3 ms·

Wow, that's a lot of vitriol and indignation, considering their record is actually perfect. Did they get lucky a few times to keep that perfect record? Sure t

Wow, that's a lot of vitriol and indignation, considering their record is actually perfect. Did they get lucky a few times to keep that perfect record? Sure they did. But you can't know what would have happened if they hadn't been there. The air puffing machines were a pretty ambitious project, carried out in the haste that comes from knowing that every day you delay may be the day that a preventable tragedy occurs. It's easy to make bad decisions in such a situation. To be able to do chemical analysis, in the field, sampling completely uncontrolled inputs, all completely automated with no chemical analysis expert on-hand to vet the results, and the expectation of no false positives to inconvenience anybody. Seems like you could cut them a little slack. As for the "x-ray vision", as you call it. That seems to work great. It's hampered by public body modesty taboos because it works too well. Anyway, I'm surprised at your level of angst over this.

philk 17y ago
Given TSA screeners have failed to detect most fake bombs I think you can put their success rate down to terrorism being incredibly rare rather than competence on their part: "Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows." (source:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-17-airport-security_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-17-airport-secur...)
- robotrout 17y ago
  That's why the air puffer would have been really cool, had it worked. Again, we're to the body modesty. Short of clothing penetrating scanners, either visual or chemical, you're left with somebody caressing you thoroughly to detect these bombs. Caressing you very, very thoroughly. This last guy's underwear bomb was actually molded into the shape of his butt, as near as I could tell from the photo they showed. At this point, the public isn't willing to allow that sort of intimacy between them and their security personnel, and, frankly, the TSA operators are probably also not willing to do it. At some point, as it usually does, I suspect technology will solve this.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    If you think technology will solve terrorism I think you're entirely on the wrong path. As security in the computer world shows it takes only a relatively small number of miscreants before you have the ability to hinder the lives of a very large number of people. You need a near 100% success rate in order to control the problem through technology, something you are unlikely to achieve. A real solution, therefore, must be sought outside the technological arena and at a much earlier stage in the lives of the would-be-terrorists than several hours before they are about to detonate a bomb. Countering radicalization is probably a much better way to spend all that money than by spending it on technology.

philk 17y ago

Given TSA screeners have failed to detect most fake bombs I think you can put their success rate down to terrorism being incredibly rare rather than competence on their part: "Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows." (source:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-17-airport-security_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-17-airport-secur...)

robotrout 17y ago
That's why the air puffer would have been really cool, had it worked. Again, we're to the body modesty. Short of clothing penetrating scanners, either visual or chemical, you're left with somebody caressing you thoroughly to detect these bombs. Caressing you very, very thoroughly. This last guy's underwear bomb was actually molded into the shape of his butt, as near as I could tell from the photo they showed. At this point, the public isn't willing to allow that sort of intimacy between them and their security personnel, and, frankly, the TSA operators are probably also not willing to do it. At some point, as it usually does, I suspect technology will solve this.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  If you think technology will solve terrorism I think you're entirely on the wrong path. As security in the computer world shows it takes only a relatively small number of miscreants before you have the ability to hinder the lives of a very large number of people. You need a near 100% success rate in order to control the problem through technology, something you are unlikely to achieve. A real solution, therefore, must be sought outside the technological arena and at a much earlier stage in the lives of the would-be-terrorists than several hours before they are about to detonate a bomb. Countering radicalization is probably a much better way to spend all that money than by spending it on technology.