4 ms·
A sensible reply, Daniel, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think hard objects and explosives scanning technology is going to be standard in the future.
by lionhearted 16y ago
A sensible reply, Daniel, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think hard objects and explosives scanning technology is going to be standard in the future. We've only got primitive and crude versions right now, but I think this sort of scanning technology is the answer to the problem. With good enough technology and alerts system, security at all high risk venues could proceed automatically with a few people monitoring outputs and response teams nearby.
Implemented as well as it could be, this seems like it'll be less intrusive than the current way of lining up for metal detectors. Also, less expensive and less invasive. From the comments, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm for this kind of technology.
- Quarrelsome 16y agoI'm not sure that I'm convinced that technology is really the answer here. Sure it can work if everyone is scanned and the monitors watched but will that always 100% be the case? I've worked on scanning systems before for security purposes (festival id tags, I appreciate, a lesser concern) and there are almost always ways around the system, be it accidental or intentional. But if those ways round are abused the technology completely fails to fulfil its intended purpose if that one person is missed. The issue with airport security and kabooms is can certainly be just that one person who has the kaboom and such an instance would take us right back to square one. As a brief example might I state that diplomats have immunity from these scanning systems and are allowed to bypass them.