Slashdot Mirror
Laptops To Stay in Bags as TSA Brings New Technology To Airports (bgov.com)
Air passengers at a growing number of U.S. airports will no longer need to remove electronics, liquids, and other items from their carry-on luggage at security checkpoints as the Transportation Security Administration rolls out new technology. From a report: The TSA took a major step in a broader plan to revamp its overall screening process with faster, more advanced technology when it signed a contract Thursday for hundreds of new carry-on baggage screening machines, Administrator David Pekoske said on a press call Friday. The agency has tested the new technology at more than a dozen airports since 2017, along with the relaxed protocols that allow passengers to leave items such as laptops and toiletries inside their luggage. The rollout of the computed tomography, or CT, machines will begin this summer, Pekoske said. The $97 million contract will buy 300 machines, but the list of airports receiving them has yet to be made final, Pekoske said. The technology creates 3-D images of bags' contents and will eventually be able to detect items automatically that the TSA now asks passengers to remove, he said.
would be a better headline.
Air passengers at a growing number of U.S. airports will no longer need to remove electronics, liquids, and other items from their carry-on luggage at security checkpoints as the Transportation Security Administration rolls out new technology.
We never NEEDED to in the first place. That was just a bit of security theater against conveniently unspecified "threats". Just like the liquid restrictions. It made no sense that laptops were somehow special devices that had to be scanned differently from every other piece of electronics sent through the scanner.
...It's good to see that there's less stuff required on our end, but when will they finally get rid of the rest of the security theater?
I mean, okay, it's cool that we don't have to bang laptops around in bins anymore (and the rigamarole of answering dumb questions like "...why do you need two laptops, Sir?"), but the 4th Amendment violations in the name of reassurance continue apace - just that we're using electronics to do it. *shrug*
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It sucks to go through or to the USA because we have to remove our shoes at security, unlike almost everywhere else.
Nah...they'll probably invent something new again. Gotta sell the preferred traveller program, and inconvenience for the masses won't design itself.
Sure, this sounds convenient, but is it worth the radiation? https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/01/the-surprising-dangers-of-ct-sans-and-x-rays/index.htm
If the TSA agent asks you to lay down on the conveyor belt, you can inform him that Federal law gives you the right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner.
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has had this for some months now. It's great. It's like travelling in the future. I know because I travel there very regularly.
You unload your pocket contents into a jacket, bag, or onto a tray. You put your jacket, bag, etc, into the same or more trays. You don't take anything out of your bags. You also don't take your shoes off unless they are heavy boots.
It all goes through a scanner. You pick it up the other side. Maybe the scanner pass takes slightly longer, but you save time overall because you don't have to unload and reload everything.
The rate of secondary search is far less than with the old scanners, and after a few months' practice the staff are almost as fast with the old scanners too - queues are shorter than they used to be.I take all sorts of stuff in my bag (laptop and cables, several electronics, medicines, keys, carabiners, etc) and I still rarely get a secondary search. Yet, I know from shoulder-surfing the scanner operator that they can identify and check suspicious things more carefully - there's a great zoom-pan-rotate function for inspecting any item in detail. It's a little uncanny.
You can even take any liquid you like through - I often take a water bottle still full of water. Sometimes that gets a secondary check in a liquids inspector, but that's still not a problem.
It is far better than the current USA TSA experience. It is far, far less stressful and much faster.
The staff like it too; they're very pleased with the scanners and the smoother passenger experience. I've talked to them several times about it (try talking to a TSA agent...) and they are enthusiastic about how good the scanners are. Of course, the Dutch security staff are much more reasonable than the TSA overall.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
If you too sign up for the TSA trusted traveller program, you can go through security without removing bags, you can leave your jacket and watch and belt and shoes on, and go through a metal detector instead of the pervy superman vision booth.
Totally worth it if you fly more than zero times per year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No one said anything about directly CT scanning persons.
The article that the AC linked is about directly CT scanning persons.
right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner
Thank goodness. Because that's where I draw the line.
Have gnu, will travel.
In fact the article is entirely about directly scanning people. When objects receive radiation, they don't then give off that radiation to the environment at that same rate. That's just not how it works.
Sure, this sounds convenient, but is it worth the radiation?
What do you think carryon scanners use today to look through luggage, those little mice from Cinderella?
Newer systems generally use less radiation to achieve the same result because they are more sensitive so the x-ray strength can be lower (though it's also adjustable so it can be raised to go through anything really dense).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They haven't stopped ONE terrorist attack. Not even one.
Security theater is all they are.
Corporatism != Free Market
It's like traveling in the future.
Actually... It's like traveling WAS in the past!
I used to arrive at the airport 15 minutes before my flight (already had my boarding pass mailed (or printed out AT HOME! ooo - the future!) or swiped my credit card at the new fangled automated terminal that printed it for you), threw my carryon through the x-ray scanner and walked through the metal detector at the near empty security check point because it took less than 30 seconds to get checked as there were no "papers please, citizen" checks and no removal of clothes, toiletries or items out of the bag and the metal detector sensitivity was set high enough so belts wouldn't set it off. Then sprinted to the gate to jump on the plane before the doors closed!
Fun times!
I've had eight CT scans and I'm due for my ninth this summer so I'll let you know. I had testicular cancer that moved into my abdomen and began to grow. I have 100% response to treatment but the recommendations are for yearly and then every other year scans to make sure it doesn't come back.
Computed tomography is a cat scan. This is a life-saving medical procedure in American hospitals that could cost you upwards of two-thousand USD. Your insurance company could elect to accept or decline that procedure arbitrarily as they see fit.
However in US airports its now going to be a mandatory part of a theatricality introduced 18 years ago to stop terrorists we created after the fall of the soviet union through the funding and training of the Mujaheddin. This theatricality demands that we analyze nude photos of passengers through backscatter and millimeter wave systems, dump all our liquids out, and now requires we run our bags through yet another $80,000 machine to prevent terrorism. Smoking, cancer, diabetes, and even lightning strikes at 50 deaths per year kill more americans than terrorism.
hundreds of new CT machines paid for by the government could subsidize healthcare for poor communities, but no. We're going to use them to speed up an unreasonable, wasteful and cumbersome live performance art we could have eliminated a decade ago.
Good people go to bed earlier.
TSA repeatedly failed to detect 95% of threats in independent tests performed by Red Teams. TSA is next to useless as a security measure and is nothing but a make-work project.
I'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray. The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside. Of all the crap, the concern about laptops is completely reasonable.
People are not scanned when riding on a tram or trolleybus, because they can leave any moment and go home on foot.
A modern parachute takes times less space than a hand luggage. Parachute technology is extremely reliable, because the gravity never fails. Just google "parachute safety statistics".
If people on tops of those skyscrapers had parachutes 100% of them were alive (google "base jumping videos").
Cheap and reliable parachute technology could replace expensive unreliable scanners.
Since their detection rate was already abysmal i'll gladly take a little less theater to go with my "security".
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
More like laptops have become so thin over the past few years and their housing made out of plastic, even the current machines can easily scan them.... but sure, let's sell the government new hardware because "reasons"
Sure, this sounds convenient, but is it worth the radiation? https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/01/the-surprising-dangers-of-ct-sans-and-x-rays/index.htm
If you're worried about radiation exposure you wouldn't get on a plane in the first place.
Flying above the bulk of the atmosphere exposes you to significantly higher doses of ionizing radiation.
It's only been a year or so at my airport Sky Harbor that they made it even more inconvenient by also making you take tablets, portable game consoles etc also out
If the TSA agent asks you to lay down on the conveyor belt, you can inform him that Federal law gives you the right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner.
The thing that really annoys me about security checks, is that it is really boring.
Now, if they could dress up the baggage scanner to be like an amusement park "Horror House" ride that I could sit on . . . at least I could have some fun in the process.
And it could mentally prepare you for the "Horror" of bad airplane food, screaming babies, disgruntled flight attendants, full overhead bins, etc.
Six Flags should look into the business model.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Let me introduce you to Deus Ex Machina (TM), the ultimate Security Theater Machine!
And when it comes to the X-rays used in these scanners, they don't re-radiate anything at all. Ever. Full stop.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
I'll address this specific case. The laptop has a significant battery that is very dense, and consequently fairly opaque to xray.
Lots of things have very big batteries besides laptops. People routinely ship items that are dense and opaque to xrays including metal boxes and actual weapons.
The battery is very easy to replace with a nicely shaped chunk of semtek with a blasting cap inserted inside.
You do not need a laptop to accomplish that. Giving laptops special scrutiny is remarkably stupid.
Of all the crap, the concern about laptops is completely reasonable.
No it isn't. It's nonsense. If someone wanted to sneak an explosive through, there are plenty of ways to do it that do not involve a laptop. Laptops are merely one vector among many possible threats.
And that is called paying the Dane-geld
I get what you are saying here but what are you really paying?
When you apply for the trusted traveller program you are not giving them any information they do not already have. ALL that is happening is a human is taking time to review what they have, and talk to you very briefly in person.
You give up nothing and gain back personal dignity when traveling by air in return. If anything it's like you are getting back some Dane-geld that was already paid out to them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Didn't mean to pretend it was free, but if you apply for Global Entry it's $100 every five years, and there are a number of credit cards that will cover that fee.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I HATE the TSA. I HATE other Americans for being willing to put up with this shit. I protested this and took political action against this, along with others, but there just weren't enough of us. The goddamned rest of you just don't give a shit, and because of your apathy, *I* have to live with these assholes.
I haven't set foot inside an airport since the day this nonsense started. Which has sucked sometimes. But fuck them.
And fuck you for abiding them.
that's nice, but off-topic, this article in this posting is not about CT scanning persons.
"Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
Unless flying a lot the 85$ fee alone makes it not worth it.
A) That covers five years of flying.
B) "hassle" of applying really boils out to filling out a simple form and setting an appointment, which is about 5-10 minutes of talking with a TSA agent.
So again, unless flying a lot you end up wasting more time than you save.
First of all, that depends on when you fly. There have been some TSA lines with an estimated wait of over an hour where pre-check was about 10 minutes - there alone time-wise I was paid back.
But I didn't sign up for the time saved. I signed up because I like going back to not having to take off anything or remove laptops to go through security. I really like not having to go through that damn scanner and remove even Kleenex from my pocket - instead I walk through the metal detector fully clothed and belted and don't even take out my wallet. It just makes security vastly more pleasant. They are also lots less caring about where exactly you put small bottles of liquid like soap or toothpaste and that they be exactly in a quart bag all together. As an example before I tried twice to bring nearly empty toothpaste tubes though security but they were taken because the volume they COULD hold was more than 3oz. Since getting pre-check access I've taken nearly empty toothpaste tubes through a number of times.
The other side benefit few people talk about, is basically that you are not going through security with a bunch of scrubs. Mostly people in the pre-check line know what they are doing so the whole thing moves faster but is also less aggravating trying to watch some rando deal with airport security stuff they are not used to.
P.S. as a tip for others, if you do get Global Entry don't forget the card when you travel, sometimes they require to see a physical card (utterly stupid but it happens sometimes transferring through airports).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Which congressman I mean? "for only $97x10^6 we can continue ensuring a constitution-free zone"
In my experience, my belts don't set off the metal detectors in the USA. In the UK, I seem to always set off the metal detector, despite removing every piece of metal, except my wedding ring.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
No, that's why they used to make you turn on electronics (prove it had a fuctioning battery instead of a block of explosive.)
A) They almost never make you turn any device on.
B) Turning it on does not in any way prove that there is not ALSO an explosive in the device.
C) If it was a serious risk then they would prohibit carrying laptops or they would take more serious precautions than what they actually do.
The reason they stopped is people having electronics became the not the exception and checking every device can power on was wasting enough time the airlines complained.
Which is proof that it is not actually a significant security risk. If it was a serious risk they wouldn't have changed the policy.
It's not that a big portion of people don't care. It's that a big portion of people want their god damned security theater because they think it's like a blankie when your a little kid. It makes me wanna slap the stupid fucks that think this is somehow a positive move in a western society, but there are thousands, perhaps millions of Americans that believe anything in the name of "safety" and "security", whether it works or not, is a positive move.
They won't be satisfied until we're all permanently strapped to a bed in our own separate padded rooms for our own safety.
anything of value will still be removed...
just not replaced.
anything that can store data will still be removed...
and data siphoned before being replaced (if it isn't outright stolen.. err, i mean, 'confiscated for further analysis')
The article linked by the AC on *this* thread is not the main article, and the AC's link *is* about CT scanning persons.
I quit flying commercial at all after the ludicrous response to 9/11. The TSA has a near-100% failure rate in detecting harmful contraband at checkpoints.
I already had my pilot's license so I just made the commitment to fly myself if I needed to go somewhere. Yes, it's a boatpile more expensive, but it's so well worth it. I can get to clients much faster, too, which is good for the pocketbook.
No more hours long waits at checkpoints, sitting on tarmacs, wasting time in connecting airports. I can be up and down the eastern seaboard in a few hours.
And you put your fingerprints into their system. Then there's a crime committed. They get a partial match against thousands. Somebody wins the lottery. Maybe it's you.
The people who know how accurate & unique fingerprints actually are won't talk about it. The Birthday Paradox makes perfect collisions seem unavoidable. Go down to matching just a tiny fragment.... False positives are soo much easier. Police are judged based on their number of convictions. Guilty. Innocent. That's irrelevant.
There's only a small portion of the population in their fingerprint database. Anyone outside their database is excluded. If you don't accept their guilty plea-bargain they will throw the book at you! And you will be judged by a jury. Have you ever seen the folks on a jury? Not Fortune 500 CEOs.
Thanks, but I'll pass.
would be a better headline.
An even better headline would be "Will security theater be slightly less inconvenient?" because we all know what the answer will be.
After you take your laptop out of the bag and watch it emerge from the scanner, watch your MacBook Pro is become the object of an instant tug-of-war by people anxious to upgrade from Windows. The longest arm wins.
If you haven't set foot inside an airport in almost 20 years, how are you not "living with it" ?
Doesn't seem like you interact with TSA at all.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You know that these things don't just blast ionizing radiation in all directions when turned on, right? Plus, there is the concept of building a housing around it that shields any unintended targets from exposure?
How can you not visualize this? CT machines have been around for decades for medical imaging - it doesn't take a whole lot of serious think to figure out how to apply the same tech to looking through a suitcase safely.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
In order for something to undergo neutron capture and itself become e radioactive, you would need to be using a source of neutrons, or gamma rays.
X-rays != gamma rays
Read a book.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Muggeridge's law in action.
I meant Betteridge's law...
Israel made me turn my laptop on.
Which is proof of what exactly? It certainly didn't prove that you either did or did not have a laptop bomb. Which is exactly why pretty much no airport security bothers with such a useless bit of red tape.
It can prove that you ran out the battery on the 17 hour flight to Tel Aviv
What the hell are you talking about? Turning on a laptop doesn't prove ANYTHING about whether or not the device is a bomb. If it turns on it could either be a bomb or not. If it doesn't turn on it still could be a bomb or not. It proves absolutely nothing except for the fact that it's a laptop that turns on (or not). It's nothing but security theater. If you want to check if a laptop is a bomb, you need tests that actually can verify the presence (or absence) of explosives.
See Israel.
What for? They aren't doing anything special.