Boston overreacts again

[Mr Skeptic]

Get one of these from Junkfunnel labs:

[ParanoiA]

Moral of the story: Terrorists should buy a $5 project box from RadioShack before boarding a plane.

 

The truth of this comment is somewhat disturbing. Why have actual security when the illusion appeases the masses at a lower cost?

 

Same with entering an establishment with an AK-47 huh? Just buy a box and viola! - instant illusion. You guys are right. Everyone is soooo stupid....

 

The next time I'm walking down the street at night and see someone pointing a black cylindrical object at me, I'm not going to be an IDIOT like these TSA goofs and immediately think "oh must be gun", I'll just reason it out - it's obviously just a stick, or a magic wand...

[iNow]

Same with entering an establishment with an AK-47 huh? Just buy a box and viola! - instant illusion. You guys are right. Everyone is soooo stupid....

 

The next time I'm walking down the street at night and see someone pointing a black cylindrical object at me, I'm not going to be an IDIOT like these TSA goofs and immediately think "oh must be gun", I'll just reason it out - it's obviously just a stick, or a magic wand...

 

Not a valid analogy. When walking down the street, your primary purpose is not detection of weaponry. You will, of course, be vigilant to potential threats, but your real focus tends to be where you are heading or what you will have for dinner later and the like. In the airport, the specific purpose of the security perimeter is to screen passers by. The issue that many of us (at least I) have been trying to call attention are the weaknesses in our current approach and the need to make improvements.

 

As Cap'n stated, right now a simple project box would (in most cases) be enough to evade detection. That's unacceptable.

 

 

So, what if I put the AK in a box from a flourist and camoflaged it as roses? Doesn't matter. Your job walking down the street is not specifically to detect weaponry.

[ParanoiA]

Not a valid analogy. When walking down the street, your primary purpose is not detection of weaponry. You will, of course, be vigilant to potential threats, but your real focus tends to be where you are heading or what you will have for dinner later and the like. In the airport, the specific purpose of the security perimeter is to screen passers by. The issue that many of us (at least I) have been trying to call attention are the weaknesses in our current approach and the need to make improvements.

 

Yes, the problem pointer-outers have spoken. They are a dime a dozen. Want to know some more problems in the world? I'll keep you busy for awhile.

 

All I'm really getting from this is you all think it's stupid to react to wires and breadboards as bombs and I've pointed out over and over again that it's a self-defeating notion that you shouldn't react to wires and breadboards.

 

For the same reason that a $5 box is an illusion, by wholesale rejection of "obvious" looking devices you get the same result - just don't conceal your bomb in anything and you'll not have any problem either....

 

But I know, it's easier to dismiss that thought and NOT to put yourself in their shoes and NOT realize the weight of their responsibility and poke at them for an obvious obligation on their part to "check it out".

 

The flip side story is Bascule goes to the airport with his contraption and no screener anywhere does anything about it, or just looks at it dumbly and gives it back without concern. Gee...sounds like a full-proof bomb idea...just make it look like what people think a bomb looks like.

 

You seriously don't see the problem with your logic, iNow?

[iNow]

All I'm really getting from this is you all think it's stupid to react to wires and breadboards as bombs and I've pointed out over and over again that it's a self-defeating notion that you shouldn't react to wires and breadboards.

You see, I don't think anybody has claimed that. I think the emphasis throughout this thread has been what the reaction entails. If you see otherwise, please explain.

[ParanoiA]

I was taken aside, the device swabbed with chemicals before being handed to another TSA officer who spent several minutes scrutinizing it. The contents of my backpack removed and my laptop was swabbed with chemicals. They brought over a dog to sniff me, I was frisked, and they passed a wand over my body. Then they proceeded to ask me a lot of weird questions like "What is your parents' country of origin?" Guess my last make has too many vowels or something. They had me show them my laptop was real and actually functioned, and after about a half hour of that crap they released me with just barely enough time to make my flight. Ugh.

 

Now, I'm sure, were the same device placed within a housing no one would've cared. But... BARE WIRES! Must be a bomb.

 

Moral of the story: Terrorists should buy a $5 project box from RadioShack before boarding a plane.

 

The truth of this comment is somewhat disturbing. Why have actual security when the illusion appeases the masses at a lower cost?

 

Where exactly are we understanding the need to check this out, by these comments?

 

Maybe that's your specific take, but Bascule clearly thinks that everyone who thinks a breadboard and wires = a bomb is stupid.....even though a bomb can be made with uh, breadboard and wires. And since bombs don't come pre-packaged in sleek boxes from Wal-Mart, it would likely be a HOMEMADE device.

 

And gee...a breadboard with exposed wires is most likely a HOMEMADE device ain't it?

 

Anyone who appears to be a threat should have guns thrust in their face, period. If you're not a threat, none of them will go off. If you are, they likely will. To expect humans not to protect themselves from a perceived threat is unrealistic and quite frankly should win a Darwin award if not exercised.

[DrDNA]

I recently went through airport security attending a trade show... carrying with me a prototype device which had an exposed circuit board and wires!!!

 

 

I believe a rational question for everyone might be:

 

If any of us were searching passengers at the check point, how would we have reacted?

 

Would you just dismiss it and let it pass or would you flag it & call your compatriots to come have a good looksie?

 

I believe anyone who is rational would flag it and take a good long look at what else might be in there.

 

I have had several items flagged when traveling with scientific equipment and I actually find it comforting when they can find something that appears to be unusual. It is probably a false sense of security, but so be it.

Recently, a couple of atomic force microscope scanners were packed in my checked luggage when I was leaving Beijing and they set off an automated alarm. I had to go into the little room and do some real 'splainin. I don't believe it was a human that caught it but automated image recognition software that flagged the scanners. They showed me on their screen what it was that set the alarm off. There were two boxes drawn around my scanners on their screen and I immediately realized that they looked an awful lot to them like two small pistols. I simply had to get them out of the luggage and do my 'splainin about who I am what they are and in 10-15 minutes I went on my merry way. I was actually somewhat disappointed that they had not flagged them at the 5-7 other airports I had been in over the last 10 days. THAT is the REAL problem I think.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So, what if I put the AK in a box from a flourist and camoflaged it as roses?

I thought that the disguise was traditionally a violin case or something.

[insane_alien]

a box of roses is for a shotgun. duh! have you never watched the terminator films?

[iNow]

Anyone who appears to be a threat should have guns thrust in their face, period.

No. This is not acceptable. There needs to be a consistent process that works for detecting the maximum number of possible threats despite their perceived value. This allowance of targeting anyone due to a subjective judgement is not, IMHO, what's best in this situation. I refuse to surrender so much of my freedom in the name of security, and refuse to allow a gun be pointed in my face of the face of someone I love because some John Wayne cowboy at the airport making minimum wage had a power trip or a misinterpretation. We can, and must, do better than that.

 

We need mechanisms which screen everyone equally and which work.

 

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

~Ben Franklin

 

 

 

 

 

I thought that the disguise was traditionally a violin case or something.

 

a box of roses is for a shotgun. duh! have you never watched the terminator films?

 

Or, like in "Once Upon a Time in Mexico," guitar cases. That one would be especially appropriate here in the live music capital of the world.

 

 

Holy crap! That's no clarinet he's playing! RUUUNNNNN!!!!!

[ParanoiA]

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

 

~Ben Franklin

 

This is getting as bad as Godwin's law... You're not sacrificing any freedom. All of us are expected to take the time at law enforcement's request. Did you tout your Ben Franklin phrase the last time you got pulled over by the police? It's cooperating with law enforcement that all of us are expected to do. And if you don't' date=' they can and will use force - no matter how minor the catalyst.

 

We have a fair legal system that puts the burden of your guilt on the government to prove, not for you to prove your innocence - but that doesn't give you the right to deny "the people" an investigation to that end.

 

It's really as simple as that. No one freaked out on Bascule. They didn't put guns in his face and throw him on the ground, full cavity strip search, display his personal information on a big screen, hold him for 3 months in a prison camp - they investigated him for 30 mins and checked out a homemade looking electrical contraption.

 

And won't repeated exposure to these devices help to become more common to these screeners? Maybe they won't stay soooo stupid much longer?

 

No. This is not acceptable. There needs to be a consistent process that works for detecting the maximum number of possible threats despite their perceived value. This allowance of targeting anyone due to a subjective judgement is not, IMHO, what's best in this situation.

 

I used to say this. But there was always something wrong. You're dismissing your best resource, and empowering a penetrable one. 1) Systems are predictable, calculable, consistent - therefore has loopholes, the more consistent the sytem, the more reliable the loopholes. 2) Because perpetrators use subjective judgment on a predictable, consistent system, they get the advantage. Kind of like putting 8 men in the box on a shotgun pass. It's a mismatch which favors the adaptable, flexible, calculative - subjective - thinker.

 

I refuse to surrender so much of my freedom in the name of security' date=' and refuse to allow a gun be pointed in my face of the face of someone I love because some John Wayne cowboy at the airport making minimum wage had a power trip or a misinterpretation. We can, and must, do better than that.

 

We need mechanisms which screen everyone equally and which work.[/quote']

 

Again, I see no surrendering of any freedom other than your insistance to be given the freedom to die by your obsessive aversion to overreaction. Thing is, my family might be in that airport too, and I reserve the right to exercise freedom from bombs. You can have a gun pointed in the face of your loved one tomorrow if they match the description of someone who just robbed a liquor store. I don't know where you're getting all this.

 

If a police officer pulls you over and you refuse, they will use force to apprehend you, including deadly force - all this before you even know WHY they tried to pull you over. Are you also outraged by this? Trading freedom for security? This TSA issue isn't any different.