

'Checkpoint of the future' takes shape at Texas airport - stfu
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-06-19/Faster-better-airport-security-checkpoints-not-that-far-off/55693916/1

======
wmeredith
"The key to speeding up checkpoints and making security less intrusive will be
to identify and assess travelers according to the risks they pose to safety in
the skies."

I can do that right now. Statistically speaking the answer is, "none". What a
waste of resources.

~~~
bruce511
Yesterday I took a domestic flight in a country outside the US. What a
surprise.

Kept my belt on, kept my shoes on, no objection to a can of coke in my bag,
just placed my bag on the scanner, waled through a simple metal detector,
picked up my bag and kept walking.

Despite this casualness, we landed safely both times. The TSA has added one
measure at a time, and the result is now impressively intrusive. And (given
the smaller numbers of staff I saw) impressively expensive.

I wonder sometimes if America has forgotten what "normal" is, and if it can
ever get back there.

It's sad - so much fear keeps the people in bondage. I'm amazed at folk in the
US that still believe the TSA makes flying safer. I guess until that changes,
they'll stay. And since people equate inconvenience to safety, their goal
really is to make things more and more intrusive, and inconvenient.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not fear it's business.

The airports are more than happy to buy into the idea of extra security
measures because it means that they will spend more money in the airport while
waiting for the plane.

------
chrsstrm
Do you trust your retinal scan info and fingerprints to be kept secure by the
government contractor who had the lowest bid? Just like the scanners that
weren't supposed to be saving images? Reading through the article I just kept
thinking, here it is, Minority Report style monitoring. Who is going to end up
with my scan data and exploit it in the name of "targeted marketing?" And
putting these current scanners in a tunnel still doesn't make them any less
intrusive or more effective.

~~~
ericabiz
"Who is going to end up with my scan data and exploit it in the name of
'targeted marketing?'"

I'm not worried about "targeted marketing" so much (heck, Facebook knows way
more about the average person than this database would), but more about
hacking and this being a target for potential thieves. Like a whole new form
of "identity theft."

Of course, giving up this information is "voluntary", but if the cost of not
giving it up is having to get to the airport 3 hours ahead of your flight to
stand in line the entire time, the government will suddenly have access to a
whole lot of people's personal information.

~~~
chrsstrm
Sure, it will be voluntary at first, and then eventually become the only way
to board a plane/train/boat. At that point, someone will suppose that if our
scans are good enough for the government to identify us for something so
crucial, why can't we also use it for ID/driver's license/form of secure
payment/house key/etc? After this has been established, yes, biometric
identity theft will be an issue. We'll see a similar situation just like a US
SSN - no one needs it but the IRS to collect taxes, yet everyone asks for it
because it is the government's only way to uniquely identify a singular
person.

------
rasengan0
Now screening for true patriots: "Those who voluntarily provide more
information about themselves to the government would be rewarded with faster
passage."

------
ams6110
Meanwhile those who would be terrorists are probably not even thinking about
air travel when there are so many other ways to cause mayhem

------
jpxxx
Delusional, illegal, fraudulent, wasteful, malicious, insulting, dehumanizing
garbage - all of it.

~~~
rogerbinns
Bruce Schneier posted a good opinion piece today. In particular he notes that
unlike virtually all other government activity, the TSA has never done a cost
benefit analysis, and that tweaks to the process of spending an unlimited
amount of money on security theatre won't actually achieve anything.

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_take...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_takes.html)

------
maxko87
If people are complaining about airport security being intrusive now, think
about the complaints that would result if this were to come about. While it's
a nifty idea, this "spying" would never bode well with passengers, even in
comparison to current standards.

On the other hand, this type of comprehensive filming already happens at banks
and other institutions, so it is possible that after all the immediate
sensationalism, people would get used to it.

~~~
tokenizer
I think that all of the privacy issues we face today will seem ordinary in the
future. It was only a matter of time before we started to monitor and manage
ourselves to this level of scrutiny.

~~~
nitrogen
I must object to your use of the word "ourselves" in this context. I didn't
vote for these systems or the politicians who want them, and accepting shared
blame for the actions of a select few is not to my taste.

I also disagree with the inherent inevitability of totalitarian surveillance.
Were mankind not so subject to irrational fear, manipulation, and political
warmongering, most of the problems that are "solved" by intrusive monitoring
would go away.

~~~
tokenizer
I wish I could have your optimism. But I believe that unless the millennials
and gen-y-ers radically shift political thought, most governments will go in
this way.

Security to protect ourselves against ourselves, up to the extent of thoughts
possibly...

I agree with you 100% in that I also disagree with the general direction, I
meant ourselves in the way that if it happens, we let it happen.

------
mitchty
So basically the TSA wants new screening technology installed in airports.
Guess thats one way to justify your agencies existence, and give kickbacks to
the companies that sell the equipment.

~~~
beedogs
It's utterly astounding how quickly the technology seems to need to be
scrapped and replaced in TSA-land.

I need to get in on this racket.

~~~
mitchty
Step 1: create a new problem by making things inefficient Step 2: charge
people to fix the first problem Step 3: repeat

It was sad knowing the rate of 350/hr people pre 9/11 versus at worst 60/hr
and hoping to get 30% faster after this change is in place. Instead of asking:
are we really getting concrete benefits from this arrangement at all.

------
hammock
Giant naked scanner tunnel.. how safe is that?

------
kleiba
I would find it strange that something like this is legal in a country like
the USA. Then again, I would find it strange if something like that were
illegal in a country like the USA.

------
mikeevans
Scanning fingerprints or irises? No thanks.

