Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Eliminate? Probably not. Rethink it, definitely.What do you propose would be a better method than the metal detectors and the belts, while not invading upon peoples rights and privacy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 because i meant all....obviously it is ineffective because people get through it, therefore according to jrmmiii it is unreasonable. so if its unreasonable, should it be removed?should metal detectors, and the scanning belts be removed?...and I meant what I said, the question worded that way is unreasonable. No one suggested removing ALL security measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 You eliminate the time wasting redundancies and the ineffective portions. Ineffective security measures include poorly trained people. Ideally, the system would have near minimal human involvement. The fact that there are humans in the process make it inherently flawed.How do you propose it should be fixed? If you were head of the security team for an airport (theoretically, TSA is not involved) - how would you have the security checkpoints set up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 ...and I meant what I said, the question worded that way is unreasonable. No one suggested removing ALL security measures.I realize that, I was the one asking about "all" measures. I was not responding to a specific quote of anyone, simply asking a new question to get views. Apparently jrmmii and judd got it, since they replied. Didn't think a simple question was that hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I dunno... what's my budget? I can only do so much with the means I'm given. You have to optimize the system within your financial constraints, because that's how everything works in modern society -- we all could have flying cars too if people were willing to pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I dunno... what's my budget? I can only do so much with the means I'm given. You have to optimize the system within your financial constraints, because that's how everything works in modern society -- we all could have flying cars too if people were willing to pay for them.Im more wondering what you feel would be more effective, what type of security measures. Budget aside, using only technology that is available to us (no jedi mind power), how would you have security stations laid out to run with minimal humans involved, while being an improvement over the apparently broke system in place now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I realize that, I was the one asking about "all" measures. I was not responding to a specific quote of anyone, simply asking a new question to get views. Apparently jrmmii and judd got it, since they replied. Didn't think a simple question was that hard.And their answers didn't involve getting rid of ALL security measures did they? I got it, I just rather screw with you then answer a poor question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 And their answers didn't involve getting rid of ALL security measures did they? I got it, I just rather screw with you then answer a poor question.no they didnt, hence they answered "No" and then continued on with a responsei get it though man, you win, whatever - no skin off my back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Well, the first step is to benchmark -- find all the other airports in the world that have effective security, and see how they do things. Then you change, eliminate, add features that make sense. By that I mean, you gauge the effectiveness vs. cost (hard and opportunity) vs. legality -- then go from there.Once there, you keep metrics to see if the system you've designed lives up to the expectations. You continually and randomly test the system where possible to measure it's effectiveness. You report the results and implement changes to the system to "close the loopholes" based on the test-cases you've tested with another analysis of effectiveness vs. cost (hard and opportunity) vs. legality.It's really a step-by-step common sense approach. Like the scientific method. But so few people "get it" which is why systems analysts make the big bucks. The big issue that will still loom overhead is that you have a creative team of people trying to design a perfect system to protect against "all" scenarios, but "all" is constrained by cost and legality and against how many other "creative" people that are trying to outsmart the system. That's why I've always contended that "Where there's a will, there's a way". If some terrorist wants to get through the system, they'll be able to get through because "all" scenarios can't ever be accounted for. They are nearly infinite. Edited January 28, 2011 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I think I have to agree with JRM here, that less human involvement would be ideal. The flip side to that is, people don't seem too keen on the full body scanners, which would likely be needed, and some human intervention would have to be there in the form of... wait for it...Profiling of some sort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 no they didnt, hence they answered "No" and then continued on with a responsei get it though man, you win, whatever - no skin off my backSome people have more tolerance for poor questions than others.There's a winner? Woohoo! USA!USA!USA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Profiling of some sort.White male Christians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 find all the other airports in the world that have effective security, and see how they do things. This seems like a good start, actually your whole answer seems very well thought out, but then you run into problems with Americans. Most other countries don't have the same freedoms as we do, and if you take any measures to so much as look at an American citizen, it seems like they are crying out that their rights are being taken away (I'm not referring to the guy with the video camera - i also agree he did nothing wrong, and should not have been arrested...although I'm not sure I agree with his reasons for doing it - but thats another story.)You can't check physical clothing because you're not allowed to touch people.You can't have people step through a scanner because theyre ashamed of having small weiners and can't deal with the whole world seeing them.You basically can't do anything that involves checking or making contact with citizens because they believe their rights trump all security measures.Also, Israel does use profiling to help in their security measures. They are the "most" secure country for airports, but you would not be able to take or adapt their methods because they conflict with the constitution.How are you supposed to conduct a more effective security check if you have no right to have people walk through a metal detector or send their personal belongings down a scanning belt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) I think I have to agree with JRM here, that less human involvement would be ideal. The flip side to that is, people don't seem too keen on the full body scanners, which would likely be needed, and some human intervention would have to be there in the form of... wait for it...Profiling of some sort.wait....you're ok with full body scanners, but a scanner for SHOES is unconstitutional? i hope you're joking.also...how is profiling constitutional? i thought we all had equal rights as citizens, not "if youre a white male that doesnt appear to be a threat, you're ok...but if you look a little odd, we're going to have to check you" Edited January 28, 2011 by Steve Butters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 wait....you're ok with full body scanners, but a scanner for SHOES is unconstitutional? i hope you're joking.Twist away! Full body scanners without human intervention, maybe.I never said a thing about shoe scanning being unconstitutional. The shoe scanning is a knee-jerk reaction to one (or very few) case, from what I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 As with everything else, you run into constraints. All you can do is optimize the system within those constraints. Optimize doesn't mean 100% effectivity either, it just means maximizing the benefit while minimizing the loss.The only issue is what weight you put to the different tangible and intangible benefits and losses.Ford figured out that a human life was worth about $300k (to them) when they designed the Pinto -- morals and ethics aside, an analysis can be conducted once you assign numbers to things you normally wouldn't think can be measured in 'real dollars'. So, then you get to decide what the price of life is worth based on the cost of your security. Sad thing is, no matter what you decide -- the market ends up deciding for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Also, Israel does use profiling to help in their security measures. They are the "most" secure country for airports, but you would not be able to take or adapt their methods because they conflict with the constitution.They are secure because they only allow flights from a small number of places and on a limited number of carriers. It's easy to secure an airport when there is limited traffic flow and have mandatory military service to staff it with. The entire country only averages just over 465 flights a day.Also if we were to start profiling, who are you going to profile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 As with everything else, you run into constraints. All you can do is optimize the system within those constraints. Optimize doesn't mean 100% effectivity either, it just means maximizing the benefit while minimizing the loss. isn't that what they're already trying to do? you said the shoe scanner is unconstitutional because it is ineffective, therefore it should be considered unreasonable. so if we cannot achieve 100% effectiveness, wouldnt that make all searches "unreasonable" aswell? shoe scanner, metal detector, full body scanner, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What is the benefit to a shoe scanner if it doesn't detect explosives that a metal detector wouldn't already detect? It's redundant and unnecessary -- it's a check that's already being done. The cost is time. So if you have something that has ZERO benefit beyond existing methods, plus has a real cost -- then it's pretty obvious that it should be eliminated from the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 They are secure because they only allow flights from a small number of places and on a limited number of carriers. It's easy to secure an airport when there is limited traffic flow and have mandatory military service to staff it with. The entire country only averages just over 465 flights a day.Also if we were to start profiling, who are you going to profile?I never suggested profiling. I was responding to jrmmii's comment about using the techniques of other air ports that have better security rating than we do. I used Israel because they were the number 1 rated country for airport security.I personally do not think profiling would work that well, especially using it in the same manner that Israel does. I do happen to agree with you on the reasons for them being on top. They ask every passenger a series of questions, and if they feel that you were nervous or thought you were lying, you would get pulled aside and questioned further. I'm sure theres people out there who are able to train themselves to be calm under pressure....after all, some people can pass lie detectors without having to tell the truth.I think the only one who suggested profiling in this thread is myhondas (and possibly Judd, but im not sure if thats how he meant it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What is the benefit to a shoe scanner if it doesn't detect explosives that a metal detector wouldn't already detect? It's redundant and unnecessary -- it's a check that's already being done. The cost is time. So if you have something that has ZERO benefit beyond existing methods, plus has a real cost -- then it's pretty obvious that it should be eliminated from the system.The scanners in the article i linked, would pick up a shoe bomb that a metal detector would not.Fusion pointed out that richard reids shoes did not contain any metal, therefore they would not be detected. Current scanners would be able to show the fuse and detonator inside of the shoe. Fusion also points out that it would be easy to blend those in to the shoe.But having a chance to physically see the fuse and detonator, in my opinion, is better than not trying at all.And with the development of new scanners in the article i posted, they would be able to detect the chemical used in the bombs down to 2 parts per billion, which also would not be picked up in a metal detector.**edit - heres that linkhttp://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/new-scanning-de.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I never suggested profiling. I was responding to jrmmii's comment about using the techniques of other air ports that have better security rating than we do. I used Israel because they were the number 1 rated country for airport security.I personally do not think profiling would work that well, especially using it in the same manner that Israel does. I do happen to agree with you on the reasons for them being on top. They ask every passenger a series of questions, and if they feel that you were nervous or thought you were lying, you would get pulled aside and questioned further. I'm sure theres people out there who are able to train themselves to be calm under pressure....after all, some people can pass lie detectors without having to tell the truth.I think the only one who suggested profiling in this thread is myhondas (and possibly Judd, but im not sure if thats how he meant it.)That's cool I misunderstood when you brought it up in your response to Justin. I thought you were suggesting we should like Israel does, but can't since our laws don't allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Let's say we focus all our time and effort into detecting shoe bombs. We spend $100M on these great machines and training people to run them, and everyone is happy and feels safe.Let's say terrorists focus on NOT shoes (programming nerds follow me). NOT shoes is a much greater scope than shoes. Terrorists decide to use an explosive tampon.$100M well spent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Let's say we focus all our time and effort into detecting shoe bombs. We spend $100M on these great machines and training people to run them, and everyone is happy and feels safe.Let's say terrorists focus on NOT shoes (programming nerds follow me). NOT shoes is a much greater scope than shoes. Terrorists decide to use an explosive tampon.$100M well spent?Wouldn't that apply to any method we put into play? There will always be a work-around for security, and nothing will ever be 100% secure. Once we pin down a certain area, they will find a new one to breach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Wouldn't that apply to any method we put into play? There will always be a work-around for security, and nothing will ever be 100% secure. Once we pin down a certain area, they will find a new one to breach.Yep, but if we stop 50% of shoe bombers at the airport for $100M + 20mins/person, or we could do another method and stop 30% of shoe bombers at the airport for $100k + 5mins/person -- what's more effective? Depends on your objectives I suppose. Is +20% and 15 mins more time worth a 100,000% cost increase? We are talking about multimillion dollar planes and lives here... and that's why we're having this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.