Airport Puffer Devices Expensive And Don't Work Very Well, Being Phased Out
from the so-much-for-that-plan dept
Like many of you, I'm sure, I've had the "pleasure" of going through airport security in one of those newer "puffer" devices that shoot little puffs of air up and down your body. I was told that these were sophisticated new machines that are much better at finding traces of explosives on people. Except... it turns out... not so much. Apparently the machines are incredibly expensive, prone to breaking down when exposed to dirt and humidity (none of that around airports) and difficult to repair. So, the government is no longer going to roll out any more such machines. This reminds me that, just last year, we were wondering whatever happened to the predicted boom in new airport security technology, that everyone insisted was on the way following the attacks of September 11th. These machines were about the only visual example of any new technology... and they don't seem to work.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airport security, puffer device
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not really new...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really new...
That's because the puffers at the nuke plants were privately owned. Get the government involved and it is bound to fail quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There you are, the machines were a $6M success for somebody.
The day the towers fell I said to my friends "mark my words, we're going to get new security measures that infringe our civil rights, do no real good and make somebody a lot of money."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As the great George Carlin once said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Airport Puffer Replaced by...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone Miss a Campaign Contribution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backscatter?
That's still in the news all over the place.
Great fun for voyeurs of all ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'sprobably all psychological.
When I walked thru these machines, I haven't seen anything that would resemble a collector or sensor plate of sorts for the fumes, plus the way the nozzles shot around a person didn't have a defined airstream. It seems the intent was more control of the airstream around the person. You'll also note these units are usually located at either extreme of the airport lanes, where airflow within and around the machines is probably more controlled.
Pretty sure the whole existence of the machine was psychological.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It'sprobably all psychological.
lab for packing up some show-and-tell stuff he was taking
on a flight. I got a call later that day from him, "You
got me in so much trouble...!" The box had once contained
jars of potassium nitrate used for a humidity controlled
cabinet. It set off the alarms and caused a minor panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90% of airport screening is purely psychological. If we REALLY wanted to be secure, the public AND the airlines would never stand for it. Look at all the whining about the extremely effective full body scanners currently being tested. The person who sees the images never sees the people, so unless you've got a 3rd leg or something, nobody's going to know who you are, or care. Oh, but folks would rather not have their delicate sensibilities offended even if that means going down in a fiery ball of twisted metal.
I don't know of a single airport in the country where maintenance workers, with full access to the entire terminal and the airplanes have to pass ANY sort of security. What are the odds of paying some minimum wage schlub who in most parts of the country isn't even a US citizen to stick a package on a plane? Maybe hold his family hostage back in their home country for added incentive? And, of course, the guy (or girl) could just waltz in or out without anybody saying anything.
I know whereof I speak, I personally trained many of the TSA supervisors employed around the country (at least those hired in the TSA's 1st year of existence).
Even El Al's security is based mainly on appearances. The only airline operating on US soil that the TSA isn't allowed to handle security for, we're (or at least were) required to observe them, and their procedures are a joke. After screening the passengers luggage (at JFK), they hand the luggage back to the passengers to take up to the counter (on a long, densely packed line). The passengers at this point haven't gone through ANY security screening, and someone with a bomb in their pocket could easily slip it inside their luggage after their luggage has been scanned.
Oh, and if you're one of the goyim, expect to be selected for extra and in-depth screening, because you WILL get it. We can't get away with that sort of profiling, but they can. Of course, even then they don't follow correct procedure taking far too many samples before testing for explosives. Anything collected with their first swipe would likely be well worn off of their swab before it was ever tested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
B.S. The threat of 9/11 ended in a field in Pennsylvania. The promise of hijackers was always that the travelers would be unharmed, once that was belied (and while everyone else was just reacting, I will add) the previously passive sheep laid into the wolves.They died, of course, but they prevented any other casualities.
As I've said since 9/12: Issue Bowie Knives to everyone as they come onboard. After 9/11 you won't get a chance to finish your polemic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have flown on commercial airliners many, many times without being scanned, and I have never, not even once, gone down in a fiery ball of twisted metal. Your risk estimation is way, way off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Airport Security
All feedback is welcomed!
Michael
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Security Devices
Thats the new generation of airport devices that are commercially available in countries other than the U.S.A.. Its produced by a small technology transfer company from Kentucky and beats backscatter technology due to the fact that the radiation penetrates through the body, allowing one to see inside body cavities etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]