Hacker News Reader

Comment by gcheong | Hacker News Reader

I wonder why, instead of X-rays and pat-downs they don't just use dogs. I would trust that a dog would be able to detect a bomb on a person much more readily than a person who's eyes are glazed over after looking at the nth person's scan or pat-down. And they gladly work for just love and kibble. Of course the TSA claims they are able to detect weapons such as guns and knives too, but I believe metal detectors are probably just as effective along with secure cockpits, air marshals on-board, and a public ready to fight back if necessary. Am I missing something about dogs that would make this impractical?

View on HN

>Am I missing something about dogs ?

Puppy breeders don't make million $ campaign contributions or hire TSA officials as 'advisers'

More specifically, Michael Chertoff isn't a puppy breeder.

Also some people are terrified of dogs so having one sniff over them would be worse than being groped. Not that the TSA cares about feelings or anything though.

Thats why airport sniffer dogs are often beagles rather than the German Sheppard/Bloodhounds used for cargo. Beagles are small cute and non-threatening, and they don't have to climb all over you to smell explosives.

By contrast the police here got German Sheppards to sniff for drugs on suspects on the street. It turns out the police didn't actually buy trained sniffer dogs - they just wanted something big and fierce looking to 'encourage' people to cooperate.

Not that the TSA would consider any such thing.

It sounds totally practical but in this whole TSA debate there's a weird misunderstanding of public opinion. Various polls have shown overwhelming public support for body scanners for instance. People want the security theater antics. It makes them feel safe. Dogs are too old fashion -- people trust machines more. It's amazing to me how quickly the online community especially, but also the media, have forgot the uproar over the failed X-Mas day bombing last year. People were upset we didn't have full body scanners deployed. Another failed attempt and people will be demanding everyone gets a full pat down AND a body scan. Another successful attempt and they'll be demanding racial profiling. Maybe we'll ban Muslims from flying entirely. Nothing would surprise me. I guess my point is what is effective and what makes the public feel better are two very different things.

I've concluded that freedom is an anti-value for many people. They don't want the responsibility that goes with freedom. They want people in government to grant them the cozy feeling of living at home with their parents, carefree, even when it's all theater and illusion. Those in government are happy to oblige because it's a fantastic never-ending jobs program for them. This is why the police state relentlessly ratchets forward, with only a temporary respite to allow the occasional fits of outrage to subside.

http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/tip-of-the-spear/

We are seeing the hybrid of the Nanny State and the Police State, the kindergarten teacher and the prison warden, with everything all soft and fuzzy and nice, but manacles and truncheons for those who step out of line. The rising cost of this state metastasis will fall squarely on the shoulders of the dwindling few suckers who choose to live responsibly.

Giant African pouched rats are even better sniffers than dogs. Might be some, uh, cultural challenges to deployment though.

I suspect a lot of what has brought about the over-the-top paranoia these days is the fact that 9/11 was a hijacking. Dogs would be perfect if we wanted to stop people who wanted to blow the plane up, because you have to have chemicals for that- but we also want to stop the people with weapons, and there's a ton of weapons dogs and metal detectors can't catch.

You are correct- there are a bunch of policies and people etc that can help mitigate all that- but I think this explains why there is less focus and/or use of our bomb-sniffing pals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com