21–30 of 37 posts
Cut the foreplay, TSA, we all know eventually we will have to get on the plane naked! After a good cavity search. Because, let's face it, all it takes is one bra-bomber and panty-bomber for this to become a reality.
Cavity searches aren't profitable.
It would be very hard to conceal such conformally-packed explosives from sniffers and dogs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the company that makes these machines allow access to them?
Shouldn't the airports or governments (or whoever is paying for these) test them properly?
It would be very hard to conceal such conformally-packed explosives from sniffers and dogs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't the airports or governments (or whoever is paying for these) test them properly?
I'm really curious about this. People on HN are saying "oh it's just security theater" as if the TSA purchasing officials are knowingly disingenuous. I suspect the testing procedures are badly flawed and the TSA has no clue whether the devices that they buy work. Right now I don't haven enough data to say either way - lying or stupid. Both hypotheses fit the facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't the airports or governments (or whoever is paying for these) test them properly?
I'm really curious about this. People on HN are saying "oh it's just security theater" as if the TSA purchasing officials are knowingly disingenuous. I suspect the testing procedures are badly flawed and the TSA has no clue whether the devices that they buy work. Right now I don't haven enough data to say either way - lying or stupid. Both hypotheses fit the facts.
Would you consider that 'lying' or 'stupid'?
Great headline based on a simulation. Says so in the second sentence of the abstract. Is it hard to do a test using real machines? What's stopping them?
And the government has refused to release testing data; EPIC's currently got a FOIA suit.
I'm against security theater, but this sounds like an information visualization problem: if the image contains enough signal that a theoretically optimally trained eye can detect the contraband, they should be able to use machine learning algorithms to detect suspicious items and make them show up with higher contrast. In other words, the software should magnify anything out of the ordinary, like contraband. It's not…
They aren't meant to detect explosives. They are meant to detect weapons that the metal detector might not pickup The explosive you would just put through the x-ray machine anyway where it wouldn't be detected.
Yes, they are.
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm
> Advanced imaging technology safely screens passengers for both metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons and explosives, which may be concealed under a passengers’ clothing without physical contact to keep the traveling public secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really curious about this. People on HN are saying "oh it's just security theater" as if the TSA purchasing officials are knowingly disingenuous. I suspect the testing procedures are badly flawed and the TSA has no clue whether the devices that they buy work. Right now I don't haven enough data to say either way - lying or stupid. Both hypotheses fit the facts.
Security experts are saying it's security theater. And they're right.