Jörmungandr wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:
Those are fair points.
To respond from someone who takes the opposing view, I would state the following:
1. No single technology or measure taken is going to be able to stop every single threat. Certain machines and certain actions address certain threats. To argue that the scanner doesn't catch everything, and therefore we shouldn't use it, could logically be extended to argue against any security measure. Why check anything at all, since there'll always be a way?
Understandable. However, my issue is that I don't believe these new scanners will detect anything that other technologies would previously have missed. A metal detector will detect a metallic weapon such as a firearm, and bomb-sniffing dogs are more capable of finding PETN than these machines are.
I don't oppose bomb sniffing dogs, and I don't know why they weren't used at airport security points. I have never seen a dog at a security point at an airport. Ever. And, the scanner will certainly catch things that a metal scanner won't catch - nonmetallic masses will show up. It has a hard time with liquids, but liquids have to be contained in things, and if a smuggler wants to have a large enough amount to do any real damage to the flying ability of the plane, it has to be a fairly large amount. Sneaking in 3 ounces will generally not be enough to do anything to the airplanes flying ability - larger containers will show up on the scanner, though. So, it's not really necessary to stop every last ounce of substances from getting on the plane - we primarily need to keep quantities large enough to do major damage off the plane.
Jörmungandr wrote:
2. The scanner does see certain things, and that's one less available means and one more complication that someone has to contend with if he or she wants to bring something on a plane.
What do you believe backscatter or millimeter wave machines will detect that can't be detected just as reliably as other methods?
The scanners are relatively accurate in catching high-density materials that pat-downs missed (such as knives, box-cutters, or other problem items). And, there is explosive detection screening tech that can detect PETN etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... o-scanners I realize there is controversy over the devices being installed at airports now, but as I noted before, these are first steps and the technology will likely get better.
It's kind of a false argument to make, too, to ask what the new scanners detect that prior technology don't reliably detect. The reality is that the prior technology and prior patdown techniques did not reliably find things. There were stories throughout the years after 9/11 about the system being breached either accidentally or by those testing the system. What were were doing wasn't working.
Jörmungandr wrote:
3. The scanner technology now can't see certain things, but technologies like these generally improve. For technology to improve, we have to see how the first generation works, and then the manufacturers, knowing that there is a market, will spend time and effort to develop a new and better version. It's not hard to imagine technology being possible to eventually catch almost all non-living things carried on a person's person, or in it.
And if it can do so in a way that doesn't virtually strip-search passengers at a level of detail great enough to run afoul of UK child pornography laws, I'm all for it. The current technology is capable of neither the detection capability, nor the privacy concerns.
The images aren't child pornography. I know the issue with child porn laws, but that's a problem with the wording of the laws. Some home photography of people's children would also technically "run afoul of child pornography laws" like the pics my mom has of me when I was a baby, completely nude, on the bed, in the tub, etc. Those would technically run afoul of child pornography laws too, if one didn't use their noggin a bit when evaluating what is and is not pornography.
I've seen the images that these machines display. They look more like grey, fuzzy aliens than humans. They aren't identifiable as to which human has been imaged, and as long as they aren't saved and can't be disseminated, then it's not a child pornography problem. Nobody is using these images to exploit a child, to abuse a child, or to get their jollies off a child.
Jörmungandr wrote:
4. The value of the devices are not just in their ability to detect, but in the perception by the terrorists of risk. The thing that any terrorist group has to contend with is getting someone nerved up to stash explosives on themselves and then get it on a plane. If a person knew there were no searches possible, they would be able to stroll leisurely onto the aircraft knowing full well that they won't be examined. If, however, there is the possibility that they will be scanned and the scanner will detect some object stored onthem, or that that they will be patted down exceedingly well and have to stand through it while stashing their stash, well, it may make them think twice, or it may make them screw up - acting nervously or giving other indicators that they need to be checked further.
Nothing is ever 100%, but we have to do the best we can, and keep trying to get better.
I don't think that any of the new security measures are going to be any more of a deterrent than the old ones to a determined terrorist. We're guarding against how they tried to attack us last week, while they are planning how they're going to do it next week.
So why do anything? Just don't even have security checkpoints at all, because right now it's 1970's style metal detectors and the odd pat down.
Jörmungandr wrote:
They succeeded with hijackings, but now they know they can't, so they try for blowing up planes. They'll either find a more creative way to bring explosives aboard a plane, or move on to another idea to damage us just as much as blowing up a plane would.
Maybe. But, I find it difficult to believe that it's impossible to ensure that planes don't have bombs on them. I think that it is technologically feasible to have a scanner that does detect anything untoward being brought on a plane. It's just a matter of research and development.
Jörmungandr wrote:
Hell, they could get themselves into one of those long, coiled security lines that are all the rage at airports these days, and set off a bomb right then and there without giving security a chance to do anything about it. You've still killed dozens, and you've still dealt a massive blow to air travel.
But, you haven't brought a plane down over a major city. That is different. It is, however, another security issue that has to be dealt with, I agree. However, because that too is a security issue doesn't mean we don't also beef up other security areas.
Israel checks people while they are in their cars on their way into the airport - every car is stopped, and the passengers questioned, behavioral profiling techniques are applied to see if someone needs to be checked out further and if so, that vehicle is taken aside and searched. Once they get to the airport armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer. At the airline check-in desk a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side? Etc. - more behavioral profiling. Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far. At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Next, they have a body and luggage hand check.
If we did what Israel does, I'd probably say that full body scanners aren't necessary.
Jörmungandr wrote:
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be doing something to try and prevent these sort of attacks. But we should do more than patting each other on the backs and telling ourselves that because we spent like a bazillion dollars on some high-tech snake oil, we'll all be safer.
I don't hear anyone saying that.
Jörmungandr wrote:
The new scanners probably wouldn't have stopped the underwear bomber, but you know what would have? Our national intelligence agencies doing a better job of not sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. They had all the info they needed on this guy and sat on it, and he managed to get on a plane and attempt to blow it up. This guy shouldn't have even made it into the airport, let alone through some fancy-schmancy nude-o-scope.
I don't disagree. It was a failure top to bottom. And, the exclamation point was our homeland security chief trying to claim that the "system worked" because a passenger was able to intervene.
The thing is, I don't think the US has the national will to do the alternative means. Behavioral profiling is lumped in with racial profiling and we just won't do it. Someone always argue that whatever behavioral cues the security officer looks for will be "culturally biased" and result in more of one ethnicity being scrutinized than another. So, we're not going to do those things that Israel does, unless we have a fundamental change in attitude.
And, our intelligence folks just aren't doing it either. So, until they do, I say use the scanners too.
