>From Nature 413:238-239
> [technologies] include 'biometrics' for confirming the identity of
> passengers, computerized pattern recognition to identify weapons
> hidden in baggage or under clothing, and even an extension of
> auto-pilot technologies to prevent hijackers from assuming
> manual control of airliners.
I'll note the use of "extension of auto-pilot technologies"
which was precisely what I suggested a few weeks ago.
In terms of "changing ones mind", I think I am becoming less
opposed to "public transparency" in situations that require
a high level of trust between citizens in public. Airline
passengers, and to lesser extent railroad passengers or people
attending large public meetings (concerts, sports stadiums, etc.)
need to be able to have a sense of security regarding the people
around them.
In these situations, I do not think it is unreasonable to
require unobtrusive biometric verification of identity,
particularly if the citizen is the only person with a
copy of the data and the security of the cards containing
the data is highly trustable.
This would of course be less feasible for foreign citizens
who may not have easy access to the required identity cards.
This does at least allow you to focus the attention of
security on those individuals.
Useful data:
> There is also scope to improve security on board aircraft. Strengthening
> cockpit doors with Kevlar, a lightweight, bulletproof substance, for example,
> would cost only $2,000 per aircraft -- and could be combined with
> procedures to keep cabin doors locked during flight.
> El Al, equips its guards with nylon composite bullets that can disable
> hijackers without threatening cabin walls
Also mentioned were requirements for automating pattern recognition
of weapons, knives, box cutters, etc.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:55 MDT