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!

Speedier Screening May Be Coming To an Airport Near You

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the scan-me dept.

Security 163

First time accepted submitter Rickarmstrong writes "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is pushing for private contractors to create a screening machine with 'screen and walk' capability for use at the nation's 160 international airports and thousands of federal facilities. The agency recently requested information from high-tech companies and other private firms about any new technology that can help speed up the security checkpoints managed by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Protective Services."

cancel ×

163 comments

Catwalk (0)

mlw4428 (1029576) | about 5 months ago | (#46323771)

Mix it with the nude stuff and it can be a Lady Gaga fashion show!

Re:Catwalk (1, Funny)

lbmouse (473316) | about 5 months ago | (#46324161)

You mean an OB/Gyn exam... same thing.

Re:Catwalk (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 5 months ago | (#46324225)

Why don't they just do something simple.

At the gates, metal detector, and on other side guards with bomb sniffing dogs.

That's really all they need....I'd feel perfectly save doing that, I'd not get irradiated, groped or detained unnecessarily.

But I guess that would be too simple for govt. and wouldn't cost nearly enough for the feds to spend, eh?

Re:Catwalk (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324535)

I think a walk-and-screen system would work well, but only if it outlined peoples' bones in blue and highlighted any contraband items in red.

Re:Catwalk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324797)

That would only work on Mars!

Re:Catwalk (2)

mlw4428 (1029576) | about 5 months ago | (#46324761)

If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage? What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword? I understand the complexities of trying to stop someone determined to hurt as many people as possible. The question isn't "what's the bare bones solution" but rather "what is an adequate solution".

9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching. The key is to find a balance, develop better technologies, and work WITH the populace. Not provide the bare minimal amount of protection that even I can circumvent with 3 different ideas off the top of my head in 30 seconds.

Re:Catwalk (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46325377)

Better idea: Get government thugs out of airports; screening will be much faster, and our rights won't be getting violated.

Not as speedy as my frosty piss! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323777)

Not as speedy as my frosty piss!

More pork? (5, Insightful)

Terwin (412356) | about 5 months ago | (#46323809)

It would be nice to think that they are attempting to address an obvious problem, but with the TSA, I suspect this is going to be just another opportunity to line the pockets of politically connected people...

Question: if the lines got shorter, how would they gather an audience for their security theater?

Re:More pork? (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 5 months ago | (#46323859)

The obvious problem is with the existence of the TSA to begin with, but bureaucracy doesn't work to eliminate itself, only to grow and consume ever greater amounts of resources.

Re:More pork? (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 5 months ago | (#46324019)

The obvious problem is with the existence of the TSA to begin with, but bureaucracy doesn't work to eliminate itself, only to grow and consume ever greater amounts of resources.

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy!" - Oscar Wilde

Re:More pork? (2)

dpilot (134227) | about 5 months ago | (#46323935)

One of them watched the old "Total Recall" with Arnie. Even though the movie was rated R they didn't take advantage of the obvious opportunity with their "walking screening device".

Re:More pork? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324457)

Question: if the lines got shorter, how would they gather an audience for their security theater?

Assume everyone is a terrorist.

Very short lines at the security screening point.

Large gathered audience in the holding rooms for security theater.

Win-Win!

Re:More pork? (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46324659)

I suspect they're more concerned with backlash. I mean, those long lines AREN'T filled with people who are glad TSA is doing their thing. I don't know what would make them think we've suddenly grown spines after all this time and are going to demand the TSA be abolished. We've swallowed the bullshit about it being essential for security for many times longer than I would think would be needed to make it seem like normal and acceptable to most people. But maybe TSA is privy to data on how frustrated people are by their bullshit, and is worried some congressman will start saying it needs to be cut to save on taxes. There are grumblings evidently about shrinking the military, that's something I didn't expect to hear anytime soon.

Re:More pork? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325301)

> gather an audience

That isn't the point of this system that the Bush junta created. It was created to embarrass and demean people. If one of the Republicans that controls the Obama administration can come-up with a way of making the lines faster while still humiliating people, then why wouldn't they do it? They made Obama spend over $88 million on the full body scanners so of course they will force Obama to approve anything that puts more money in the pocket of Republicans and further shames the public.

I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#46323811)

For a small fee you can pay a company to allow you to skip the line of people waiting to be scanned. This allows you to walk up directly to the screening section rather than wait 30 to 45 minutes in line with the masses. Capitalism at its best. /sarcasm

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 months ago | (#46324077)

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?

If your money is worth more than your time, you'll wait, if your time is worth more than your money, you'll pay. That's a fundamental decision every time you say something like "I'll pay someone to change my oil because I don't want to spend 20 minutes and get dirty doing it myself", or "I'll eat out so I don't have to cook". Time/money/value decisions are something you make dozens of every day.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (4, Informative)

jxander (2605655) | about 5 months ago | (#46324163)

I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.

Now if you'll just bend over, I need to insert this probe for national security reasons. Or you could pay me $20 and I'll find someone else.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#46324195)

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency,

That is the whole point. And while I understand the time/money trade off, what I object to is that this market shouldn't exists in the first place.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1, Insightful)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about 5 months ago | (#46324329)

I agree and would further suggest that it's a form of legalized racketeering. In effect, the system created an inefficient process (racket) and then is attempting to charge us for speeding things up. How this isn't racketeering is beyond me.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 5 months ago | (#46325131)

Well, there is a long and boring reason why government agencies doing this isn't racketeering. You see....

*points behind you* TERRORIST!!!! *ducks out of nearby window when you look away*

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#46324267)

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?

Forgot to add that this system doesn't scale. If a larger number of people decide that time is money, then the skipping line will get congested and we'll all be back in the same boat again.

The true solution for congestion is to either speed processing or increase the number of processing lanes. Everything else is just a money grab

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about 5 months ago | (#46324479)

The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.

But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325183)

"But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service."
 
Oh, right, it's not that your proposal is a gaping security hole or anything.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324529)

The true solution for congestion is to ELIMINATE THE SOURCE OF CONGESTION by going back to 9/10 security screening at the airport. Everything else is just a money grab

FIFY.

The Rape-eye-scan cancer booths, 3 oz bottle limit, forced shoe removal (for some [homelandse...wswire.com] ), invasive-but-not-thorough patdowns, and "behavior screening" techniques are security theater ONLY.

Keeping the flight deck doors secured (with felony criminal charges to await any crew that opens them under duress) and having a flight full of passengers ready to beat the carp out of any would-be hijackers [globaltimes.cn] are enough to keep the flight reasonably safe.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324613)

Keeping the flight deck doors secured (with felony criminal charges to await any crew that opens them under duress) and having a flight full of passengers ready to beat the carp out of any would-be hijackers [globaltimes.cn] are enough to keep the flight reasonably safe.

I'm sure the crew members under duress aren't very concerned about potential felony charges upon landing if they open the doors. I'm sure they are trying to balance the odds of dying immediately if they refuse to open the doors and in short order if they do. I'm sure landing and being arrested for criminal charges would be a near-best case outcome.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 5 months ago | (#46325231)

My bigger concern would be pilots being pressured into opening the door from the inside. They aren't in any immediate danger of harm, but might feel obligated to open the doors to "help those poor people on the other side." Yes, what might be happening on the other side of the doors might be horrible, but they should know that they'll be shielded from any liability so long as they immediately report it in and make an emergency landing the first opportunity they can.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 5 months ago | (#46325193)

I'd second this but also add that crew should also be held legally to hold no liability for anyone injured because they refused to open the cabin doors. For example, terrorist tries taking over a plane and says "If you don't open these doors, I shoot this woman!" Crew doesn't open the doors. Woman is shot. Woman's family sues the flight attendants, pilots, airline, etc over not opening the doors. At that point, the judge should be able to say "This was a terrorist situation and the law clearly exempts them from liability. They reported it in and landed ASAP. They have no liability for damage the terrorist did."

(Not sure if this is the case legally or not, but given our sue-happy society, it should be.)

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325223)

"enough to keep the flight reasonably safe"
 
From hijackings, sure. I fail to see how those measures prevent a bombing though.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324581)

true. it will all become just another tax.

maybe they'll end up charging you based on how long you want to wait in line. once people are sorted into 15 mins / 30 mins / 1 hr lines, they'll dynamically reallocate resources to make sure all lines move as planned.

Oh yeah, they can/will also charge depending by destination. If you're flying SF->LA and miss you're flight, you're out $100, but if you're flying SF->Sydney and miss your flight, that's $1000 at least. I imagine you would be willing to pay a lot more to make sure you caught your flight!

Nice little flight you got here... it would be a shame if anything... happened to it.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 5 months ago | (#46324383)

Time/money/value decisions are something you make dozens of every day.

Exactly. As noted in the movie Volunteers [wikipedia.org]

  • Chung Mee: Speed is important in business. Time is money.
  • Lawrence Bourne III: You said opium was money.
  • Chung Mee: Money is money.
  • Lawrence Bourne III: Well then, what is time again?

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46324409)

Perverse incentive. If people can pay money to skip the lines, then longer lines are good for profit.

Much like ISPs: If your $40/month package is good enough for everyday use, a bit of gaming, netflix and the occasional torrent, who is going to pay for the $100/month package? The obvious solution is to make sure the $40/month package is sufficiently rubbish that anyone who can afford to pay more will do so.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about 5 months ago | (#46325199)

In Canada this isn't true (used to be until TPIA providers became a real threat to the big providers. Now it is structured to be more around upload usage, and bandwidth. http://www.start.ca/services/highspeed Very decent pricing structure. THe $40 pacakage really does work for 99% of people. But there are people who want the faster speeds/more bandwidth.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 months ago | (#46324485)

This isn't really anything anyone hasn't already said, but....

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?

Nice airline ticket there. It'd be a shame if you missed it.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325343)

Would it have flagged any of the 9/11 hijackers? No. So its basically saying a terrorist can skip the fake security too with a little money. Believe it or not, a terrorist organization with a goal has more money than you or I.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (2)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 5 months ago | (#46324133)

What company is that? I signed up for Global Entry (I travel internationally a dozen or more times a year), and got a free TSAPre account as well - meaning I can use the short lines. But only because I went through a full Government background check.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#46324237)

What company is that?

It is CLEAR. It effectively allows you to skip the part where the TSA agent looks at your id and and ticket and agrees that you are who you are.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324643)

Once my line was super backed up so they shunted me through the CLEAR line. I went to take off my belt and shoes but they shrugged and just motioned me through. Nice security you got there. ATL for those who keep track.

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 5 months ago | (#46324933)

I don't know if people receive background checks when they belong to "elite" airline miles programs. But many first class and other people in those programs for sure can go through the fast line.

newspeak removed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323819)

A friend of those in government wants some money and the government is calling out for a product which comes mysteriously close to some useless device which said friend is about to sell.

That will actually improve security. (5, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46323833)

This is the first tech I've heard of that actually leads me to believe it might cover a real security hole. In this case, the grab a couple semi-automatics and gun down the crowds waiting to get through security hole.

Re:That will actually improve security. (4, Informative)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#46324505)

The question I have is, why hasn't this happened?

If you accept the argument that terrorists principal goal is to create, well, terror, then you would expect terror attacks with the only real goal of creating chaos and news.

Given the chaos and headlines created at the mall in Kenya or the hotel in India, you would expect something like that to happen in the US. It's not hard to get ahold of guns, there are presumably a fair number of motivated attackers, and there are plenty of targets available.

As an example, coordinated attacks on 3-4 shopping malls simultaneously would be in the news forever and probably have a non-trivial economic impact from people avoiding malls alone, let alone the expected costs of all the security you'd expect to be demanded/added.

Either security is that good or the actual threat just isn't there. I find the former hard to believe.

Re:That will actually improve security. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46324903)

TSA's screening gates are far from the only things done to increase security. If you sell the public on the idea that terrorists are out to kill them and that massive spending to your friends is the only way to keep them safe, then you'd better actually do some things to discourage terrorist attacks.

I'd guess that the biggest change was that we hunted the terrorists. I don't want to know how many billions we spend per al-qaeda member killed, but even with such a poor exchange rate, we've spent an insane amount of money, we're going to get a good number fewer terrorists.

That's maybe a bit too optimistic, the more pessimistic reason would be that with all the soldiers we've put overseas, there are more targets for them a lot closer to home, and that keeps them busy. Keep in mind that the vast majority of islamic terrorism is directed at other muslims, they're not all hell-bent on attacking us over here.

Either way, the cost is way bigger than we should have paid, but it has been paid for the moment.

Re:That will actually improve security. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325339)

I think it's much harder for them to get in the country than it used to be. Since 9/11 I think all of the attempted attacks have originated in other countries.
 
Also I am pretty sure they don't see mass shootings as a very useful tactic since we have domestic mass shootings not all that infrequently.

Screening genitals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323861)

Cause you might have a gun inside your uretra!

I know how to make it go faster... (1)

fallen1 (230220) | about 5 months ago | (#46323883)

...simply remove all of the screening apparatus in the airports. It is vastly just "security theatre" and does nothing but costs taxpayers time, money, and aggravation. To say nothing of the of the decline in tourism and business dollars due to the obtrusiveness.

Oh, yeah, and the total violation of basic human rights and decency with that large, gaping wound it leaves in the 4th Amendment (among others).

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46323961)

How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless. Along the way we found out that you needed locking, reinforced cockpit doors in the bargain, and now we have those. Why not just go back to x-raying luggage, and maybe run the humans past the explosives sniffer? Non-invasive screening of humans seems fairly reasonable. I wouldn't want to let people on my multi-million-dollar aircraft without it, if I had one :p

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 5 months ago | (#46324041)

Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?

Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.

Because then there would be no need for all those expensive and ineffective machines, and how would the politicians get their kickbacks?

Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.

And because then people might get the idea that they have the right not to be run roughshod by government goons just for the privilege of traveling to another state or country.

I mean, how can the advantages of cost-effectiveness, convenience and liberty compete with all that?

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (4, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 5 months ago | (#46324179)

Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?

Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.

The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46324425)

It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.

Bro, do you even government? Nothing is ever that simple. There are always at least two goals. In this case, there's the jobs program, and there's also the erosion of those inconvenient civil liberties.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324511)

Ran out of mod points earlier in this discussion, otherwise a +1 insightful. Sorry :(

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324549)

Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.

They could pass out free 5mg of Valium to any passenger that got too worked up about flying without the Big Brother Security-theater Blanket. After a few trips, they'd either be a junky or over their fear.

Either way, win.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (4, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 5 months ago | (#46324095)

How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless.

Yeah, but then how would they be able to justify forcing people to throw away their bottles of water, shampoo, etc.? "That might be a bomb, throw it in that trash can over there!"

I went to SF for a conference, and bought a snow globe for my in-laws, as is my habit when I travel. They wouldn't let me take it because it could contain "bomb making materials", which is ludicrous. They told me I could either surrender the package, or go to the post office to mail it. If I went to the post office, I'd miss my flight and it was a $4 snow globe, so I told them I'd surrender it. I was highly frustrated and busy putting my stuff together that they had pulled apart, so I was too distracted to notice that they kept not just the snow globe, but the bag that had all of the other souvenirs I had bought, including t-shirts and Ghirardelli chocolates I got for the rest of my family. The TSA is a pack of thieving, security-theater perverts. [politico.com]

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324397)

I think I have a better example. Traveled to San Francisco from St. Louis, in my carry-on bag were two identical corkscrews, both of them having very tiny blades used to cut (maybe) the coverings off the top of wine bottles. I had forgotten they were there from a recent overnight car visit to wineries in the Missouri area. In California for a week. Did not take them out or knowingly move them. Traveling back to St. Louis, they found one of them, went bat-crap crazy. Gave me the option of throwing the one away or putting it in my checked bags. At $2, I choose to throw it away. They ran my bag through the machines two more times and never did discover the other one, I only did, when I got back home and was unpacking my bags.

Now that makes me feel safe. True Kabuki Safety Theater.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#46324945)

Sorry, but by now you should have known to pack stuff like that in your checked luggage.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323969)

See yeah, I *might* actually be ok with their measures if they allowed people to opt out and leave the airport. It's like a bouncer at a club asking to frisk you before you can go in, it's your choice to allow it or just walk away. Unfortunately, the batshit insane people running the USA won't allow someone to simply leave once they decline to be searched. Instead, you'll be detained, arrested, sued and thrown into Gitmo.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#46324045)

I am ok with that.... as long as they do it exactly like bars do....

That is, screen first, then sell the tickets on the other side of the checkpoint; that way they only sell tickets to people who have already been screened for extra safety.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324313)

Agreed. Then maybe the airlines will start feeling the hurt when they don't make their ticket sales.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 months ago | (#46324557)

Tickets are non refundable. Beyond lost sales in the future and bad word of mouth they have nothing to lose from you walking out without boarding.

The TSA of course knows this.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

pete6677 (681676) | about 5 months ago | (#46325055)

If there is one industry that does not care one bit what the public think of them, its airlines.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325405)

Most people choose to buy non-refundable tickets.

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324601)

That is, screen first, then sell the tickets on the other side of the checkpoint;....

So, no more purchasing online or > 21 days in advance to get the best price? The lines for purchasing tickets would be pretty "short," I imagine. As in worse than ever.

Well, I guess that takes the guesswork out of wondering if I'll get a seat on the plane that leaves at the time I want. Or any kind of multiple-stop trip planning; those are overrated anyway (because who wants to go to some podunk town that has a regional/muni airport only?)

Re:I know how to make it go faster... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#46324951)

However this security measure would be exactly as effective as all their others, and is every bit as needed. So I think it makes a lot of sense, at least as much sense as having a TSA in the first place.

How about 'None'. That would be good. (5, Insightful)

RealGene (1025017) | about 5 months ago | (#46323899)

Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.

Re:How about 'None'. That would be good. (2, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 5 months ago | (#46324075)

Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.

How do cockpit doors achieve behavioral compliance conditioning?

one.... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46324141)

There are actually other things they should do but that costs more money and it's easier to put security theater into play than actually dealing with the problem. You could get more effective use of just good metal detectors and a few trained dogs with handlers than all this BS that they've put us through, especially since underwear boy set himself on fire. The whole liquids thing was because of a "credible threat" that never panned out. Taking your shoes off was the whole Reid affair. [wikipedia.org] Honestly I think a few pissed off business travelers who haven't got their upgrades are more dangerous to terrorists now than anything the TSA can come up with.

   

Re:one.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324721)

You could get more effective use of just good metal detectors and a few trained dogs with handlers than all this BS that they've put us through....

I wish. Dogs are mostly [theguardian.com] useless [smh.com.au] , for that kind of work.

If the boogiemen are going to "blow stuff up," wouldn't they do it in crowded spots like sporting events, malls, public transportation, festivals, etc., instead of airplanes? You know, "attack where your enemy doesn't suspect"?

Maybe the best thing to do about explosives is not worry about them, because they are frighteningly rare.

Re:How about 'None'. That would be good. (1)

houghi (78078) | about 5 months ago | (#46324301)

That would be good for airplane security. Howver useless for screening and random searches. No, I do not have a alu foil hat. This has NOTHING to do with security in any way. Not even security theater.
Note the [...]pushing for private contractors[...] part? Just giving the private sector some business and securing their pension when they get a new job at said companies after they leave the curent function.

Re:How about 'None'. That would be good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324587)

Where's the profit in that? Locks are relatively cheap. X-ray scanners are not - and are extremely profitable.

Speedier screenings? Let me guess... (0)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 5 months ago | (#46323907)

They will start giving the TSA goons a couple hits of meth before going on-shift?

Total Recall? (3, Insightful)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 5 months ago | (#46323911)

Are they asking for proposals for the scanner from Total Recall?

Re:Total Recall? (0)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 5 months ago | (#46323949)

This. Mod parent up (insightful).

Re:Total Recall? (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46324097)

No, mod grandparent down (points-out-that-proposed-thing-could-be-vaguely-reminiscent-of-a-thing-in-a-popular-movie-but-doesn't-really-add-much-to-the-discussion)

Re: Total Recall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324491)

Not this. Mod parent down (Hater).

Re:Total Recall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324007)

Came specifically to make sure this comment was already added. Did not disappoint.

Re:Total Recall? (3, Funny)

Warbothong (905464) | about 5 months ago | (#46324347)

Are they asking for proposals for the scanner from Total Recall?

No, they're asking for proposals for the scanner from Airplane ;)

Re:Total Recall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46325051)

Why not?

St. Ronnie Ray-gun got his inspiration for the SDI [wikipedia.org] boondoggle from "Star Wars".

This way we can spend billions on useless technology. If our poors didn't want to go hungry and homeless, they could bootstrap themselves into Total Recall companies and become RICH!!!!

Stupid poors.

No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323913)

A faster screening method that still violates your rights, dignity and privacy. No thanks, I'll stick with the old method and force those TSA peons to feel up my penis and scrotum.

I could imagine someone working for the TSA and conversation they might have:

Hot chick: So, what do you do for work?
TSA guy: Oh, I work a minimum wage job feeling up other men's dicks.

Ala first Total Recall... (1)

Taelron (1046946) | about 5 months ago | (#46323917)

So they are finally thinking about creating a system like in the first Total Recall movie? Granted their are technological challenges, but why didn't they push for something like this before?

Re:Ala first Total Recall... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46324143)

but why didn't they push for something like this before?

Because there wasn't deemed to be a need for it (especially if you go back about 13 years), and/or it wasn't worth the effort. Both are arguably still the case.

how does this speed it up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323939)

According to the article:

The Department of Homeland Security asked for technology that can screen a minimum of 250 people per hour, which is slightly faster than the current pace of about 200 per hour for the full-body scanners. The new technology would not replace but would add to the screening technology now used at airports.

OK, so to use the car equivalent:

This construction area with a speed limit of 40MPH is slowing down the expressway too much. So, lets add an additional construction area after it with a speed limit of 50MPH. Yeah, that will make it faster.

Re:how does this speed it up? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 months ago | (#46324577)

Depends, is the new scanning done in series or parallel to the old scanning?

Re:how does this speed it up? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324765)

also it won't matter because they'll just reduce the number of lanes, or mess it up some other way. like when they installed the nudie scanners / phone booths, but replaced two metal detectors with each phone booth. it cut the throughput in half, to the point where the luggage machine is no longer the bottleneck. Just more $$$ down the pipe.

Please tell me!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323959)

How much is it going to cost to maintain the illusion of security?! Please tell me what to pay, I am a sheep that needs direction and I ****NEED*** my illusion of security.

TSA Speed (2)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 months ago | (#46324011)

I was once at an airport, I think it was LAS... people were all piled up in a clusterfuck right after of the entrance to TSA where they check IDs, even though there was about a mile of Disneyland spiral queue that was not being used. A helpful TSA agent started to open up the spiral queue, and was actually rebuked by a superior because "that's not the way they do things", and everyone that went in the queue had to rejoin the mosh pit of people.

And then they closed two of the four open screening lanes because "it wasn't busy enough to justify having that many open". We had to literally jog across the airport to catch our flight after being stuck in that mess for 50+ minutes.

I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.

Re:TSA Speed (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324781)

>I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.

niether, because the technology will be chosen and operated by people with heads up their asses

Walkthrough screening device... (2)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#46324069)

How about all those metal detectors they already have.

1. Shut down the body scanners
2. Drop all the silly ID checking
3. Everyone goes through a metal detector
4. Luggage goes through an x-ray machine, looking only for weapons or explosives.

No weapons or explosives? On you go.

Re:Walkthrough screening device... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324205)

Then how is TSA going to scare the jujubes out of you? That, after all, is their primary goal.

Re:Walkthrough screening device... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324379)

They had that already. The problem was that the metal detectors were too slow because every time it beeped somebody had to figure out why, then try again. The whole point of the body scanners was to make the screening faster.

Now with the body scanners it is the X-ray machines that are the bottleneck. They typically run with multiple X-ray machines per body scanner because the scanners are so much more efficient.

dom

Re:Walkthrough screening device... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46324811)

They had that already. The problem was that the metal detectors were too slow because every time it beeped somebody had to figure out why, then try again. The whole point of the body scanners was to make the screening faster.

Now with the body scanners it is the X-ray machines that are the bottleneck. They typically run with multiple X-ray machines per body scanner because the scanners are so much more efficient.

dom

who are you? where do you live? surely not in USA. In USA they replaced two metal detectors with one phone booth screener, so even if the phone booth is faster on a per-machine basis they cut the throughput in half. Now I have to wait to put my luggage into the machine until I'm ready for the phone booth, because if I let it go in right away then it will sit on th eother side unattended so people will steal it.

POT (Personal Open Terminal) works on cb? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324115)

how much is an am radio subscription? fm? are we allowed to use the sw citizens' band still? the picture is not good but the price is right. i have a reservation...

Can they keep the cost below $1 trillion? (1)

wealthychef (584778) | about 5 months ago | (#46324175)

My prediction, 1rst bid: $48 billion for a prototype, expect that to triple in the first year.

Total Recall For Real! (1)

LaughingVulcan (3511853) | about 5 months ago | (#46324217)

The Schwarzenneger original film I mean. Remember the nice walkway with the fluoroscopy-like corridor! We need this immediately, not just in all airports, but also subway stations, bus stations, and any place the right of freedom of travel may be present!

What stock can I buy to invest in this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324239)

I want to get rich.

They already have such a machine (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 5 months ago | (#46324503)

It's called a metal detector.

This is going to be so awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324531)

Silhouette skeleton beatdowns!! I'll get you G-man!

Why TSA sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46324571)

Although this article is on Cracked, it lays out in the clearest language and reasoning why the TSA itself is completely ass-backwards in its approach and completely ineffective in security.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-tsa-sucks-a-security-experts-perspective/

Will it still amount to technological strip search (1)

rootrot (103518) | about 5 months ago | (#46324649)

I have no issue with security checks...nor to pat downs (of which I have had a few hundred, as I've opted out for years now). I have a *huge* issue with the expectation (tragically routinely met on a day-to-day basis) that people blithely consent to what amounts to a strip search without probable cause in order to board a plane. IAAA, and the 4th Amendment *should* mean something to people. Fear and dogma drove the adaptation of a technology that offers absolutely *no* substantive safeguard, costs a stunning amount of money, and effectively undermines *real* security practices due to the over-reliance on the 'efficacy' of Security Theatre. It would be nice if some form of rationality and thought could enter the discussion. I'm not holding my breath.

Create new em screening machines? (2)

whitroth (9367) | about 5 months ago | (#46325001)

Right, like the ones that everyone hated, caused cancers in some TSA personnel (unadmitted by the TSA), and were pretty useless, since over and over, people demonstrated that they could smuggle weapons past them? And that are now retired, after tens of millions of tax dollars wasted on them?

Or like the new submillimeter machines, which have close to the same problems, that it's been demonstrated that you can smuggle weapons past them?

Here's a better way to spend money: fire all the managers and execs, and bring in some professional security managers. Ones that will, for example, come down like a ton of bricks on the screeners who do extra screening on good looking women, or pull vibrators or other sex toys out for their "amusement" value?

Go look at the archives from , by a guy who just quit the TSA after some years, and all what really happens back there.

Oh, and the boxcutters that the 9/11 hijackers were supposed to have had were *ILLEGAL* and should have been found before all this crap.

Keep the TSA on the job, guys, the terrorists have won, completely. America, the home of the cowards and the unfree.

                      mark

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...