Beta
×

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!

Japanese Airline Rolls Out Wireless Chip Check-In

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the no-lines-no-fuss-wave-of-the-future dept.

Wireless Networking 86

ThinkPad760 writes "Early in September All Nippon Airways (ANA) of Japan will complete their rollout of a ticketless check-in and boarding pass service called SKiP! You book the ticket online thru either a computer or your mobile phone. Prior to arriving at the airport, you 'place' the ticket onto your IC-chipped ANA Mileage card, or have the booking dowloaded into your IC-enabled phone. When you get to the airport you just wave your mobile or IC card at the reader. It confirms your booking, the light turns green, and off you go to the gate. At the gate it's the same thing. I've been using this service out of Haneda to Osaka for the past year. It is fantastic. Since I never have to check bags, I turn up to the airport just short while before my flight, walk straight through security and onto the plane."

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA PRESS RELEASE - DO NOT MOD DOWN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431165)

Hmm, I wonder what the security of something like this will be. These could easily be hacked, but may speed up airline loading. Does anyone know if this will be done in the U.S. to stop terrorists?

Re:GNAA PRESS RELEASE - DO NOT MOD DOWN (1)

lumber_13 (937323) | about 7 years ago | (#20431231)

Well, if does uses moderate level cryptography then its pretty difficult to break/hack in short time, something like 2048 bit DES or something

Apartheid Works (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431263)

Hmm, I wonder what the security of something like this will be. These could easily be hacked, but may speed up airline loading. Does anyone know if this will be done in the U.S. to stop terrorists?


Bring back apartheid. Seperate out the whites and Asians from the blacks, Arabs, and other lesser races.

"It just works."

Re:Apartheid Works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431281)

Pakis are Asians too you know. Show a little sensitivity.

Re:Apartheid Works (0)

TrebleMaker (628707) | about 7 years ago | (#20431307)

If you bring back Apartheid then the terrorists have won.

Re:Apartheid Works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431351)

If you bring back Apartheid then the terrorists have won.


Some would say they had shot themselves in the foot.

Not new (4, Interesting)

sam_paris (919837) | about 7 years ago | (#20431167)

Ticketless check isn't new i've done this with British Airways for every flight i've taken this year.

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431393)

I will give you 25000 american dollars for that fone.

Osama

Re:Not new (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 7 years ago | (#20433479)

Yes, 25000 dollars is certainly more than enough to compensate for being arrested for aiding terrorism!

Re:Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431813)

I was developing something similar many years ago based on rfid technology. This system was removed from use because every person must be identified by a human being at the gate nowadays.

http://www.teknia.fi/news/main.asp?sid=3&sivu=11&o =11&kpl=8 [teknia.fi]

Re:Not new (3, Informative)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20432489)

BTW, ANA's SKiP! service is started last year Sept 1 2006, not today.

Same in the U.S. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 7 years ago | (#20434699)

I fly out of San Francisco Airport frequently, which is a hub for United Airlines. United lets me buy a ticket online, then actually "check in" for the flight on their Web site before I leave home, a process that allows me to print out my own boarding pass. I bring that printout with me to the airport and proceed directly to the security queues. The TSA agent who looks at my ID is the first human I ever speak to. Also, if for some reason my printer is out of toner, I need only run any card in my wallet through a terminal at the airport (it needn't be the credit card I bought the ticket with, as it's only checking for my name) and receive a boarding pass there. The only time in recent memory that I've had to wait at a check-in counter was when Travelocity screwed up a friend's reservation and his ticket was canceled. Like other posters have mentioned, it's the security lines that are the main bottleneck.

Re:Not new (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | about 7 years ago | (#20438483)

(Slightly offtopic)

Keh, Indian airports could do with some of these...among other things.

I have Indian heritage, but live in Australia. First time I really got to see India when I wasn't a newborn was a couple of years ago when we went for holiday. We came into Chennai/Madras airport (which is considered a 'big' airport).

The big bottleneck there was the fact everyone from the flight I was on, and another flight, were lining up behind like...two counters for customs (I think). Took hours just to get out of the airport...and it wasn't like there were many security checks either.

Think with India's huge population, and increasing tourist popularity, they should look at these kinda things. It's not like they're a particularly poor country...

~Jarik

"thru"? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431195)

Are those three extra letters really that hard to type?

Also, editors: EDIT, GODDAMMIT.

Just show up and get on the plane, hunh ? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431203)

So like, they spent a billion dollars and used capabilities of chip industry and cell phone networks that are the product of generations of engineering effort, and got us back to a 1950s level of civilization, but only for those who are both rich and obsequious ?

Nice.

That's nice, but (1)

Pearson (953531) | about 7 years ago | (#20431217)

TFA doesn't mention security much, but I'll assume (dangerous, I know) that you still have to present a photo ID and get strip searched to get to the gate. If so, then this is hardly an advance on the printable tickets already is use for some time.

What I'm waiting for is a speedier security pass, like the Registered Traveler Program [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's nice, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431243)

Not all the airports in the world have the same measures than the United States. Maybe in Japan you don't have to take off the shoes, drop the bottles of wine or any of the other measures.

Re:That's nice, but (2, Informative)

cptdondo (59460) | about 7 years ago | (#20431275)

I've flown in Japan. The security is far less intrusive, far more professional, and far more efficient than in the US. And typically friendlier and better looking too...

Re:That's nice, but (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | about 7 years ago | (#20431415)

I bet smarter too, here only the idiots take such kind of jobs.

Re:That's nice, but (1, Insightful)

markov_chain (202465) | about 7 years ago | (#20431497)

Then again, Japan does not have military bases in a bunch of Middle Eastern countries, or give billions in aid to a certain Mediterranean country...

Re:That's nice, but (1)

hajus (990255) | about 7 years ago | (#20431899)

They do have their own hostile countries though; one of them has sent missiles overhead.

Difference is mostly psychological. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 7 years ago | (#20444393)

Then again, Japan does not have military bases in a bunch of Middle Eastern countries, or give billions in aid to a certain Mediterranean country...
I think it's less that, than they have a public that's less reactionary than in the U.S. It's not as if Japan is exactly a stranger to terrorism -- both of the international and home-grown variety. They just didn't go absolutely batshit insane as a result of it.

Re:That's nice, but (1)

CaptDeuce (84529) | about 7 years ago | (#20431803)

The security is far less intrusive, far more professional, and far more efficient than in the US. And typically friendlier and better looking too...

...but not any easier to get to go with you on a date, unfortunately. [sigh]

Re:That's nice, but (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 7 years ago | (#20432329)

I live in Japan, and while I agree that their security is far less intrusive, it's mainly because they're not being as thorough. Granted, one could argue that they're being *reasonable*, but with the Japanese, it's more likely due to their lingering naivety in the face of an increasingly nasty world, and the fact that they really hate to inconvenience people.

won't work in the U.S (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431225)

too many terrists

Re:won't work in the U.S - true (0, Flamebait)

JRGhaddar (448765) | about 7 years ago | (#20431731)

I'm an Arab American...pardon the oblig joke but.... this shit will never fly.... I love the idea of using my phone but I can already see it now....

Me:
Attendant: "sir please step over here"
Me: What's the matter?
Attendant:"Where did you get that phone?"
Me: Umm the wireless store?
Attendant:"Well a cell phone is an advanced western piece of technology..and we know that arabs are not advanced but blood thirsty terrorists who want to destroy our freedom. So you must have stolen it in an attempt to get on this plane and kill americans"
Me: "But I am an american who just so happens to be arab...can I just get on the plane and go see my family"
Attendant: "Absolutely! We have a flight already scheduled for gitmo these guards will escort you!...have a nice day!"

Re:won't work in the U.S - true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20432069)

Why are you still living in Nazi America? It's time for us civilized people to let them go back to the stone age (beginning with not accepting their overloaned dollar anywhere) all by themselves, while we continue on with building a better society.

I'm not even joking.

Re:won't work in the U.S - true (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | about 7 years ago | (#20432221)

You do know how hard it is to change citizenship, right?

Re:won't work in the U.S (1)

F4_W_weasel (989270) | about 7 years ago | (#20432355)

"too many terrists"

too many terrorists - here, fixed it for you, alien.

Re:won't work in the U.S (1)

commander_gallium (906728) | about 7 years ago | (#20433091)

Woosh...

Hint: Imagine Bush saying "terrorist".

Re:won't work in the U.S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20433473)

HEy, bunr in hell infidell, thou shalt not mention B-SH name in vain, or else...

walk straight through security? (4, Insightful)

dfm3 (830843) | about 7 years ago | (#20431237)

I don't know how it is in many other parts of the world, but on domestic flights in the US, usually the biggest bottleneck is not at the ticket counter (unless you're checking a bag) or at the gate, but at security. If you already carry on all of your luggage and print your boarding pass at home, would this technology really speed things up that much?

Re:walk straight through security? (1)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20432631)

Maybe this tech will not resolve the bottle neck but will definitely reduce irritating steps before you take your flight.
for example you can do this: you let your secretary book your flight online while you head to airport, driving. when you arrived at airport, you just go straight to security gate.

Re:walk straight through security? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 7 years ago | (#20432977)

I was going to comment on this, as well. In Europe, the security check is time-consuming and generates long queues, especially in HELLthrow.

That said, not having to wait at the checkin counter (or electronic check-in machine (and then do the button-ticket-CC tango)) and at the gate is great! I hate waiting in queues, so anything that can reduce them is welcome.

Re:walk straight through security? (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 7 years ago | (#20432987)

Sucks to live in the US if you fly on planes regularly, apparently. Maybe they could eliminate the theatrics...

Re:walk straight through security? (1)

rockout (1039072) | about 7 years ago | (#20433249)

I don't know about "usually" - I usually thank the gods that I don't check a bag, because the ticket counters at my friendly local airport (one of the top 5 busiest in the country) have literally hundreds of people in line when I arrive for a peak-hours flight, and security is usually 10 minutes or less waiting in line; they seem to have enough people at the x-ray machines to handle the large numbers of people.

That being said, you're right in your second sentence. I'm not sure that this chip would speed my travel any, since I print a boarding pass online at home anyway.

Re:walk straight through security? (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | about 7 years ago | (#20438499)

Yeah, I noticed this when I was in holiday in the US. We were at LAX heading back to Melbourne and god, did security take inefficiently long.

I remember before we checked in our bags, we needed to get them cleared by security.

They dumped all our bags on a big trolley with hundreds of other bags and took it behind a screened area (with other such trolleys). Then they had like two guys checking it all. Took 3 hours until we got our bag back...we had to sit around waiting because they didn't automatically check it in - we had to check it in after they had cleared it. -_-"

~Jarik

New tech, old idea (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431259)

They've had print-the-barcode-and-scan-it check-in here (Australia) for years now. You print your barcode when you book your flight and scan it at a machine at the airport, which then confirms and even lets you do things like change seats if there are others available. Then you just walk on through (or check bags and walk on through... and I can't see how you could get around that, bags being physical objects and all).

OK, so no fancy ic+mobile+rf thingy, but it seems to me that scanning a barcode might actually be easier than the system described.

Re:New tech, old idea (2, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | about 7 years ago | (#20431317)

They've had print-the-barcode-and-scan-it check-in here (Australia) for years now. You print your barcode when you book your flight and scan it at a machine at the airport, which then confirms and even lets you do things like change seats if there are others available. Then you just walk on through (or check bags and walk on through... and I can't see how you could get around that, bags being physical objects and all).

The only other downside is if you're 6'2 and want to sit in an exit row, you can't allocate yourself one, as someone has to ask you the obligatory "in the unlikely event of an emergency, blahblahblah" and make sure you look physically capable of opening the emergency exit. One trick I've learnt, however, is that the service desk *inside* the terminal, past the security gates, is also able to reallocate seats. So now if I'm travelling without baggage, I just wander straight through the security gates and get bumped to an exit row there.

Unfortunately, a lot more people seem to know about the extra leg room in exit rows these days, so it's gotten to the point now that arriving any less than an hour before departure means there's none left :(.

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

samh004 (979276) | about 7 years ago | (#20431857)

I always get my seats booked in an exit row if possible at the time of booking. It's easier that way, although you have to use a travel agent. Luckily tall people who haven't bothered to check where they're sitting have less and less asked to sit in my seat when already on the plane too... it's a sad life, but mostly when that happens the cabin crew could bump them or me to business for convenience, but they don't, so your not getting my exit row seat that I've been looking forward to for the past 2 months. As for the check-in system, meh! Been checking in 48 hours before my flights in Hong Kong for years and being able to change seats 48 hours before if I so wish, then arriving at the airport and just presenting my ticket and saying good bye to my bags. Not a particularly hard process, and I would think certainly less prone to failure than using your cellphone.

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

Phroggy (441) | about 7 years ago | (#20432193)

You can have your exit row seats. It depends on the plane, but they often don't recline. Not that regular seats recline a whole lot anyway, but it's something.

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | about 7 years ago | (#20432229)

For future reference, United Airlines 747 jets do have exit row seats that recline.

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 6 years ago | (#20460997)

For future reference, United Airlines 747 jets do have exit row seats that recline.

Ditto for Southwest's 737s. A better question might be "which aircraft have exit-row seats that don't recline?" I've not come across one; the last time I was stuck in a seat that didn't recline was on a A3something (319? 320?), and it was all the way in the back of the plane against a bulkhead. (Getting stuck in such a seat for a cross-country redeye was a Bad Idea.)

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

kobatan (1103577) | about 7 years ago | (#20432449)

In my experience, it's the row in front of the exit row that doesn't recline.

Re:New tech, old idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20434927)

Screw reclining. I'm 6'6, and like to be able to use my legs after a long flight...

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

supertsaar (540181) | about 7 years ago | (#20432459)

Vueling (spanish low cost airline) sells the emergency seats for extra euro's.
Usually it's the seats one row in front of the Emergency Exits that don't recline, I think.
I'm not tall, and I can do without the legroom, my priority is to sit in the front of the airplane.
I want to get off as quickly as possible & catch my connecting bus....

And the trolley with sandwiches & drinks arrives earlier too :)

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

woobieman29 (593880) | about 7 years ago | (#20435063)

Unfortunately, a lot more people seem to know about the extra leg room in exit rows these days, so it's gotten to the point now that arriving any less than an hour before departure means there's none left :(.

I feel for you there...

Being 6'3" myself (193 centimeters) tall, I have seen it get a lot more difficult to score an exit row seat over the past few years. The thing that irritates me a bit is when you are denied an exit row, and upon entering the plane you find that a lot of the exit row seats are occupied by people less than 5'8" (172 cm) in height. Last time this happened, one of the gentlemen in the exit row isle had legs that barely even reached the ground!

So, a public service announcement: Slashdotters - if you have the physical dimensions of an Oompa-Loompa [wikipedia.org] , please do not take the exit row on a plane! You will make the day of all those tall geeks that otherwise might have had their knees in their faces the entire trip! :-)

Re:New tech, old idea (1)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20432541)

barcode was and still being used for ANA today. it's been there for years as well. ANA made it even easier that you don't even have to print barcode to check in.

Verify the phone only (2, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 7 years ago | (#20431403)

Cool, this makes 100% sure that the correct cell phones fly on the planes. No terrorist cell phones will ever make it past this system. I feel safer already.

Re:Verify the phone only (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431429)

hey dipshit, the cellphone is just used in place of a ticket, it doesn't let you bypass security checks. RTFA

Re:Verify the phone only (1)

Josef Meixner (1020161) | about 7 years ago | (#20431853)

Exactly, as it makes much more sense, that the correct piece of paper is on the plane. No terrorist piece of paper will ever make it past the normal system, oh, wait, it already did. I don't see what the tickets relevance is towards "terrorists".

Re:Verify the phone only (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | about 7 years ago | (#20432139)

Yeah, and 0% of cellphones currently sold in America will get through either- the necessary RFID technology only exists in Japanese cellphones. Go get yourself an unlocked Toshiba or Sharp if you're on GSM in the States- you'll love it. If you're on CDMA- tough for you.

Re:Verify the phone only (1)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20432569)

I'm not 100% sure if it is safe but those IC chips in Japanese cell phones can be used only when you subscribed to IC Chip credit card service(which makes it a little bit more reliable, I guess..)

Wont Work in the US (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | about 7 years ago | (#20431455)

This won't work in the USA because we are too freaked out(the soda isn't soda it is a bomb). When I can't even bring a single 4oz bottle on a plane you know you have a problem and even with the 3-1-1 thing(3oz bottles, 1 quart size bag, 1 bag per person) anyone determined enough could bring a liquid based bomb on a plane. Because of that reason the security measures in America will be doomed to only increase until travel almost stop entirely or we force reform and more efficient ways of security. When we do this, and only when we do this, can we try to catch up to the rest of the world. Plus another limiting factor is that we just don't have and decent cell phones in America. At that point we will probably just make our own version that is incompatible with the rest of the world's version and just further complicate travel.

Re:Wont Work in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20432133)

could bring a liquid based bomb on a plane

There never were any liquid based bombs that could bring serious damage to a plane, even if you were to bring on gallons of fluids, mix them somehow etc.

They will WANT the control (2, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | about 7 years ago | (#20431537)

and the people will want the controls placed on them.

because it seemed easier

because it seemed faster

because it seemed safer

because I was afraid

because I thought I had to

because it was more expensive if I didn't let them do it

becuase it wasn't worth fighting any more for freedom

because if I refused, the terrorists would win

because everyone else was doing it

and in the end it won't matter how they get you to give up your humanity and your freedom, you will not be able to get it back once you are chipped, tracked, and recorded. Other people will "manage" your finances, your access rights, and your permissions -- all electronically and under one central system. It will make 1984 look appealing: at least they could hide from the telescreen in some corners of their world. The idea of dissent will fade from the collective understanding.

If you have not seen it yet, the Zeitgeist movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ [zeitgeistmovie.com] covers this pretty well. Like sheep herded in the yard, dumb people who just can't seem to stop the TV long enough to figure out that centralized control of their life makes them no longer free.

Re:They will WANT the control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431557)

Someone mod this guy up. As usual I have no mod points. ;-(

A lot of people will snicker at his post, but they won't snicker years from now.

Re:They will WANT the control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20431903)

you can take the tinfoil hat off now, they're gone.

Re:They will WANT the control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20433169)

Yeah people yelled tin foil hat at people when they suggested that habeas corpus and posse comitatus were going to go away. Guess what dick head? They are gone!!! So fuck you with your bull shit, pussy ass, tin foil hat cop out.

Airport security (3, Insightful)

STDK (1084535) | about 7 years ago | (#20431541)

I travel in Europe, Asia and the US. And trust me, even "the rest of the world" is wasting huge amount of money on useless security features. My home carrier (SAS) write on there homepage under security "...in order for you to feel safe ..." basically admitting most of it is useless.

Let us take the two most annoying rules:

The Liquid rule:
The 100ml of water rule is an EU rule to prevent us from smuggling large amount of liquid (uh uh) on-board. Can't have all that water. Anyhow, lets say we - evil terrorist group - want to bring 2 liters of, I donno, liquid nitroglycerin onboard. I buy 19 tickets from Helsinki to Munich and 1 from Helsinki to New York. Inside the "safe" zone I bring out my legal 2 liter empty coke bottle and collect the stuff from the other 19 people.

The Drop-Belt-Shoes-Jacket-screening:
IF I am committed to blowing up a plane, which will eventually most likely course my own death, I might be able to accept swallowing 40x5g C4 in condoms. Puke them up once in the plane or time it with the natural urge. And if I dislike puking, let me just stick a few sticks of dynamite up my ass and use my MP3 player to blow the fucking thing up.

Really, how hard can it be. We get NOTHING - except higher air fares - for the 2h wasted in airports all over the world

STDK

Re:Airport security (2, Funny)

karnal (22275) | about 7 years ago | (#20431575)

let me just stick a few sticks of dynamite up my ass

Oh great, now everyone with a severe case of hemmrhoids (sp?) will be labelled a terrorist, thanks to you. You don't think you'd be walking a little bit funny with all that dynamite up your ass?

Re:Airport security (1)

STDK (1084535) | about 7 years ago | (#20431745)

....You don't think you'd be walking a little bit funny with all that dynamite up your ass?...
Practice I tell you, practice.

That said, in history of aviation have there even been a white suicide bomber or a woman or anyone but muslims? For the sake of future mental stability, start reviewing history and learn from it.

I've actually send my orignal post to the international airport in Copenhagen, Denmark. Now, wonder if they will answer.

STDK

Re:Airport security (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 7 years ago | (#20431849)

That said, in history of aviation have there even been a white suicide bomber or a woman or anyone but muslims? For the sake of future mental stability, start reviewing history and learn from it.
Even if your suggestion was true (PKK, [wikipedia.org] LTTE [wikipedia.org] ), you would be a sucker to fall for the base rate fallacy. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Airport security (1)

STDK (1084535) | about 7 years ago | (#20431935)

I am aware that there are suicide bombers among other fractions than Muslims. Though I am not aware of them using planes to get the point across. PKK and LTTE are both organizations involved in civil war, than to global war. The era where terrorists tried to hijack planes for some reason or another seems to be over.



A point is that with a limited amount of money for security; use them where it makes sense. Screen people based on history, information and intelligence, not on "Hey, you are at the airport and just happen to be number 10 in the queue". Stopping a platinum fliers with 25 years of flight history and ask them to remove the belt is useless at best.

I am writing from China so the Wikip-links are blocked - thank you golden shield. However, I can not see how the base-rate applies to my comment since I have never been in a plane, hijacked by Muslims suicide bombers.

STDK

Re:Airport security (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 7 years ago | (#20432467)

I am writing from China so the Wikip-links are blocked - thank you golden shield. However, I can not see how the base-rate applies to my comment since I have never been in a plane, hijacked by Muslims suicide bombers.
It applies in that you are making a probability judgment based on a single occurrence, possibly two. That's a meaningless sample size. The next argument that people hypnotized by the base-rate fallacy want to make is typically, "look at the intent" - well your criteria of 'muslim' covers a billion people. Out of which how many might possibly have the intent to blow up a plane? Somewhere in the realm of what, a thousand? I'll be generous, ten thousand. That makes your criteria for selection 99.999% inaccurate. Do you really think that is an effective improvement?

Stopping a platinum fliers with 25 years of flight history and ask them to remove the belt is useless at best.
And this is where you are 100% wrong. What you want is a system that identifies the intent of each passenger. But no such system exists. So you are trying to fall back on intent-by-proxy - muslim means intent is bad, frequent fly means intent is good. Well now, how do you know that man who says he is someone with 25 years of flight history and a platinum frequent flier card really is who he says he is? How do you know it isn't a bomber who has figured out that the system now gives a free pass to such people and he's figured out how to impersonate one of them? What good is intent-by-proxy when the proxy isn't reliable?

All your suggestion does is reduce security by building in back doors of reduced scrutiny.

Re:Airport security (1)

STDK (1084535) | about 7 years ago | (#20433623)

All your suggestion does is reduce security by building in back doors of reduced scrutiny.
Actually I am trying to channel money where they do the most benefit.

The rant from my side is NOT about Muslims, please by all means if it turns out after research that the most likely suspect is a Texan family of 4 with a new SUV, then by all means do full body cavity on them when they fly to Ohio for Thanksgiving.

The technical issues of "verification of identity" is not in scope. The examples of "stolen identity" is fine as an example of what could happened if we gave free passes to all platinum-cards, but why would anyone go through all that trouble of hacking/pretending/steal when it is SO easy to do it the old fashion way. If you are willing to do hacking/pretending/steal then you are also willing to carry a stick of dynamite which has less chance of getting caught and higher probability of success.

I see your point on the limited amount of statistical background material. But let us hope that someone somewhere actually had a vague idea about what they wanted to prevent and perhaps even a slight idea who to viewed as potential threats. Then with a fixed amount of money going to security, perhaps it should be spend where it makes most sense.

By not allowed to do racial profiling and suspicion picking because you might offend someone, by treat everybody equal money are wasted. Wasted money could be used for relevant security measures.

It is getting the most "safety" for your $$. It's about the waste of money and time on useless security measures; Money spend unwisely because it makes it looks like "we care and we try". When airports all over the world are doing this the real terrorists will have an easier time.

If the airports wanted to save human life, the airports should rather spend the money in the highways leading to the airport. They pretend to care, and that is what pisses me off.

STDK

Re:Airport security (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 7 years ago | (#20435085)

"Stolen identity" has nothing to do with the problem. It was just a counter to your example.

The problem is your focus on intent-by-proxy.

You seem to think that 'research' can determine some sort of reliable proxy for intent - be it muslim, be it texans with an SUV or whatever. It can not. Again, intent-by-proxy is not useful because no proxy can be made reliable for any feasible about of dollars. You can come up with a bunch of example proxies and I will shoot each on down with counter examples just like I did the first time.

If there is one airline that has a terrorist problem it's El Al. Yet even El Al does not use intent-by-proxy. They screen for intent directly. They ask questions of each and every passenger - platinum frequent flying jewish surgeon-general and dirt poor palestinian alike. They observe the responses to each question - both what they say and how they act. They also have observers that examine the behavior of everyone from afar from the moment they arrive at the terminal to the moment they board the plane.

If intent-by-proxy was actually effective, don't you think El Al would use it?

Re:Airport security (1)

STDK (1084535) | about 7 years ago | (#20437513)

Actually I like the El Al method (though never been a subject, I have heard some stories from people who forgot invitations and such). This add what I think is needed. The subject control aspect. You have to convince someome of your intent. Now, most places can not cough up the $$ to do El Al screening, hence we get this ineffective robot system. Now I simply suggest a "El Al - Light" where it range from no-control to extrem control depending on what the security function dictate. STDK

Re:Airport security (1)

cs (15509) | about 7 years ago | (#20436221)

By not allowed to do racial profiling and suspicion picking because you might offend someone, by treat everybody equal money are wasted.
But by insisting on no random searches, you establish a profile (however accurate or inaccurate). And if there's a profile, it can be inferred from who gets searched, and if it can be inferred then terrorists can, with some patience and lead time, choose bombers now known to be outside the profile. And they can just walk onto the plane. Hurrah!

It is not enough to insert a little random salt, either. If there is a small random search versus a large profiled search, the odds are still very profitable for the bombers to groom someone outside the profile. So you're still making it efficient for the terrorists.

Re:Airport security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20435701)

I find your remarks very narrow sighted at best, and prejudicial at worst.

Muslims in the world: 0.9-1.4 billion
Terrorists who happen to be Muslims involved in the 9-11 attack: 19
Terrorists who happen to be Muslims backing the 9-11 attack: ?? 100? 1000? 5000?

5000/1.4b * 100 = 0.000357142857%

Christians in the world: 2.4 billion
KKK members who happen to be Christians in the 1920's era: 4 million
KKK members who are still around today: ?? 10,000? 100,000?

100,000 / 2.4b = 0.00416666667%

Does that mean Christians are worse or better than Muslims? NO
Does that mean anything? NO

What I'm trying to get across here is that PEOPLE are bad. There will always be a small group that spoils it for everyone else, regardless of the subject, ideal or geographical location.

Judging a whole by the actions of a small fraction that associated itself with the whole is absolutely ignorant if not prejudice, which I find staggering at this point in time.

Re:Airport security (1)

hajus (990255) | about 7 years ago | (#20431933)

What we get is people having to BUY their bottled water at inflated prices from the shops WITHIN the airport past security rather than bring their own. The last airport I flew from (Philadelphia), there wasn't even a single water fountain past security. It's the same reasoning as in the theatres, stadiums, etc. If it was truly about security, lobbying would have it changed already.

"Ticketless"? (2, Insightful)

Hamster Lover (558288) | about 7 years ago | (#20431693)

Are there any airlines that still issue actual, physical tickets? I haven't touched one of those multi-coupon, red inked tickets since at least 2001 and I fly eight to ten times a year. I should mention that I am in Canada and haven't flown internationally in about five years, but I have friends flying to Japan and Bali and they weren't issued physical tickets either. Everything appears to be either web or electronic kiosk based check-in these days.

Re:"Ticketless"? (2, Interesting)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | about 7 years ago | (#20431823)

Are there any airlines that still issue actual, physical tickets? I haven't touched one of those multi-coupon, red inked tickets since at least 2001 and I fly eight to ten times a year.

LOT Polish. I had a flight out of Warsaw at 10 am and I needed to get there from Krakow in the morning. The other choice was a slow overnight train, so I went to the airline office on Basztowa and bought a ticket for the 6am plane the next day. Paid 200zl (about $65) cash, and no one looked at me like I had two heads for paying cash (unlike in the USA where I'd have got the third degree for paying cash for a one-way).

-b.

Re:"Ticketless"? (2, Informative)

scapaman (827445) | about 7 years ago | (#20431905)

from next year, no airline will. IATA, the international body for airlines, has just ordered the last ever batch of the old style paper tickets. They won't be used past July 2008.

Re:"Ticketless"? (1)

Phroggy (441) | about 7 years ago | (#20432169)

I just found out that if you get a voucher for a free ticket on United (because you volunteered to give up your seat on an overbooked flight), you can't use it to book your flight online. You have to call their call center in India, reserve your flight over the phone, then bring the actual physical coupon to a ticket agent at the airport in exchange for actual physical tickets. Or mail it to them, and they'll mail you your tickets.

Astounding.

Re:"Ticketless"? (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 7 years ago | (#20432189)

Monarch Airlines in the UK still issue the confetti-like shower of tickets (not the tracing paper red inked ones, but the greenish card ones with lots of impeneterable TLAs and the thick magstripe).

Surprised me when I booked with them, it's the first time in years anyone's insisted on sending physical tickets.

Re:"Ticketless"? (1)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20432515)

I think the point of ANA's SKiP! service is not Ticketless but going straight to the security check without checking in.

Re:"Ticketless"? (1)

david in brasil (1103683) | about 7 years ago | (#20432743)

I live in Brasil, and buy my international tickets at a travel agent, and sure enough, I still get the old style, red inked tickets. It's a hoot to present these at the gate in the US.

Re:"Ticketless"? (1)

berberine (1001975) | about 7 years ago | (#20433063)

When I flew to Tanzania from the USA in 2005 I was told that all international flights from the USA to third world countries require a paper ticket. I don't know if it's changed since then but that's what the people at the ticket counter told us then.

Huh? (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | about 7 years ago | (#20434661)

How is this better than what we have in the US (and presumably elsewhere)?

  • Buy ticket online
  • Check in online
  • Print out boarding pass
  • Go straight to gate


It couldn't get any easier.

Re:Huh? (1)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20436533)

you mentioned 4 steps.
  • Buy ticket online
  • Check in online
  • Print out boarding pass
  • Go straight to gate
of those 4, you don't need step 2 and 3 if you have IC chip SKiP! service. the system will take care of checking in while you are going through security gate.

Re:Huh? (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | about 7 years ago | (#20436805)

Well, technically I could combine steps 2/3 into a single step ("print out boarding pass"). But, yeah, I guess you don't have to print out your boarding pass. You do have to "place" it on your card, which is presumably pretty easy. Not that clicking a button on Southwest's website and hitting "print" is all that hard either.

I guess my point is, ticketing is actually the easiest part of flying. It takes about a minute to print my boarding pass, and at least ten times that much to get through security.

What I want to see is a MIDlet that lets you check in, then displays a 2D barcode on your phone screen that acts as your boarding pass.

Re:Huh? (1)

kneuk (1150573) | about 7 years ago | (#20438145)

the article is misleading but you don't actually have to "place" anything on your card.
IC card would not need to store each flying sessions but the airline companies do. IC card will work as ID.
so, when you buy ticket online, then airline company knows that you will use the mileage
card to go through security gate.
you don't have to do anything except booking your flight online before you take your flight.

so again step 2, 3 are not required.

Re:Huh? (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 6 years ago | (#20461047)

What I want to see is a MIDlet that lets you check in, then displays a 2D barcode on your phone screen that acts as your boarding pass.

I don't think laser scanners can read LCDs. They're designed to work with reflective media (such as paper); LCDs are transmissive.

Your idea might work if your phone had an "electronic paper" display, if that display delivered high-enough contrast. Most phones don't, though, as we want our shiny color displays instead.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>