The Sensible Body Scan Alternative 354
An anonymous reader sends in a CNN article that looks at airport security from more reasonable point of view, suggesting that looking for every last micro-gram of potentially explosive material is a waste of time, since very small quantities of explosives are unlikely to significantly damage a plane. The author also recommends incorporating parts of the Israeli method of securing airplanes — look for the bomber, not the tools. Quoting:
"Clearly everything should be done to prevent explosives getting on board an aircraft in quantities sufficient to cause structural failure and bring the plane down. But is it worth chasing lesser quantities that would result in zero or minimal damage? The enhanced pat-down that some find so offensive is designed to search for these small amounts. It often ends with a swab being taken to test for explosive residues. Technology does have a role to play, but imaging is not the solution. Operator fatigue sets in after short periods of time staring at computer images. That's why there are reports that contraband items have been smuggled through X-ray units used to scan carry-on bags. The aim should be to detect high explosive in quantities that are sufficient to cause significant damage. We don't need a machine that takes pictures of the human body. It makes more sense to develop a detector that clearly discriminates between high explosives and human tissue or water."
Not profitable enough (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal is to make money for government contractors and politcians, not enhance safety. Inefficient, ineffective solutions produce much more profit for government contractors and the politicians that support them.
Aloha airlines flight 243 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ACLU will never let it happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely correct. We have literally an army of trained interviewers who have the skills, and know how the opponent sounds. Many of them, currently, are underemployed. It would be a perfect union of skill and need, which would satisfy most requirements except one. When you screen people out, you make judgments based on a variety of factors. But since certain factors would be unavoidable certain elements in our country will fight screening as if we were going to use shamans and bone-casting to make the decisions. Thank the ACLU for the current mess, it's the only thing that satisfies their goals. Too bad for the rest of us.
And you are correct, I choose anonymity because I really don't need the headache that comes from the that same corner of the political spectrum whenever one of them decides to ride their hobby horse in my direction.
Be careful what you wish for (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Israel has an actual existential threat (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative should be to dismantle the TSA, put every single person who works for it on trial for treason, and have them executed.
The third can't happen, because the second wouldn't convict anybody. According to the Constitution you and I use to argue against them, only two things constitute treason: acts of war against the US, or aiding and abeting those who commit such acts. For all that can be said about the TSA, and pretty much all of it is bad, they still haven't managed to do either of these things yet, so there is no treason involved.
I applaud you for looking into the abyss, but the abyss is looking back into you, and you are letting it win. If you want to be better than what you're fighting, that starts with respecting their rights even if they do not respect yours.
Israel is not the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Who have they ever caught? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's been caught by the TSA?
Not a single terrorist has EVER been caught by the TSA while trying to board a plane.
And if they thought your can of Coke was really a threat, then why don't they treat you like a threat when they find it? Instead they just demand that you throw the POTENTIAL LIQUID EXPLOSIVE into a garbage can next to them.
It is 100% bullshit.
Re:ACLU will never let it happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Although profiling is effective, there are some douchebag law-enforcement officers -stereotypically mostly in the South, but when hear their victims talk it becomes apparent that they're pretty much everywhere- who ruin profiling for everyone, even the honest law-enforcement officers. We need other methods, because abuse of profiling in the US has been way too great in recent years to trust law enforcement to do it properly.
That's not to say that current methods are any better: they aren't, and should be discarded summarily. But a move to profiling just isn't going to work; a third option has to be found.
No sudden attack of common sense in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ACLU will never let it happen (Score:5, Insightful)
The machines will kill 16 people a year in cancer deaths, terrorists don't get that many. We have here a cure that is worse than the disease.
Bomb Sniffing Dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Dogs are so effective that DARPA even has a challenge to come up with a machine detector that could match a dog's nose. So far, no one has won the prize. I admit that dogs do have limitations such as needing rest, food, water and play time. But those limitations can be easily overcome with a little careful planning and cycling dogs in and out. The DEA and the US Customs services already use dogs at airports to screen luggage for drugs or illegal animal trade. So many airports probably already have the infrastructure to attend and care for working dogs. I honestly do not know why the TSA hasn't even openly considered bomb dogs as an acceptable alternative to full-body scanners. The TSA is obviously aware that the military and police have been using dogs effectively for many years.
Israeli system cannot work in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Insightful)
So let's say it is a setup, what is the problem with that?
Rosa Parks did not randomly happen upon a bus, there is a long tradition of using the predictable actions of those in authority to get public support for your cause.
Re:So no one is caught but it works? (Score:3, Insightful)
khasim has a rock that repels crocodile. khasim has not been attacked by crocodiles.
You do not have this rock!
I strongly advise that you purchase a crocodile repelling rock from him, as you apparently cannot rule out the rock as preventing the crocodile attacks.
Failure of the Israeli Method (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I admire the success of "the Israeli method of securing airplanes" on a day-to-day basis, it has failed abysmally in the decade-to-decade time frame. Not because it has permitted planes to be hijacked or blown up, but because it is still in place after so much time. It (along with the quality of the Israeli armed forces, its nuclear arsenal, and the insufficiently qualified support of foreign governments) has served as a kind of "enabling behavior", making it possible for the Israeli government to maintain hostile relations with its neighbors and even so many of its (non-Jewish) subjects. I'm not saying that the political situation in the Middle East is entirely (or even mostly) their fault. But their ability to make a state of war tolerable enough to live with decade after decade has kept them from finding a real solution. (Obligatory geek reference: ST:TOS episode "A Taste of Armageddon".) Likewise, the US government's efforts to make its "war on terror" tolerable for its people to live with - with no planes blowing up or other experiences of "war on US soil" - enable it to avoid dealing with the real root causes of this problem. Not Islam. Not Iraq or Iran. Not Israel. Running with the "i" theme I've got going here, I'd call it "industrial imperialism". If we want air travel to be safe - if we want our people to be safe - we need to look at that, not individuals' skin color or body cavities or religion.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, lets say everything you just typed is true.
Who cares?
The fact of the matter remains your rights as Americans are being trampled all over, and you're being treated like criminals regardless of whether you are one or not.
And your world image is suffering (again) because of it. And your tourism industry is no doubt feeling the effects of it, too.
Whether they're Libertarian, Democrats, or Republicans shouldn't matter. What the TSA is doing is wrong, and what you just typed is completely fucking irrelevant.
Re:Bomb Sniffing Dogs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Grandma Mable gets scanned because the TSA isn't racist.
TSA may not be racist (but there is enough anecdotal evidence that there is an above average number of attractive, well-endowed females being pulled aside for additional screening to make one wonder how "random" the random screenings really are), but it certainly is fascist. Grandma Mable shouldn't get scanned unless TSA has intel or other probable cause to suggest she is trying to smuggle something through airport security. I, for one, am really effing tired of being treated like a criminal simply because I want to take my family on a vacation or because I *have* to fly somewhere for work.
Ah for the good old days. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember back when we had real trolls. Not these thin-blooded wanna-bes.
So you cannot parse basic English or you are completely ignorant of recent history or you're trolling.
And you even got some mod points. Interesting.
No. You said that the method used by the TSA worked. I said that it did not because it didn't catch any of the terrorists since the WTC attack.
You said something about fences and coyotes. I pointed out that the "coyotes" were still there and had not been stopped.
Now you're talking about whether the shoe bomber had been caught by the TSA. He had not. He was stopped by other people on the plane.
All that and you even started off this thread with "racist".
Feel free to wander around the subject, but the fact is that the TSA has never caught a single terrorist. Never.
But the shoe bomber got through the TSA's checks.
Therefore, the methods the TSA used did not stop a terrorist from getting a bomb onto a plane.
You have a problem with that. Whatever.
Racial profiling fails. It was gamed over 20 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bomb Sniffing Dogs (Score:1, Insightful)
You make a valid point, however that point can be made about any sort of security check made at the airport. I've gone through a metal detector and not set it off, but because I had baggy pants with puffy pockets, I was pulled to the side to show I had nothing in my pockets. The x-ray person can say "I thought I saw something suspicious" just as well as the nude-scanner operator.
It's a general problem that needs to be dealt with no matter the technology...
Re:Ah, but... (you knew there was a "but") (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, Israel's system works because:
- they only have two international airports and only ten small domestic airports
- El Al and the other airlines apparently require you to turn up FOUR HOURS in advance for the profiling (done by highly-skilled, well-paid, well-trained people) to work.
Profiling won't work in the USA, because there are too many international airports, too many passengers who would not tolerate such institutionalised delays, and too many frankly stupid undertrained and undereducated people working for the TSA.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a free market solution where I can select an air carrier that just does not bother with this crap?
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. I'm not a libertarian and I think the TSA search policy is misguided, intrusive, and fucked up.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:0, Insightful)
I consider Muslims "unclean".
They tend to kill people with little provocation and generally piss their pants with rage at the slightest offense.
Uncivilized barbarians.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:2, Insightful)
What the scanners can do. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Your link contradicts your points.
According to some of the sites you just linked to, they aren't allowed to eat dogs, and some of the more hardline ones don't keep them as pets. Working dogs are allowed, with sheepdogs and guide dogs for the blind both being cited as examples of this. This is what I found the first time I tried to google your point, and it's what the first links in the search you just made shows.
Which means muslims should have no problem with sniffer dogs on a religious level. Now, a hypothetical terrorist might claim that being sniffed violates his religion, in the hopes of circumventing the sniffer dogs. Which is fine, because I covered that in my post: people who don't want to go the dog route can instead opt for the scanners.
Congratulations, you're a fucking moron.
Whereas you are incapable of polite discourse. If you can't frame your argument without resorting to ad homs, don't bother making it.
Piece of advice: whenever a neutral party reads an argument between two people, they will almost always side with the one being less belligerent. You cannot convince a reader that your view is correct if you can only express your view by mouthing off. If faced with a debate where the other person hasn't insulted you yet, stay polite, and you'll sound more like a reasonable person.
Re:Israel has an actual existential threat (Score:1, Insightful)
All of the terror acts that I'm aware of -- either successful (WTC, Pentagon, Somerset) or thwarted (shoe bomber, underwear bomber) -- got past TSA, which "responded" by ignoring their methods and focusing on peaceful American citizens. Sounds like aiding and abetting a war on America to me.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Insightful)
the left, who traditionally value civil liberties more than the right
Depends on your definition of left and right. Libertarians, usually understood to be on "the right", traditionally value civil liberties more than anyone else.
Re:Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Have sexy agents of the opposite sex do the manual tapping method.
People will line up for the privilege. Some of them will even stand up for it.
Guys will. I doubt too many chicks will like this idea.
Re:Easy (Score:1, Insightful)
You haven't met too many chicks have you?
Here's a tip: a shirtless South American in good condition (ie, not roid-abusing or overweight) is a RESET for the female brain.
*Everything* should be done? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly you haven't thought this through, or you'd realize that "everything" includes ending air travel, or doing full medical-grade X-rays of every passenger. No, what should clearly be done is to reduce the risk of injury due to terrorism below that of things people put themselves at risk to every day, like car travel. The rest is a matter of educating people. At that point, by definition, the terror caused by the risk of someone taking down a plane is less than that of traveling in a vehicle, and we have won and the terrorists have lost. That's the way to win without subjecting the very people we want protected (us!) to any unnecessary hardship.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:1, Insightful)
Anarchists, who are on "the left" by most standards ("anarcho"-capitalists aren't anarchists) value civil liberties even more than the small government loving right-"libertarians". Anarchism has also been around longer than right-"libertarianism", and anarchists have a history of defending civil liberties and being arrested, jailed etc. for this. I need only mention Emma Goldman to demonstrate my point. Two quotes from the Wikipedia article on her [wikipedia.org]:
Re:Would a libertarian want to impose regulations (Score:2, Insightful)
People just love to pose unreasonable puzzles for libertarian with the implication that if they don't immediately provide a perfect solution, the government is the default alternative without having to solve the same puzzle itself. The incentive for private business it to serve their paying customers, not to piss them off with unnecessary and humiliating procedures and to balance that with the potential expense of lawsuits in case security fails. The incentive for a government bureaucrat is all on one side: to set more and more stringent security rules because if security fails he may lose his job, if the customers are dissatisfied he doesn't lose anything. In any case, national security is a legitimate duty of the government, I don't know any libertarians who would like to privatize it.
Re:Israel is not the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:2, Insightful)