Checkpoint of the Future Coming Soon To Airports 373
cultiv8 writes with this excerpt from an AP story as carried by Yahoo: "Eye scanners and futuristic security tunnels may be standard in airports soon as the airline industry seeks to maintain safety while reducing the hassles of boarding a plane that deter some people from flying. The International Air Transport Association unveiled a mock-up Tuesday in Singapore of what it dubbed the 'Checkpoint of the Future,' where passengers separated by security risk would walk through one of three high-tech, 20-foot-long (6.1-meters-long) tunnels that can quickly scan shoes and carry-on luggage and check for liquids and explosives. ... In the IATA prototype, passengers would be categorized based on the results of a government risk assessment that is put into a chip in a passenger's passport or other identification. An eye scan would then match the passenger to the passport."
sooo (Score:5, Funny)
They got the idea from total recall then?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Although anything that doesn't require me to remove my shoes and belt is a good thing. Can't stand travelling to the US for that reason.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize you get far more radiation while actually flying at high altitudes than you get from the scanners?
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that not all radiation is the same right? For a simplistic view of photon radiation, there are high energy photons (x-rays and gamma-rays) with an absorption length of several meters of human tissue which distribute an even dose throughout your tissue and then there are relatively low-energy photons with an absorption length of about a millimeter of human tissue which are consequently absorbed predominantly by your skin, concentrating the dose there.
The TSA claims to be using the low-energy k
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the sniffer on this thing can detect the decay products of steroids.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it sensitive enough to also detect cannabis [google.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
yes, if it's full of beagles [itchmo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And a helluva lot of good it did *them*....
Re: (Score:2)
They got the idea from total recall then?
Yeah, that's what I thought. I so want to create the disassembling head-thing that Arnie had. Bonus points for being able to hit the red switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY [youtube.com]
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the cancer risk then? How much radiation do we need to absorb in the name of safety? Will people be restricted from flying too often to keep them safe from our invasive scans?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you probably absorb more radiation from the altitude of the flight than any checkpoints.
That's probably true. The issue is that in-flight radiation is a NECESSARY part of flying, while scanning is completely useless and provides no benefit whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
I will absorb more heat from the room I'm sitting in right now over the time period of a typical flight than I would from 30 seconds under the pencil-thin flame of a MAPP torch. Nevertheless, I would much rather spend the four hours sitting comfortably in this room than 30 seconds under the torch flame. Four hours in the room will barely hurt me at all aside from a little normal aging damage, 30 seconds under the torch, depending on where it's applied, could blind me, deafen me, paralyze me, destroy my hand
I stopped flying. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm one of the lucky ones: I don't have a job-related need to take an airplane, so I haven't flown for the last few years.
Seriously: the TSA has proven time and again that they can't be trusted with wiping their own ass, much less handling security, privacy, or customer relations.
I feel bad for the airlines, and I miss going places I can't drive, but I cannot stomach their security theatre, invasiveness, or sexual assaults.
Re:I stopped flying. (Score:4, Insightful)
I miss flying but I feel no remorse for the airlines.
They have been screwing passengers for years.
I don't fly any more either. I do miss the fast travel but not the multi hour lay overs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't stop flying. I went out and got my pilot's license, then I built an airplane. Now I fly every chance I get! No lines, no TSA, no long waits except for the weather. I have crossed the country multiple times now and have met some of the nicest people at small airports. Yes, I only cruise at about 200 mph but since I don't have to be at the airport 2 hours early and can fly to small airports nearer to my destination, I can almost always beat the airlines. ;-)
"And loving it!"
Re:I stopped flying. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not cheap, to be sure, but it's not a millionaire sort of thing. I don't mean to be argumentative, just to realign the elitist image many non-pilots have of the small piston airplane crew.
If you are willing to settle with 130 mph instead of 200, a serviceable used Skyhawk can be had for less than the price of a decked-out F-150, and get similar fuel mileage.
Re: (Score:3)
The average American spends decades paying off a mortgage for $100k house, they're not going to purchase a $100k plane.
so no more free gropping... (Score:2)
i can see why the nerds might be upset.
Just one more reason I'm proud to be in NH (Score:4, Interesting)
New Hampshire was one of the first states to reject "Real-ID", and to hell with the (then-threatened) restrictions on air travel. I was one of the people that campaigned actively for this; one of my friends was a co-sponsor of the bill [nhliberty.org] that did the opt-out, not only from Real-ID, but from "any national identification card system that may follow"
If that sounds good to you, you should check us out: http://freestateproject.org//intro/real-id [freestateproject.org]
Re: (Score:2)
New Hampshire Airport passenger: Live free or die!
TSA employee: I accept your offer. Termination line is to your left, down the hall.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Reminds me of the Suicide Booth scene in the first episode of Futurama, where Fry thinks it's a phone booth:
Re: (Score:3)
We clearly have different ideas about what makes identification "strong" or desirable. If you want a super-biometric ID card with all your data in a central government-controlled repository, go right ahead... just don't expect me to go along with your plan. I've read enough history to know that one year's open, benevolent, democratic administration is no guarantor that all future governments will be so desirable.
As it turns out, NH State Law allows you to withold your social security number and home address
Is the risk really that big? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is the risk really that big? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why on Earth would they try to blow up the plane if they have to go through such tight security? It's a lot easier to target the lines.
Excerpts from the last thoughts of Abdul Hassan Gamal ibn al Azad*: "I wait in line, my backpack concealing three kilograms of C4, surrounded by a layer of scrap metal and nails dipped in anti-coagulant rat poison. I wait for the line to get as long as possible to include the greatest number of people in the blast. I don't care if I die, 40 (or 42?) virgins will be my reward for fighting the Holy War in the name of the one god Allah. I trigger the detonator..."
Maybe less casualties than downing an Airbus, possibly more if the line is long and packed, and no need to risk going through security. The fact that the bomber dies first doesn't seem to be a problem when they're happy to die, and you can afford to use them like money ante poker chips, knowing you can always recruit five more for every one that's caught or killed. The checkpoints merely shifted the most vulnerable point from the air onto the ground, where the terrorists can do even more damage.
* Any semblance to living persons is purely coincidental.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides in the business class you get glasses, steel forks and knives plus you can order bottled wines and champagnes.
Re: (Score:2)
Try more deaths than a typical flight, being indoors does wonders for the effect of a small bomb. If Abdul Hassan Gamal ibn al Azad decides to make sure he is near a support beam/column he might get really lucky and shutdown that airport for days.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if I die, 40 (or 42?) virgins will be my reward for fighting the Holy War
Perhaps that the question for which the answer is 42...
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting that the head of the TSA has a huge budget and personal financial interest in the scanner companies...
People who can think about real attack scenarios don't get very far in the TSA of the 21st century. It's all about expensive, shiny machines and fancy dinners with politicians.
Anyone feeling terrorized? (Score:2)
They should start calling these pricks "annoyancizers."
The most interesting part (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA:
"Airlines are seeking ways to win back passengers put off by long and irritating airport security measures who have opted to travel instead by train, boat or car. IATA said Monday it expects the industry's profit this year to plummet to $4 billion from $18 billion last year."
It sounds like people have quit flying in droves since TSA implemented scanners and patdowns last year. Are there any other stories that could confirm this conclusion?
real question is who want to profit from this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and the highest paid employee was not allowed to be any more than 20x the lowest paid employee
Woodward Governor [woodward.com] once had the restriction that the the CEO was paid 10x the amount of the lowest paid employee. That ended around the time Reagan took office.
Re: (Score:2)
pay the lowest paid employee $100,000/month
Terrorism, what terrorism? (Score:2)
Is there a pandemic of terrorism directed at airplanes which I don't know about?
Re: (Score:2)
There is. There have been several dangerous passengers on board airlines in the past decade, and all of them have been unknowingly waved by security. The passengers on the airline, however, have subdued every one of them.
Note: there has never been an instance of a large bottle of Johnson's Baby Shampoo, or anything resembling it, used to blow up an airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a pandemic, that is a few isolated incidences.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. In the past decade, how many millions of passengers flew without any intent of blowing up the planes or doing any other kind of harm? How many people boarded airplanes with the intent to do harm (hijack, blow up, or even just threaten)? I don't have the figures on hand but if 500,000,000 flew without intent to do harm and 500 flew intending to harm others, then the terrorist-to-passenger ratio is 0.0001%. And my guesstimate is likely on the high side.
When I fly I'm not scared of some terrorist
Re: (Score:2)
I also have some volcano insurance I'd like to sell you, should you be interested. I also sell rocks that protect from bear attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Always of the future (Score:2)
They're reducing prices? (Score:2)
So they're reducing prices for luggage and fuel? The hiked ticket prices to cover the fuel hike in 2009, as well as tacked on additional fees for luggage, obesity, etc. Prices didn't drop back down much compared to the hike, and then they hike prices again for the 2011 oil scare.
That's pretty much what keeps me from flying.
Embedded in the passport? (Score:2)
Wouldn't a scarlet "A" tattooed on the forehead work better?
Oh, wait. That would require a trial. And a conviction. And facing your accuser. And a government that isn't becoming materially worse than the "terrorists" it claims it is protecting you from.
Sometimes I think the army is pointing their guns at the wrong would-be-oppressors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Willing participants in a travel system that could just drive if they weren't so full of themselves that they thought they had to be somewhere in 90 minutes instead of 10 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Me, although not an 8 hour drive but an 8 hour train ride. I used to travel from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia a lot. The plane trip is ~30 minutes, while the train ride is about 6-7 hours. With all the BS in the terminal, and traffic at the airport, the plane ride turned into a ~4 hour affair. The seats are cramped, there were no outlets, not much of a view, especially sitting in the aisle.
On the train, the seats go almost all the way back, I can get up and walk around, there are outlets at every seat, there's a viewing car I can sit in and watch the countryside go by, a movie car, a dining car, and I can even get a private room with a fold out bed if I want. And hey, if you're a smoker you can light up a cigg at every stop! Sure it costs a little more but my god it's worth it, and this was before the days of full body scanners. Now... my god I'd never fly unless I was absolutely forced to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... now I'm really curious. What coasts are you referring to, and if they're the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts (not Gulf Coast to Atlantic or something silly) -- just what train did you find that only takes 2 days?
I'm seriously asking - since every one I looked at ended up going through LA then up to Chicago and back down (to Atlanta -- maybe Chicago to NY is somehow faster). If you have a link to a 2 day train which is reasonably priced (say $1k per person tops), I'd love to consider that for our next t
Re: (Score:3)
just what train did you find that only takes 2 days?
The secret Stonecutter train through the Earth's crust.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you're only flying from tiny little airports, I'm surprised by that. Even a medium-sized airport is crazy.
Depending on how big your city is, getting to the airport is likely a 30 minute or so affair. They suggest you arrive at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight ... that's two hours right there. then your 30 minute flight. Figure 20 minutes easily to get your bags, and then assume another 30 minutes to your destination.
I figure that's 3.5 hrs right there, give or take.
Hell, when I fly a longer haul flight ... the trip time to the airport, the recommended arrival time, and the time on the back end don't change. My usual flight is about 4h15 minutes ... and the trip takes me about 7.5 hrs door to door.
In all but the most tiny of regional airports, I can't see how you are getting away with only 2 hours including flight time. In my experience, there's pretty much 2 hrs minimum on the front end of the flight, and 1 hr on the backend ... regardless of the actual flight time.
Re: (Score:3)
my only question is if you travel that route that much - why don't you just move?
by plane or by air or by anything to spend that much time just to move around seems a horrid waste of time/energy/money..
Re: (Score:3)
He factored car traffic in. Considering most airports are on outskirts of the city (vs train terminals which tend to be near the center of the city), and the roads to them tend to be jammed most of the time, a 1h drive to the airport and 1h drive from the airport is a very probable estimate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, probably. I mean, it all depends on how often this needs to be done. If I'm doing that trip every week, obviously the time spent on a train/driving would really start to add up. But these days if I have to go to a conference once or twice a year I'll opt for the train. I can get a lot of work done in my sleeper room anyway.
Also it's not that much more expensive. Cheapest round trip flight I can find from Philadelphia to Seattle on Orbitz is $624. Cheapest round trip for Amtrak is $857. So $233 more fo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would take an 8 hour drive instead of a 1 hour flight?
You can get to the airport, go through security,board a 'plane, fly somewhere, disembark then get to your destination in only one hour?
Maybe in a private jet with limo service...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a severely over hyped idea for many-if-not-most airports. An hour is plenty early for most regional airports during non-peak flight times. Sure if you're flying out of Kennedy or trying to travel on the Weds before Thanksgiving you need to get there two (or more) hours early, but out of Huntsville I never get there more than an hour early unless it's holiday travel. It was the same out of Lafayette, LA. Even going out of Boston-Logan I rarely do more than an hour and a half and could probably get
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the number of people, really.
Sample annual trip just made (CA to GA): 2438 miles.
Airline cost per-person, cattle-class [not adding in taxes, fees and per-bag costs or whatnot they stick you with now] started at $450 per person round-trip.
The 2005 Impala got between 29 to 30 US mpg on the highway, call it 29 to be generous (to your claim).
Similarly, gas ranged from $3.459 to $4.759 per US gallon, but generously use $5 assuming rising prices. That's $420.35 one way, $840.70 round trip.
Since this wa
Re: (Score:2)
Hotel stops?
You have 2 drivers, one sleeps while the other drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Optimally, yes. Sometimes that isn't an option, unfortunately. [The other adult may not be able or willing to drive, after all].
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a Prius. 9 hours @ 75 mph = 675 miles @ 42 mpg = 16 gallons of gas @ $4/gal = $64.
Unless you're hitching a ride with a crop-duster and paying in home-grown sinsemilla, you're not getting there on a plane for $64.
If you drive a Hummer, see above about self-importance. Ibid re "wasting half a day of vacation."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or... our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country. So I could spend every weekend driving and only be able to cover 20% of the country, or I can take a 10 minute pass through a security line twice a week. I'll take a ten minute inconveinance and let someone fly me somewhere in 4 hours rather than do a four day drive across the country - which would cost more money anyway.
Now, if you live on the East Coast, you might be able to travel to lots of people in a few hours. You might also be eno
Re: (Score:3)
our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country
That's that sense of self-importance thing, again. Grinding yourself in the gears of the machine for a few more shekels is a psychological issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Never left the continental US, have you? Admittedly you can take a car by ferry, but transatlantic or transpacific ferries pretty much don't exist. You can book passage on a cruiseliner and put your car in the hold, but a transatlantic crossing usually runs in the $4000 range, not to mention taking 4-5 days depending on the route.. There's bridges too, but bridges tend to have expensive tolls... $50 for the one between PEI and New Brunswick, for example. At that kind of price, and with the cost of gas, it i
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, a 2 hour flight gets me to visit my parents ... a 15 hour drive otherwise (assuming you actually follow the speed limits). Since I can't drive that long, I'd also need to stay in a hotel. Oh, and I'd need to eat and buy gas.
When I travel for business, I'm typically traveling much further than that. (More like a 4-5 hour
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it would.. you could put it in the cargo hold and have dinner with the captain
Re: (Score:2)
You can.
I'll be busy hitting on the Duchess.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you hate the entire world?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes. More and more lately... Reading TFA? Definitely right now.
He can't. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Up, mostly. I'd aim for Mars or Alpha Centauri, or whatever place has an oxygen atmosphere and liquid water...
keep moving! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I request asylum under the Shadow Proclamation!
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines do everything in their power to give us reasons not to fly.
Now, I don't have any proof or evidence to back this up, but common sense tells me the airlines want everyone to fly, and if it were up to them, I'd bet they would eliminate any kind of security check and load them cattle up as quickly, and as profitably, as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Airline security isn't about protecting passengers, though that's a side-benefit, but rather protecting structures / areas deemed important by the power-elite from attack by aircraft.
Hence, planes / terminals / people on the ground being blown up is of little concern compared to planes themselves being used as weapons, such in New York City back on Sept 11, 2001.
Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
actually, there have been three people who tried to sneak bombs on with malicious intent, who were all successful and stopped by actions of people on the plane. There have been many other successful attempts by people testing the system and the workers who have also been successful. To be fair, those tests do not have complete disclosure, and most likely the only ones to get any publicity are the ones that failed to get caught. We also cant know if there have been any attempts that have been thwarted on the
Re: (Score:2)
You mean all they have to do is blow up the tunnels.
There's a joke about Russia in there.
How about: In Soviet Russia, Airport Blows You Up! [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They do this because the TSA is so good at capturing terrorists with their fancy equipment. Just last week, keeping the average caught per week, they successfully captured 0 more terrorists! With specs like that, how can you possibly think of reducing their effectiveness by decreasing their technological advantages. Remember how proudly they displayed the Rifle they confiscated from the GI Joe doll! Three whole inches of plastic mayhem! This new technology might DOUBLE their effectiveness!
Re: (Score:2)
They already do that. [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the poster-boy-for-dianabol days.
Re: (Score:3)
Except if they're programmed to. Thing is, they also can't be persuaded that you're right.
And if they're bringing out the human Scanners, I fear for my thoughts and everything else...
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem....the policy makers spend too much time watching movies.
What they really need to do is think like a terrorist. A terrorist can just blow up the queue for the security machine.
Problem 2: That sort of thinker doesn't get to build impressive shiny installations at taxpayer expense then stand in front of cameras at the official opening before going off to dinner with people in suits. At taxpayer expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know this is an unpopular opinion to have, but if statistics show that people with a certain color of skin have been more likely to blow up a plane in the past, why would you not use that? Just because it is not politically correct? I think it is stupid to ignore a statistic that could save lives just because some people might get offended.
Pattern recognition is a skill that we have
Because... (Score:4, Insightful)
All you need to bypass such level of "security" is to find a willing participant with skin color which is not critical.
And you probably only need to do it once. Get all skin colors up to "critical level" and voila - everyone is a potential terrorist once more.
Or no one is, depending on your perspective.
Prioritizing according to clearly visible and easily circumventable markers is a poor security technique.
Might as well look only for people holding a stick of dynamite in one hand and a lit lighter in the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I wanna know exactly how they're assessing it. Can I challenge it? Can I find out what my "score" is? Is there anything they're not taking into account?
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, you can walk right onto your friendly, neighborhood general aviation airfield, fly your Cessna or Twin Otter to your not-too-far-off commercial field, and land behind all this elaborate security with your airline ticket in-hand. Until all our airports are sealed beneath impenetrable domes, the front and back doors will stand in sharp contrast. (Not like this is about security anyhow.)
Don't worry, they're trying real hard to close that door. Now, the little gate that has poorly vetted cabin crew who are allowed to roam in the cabin unsupervised and who have gone through only the most minimal screening before coming on to the tarmac. That gate is pretty much open....
Same with the guy driving the thousand gallon tank of jet fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
It also would not work. Thing dingbat that decided to roast his chestnuts was not an Arab.
I would rather they just stop with all the BS, lock the cabin door and call it over with.
Re: (Score:3)
Thing dingbat that decided to roast his chestnuts was not an Arab.
That's racial profiling, and you're right, it does not work. Too many false positives, and overly susceptible to false negatives. What does work is behavioral profiling, and it seems to me the main reason it's not being used is that people (like you just have) confuse the two and assume all profiling is bad!