What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

[jmsprovan]

The problem is being addressed, who knows how long it will take and if the problem can be solved at all.

One problem it doesn't solve is the same thing I have brought up over and over again, but let's sing the refrain again for your benefit:

Scanners and Body Searches Don't Detect Bombs.

How do you address this very significant problem? And how to your rectify the fact that trained bomb sniffing dogs do detect bombs, and do so without bringing the 4th Amendment into question, as they are a passive system that is already used by police, border patrol and customs agents.
​

body scanners and frisking can find bombs attached to the outside of the body, but a very thin argument used earlier in the thread was that the scanners can't find bombs implanted within someone, medically or otherwise. Is there anything to suggest that sniffer dogs would be able to smell these implanted devices?

Another thing sniffer dogs rely on is the knowledge of what explosive compounds a terrorist would use, if a terrorist was to use a compound unfamiliar to the dogs then they wouldn't be able to pick it up either, rendering them just as moot as the scanners in that regard.

there is no silver bullet to this issue.

 

[wooflepoof]

How do you address the quote from the TSA director then? That seems pretty clear to me.

I can't find the context of the statement outside of articles talking about Ken Wooden's accusation so, until I do, I'm going to consider it not clear at all.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Oh hey, found an article that proves elvis has a 32 year old secret son, complete with quote from Elvis expert William Stern:

Now I?m convinced that Elvis did have a son

I could also show you some pretty damning firefighter quotes that prove the towers were taken down by controlled demolition

I'm not saying its not true, but you've not come anywhere near providing reasonable evidence that it is.

 

[Blind_Io]

^ I'm aware of what Quote Mining is. I would love to hear what context could make his statement not sound like he is condoning behavior that is identical to that of a pedophile grooming a victim.

body scanners and frisking can find bombs attached to the outside of the body, but a very thin argument used earlier in the thread was that the scanners can't find bombs implanted within someone, medically or otherwise. Is there anything to suggest that sniffer dogs would be able to smell these implanted devices?

Another thing sniffer dogs rely on is the knowledge of what explosive compounds a terrorist would use, if a terrorist was to use a compound unfamiliar to the dogs then they wouldn't be able to pick it up either, rendering them just as moot as the scanners in that regard.

there is no silver bullet to this issue.

The scanners can find objects with hard edges, not all bombs fit that description - in fact it's very easy to make a thin layer of plastic explosive fit against the skin and the scanner won't know the difference. There's a reason they don't use these at the most secure airport in the world and they have been strongly criticized by the head of Israeli airport security.

It's true that a terrorist might create a novel explosive compound unknown to the dog, but they have no way of knowing what explosives were used in training the dogs and many explosives share common elements. The dogs are still more reliable and less invasive than the current system.

You are condemning a system because of a possibility of it being defeated if a dozen different elements fall into place perfectly, such as the terrorist having foreknowledge of how the specific dog on duty has been trained AND having access to the knowledge or facilities to create a new kind of explosive that the dog has not encountered AND the dog not being able to detect the chemicals common to most explosives. The system in place right now has serious flaws that are easily overcome. Hell, with some access to plastic explosive I could probably get it through and it wouldn't have to be anything unique or novel, Semtex is readily available in warzones around the world - such a device could be detected easily by a dog but would be undetectable by body scanner and could be easily missed in a patdown.

So the system you are defending has serious flaws and major privacy issues. Using metal detectors and dogs all but eliminates the privacy concerns and is more reliable.

Also, the dogs can patrol the terminal, body scanners are fixed in place. And to quote Gen. Patton, "Fixed fortifications are monuments man's stupidity." By having patrolling dogs in addition to dogs at the checkpoint you increase the security for the whole airport and reduce the chance of anyone being able to defeat the fixed security checkpoint.

 

[wooflepoof]

I don't think General Patton was referring to airport security, and I don't think that quote really applies in a practical way to airport security.

There are alot of bombmaking compounds and dogs can only be trained to sniff out so many, so you'd need a lot of dogs. A LOT of dogs. In EVERY airport. they all need to be fed, housed, trained, replaced, tended to, vaccinated, etc etc.

Like I said, tickets are expensive enough as it is.

 

[Top Geek]

body scanners and frisking can find bombs attached to the outside of the body

Right... which means that nobody is going to attempt it, knowing they will be caught.

...but a very thin argument used earlier in the thread was that the scanners can't find bombs implanted within someone,

How is that "thin"? If someone is willing to blow up their colon, they're willing to cram explosives in their anus, ingest them or have them surgically implanted.

And then what?

CT scans, X-rays and cavity searches for everyone? Because, that's the next step.

There are alot of bombmaking compounds and dogs can only be trained to sniff out so many, so you'd need a lot of dogs. A LOT of dogs. In EVERY airport. they all need to be fed, housed, trained, replaced, tended to, vaccinated, etc etc.

I suppose you think $200,000 per scanner placed at every gate at every major airport, plus maintenance, is chump change, eh?

Even if dogs are more expensive, I'd gladly be paying more money for less invasive security that actually works.

 

[wooflepoof]

Right... which means that nobody is going to attempt it, knowing they will be caught.


How is that "thin"? If someone is willing to blow up their colon, they're willing to cram explosives in their anus, ingest them or have them surgically implanted.

And then what?

CT scans, X-rays and cavity searches for everyone? Because, that's the next step.


I suppose you think $200,000 per scanner placed at every gate at every major airport, plus maintenance, is chump change, eh?

Even if dogs are more expensive, I'd gladly be paying more money for less invasive security that actually works.

You need a dog for each substance, and every person, and you would probably pay MUCH more yearly for all the dogs. 20 dogs (which probably wouldn't be enough for one large airport) at 5-8,000 per year? I don't want to pay extra because YOU have privacy issues.

EDIT: The TSA already spent 71 million for 275 dogs and their handlers, that's nowhere near enough to cover ALL the security for EVERY airport PLUS the yearly costs of the dogs.

 

[Top Geek]

You need a dog for each substance, and every person

What? Have you ever seen a dog in your entire life?

and you would probably pay MUCH more yearly for all the dogs. I don't want to pay extra because YOU have privacy issues.

Everyone has privacy issues, most people are just too stupid or apathetic to know it.

 

[Quiky]

https://pic.armedcats.net/q/qu/quiky/2010/12/03/blindtroll.jpg
Troll much, Blind? You could spend your time writing letters to your senators rather than bitch on an online forum about your "liberties".

 

[wooflepoof]

Everyone has privacy issues, most people are just too stupid or apathetic to know it.

And most people can suck it up for a few seconds so they can board an airplane. Yeah, I AM apathetic about walking through a freakin body scanner and I don't need you to tell me about my sense of privacy.

Also

Three dogs at Philadelphia International Airport made headlines when they flunked recertification tests, prompting Rep. Robert Brady, D-Philadelphia, to demand immediate replacements. Authorities at Minneapolis-St. Paul International evacuated a baggage-claim area for 90 minutes after a bomb dog mistakenly alerted officials to a bag that authorities later determined contained no explosives.

nice.

 

[Top Geek]

For however many false-positives dogs create, how many more are there from the TSA monkeys operating the scanners?

 

[wooflepoof]

Dogs finding nonexistent bombs around the terminal can stop flights, airports. Scanner finding a red flag stops one person. At check-in. Keeping in mind there would also be many many many more dogs which would certainly affect the statistic.

 

[brydie76]

a) citation please on the one dog per substance thing. I think if dogs can be trained to smell out multiple fruits/vegetables/drugs at Australian international airports (see: Border Security), you could probably train one dogs to sniff for more than one explosive.

b) you don't necessarily have to have the dogs trawling around the entire airport- just put them in the security area- one/two dogs per line, they give each person a quick sniff over. They react, just that person gets pulled aside. No longer wait times than the scanners probably.

c) people who are saying that the dogs may not be able to detect internal concealments of explosives. Not too sure on how sensitive the dogs are, but they would most likely be more effective than the body scanners at this due to things like residues on hands, clothes, etc being detected (similar to the explosives detector wands they use I think).

I dunno though, no single one system is going to be perfect, it needs to be multiple systems implemented in a way that they compliment each other and work together for maximum safety, public aceptance and efficiency of resources (time, money, people used, etc). I personally don't think the scanners in their current implementation in the US achieve this- there needs to be a major redesign of the whole system (in the US and in other countries) IMO.

 

[Blind_Io]

Troll much, Blind? You could spend your time writing letters to your senators rather than bitch on an online forum about your "liberties".

It's a discussion Quiky, I'm not being insulting or intentionally baiting members. I have gotten frustrated with the repeated use of the "don't like it, don't fly" argument for reasons I have already stated. There was a great deal of discussion about the radiation from the machines and I have conceded that point to those who clearly know more about ionizing radiation than I do.

To address your point, I have written my representatives (as stated in this thread) along with my favorite airline (also mentioned in this thread) regarding this issue; writing my representatives and posting in here are not mutually exclusive.

I wasn't aware that there is a post limit for threads, I'm sure you will find a similar proportion in the "General Toyota Recall/Problem" thread, where I was also very active and posted news stories and updates for the past year. Many of the posts in this thread are similar and cover ongoing events as covered by the media and blogsphere. I have tried to clearly explain what I believe and the reasons why I have come to that conclusion; I have made every attempt to back up my opinion with outside sources.

I don't know what more you want from me, but I don't think that my behavior in this thread qualifies as trolling, and I'm a bit insulted by the accusation.

 

[GRtak]

"Don't like it, don't fly" is a sad phrase anyway. I don't fly much to begin with, but I refuse to give away my liberties for what is supposed to be safety/security. And this invasive search(both scanner and pat down) is beyond what I am going to allow to happen for the convenience of flying. I also won't submit to testing at a "random road stop" by police or other government agencies. Why? Because I live in the USA and I am innocent until proven guilty. If what they were doing was in any way making people more secure, I would still resist. It does not matter if I am not doing anything wrong.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

 

[hajj]

Really?
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101116-31209.html
If a pleat in a light blouse can cause a scanning anomaly, how could the thick seams in heavy denim not cause problems?

So you are bringing on evidence that the backscatter scanners do not work by providing an article about millimeterwaves scanners? Great research there, especially as narf has posted about those scanners being THz scanners before.

The US largely (only?) uses x-ray machines. Germany only uses THz machines, x-ray on people without medical cause is illegal. Europe largely uses THz, but some use x-ray (UK?).

 

[jmsprovan]

The scanners can find objects with hard edges, not all bombs fit that description - in fact it's very easy to make a thin layer of plastic explosive fit against the skin and the scanner won't know the difference. There's a reason they don't use these at the most secure airport in the world and they have been strongly criticized by the head of Israeli airport security.

You are condemning a system because of a possibility of it being defeated if a dozen different elements fall into place perfectly, such as the terrorist having foreknowledge of how the specific dog on duty has been trained AND having access to the knowledge or facilities to create a new kind of explosive that the dog has not encountered AND the dog not being able to detect the chemicals common to most explosives. The system in place right now has serious flaws that are easily overcome. Hell, with some access to plastic explosive I could probably get it through and it wouldn't have to be anything unique or novel, Semtex is readily available in warzones around the world - such a device could be detected easily by a dog but would be undetectable by body scanner and could be easily missed in a patdown.

You are confusing the types of scanner again, the X-Ray type (used by the US) can see anything attached to the outside of the body.

There are enough different explosive compounds out there that it doesn't take much imagination to see that if there is a flaw in the training of the dogs, then it will be exploited as such.

So the system you are defending has serious flaws and major privacy issues. Using metal detectors and dogs all but eliminates the privacy concerns and is more reliable.

Metal detectors and dogs were used at the time of 9/11, tell me how that worked out please.

Right... which means that nobody is going to attempt it, knowing they will be caught.

blind says it doesn't work, can you guys make your damn minds up about it, please.

How is that "thin"? If someone is willing to blow up their colon, they're willing to cram explosives in their anus, ingest them or have them surgically implanted.

its a thin argument because outside of movies and tv there has never been a case of someone trying to bomb an aeroplane with implanted devices, its essentially tinfoil hattery in the highest regard.

And then what?

CT scans, X-rays and cavity searches for everyone? Because, that's the next step.

f e a r m o n g e r i n g

please, quote Orwell, i know you are dying to.

I suppose you think $200,000 per scanner placed at every gate at every major airport, plus maintenance, is chump change, eh?

A scanner at every gate isn't physically feasible, and you have once again forgotten that currently, the scans are done at random.

 

[Dr_Grip]

please, quote Orwell, i know you are dying to.

Given your "all is well" attitude, i'm more inclined to quote Martin Niem?ller.

 

[Blind_Io]

Before 9/11 no one had flown a passenger plane into a building, so naturally 9/11 was impossible because it had never happened before.

 

[Top Geek]

f e a r m o n g e r i n g

Right. I'm sure you would have said the same thing ten years ago if I told you we would be subject to nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation at airports by 2010.

A scanner at every gate isn't physically feasible, and you have once again forgotten that currently, the scans are done at random.

Going by the experiences of passengers whom I've asked, there is no real policy (shocking from the TSA, I know). Sometimes it's random, sometimes it's only after you set off the metal detector, sometimes everybody is being herded through them.

a) citation please on the one dog per substance thing. I think if dogs can be trained to smell out multiple fruits/vegetables/drugs at Australian international airports (see: Border Security), you could probably train one dogs to sniff for more than one explosive.

This is off-topic, but are fruit & veggies like kryptonite for Aussies, or what?

 

[wooflepoof]

Right. I'm sure you would have said the same thing ten years ago if I told you we would be subject to nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation at airports by 2010.

Its fearmongering now because you're referring them as nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation.

Going by the experiences of passengers whom I've asked, there is no real policy (shocking from the TSA, I know). Sometimes it's random, sometimes it's only after you set off the metal detector, sometimes everybody is being herded through them.

Of course passengers are in fact experts and well informed on TSA policy. Why not ask TSA employees instead?

How reliable are bomb sniffing dogs?

"We're pretty confident there was something on the bag that the dog was trained to detect. And it did," Hogan said. "But that doesn't necessarily mean it was an explosive. There are a number of chemicals that dogs are trained to detect, and sometimes they can come from everyday use, not just from somebody preparing an explosive."