Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The DHS's Latest Investment: Terahertz Laser Scanners

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-we-shoot-you-with-this-laser-to-uhhhh-scan-you? dept.

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."

20 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Oops by war4peace · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Oops by jimpop · · Score: 4, Funny

      possibly before posting too! :-)

    2. Re:Oops by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Oops by war4peace · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then I would never post anything...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  2. Sounds good. by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Sounds good. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not naive enough to think that they'll stop, just because the original justification is no longer valid, are you?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Sounds good. by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Sounds good. by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Sounds good. by jimbrooking · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    5. Re:Sounds good. by what2123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  3. Except for... by strangeattraction · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Except for... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  4. Ridiculous by Mathias616 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >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.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Ridiculous by hoggoth · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  5. In Other News by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  6. Dubai has this.. it's awesome. by tempest69 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Make a difference? by digitallife · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

  8. Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome. by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

    So he walked over some?

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