Slashdot Mirror
Speedier Screening May Be Coming To an Airport Near You
First time accepted submitter Rickarmstrong writes "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is pushing for private contractors to create a screening machine with 'screen and walk' capability for use at the nation's 160 international airports and thousands of federal facilities. The agency recently requested information from high-tech companies and other private firms about any new technology that can help speed up the security checkpoints managed by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Protective Services."
It would be nice to think that they are attempting to address an obvious problem, but with the TSA, I suspect this is going to be just another opportunity to line the pockets of politically connected people...
Question: if the lines got shorter, how would they gather an audience for their security theater?
For a small fee you can pay a company to allow you to skip the line of people waiting to be scanned. This allows you to walk up directly to the screening section rather than wait 30 to 45 minutes in line with the masses. Capitalism at its best. /sarcasm
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
A friend of those in government wants some money and the government is calling out for a product which comes mysteriously close to some useless device which said friend is about to sell.
This is the first tech I've heard of that actually leads me to believe it might cover a real security hole. In this case, the grab a couple semi-automatics and gun down the crowds waiting to get through security hole.
...simply remove all of the screening apparatus in the airports. It is vastly just "security theatre" and does nothing but costs taxpayers time, money, and aggravation. To say nothing of the of the decline in tourism and business dollars due to the obtrusiveness.
Oh, yeah, and the total violation of basic human rights and decency with that large, gaping wound it leaves in the 4th Amendment (among others).
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.
Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
Are they asking for proposals for the scanner from Total Recall?
So they are finally thinking about creating a system like in the first Total Recall movie? Granted their are technological challenges, but why didn't they push for something like this before?
How much is it going to cost to maintain the illusion of security?! Please tell me what to pay, I am a sheep that needs direction and I ****NEED*** my illusion of security.
I was once at an airport, I think it was LAS... people were all piled up in a clusterfuck right after of the entrance to TSA where they check IDs, even though there was about a mile of Disneyland spiral queue that was not being used. A helpful TSA agent started to open up the spiral queue, and was actually rebuked by a superior because "that's not the way they do things", and everyone that went in the queue had to rejoin the mosh pit of people.
And then they closed two of the four open screening lanes because "it wasn't busy enough to justify having that many open". We had to literally jog across the airport to catch our flight after being stuck in that mess for 50+ minutes.
I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
How about all those metal detectors they already have.
1. Shut down the body scanners
2. Drop all the silly ID checking
3. Everyone goes through a metal detector
4. Luggage goes through an x-ray machine, looking only for weapons or explosives.
No weapons or explosives? On you go.
Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.
How do cockpit doors achieve behavioral compliance conditioning?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There are actually other things they should do but that costs more money and it's easier to put security theater into play than actually dealing with the problem. You could get more effective use of just good metal detectors and a few trained dogs with handlers than all this BS that they've put us through, especially since underwear boy set himself on fire. The whole liquids thing was because of a "credible threat" that never panned out. Taking your shoes off was the whole Reid affair. Honestly I think a few pissed off business travelers who haven't got their upgrades are more dangerous to terrorists now than anything the TSA can come up with.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
You mean an OB/Gyn exam... same thing.
My prediction, 1rst bid: $48 billion for a prototype, expect that to triple in the first year.
Currently hooked on AMP
The Schwarzenneger original film I mean. Remember the nice walkway with the fluoroscopy-like corridor! We need this immediately, not just in all airports, but also subway stations, bus stations, and any place the right of freedom of travel may be present!
At the gates, metal detector, and on other side guards with bomb sniffing dogs.
That's really all they need....I'd feel perfectly save doing that, I'd not get irradiated, groped or detained unnecessarily.
But I guess that would be too simple for govt. and wouldn't cost nearly enough for the feds to spend, eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That would be good for airplane security. Howver useless for screening and random searches. No, I do not have a alu foil hat. This has NOTHING to do with security in any way. Not even security theater.
Note the [...]pushing for private contractors[...] part? Just giving the private sector some business and securing their pension when they get a new job at said companies after they leave the curent function.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's called a metal detector.
I think a walk-and-screen system would work well, but only if it outlined peoples' bones in blue and highlighted any contraband items in red.
Depends, is the new scanning done in series or parallel to the old scanning?
Where's the profit in that? Locks are relatively cheap. X-ray scanners are not - and are extremely profitable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I have no issue with security checks...nor to pat downs (of which I have had a few hundred, as I've opted out for years now). I have a *huge* issue with the expectation (tragically routinely met on a day-to-day basis) that people blithely consent to what amounts to a strip search without probable cause in order to board a plane. IAAA, and the 4th Amendment *should* mean something to people. Fear and dogma drove the adaptation of a technology that offers absolutely *no* substantive safeguard, costs a stunning amount of money, and effectively undermines *real* security practices due to the over-reliance on the 'efficacy' of Security Theatre. It would be nice if some form of rationality and thought could enter the discussion. I'm not holding my breath.
If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage? What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword? I understand the complexities of trying to stop someone determined to hurt as many people as possible. The question isn't "what's the bare bones solution" but rather "what is an adequate solution".
9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching. The key is to find a balance, develop better technologies, and work WITH the populace. Not provide the bare minimal amount of protection that even I can circumvent with 3 different ideas off the top of my head in 30 seconds.
also it won't matter because they'll just reduce the number of lanes, or mess it up some other way. like when they installed the nudie scanners / phone booths, but replaced two metal detectors with each phone booth. it cut the throughput in half, to the point where the luggage machine is no longer the bottleneck. Just more $$$ down the pipe.
Right, like the ones that everyone hated, caused cancers in some TSA personnel (unadmitted by the TSA), and were pretty useless, since over and over, people demonstrated that they could smuggle weapons past them? And that are now retired, after tens of millions of tax dollars wasted on them?
Or like the new submillimeter machines, which have close to the same problems, that it's been demonstrated that you can smuggle weapons past them?
Here's a better way to spend money: fire all the managers and execs, and bring in some professional security managers. Ones that will, for example, come down like a ton of bricks on the screeners who do extra screening on good looking women, or pull vibrators or other sex toys out for their "amusement" value?
Go look at the archives from , by a guy who just quit the TSA after some years, and all what really happens back there.
Oh, and the boxcutters that the 9/11 hijackers were supposed to have had were *ILLEGAL* and should have been found before all this crap.
Keep the TSA on the job, guys, the terrorists have won, completely. America, the home of the cowards and the unfree.
mark
Better idea: Get government thugs out of airports; screening will be much faster, and our rights won't be getting violated.
Thank you Dave Raggett
If it was simple it'd be done.
Utterly false. The primary purpose of any government agency is to increase the reach and the budget of that agency. It is really that simple. Bomb sniffing dogs can find stuff "vacuum sealed" - you'd be amazed how few molecules a good scent hound needs. No one is going to hijack a plane with merely a sharp object while passengers still remember 9/11.
Plus the threat is minor: if we had the courage to simply continue business as usual when a plane blew up, they wouldn't even be terrorist targets: terrorists don't hate airplanes.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What you described would possibly work today....
Although, they do xray the luggage still in my scenario, but what they do today could be fooled with what you described pretty much just as much as it could with my less intrusive methods.
And, that vacuumed sealed explosive had better be 100% air tight, and the outside completely sanitized of all explosive materials residue. If you did a good enough job to have the dogs miss it, likely as much, it would be missed by the current tools used at TSA, yet we're still stuck with the intrusive procedures.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Just make a machine that does "Ping!" and be done with it.
I used to work in a lab with nitric acid and azides and those nice sniffer dogs and complicated explosive-detection machines (that puff air at you) never detected anything. Even though I probably had more materials indistinguishable from explosives on my clothes than an average terrorist.
Then once I tried replacing an auxiliary laptop battery with clay. Nothing from those X-Ray scanners as well.
Is this the Libertarian fantasy? The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency and you'd be surprised what a well funded terrorist cleanroom can produce. As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know? What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?
I fully agree that the threat is minor...part of that is due to the work of various government agencies, lucky, and our international relations. I disagree with your targets stuff, even "continuing" business as usual isn't so simple unless you are of the opinion that people should remain heartless. In that case, anything is possible...even a Libertarian future!
Didn't 9/11 happen due to box cutters? Not even bombs or guns, or big knives. Of course, there are the shoe bomber's now. But those horrific tragedies were able to happen due to lowly box cutters. Recently, I traveled across my state for work with a co-worker. We had to rack some servers at the DR site. His bag had numerous tools like pliers and screw drivers in it. My bag had an unopened Arrowhead water bottle. I was pulled aside and received a personal screening while my co-worker waited for me, putting his shoes on, and holding his bag of pointy metal objects.
The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency
I admire your charming naivete. I hope life keeps treating you so well that you never develop my hardened cynicism.
As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know?
Well, I respect the opinions of the airline pilots I've discussed this with at length (while the hardened cockpit doors aren't perfect, they're enough), plus there have been a few incidents since 9/11 where passengers perceived a threat and "dogpiled" the supposed hijacker.
What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?
Now we're into movie plot threats. What if the terrorists are actually shape-shifting reptoid aliens, like the New Zealand Prime Minister or that Obama bodyguard? I can invent better stories than you, I think.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why would an attacker want to get your vial of biological agent on the plane? Wouldn't it make more sense to open it in line ahead of the ticketing counter, where it would spread in more directions more readily? If you wait until you're on the plane, you're missing the opportunity to infect the other destinations that airport serves.
Also let's not forget that the best delivery agent of biological warfare is an infected human host.
Did your Libertarian bashing get in the way of your argument, perhaps?
If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage?
The dog will still get you. The container, your luggage, and yourself will reek of explosives/drugs/whatever. You can't wash that shit off. Attempting to do so just makes it worse, actually. And your use of a plastic container makes it worse as well. Plastics are notorious for absorbing and retaining odors.
What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword?
Your luggage is inaccessible during the flight, as usual.
Your carry-on is x-rayed, as usual.
Your sword is going to be plainly obvious on your person.
Your concealed knife won't get you into the cockpit - it'll get you bum rushed by passengers.
9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching.
Who the fuck are these "LOT of people" that question why the government didn't stop box cutters at the airport? Hint: They don't exist.
People did complain that the government fucking knew about the individuals and did nothing. They should have been stopped before the airport, not at it. It has nothing to do with airport screening.
Didn't 9/11 happen due to box cutters? Not even bombs or guns, or big knives. Of course, there are the shoe bomber's now. But those horrific tragedies were able to happen due to lowly box cutters. Recently, I traveled across my state for work with a co-worker. We had to rack some servers at the DR site. His bag had numerous tools like pliers and screw drivers in it. My bag had an unopened Arrowhead water bottle. I was pulled aside and received a personal screening while my co-worker waited for me, putting his shoes on, and holding his bag of pointy metal objects.
Be honest: Are you browner or hairier than him?
Haha!! just a techie white boy. But 20 years younger.
Cause you might have a gun inside your uretra!
My penis gun has a hair trigger once it's cocked, but after a few shots I'll need a few minutes and a tuna sandwich to reload.
They are going back to letting us leave our shoes on, our laptops in our bags, and using simple metal detectors?
The quick screening machine is more likely a solution for locations with limited floor space to make it possible to screen passengers in a more compact footprint using fewer lanes processing more passengers per lane per hour rather than reducing the screening time a traveller encounters, because TSA actually needs that time.
The TSA has a large number of "time wasting" procedures. The purpose of these is to allow enough time to stress those already under stress from their malignant intentions to show the indications and for TSA agents to pick up on the indications. The long line before stripping all the possessions and then the elaborate scanning booth wth doors that close front and back is one part technological threat detection and two parts psychological threat detection. The technological side is necessarily perpetually tied to "fighting the previous war", i.e. looking for yesterday's clever innovations. The only way to guard against the next clever innovation is to look for the human being who intends to use it. People are fairly good at concealing their intentions for a short time in the great variation of normal behavior. The addition of stress accelerates the process and observation time allows agents time to distinguish (at least some of) those who are anxious about flying itself and business meetings and family reunions after the flight from those who are anxious about what they intend to do while flying.
The impetus to forego more elaborate screening of regular business flyers does of course originate with airlines seeking to avoid pushing more of their most profitable customers into what amounts to corporate jet ride sharing. When filled they are much less expensive than full fare tickets and w/o lines, gates, baggage carousels, etc. the caveat is when filled. Long screenings add enough travel time to make a 1 day trip for a meeting into a two day trip with an overnight stay, and suddenly the tipping point drops from filling 9 out of 10 seats to just 4 or 5.
The rationale for TSA for quick screening frequent flyers is that they have accurate biometrics and sufficient history to classify the individual as a good risk. Since there is a risk of detection and exposure at each screening, those with malignant intentions have no incentive to be processed dozens of times and then give up more personal information to get into a shorter screening line in the future, it raises the probability of detection rather than lowering it, it takes many months, and it's costly.
The key problem with putting more people into the low risk pool is that one you include all the low risk people you can identify eventually the low risk pool looks like the set of individuals who are least like and least associated with a 15 to 45 year old male who is a devout practicing Muslim. It smacks of racial profiling so limiting the program to the people the airlines are adamant they need as customers is where it's stopped. Of course, the frequent flyer crowd doesn't happen to be "diverse" but it does include congressmen, their families, congressional staff, professional lobbyists, and the news media, so it takes a lot of pressure off the TSA to fix the screening of the general public.
Thank goodness. I thought it would be something along the lines of not changing latex gloves between passengers.
Have gnu, will travel.
Talk about a content-free article. The TSA wants industry to produce a scanner that can detect explosives unobtrusively without slowing down traffic. Well, duh. Of course they want that. And if anyone knew how to make one they would have already. The headline may as well read, "Gold Coin Giveaways May Be Coming To An Airport Near Your" based on the TSA asking for a leprechaun to produce his pot-o-gold. It's about as realistic.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
> I admire your charming naivete. I hope life keeps treating you so well that you never develop my hardened cynicism.
Ah, the mark of someone who has never considered the possibility that he might be wrong. No, it's just that anyone else who disagrees with you JUST doesn't have YOUR expertise. Does it feel good to sit upon your throne, my liege?
>Well, I respect the opinions of the airline pilots I've discussed this with at length (while the hardened cockpit doors aren't perfect, they're enough), plus there have been a few incidents since 9/11 where passengers perceived a threat and "dogpiled" the supposed hijacker.
AeroMéxico Flight 576
Eagle Airways Flight 2279
> Now we're into movie plot threats. What if the terrorists are actually shape-shifting reptoid aliens, like the New Zealand Prime Minister or that Obama bodyguard? I can invent better stories than you, I think.
Yes, because it's not feasible for a vial to be stolen from a country like Russia. But I guess it is just a movie plot and I'm sure some moron (who was probably a Libertarian as well) thought the same thing about 9/11. That there was no way some third world nation terrorists could ever hijack and ram two Boeing 747s into two towers on the same day. No sir, that also sounds like a fantastic movie plot...heck one of the masterminds behind this could be the leader of some Muslim cult with a black beard (to show how evil he is), yes...now all we need is a Libertarian hero who'll do everything himself because he's "smarter" than some "gubmint" agency. By god I better call Spielberg, I think I shall call this movie "Libertarian: Ultimate American -- Laughs in the face of everything and builds his own roads and polices his community all at once, by himself".
Ok, so the title needs work.
Get rid of the scanners. There is no need for them. And while we are at it, fire all of the TSA staff who are sub human psycho path control freaks. There is no terrorism! If there were really a bunch of terrorists hell bent on killing us then they would be walking into shopping malls with suitcase bombs on a daily basis. It is easy to do. Since they are not doing it tells us that there are no terrorists. It is a big scam to get you to agree to pay these security companies (mainly Israeli?) to violate you.
To quote the man who invented the phrase "movie plot threat"
The 9/11 terrorists used small pointy things to take over airplanes, so we ban small pointy things from airplanes. Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoes, so now we all have to take off our shoes. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security said that it might relax airplane security rules. It's not that there's a lessened risk of shoes, or that small pointy things are suddenly less dangerous. It's that those movie plots no longer capture the imagination like they did in the months after 9/11, and everyone is beginning to see how silly (or pointless) they always were...
The problem with movie plot security is that it only works if we guess right. If we spend billions defending our subways, and the terrorists bomb a bus, we've wasted our money. To be sure, defending the subways makes commuting safer. But focusing on subways also has the effect of shifting attacks toward less-defended targets, and the result is that we're no safer overall.
Terrorists don't care if they blow up subways, buses, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, schools, churches, crowded markets or busy intersections. Reasonable arguments can be made that some targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because most people commute daily. But the United States is a big country; we can't defend everything.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
golly, scarey ceramic swords on airplanes! And I know that if you can manage a ceramic sword you're not going to try to get one on a plane because of those fancy x-ray thingys at the airport. They can't get nothin' by those thingys, no they can't. except guns and knives and bombs of course, but shoot, as long as they stop the ceramic swords.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.