4 ms·

'Checkpoint of the future' takes shape at Texas airport

23 points by stfu 14y ago

jpxxx 14y ago
Delusional, illegal, fraudulent, wasteful, malicious, insulting, dehumanizing garbage - all of it.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  Bruce Schneier posted a good opinion piece today. In particular he notes that unlike virtually all other government activity, the TSA has never done a cost benefit analysis, and that tweaks to the process of spending an unlimited amount of money on security theatre won't actually achieve anything. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_takes.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_take...
ams6110 14y ago
Meanwhile those who would be terrorists are probably not even thinking about air travel when there are so many other ways to cause mayhem
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
maxko87 14y ago
If people are complaining about airport security being intrusive now, think about the complaints that would result if this were to come about. While it's a nifty idea, this "spying" would never bode well with passengers, even in comparison to current standards. On the other hand, this type of comprehensive filming already happens at banks and other institutions, so it is possible that after all the immediate sensationalism, people would get used to it.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  I think that all of the privacy issues we face today will seem ordinary in the future. It was only a matter of time before we started to monitor and manage ourselves to this level of scrutiny.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    I must object to your use of the word "ourselves" in this context. I didn't vote for these systems or the politicians who want them, and accepting shared blame for the actions of a select few is not to my taste. I also disagree with the inherent inevitability of totalitarian surveillance. Were mankind not so subject to irrational fear, manipulation, and political warmongering, most of the problems that are "solved" by intrusive monitoring would go away.
    - tokenizer 14y ago
      I wish I could have your optimism. But I believe that unless the millennials and gen-y-ers radically shift political thought, most governments will go in this way. Security to protect ourselves against ourselves, up to the extent of thoughts possibly... I agree with you 100% in that I also disagree with the general direction, I meant ourselves in the way that if it happens, we let it happen.
chrsstrm 14y ago
Do you trust your retinal scan info and fingerprints to be kept secure by the government contractor who had the lowest bid? Just like the scanners that weren't supposed to be saving images? Reading through the article I just kept thinking, here it is, Minority Report style monitoring. Who is going to end up with my scan data and exploit it in the name of "targeted marketing?" And putting these current scanners in a tunnel still doesn't make them any less intrusive or more effective.
- ericabiz 14y ago
  "Who is going to end up with my scan data and exploit it in the name of 'targeted marketing?'" I'm not worried about "targeted marketing" so much (heck, Facebook knows way more about the average person than this database would), but more about hacking and this being a target for potential thieves. Like a whole new form of "identity theft." Of course, giving up this information is "voluntary", but if the cost of not giving it up is having to get to the airport 3 hours ahead of your flight to stand in line the entire time, the government will suddenly have access to a whole lot of people's personal information.
  - chrsstrm 14y ago
    Sure, it will be voluntary at first, and then eventually become the only way to board a plane/train/boat. At that point, someone will suppose that if our scans are good enough for the government to identify us for something so crucial, why can't we also use it for ID/driver's license/form of secure payment/house key/etc? After this has been established, yes, biometric identity theft will be an issue. We'll see a similar situation just like a US SSN - no one needs it but the IRS to collect taxes, yet everyone asks for it because it is the government's only way to uniquely identify a singular person.
rasengan0 14y ago
Now screening for true patriots: "Those who voluntarily provide more information about themselves to the government would be rewarded with faster passage."
hammock 14y ago
Giant naked scanner tunnel.. how safe is that?
wmeredith 14y ago
"The key to speeding up checkpoints and making security less intrusive will be to identify and assess travelers according to the risks they pose to safety in the skies." I can do that right now. Statistically speaking the answer is, "none". What a waste of resources.
- bruce511 14y ago
  Yesterday I took a domestic flight in a country outside the US. What a surprise. Kept my belt on, kept my shoes on, no objection to a can of coke in my bag, just placed my bag on the scanner, waled through a simple metal detector, picked up my bag and kept walking. Despite this casualness, we landed safely both times. The TSA has added one measure at a time, and the result is now impressively intrusive. And (given the smaller numbers of staff I saw) impressively expensive. I wonder sometimes if America has forgotten what "normal" is, and if it can ever get back there. It's sad - so much fear keeps the people in bondage. I'm amazed at folk in the US that still believe the TSA makes flying safer. I guess until that changes, they'll stay. And since people equate inconvenience to safety, their goal really is to make things more and more intrusive, and inconvenient.
  - ThomPete 14y ago
    It's not fear it's business. The airports are more than happy to buy into the idea of extra security measures because it means that they will spend more money in the airport while waiting for the plane.
mitchty 14y ago
So basically the TSA wants new screening technology installed in airports. Guess thats one way to justify your agencies existence, and give kickbacks to the companies that sell the equipment.
- beedogs 14y ago
  It's utterly astounding how quickly the technology seems to need to be scrapped and replaced in TSA-land. I need to get in on this racket.
  - mitchty 14y ago
    Step 1: create a new problem by making things inefficient Step 2: charge people to fix the first problem Step 3: repeat It was sad knowing the rate of 350/hr people pre 9/11 versus at worst 60/hr and hoping to get 30% faster after this change is in place. Instead of asking: are we really getting concrete benefits from this arrangement at all.
mikeevans 14y ago
Scanning fingerprints or irises? No thanks.
kleiba 14y ago
I would find it strange that something like this is legal in a country like the USA. Then again, I would find it strange if something like that were illegal in a country like the USA.

23 points by stfu 14y ago

jpxxx 14y ago

Delusional, illegal, fraudulent, wasteful, malicious, insulting, dehumanizing garbage - all of it.

rogerbinns 14y ago
Bruce Schneier posted a good opinion piece today. In particular he notes that unlike virtually all other government activity, the TSA has never done a cost benefit analysis, and that tweaks to the process of spending an unlimited amount of money on security theatre won't actually achieve anything. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_takes.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_take...

ams6110 14y ago

Meanwhile those who would be terrorists are probably not even thinking about air travel when there are so many other ways to cause mayhem

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

maxko87 14y ago

If people are complaining about airport security being intrusive now, think about the complaints that would result if this were to come about. While it's a nifty idea, this "spying" would never bode well with passengers, even in comparison to current standards. On the other hand, this type of comprehensive filming already happens at banks and other institutions, so it is possible that after all the immediate sensationalism, people would get used to it.

tokenizer 14y ago
I think that all of the privacy issues we face today will seem ordinary in the future. It was only a matter of time before we started to monitor and manage ourselves to this level of scrutiny.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  I must object to your use of the word "ourselves" in this context. I didn't vote for these systems or the politicians who want them, and accepting shared blame for the actions of a select few is not to my taste. I also disagree with the inherent inevitability of totalitarian surveillance. Were mankind not so subject to irrational fear, manipulation, and political warmongering, most of the problems that are "solved" by intrusive monitoring would go away.
  - tokenizer 14y ago
    I wish I could have your optimism. But I believe that unless the millennials and gen-y-ers radically shift political thought, most governments will go in this way. Security to protect ourselves against ourselves, up to the extent of thoughts possibly... I agree with you 100% in that I also disagree with the general direction, I meant ourselves in the way that if it happens, we let it happen.

chrsstrm 14y ago

Do you trust your retinal scan info and fingerprints to be kept secure by the government contractor who had the lowest bid? Just like the scanners that weren't supposed to be saving images? Reading through the article I just kept thinking, here it is, Minority Report style monitoring. Who is going to end up with my scan data and exploit it in the name of "targeted marketing?" And putting these current scanners in a tunnel still doesn't make them any less intrusive or more effective.

ericabiz 14y ago
"Who is going to end up with my scan data and exploit it in the name of 'targeted marketing?'" I'm not worried about "targeted marketing" so much (heck, Facebook knows way more about the average person than this database would), but more about hacking and this being a target for potential thieves. Like a whole new form of "identity theft." Of course, giving up this information is "voluntary", but if the cost of not giving it up is having to get to the airport 3 hours ahead of your flight to stand in line the entire time, the government will suddenly have access to a whole lot of people's personal information.
- chrsstrm 14y ago
  Sure, it will be voluntary at first, and then eventually become the only way to board a plane/train/boat. At that point, someone will suppose that if our scans are good enough for the government to identify us for something so crucial, why can't we also use it for ID/driver's license/form of secure payment/house key/etc? After this has been established, yes, biometric identity theft will be an issue. We'll see a similar situation just like a US SSN - no one needs it but the IRS to collect taxes, yet everyone asks for it because it is the government's only way to uniquely identify a singular person.

rasengan0 14y ago

Now screening for true patriots: "Those who voluntarily provide more information about themselves to the government would be rewarded with faster passage."

hammock 14y ago

Giant naked scanner tunnel.. how safe is that?

wmeredith 14y ago

"The key to speeding up checkpoints and making security less intrusive will be to identify and assess travelers according to the risks they pose to safety in the skies." I can do that right now. Statistically speaking the answer is, "none". What a waste of resources.

bruce511 14y ago
Yesterday I took a domestic flight in a country outside the US. What a surprise. Kept my belt on, kept my shoes on, no objection to a can of coke in my bag, just placed my bag on the scanner, waled through a simple metal detector, picked up my bag and kept walking. Despite this casualness, we landed safely both times. The TSA has added one measure at a time, and the result is now impressively intrusive. And (given the smaller numbers of staff I saw) impressively expensive. I wonder sometimes if America has forgotten what "normal" is, and if it can ever get back there. It's sad - so much fear keeps the people in bondage. I'm amazed at folk in the US that still believe the TSA makes flying safer. I guess until that changes, they'll stay. And since people equate inconvenience to safety, their goal really is to make things more and more intrusive, and inconvenient.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  It's not fear it's business. The airports are more than happy to buy into the idea of extra security measures because it means that they will spend more money in the airport while waiting for the plane.

mitchty 14y ago

So basically the TSA wants new screening technology installed in airports. Guess thats one way to justify your agencies existence, and give kickbacks to the companies that sell the equipment.

beedogs 14y ago
It's utterly astounding how quickly the technology seems to need to be scrapped and replaced in TSA-land. I need to get in on this racket.
- mitchty 14y ago
  Step 1: create a new problem by making things inefficient Step 2: charge people to fix the first problem Step 3: repeat It was sad knowing the rate of 350/hr people pre 9/11 versus at worst 60/hr and hoping to get 30% faster after this change is in place. Instead of asking: are we really getting concrete benefits from this arrangement at all.

mikeevans 14y ago

Scanning fingerprints or irises? No thanks.

kleiba 14y ago

I would find it strange that something like this is legal in a country like the USA. Then again, I would find it strange if something like that were illegal in a country like the USA.