jad@harpo.UUCP (jad) (07/08/85)
We need better methods of searching passengers and baggage prior to board- ing planes. Here are some ideas: It might be possible to develop a device that emits ultrasonic waves to detect and define the shapes of even the smallest objects surrounding the body. Or if it can't define shapes, maybe it could detect hardness or den- sity different from that of flesh. A device having the same function, but of a different principal of operation comes to mind. Maybe passengers can be searched by a device that emits air and analyzes the reflected air to monitor the person. Or maybe the person can step into a pressurized booth where everything outside of their skin can be distinguished. Suppose passengers were required to surrender ALL articles but their cloth- ing. Then the baggage and personal effects of each passenger were passed separately through an explosion-proof cell and irradiated by an explosive- detonating energy field. Maybe the people in charge don't have all the ideas under the sun. If anyone has ideas, let us hear them.
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/10/85)
> > We need better methods of searching passengers and baggage prior to board- > ing planes. Here are some ideas: > More correctly we need a uniform system to insure that the current search methods are used and uniformly imposed on anyone entering the passenger embarking areas of airports. Part of the reasons why terrorists are able to get on airlanes is because of a laxity in searching for contraband items. > ing. Then the baggage and personal effects of each passenger were passed > separately through an explosion-proof cell and irradiated by an explosive- > detonating energy field. > Current regulatons supposedly to be used at international air terminals does require that all bacgs (including purses) be x-ray examined while the passenger walks through a metal detector. In the even that the metal detector gives an alarm the individual must empty any pockets and go through the detector again ( the items removed fromthe pockets are handed over to the inspector. ) If the alarm continues to sound a smaller metal locator is used to find the specific source of the alarm condition. If it can not be resolved (ie metal surgical pins and plates) the individual may be asked to submit to a physical examination (this depends a lot on if the person fits the **profile** for a terrorist or hi-jacker.) > Maybe the people in charge don't have all the ideas under the sun. If anyone > has ideas, let us hear them. OK your just did. in summary: Better and more uniform enforcement and application of existing rules has been shown to be effective against terrorists. This can be noted by considering that the majority of the terrorist hijackings originate at or stop at airports facilities where these measures are lax or non-exisitant. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/11/85)
In article <208@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >> >> We need better methods of searching passengers and baggage prior to board- >> ing planes. Here are some ideas: >> >More correctly we need a uniform system to insure that the current search >methods are used and uniformly imposed on anyone entering the passenger >embarking areas of airports. More importantly, we need some decent network software to keep this stuff in the right newsgroup. All followup to net.followups, please! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (07/11/85)
What is this doing in net.women???? Dave Fritzinger PHRI, NY,NY
grwalter@watnot.UUCP (Fred) (07/11/85)
In article <2727@harpo.UUCP> jad@harpo.UUCP (jad) writes: > > We need better methods of searching passengers and baggage prior to board- > ing planes. Here are some ideas: > > [device to recognize shape/hardness of objects on person] > > [booth/device to distinguish objects on person] > > Suppose passengers were required to surrender ALL articles but their cloth- > ing. Then the baggage and personal effects of each passenger were passed > separately through an explosion-proof cell and irradiated by an explosive- > detonating energy field. > > Maybe the people in charge don't have all the ideas under the sun. If anyone > has ideas, let us hear them. Shades of Big Brother ! Would you fly if you were required to submit to a strip search (how else to check that all items but clothes were surrendered ?) each and every time you boarded an airplane ? I doubt very many people would put up with this sort of treatment, along with the increased rates necessary to pay to have this done. As for an "explosive-detonating energy field", this would probably also damage other articles besides explosives, such as magnetic computer media (not to forget - most aerosal cans are explosive (ie. underarm de-oderant)) The booth/device ideas are better, but again any 'rays' given off by these during the search could damage stuff, and I don't see harmless electronique search equipment being developed for quite some time (anybody who could develop something like this could also develop something else in a field with a large market - companies go for the profit). Granted, you could have it developed by the government, but .... An idea would be to : 1) have the people and the cargo carrying parts of the plane entirely separate - ie. you would have to exit the plane to get to the cargo/baggage section. This way terrorists could only use stuff (guns) that they carried into the passenger section with them. (This does nothing about bombs however ... sigh ...) 2) not allow passengers to take as much baggage with them into the passager section as they currently do, and require the baggage to pass a metal detection scan. (what do you need a large metal thing for when you're only going to be on the plane for some hours ? Granted you might want to take a portable computer with, or a video game, but I'm assuming that the people who would be checking what you were trying to take would have a little sense and discretion). 3) not allow passengers to have firearms (unless they are police-type people) with them on the plane - .ie require them to pass a metal detection scan. This is again assuming that the people doing the scanning have some sense, because there are people walking around with replacements for knewcaps/etc. that have metal in them. These suggestions, while they would increase the cost, are feasible today, and could be implimented. If you have any others, or criticisms, let me/us know. Fred UUCP : {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watnot!grwalter CSNET : grwalter%watnot@waterloo.csnet ARPA : grwalter%watnot%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa