Been hearing more and more about this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/12/02/airport.security/index.html). I don't like it.

For fucks sake, they call the company WeCU (We see you).

""It is possible today to hijack an aircraft using only five or six able-bodied passengers who are well-trained in Kung Fu fighting," he says."

Those kicks were fast as lightning!

/apologizes)

""It is possible today to hijack an aircraft using only five or six able-bodied passengers who are well-trained in Kung Fu fighting," he says."

Those kicks were fast as lightning!

/apologizes)

Great, now that song is stuck in my head!!

LOL...I saw that...he forgot to mention the four guys with box cutters. I think that one thing forgotten is the unintended blow back on hijackers from 9/11.

Passengers who think they are going to die don't just lay down and take it, they tend to fight like mad. I'm certain if I was on a plane that was hijacked I'd say fuckit and go for it and try to kill the sob's.

LOL...I saw that...he forgot to mention the four guys with box cutters. I think that one thing forgotten is the unintended blow back on hijackers from 9/11.

Passengers who think they are going to die don't just lay down and take it, they tend to fight like mad. I'm certain if I was on a plane that was hijacked I'd say fuckit and go for it and try to kill the sob's.

/agree Rover

Maybe. The social proof of the docile crowd is more difficult to ignore than you think though.

What about situational behavior? How is that handled by this? The guy who's girlfriend just dumped him and he is now flying home, I would bet he would show up as a threat even though he has a high probability of not being a threat. There are hundreds if not thousands of situational behavior that could be picked up as threatening and yet be quite innocent and yet the cool as ice well trained terrorist will slip through with his AK74 because there are no more metal detectors.

It's just another instance of asserting a greater level of surveillance/control over us, under the auspices of protection. Trying to rationalize it in terms of practical benefit is well intentioned, but not realistic.

LOL...I saw that...he forgot to mention the four guys with box cutters. I think that one thing forgotten is the unintended blow back on hijackers from 9/11.

Passengers who think they are going to die don't just lay down and take it, they tend to fight like mad. I'm certain if I was on a plane that was hijacked I'd say fuckit and go for it and try to kill the sob's.I agree.

From what I understand, the passengers on the 9/11 flights thought they were going to be held for ransom. Once United 93 knew that they were facing death, some brave passengers stepped up and tried to protect themselves and the other people on this plane.

Were a flight to be hijacked today, in a post 9/11 world, I doubt the response would be remotely similar. No reasonable person is going to assume that these hijackers are after money. Facing almost certain death, I cannot believe that people wouldn't at least try to fight for their lives.

(And I know it's hard to say without being in the situation. The prospect of being karate chopped or stabbed in the gut isn't a very appealing one. But hey, that's what tray tables are for!)

(And I know it's hard to say without being in the situation. The prospect of being karate chopped or stabbed in the gut isn't a very appealing one. But hey, that's what tray tables are for!)


I seriously doubt that many of our terroristas are well trained in martial arts, but more likely have the same basic rudimentary training received by those in basic training. I know that my first two months of Tae Kwon Do made me confident of being able to prevent any injury to myself from someone with that basic training knowledge.

And as far as a knife or sharp implement, wrap your coat or shirt around one arm, and sacrifice that arm to the blade to prevent your body from being injured. Cuts to an arm are much more easily treated than to the body.

It's just another instance of asserting a greater level of surveillance/control over us, under the auspices of protection. Trying to rationalize it in terms of practical benefit is well intentioned, but not realistic.

This is all it comes down to. Tightening the grip on the troublesome populace a little more.

The potential for abuse is staggering let alone the example of how the "stress" can be misinterpreted. Next will be to see if there is intent to commit any crime and later to sense if there's hidden potential in the person to ever commit a crime. If anyone is not thinking about minority report right now, you really need to see the movie. :)

Seriously though...I'll wait in the security lines, they're not very long anymore in my experience.

This sucks. I have an innate sweating mechanism that kicks in whenever I come upto a checkpoint, metal detector or security gate of any kind.
All of a sudden I think I'm carrying large volumes of drugs in my bag or stuffed up my arse.

That's not drugs up in there, Halo.:eek:

Well, you can say what you want, but Israel's security record as far as flying is concerned speaks for itself.

Don't like it? Don't fly.

Now when they start putting this equipment in supermarkets, banks, and the local pool, then I will have issues with it....

This sucks. I have an innate sweating mechanism that kicks in whenever I come upto a checkpoint, metal detector or security gate of any kind.
All of a sudden I think I'm carrying large volumes of drugs in my bag or stuffed up my arse.

Me too!

This also happens to me at department store theft detectors.

I like to pre-mark my receipt to confuse the hell out of people at those.

While this stuff does work, to a certain degree, if you construct the test case correctly, there is a fundamental mathematical problem that exists in all mass surveillance systems:

The people you are looking for are a tiny, insignificant minority

If your error rate exceeds the rate of incidence for what you're looking for, you are wasting your time. When you look for 5 people in several billion flyers per year, you are guaranteed to lose. And I note that 5 is actually a very high number because the total number of in-flight assailants divided by the number of years of civil aviation is actually a lot less than 1.

With the way airport security is nowadays, I'd be un-surprised if they put this system in and started getting false positives all over the place. Some people are still nervous when it comes to flying and do so only out of absolute necessity, so this probably would not help their stress levels much.

It's got nothing to do with immediate conditions, there is no way the positive rate will be anything but a tiny fraction of the false positive rate because no matter how small you get the error rate, you're still multiplying by single digit positive cases and XYZ,000,000,000 for the false positives.

Agreed. On the other hand, if merely used as a tool to flag someone for additional screening at the x-ray machine or metal detector I don't see that it is a major problem. If they drag the person off to another room for interrogation based upon the results, then it becomes much more intrusive.