That's much more of a political problem though, and really is so vague as to make most anything you want a 'hacker issue'.
Implemented as well as it could be, this seems like it'll be less intrusive than the current way of lining up for metal detectors. Also, less expensive and less invasive. From the comments, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm for this kind of technology.
I've worked on scanning systems before for security purposes (festival id tags, I appreciate, a lesser concern) and there are almost always ways around the system, be it accidental or intentional. But if those ways round are abused the technology completely fails to fulfil its intended purpose if that one person is missed.
The issue with airport security and kabooms is can certainly be just that one person who has the kaboom and such an instance would take us right back to square one.
As a brief example might I state that diplomats have immunity from these scanning systems and are allowed to bypass them.
Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.
Isn't that how TSA already operates? Someone sneaks a bomb into their shoe and TSA makes me take my flip-flops off through the metal detector. Someone tries to blow up a plane with "gels" and TSA bans sealed water bottles. Someone stitches a bomb in their underwear and TSA sets up virtual strip-searches.
Until TSA mandates that everyone be stripped naked, anesthetized, and sealed in blast-proof capsules for the length of the journey, there will always be a way to sneak something deadly onto a plane. As terrorists get more clever, TSA will continue to fix the holes the terrorists find with continually more invasive, illogical, and civil-liberty-stripping mandates in the name of safety.
That's exactly what happens now. The changes in TSA policy come after an attempted attack, and focus on what could have been done in the past to prevent that attack. As a member of the public, I've never seen the TSA actually put meaningful thought into how to make their procedures more effective, only more politically correct and politically 'safe'.
>> Are alternative scanning methods just as effective?
I'd like to point out that a bomber boarded an airplane, tried to attack it, failed, and burned his private parts, and upon landing was met by law enforcement. That's a success, as far as I'm concerned, and an opportunity for some laughs at his expense. It was so hard to get a bomb on an airplane that he took a low-quality, faulty explosive that he couldn't get to work.
>> Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe?
Honestly, I'd prefer the police and TSA respect their rights, and that people not live in panic or fear of terrorist attacks. A suicide attack happens so rarely and so unpredictably, so how are my freedoms any more protected if I submit to unreasonable searches?
In my opinion, trained psychological profilers would be much more effective.
- using broken glass bottle (can be bought in the duty-free area)
- breaking one-time shaving razor you can buy on the airport and making a DIY knife
- stealing kitchen utensils from bars at the airport
- putting lighter gas into a small perfume container which you can take onboard, making spark from a normal battery, using some flamable spray to get more fuel
- disassembling some on board electric device (even stuff like lights) and warning to short it (that should cause some serious panic even if it's pretty safe in reality... who's actually aware of separate circuits?)
etc. at some point, people will start to realise that there are so many dangerous items on the airport itself, you don't need to bring anything with you. What will the TSA limit then?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/11/the-things...
I don't see this. We have had one 9/11. We had one 7/7. Certainly RE: 7/7 that kind of stuff is VERY hard to prevent (no scanning possible) and UK society and public transport has changed _very_ little since this, if not at all. However we are not seeing more 7/7 attacks.
Terrorists are in incredibly limited supply, certainly competent ones (Edinburgh Airport anyone? :D). We should possibly consider that we might see exactly the same number of terrorist attacks even if we had zero security.
It worth considering as opposed to being convinced that the barbarians are _definitely_ at the gates.
But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free travel experience.
The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property rights and the public good. But the problem is, even though it's a trade-off, there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue.
Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers.
The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been prevented by the use of body scanners.
I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the actual response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery.
And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you? If I can create a mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.