The DHS's Latest Investment: Terahertz Laser Scanners 169
MrSeb writes "It seems like every time I set foot in an airport, there is some new machine I need to stand in, walk through, or put my shoes on. The argument can be made that much of this is security theater — an effort to just make things look safe. However, if a new kind of laser-based molecular scanner lives up to its promise and finds its way into airports as planned, it could actually make a difference. A company called Genia Photonics has developed a programmable picosecond laser that is capable of spotting trace amounts of a variety of substances. Genia claims that the system can detect explosives, chemical agents, and hazardous biological substances at up to 50 meters. This device relies on classic spectroscopy; just a very advanced form of it. In the case of Genia's scanner, it is using far-infrared radiation in the terahertz band. This is why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is so keen on getting it into airports. Understandably, some are calling foul on the possible privacy concerns, but this technology is halfway to a Star Trek tricorder."
Oops (Score:5, Funny)
I should then quit smoking doobies prior to traveling. Bummer.
Re:Oops (Score:5, Funny)
possibly before posting too! :-)
Re:Oops (Score:4, Funny)
Then I would never post anything...
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
Invasive scanning without detection at 50 meters?
"Backscatter" vans are already roaming the streets of Amereica's cities. So I don't suppose that many months will pass before DHS has this equipment deployed into the hands of "local jurisdiction associates" sooner than later. Hell, they'll probably deploy this on drones, if they can manage the power-supply.
Then? They'll have your arse scanned and tanned before you are in earshot of the announcement: "papers, please!"
Good to know that there are Americans volunteering to die overseas, in the defense of such Liberty as this!
Re: (Score:2)
Invasive scanning without detection at 50 meters?
they'll probably deploy this on drones, if they can manage the power-supply.
Holy shit, look at that drone skimming the tree tops!
Brought to you via NASA to a drone near you! (Score:2)
If you follow NASA's Tech Briefs, in Vol. 36 No. 7, there are a numerous of articles in there about Terahertz lasers to doing neat things in much reduced package sizes and at a reduced price, all things considered though this is NASA I am talking about. Many prior assumptions about range, size, power, and cost are going out the window so drone mounting is not just conceivable, I'd rate it extremely likely. A random thought about capabilities is that the spectroscopy device, which sure as hell doesn't need
Re: (Score:2)
"Do not go gentle into that good night/
Rage, rage against the dying of the light"
Re: (Score:2)
You answered your own question. Those of us that keep making the case for liberty over and over online and elsewhere is helping spread the word. Eventually this will lead to change.
Dubai has this.. it's awesome. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dubai has this.. it's awesome. (Score:5, Funny)
So he walked over some?
I think the potheads would love this. They will start dumping shake at the entrence of the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Terahertz-triggers for explosives.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the Bomb Box concept is just a fantasy -- that would be the best method, a twisting path that has one or more areas which are reinforced and designed to direct a blast upward and out of an airport building while restricting access to minimize the number of passengers that could enter the chamber at one time -- in there you run some fantasy machine that automagically explodes explosive material. Warning: do not carry nitroglycerin pills onto airplanes anymore :
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Nitroglycerin pills with a stabilizer...that might work. 30 count. Just add heat.
However, we are dancing around the real issue here. None of us are particularly suicidal (with the exception of those people trying to earn a living doing OSS support), and outside of the Linux / Windows / Mac holy wars, none of us are homicidal. Life may not be what we were promised, but it hasn't yet, hit the level where people with the patience of the Buddha (have you done tech support? have you recompiled the linux ker
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, if you fly from Amsterdam to Dubai without luggage, that will mark you as suspicious. Thus, even if you have clean clothes free of doobage, you may still get questioned. Terrorists on one-way flights need no luggage.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had not posted the link then (Score:2)
I would not have believed the story. That is outrageous. Even more incredible was the guy serving hard time for having a poppy seed (well, three poppy seeds) stuck to his shirt. This, after consuming a bread roll at Heathrow. It defies all common sense. What a bunch of totally random bullies. Where is Franz Kafka [wikipedia.org] when you need him.
I once went to Dubai. It was a pleasant enough hotel-land experience -- expensive. But after reading that piece in The Daily Mail I will never return. I was put off the place any
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The situation is ridiculous enough that I was hoping that someone would smack this down with some hard evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting/hoping.
Sorry. Absolutely true. See: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/khas-khas-poppy-seed-warning.shtml [hoax-slayer.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds good. A device that can detect explosive compounds at a distance. That addresses the real problem. No more need to examine laptops, check documents, or pat people down.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not naive enough to think that they'll stop, just because the original justification is no longer valid, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
That enhances the real problem.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think he was right... if they have a way to check for that kind of thing without letting a high-school dropout look at naked pictures of me, then I'm good with it.
The problem is, they've had a way to do that for decades... drug/bomb dogs have a *much* higher success rate than any technological innovation that's been introduced since, with the possible exception of the metal detector. Couple the two together, and you have a solution that's much cheaper than the current theatre, and much more effective.
Re: (Score:3)
First the legitimate: these things don't exactly have any mechanism by which to detect box cutters.
Now the bureaucratic: as the summary states, much of airport security is pure theater. People aren't as likely to feel safe if they're only being screened by "magic laser scanners."
Re: (Score:1)
First point is not actually legitimate, as the security loophole that allowed 9/11 to happen was closed before 9/11 was even completed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention US passengers will take down and hog tie anybody who even mutters the word box cutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. But most likely they will mainly be used to detect what taxpayers carry any residue of money, at which point they'll get a 'pat down' to remove any excess cash burdening the traveller.
Time to cut out the middle man; these machines are expensive and the producers have to be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. But most likely they will mainly be used to detect what taxpayers carry any residue of money, at which point they'll get a 'pat down' to remove any excess cash burdening the traveller.
Time to cut out the middle man; these machines are expensive and the producers have to be paid.
This isn't too far off... if this thing is used to detect narcotics, given that 90% of US bills have detectable traces of cocaine on them [nationalgeographic.com], leave any money exposed while being scanned, and you're likely to get a much more thorough examination and possible confiscation of your money.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Insightful)
The paranoid part of me would point out that it can also detect various medical conditions at a distance. That's not necessarily a bad thing to find out about if you don't know you have cancer or whatever, but it has all sorts of ramifications, and falls under HIPAA....
That said, as long as it is not physically capable of producing a coherent image, it is significantly less invasive than the pedo porno scanners they use today, and really isn't that much different from the magnetometers except in the number of materials it can detect. I would view these as a significant improvement if these are physically incapable (because of hardware limitations, not software policies) of producing anything approaching an image.
If they can produce anything remotely approaching an image, then they are far worse than the porno scanners and should be banned. There's no valid reason for the device to be able to determine distance or even determine which direction the laser is pointing at any given moment if your only goal is to detect dangerous substances by their chemical signature.
I'm cautiously optimistic, yet very pessimistic all at once. On the one hand, this might be a significant improvement in privacy when going through an airport checkpoint. On the other hand this might significantly reduce privacy all the time, and knowing the DHS, if there is a way for them to screw things up so that they invade privacy more than necessary, they will find a way to do so. So the cynic in me says that this will probably turn out to be another few billion dollars of our money pissed down the toilet that should be spent on something more useful, like education, intelligence gathering, actual useful security changes, providing universal healthcare, feeding and clothing the poor, building highways, updating rail beds for high speed trains, or even just burning the cash for warmth....
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally, explosive residue shouldn't signify guilt. If I have gun powder residue on my shirt, does that make me a terrorist? No. I could have gone hunting, or even brushed against a police officer.
Explosives Molecules != Terrorist
But with the TSA it means you will be getting advanced grope down, and will miss your flight. Even if you pass your groping procedure, they may still contact the airlines and see if the airline will deny you.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"The DHS says you must be a terrorist."
While I haven't been a fan of the TSA - I'm pretty sure it'd just illicit a secondary screening. Rather, I hope there's common sense involved here. We'll see how that actually pans out.
Frankly, I see a lot of potential good in this. Two things we needed after 9/11 - cockpit doors and better explosive detection. Beyond that we were pretty much good, IMO. Depending on how rapidly this scans, what the health concerns are, and how the enforcing agency (TSA) handles this te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have no idea if this laser backscatter machine gives false positives.
No idea? I'd say that given standard statistical distributions, the machine is GUARANTEED to give false positives, unless it doesn't give any positives at all. Given that we live in a universe filled with entropy and this is a fairly advanced device, a 0 FP rate indicates an unacceptably high FN rate.
So the real question is to do with process and granularity of information provided, not FP rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FACT: there will be false positive.
The question you seem to be getting overly concerned about it "What happens when that occurs?"
Re: (Score:3)
I say again, you are purely assuming, with no actual FACTS, that the machine will give false positives on "laundry detergent and makeup". While I agree that it is likely to give false positives, the rate at which it does so and the substances which cause it are unknown to those of us on slashdot. My point is that one should not be all upset about false positives until such time that real FACTS about them are available. Once can be concerned that there may be false positives, but one should not state categorically that "Laundry detergent and makeup can actually give a false positive" without those actual FACTS.
Ok, here's a fact for you. I don't knw what the problem with laundry detergent is, but a rather large number of cosmetic items (mostly nail varnishes) are produced from nitrocellulose, a high explosive. It is physically impossible to detect molecules of nitrocellulose from an explosive device without also detecting the ones that are used in nail varnish (and the lacquer on many guitars, and in wart removers, and in the plastic backing on some brands of playing cards). If it is sensitive enough to be usef
Re:Sounds BAD! (Score:2)
I talked to TSA and airport employees, they all agreed that their CURRENT machines can give positives for laundry detergent and makeup. My assumption is that if there current deployed machine is calibrated to detecting molecules up close g
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear that the current machines DO give false positives for the substances of which you are speaking. However, that means NOTHING in regards to the current laser-based scanner this article is about. That would be guilt by association. It's the assumption part of your statement up there that is the issue.
Your statement about trace molecules causing problems is valid, to a degree, depending on just how accurate this new technology is (of which we have no idea), and whether or
Re: (Score:2)
We do have an idea though... this is about mass spectroscopy. There's only so much you can tell from mass spectroscopy, as all that will highlight is specific chemical compounds, and their relative densities.
While the FP rate may be very small, there ARE NO COMPOUNDS that are used only for illegal purposes.
So, while this new machine may have a perfectly stellar 100% TP and TN rate with regards to detecting specific compounds, the way the device is actually used WILL produce FPs. There is one assumption: t
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what the new device looks for.
Let's make this simple. There are two possibilities:
1. The device looks for residues of nitrocellulose. If it does, then handling any of a number of common objects that contain nitrocellulose will leave enough of a residue of it on you to set off the detector.
2. The device does not look for residues of nitrocellulose. If this is the case, it will not detect nitrocellulose-based bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then it just meets the next joke (Score:3)
It wouldn't take a paticularly smart terrorist to talk their way onto a plane at this point even if the sensors are very accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah; just need to automate this by putting it in said hallway, and have the detector trigger the microwave radiation unit that causes your skin to feel uncomfortably hot. The individual hit by this will do the rest, as they struggle out of any clothing that is triggering the heat wave.
Except for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How is this a problem? If the device detects explosives then you are taken to a secondary more "personal" search. I doubt that the false positive rate would be that high that it would be undoable... after all, the TSA is basically doing a 100% search rate as is.
Re:Except for... (Score:5, Insightful)
> How is this a problem? If the device detects explosives then
> you are taken to a secondary more "personal" search.
How is that not a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
> How is this a problem? If the device detects explosives then
> you are taken to a secondary more "personal" search.
How is that not a problem?
How is it not an improvement?
We'd be fools to reject progress even while still fighting to have the problem corrected entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
It will be when some jerk/terrorist/bored teenagers decide to just mix fertilizer/gun powder with water and dump some on the floor at the airport.
Talk about impact per dollar spent. If you had to search every passenger many flights would be canceled or delayed and doing that at one major airport would impact the whole country, do it at Heathrow or O'Hare and you might be able to delay flights and disrupt travel for the people all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Then you'll all get to deal with some of what I have to put up with when going into (or near) the US, and hopefully will vote for someone who will stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've accidentally brought knives through screening when going on flights and haven't been deemed a terrorist. Yet anyway. A dumbass who forgets to empty out his pockets before heading to the airport - most definitely. I think the assumption every person who has something detected is going to be on a no fly list is a bit much. Not impossible - just improbable.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you work with explosives/chemicals, all you (would) need is a redress number and perhaps a pre-screen and you're done.
I agree with you that the current TSA system is not the best, but it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
>it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).
[citation needed]
Never mind our entirely sufficient airline security pre 9/11 did only minimal checks. Every now and then a bunch of wackos blow up a plane. Big deal. Heart disease and traffic accidents do far, far worse.
So sometimes they get one through. No reason to live in constant fear and surrender all freedoms in a *futile* attempt to stop terrorists. I'm not saying don't put people through a metal detector or x-ray baggage or anything but this current crap is ridiculous.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention, if a terrorist really wanted to fly a plane into something else... they could just do it on a private jet which has no TSA screening. Heck, even a small craft (unmanned anymore) loaded with explosives could take off from any number of airports in the US and cause a tremendous amount of damage.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)
For fuck's sake, anyone who's read Make magazine could make an unmanned explosive drone by buying a quadropter from Brookstone and duct taping a bomb to it.
Take off from a backyard.
Technology will not be getting any harder in the future, folks.
The TSA: Keeping us safe from yesterday's threat, today.
Re: (Score:2)
except they don't work that way. Big and public. Shut down the means of transportation.
I doubt anyone who read make can make a missile that could find and hit a plane in flight.
I would love to see someone get a brookstone quadcopter manege to hit a plane traveling at 100's of miles an hour. Or even one with enough lift to get enough explosives off the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an amateur technologist in NZ who made his own pulsejet powered GPS-guided cruise missiles. The technology isn't hard, and I'm constantly amazed no terrorist group has yet replicated it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that if a terrorist really wanted to do something bad, all they need to do is bribe or hold someone with adequate clearance's family hostage.
The reality is that a significantly motivated person/organization can easily defeat any obstacles placed in front of them. It becomes an economic issue. If security costs $1MM, and can be defeated for $1k (including risk, human cost, etc), the security doesn't work. If the security costs $1k and requires $1MM to be defeated, it works. It is
Re: (Score:2)
Right now we have an airport security apparatus that costs well over $1B more than the pre-9/11 costs.
It is not statistically/demonstrably safer than the pre 9/11 security.
Actually it is.
9/11 total cost was under $1MM to orchestrate... likely under $100k!
So what? destruction is cheap, always has been.
Most burglars spend exact zero dollar in tolls to orchestrate a break in. Does this mean you should spend money trying to prevent break ins?
"There is no such thing as perfect safety, perfect security, or perfec
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the costs without the wars has been over $1 trillion. If it were a billion, it wouldn't really be that much in the scheme of things, as it would be around $100 million per year since then.
What was the damage brought on by 9/11? Billions, and maybe even tens of billions. It was a lot of money, but did it justify a trillion dollars in spending? I tend to think that's a bit much. Lock the cockpit doors--that cost a few hundred million. Prevent non-passengers from going to the gate--that might h
Re: (Score:2)
That's a false dichotomy -- there are other options. But even if our choice is between doing nothing and doing what they do now, I would argue that doing nothing is the better alternative. By a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me some arguments no how letting people on without any screening is a better alternative.
Be sure to account for the aircraft bombing and hijacking that took place prior to screenings.
Re: (Score:2)
The current security procedures carry a heavy cost (not talking just dollars, but including loss of privacy, strengthening of authoritarianism, reduced efficiency, etc.). I argue that this cost is much higher than the cost of things like hijackings, terrorist acts, etc.
Even if all known planned terrorist plots were successful, the cost of that, counting people killed & maimed as well as property damage, would still be many orders of magnitude lower than the cost of allowing people to drive. We've collec
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative was the screening in place pre 911, which was not "letting everyone on an airplane without any checks". They checked for explosives on random people, they had everyone go through metal detectors and might esculate to the wand. They allowed secure private checked in bags, and they looked through carry ons. But I stro
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that the current TSA system is not the best, but it beats the alternative (i.e., letting everyone on an airplane without any checks).
What is wrong with the alternative?
Why do we need the TSA or "security"?
Re: (Score:1)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety (Benjamin Franklin)."
Re: (Score:3)
The quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That said:
Why do you assume it's true? Why do you state it as if it is a finished proof.
IT is not.
Do you doors have locks? well then, you can' even enter you own house without a key! You have given up essential liberty, for safety, there for you deserve nothing.
What's that, you have to wait while they do a safety check of the airline? OMG!!
Why don't you actually think about the
Re: (Score:2)
What's that, you have to wait while they do a safety check of the airline? OMG!!
Ignore the 4th amendment, what do we gain for that "safety check?" Nothing? That is what I thought. You are giving up liberty to make some people FEEL safe, but there is no extra safety. It is worse than locking the sliding glass door. Locking the sliding glass door keeps out the nosey teenagers, but that is it. The security check is unconstitutional, and we get NOTHING in return. Nothing, except for a wait, and spent tax money.
Re: (Score:2)
> Seriously, the TSA and DHS need to be abolished,
Damn right.
Re: (Score:2)
If this technology is as accurate as it is made out to be ....
Accuracy and sensitivity aren't the same thing. Maybe the detector isn't a binary detector (bad stuff detected vs clean) but instead gives a level reading for a number of compounds? If the level reading hits a certain level of a certain combination of chemicals, it gets flagged?
That's how I'd set such a thing up. Of course, this doesn't stop security from detecting at the lowest level, but since this is theatre in the first place, they'd most likely calibrate the device to a level that gives them precise
Re: (Score:2)
then nobody could travel the week of July 4th because they are all terrorists hiding explosives in their rectum's. Break out the gloves and strip search that 11 year old in front of their parents!
[...]
this sensationalist security crap
Good thing I'm not going through airport security right now, I think my irony meter just exploded!
In Other News (Score:5, Funny)
Poppyseed muffin sales have dropped to all time lows in the airport concourse. Terrorists suspected...
The false positives will be the problem (Score:1)
Once they finally deploy something like this that's invasive enough to spot all the dangerous molecules, they're going to be overwhelmed with false positives. The scanner will be right, but no terrorism or risk will be in play. Do these people have any idea how much trace levels of "dangerous" molecules you'd actually find if you did a broad long distance sweep of a whole airport terminal and everyone in it? Chem traces from cleaning your kitchen or working on car/garage products can look the same as tra
Renovations at Dallas Love Field (Score:2)
Make a difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
"it could actually make a difference"
I'm sorry, what? What kind of difference do you expect it to make?
Terrorist attacks on planes are EXTREMELY rare. I do not lose sleep over them. You and I are far, far more likely to die from a plane malfunction or pilot error than a terrorist. The only 'difference' I can see is yet another hoop to jump through at airports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Existing metal detectors should.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a mob of angry passengers will deal with the situation if one was to brandish one on a flight and attempt to ruin their trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Bones (Score:1)
but this technology is halfway to a Star Trek tricorder
he's dead Jim
Re: (Score:2)
Jim is dead?!
Is this the same tech from the cat detector van? (Score:1)
Freakin' Sharks (Score:1)
And of course each laser will come packaged with a shark on which to mount it, thus further enhancing the airport security!
All this security... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alls that proves is that it's not as bad as people on /. seem to think it is. /. derives tis opinion from sensational headlines and shaky summaries
Which implies
This won't be used as intended (Score:2)
Laser? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if it is so important then nationalize the company (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the private companies would just charge the government more. And more. You know,. cause CEOs need their bonuses.
Follow the money (Score:3)
FBI should look into who got the contracts and how decisions to award these contracts were made. Personally, I think this stinks from a mile away, and large bags of money had to change hands to make this happen.
AS a model rock enthuisiest (Score:2)
I look forward to the searches~
" it could actually make a difference. " (Score:2)
Other than the current level of terror some people seem to have about flying, an airplane isn't the best target for a terrorist. And yet we do almost everything to protect them and nothing to protect what would be the real targets. Like EVERYTHING else.
LoS? (Score:2)
As it works in infrared, which is line of sight, it probably doesn't remove any of the other scanning methods (ie groping) that are in place today.
The only terrorist i see at the airports (Score:2)
is the TSA.
I'm covered in this stuff, and so are you. (Score:2)
Everyone of us has trace amounts of cocain, explosive residue, and infectious biological agents all over us. This thing should trigger on every person that walks into the airport.