Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>
> > Are you saying those who design airport security are dumb?
>
> No, just handicapped by politics and economics.
>
> In this world, rarely is the best technical solution the one that
> actually gets chosen. (Exhibit A: Betamax.)

I've seen a specific security measure, like, "Your FOO is going to be thoroughly
examined and you may only possess items measured less than BAR."  So everyone is
greatly inconvenienced with their FOO's and measuring things less than BAR.
This is maddening to me because crazy bad guys could still create mischief with
their non-FOO and with something of size less than BAR.  Given the possibility,
I believe it is a cynical  response-- motivated not by security of the
passengers but to avoid lawsuits-- to have the current level of inconveniences.
So, in this analysis, security measures are nowhere near tough enough.

I'm wondering what security measures would be in place after a century of
dealing with the bad guys pushing of the envelope.  Yes, do we use knockout gas
and transport people nude in plasteel bubbles, do we give up on the whole thing,
do we use Trek-style transporters?   For example, do we just have a spigot on
the back of the seat for drinking water, and ban all fluids of any size?

As for intelligence of transport authority figures, there is one story of a
guard having "discovered" someone guilty of "industrial espionage."  Turned out
it was a lame artist with a notebook full of cartoony sketches of cars he'd seen
in Europe, (cars available for sale to the public, ones for which the internet
had hundreds of online photos available to anyone, spy or no.)

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:

> I've seen a specific security measure, like, "Your FOO is going to be thoroughly
> examined and you may only possess items measured less than BAR."  So everyone is
> greatly inconvenienced with their FOO's and measuring things less than BAR.
> This is maddening to me because crazy bad guys could still create mischief with
> their non-FOO and with something of size less than BAR.  Given the possibility,
> I believe it is a cynical  response-- motivated not by security of the
> passengers but to avoid lawsuits-- to have the current level of inconveniences.
> So, in this analysis, security measures are nowhere near tough enough.

Ah yes, nobody is allowed more than 100 ml of liquid.

Becuase, you know, there's just no way that 100 ml of explosives could 
possibly cause a devastating explosion. Or release a deadly nerve gas 
and kill everyone on board. And there's no way that three suicide 
bombers could all get on the same plane, each carrying 100 ml, together 
making 300 ml in total. Or, for that matter, there's no way you could 
hide more than 100 ml of liquid about your person without somebody noticing.

Oh, wait... I think my brain just switched back on.

> I'm wondering what security measures would be in place after a century of
> dealing with the bad guys pushing of the envelope.

I'm wondering why they don't put humans through the X-ray machine. I'm 
guessing because then anybody who does a lot of travelling is going to 
start receiving dangerous amounts of X-ray exposure over time... So 
maybe we just need to invent a scanning technology that's less harmful.

Oh, wait. We already have several. Ultrasound, NMR, PET and so on. So 
I'm guessing it's just too expensive or impractical. (Ultrasound 
apparently requires close contact with the item to be scanned, or else 
the item must be immersed in liquid. Neither is especially practical.)

Then again, for any given scanning technology, there is probably 
something that's invisible to it. Ultrasound sees only changes in 
density. X-rays can't see liquids, only dense solids. And so on.

The again, maybe we're looking at this all wrong. I mean, why the 
obsession with airport security? Currently, anybody who feels like it 
can nip down to their local friendly chemist, buy a few chemicals, mix 
'em together, walk down the street to their location of choice and set 
off a devastating explosion. And nobody will stop them. Indeed, it seems 
utterly implausible that it's even physically *possible* to detect that 
somebody is about to do this and try to stop them. They could be 
anybody, anywhere, any day or night.

Then again, how many people actually do this? Not that many.

Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY 
in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and 
saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b507277$1@news.povray.org...

> Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY
> in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and
> saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be freaking
over *that*.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4b507277$1@news.povray.org...

> > Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY
> > in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and
> > saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

> How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be freaking
> over *that*.

  There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be 
>> freaking
>> over *that*.
>
>  There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

Unless the weather is a tiny bit hot or cold, then suddenly the media 
attribute all those deaths to the weather ... "Freezing conditions kill 5000 
people!"  "Heat wave kills thousands!"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

One could tenuously argue that dying of ebola is "natural causes"...

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be freaking
> over *that*.

Ah, life. The ultimate sexually-transmitted disease...

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> I'm wondering what security measures would be in place after a century of
> dealing with the bad guys pushing of the envelope.  Yes, do we use knockout gas
> and transport people nude in plasteel bubbles, do we give up on the whole thing,
> do we use Trek-style transporters?   For example, do we just have a spigot on
> the back of the seat for drinking water, and ban all fluids of any size?

The same measures that took place after years of people robbing and
killing other people on horse back, and in coaches, and then trains, and
in cars, and buses, and now planes. We will move onto the next, faster
method of travel and forget that once someone who has a lot of time
wants to take your stuff or make you dead, there isn't a whole lot you
can do to stop them.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Any ideas on how to design a truly secure airport? 

The same way you design a truly secure computer network. You allow no
outside connections, all people with access have undergone appropriate
background checks, have sufficiently complex barriers to access, and are
paid or monitored enough to make sure they do not compromise the system.

Realistically, you don't allow your security guards to get the opinion
that they are demi-gods protecting everyone walking by them. If you do,
you get either the megalomanics who harass anyone who doesn't match
their individual prejudices, or you get the protective people who will
let the young lady with a cane and a limp walk through without checking
their bags for toothpaste.

On the other hand, decentralization is another option that might work. I
have had more thorough checks at a small airport with 5 security people
and maybe 3 flights an hour, than at major airports.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'm wondering why they don't put humans through the X-ray machine. 

I noticed they don't x-ray babies. And if you're willing for your kids to 
die, why not?


Whaaaa! Whaaaaa!  Whaaaaa!  BAMF!

> Oh, wait. We already have several. Ultrasound, NMR, PET and so on. So 
> I'm guessing it's just too expensive or impractical. 

We have a really easy one, based on visible photons. It's called "take your 
clothes off."  Somehow, people don't want that one tho. People would 
actually rather die in flight than strip naked before a stranger.

> Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY 
> in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and 
> saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to 
plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, 
like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown 
up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that 
one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message