5 ms·

Indeed. I read FAST as a sort of olive-branch in security theatre. It seems that it, or something like it, will be used to remove porno-scanners and grope-che

by roc 15y ago

Indeed. I read FAST as a sort of olive-branch in security theatre. It seems that it, or something like it, will be used to remove porno-scanners and grope-checks from standard security. If 70% of people are passing through security without being hassled, their PR problems nosedive. And frankly, though it's likely to be error prone and leave airport security still largely ineffective, at least it's move toward trying to intelligently identify risks. Rather that simply sending every single person through ineffective security. And lessening the load on the scanners and gropers can only raise their effectiveness.

3pt14159 15y ago
I agree that that is their goal, but I still don't like rights violated without a warrant or something similar. As an aside, I find it funny that your name is roc, since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characterist... is a good tool to measure accuracy in systems like this.
- roc 15y ago
  Yeah, don't get me wrong, I strongly dislike the laundry list of civil liberties infringements since 9/11(TSA/Patriot Act/etc) and I'd much rather see them gone altogether. But I'm a realist. And if a less-expensive politically-feasible step back toward sanity can be achieved, even if it doesn't put is back across the line directly into sanity by itself, I'm all for taking that step.
kenj0418 15y ago
70% accuracy is pretty weak. I can predict whether a given passenger will attempt to commit a terrorist act with greater than 99.99% accuracy. Here is my code: boolean isTerrorist(Passenger p) { return false; }
- meepmorp 15y ago
  But this is one of those cases where you're much more interested in recall, than precision, right? The false positive cost is much lower than the false negative cost.
Lagged2Death 15y ago
...will be used to remove porno-scanners and grope-checks from standard security. Has this ever happened? Has the TSA ever given up on a security screening practice that had become a widespread routine? If 70% of people are passing through security without being hassled, their PR problems nosedive. If 70% of passengers walk through the screening point without removing their shoes, without walking through a metal detector, without having their bags x-rayed, etc., and the other 30% are singled out for special treatment, won't that 30% feel extra persecuted? The TSA's PR problems are mainly related to rarer-that-30% outrages like selecting comely young women for pornoscanning, interfering with uncommon medical equipment, etc.
- roc 15y ago
  > "Has this ever happened?" No, but I don't think the current state of things is sustainable. There isn't a demographic that's free of TSA horror stories anymore. And we all know a new vector will be chosen that will defeat these measures. Thus, without a way out, the TSA will have to come up with an even-more-invasive screening method. And I can't see how that's at all feasible. Drastically reducing the number of people who have to be subject to "advanced" security measures through technology is a face-saving and politically-feasible way for the TSA to back off. It's, frankly, their only way out. As to the 30% feeling persecuted: yeah, probably. Particularly if a given population consistently gets selected for 'advanced' security. [1] And hopefully that's an avenue that can be leveraged to take further steps toward sane security that doesn't infringe our liberties. I'm not suggesting this is acceptable as a solution. Just as a step. Provided it is, indeed, a step away from running every single person through the current gauntlet of invasive TSA security theatre.
- ojbyrne 15y ago
  Children under 12 no longer have to remove their shoes. It's minor, but it is an example of them giving up a routine security screening practice (or at least modifying to be less intrusive). I think they're going to drop the removing shoes thing completely soon.
lukeschlather 15y ago
>at least it's move toward trying to intelligently identify risks. If we were looking to intelligently identify risks we would be spending more money on car crashes, "ordinary" murders, tornadoes, earthquakes and other things that kill so many people that we've grown inured to it. But people are more interested in a magic bullet to stop us from losing 3,000 people in another fell swoop. Which is really a pretty small number given how many untimely deaths we have every year. (Looking at it from a yearly basis, we lose maybe 300 people a year to domestic terrorism. Not a good thing, to be sure, but we have bigger issues.)

by roc 15y ago

3pt14159 15y ago

I agree that that is their goal, but I still don't like rights violated without a warrant or something similar. As an aside, I find it funny that your name is roc, since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characterist... is a good tool to measure accuracy in systems like this.

roc 15y ago
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I strongly dislike the laundry list of civil liberties infringements since 9/11(TSA/Patriot Act/etc) and I'd much rather see them gone altogether. But I'm a realist. And if a less-expensive politically-feasible step back toward sanity can be achieved, even if it doesn't put is back across the line directly into sanity by itself, I'm all for taking that step.

kenj0418 15y ago

70% accuracy is pretty weak. I can predict whether a given passenger will attempt to commit a terrorist act with greater than 99.99% accuracy. Here is my code: boolean isTerrorist(Passenger p) { return false; }

meepmorp 15y ago
But this is one of those cases where you're much more interested in recall, than precision, right? The false positive cost is much lower than the false negative cost.

Lagged2Death 15y ago

...will be used to remove porno-scanners and grope-checks from standard security. Has this ever happened? Has the TSA ever given up on a security screening practice that had become a widespread routine? If 70% of people are passing through security without being hassled, their PR problems nosedive. If 70% of passengers walk through the screening point without removing their shoes, without walking through a metal detector, without having their bags x-rayed, etc., and the other 30% are singled out for special treatment, won't that 30% feel extra persecuted? The TSA's PR problems are mainly related to rarer-that-30% outrages like selecting comely young women for pornoscanning, interfering with uncommon medical equipment, etc.

roc 15y ago
> "Has this ever happened?" No, but I don't think the current state of things is sustainable. There isn't a demographic that's free of TSA horror stories anymore. And we all know a new vector will be chosen that will defeat these measures. Thus, without a way out, the TSA will have to come up with an even-more-invasive screening method. And I can't see how that's at all feasible. Drastically reducing the number of people who have to be subject to "advanced" security measures through technology is a face-saving and politically-feasible way for the TSA to back off. It's, frankly, their only way out. As to the 30% feeling persecuted: yeah, probably. Particularly if a given population consistently gets selected for 'advanced' security. [1] And hopefully that's an avenue that can be leveraged to take further steps toward sane security that doesn't infringe our liberties. I'm not suggesting this is acceptable as a solution. Just as a step. Provided it is, indeed, a step away from running every single person through the current gauntlet of invasive TSA security theatre.
ojbyrne 15y ago
Children under 12 no longer have to remove their shoes. It's minor, but it is an example of them giving up a routine security screening practice (or at least modifying to be less intrusive). I think they're going to drop the removing shoes thing completely soon.

lukeschlather 15y ago

>at least it's move toward trying to intelligently identify risks. If we were looking to intelligently identify risks we would be spending more money on car crashes, "ordinary" murders, tornadoes, earthquakes and other things that kill so many people that we've grown inured to it. But people are more interested in a magic bullet to stop us from losing 3,000 people in another fell swoop. Which is really a pretty small number given how many untimely deaths we have every year. (Looking at it from a yearly basis, we lose maybe 300 people a year to domestic terrorism. Not a good thing, to be sure, but we have bigger issues.)