<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted in the Washington Post:
Conceding that their airport bomb-sniffing machines have failed to work as well as hoped, two companies are asking the federal government to spend millions on new technology that would correct the defects.

InVision Technologies Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. are working furiously to develop by next year technology that would enable 1,100 explosives-detection machines to scan checked luggage for bombs with improved accuracy. The additional component would cost $100,000 to $200,000 per machine, adding up to $200 million to the $1.1 billion the government has already spent on the machines, which cost $1 million apiece.

The Transportation Security Administration, the agency in charge of airport security, said it was willing to consider new technology but has not committed to any further purchases.

Chief executives of the firms acknowledged that the performance of their minivan-size machines needed to improve. In a report to Congress in May, the TSA said the scanning devices typically produce false alarms 30 percent of the time, requiring security screeners to open suspect bags and search them by hand. Since then, the agency has worked to improve performance; it now says that in a pilot project false alarms have been reduced to 15 percent. The TSA will not, however, divulge its current figure for the entire nation.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35260-2003Jan23.html

In our never-ending search for that elusive (and probably non-existent) needle in the haystack, these guys admit their machines don't work very well and that we should pony up more money in the hope that more money will make them work.

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 01-24-2003).]</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
All this could have been avoided, had they bought the machines that actually worked instead of the machines mandated in a most curious fashion...

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
I think Linda Daschle should pay to fix them.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Factotum:
Brilliant! Develop a product that doesn't work, sell billions of dollars worth with full knowledge the product doesn't work, then demand millions more dollars for the fix! It's enough to make you think InVision sells computer software. &lt;IMG SRC="http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif"&gt;

Now that the damage has been done and we're stuck with non-working technology, TSA should turn this "concession" around and sue both companies for their failure to provide merchandise fit for purpose, and make them provide the "new technology" for free.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
A friend of mine working for the NSA says they also leak quite a bit of radiation. I would be concerned if I were a baggage screener </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
A friend of mine working for the NSA says they also leak quite a bit of radiation. I would be concerned if I were a baggage screener </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
I think that someone is pulling your leg on this one. Each machine is tested for this.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
A friend of mine working for the NSA says they also leak quite a bit of radiation. I would be concerned if I were a baggage screener </font>