American Airlines Is Using a CT Scanner To Screen Luggage At New York's JFK Airport (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

American Airlines Is Using a CT Scanner To Screen Luggage At New York's JFK Airport (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday July 23, 2018 @09:20AM from the all-in-the-name-of-safety dept.

According to American Airlines, the airline is working with the TSA to install a new bag-scanning machine at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. "The machine uses the same technology as CT scanners, providing a 3D image of bag's contents, and is expected to be operational in late July," reports The Verge. From the report: The new scanner, which will be used at the airport's Terminal 8 security checkpoint, will allow TSA to rotate a bag's image 360 degrees to show its contents. American Airlines says this should provide a more effective way for agents to inspect bags for explosives and other prohibited items. TSA administrator David Pekoske tells CBS News that the new machines could allow for liquids, gels, aerosols, and laptops to be left in bags. The TSA plans to have 15 of the new CT scanners at airports by the end of the year, and are authorized to purchase up to 240 of the machines, which cost $300,000 each, in 2019. The technology has also been tested at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and in Boston.

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:23 · Score: 0

Has anyone tried to smuggle explosives into an airport and been caught? Other than the undercover agents testing security who are almost never caught.
1. Re:Security theater is expensive by UnknownSoldier · 2018-07-23 09:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're assuming the TSA guys actually work.
  Apparently they were only 5 percent effective. Yes, 5%.
  Theater Security Assholes.
  ---
  TSA Logic
2. Re:Security theater is expensive by PopeRatzo · 2018-07-23 09:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Has anyone tried to smuggle explosives into an airport and been caught?
  I think what you really want to know is if anyone has tried to smuggle explosives on to a plane, not into an airport. You don't get checked when you walk into an airport, you get checked when you go to the gates.
  And, the answer is "yes". People have tried to smuggle explosives onto airplanes. Here is a partial list of 2017 attempts:
  
  A checked bag containing an ammunition box with three live ground burst simulators, two live M83 smoke grenades, and one inert practice grenade was discovered at the Palm Springs International Airport (PSP).
  A live flashbang grenade was discovered in a carry-on bag at the San Diego International Airport (SAN).
  A live smoke grenade was discovered in a carry-on bag at the Raleigh–Durham International Airport (RDU). Not only do smoke grenades deploy a thick blanket of smoke, they also burn extremely hot and are considered hazmat.
  A one-pound bottle of gun powder was discovered in a checked bag at the Ketchikan International Airport (KTN). Gun powder is never permitted on an aircraft..
  Five one-pound bottles of gun powder were discovered in a checked bag at the Boise Airport (BOI).
  A ten-ounce container of gun powder was discovered in a checked bag at the Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). While properly packed ammunition is allowed in checked bags, gun powder is strictly prohibited altogether.
  
  There were also about 4,000 guns that TSA seized in 2017 when stupid jackoffs (mostly rappers, professional athletes and Republican officials) tried carrying them onto a plane.
  People also like to bring inert explosive devices onto planes for some reason. A bunch of inert hand grenades, claymores, suicide vests and other goodies were seized in 2017. Also, throwing stars, daggers disguised as hairbrushes and tons of other whacky shit.
  https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2018/...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, unlike the old days we haven't had a terrorist attack in the USA for almost 20 years
4. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  You're assuming the TSA guys actually work.
  Apparently they were only 5 percent effective. Yes, 5%.
  Theater Security Assholes.
  ---
  TSA Logic
  It seems to have been enough to discourage further attempts, or we can go with the everyone must love us now theory.
5. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anubis+IV · 2018-07-23 11:30 · Score: 2
  
  It seems the government’s tiger repelling rock has been enough to discourage further attempts, or we can go with the tigers don’t want to eat us now theory.
  FTFY
  Obligatory link to The Simpson’s clip: https://youtu.be/xSVqLHghLpw
  Long story short, you’ve created a false dichotomy. Given the 95% failure rate, we can assume the TSA’s security efforts aren’t doing much. Likewise, the terrorists likely still want us gone. The only reasonable conclusion is this that they aren’t attacking us for other reasons.
6. Re:Security theater is expensive by PopeRatzo · 2018-07-23 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  but I feel like if the people with them turned out to be real threats, we'd have heard about the overwrought turrurrism trial to boost the profile of the officials involved.
  Maybe the reason you didn't hear about them is because their weapons were taken away before they boarded the plane.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
7. Re:Security theater is expensive by PopeRatzo · 2018-07-23 17:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Thanks god for the TSA. There has not been a even a single unicorn attack since it's inception.
  There also haven't been any unicorns seized by TSA. But they did seize explosives, edged weapons, and 4,000 fucking guns.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
8. Re:Security theater is expensive by f3rret · 2018-07-23 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Except that one in Boston and like hundreds of mass shootings.
  But ok.
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
9. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  TSA is a government employment program for the unemployed.
10. Re:Security theater is expensive by Shotgun · 2018-07-24 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Also, it has stopped all the tiger attacks. Hasn't been a single one since the TSA started.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
11. Re:Security theater is expensive by Shotgun · 2018-07-24 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's better than welfare, but could they give them something to do that doesn't involve me having to be late for my plane?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
12. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, good thing the 76,000 guns they missed didn't cause any problems.
  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851
13. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  But boy can they bomb swab my portable Car Navigation GPS unit *Every* time it goes through an airport with TSA.
14. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  At a rate much lower than were caught before the TSA.
  
  Might want to actually look up what most of those "edged weapons" were, and what "guns" are included in those numbers. You'll find law enforcement in those numbers as well as things that aren't actually guns.
15. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Fucking gun? I think I saw one of those on a pr0n site.
  Because those would be far more dangers than firearms.
16. Re:Security theater is expensive by PopeRatzo · 2018-07-24 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  At a rate much lower than were caught before the TSA.
  Source?
  
  Might want to actually look up what most of those "edged weapons" were, and what "guns" are included in those numbers.
  You don't have to "look it up". I've made it easy for you by including a link in my comment above where you can actually see many of the edged weapons and guns.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
17. Re:Security theater is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  There's more guns in America than people yet the vast vast vast majority of people don't seek to commit homicide. Guns being seized is a fairly useless metric in its own right without determining the motives of the person from which the gun was seized. The high probability is that of those 4000 seized guns 4000 of them were due to people not realizing you can't take guns on planes, forgot they have a gun in their carry-on, or otherwise had non-nefarious justifications for being caught.
18. Re:Security theater is expensive by PopeRatzo · 2018-07-24 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  The high probability is that of those 4000 seized guns 4000 of them were due to people not realizing you can't take guns on planes,
  Give me an honest answer: Is someone who, in 2017, doesn't know you can't take a gun on a plane really smart enough to own a gun? How do they remember which part they're supposed to point away from themselves?
  And shouldn't someone who's so stupid that they bring a gun onto an airplane in 2017 get a serious smack upside the head?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-07-23 09:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they can effectively screen baggage and prove it, it might reduce some of the other security-theater TSA nonsense.
1. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Fly+Swatter · 2018-07-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, now let us pretend they are keeping the scan data and tying it to your identity...
  They know what you left with and what you returned with, now lets say you bought something out of state and returned home with it (the receipt is also in the scan), would you be ok with them (your state) using that knowledge to tax you the sales tax you did not report for that sale?
  I wonder at what point people will say enough is enough, if at all?
2. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Why aren't you paying your sales tax?
3. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by bobbied · 2018-07-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, I'm drowning in data, but what I really need is information from all that data.
  Sure, you could collect it, and store it, and even possibly get a way to retrieve it quick enough to do comparisons, but what can you really tell from it? That they packed their laptop on top last time or are bringing home TWO bottles of water when they left with one? Maybe you could gig them for stealing shampoo from the hotel? Or, GASP, their carry on is LARGER on the way home than when the left and it's loaded up with stuff from the duty free store...
  IF somebody can cook up some possible workable way to take the pile of data and get useful information out of it, only then is it a risk, and it's only a risk when they have the means, ability and resources to actually do it. I'm not worried about the TSA having the ability. They cannot find 95% of the stuff they are supposed to find now..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
4. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-07-23 10:07 · Score: 2
  
  Ticket/ID check is generally at the head of the security line or (rarely) at the boarding gate. The guy/girl looking at the X-ray scanner screen isn't going to know your identity. The images won't be tied to an identity -- too many bags being dropped on the belt by random people to make this efficient.
5. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  They know what you left with and what you returned with, now lets say you bought something out of state and returned home with it (the receipt is also in the scan), would you be ok with them (your state) using that knowledge to tax you the sales tax you did not report for that sale?
  You say that as if they don't have that knowledge right now after opening up your luggage and rifling through it by hand.
  But even if they didn't know the contents before and these scanners just gave them the ability to know the contents now, the only surprising part to people would be the fact they haven't been photographing the contents forever already.
  This isn't anywhere even close to body CT scanners and their problems.
  Those complaints are by far health and privacy.
  Before CT body scanners, any strip search would be done in a private room, not photographed and distributed online for all to see.
  Before those you didn't need to worry about how close you are to your yearly exposure levels either.
  The only difference luggage CT scanners provide over the current dig through your crap by hand and photograph it, is the photographing part will be faster and more efficient.
  A small issue for certain when it comes to data mining it after the fact, but if your only complaint is they are gaining the same data now as they have been in the past, you should probably redirect your focus on some of the more important problems with airline flight.
6. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  Keep sucking that government dick. Do you like begging for your "rights" while being fucked?
7. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by pots · 2018-07-23 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  it might reduce some of the other security-theater TSA nonsense
  This is a contradiction. If you believe that effective screening could reduce the ineffective stuff, then you don't believe that it's theater. The point of security theater is not to be effective.
8. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-07-23 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  honestly, this country would be a better place if we went back to pre-9/11 levels of security with locked/reinforced cockpit doors. But this seems minor in the grand scheme of things -- it's just a better version of the 1990s x-ray scanners.
9. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-07-23 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is that, if they were actually effective, they'd spend less time PRETENDING to be effective.
10. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by harvey+the+nerd · 2018-07-23 10:43 · Score: 2
  
  This thing bothers me a lot.
  
  It reduces what you can own and travel in privacy with. Several generations ago, some of my ancestors were stripped of their silver at the border leaving.... Sounds like more of the same coming, and other common govt hijinks.
11. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by blindseer · 2018-07-23 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  honestly, this country would be a better place if we went back to pre-9/11 levels of security with locked/reinforced cockpit doors.
  
  And arming the pilots. Armed pilots was common practice for a long time. This was stopped when passengers weren't allowed to have weapons, after numerous hijackings in the 1970s as I recall. It was restored for a while after 9/11 but Obama put an end to that.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
12. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by HornWumpus · 2018-07-23 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  TSA is like UBI. They take a group of otherwise unemployable people and give them do nothing jobs.
  The world is full of these people, corporate world too. People who produce negative work, but are kept around, whole departments full of them. Worse than useless management layers etc.
  It's not by accident. They've got to be kept busy.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  What "CT body scanners" are you talking about? Do you mean the millimeter wave body scanners, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner, that almost everyone now goes through when going through TSA security at airports? Those don't use x-rays.
14. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-07-23 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  Are armed pilots actually useful in a hijacking (assuming that hijackers get past a locked cockpit door)? The pilots already have the ultimate weapon -- the control yoke or stick. If they're strapped in, they can make sure anyone who's NOT strapped in is no longer vertical.
  I'd frankly rather see an undercover air marshal that's armed and let the pilots concentrate on their core competency: flying the damn plane.
15. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by mishehu · 2018-07-23 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  If they can effectively screen baggage and prove it, it might reduce some of the other security-theater TSA nonsense.
  If only I had points to mod you "Funny"...
16. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by dgatwood · 2018-07-23 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  You forget how much money can be made selling equipment for pretending to be effective.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
17. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by CrimsonAvenger · 2018-07-23 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Are armed pilots actually useful in a hijacking (assuming that hijackers get past a locked cockpit door)?
  Guessing that that depends on the hijacker.
  There may ("may" being the key word) be a deterrent effect if you decide not to hijack a plane because dying in a grand gesture may be desirable, but being shot down like a dog by the pilot not so much....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
18. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  Believe it or not, but people can carry a gun AND concentrate on their core competency.
  Armed pilots are just another layer of defense.
19. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 15:40 · Score: 0
  
  Roughly 30% of airline pilots are former military. These people were trained in both how to fly and how to shoot a handgun. The civil pilots, assuming they have similar capability to walk and chew gum at the same time, can also be trained to fly the plane and shoot a gun. That's not saying they will actually be flying while shooting, presumably with two or three crew on the deck there's going to be someone that flies the plane and another that defends the deck from intruders.
  A locked door is a great idea but just how long will that door withstand a beating from a determined person on the other side? I recall a pilot explaining that there is a fire hatchet on the flight deck, and it can and will be used if nothing else presents itself as a tool of self defense. I'd rather they shoot the bastard than try hand to hand combat, or make the plane jig and bob to knock the intruder off their feet. Someone besides the intruder could get hurt.
  Putting sky marshals on planes cost money. Training a pilot to go armed is often an expense the pilot will bear on their own. Just allow it with proof of training. The government doesn't even have to fund the weapons they carry, I'm guessing the pilots will pay for that out of their own pocket too. Sky marshals cost money, and a seat on the plane. Armed pilots cost nothing.
  While we are at it let's arm the rest of the flight crew. If a passenger takes all the same training, and passes all the same background checks, then let them fly while armed too. Perhaps saying this costs nothing is not absolutely correct since some government office somewhere would have to manage the licensing and such. What's quite certain is that it would be far cheaper than sky marshals, and likely more effective. A sky marshal on a plane means one armed person, and they tend to stick out in a crowd. An option to have armed crew and passengers means there could be no one armed on the flight, one, two, or ten. No one knows, perhaps not even the airlines.
20. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by jareth-0205 · 2018-07-23 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  locked/reinforced cockpit doors.
  Everything is a trade-off
  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/...
21. Re: Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by oobayly · 2018-07-23 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Germanwings Flight 9525:
  
  The captain then tried to break down the door, but like most cockpit doors made after the September 11 attacks, it had been reinforced to prevent intrusion.
  The time from cruise to impact was about 10 minutes.
22. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by dunkelfalke · 2018-07-23 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  Given that it comes from you, I am surprised that you haven't suggested arming the pilots with nuclear reactors.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
23. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Hodr · 2018-07-24 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Stripped of silver at the borders? Sounds like Deleware.
24. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by houghi · 2018-07-24 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of aitports where you have to scan your ID and/or boarding pass just before you put your stuff on the belt and enough stuff to link it to the person in front of them.
  And even if it is 'one of these 3 people', with the current abilities to screen that willbe easily reduced to 1.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
25. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by houghi · 2018-07-24 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  If the aim of the attacker is to crash the plane, being strapped in might not be an advantage.
  I also am not sure if having a gun, that can be taken by others, is a good solution in such an enviroment.
  It is not as if the pilot is on full allert all of his carreer for something that might never happen. To many false positives and/or misuse possible and more likely.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
26. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-07-24 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Which airports? In most of the US airports I've seen, the ticket/ID check desk is at the beginning of the line and the x-ray machines are at the other end. There's no check when you dump your bags on the belt, and the order of people doing so isn't really controlled -- some people slooooowly take laptops and liquids out while other people pass them by.
  I think a few may do it backwards, with ticket/ID check at the boarding gate, but I haven't seen this recently either.
27. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  And arming the pilots. Armed pilots was common practice for a long time. This was stopped when passengers weren't allowed to have weapons, after numerous hijackings in the 1970s as I recall. It was restored for a while after 9/11 but Obama put an end to that.
  Nope That's just your bias talking. It's still a thing. All Obama did was reduce the funding. Which makes sense since you need more funding to start a program than to continue it. Which fake media are you getting your facts from?
28. Re:Honestly, this doesn't bother me... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  Oh look! Trump got the program funded again!
Seems the same by Framboise · 2018-07-23 09:27 · Score: 1

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/world-first_geneva-airport-tests-revolutionary-3-d-baggage-scanners/44244006/
magnets how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:30 · Score: 0

Now in all likelihood this has been thought of but suitcases tend to have lots of metal in and on them. Would this not post an issue?
1. Re:magnets how do they work? by viperidaenz · 2018-07-23 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  are you confused between CT scanners and MRI?
  CAT scans use x rays. MRI uses magnets.
2. Re:magnets how do they work? by demonlapin · 2018-07-23 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  MRIs use magnets. CT uses X rays.
3. Re:magnets how do they work? by slinches · 2018-07-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  A CT scanner isn't a MRI. Rather, it's a fancy x-ray machine that computes the density of what is being scanned in 3D. Metal is not a problem for these machines.
  In theory, they could potentially distinguish between real toothpaste and a tube of high explosive based on the difference in density. Although, I don't know how different such things will appear in reality and it could easily be fooled by mixing in modifiers to give the same x-ray absorption as the item they are intending to mimic.
  
  --
  Knowledge Brings Fear
4. Re:magnets how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Now in all likelihood this has been thought of but suitcases tend to have lots of mostly aluminum in and on them. Would this not post an issue?
  FTFY
  But even if it was steel, as others have already pointed out, it's CT, not MRI
  And cue the chorus of "but, but, but, there's probably a small amount of steel, which would still be bad for an MRI.
  To which I say, "yes, true. And people will always be packing plenty of other things that have small amounts of steel in them too."
  But since it's CT the whole thing is moot.
5. Re:magnets how do they work? by bobbied · 2018-07-23 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, metal IS a problem for a traditional medical CT machine which works with a point source and only a couple of point targets going round and round as the thing being imaged slowly moves though the scanner. Metal creates scattered X-Rays and shadows that the CT software doesn't know how to deal with in the medical world. I've seen these effects in CT's of my daughter's arm where they had to install metal plates after a car accident.
  HOWEVER.... This is *also* a thing you can leverage if you want to and have multiple detectors to capture the scattered X-Rays. Then you can use the scattered information to better classify the materials and deal with metal, plastics and other X-Ray scattering and blocking materials. There is lots of information to be had doing that.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
6. Re:magnets how do they work? by demonlapin · 2018-07-23 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  They don't move slowly any more. Currently, you can get 320-slice scanners. That's at 0.5 mm per slice, so 16 cm per rotation of the imaging ring. At $300k, these probably aren't 320s, but then again, they don't need medical certification, so they can be quite a bit cheaper.
  
  Also, regarding metal shadows and scatters - if you think that plate in your daughter's arm is impressive, you ought to see one in someone who has had a lot of metal fillings in their teeth.
7. Re:magnets how do they work? by bobbied · 2018-07-23 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  So I have a question..
  What stops them from doing away with the rotating bits?
  I was thinking that you could have a ring of detectors that had sufficient resolution and then have a ring of scanning X-Ray sources that didn't move, but could scan an X-Ray beam though the object and to the detectors. No moving parts = easier to maintain and as a bonus you get to get your slices faster AND can do some additional calculations and get some interesting chemical information too.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
8. Re:magnets how do they work? by demonlapin · 2018-07-23 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know for sure (I'm an anesthesiologist, not a radiologist), but I'd assume it's because the emitters are too big. Even a small emitter is between a coffee can and a two-liter soda bottle in size.
9. Re:magnets how do they work? by Sandcastle · 2018-07-23 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely not an expert, but my first degree was in Medical Radiations (applied science).
  Outside of the clinical space, some X-Ray and CT systems use dual energy emmission to have better materials discrimination than you might think, as it isn't just based on density but also Z eff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_nuclear_charge).
  Also, there are units that don't spin the tube - an older system that spun a beam to hit a large, circular annode (only a single manafacturer), and at least one modern design that has hundreds of small emitters (https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/rtt).
  Cheers.
  
  --
  The fact that a fish swims in water does not make it an expert in fluid dynamics. GogglesPisano (199483)
10. Re:magnets how do they work? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-07-24 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  They don't move slowly any more.
  No kidding. most of the modern scanners can do a full rotation in under half a second.
  
  Currently, you can get 320-slice scanners.
  Actually I saw one of the newer Toshiba scanners a few months ago. They have a couple models that are 640 slice. With the speed that the table can move through one of those, I can see how a conveyor belt could move luggage through something like that a very fast rate.
  Unfortunately, metal artifacts are still an issue. But the software has improved greatly to clean this up. But I doubt the TSA has a 3D lab full of techs post processing this stuff either.
11. Re:magnets how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  What you propose would be a lot more expensive, which is probably why it isn't done. The sensors are probably the most expensive single part of the machine, the generators aren't cheap either. I think scatter from metal objects that reflect X-Rays would be more of an issue in your design, unless you only used one emitter at a time, in which case the extra detectors might be useful to reduce the artefacts from metal objects, but the scan would take longer.
  With a rotating design the scans are fairly quick as it is, with reconstructing the final image taking substantially longer than the scan, the main benefits you'd get from faster scan is reduced motion artefacts from the patient moving, and possibly less radiation. If you are scanning luggage, neither of these is an issue.
  The maintenance issues from the rotator are minimal (how much maintenance does an electric motor need?)
  I'm not sure what chemical information you'd expect to get. X-Ray scans can give a good idea of the density of an object, but you can't infer chemical make-up from density alone.
  I work with Dental CT machines, installing/supporting/repairing them, so I have a fair idea of how they work, but wouldn't claim to be an expert.
Liquids and gels??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:31 · Score: 0

I thought the BS about those was because the security types were afraid of explosives? How are CT scans going to mitigate that?
"Nope! It's shaped like a toothpaste tube. Can't be a bomb! Now lookee here! This one is shape like a bomb - just like the ones on Bugs Bunny cartoons!"
"Ah sir, it's a softball with a loose seem."
Later that week.....
"The TSA has issued a new directive that softballs are no longer allowed on flights or in luggage. If caught, you'll receive a $10,000 fine and 30 days in jail."
Meanwhile in Hell....
Devil: "Osama! Damn dude! Here's another 72 virgins and an all you can eat pork buffet and all the booze you want! Hey, you're in Hell. Fuck Mohamed! No, go ahead...he's over there."
Osama: ROTFL
1. Re:Liquids and gels??? by bobbied · 2018-07-23 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the BS about those was because the security types were afraid of explosives? How are CT scans going to mitigate that?
  You are funny, acting like the shape is the only information you get from an X-ray....
  You do understand that density of the material along with some very interesting information about the structure at a molecular level is obtained with X-Rays. Interesting enough to make a determination about it's chemical composition and tell explosives apart from shampoo, shaving cream and mouthwash. All this without looking at the shape...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Liquids and gels??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, there are 72 virgins – all morbidly obese and have beards. The alcohol is watered down vodka, and the pork is Motel 6 all you can eat breakfast buffet bacon.
3. Re:Liquids and gels??? by Obfuscant · 2018-07-23 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting enough to make a determination about it's chemical composition and tell explosives apart from shampoo, shaving cream and mouthwash.
  
  The liquid limitations are not because someone tried to smuggle a liquid explosive on board, it was because they tried to smuggle the components to make a liquid explosive on board. Acetone and hydrogen peroxide, to be specific.
4. Re:Liquids and gels??? by bobbied · 2018-07-23 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, I understand, which is why we have the crazy limits on amounts of fluids and containers you can bring.
  However, the components to make an explosive may be detectable using x-ray spectroscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  You can basically detect the chemical makeup of the fluids using X-Rays and CT techniques if you have the proper source and detector setups. At $300K for each machine, I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware, just not implemented and/or validated yet in the software.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
5. Re:Liquids and gels??? by Obfuscant · 2018-07-23 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  However, the components to make an explosive may be detectable using x-ray spectroscopy
  A CAT scan is not x-ray spectroscopy. It is a 3-D x-ray, based on density and not chemistry.
  
  I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware
  Unlikely.
6. Re:Liquids and gels??? by blindseer · 2018-07-23 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there was a misread of the text, it's Virginians
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  (Note: The video has Robin Williams saying some four letter words.)
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
7. Re:Liquids and gels??? by AHuxley · 2018-07-23 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  AC Re "How are CT scans going to mitigate that?"
  Think of a 3d look inside anything that a passenger attempts to bring with them.
  Drugs, toothpaste, different chemicals all show up as something different.
  Add some color and a GUI with an alert for 100% of all luggage and such scans will find a lot of what is attempted to be hidden.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
8. Re:Liquids and gels??? by AHuxley · 2018-07-23 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Think of every other substance that is also detectable. The different ways to alter chemistry to try and get past older systems.
  The capability is to build a 3d image of all luggage and have chemicals and substances show.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
9. Re:Liquids and gels??? by harvey+the+nerd · 2018-07-23 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  It is not that big a hardware addition to add X ray spec capability. Probably it is a matter of market demand. Xray spec has little medical market value. (Unknown objects? Forensics?)
10. Re:Liquids and gels??? by bobbied · 2018-07-23 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  However, the components to make an explosive may be detectable using x-ray spectroscopy
  A CAT scan is not x-ray spectroscopy. It is a 3-D x-ray, based on density and not chemistry.
  
  I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware
  Unlikely.
  Ah, but the equipment configuration of a CT machine *could* be used in the same way as am x-ray spectroscopy setup, especially if you are removing the majority of the moving parts of a CT machine by putting a ring of detectors around the object to be observed and then you could detect the diffractions and reflections from a point source of X-Rays. My guess (and that's all) is they've done this, or think they can do it with the equipment they have with more software and processing. Remember, what makes a CT generate images is the post processing of the collected data to calculate the X-Ray blocking of the material and a specific point, by passing a beam of X-Rays though the object as the detector and source go around it.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
11. Re:Liquids and gels??? by Obfuscant · 2018-07-23 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but the equipment configuration of a CT machine *could* be used in the same way as am x-ray spectroscopy setup,
  if only a CAT scanner had spectroscopy hardware and not just a density (intensity) detector. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
  
  especially if you are removing the majority of the moving parts of a CT machine by putting a ring of detectors around the object to be observed and then you could detect the diffractions and reflections from a point source of X-Rays.
  
  So, yeah, if they replace all the hardware for a CT scanner and replace it with X-ray spectroscopy hardware, they'd have an X-ray spectroscopy system.
  
  Remember, what makes a CT generate images is the post processing of the collected data to calculate the X-Ray blocking of the material and a specific point, by passing a beam of X-Rays though the object as the detector and source go around it.
  It seems I know what a CT scanner does a lot better than you do, since you're imagining all kinds of different hardware that isn't in one. Don't tell me to "remember" when you haven't.
12. Re:Liquids and gels??? by Obfuscant · 2018-07-23 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Drugs, toothpaste, different chemicals all show up as something different.
  
  Things with different densities show up as different. It's not chemistry, it's density.
  
  Add some color
  
  CT scanners don't create color images. They create INTENSITY maps, and you can apply pseudo-color colormaps to the intensity images to highlight small variations in density.
  
  and a GUI
  
  Oh, my, you should have said that first. Of course with a GUI they can detect reversals in the polarity of the neutron flow and all kinds of other things, too.
  
  and such scans will find a lot of what is attempted to be hidden.
  THAT is the important part of using a CT scanner instead of a simple X-ray. If you are carrying a 10" knife and make sure it is standing on its tip as it passed through an X-ray, they don't see a knife, they see a very small cross-section of something. With a CT scanner, you can't hide the knife that way.
  I am reminded of the old saying about technology sufficiently advanced appears as magic. CT scanners appear to be sufficiently advanced for some folk here, and they're being given all kinds of magical abilities.
13. Re:Liquids and gels??? by AHuxley · 2018-07-23 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  100% of all luggage and the GUI shows the "human" that something is the wrong kind of chemical. A nice color gui and 3d rotation can help with that.
  Re "chemistry" - the plastics and gels change as different attempts are made to hide drugs in different ways.
  The better the scanner science the more every attempt is detected and fails.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
14. Re:Liquids and gels??? by MrDoh! · 2018-07-23 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  If it works the same way as a regular screener x-ray, it should still highlight things that could be explosives.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
15. Re:Liquids and gels??? by MrDoh! · 2018-07-23 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  We jury rigged up a 3d x-ray scanner 17ish years ago as proof of concept, bounced a few ideas off a screener company's people. Was.. think some German Uni had also come up with a way to implement it (but appeared different to ours, they were going for really small items, we were trying to figure out out to do 3d screener x-ray systems for luggage). I'm sure the screener companies have figured this out years ago, it was making it able to be sold at a profit was the tricky bit we've been waiting all these years for.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
16. Re:Liquids and gels??? by MrDoh! · 2018-07-23 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  >CT scanners don't create color images. They create INTENSITY maps, and you can apply pseudo-color colormaps to the intensity images to highlight small variations in density. They could be using dual energy x-rays to create that slice to make that final image, in which case they can do the usual colour lookup to determine material composition, not just density. They're calling it a CT-scan as that's what people expect, but not sure if this would be capable of dual energy.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
17. Re:Liquids and gels??? by SandorZoo · 2018-07-23 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  You can basically detect the chemical makeup of the fluids using X-Rays and CT techniques if you have the proper source and detector setups. At $300K for each machine, I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware, just not implemented and/or validated yet in the software.
  They are using L3's ClearScan scanner, described as combining "dual-energy CT technology and advanced explosives detection algorithms". It's not really x-ray spectroscopy, but it can be used to measure effective atomic number as well as density.
  To quote a paper on the subject:
  
  An object’s material type can be better determined by using both its density and
  effective atomic number than by using the density alone. For example, water and the explosive ANFO
  (Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil) can have similar physical densities. However, they differ significantly
  in effective atomic numbers.
18. Re:Liquids and gels??? by AHuxley · 2018-07-23 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sold well all over South America :) The interesting thin layers of chemicals around the edge of the luggage shows up as a nice color every time.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
19. Re:Liquids and gels??? by jbengt · 2018-07-24 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  CT scanners don't create color images. They create INTENSITY maps, and you can apply pseudo-color colormaps to the intensity images to highlight small variations in density.
  
  But luggage scanners DO create color images (albeit false colors), and many modern scanners combine different types of scans to discriminate different types of materials.
20. Re:Liquids and gels??? by bobbied · 2018-07-24 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I never claimed to be an expert here, in fact quite the opposite. But you seem to be all upset, as if I've hit a nerve.
  I'm looking at the theory here and there are some common aspects between the physics of CT and spectroscopy that just *might* be possible to leverage using the right detectors. Actually, it looks pretty likely to me as the physical layouts of the two techniques are *very* similar, so similar that I'd be willing to bet that you could generate a CT image using spectroscopy hardware pretty easily in the non-medical world. Bu t hey, I'm just some guy with a EE degree who programs for a living, so my physics and engineering training doesn't make me an expert in CT or Spectroscopy using X-Rays.
  As for your perspective, I really don't know if you are just upset because I'm just naïve about this or because you didn't think about it first. However, I do know you are not very forthcoming with information to support your claims and you are rude about it as well. Rudeness isn't a good way to deal with naiveté education is and you don't seem to be willing/able to educate anybody. So chances are you know a little, but not enough to be the expert you claim. I could be wrong, but either way, there is nothing for me to learn from you discussing this further, unless you alter your approach.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Could... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:31 · Score: 0

" the new machines could allow for liquids, gels, aerosols, and laptops to be left in bags"
But we all know that won't happen anyway..
1. Re:Could... by bobbied · 2018-07-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think they eventually will.
  X-Rays can give you a lot more information about a material than you might think looking at a B&W picture of your broken arm.
  In Fact, you can tell a LOT about the material using an X-Ray and lots of detectors looking at how they are scattered going though an object, including details about the molecular structure and clues about the chemistry of the material. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to assume that CT techniques could be used to tell the difference between the baby formula, bottle of water, shampoo, shaving cream and explosives.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Could... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, I think they eventually will.
  Call me when I can take a full-size tube of toothpaste again
  /me is not holding my breath
3. Re:Could... by guruevi · 2018-07-23 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  CT is basically an X-ray with computers that do just that. So functionally there is little difference between an X-Ray and a CT scan, except that you use computers to analyze the X-Ray image and there is better resolution than a typical X-Ray machine because it uses hundreds of times more radiation.
  The question is whether the radiation levels will cause any issues with electronics. Space missions have to have radiation-hardened chips for what amounts to equal or lesser radiation than a high-powered CT can put out.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Sure by nospam007 · 2018-07-23 09:35 · Score: 1

"the new machines could allow for liquids, gels, aerosols, and laptops to be left in bags."
Just as the guns, knives and hand-grenades they never find when they get tested.
Is this really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:47 · Score: 0

In 2002, I was using similar technology at MCO. So maybe the tech is incrementally better, but certainly not revolutionary.
1. Re:Is this really new? by bobbied · 2018-07-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  What about the TSA is revolutionary? They are a government agency and they provide neither transportation nor any real security...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Is this really new? by AHuxley · 2018-07-23 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Different tech gets used around the world.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
South Park by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 09:57 · Score: 0

Meanwhile in Hell....
Devil: "Osama! Damn dude! Here's another 72 virgins and an all you can eat pork buffet and all the booze you want! Hey, you're in Hell. Fuck Mohamed! No, go ahead...he's over there."
This scene needs to be done in South Park.
more than sixty million dollars. by nimbius · 2018-07-23 10:04 · Score: 2

thats the budget for the TSA to be given the ability to dissect your luggage and look for known weapons and bombs that have been previously used in airline hijackings. The average middle school in america is 10-20 million dollars. The average library is about 4 million dollars. The war in Afghanistan, which has now run for 17 years, has cost 1.7 trillion dollars.
the point isnt to split hairs about what the money could be used for, its to give pause to consider that every dollar we spend defending against an enemy we largely spend 40 years creating, we could spend money on preventative measures like education and reducing our dependency on unnecessary and endless wars of aggression.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:more than sixty million dollars. by jbengt · 2018-07-24 01:35 · Score: 2
  
  No, $60,000,000 is the budget for buying new scanners.
  The requested 2019 budget for the TSA is $7.7 billion
  I just hope these are the same type of scanners we designed for last year, I would hate to have to redesign the mechanical/electrical support for new ones for a third time. By the way, that upgrade of the back-of-the house scanners (not the ones you see at the check-in or carry-on lines) for a single airline at a single airport had greater than a $50,000,000 budget. At $300,000 a piece, the cost of buying those 6 scanners would have been a very small part of the cost. The larger part is re-working the baggage handling conveyer system to accommodate the new requirements, along with all the associated electrical, HVAC, fire protection, IT, and even plumbing needed to support the new arrangement. .
Worse news ever that a guy can hear by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:05 · Score: 0

"Sorry, your bag has cancer."
free CT scans for everyone! by kiviQr · 2018-07-23 10:16 · Score: 1

They should offer you free CT scans when you pass the security checkpoint. Connect it with AI to catch random things and offer medical results after you land at your destination.
1. Re:free CT scans for everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  If they gave you a free CT scan the Republicans^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HNazis would have to shut it down. You can't be giving affordable health care to the masses after all.
2. Re:free CT scans for everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  You jest, but I wonder how many lives could be saved annually with another 240 CT machines available to ERs around the country. Given the zero deaths from airport related terrorism in the past decade, I'm betting it would be more effective ...
3. Re:free CT scans for everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Free ionizing radiation for everyone?
  Well, they may well be doing that already anyway.
CT scanners already in use at PHX by jcolvin · 2018-07-23 10:53 · Score: 1

They are already using CT scans at PHX airport. It is much more convenient, I didn't even have to take my laptops out of my bag.
1. Re:CT scanners already in use at PHX by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  When did this happen? I just was there last month.
2. Re:CT scanners already in use at PHX by SandorZoo · 2018-07-23 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  June, 2017. PHX were one of the first airports anywhere to try this out.
3. Re:CT scanners already in use at PHX by blk_prometheus · 2018-07-24 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  In the early 90's I worked for Invision Technologies, who built the CTX-5000, an explosive detection device using a CT scanner. It was the first such device certified by the FAA for airport security. In looking at a video of the machine from Analogic, the CT images produced by their machine basically look like what the CTX-5000 produced back in the 90's. The CTX-5000 produced color images in 3D. Nothing new here that I can see.
Put the TSA agents on the planes by blindseer · 2018-07-23 11:11 · Score: 1

I'll believe that the TSA agents are taking airplane security seriously when they start putting the TSA agents on the planes. I know that the crew have their best interests in mind on that plane because they have to ride in the plane. Maybe that's how it can work, the TSA agents become the crew. They take a shift working security, then they take a shift as attendants on the plane. Of course they can't check themselves through security so someone else has to check them.
Here's a better idea. Have the airlines provide their own security. I don't believe that Congress has any real concern over the security of an airplane except to the point that one might land on their collective laps like was the plan on 9/11. The airlines on the other hand have a very real interest in not losing an airplane. The crew of the airplanes have a very real interest in not getting lost with the plane. Make the airlines responsible for the security because if they screw up then I can find a different airline. If the TSA screws up then what's my option? Find a new government? Right, let's do that.
I propose we put in the document that creates the government something like this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If the government wants to search my bags before getting on an airplane then they should need a warrant.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
1. Re:Put the TSA agents on the planes by John+Jorsett · 2018-07-23 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  I like the idea of putting TSA screeners on the plane. In fact, make the ones who screen the passengers for a flight take the flight with them. Like having to jump the parachute you pack.
2. Re:Put the TSA agents on the planes by MrDoh! · 2018-07-23 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  >Here's a better idea. Have the airlines provide their own security. That's how it used to work. They paid the least amount possible. Then the all the airlines operating out of an airport would get together so that an airport would have 1 security company (lowest bid!) to keep the cost as low as possible. Here's an interesting issue though... If it's a private company (the airline), doing the security, you don't have 4th amendment protection anyway, it's just other citizens, not the government, doing the searching.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
reflector by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 11:13 · Score: 0

Any astronomers want to pack a reflective lense from NY to LA?
Can they install better customer service? by madsci1016 · 2018-07-23 11:16 · Score: 1

Now it would be great if American Airlines could also install some better customer service for their customers too...
1. Re:Can they install better customer service? by UnknownSoldier · 2018-07-23 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Probably won't happen. The entire airline industry is about:
  "How can we make this as miserable experience as we possibly can while we price gouge you for it."
Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 12:05 · Score: 0

Now I gotta buy dildos to put in my luggage. Thanks American Airlines.
I feel so much safer now!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 12:08 · Score: 0

Wow thanks TSA! I feel sooo much safer now!
Prior to this, i was one insecure little douche who needed my genitals touched by you to feel better.
"more effective"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 13:14 · Score: 0

than shredding the outer luggage panel and stealing anything that might possibly be of value? i think not!
This is bad news! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 14:18 · Score: 0

I expect my wait times to increase for the TSA to 3d inspect my dynamite/timer plush toys!
Cost effective? by joe_frisch · 2018-07-23 14:55 · Score: 1

Is this really a cost effective way to save lives? How many deaths a year are caused in the US by terrorists on aircraft? How many of those would actually be stopped by CAT scanners?
That is separate from the serious privacy issues that other posters have raised.
Corporate welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-23 16:45 · Score: 0

... which cost $300,000 each ...

Time for more corporate welfare, and it also provides a 3D image.
Laptops? Liquids? by thegarbz · 2018-07-23 19:30 · Score: 1

Go through the security at Schiphol Airport and you're asked to leave everything in your bag in the right 6 lanes. Has been like that since the start of the year and they aren't 3D CT scanning anything, they just have a better X-ray machine with finer contrast adjustment.
1. Re:Laptops? Liquids? by POPE+Mad+Mitch · 2018-07-23 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  They very likely are CT scanners as the bbc news article about Heathrow installing some says that Schiphol already tested them.
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44925635
2. Re:Laptops? Liquids? by mjwx · 2018-07-24 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  They very likely are CT scanners as the bbc news article about Heathrow installing some says that Schiphol already tested them.
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...
  Also Amsterdam Schipol is a very well run airport and the Dutch are an exceptionally well mannered people with a solid work ethic. I've been though hundreds of airports and the only departing Customs or Immigration officer who ever asked me if I enjoyed my stay was at Amsterdam.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
3. Re:Laptops? Liquids? by thegarbz · 2018-07-24 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Did you try a bit too much in the lounge while you were in Amsterdam? ;-)
  Solid work ethic is right, I wouldn't call the Dutch necessarily well mannered, and I sure as hell wouldn't call Schipol well run. Have you ever been ushered through the employee entrance of an airport because they utterly failed to manage the security line during a holiday? They also managed to then tell customers to arrive at the airport 3 hours early but didn't tell the airlines, so there were customers who go to the airport super early, to a closed check-in desk, and then missed their flights due to the resulting security queue.
  That said I believe the investment in new security was a direct result of the blunder last summer.
4. Re:Laptops? Liquids? by thegarbz · 2018-07-24 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry you are absolutely right. I confused them with MRI scanners and their giant magnets.
  This is what I put my bag through last week: http://airportfocusinternation...
As long as this means they stop rummaging through by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 00:42 · Score: 0

my luggage...
Wait, no, I still don't like it.
captcha: thefts
... So? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 01:43 · Score: 0

This is not new technology. CT based scanning of CHECKED luggage has been standard since 2002. I know as I was an engineer who worked on designing many of the machines that were rolled out to airports in the wake of 9/11.
wonder by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-24 07:54 · Score: 0

I wonder which congressman owns a large part of the company that makes the scanners that are now mandated to be installed everywhere?