creepy useless stuff in our airports, too. It's no good. And it will come to more no good. But I don't have to tell that to this crowd. Old Franz would understand, as well.

Re:If you had not posted the link then

[tempest69]

The situation is ridiculous enough that I was hoping that someone would smack this down with some hard evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting/hoping.

Re:If you had not posted the link then

[julesh]

The situation is ridiculous enough that I was hoping that someone would smack this down with some hard evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting/hoping.

Sorry. Absolutely true. See: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/khas-khas-poppy-seed-warning.shtml

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[GodInHell]

Better down there than on the plane.

Too bad the Bomb Box concept is just a fantasy -- that would be the best method, a twisting path that has one or more areas which are reinforced and designed to direct a blast upward and out of an airport building while restricting access to minimize the number of passengers that could enter the chamber at one time -- in there you run some fantasy machine that automagically explodes explosive material. Warning: do not carry nitroglycerin pills onto airplanes anymore :D. Stupid physics and the lack of automagical solutions to our problems.

Follow the money

[melted]

FBI should look into who got the contracts and how decisions to award these contracts were made. Personally, I think this stinks from a mile away, and large bags of money had to change hands to make this happen.

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Why this from a distance thing. It adds unnecessary expense and complexity.Granted, it may have use in Iraq

The technology is old. Instead of swabs, you could walk into a sealed 'sniff' chamber, and a vacuum cleaner sucks air past a detector, or walk past an 'array' of sniffer nozzles. Faster , better cheaper, but still more expensive than having a few more sniffer dogs. Dogs may detect internal explosives, but a smartzy electronic scan is only skin deep - still way inferior to dogs.

What about reflective or emission absorbing clothing? Is it really an excuse to get all passengers naked for a feelup?
See SNL takes.

Risk Management: In fact long congested lines of people waiting for a scan, make a prime target, were it not a fact that airport club lounges make a more attractive target - which is why the President cant visit a movie or the Opera - given the history.

Drug detection. They can already do this, just swab the shoe liner, your sins will be known. Or the barber can collect hair samples off 'athletes' and send them into be tested - which is why 'shaved bald' is a safe bet..

Brought to you via NASA to a drone near you!

[Decker-Mage]

If you follow NASA's Tech Briefs, in Vol. 36 No. 7, there are a numerous of articles in there about Terahertz lasers to doing neat things in much reduced package sizes and at a reduced price, all things considered though this is NASA I am talking about. Many prior assumptions about range, size, power, and cost are going out the window so drone mounting is not just conceivable, I'd rate it extremely likely. A random thought about capabilities is that the spectroscopy device, which sure as hell doesn't need a god-awful large power-supply, in the TechBrief could also be more than capable of tracking down the source of pollutants, not just identifying a passenger carrying/having worked with, explosives, chemical weapons, ad nauseum.

Gee, the TSA/DHS and EPA could end up financing NASA. Is that a good thing?

Re:Brought to you via NASA to a drone near you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, the TSA/DHS and EPA could end up financing NASA. Is that a good thing?

And you think that (or a similar situation with other agencies) is not already the case?

"You know the Hubble Telescope that looks up to the stars? They've got over a hundred spy satellites looking down at us. That's classified."
-- Edward "Brill" Lyle, Enemy of the State (1998)

Doesn't this just change a terrorist's objective?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the terrorists goal is only to blow up everyone in the security line? I think we need to do pre-security line checks which will lead to pre-pre-security line checks which will lead to...

Ummm.

[bdwoolman]

Don't hold your breath.

nausea

[Mr_Nitro]

I have a complete and absolute disgust for the idea and persons behind the idea that somehow this planet substances be them minerals or byproducts of other biological processes should be banned and/or restricted in some specific point in space and time. We are born equals, we have the right to live and experiment with anything that is available, within the limits of not directly and immediately damaging anyone (no precrime bs). Also it's scaring how these news are scarcely debated and how often the discussion shifts to the more trivial and mundane side. Maybe the system is not 100% effective, maybe it will be dismissed in a while or never start at all but the very idea that something like that was put in place for 'security' (against ourselves....) purposes rather than base research or advanced space programs (dreams now... waiting for the rough awakening by some near extinction event) it's sickening. The truth is we are still under the fist of a very small minority of people.

AS a model rock enthuisiest

[geekoid]

I look forward to the searches~

Re:if it is so important then nationalize the comp

[geekoid]

No, the private companies would just charge the government more. And more. You know,. cause CEOs need their bonuses.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[lightknight]

Hmm. Nitroglycerin pills with a stabilizer...that might work. 30 count. Just add heat.

However, we are dancing around the real issue here. None of us are particularly suicidal (with the exception of those people trying to earn a living doing OSS support), and outside of the Linux / Windows / Mac holy wars, none of us are homicidal. Life may not be what we were promised, but it hasn't yet, hit the level where people with the patience of the Buddha (have you done tech support? have you recompiled the linux kernel over a two day period? have you maintained your composure while submitting an untested fix for a web application on a live server while a client was watching?) are taking up arms in protest. I don't know if that's a good thing (relativity peaceful people), or a challenge (when the time does come, we're going to play life on "Nightmare" mode; more enemies than ammunition, bring a chainsaw / crow-bar / axe / sword / Duke's mighty foot).

Can it detect ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A ground fired shoulder missile directed at an aircraft taking off??? thought not, so it's a waste of my money them because it's protecting against the wrong threat.

PS: just landed at JFK

Destroy Dubai and other Arab nations

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroy Dubai and other Arab nations.
This is the answer.
They see all "kafirs" as scum.
This is why they do this.

It is time to invade Dubai and kill every single arab that is there who is in any position of power.
Same with abu-dabi.

The only good muslims are the afghans (caucasian) and the pakistanis. The afghans seem to follow the old testament more than islam, the pakistanis don't bother anyone other than the indians.

Arabs are scum. They are half way between worshiping women and worshiping men. They are no good for anyone.

They hate non-muslims (Kaffir)

[Anonymous Coward]

The arabs hate non muslims and hate non-arabs.
This is why they do this.

It is time to invade and kill them.

Arabs are scum.

It's time to stop bothering the caucasian afghans. They're farmers who seem to follow the old testament more than islam (raped girls marry rapist etc == old testament).

Kill the arabs.
KILL THE ARABS.

Invade them, destroy their people. Don't harm the non arabs in those lands though.

Kill the arabs.

Then it just meets the next joke

[dbIII]

I work with people that handle explosives and travel a lot. Various sensors beep when they go into airports. At that point they are asked "do you work in a mine", and if they say yes there are no furthur questions, searches or requirements to provide paperwork.
It wouldn't take a paticularly smart terrorist to talk their way onto a plane at this point even if the sensors are very accurate.

This now could make a difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it could. And sure the TSA is always keen on new toys to play with. So keen, it seems, that most kit ends up being paid for, but sits crated in warehouses and never gets used. So I don't buy arguments that this now could possibly really make a difference, even if it actually could. That really is but a nuisance for the TSA, they might have reasons to throw less budget at overpriced fancy kit from their chums the suppliers, and that might someday mean less budget increases. Oh woe is the TSA. Besides, the best way to ferret out actual terrorists is still the one that Americans[tm] detest the most: The human way.

" it could actually make a difference. "

[chrismcb]

" it could actually make a difference. " No it can't. Even if everyone in the security line were stripped naked and had cavity checks, it would STILL be possible to get whatever you want into an airport. The security line isn't the only way into an airport.
Other than the current level of terror some people seem to have about flying, an airplane isn't the best target for a terrorist. And yet we do almost everything to protect them and nothing to protect what would be the real targets. Like EVERYTHING else.

LoS?

[sociocapitalist]

As it works in infrared, which is line of sight, it probably doesn't remove any of the other scanning methods (ie groping) that are in place today.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

> They will start dumping shake at the entrence of the airport.

Not needed. I live in Amsterdam, where it is not uncommon to smoke hashies on the streets. I will never fly to Dubai having read this, even though I don't use anything. Because it's impossible to be 'clean' under such scrutiny. I would have to buy new clothes and shoes at the airport.

It would save me lugging the luggage around though ;)

The only terrorist i see at the airports

[Nyder]

is the TSA.

A bottle of Acetone - spilled, not stirred.

[Anonymous Coward]

And all one annoyed customer (or terrorist) would need to do, is spill or pour a bottle of acetone on the airport taxi platform or floor and everyone would be screamed and yelled at whether they're a terrorist. Acetone is what most of these detectors detect.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it might delight you to know that these detectors detect and react to acetone, which is used in traditional terrorist explosives, among it's many other conventional uses.

I'm covered in this stuff, and so are you.

[Kintanon]

Everyone of us has trace amounts of cocain, explosive residue, and infectious biological agents all over us. This thing should trigger on every person that walks into the airport.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[Ngarrang]

Unfortunately, if you fly from Amsterdam to Dubai without luggage, that will mark you as suspicious. Thus, even if you have clean clothes free of doobage, you may still get questioned. Terrorists on one-way flights need no luggage.

Poppycock

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a research scientist in the fileld of terahertz spectroscopy and develop novel terahertz emitters and i am here to say this article is BS.
The device is not a terahertz laser. Nor is the supplier claiming it to be. The author of the Gizmodo article seems to have seriously misunderstood the technology Genia Photonics have developed (which are impressing bits of kit). The product is a laser system that can be used for a wide range of applications including a pump for a terahertz spectrometer.
Terahertz pulses used for spectroscopy are typical generated from nonlinear optical crystals or photoconductive switches that are pumped using an ultrafast (sub picosecond) laser, this type of terahertz emission is coherent however it is not laser light and is also very low power (typically in the high nano watt to micro watt region). Terahertz radiation is also easily absorbed by water vapour and is thus attenuated very strongly when propagated through air, you would be lucky to get detectable single over a couple of metres let alone 50. I have tried finding a reference for this 50m claim on the Genia Photonics website and technical documents but have been unsuccessful.

Re:Poppycock

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the spec of the laser systems i suspect that the proposed idea would be to use this system for a tuneable THz continus wave source using photomixing, Which although will only contain amplitude information it would be enough to detecting different material signatures. Such systems certainly want be able to do measurements on the fly and nor at a distance. There is also the question of what detection methods might be used.

Re:Sounds BAD!

[whitedsepdivine]

So my story actually happened. Freshly washed, I got a pat down when I declined the imagers. I then tested positive for explosives. They took me into a back room for a move advance pat down. Once I passed the more advance one, they contacted the airline to deny me.

I talked to TSA and airport employees, they all agreed that their CURRENT machines can give positives for laundry detergent and makeup. My assumption is that if there current deployed machine is calibrated to detecting molecules up close gives false positives now, their machine that detects molecules at a range would have a similar calibration.

Regardless, my point was trace amounts of molecules does not define a motive, and is not probable cause to be searched and seized.

Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you have check-in luggage then this is not a problem (assuming that luggage is 100% drug-free).

Re:Sounds BAD!

[MikeMo]

Let's try this again. :)

It's clear that the current machines DO give false positives for the substances of which you are speaking. However, that means NOTHING in regards to the current laser-based scanner this article is about. That would be guilt by association. It's the assumption part of your statement up there that is the issue.

Your statement about trace molecules causing problems is valid, to a degree, depending on just how accurate this new technology is (of which we have no idea), and whether or not the software is calibrated to ignore amounts that are truly "trace". Again, we have no idea.

Re:Sounds BAD!

[Em Adespoton]

We do have an idea though... this is about mass spectroscopy. There's only so much you can tell from mass spectroscopy, as all that will highlight is specific chemical compounds, and their relative densities.

While the FP rate may be very small, there ARE NO COMPOUNDS that are used only for illegal purposes.

So, while this new machine may have a perfectly stellar 100% TP and TN rate with regards to detecting specific compounds, the way the device is actually used WILL produce FPs. There is one assumption: that's that the device will actually be used in security checks, and not by highly paid technicians in a lab, where the entire situation is understood by the operators.

And this is beside my original point you responded to, where I was talking about the nature of matter and statistical analysis -- both of which are facts, and don't depend at all on which device this is we're talking about and whether or not it has been tested.

There are certain aspects of this device for which we have no idea, such as what exactly it does and how. As for how it will be used and how it obeys the laws of physics, we've got a pretty good idea.