Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hitachi Develops Boarding Gate With Built-In Explosives Detector

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-in-one dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Hitachi, in collaboration with Nippon Signal and the University of Yamanashi, have successfully prototyped a boarding gate with built-in explosives detection equipment as part of efforts to increase safety in public facilities such as airports. The prototype boarding gate efficiently collects minute particles which have affixed themselves to IC cards or portable devices used as boarding passes, and can detect within 1-2 seconds the presence of explosive compounds using internalized equipment. With this method, it is possible to inspect 1,200 passengers per hour."

9 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Cup check! by zippo01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anything would be better then getting karate chopped in the crotch by the poorly trained TSA guy, every time I fly and refuse the body scanner.

    1. Re:Cup check! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The obvious solution is to stop flying to / from the USA. Obviously it's difficult if you need to fly for work, but then again I suppose some people's principles do have a price.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. Soooooo... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I skimmed the link, looked like typical marketting pitch stuff. I didn't see any error rates on this marvelous new device. I'm curious as to how many false positives it's going to generate, and how often it will miss carry-on explosives. I'm also wondering how many days I'll need to stay away from the rifle range before I won't show any particulate explosives at one of these checkpoints.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:Soooooo... by AlecC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Relevant comment. Contrary to what most people think, the false positive rate is far more important than the false negative rate. If it has a false negative (i.e. missing real bombs) rate, it will still succeed in its main task, of deterring would be bombers, because they will not take a 95% chance of detection. (Assuming, of course, the false negatives are random). On the other hand, if it has a false positive rate of 0.1%, that is a false alarm for about one in four aircraft boardings, which it totally unacceptable, And, as you say, a recent visit to a rifle range would be highly likely to trigger a false positive. They need to tune the false positives down to less than 0.001% while still keeping false negatives to just a few percent. Which may not be easy.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  3. Multipass by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Funny

    I though that just read "Hitachi Develops Boarding Gate With Built-In Explosives" for a moment.

  4. not intrusive enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Doesn't look intrusive enough, so I guess it will not be used.

  5. What happens when the machine goes "ping"? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You've been though the perv-scan or the finger-rape, your carry on baggage has already been nuked, and you're at the boarding gate with only Sally Swipe-n-Smile between you and the 'plane.

    Then the machine goes "ping" and the siren goes off. What now? How does that play out?

    If it's a false positive (and it will be) then Sally asks you politely to step aside, and it's just another piece of minor inconvenience for the airline, and probably a missed flight and some more TSA probing for the traveller.

    But let's pretend for a second that it's a true positive - which is surely the only scenario that we're actually interested in. What then?

    Does Sally throw herself onto the passenger in slow motion, screaming "Nooooooo!" in order to save everyone else? And how does she know that this is the one time that it's a real threat, rather than the false ones that she's become used to, day after day?

    Really, how does Sally react to the real threat, and what will be the results of that reaction?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  6. Priveless by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Chemical sniffing boarding gate: $10,800,000

    Government contract for the U.S. air travel system: Billions

    $4 bag of potassium nitrate fertilizer sprinkled on sidewalk ice by a terrorist instead of salt: Priceless

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  7. The TSA will not accept it by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
    It doesn't conform to the TSA paradigm, so they will reject it.

    1. It is not intrusive enough.

    2. It replaces sullen TSA uniformed personal with hardware.

    3. It reduces the DHS conditioning intended to make the general public accept arbitrary behavior by the government.

    4. It is not as dangerous as full body radiation from scanners.

    There are a few things that might make the TSA like it.

    1. It is really expensive.

    2. It doesn't actually work.

    3. It will interfere with people for no discernible reason.

    On the whole, it's reducing the number and visible presence of the TSA uniformed types that will keep it from being adopted. They are already so expensive, intrusive, arbitrary, and incompetent that they don't need that level of automation.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?