Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Checkpoint of the Future Coming Soon To Airports

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the put-your-dignity-in-the-bin dept.

Privacy 373

cultiv8 writes with this excerpt from an AP story as carried by Yahoo: "Eye scanners and futuristic security tunnels may be standard in airports soon as the airline industry seeks to maintain safety while reducing the hassles of boarding a plane that deter some people from flying. The International Air Transport Association unveiled a mock-up Tuesday in Singapore of what it dubbed the 'Checkpoint of the Future,' where passengers separated by security risk would walk through one of three high-tech, 20-foot-long (6.1-meters-long) tunnels that can quickly scan shoes and carry-on luggage and check for liquids and explosives. ... In the IATA prototype, passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification. An eye scan would then match the passenger to the passport."

cancel ×

373 comments

Wow (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36363864)

Just...wow...

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363904)

Cattle on a conveyor belt in a slaughterhouse

Re:Wow (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364046)

Willing participants in a travel system that could just drive if they weren't so full of themselves that they thought they had to be somewhere in 90 minutes instead of 10 hours.

Re:Wow (2)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364120)

Don't be so naive. Anything more than a 9 hour drive and you're paying more for gas by driving, plus wasting a half day or more of vacation each way. And a majority of flyers are business, and therefore actually NEED to be there in a couple hours as opposed to the next day. Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?

Re:Wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364276)

Or, if businessmen weren't so full of themselves needing to fly everywhere (probably just for the sake of a junket and the whore's in the evening) video-conferencing would help a helluva-lot.

Re:Wow (5, Interesting)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364282)

Me, although not an 8 hour drive but an 8 hour train ride. I used to travel from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia a lot. The plane trip is ~30 minutes, while the train ride is about 6-7 hours. With all the BS in the terminal, and traffic at the airport, the plane ride turned into a ~4 hour affair. The seats are cramped, there were no outlets, not much of a view, especially sitting in the aisle.

On the train, the seats go almost all the way back, I can get up and walk around, there are outlets at every seat, there's a viewing car I can sit in and watch the countryside go by, a movie car, a dining car, and I can even get a private room with a fold out bed if I want. And hey, if you're a smoker you can light up a cigg at every stop! Sure it costs a little more but my god it's worth it, and this was before the days of full body scanners. Now... my god I'd never fly unless I was absolutely forced to.

Re:Wow (1)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364452)

I'm not sure how you make a half hour flight take 4 hours, in my experience it takes half that. Personally, I fly from one coast to another once per week, totaling 2400 air miles per week. My entire company flies to the same place as me, from wherever they happened to live. A drive would take 3 days, a train would take about 2. When I fly, I have about two and a half days at home every other week. If I were to take the train, I would have zero time and be a day late back to where I work. Flying is the only way I get to see my family. Honestly, though, if I were as close to home as you, I'd still fly because it still would give me several extra hours at home when I was allowed home. I go through the torture because I'm willing to do so for the extra time I get to see my wife. If I were a bachelor, I probably would skip the two and a half days I get just to avoid the plane too.

To say it's caused by vanity, however, seems rather ignorant to me. (Yes, I'm aware it wasn't you)

Re:Wow (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364514)

Perhaps if I had a wife and kids I wanted to see, you're probably right. At this time in my life I'm more concerned about my leg room and free apple juice, however.

Re:Wow (1)

SDF-7 (556604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364668)

Ok... now I'm really curious. What coasts are you referring to, and if they're the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts (not Gulf Coast to Atlantic or something silly) -- just what train did you find that only takes 2 days?

I'm seriously asking - since every one I looked at ended up going through LA then up to Chicago and back down (to Atlanta -- maybe Chicago to NY is somehow faster). If you have a link to a 2 day train which is reasonably priced (say $1k per person tops), I'd love to consider that for our next trip.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364526)

Now, lets say you were going to Seattle or California for business instead of somewhere in the same state. You aren't going to want to waste 5 days (2.5 there, 2.5 back) on the drive when you could be done in 8 hours. Not to mention plane tickets would be 1/3rd the cost of driving and about 1/6th the cost of the train.

Re:Wow (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364314)

Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?

You can get to the airport, go through security,board a 'plane, fly somewhere, disembark then get to your destination in only one hour?

Maybe in a private jet with limo service...

Re:Wow (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364446)

Even more amazing is that the flight must take negative one hours or less because you are supposed to be at the airport two hours before a domestic flight.

Re:Wow (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364606)

That's a severely over hyped idea for many-if-not-most airports. An hour is plenty early for most regional airports during non-peak flight times. Sure if you're flying out of Kennedy or trying to travel on the Weds before Thanksgiving you need to get there two (or more) hours early, but out of Huntsville I never get there more than an hour early unless it's holiday travel. It was the same out of Lafayette, LA. Even going out of Boston-Logan I rarely do more than an hour and a half and could probably get away with an hour (though I get nervous with that one).

Re:Wow (1)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364536)

The flight takes 1 hour in the same way the drive takes 8 hours--that's 8 hours not including time to gas up, pit stops, eating, etc.

Re:Wow (1)

SDF-7 (556604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364612)

Depends on the number of people, really.

Sample annual trip just made (CA to GA): 2438 miles.

Airline cost per-person, cattle-class [not adding in taxes, fees and per-bag costs or whatnot they stick you with now] started at $450 per person round-trip.

The 2005 Impala got between 29 to 30 US mpg on the highway, call it 29 to be generous (to your claim).

Similarly, gas ranged from $3.459 to $4.759 per US gallon, but generously use $5 assuming rising prices. That's $420.35 one way, $840.70 round trip.

Since this was 2 adults and one child (not young enough to fly free -- and even if it was possible, who would take a 4+ hour flight in cattle class with a squirming/upset infant on their lap... assuming they had any confidence in said infant not taking a tumble in turbulence), that $450 starts at $1350.

Car has to tack on hotels (depends on how aggressively you push it -- 2 days is possible with 5 hour sleep breaks or so), airline has to tack on transport to/from airport [either mass transit or rental car or long term parking], etc.

The big wins for me are having the trunk of the Impala available at no additional charge, no hassle with rental cars -- and most importantly, no getting handled as if I'd created a felony. The last point frankly would keep me driving even at a 2x cost factor, but you can't claim that "you're paying more for gas by driving" as that simply isn't true outside of lousy SUVs and driving solo.

And before someone brings it up -- the trains were *more expensive* than the car, and took a week to get there by routing through Chicago. Get Amtrack to get a reasonable continental train going somewhere between airline and car prices but taking 2-3 days tops and I suspect a lot more folks would choose it.

Re:Wow (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364706)

Hotel stops?
You have 2 drivers, one sleeps while the other drives.

Re:Wow (1)

tortovroddle (1969948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364158)

Crossing the Atlantic with a car would be very fun. =)

Re:Wow (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364268)

Yes, it would.. you could put it in the cargo hold and have dinner with the captain

Re:Wow (1)

Derkec (463377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364188)

Or... our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country. So I could spend every weekend driving and only be able to cover 20% of the country, or I can take a 10 minute pass through a security line twice a week. I'll take a ten minute inconveinance and let someone fly me somewhere in 4 hours rather than do a four day drive across the country - which would cost more money anyway.

Now, if you live on the East Coast, you might be able to travel to lots of people in a few hours. You might also be enough of a pretentious ass to think the whole country is on the east coast. For the rest of us, flying can be needed. For some of us, it's a regular thing that lets pay for things like food.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364192)

You sound poor.

Re:Wow (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364690)

Never left the continental US, have you? Admittedly you can take a car by ferry, but transatlantic or transpacific ferries pretty much don't exist. You can book passage on a cruiseliner and put your car in the hold, but a transatlantic crossing usually runs in the $4000 range, not to mention taking 4-5 days depending on the route.. There's bridges too, but bridges tend to have expensive tolls... $50 for the one between PEI and New Brunswick, for example. At that kind of price, and with the cost of gas, it is cheaper for me to simply fly there.

I can understand where you're coming from but do think a little before assuming that everybody who flies is just doing it for puddle jumps. I have flown on short hops twice in my life... once from Ottawa to Toronto, as a leg on a flight to Winnipeg, and once from Montreal to Ottawa, as a leg on the return flight. Admittedly, Montreal is only 2h from Ottawa and it would have been faster and cheaper to drive than to wait for the layover, but the military was paying for it, and they weren't interested in logic at the time. That is, coincidentally, the only trip I have taken by plane where driving would have even been possible, as every other flight I have taken has been intercontinental, or a connection to an island, or to the extreme north where roads don't exist.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364474)

Not even a conveyor belt! It's a death march!

Re:Wow (1)

yomammamia (1916736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364682)

Great way to create a new kind of government approved caste system if you ask me.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364336)

For God's sake, just put armed police on every plane.

Lock the damn cockpit door and arm the pilots too.

It would be a whole lot cheaper, more effective, and less invasive.

I'd go so far as to say arm the passengers too, but that freaks people out.

sooo (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36363878)

They got the idea from total recall then?

Re:sooo (2, Insightful)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364004)

Exactly what I was thinking.

Although anything that doesn't require me to remove my shoes and belt is a good thing. Can't stand travelling to the US for that reason.

Re:sooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364658)

Ditto, but does this mean that we get to see a bunch of green skeletons walking by instead of the nudes? That would be a welcome change as long as it wasn't too many rads.

Re:sooo (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364060)

I'm pretty sure the sniffer on this thing can detect the decay products of steroids.

Re:sooo (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364220)

Is it sensitive enough to also detect cannabis [google.com] ?

Re:sooo (1)

tchernobog (752560) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364342)

Also the beginning of Batman: Arkham Asylum has a tunnel of this sort.

Re:sooo (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364616)

They got the idea from total recall then?

Yeah, that's what I thought. I so want to create the disassembling head-thing that Arnie had. Bonus points for being able to hit the red switch.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363892)

So the terrorist just have to go through the airport and find out whether they are "high", "medium" or "low" risk.

Obviously the "high"s and "medium"s get assigned other tasks.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (2, Insightful)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364082)

You mean all they have to do is blow up the tunnels. This is a fraud stacked on more fraud stacked on bullshit with bullshit sprinkles. Why the hell are we so afraid of our passenger airplanes being blown up? Holy shit, after all the school shootings in America you can still pretty much just walk in to a school, why are airlines so risky? Stupid stupid STUPID!

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364424)

Airline security isn't about protecting passengers, though that's a side-benefit, but rather protecting structures / areas deemed important by the power-elite from attack by aircraft.

Hence, planes / terminals / people on the ground being blown up is of little concern compared to planes themselves being used as weapons, such in New York City back on Sept 11, 2001.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (4, Insightful)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364454)

Because the military industrial complex saw the opportunity to sell expensive, unnecessary shit to an ignorant, fearful populace, and they're damn good at getting the government to give them money to waste. End result: The TSA, who has never once in its entire history prevented someone who tried to sneak a bomb on a plane from doing so. Exactly three people have tried to sneak bombs or bomb-making materials through the TSA's security since 9/11. All three have succeeded.

Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364124)

They already do that. [wordpress.com]

Profiling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363914)

"passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification"

And does that assessment include the color of your skin? Because that's what it really sounds like they're talking about.

Re:Profiling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364092)

not at all.

it does however include your chosen religion.
(you are high risk whenever you do not have the main religion of the country.

Re:Profiling? (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364614)

Actually, I wanna know exactly how they're assessing it. Can I challenge it? Can I find out what my "score" is? Is there anything they're not taking into account?

Re:Profiling? (2)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364670)

And does that assessment include the color of your skin? Because that's what it really sounds like they're talking about.
I know this is an unpopular opinion to have, but if statistics show that people with a certain color of skin have been more likely to blow up a plane in the past, why would you not use that? Just because it is not politically correct? I think it is stupid to ignore a statistic that could save lives just because some people might get offended.
Pattern recognition is a skill that we have developed over millions of years and it has kept us from becoming a footnote in history. Why should we throw that away?
I'm not saying we should anal probe every Saudi that gets on a plane, I'm just saying exercise whatever extra precaution the statistics bear up. And if other statistics are better indicators, obviously we should give them more weight.

the checkpoint of the future (0)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36363918)

is separated accordingly by threat level so im reading, which i anticipate means i'll need to hop in the "brown people" line at some point in the near future and turn myself inside out in the fervent act of proving im patrio-tastic enough to board a jetliner owned by a company my tax dollars have likely bailed out numerous times.

this country sucks.

Re:the checkpoint of the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363988)

>> this country sucks.

You voted for it. If not you, then your neighbors did.

Re:the checkpoint of the future (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364002)

this country sucks.

then go somewhere better.

Re:the checkpoint of the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364058)

this country sucks.

then go somewhere better.

Give me directions, and I'll be on my way.

Re:the checkpoint of the future (1)

calderra (1034658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364122)

Yeah, just name a country that isn't completely racist against some group, and that doesn't fearmonger its citizenry. Should be easy, right?

Re:the checkpoint of the future (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364152)

Up, mostly. I'd aim for Mars or Alpha Centauri, or whatever place has an oxygen atmosphere and liquid water...

keep moving! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364602)

Mars for Martians! We don't want your kind here.

He can't. (2)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364274)

He would move, but he's been deemed 'High Risk' so his government won't let him travel.

Re:the checkpoint of the future (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364066)

"The International Air Transport Association unveiled a mock-up Tuesday in Singapore "

Do you hate the entire world?

Re:the checkpoint of the future (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364266)

Sometimes. More and more lately... Reading TFA? Definitely right now.

Re:the checkpoint of the future (0)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364108)

I think that you misunderstand the "brown people" line.
It will merge with the "poor people" line just before the waiting bus.
The airlines do everything in their power to give us reasons not to fly. Now they can make that a policy.
Then they can cry about their failing business and demand more of our taxes.
They will gladly take brown or poor taxes, just as long as they don't have to see them.

The one up side I can see to this is "rich" and "white" people being treated like cattle. Someone has to fly coach.

Well (5, Interesting)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36363922)

What's the cancer risk then? How much radiation do we need to absorb in the name of safety? Will people be restricted from flying too often to keep them safe from our invasive scans?

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364570)

People will absorb all sort of radiation if you say "it's for your safety!!".

How many people in the US have unnecessary CT scans for "peace of mind" reasons? For example, http://www.pomscan.com/ [pomscan.com]

So, whole body CT scans for peace of mind? - you might as well live in the Fukushima evacuation zone. Yet the same people will freak out 1000s of km away about the latter while scheduling the former.

As for total dosage to skin from the airport scanner? Who knows. But if there is a problem, the first people that will be fucked over will be the TSA agents standing next to the xray machine for hours on end.

Re:Well (2)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364574)

A twenty foot scanner is about ten times longer than the current scanner...I would say that the cancer risk is ten times higher, we will absorb ten times more radiation, and will be able to fly one tenth as often. The terrorists have just won by another order of magnitude.

I stopped flying. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363924)

I'm one of the lucky ones: I don't have a job-related need to take an airplane, so I haven't flown for the last few years.

Seriously: the TSA has proven time and again that they can't be trusted with wiping their own ass, much less handling security, privacy, or customer relations.

I feel bad for the airlines, and I miss going places I can't drive, but I cannot stomach their security theatre, invasiveness, or sexual assaults.

Re:I stopped flying. (3, Insightful)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364172)

I miss flying but I feel no remorse for the airlines.
They have been screwing passengers for years.
I don't fly any more either. I do miss the fast travel but not the multi hour lay overs.

Re:I stopped flying. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364278)

I'm in the exact same situation. I used to enjoy flying, but I have no desire to fly until the TSA goes away.

I have no sympathy for the airlines either. They're apparently too stupid to realize what's best for passengers is best for them. They have the ability to make the TSA go away by lobbying Congress and threatening to discontinue service at airports with a TSA presence, but they won't do it.

Chechpoint of Future SHOULD READ +1, PatRIOTic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363928)

1. Propagandize some topic

2. Sell tools to "users"

3. PROFIT

Total Recall, baby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363938)

Good movie [imdb.com] , back in the pre-Guvernator-days.

Re:Total Recall, baby (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364146)

Back in the poster-boy-for-dianabol days.

Wealth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36363944)

How wealthy do I need to be to be categorized as lowest risk?

$1M USD net worth
$10M USD net worth
$100M USD net worth
$1B USD net worth

Re:Wealth? (2)

jjohn24680 (1050922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364020)

Wealthy enough to own/charter your own plane.

so no more free gropping... (2)

Browzer (17971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364034)

i can see why the nerds might be upset.

Re:so no more free gropping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364272)

There's only one 'p' in groping you knuckle-dragging retard.

i can see why the nerds might be upset.

Not too likely. Taco and the /. crew get all the hot manhand action their pallid rolls of unwashed flesh can handle down at the stalls of the Chat 'n Chew truck stop.

I Totally Recall this moment! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364050)

It's like a scene out of a movie or something!

Re:I Totally Recall this moment! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364412)

That's the problem....the policy makers spend too much time watching movies.

What they really need to do is think like a terrorist. A terrorist can just blow up the queue for the security machine.

Problem 2: That sort of thinker doesn't get to build impressive shiny installations at taxpayer expense then stand in front of cameras at the official opening before going off to dinner with people in suits. At taxpayer expense.

I for one welcome our new tunnel overlords... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364054)

Seriously. Assuming that all the risk assessment is automated and human scanners will only enter the picture if someone is flagged. Machines are far better at being impartial than a human would. Machines wont harass you for being different.

Re:I for one welcome our new tunnel overlords... (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364186)

Except if they're programmed to. Thing is, they also can't be persuaded that you're right.
And if they're bringing out the human Scanners, I fear for my thoughts and everything else...

Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH (3, Interesting)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364080)

New Hampshire was one of the first states to reject "Real-ID", and to hell with the (then-threatened) restrictions on air travel. I was one of the people that campaigned actively for this; one of my friends was a co-sponsor of the bill [nhliberty.org] that did the opt-out, not only from Real-ID, but from "any national identification card system that may follow"

If that sounds good to you, you should check us out: http://freestateproject.org//intro/real-id [freestateproject.org]

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364302)

New Hampshire Airport passenger: Live free or die!
TSA employee: I accept your offer. Termination line is to your left, down the hall.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH (0)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364506)

New Hampshire was one of the first states to reject "Real-ID", and to hell with the (then-threatened) restrictions on air travel. I was one of the people that campaigned actively for this; one of my friends was a co-sponsor of the bill [nhliberty.org] that did the opt-out, not only from Real-ID, but from "any national identification card system that may follow"

If that sounds good to you, you should check us out: http://freestateproject.org//intro/real-id [freestateproject.org]

Yeah, a social security number is way better than an actual state-issued ID. Face it, one way or another you will be uniquely identified via government-issued credentials. They might as well be strong ones... I'd prefer a well-implemented national ID over the weakly-implemented insecure one we have right now any day.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH (2)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364652)

We clearly have different ideas about what makes identification "strong" or desirable. If you want a super-biometric ID card with all your data in a central government-controlled repository, go right ahead... just don't expect me to go along with your plan. I've read enough history to know that one year's open, benevolent, democratic administration is no guarantor that all future governments will be so desirable.

As it turns out, NH State Law allows you to withold your social security number and home address from your driver's license. In addition, while your picture has to be on the ID card, you can require the State not to keep your image in its centralized records.

Re:Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364700)

False dichotomy. When they manage to cram a national ID down our throats, it won't be well-implemented. It'll be a weakly-implemented insecure one that's managed by federal agencies rather than state ones.

Is the risk really that big? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364112)

Is the risk really that big that we need to protect planes so much more than trains, buses, or shopping centers? As long as you secure the cockpit enough that they can't hijack the plane and ram it into a building, there's no reason to worry about somebody blowing up the plane. At least not any more than you worry about them blowing up a bus, or shopping center. Assuming that somebody wanted to cause a lot of damage, and they had acquired either a gun, or an explosive device, why would they bother trying to sneak it on an airplane instead of walking onto a city bus, subway car, or other busy place, and causing mayhem.

Re:Is the risk really that big? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364248)

no, this is all about a company like rapscan trying to profit from selling naked scanners.

Re:Is the risk really that big? (4, Insightful)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364398)

Why on Earth would they try to blow up the plane if they have to go through such tight security? It's a lot easier to target the lines.

Excerpts from the last thoughts of Abdul Hassan Gamal ibn al Azad*: "I wait in line, my backpack concealing three kilograms of C4, surrounded by a layer of scrap metal and nails dipped in anti-coagulant rat poison. I wait for the line to get as long as possible to include the greatest number of people in the blast. I don't care if I die, 40 (or 42?) virgins will be my reward for fighting the Holy War in the name of the one god Allah. I trigger the detonator..."
Maybe less casualties than downing an Airbus, possibly more if the line is long and packed, and no need to risk going through security. The fact that the bomber dies first doesn't seem to be a problem when they're happy to die, and you can afford to use them like money ante poker chips, knowing you can always recruit five more for every one that's caught or killed. The checkpoints merely shifted the most vulnerable point from the air onto the ground, where the terrorists can do even more damage.

* Any semblance to living persons is purely coincidental.

Re:Is the risk really that big? (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364598)

Besides in the business class you get glasses, steel forks and knives plus you can order bottled wines and champagnes.

Re:Is the risk really that big? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364600)

Try more deaths than a typical flight, being indoors does wonders for the effect of a small bomb. If Abdul Hassan Gamal ibn al Azad decides to make sure he is near a support beam/column he might get really lucky and shutdown that airport for days.

Re:Is the risk really that big? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364460)

You're forgetting that the head of the TSA has a huge budget and personal financial interest in the scanner companies...

People who can think about real attack scenarios don't get very far in the TSA of the 21st century. It's all about expensive, shiny machines and fancy dinners with politicians.

Anyone feeling terrorized? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364166)

They should start calling these pricks "annoyancizers."

The most interesting part (3, Interesting)

OverTheGeicoE (1743174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364184)

From TFA:

"Airlines are seeking ways to win back passengers put off by long and irritating airport security measures who have opted to travel instead by train, boat or car. IATA said Monday it expects the industry's profit this year to plummet to $4 billion from $18 billion last year."

It sounds like people have quit flying in droves since TSA implemented scanners and patdowns last year. Are there any other stories that could confirm this conclusion?

real question is who want to profit from this (2)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364228)

wonder how fast this would die if the company that wants to get paid for this had to sell them at cost for no profit and the highest paid employee was not allowed to be any more than 20x the lowest paid employee with no other benefits or stock allowed.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this (1)

pluther (647209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364284)

Or if everyone outlawed all payments from this company to government officials who have the authority to purchase it...

Re:real question is who want to profit from this (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364306)

and the highest paid employee was not allowed to be any more than 20x the lowest paid employee

Woodward Governor [woodward.com] once had the restriction that the the CEO was paid 10x the amount of the lowest paid employee. That ended around the time Reagan took office.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364646)

Great job, you've slashdot'd them. Maybe they should adopt a restriction that would pay IT 10x more than the lowest paid employee.

Re:real question is who want to profit from this (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364366)

pay the lowest paid employee $100,000/month

Terrorism, what terrorism? (1)

snsh (968808) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364250)

Is there a pandemic of terrorism directed at airplanes which I don't know about?

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364320)

There is. There have been several dangerous passengers on board airlines in the past decade, and all of them have been unknowingly waved by security. The passengers on the airline, however, have subdued every one of them.

Note: there has never been an instance of a large bottle of Johnson's Baby Shampoo, or anything resembling it, used to blow up an airplane.

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364704)

I dunno, "no more tears" sounds like a thinly veiled radical agenda to me...

Re:Terrorism, what terrorism? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364486)

No.

Are things that are easy to blow up still allowed? (1)

bolt_the_dhampir (1545719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364332)

Can I still bring a cell phone and a laptop battery, fully charged and with their power controllers removed? Can I still bring a carry-on bag with two 1 meter reinforced steel rods connecting the handle, without anyone wondering if it could be dismantled and the steel rods used as quite effective swords? And will they still take my pencil, so I can't bring one to take notes while I make the laptop battery explode? Will they still not allow my modded PSP because it's see-through and the sight of electronics scares the shit out of them?

UNAS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364368)

passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification

I, for one, enjoy being classified as Unaffiliated Subversive, with limited access to public buildings and no right to travel aboard. Now, who do I have to kill to get of the list? Everybody?

So how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364374)

Before you see jobs advertised along the lines of "Only security risk Tier 3 candidates need apply"

Can we see the information used to classify us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364428)

...Like a credit report?

Always of the future (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364434)

Given that you spend forever in line waiting to get to their security checkpoints, I'd say they're already "of the future"

They're reducing prices? (1)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364458)

...while reducing the hassles of boarding a plane that deter some people from flying.

So they're reducing prices for luggage and fuel? The hiked ticket prices to cover the fuel hike in 2009, as well as tacked on additional fees for luggage, obesity, etc. Prices didn't drop back down much compared to the hike, and then they hike prices again for the 2011 oil scare.

That's pretty much what keeps me from flying.

Only one way! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364494)

There's only one way I plan on supporting ANY new scanning procedures.

Anyone subjected personal abuse as defined by criminal law, or unauthorized access to maintained information, by personnel handling the screening or maintaining the information that results in disruption of my ability to fly as scheduled, is subject to prosecution equivalent to criminal penalty under the law, or financial compensation to me.

Tit for tat people. Short of being put on a watch-list, which is another argument entirely, there's absolutely NO REASON a TSA screener should have legal authority to disrupt my schedule.

Hilarious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364548)

Meanwhile, you can walk right onto your friendly, neighborhood general aviation airfield, fly your Cessna or Twin Otter to your not-too-far-off commercial field, and land behind all this elaborate security with your airline ticket in-hand. Until all our airports are sealed beneath impenetrable domes, the front and back doors will stand in sharp contrast. (Not like this is about security anyhow.)

Embedded in the passport? (1)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36364582)

Wouldn't a scarlet "A" tattooed on the forehead work better?

Oh, wait. That would require a trial. And a conviction. And facing your accuser. And a government that isn't becoming materially worse than the "terrorists" it claims it is protecting you from.

Sometimes I think the army is pointing their guns at the wrong would-be-oppressors.

caste system extension (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36364698)

so the rich and powerful and their minions can fly unheeded by security

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...