Originally Posted by
slsdi
People *have* made suggestions, but they are ignored by the "pro-scanner let's do something" people. Bruce Schneier, whom you dismiss, is considered by many to be an expert because he himself has tested & revealed many of the loopholes in airport security. Are you aware of how many "banned" items get through security that these new scanners will do nothing to stop? Are you aware of the other loopholes that these scanners will do nothing to close?
As a previous poster mentioned, some type of puffer that actually worked would be great to have since the scanners can't detect the explosives that are most likely to be a threat [..]
The #1 thing that is needed is better use of our intelligence, [...] For example, we had knowledge of the underwear bomber but let him board the plane anyway. [...]
Think of it this way: suppose a suspected terrorist wants to board the plane you or a loved one is about to board. Will you be satisfied that your flight is secure if they passed through the pornoscanner without issue?
First of all, let's get a couple of things straight. There will never be a perfect security checkpoint. That's also why I said that it's a supplement, a compliment, a piece of the puzzle. It can't be eliminated, it needs to be improved.
I dismiss Schneier because he hasn't really done anything that wasn't known already. Loopholes? Well... he might have written about some of them, but I invite you to scrutinize the reports that were already in existence when he wrote his "essays". Anyway, Bruce is nice when it comes to PR, but he's not qualified, certified or otherwise experienced in physical security beyond his own musings. He's not even a member of ASIS. That's why I dismiss him. But enough about that.
An effective "puffer" would be nice, but the challenges surrounding that are numerous. For one, an effective puffer would be a closed "environment" of sorts, and then you'd have a whole range of issues right there - and that's a minor point. I get the idea, though, and it's not a bad one.
I just think, as I've hinted in another answer, that the major problem right now is that "security" is working AGAINST the public, as opposed to having the two come together to solve the problems at hand, and the need for security. There must be some way that John Q Public can be a part of the system, an integral such, creating in the process a cooperation that will work to root out the "exception", and stop it before it boards a plane - something, as you stated, that did not happen with the use of intelligence. That might come down to communication between agencies, but even when it comes to intelligence gathering, there's too much of an "agencies-vs-public" atmosphere. The way things are today, I'm not sure that spending more dollars on intelligence will do anyone any good at all.
Also, and this is my personal feelings, but I'll say it anyway - I don't think calling the scanners "pornoscanners" and NoS and kiddiepornmachines and whatnot else does the cause any good. It's a little childish, whiny and reminiscent of the way "those in the know" talked about personal computers, for example... Anyway, just an opinion. Free speech is free speech, at least a few places, still. So call'em what you want.
-SB-
Originally Posted by
KansasMike
Most of all stop overreacting!
That's probably the heart of the matter... and in just 5 words...
-SB-