backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by rdhood.. on Jan 6 at 3:38 PM


  (Source: Cynthia Boll/AP)

Pricey new "millimeter-wave" full body scanners may seem promising, but in reality they do little to detect liquids, plastics, or chemical explosives, say UK government officials.  (Source: IOS Graphics)
Turns out we might really not be any safer with new semi-nude scans

On Christmas Day Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, attempted an audacious terrorist attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.  Fortunately, the Nigerian native's scheme failed due to faulty explosives and he was taken into custody after being restrained by passengers.  However, in the wake of the attacks, U.S. President Barack Obama is considering rolling out current test-phase 3D scanners on a national basis.

Privacy advocates are outraged as the scanners show basically a nude image of the passenger -- with genitals and breasts blurred by software (though the raw image is fully nude).  However, there may be a far greater problem with the scanners. According to British government officials -- they don't work.

The British Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office tested the new 3D scanners thoroughly and found that while they were relatively accurate in catching high-density materials that pat-downs missed (such as knives, box-cutters, or other problem items), they failed to detect most low-density items, including bags of liquid.

The Christmas Day bomber used a 3 oz. package of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate), disguised in his crotch.  Hard to detect in a pat down, British politicians familiar with the country's internal research say that "millimeter-wave" scanners would also likely fail to spot the bag of low-density chemical explosives.

According to Ben Wallace, the UK Conservative MP, tests showed that the new scanners failed to detect a variety of low-density materials, including, plastic, chemicals and liquids.  The waves pass through these materials, hitting the body and then bouncing back, revealing only the underlying skin.

Like the U.S., the UK is now considering adopting the scanners on a broad basis.  However, emerging evidence from government studies on the scanners indicates that the rollout may be nothing more than a pricey game of "security theater" designed to make people feel safe, while doing little in reality.  This is significant, considering the investment may amount to hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, an expense that will surely be passed on to taxpayers.

Mr. Wallace comments, "[UK Prime Minister] Gordon Brown is grasping at headlines if he thinks buying a couple of scanners will make us safer. It is too little, too late. Under his leadership, he starved the defence research budget that could have funded a comprehensive solution while at the same time he has weakened our border security.  Scanners cannot provide a comprehensive solution on their own. We must now start to ask if national security demands the use of profiling."

Mr. Wallace is among the politicians in the U.S., UK, and abroad that's suggesting some sort of profiling system as an alternative to more effectively increase security.  Such a system might involve additional searches of foreign nationals, particularly from volatile regions like the Middle East and Africa, while potentially lightening the searches on certain groups, like the elderly.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 9:50:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Mr. Wallace is among the politicians in the U.S., UK, and abroad that's suggesting some sort of profiling system as an alternative to more effectively increase security. Such a system might involve additional searches of foreign nationals, particularly from volatile regions like the Middle East and Africa, while potentially lightening the searches on certain groups, like the elderly.


Seriously, when I heard the TSA's response to the "underwear bomb" attempt, I laughed. Their response was to take away the blankets from mothers with sleeping children and everyone else, because the underwear bomber guy tried to use a blanket to cover up what he was doing.

Honestly, enough is enough. I only hope more people don't have to die before we finally get the guts to start profiling.




RE: Finally some common sense
By Spivonious on 1/4/2010 10:06:47 AM , Rating: 3
If we start profiling, then the bombers will all be little old ladies with nice European names and white skin.

I think our main problem is that we assume terrorists are stupid. Just look at the unmanned drones transmitting unencrypted video. Seriously?


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 10:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we start profiling, then the bombers will all be little old ladies with nice European names and white skin.


One of the most common counter arguments used on Daily Tech.

Problem is, no offense, but it's idiotic. First off, assuming you find nice white european women willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP for a cause that's not even their own.. can you imagine the terrorist actually using an infidel, in their own words, AND a woman for such an act ?? They would be outright SHAMED in their own communities.

Sorry but it's just not going to happen. And anyone who thinks it will is a moron.


RE: Finally some common sense
By MozeeToby on 1/4/2010 10:57:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
First off, assuming you find nice white European women willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP for a cause that's not even their own
How do you know? Not everyone who converts to Islam changes their name and not everyone who is Islamic is of Arabic descent. All it takes is one chemically imbalanced woman and the proper encouragement and you'd have a world of hurt.

Alternatively, given that there is a real and active sex slave trade from Eastern Europe into many Arabic countries I wouldn't find it at all hard to believe that terrorist could find a properly brainwashed, European, young woman to do their dirty work for them.

As for the shame that they would feel? They've used women for their attacks in the past, and I didn't hear any outcry from their leaders; maybe it happened privately but they certainly didn't say to the world that such behavior was unacceptable.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 11:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
/throws arms up

Ok fine. Whatever guys lol. Good luck finding all those non Muslim terrorists just itching to be suicide bombers.


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 11:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok fine. Whatever guys lol. Good luck finding all those non Muslim terrorists just itching to be suicide bombers


You mean like Timothy James McVeigh

The problem here is not catching the terrorists it's really determining why they keep attacking us.

The problem with that is we know why but our governments wont stop causing it. All these terrorists that are created want the same thing for Western and European powers to leave them alone. Whether your and IRA, Al Qaeda, or Hamas. All they want is self determination and for others to leave their lands. I'm sorry but I don't see what is so hard about that.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Oregonian2 on 1/4/2010 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All they want is self determination and for others to leave their lands. I'm sorry but I don't see what is so hard about that.


One commits suicide to gain self determination? I have trouble accepting that as a profitable endeavor. Especially when those who are trying to being kept out of "their lands" isn't there to begin with.


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 2:08:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One commits suicide to gain self determination? I have trouble accepting that as a profitable endeavor.


I would agree, but since most of these people are poor uneducated or just at their weak minded enough so that others can convince them of their "just cause". They are used as pawns in this battle. Then we come along and feed them more ammunition by attacking the Muslim countries, whom never really posed any threat to us.

quote:
Especially when those who are trying to being kept out of "their lands" isn't there to begin with.


I'm not sure what you were saying here, but if you mean to say that we are not in the middle east or interfering with their affairs I would ask where you have been living the last 75 years or so.

In reality the MIC(Military Industrial Complex) is just using Islamic Extremist and Al Qaeda as their new Fear mongering campaign, similar to Communism, which was the big fear mongering tool they used for the last Century to get us involved in pointless wars costing billions of dollars and millions of lives.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 3:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was wondering when the cookoo conspiracy theory would come out of your mouth. I'm surprised you didn't throw in the "war for oil" while you were at it.


Like I said the more you talk the more ignorant you sound. it amazes me you can even form coherent sentences.


RE: Finally some common sense
By chick0n on 1/5/2010 8:32:44 AM , Rating: 1
I agreed with you AEvangel.

I think people have been watching Fox and NBCs about "OMG ANOTHER Solider KILLED IN IRAQ ~~~" way too much. Sure some of our US citizens died. but do you fags have any idea how MANY Civilians got killed by US from so called "we believed/the intelligences told us that this location has terrorist so we bombed them up"

Last year I read overseas news(the media that has not be controlled by Jewish/US/UK/whatever western of course), there were over 600K civilians killed in Iraq ALONE.

No wonder so many people want to be suicide bombers and more and more people join the so called "terrorist" group.


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/5/2010 6:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last year I read overseas news(the media that has not be controlled by Jewish/US/UK/whatever western of course), there were over 600K civilians killed in Iraq ALONE.


Exactly...I'm not going to quote exact #'s like you did but I think any intelligent person should realize that more innocent people have been killed in this ignorant WAR ON TERROR campaign then died in what started this whole witch hunt.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 1:59:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You don't think people have tried to reason with them ? They are freaking savages, end of story. There is no point in trying to determine why they do what they do.


Wow, the ignorance of your statement speaks volumes to how truly stupid you are.

quote:
That is absurd. They want a world wide Muslim state, convert or die. You might want to actually pay attention to what they believe and you might understand their motivations.


Who is this THEY you speak of?? Cause according to the CIA the reason why Muslim extremists attack us is due to a term called blow-back. They attack us cause we are their and keep messing with affairs in their countries or supporting corrupt regimes in their countries.

quote:
One guy, and he isn't even a suicide bomber. Nice try, you failed.


I agree he was not a suicide bomber, but he is really not much different then most of these suicide bombers. He was just educated enough to do it with out blowing himself up.

But like I said at the start of my reply you really are just to ignorant for words. The simple fact that you devalue almost an entire continent of people as savages just amazes me.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 3:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The simple fact that you devalue almost an entire continent of people as savages just amazes me.


You know what, go to hell. I never said that and you f'ing know it. We're not talking about entire countries worth of people. ALL Muslims and all middle eastern people are NOT suicide bombers, extreemist, or anything of the like.


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 3:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Muslims and all middle eastern people are NOT suicide bombers, extreemist, or anything of the like.


So then why not trust them enough to let them run their own countries and elect their own leaders, without interference.

Right now we are contemplating more sanctions for Iran like the ones that starved hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, simply because we BELIEVE they are developing nuclear weapons even though their is NO proof of that and actually all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

While at the same time we provided nuclear weapons to Israel and helped India get them as well.

So you tell me if all those people have a right to pissed off at us when we tell them what they can and can't have in their own country.


RE: Finally some common sense
By HighWing on 1/4/2010 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
you are forgetting one little detail as to the "why" "we" are in their lands. They've had their country to run on their own, but they then also attacked other countries that then came to us for help. (insert what ever war in the middle east you want here) So it was either not help out someone asking for help, or go into these lands and help. We are in their lands because at one time we were "asked" to be there. Now weather we should still be there is another topic of debate as well.

Fact is these extremists don't want to play nice with our allies. And don't want our allies to have their own country and run it either. So in a way denying the extremists that right seems more logical to me. but then that's just my opinion.

Personally I would be all for just not letting anyone in or out of these war zones in the middle easy till they figure it out on their own. I agree that if they don't want us in their lands, then maybe we should leave. However, often it's not "their" land that they don't want us in.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 6:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't try to reason with him, I have already given up. If it wasn't for the US and it's allies, all the Jews in the middle east would be dead or displaced. And we would STILL be hated.

He's trying to establish a rational and logical cause!=effect pattern of behavior to people who blow themselves and innocent people up. Insanity.


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/5/2010 6:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it wasn't for the US and it's allies, all the Jews in the middle east would be dead or displaced.


An what is the problem with that?? Considering Israel State we know today was established by Terrorists??

quote:
He's trying to establish a rational and logical cause!=effect pattern of behavior to people who blow themselves and innocent people up. Insanity.


I know...it's crazy to apply human logic to a situation when you can just BLOW THEM UP!! I guess all those FBI Profilers must have it all wrong you can't make any rational to what crazy murders do and why they do it.

Cowards like you slay me you have no problem sacrificing other peoples lives while sit there comfortable at home with your smug confidence of doing the right thing no matter how many innocent people are killed in your grand crusade of stupidity.


RE: Finally some common sense
By chick0n on 1/5/2010 8:42:21 AM , Rating: 1
and have you wondered WHY the US help?

Jewish, Oil.

there are wars every fuxking where, you dont see our o-holy USA send all their troops to clear those pirates up.

Why they want Iraq? w00t free oil. USA have been talking $hit about North Korea for ages, you dont see Bush send dozens of army to clear it up.

Oh speaking of jews, last I know there were NEVER a country called "Israel" in history, where did that come from ... oh yeah, because some "RICH JEWS" said "THAT location" is where they start, so guess what, send a group of army there so they can KILL & kick them out so these Jews can start their own "country" ROFL OMG WOW give them a round of applause !!!

If you support the Jewish, I guess you should support the American Indians to start a War right now and take the US back then. Cuz this land originally belong to the American Indians, it was the "white men" who came ships and took it.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Reclaimer77 on 1/5/2010 9:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
lol, and they say I'm racists on here...


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/5/2010 6:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol, and they say I'm racists on here...


No...I don't think your racist just ignorant.


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/5/2010 6:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They've had their country to run on their own, but they then also attacked other countries that then came to us for help.


Ok, then explain to me of the two wars we are involved in now and who they attacked that asked for help?

quote:
Fact is these extremists don't want to play nice with our allies.


You ever think it's because our "allies" don't want to play nice with them?? I mean almost everyone we call and Ally in that region is an Oppressive Dictatorship or commits heinous human rights offenses.


By ClownPuncher on 1/4/2010 7:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
How do you profile this? To be clear, you are talking about Muslims? The majority of the worlds Muslims are from Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan etc. Huge variances in DNA groups, completely dissimilar in all ways besides faith. If you mean Middle Easterners, are you referring to the arabs, semitic races, aryans, turks, africans?

Profiling like is is either racial or relgion based, and it is discrimination. So you want to treat a massive group like crap because a very very small group(we're talking about a fraction of 1% of a population) is violent?


RE: Finally some common sense
By KidneyBean on 1/4/2010 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
"You mean like Timothy James McVeigh"

Lets at least shrink the terrorist pool, OK. Excluding middle eastern people from bypassing extra security inspection, who says it has to be physically intrusive, would go a long ways. How many Israeli planes have had passengers on a flying plane attempt terrorism lately?


RE: Finally some common sense
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many Israeli planes have had passengers on a flying plane attempt terrorism lately?


You want to talk about Israel security being invasive.

http://matzav.com/us-student-police-shot-my-laptop...


RE: Finally some common sense
By Omega215D on 1/4/2010 10:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
I love how the commenters stated it was a good thing and that she was probably hiding something from them.

It'll take a month for reimbursement? Instead of being on vacation or such you'll spend your time filling out forms.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Solandri on 1/4/2010 3:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Profiling works. It's simple math. Concentrate your search on a smaller subset, and you increase your odds of catching the one anomaly. If the terrorists attempt to thwart your profiling by using race/age/gender groups not profiled, it seriously decreases their potential pool of suicide bombers. Either way, it achieves the desired goal of reducing successful terrorist incidents.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/456891
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/Profiling+wo...

The question is not one of whether or not it works. The question is one of principle. Do we give up our principles against racial discrimination to gain the advantage racial profiling would provide?

quote:
The problem here is not catching the terrorists it's really determining why they keep attacking us.

The problem with that thinking is that no matter what you do, someone, somewhere in the world will not like it. There are just too many different peoples and viewpoints in the world to allow otherwise. So your dream of a world where there are no terrorists wishing to attack us is just that - an impossible dream. True you can minimize the number of people willing to attack us by making some smart decisions. But basing foreign policy entirely upon whether a tiny group of people would be really pissed off by your actions is just silly. At some point you have to draw the line, and say that the number of people opposing what you're doing is too small to override the wishes of the majority in the region.

In fact, the biggest difference I see among Western democracies and other political systems is that the people on the losing end of a vote are less likely to resort to violent means to protest their loss. I've been pondering how/why that is for many years now.

quote:
The problem with that is we know why but our governments wont stop causing it. All these terrorists that are created want the same thing for Western and European powers to leave them alone. Whether your and IRA, Al Qaeda, or Hamas. All they want is self determination and for others to leave their lands. I'm sorry but I don't see what is so hard about that.

And therein is the problem. Nobody elected Al Qaeda or the IRA as legitimate representatives for their people, so it's wrong to treat their wants and desires as representative of the nations in the region as a whole. (Hamas was elected to represent the Gaza Strip, so I give them more leeway despite their history.)

You're trying to make it sound like everyone in that area wants to be left alone. That's simply not true. Some do, some don't. I would reckon most actually want some form of trade with the West, as opposed to Al Qaeda which wants the region to be totally isolated.

Political relations with foreign non-democratic countries raise some sticky issues of principle. On the one hand, you don't want to support a brutal dictator. On the other hand, because of the political structure of the country, trading with him may in fact be the only way you can exert any influence in the region. I'm not too keen on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia (basically a royal monarchy), but said relationship is the only thing which gives any weight to our protests when they oppress their citizens.

You seem to be asking for international relations to be limited to perfectly legitimate and perfectly representative democracies. The real world isn't that simple. Sometimes you have to choose between a bad option and a worse option.


RE: Finally some common sense
By Moishe on 1/4/2010 4:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be stupid.
The argument that there are other kinds of terrorists out there does not at all diminish the fact that the vast majority of them are the radical Muslim types.

Anyone with a brain knows that to get the best results you target the widest audience. The widest terrorist type is easy to spot. There will always be exceptions and crazies, but the organization of a radical religion that authorizes death of non-converts tends to be the rule, not the exception.

It really bothers me that people don't want to do the obvious thing that might produce results. This is like the RIAA saying "aww hell, can't catch em all, might as well give up."


RE: Finally some common sense
By callmeroy on 1/5/2010 12:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
My recent (and admittedly over sarcastic.. :) ) post about profiling as a good thing cemented what I already suspected..most people don't really know what actual profiling even is. They think its nothing more than randomly selecting folks based on their race or religion alone and for no other reason than 'well the other guy that did it was that religion or race too'...then you also have the folks who believe profiling is claimed to STOP dead everyone and anyone ....like the Tim McVeigh (which is a very common retort for those against profiling) ....

Then the blah blah about constitution and all....even though profiling when used as the investigative and law enforcement aid its supposed to be doesn't violate any constiutional rights whatsoever.

But back to McVeigh, if profiling was in existence back then it may have caught on to him --- but nothing (like much in life) is 100% certain. I can tell you using profiling as a tool....*the right way* would have analyzed things like why did McVeigh buy this that and the other thing -- gee that's the same stuff in the past that people used to build bombs....hmm look here he's scheduled to pick up a rented truck....hmm maybe we should put surveillance on this guy.......

Profiling is NOT looking at race and religion alone -- get that through your heads. Profiling is using intelligence about all the commonalities -- including behavor, buying habits, personality traits, history, etc. etc. that conforms to criminals who carried out like crimes in the past.


RE: Finally some common sense
By afkrotch on 1/4/2010 11:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
If they can make Eddie Murphy look like an old white guy in Coming to America back in 1988, they can make a terrorist look like an old white lady today.


RE: Finally some common sense
By blowfish on 1/4/2010 3:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
This kind of rubbish is based on Israeli experiences. Now it's obviously very easy for an Arabic person to impersonate a Jewish person - they are pretty much genetically the same thing.

When was the last attack carried out by a regular Joe or a little old white lady?

All sensible people know that the problem is with ultra-religious Islamic losers. You have to believe in a rewarding afterlife to consider being a suicide bomber. One of the ironies is that the promised virgins for the "martyrs" (losers) are actually white raisins, not virgins. Just an error in translation of that wonderful, peaceful book. You know the one, the one that talks of cutting off unbelievers' heads and pouring boiling oil down their necks. Primitive mumbo-jumbo at the same sort of level as the Old Testament, another hodge-podge of tribal documents.

Instead of trying to use machines to detect these losers, a few simple questions would suffice. Sure, some of them will adopt Western ways to try to fool the security services, but you can't disguise fanaticism with short hair and a few bar tabs.

Now of course the government wouldn't be spending huge amounts of money on security improvements that don't work, would they?

Oh, wait a minute, the much touted TSA screeners consistently perform well below - perhaps an order of magnitude below - the supposedly unqualified lowly paid workers they took over from. That, despite the TSA getting advance warning of any "random" tests. And not only do the TSA screeners cost more - like a factor of ten times more than the scape-goated private screening services they replaced - they also add insult to injury by having one of the highest rates of absenteeism of any government employees.

So more madness, more expensive machines, more delays, more stupidity, no common sense.


Profiling
By UncleRufus on 1/4/2010 9:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
So obviously that dude at the end uses whatever news clipping each morning to make some sort of profiling statement. Of course profiling happens whether it is official procedure or not.

The problem I am having is that this fellow had a powder hidden in his crotch which is not normally detectable in a pat-down search. Is the idea that we are going to start cavity-searching anyone that looks non-western? If you are willing to pack high exlosives next to your bait-n-tackle, then you are probably willing to cram it (gently) where the sun don't shine.

It seems that no matter what security measures you take, there is going to be a counter measure, and if you are willing to die for your cause, you are probably willing to make a checklist of those things. Hell, I make a checklist when I go to the grocery store. How hard is it to make sure that you aren't using metal weapons, traveling without luggage or documentation, wearing traditional middle eastern clothes, etc..etc..?




RE: Profiling
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 10:07:38 AM , Rating: 3
Airports are not the first line of defense though. They are the last line, and what little time they have to screen passengers should be prioritized from highest risks to lowest. 80 year old grandmother, low. Middle eastern man of early to mid 20's wearing typical clothing, high.

Why even call it profiling when it's really just prioritizing risks ? We'll never know the answer to this question, but honestly, how much time was wasted doing politically correct screening of everyone while this, obvious, higher risk person walked onto the plane ?

This is just common sense. But I'll get downrated because, someone, what I'm saying comes off as racists and extremist.


RE: Profiling
By MozeeToby on 1/4/2010 10:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Airports are not the first line of defense though. They are the last line
This, at least, I agree with. If terrorists have gotten this far without attracting the attention of a dozen local, national, and international anti-terrorism organizations then it's already too late.

Question for you, how many terrorists have been caught at security versus how many have only been caught after boarding the plane? Every time an incident occurs we change our policies to try to defend against that exact method of attack and every time the next attack occurs in a different way.

It's security theater and it's a waste of time and a waste of money. Designed from the ground up to make people feel more secure while doing little to nothing to actually make flying safer and the stupid thing is that it isn't at all dangerous. Since 9-11, your odds of being on a plane where a terrorist incident occurs are 1 in 16 million per flight, and the vast majority of those incidents were failures.

We don't need racial profiling because if the bomb is at the airport you've already lost. Give the intelligence and investigative agencies more money and manpower to chase down leads and fire the director of any agency that doesn't cooperate fully with the others, which is about 50% of the time the only thing stopping arrests being made.


RE: Profiling
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 11:12:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Give the intelligence and investigative agencies more money and manpower to chase down leads and fire the director of any agency that doesn't cooperate fully with the others, which is about 50% of the time the only thing stopping arrests being made.


The man who planned the "underwear" operation was a prisoner of war, held in Guantanimo, and was released by President Obama.

My point ? All the money and funding and cooperation on the planet isn't going to matter when we are purposely releasing known terrorists ! This administration and congress seems to think that if they act as if there is no problem, then it will simply just go away.

quote:
Since 9-11, your odds of being on a plane where a terrorist incident occurs are 1 in 16 million per flight, and the vast majority of those incidents were failures.


Yup. And we'll never know how many were stopped before they made it to the execution phase of their plan.


RE: Profiling
By Torment on 1/4/2010 11:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yea for more republican rewriting of history! HE WAS RELEASED BY CHENEY IN 2007. And in secret, no less.


RE: Profiling
By Iaiken on 1/4/2010 1:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77,

You're making up "facts" again.

Obama had NOTHING to do with his release and this is by far your weakest attempt to bolster a Republican banner.

People might take you more seriously if you would stop making things up to support your argument and stupidly at that.

In conclusion. :P :P :P


RE: Profiling
By foolsgambit11 on 1/4/2010 9:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but the story he's referencing really stretches the facts. The facts actually stated in the article are these: Two Yemeni detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have appeared in propoganda videos with known leaders of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula (AQAP). AQAP has claimed responsibility for this attempted act of terrorism.

Here are some additional facts: One of the two former detainees is suspected of actually being a high-level AQAP leader, while the other is apparently in a Saudi Arabian rehabilitation program (again), and has been for some time. There doesn't seem to be evidence actually linking either detainee with the actual planning or execution of this plot, although it is probably likely that the suspected AQAP leader knew something of it.

And, like you said, the two detainees were released by Bush, not Obama. As far as I can tell, no detainees have been released to Yemen since 2007. I think I read somewhere that some other former Guantanamo detainees had been tied to Yemeni terrorist groups, though. But again, most of those were released by Bush, who was firmly in favor closing Guantanamo, returning most detainees and trying the remainder in US courts. That was the Bush Administration's position for the last two and a half years of his tenure, at least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5102528.stm

When it comes down to it, Bush's and Obama's positions on Guantanamo (now that Obama has indefinitely extended his timetable) are identical, except one has a 'D' after his name and the other had an 'R'.


RE: Profiling
By Nik00117 on 1/4/2010 12:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
A terriost with the intention of bombing a plane or something is going dress completely normal, if anything he may even wear a casual suit most likely fly first class etc etc etc.

We cannot relay on our airports to protect us if the terriosit makes it that far we are already too late.

Perfect example, a friend of mine was a body gaurd, he had very little training in fighting people compared to his training teaching him to avoid conflicts.

Example a photographer was photographing a cient of his, he approached the photorgrapher and went "I'm going give you $200 and I'll never see you around my client again, agreed?" to which the guy left.

Point being, stop the terriosit from even getting to the airpport in the first place.

Those scanners are good though, we don't want to drop all secuirty. I mean last thing we want is to let poeple with guns and knives on planes because that's just stupid.


RE: Profiling
By Solandri on 1/4/2010 3:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem I am having is that this fellow had a powder hidden in his crotch which is not normally detectable in a pat-down search. Is the idea that we are going to start cavity-searching anyone that looks non-western? If you are willing to pack high exlosives next to your bait-n-tackle, then you are probably willing to cram it (gently) where the sun don't shine.

There was a good article on how Israel handles security at its airport. Despite being the most obvious target for terrorist attacks, their airport is actually one of the safest in the world.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426--...

Basically, it says that good interviewing techniques are much more effective than scanning and x-raying everything.


RE: Profiling
By radializer on 1/4/2010 6:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
This is most probably true of other international airports also - when I have traveled through most European airports, there are security personnel asking sets of questions. These questions themselves appear quite harmless and mundane, but the real trick is the training of the individual listening to the answers and assessing behavioral traits such as anxiety as well as consistency of the reports (usually there are 2-3 such mini-interviews at various stages of airport transit).

What this points towards is that, when it comes to assessing security, a well-trained individual may very well be worth a dozen sophisticated machines!

Could the problem be the standard US attitude where designing a better machine to do the job is considered superior to training an "expert" to do the same? The "better mousetrap" is a great motivator for innovation in the free market - but maybe it is not suitable for security??


Perfect Security Shall Never Exist....
By TheEinstein on 1/4/2010 2:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
I shall be writing a book here but I will break it into multiple posts on different issues. I assure you I am an expert in this topic.

Let us first cover basics in this, then specifics in each subgroup.

Security is made up different layers which all suffer from one common denominator: familiarity. This one word encompasses a lot of different nuances, including laziness, favoritism, and prejudices.

Perfect security requires the absolute inability of anything being harmed, or lost/stolen/misplaced. Security is about preventing an act occurring in the first place, not in going after those who did it after they did it typically.

When talking of security you need to know, nothing is secure. I commonly say give me a month, give me some assets I will need, and I can get into the first floor of the CIA headquarters without issue. This same issue is shown with the party crashers at the White House.

Now to break this down into devices, methods to bypass security, and airports in general.




By TheEinstein on 1/4/2010 2:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Devices

Devices are an interesting topic when relating to an airport. We have dogs, we have metal detectors, we have 'sniffer/blower' devices, and we have body scanners of different sorts.

Each device has it's handicaps, and issues. For instance if you wish to throw dogs into a tizzy you can get a spray can filled with residues of common explosives, and spray baggage going in clandestinely, then leave the area. This also will make false positives on sniffer devices.

Dogs are also unique that they usually are effective for a moderate range of specific types of odors. They can however detect even the smallest traces of those odors, and commonly track it from a pretty decent distance if it is the primary odor they are attracted to.

Metal detectors detect just that, metals or anything which will interrupt a magnetic field in a strong manner. This means some of the new plastic magnets will set these off as well.

Sniffer/Blower devices rely upon a device to blow chemicals on your body, on your clothes, in your hair, etc. into a sniffing device which can detect a very large range of explosives, chemical agents, etc. However these devices currently, as recently explained in here, suffer a lot of breakdowns, and also give plenty of false positives. Additionally they are inept of handling issues where the person has a sealed container, not sealed by him, that is clean of materials carried inside it... but I digress and will post this in the next comment box.

A full body scan, of which there are three types last I heard available, utilize a variety of methods to examine a human looking for contraband. Now due to enemy action, lawyers seeking cash, people who are scared the world is going to laugh at their winky, and so forth, we have neutered this system to nearly making it inoperable.

The best arrangement of a full body scan would be to have a closed off, no outside influence possible of a room with a provision of NO ELECTRONICS on pain of 20 years in jail inside the room. The operator inside does not know who is in the scanner, and there is separate rooms for female and male with operators of the proper sex only in each room. The scan is done, the image is in the booth only, and in a temp ram buffer only, where the operator can green, yellow, or red light the person. Yellow is for pat down, and red for 'danger' as in 'has a gun, knife, or something equally dangerous'. Green means go enjoy your flight.

However the situation now has genitalia blurred out, and the chest. As evidenced by the underwear bomber this creates a significant hole in security. A computer may not notice the gonads of a person are way to big, where a human might decide that is not possible.

Devices sadly are easy to counter, as will be demonstrated next.


By TheEinstein on 1/4/2010 2:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
How to bypass security

You ever been in Wyoming in the winter? Brrrr, all I have to say is BRRRRRRRR. Windchill can bring it down so low as to be unbelieved by others until they feel it. Your body tempature, unless properly clothed, will drop so fast as to leave you desperate for heat for a long time after getting out of the cold.

So you have to bundle up for the cold. A native in a cold region, in a cold snap can be expected to have a thick jacket, a scarf, a hoodie of some sort, gloves, etc. And of course you have to place these all in an xray type machine and get them scanned.

Now the xray machines are sorta funny with certain things, they will show the outline of thin materials, show the entire shapes of thick materials, but if the whole material is the whole shape then it shows the whole shape.

A good winter jacket can have its lining replaced by something a little different. Since these jackets are typically sealed against water they can be very airproof even. If a sealed lining, thick in nature, but flexible was inserted inside one of these, with a that horrid plastic like exterior that always crinkles to much is on the outside you could in theory have quite a bit of explosives well disguised.

So next Homeland Security will be telling us to show up naked to the airport, or with throw-away clothes and they will provide safe and secure clothing for us.

Now a lot of talk has been on Fox News and elsewhere of these blower/sniffer devices. They seem to think these devices can solve it all. Pffft.

Build a house, design the interior into 10 small rooms. Each room has an entrance to an over-pressure chamber, and then to a hallway. The first room makes the bombs, getting the materials straight from the outside world. They seal the bombs in vacuum tight bags, which have been floated in water from the room next to them (the only way from room to room is via a water channel, no air possible to transfer the airlock system is just to let clean room garbed employees in each room to effect procedure and transfers to the next room via the water channels of the bombs).

A drying procedure is done on the outside of the package. The package is then placed in another airtight bag which is inside water, and vacuumed out. Alternatively you could use a chemical solvent, such as bleach in this stage if desired, or if counter to the chemicals you have used. Keep transferring the package to room to room with different procedures to make sure the water in each room has less chance of contagion of the original chemicals, and each sealing is effected with the most thorough removal of any outside contagions remaining. The last room used a vacuum chamber to remove all air around the package, places the package in it's final container, removes via string based cutters (like opening a pack of gum, or cigarettes)the previous seals, one at a time, in vacuum, and then seals the remaining container. (Or if vacuum is to hard, just use as it is, inside 5-6 independently mostly vacuumed containers).

All in all it is way to easy to so assure no bomb particles are available for sniffing, and shapes and sizes are easy. You can buy vacuum systems online designed to help you fit clothes in these really small bags, with airtight capabilities, and store the whole in really tight spaces. Quite good stuff, and not very expensive.

Need to bypass a metal detector? Simply go with plastic, wood, or a non-ferric metal.

Worried about a full body scan? Wear the bomb as clothes. Yes clothes can be made from a variety of unique explodable materials. I am not sure if Gun Cotton will fit your bill, but some over-sized buttons with C4 inside a very thin shell can help you do some scary things. What about filling those shoulder pads or bra stuffers with PTN?

No security will detect everything, everything is exploitable, there is no safety via devices.


By TheEinstein on 1/4/2010 2:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh Airports...

Airport security I have done, and Airport security I have accidentally mocked through and through.

There are many holes in this security, mostly it's for those people who know nothing of how airport security in the United States works, and is a panacea for the masses.

I once walked, in a security uniform, during a terrorist warning time, in a warehouse bordering the airport, and through to the tarmac, yelling 'security, I need help' the whole way. I was 50 feet from a full sized aircraft and could have boarded if I desired.

I have seen many other holes, this was just the most 'facepalming' of a hole.

Each airport, if it is large/busy enough, has it's own police force. Some have a huge police force, which is always on standby, much like their over-sized fire departments.

However where ever we start screening people, we create the ability to attack the people in a major airport. This has been done in Iraq often, where police candidates would line up before a safety screening, only to get blown up before they reached the first of the screenings.

Additionally as described there is any number of infinite ways to smuggle what you want into an airport provided your fanatical enough.


RE: Perfect Security Shall Never Exist....
By TheEinstein on 1/4/2010 2:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
How do we win then?

There are three ways we win.

1) Profiling

2) Armed 'passengers'

3) Guarantee to do more harm to them and theirs than they shall do to us and ours.

Profiling...

Profiling in the statistical sense is very sound math. You can determine the current patterns for specific crimes and you can reduce that crime using the profile data. In this case terrorism abroad is frequently done by Islamic males, young in age, who usually have gone to a Middle-Eastern nation for 'training'.

Using profiling seems to some to be wrong, and flawed, however in the statistical nature it reduces the probable false outcomes and increases the probable positive outcomes. Aka your more likely to find a bomb on that Arab male than that Asian grandmother. It also goes to the basic need of security, cost effectiveness. You could in theory pay for a security system so complex it reduces the chances of a crime to 1 in 100,000,000^100 but... at what huge and tremendous, and will never be able to be paid back of a cost? Security is about the least money for the most bang.

Profiling means yes... that hispanic male is more likely to be an illegal immigrant that that Irish haired female. It also means those who cannot speak English are a higher chance than someone who cannot speak another language than English...

Profiling is not evil, it is math. Math does not lie, people lie.

2) Guns on aircraft.
A single armed person, sitting who knows where, on an aircraft represents a threat to any would be hijacker or terrorist. They have to do their deed with worry that if they cannot get the job done quickly, and gain control quickly (if hijacking) they may get shot down with ease. This also would resolve a lot of out of control passengers with ease as well. A gun in your face when your flipping out cause you did not get rocks with your bourban? Yeah no more flipping out for you!

Modern ammunitions include rounds which while harmful to the person they are hit with, will not go through the skin of an aircraft. This means increased security all around in my opinion.

3) Who is the bigger a-hole?

I have two sayings regarding security:

Regardless... my sayings will always hold true:

"You can never have perfect security, you can just have affordable security".

"The only way to truly be safe from a fanatic is to show him you truly will destroy him, his family, his friends, his home, his valuables, his culture, his nation, his religion, and anything else he holds dear."

This time the second is in play, for this section specifically. So long as someone feels they benefit from doing an act of utter evil, there will be these acts of utter evil. There is no getting around this. The only way to stop them is to remove all benefits from doing that evil, then they will never commit that evil.


RE: Perfect Security Shall Never Exist....
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 3:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do we win then?


The best way(other then changing our foreign policy) is to turn the Security over to the airlines since it's their responsibility to provide the traveler with safety since they bought the ticket from the airline.

The TSA concept is actually ridiculous, demanding I pay for security for a service I never use. It amazes me more people who don't fly are not upset about this waste of tax money.


By Omega215D on 1/4/2010 10:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because after watching some passengers questioned on the news the answer will always be that they "feel safer" no matter how much of an ordeal it may be.

I weep for this country.


Backscatter
By htowninsomniac on 1/4/2010 9:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
What about backscatter X-ray scanners? From all I've heard, the images they produce are a lot more detailed than the millimeter wave scanners. Could backscatter X-ray scanners detect liquid explosives?




RE: Backscatter
By lucyfek on 1/4/2010 1:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
you can only get so many x-rays (actually any exposure can trigger a cancer). frequent flyers and airport crew will get their overdose for sure


Terrorists have won
By 3minence on 1/4/2010 11:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
The purpose of the terrorist is to effect political change by spreading fear. Even though that idiot Nigerian "failed", he actually succeeded, just not as well as he hoped. Even in his failure he has made people afraid and governments are spending a lot of time and money as a result of him. And he has won with me, because I refuse to fly (partially) because of him.

I refuse to surrender my rights as a person in the name of security. I can't have a blanket? I can't get up an hour before landing to go to the bathroom? I get to be irradiated and "virtually" striped searched every time I get on a plane? And all to provide the illusion of security?

I would probably be more willing to put up with this treatment if the plane travel was worth it, but it isn't. They stick you in a tiny seat with the next seat inches away from you face. They serve crappy food if they serve food at all. They charge you for every bag, the flight attendants treat you like cattle, they are frequently late, etc. Airlines themselves simply have no concept of customer service any more. They never were that good to start with and it's gotten worse over time.

Bullshit service combined with unpleasant and mostly futile security has made me decide to just drive anywhere I go. If the airlines begin to fail and ask for a bailout, I shall write my representatives arguing against it. The terrorists have won, but not because of terror, but because of the stupidity the government and airlines put us through because of it.




RE: Terrorists have won
By AEvangel on 1/4/2010 11:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the airlines begin to fail and ask for a bailout, I shall write my representatives arguing against it.


They already are failing almost all the major Airlines have been posting losses each year for the last 10 years.

quote:
The terrorists have won, but not because of terror, but because of the stupidity the government and airlines put us through because of it.


Exactly, then when you add to it our Government in the US keeps giving them more reasons to hate us it's hard not to have this belief.


LOL
By Soldier1969 on 1/4/2010 9:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Obama Administration = Epic Fail
Homeland Security Advisor = Epic Fail
Chances we will be hit with another attack this year = >50%
Chances these attack(s) will be blamed somehow on the Bush
Administration = 100%
Democrats chances being kicked out of office in droves in
November of this year = 100%
The look on my face when all this happens = Priceless...(not hoping for a attack,but its highly possible with our current incompetent idiots running the show)




RE: LOL
By AEvangel on 1/5/2010 6:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Here let me fix your post....

Big Government over the last 150 years = EPIC FAIL


Hmm
By BruceLeet on 1/4/2010 9:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
They're going to need dogs now? Wouldn't it be easy to disguise an article of clothing to be a bomb/chemical...

If Cheech & Chong can make a van made of weed I think a terrorist could make a hat (baseball cap with a beak) with explosives...

I'll be the first to say because no homophobes will, privacy concerns? I think I see some ball in the resulting image of that scan..




Expected
By Vagisil on 1/4/2010 3:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
One might say they used this 'opportunity' to force through privacy campaigners at an ideal moment as well as get other countries to adopt. I don't mind the censored scanners, If the airport staff want to see more they only need to ask.

I love the way the real issue has been ignored by the USA/UK media/governments its not about the fact the father of this man asked for help or the fact he should of been on the no-fly list and they knew he was a danger.. It's about how airport scanners can save us all.

There was a technology shown on TV recently that can detect dangerous liquids and weapons with a high success rate almost effortlessly i might add so where is it?

As for the current scanners i can't wait to see the first saline implant boobie bomber caught, I should imagine detonation would involve a weakening of the implant walls and a vigorous smashing together of the boobies.




By rdhood on 1/6/2010 3:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
This article implies that the only way to detect liquid explosives sewn into underwear would be a strip search and underwear inspection.

I suppose that when bomber finally start putting liquids up their rectum, the flying U.S. public will have to strip, bend over, spread cheeks and prepare for a gloved finger. Hopefully, they will use a little warm lube with that.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki