Hand Swabbing and Airport Security

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by raristud, Feb 18, 2010.

Loading...
  1. raristud

    raristud Member

    Air travelers may have their hands swabbed more often as part of a stepped-up effort to screen passengers for explosives, an Obama administration official said Wednesday.

    Airports were told Wednesday that more passengers should be randomly screened for explosives before, during and after they go through metal detectors, the official said. The screening could include swabbing travelers' hands or their carry-on luggage to check for traces of explosives, said the official, who requested anonymity to speak about security plans.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airport_security

    What's next, swabbing the crouch area for clues.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2010
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is a constant and fluid dynamic: convenience vs. safety. The question is always: do we have it right?

    I recently went through the hand-swabbing; it took less than a minute and was utterly non-intrusive. They were done by the time my carry-on bag exited the screener.

    But here's another question: will it be random or targeted?
     
  3. bmills072200

    bmills072200 New Member

    Rather, SHOULD it be random or targeted?
     
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    It's not just convenience, although there's that. It's also a matter of expense, privacy, and dignity.

    Meanwhile on the other side of the equation there isn't just safety, although there's that. There's also their need to look like they're Doing Something To Keep You Safe™.

    Compared with the digital strip searches, I suppose a hand swab is trivial.

    That's easy -- they'll claim it's random, but it will be targeted.

    Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't think that security is important, and I'm not calling for there to be nothing between the ticketing counter and the airplane. I also realize that as security measures are added, terrorists will come up with ways to evade those measures. But one of their goals is to terrorize people. And when travelers are hopping around trying to put their belts and shoes back on after naked pictures of them have been reviewed by TSA personnel, I can't help but think that the bad guys have already partially won.

    -=Steve=-
     
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Of course it should be targeted.

    How many terrorists are out there, compared to ordinary air travelers? If they simply pick subjects at random, they are going to have a miniscule chance of actually catching anyone.

    They would need to do it to everyone, without exception, perhaps with some kind of machine that everyone sticks their hands into quickly and rapidly one after another, producing results instantly. (Does such a machine even exist?)

    Or else they will have to apply their selective-sampling procedures in such a way as to increase the odds of actually catching somebody. That might mean emphasizing certain air routes, certain sorts of passengers, or whatever. And that will necessarily involve "profiling" who might represent a greater than random risk.
     
  6. Please stop beating around the bush and say what you mean. Are you suggesting that people of Middle-Eastern descent should be scrutinized more closely than others?

    I won't assume that is what you mean until you clarify, but I have heard that suggestion time and time again and cannot comprehend why anyone thinks its a good idea.

    Its funny that those in favor of racial profiling are NEVER in favor of their own race being profiled. Most of the domestic terrorists in the history of the United States have actually been white (as well as most of the mass murderers and serial killers). If racial profiling was a viable solution (which, for many reasons, it isn't), it is white people who need to be profiled. But of course, Ann Coulter et. al wouldn't be in favor of THAT now would they?

    Now here you have a great point. What is the rationale behind random testing? Is it a deterrent? I doubt it. My gut feeling is that it is useless as a deterrent, however, is there even a way to collect data and come to an empirical conclusion on that matter? Well then, are we rolling the dice and wishing upon a star that a person of nefarious intent will be one of the ones randomly chosen to be tested? In a recent visit to NYC, I noticed the police scanning 1 out of every, I'd say, 500 bags that came through the subway station at grand central terminal. Gee... that makes me feel safe. However, it would be completely infeasable to scan every bag or even 1/4 of the bags since even a slight delay in the morning rush causes people crowding to the point that one could literally fear for one's life.
     
  7. perrymk

    perrymk Member

    I believe one of the reasons John Allen Muhammad and Malvo were successful is that authorites assumed the snipers were white. So there are exceptions to the rule.

    Think about what makes an effective profile: something distinguishable. The problem with your suggestion in general is that the majority are white, at least for now in the US. It makes an ineffective profile. Now if a white person were driving in a predominantly low income non-white area, where the vast majority of residents are law abiding citizens, he/she would likely be pulled over on suspicion of looking for drugs. So whites are profiled when it is practical to do so.

    Notice I'm not commenting on whether profiling is right or not (smile).
     
  8. This is part of why racial profiling is ineffective. The profile can be wrong. If you decide to give extra scrutiny to members of a certain racial/ethnic category, then the enemy know exactly who NOT to send to do the job. There are plenty of non-Arab sympathizers to the "Islamic" terorris
    t cause, and if there aren't enough, you better believe that the recruiting efforts wil be stepped up in order to gain more tools (read: disgruntled youths) to use.

    This is exactly what I mean. Terrorism has been effective at creating a contagion of sentiments regarding who is US and who is OTHER. However, this anti-other is a problem that has always existed. The problem here becomes what is labeled as terrorism. If a non-arab commits a heinous act (even if they are in some way sypathizers of "Islamic" terrorism), people are reluctant to use the "t" word, and often it isn't even mentioned. Therefore, we have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Back to self-fulfilling prophesy. Is it practical to make people feel alienated, which is likely to breed even more antiestablishment feelings? Profiling causes an "F*** THE POLICE" attitude whereby some people feel forced to live a dishonest lifestyle because of the inability of those around them to see not "the color of their skin, but... the content of their character."

    If a group of people is alienated or trated poorly by the larger society, it is members from that group that are likely to become sypathizers to the anti-American terrorist cause, which in the minds of many, would justify the profiling.
     
  9. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    OK, so you're running the body scanner or the random hand-swab station or the belly button lint analyzer at the airport, and these three guys are in line, and you only have time for one. Do you choose the African or the Arab Nobel laureates in literature, or the Oklahoma City bomber?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Wow. So simple, yet so pointed. You summarized my entire argument in 3 pictures. :)

     
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    If there are ten million legitimate air travelers and ten terrorist bombers, screening somebody at random will have a 1/1,000,000 chance of revealing a terrorist.

    In order to raise that to a level that's helpful, there would seem to be two choices:

    They could increase the size of the sample to include pretty much every air traveler. That might prove to be too intrusive, time consuming, costly and labor intensive.

    If the brute-force universal-sample approach isn't practical, then they will have to use some method of identifying people in the crowds that represent a greater than random likelihood of being a threat.

    The success of that will depend on the quality and specificity of the available intelligence and on the security services' ability to separate meaningful signals from all of the noise.
     

Share This Page