Why is there an assumption that there is no alternative to groping?

[Cleobulus]

This is something I simply don't get, its a false dichotomy, that the TSA apologists have set up and it makes no sense.

We seem to be talking about bombers here, so that is the type of threat this post will be about. And since this seems to be the most obvious threat, why not use the most obvious detection apparatus available, dogs?

Dogs are already used to sniff out cargo for distinctive chemical signatures of explosives in our packages, why not use them, instead of groping, to detect explosives on people as well? It would be far less intrusive, more accurate, and less traumatic to people if this were done. As it stands, people with certain medical conditions, especially those with special equipment hooked up to their bodies can't fly without risking their health, those who are extreme introverts or just shy, and those who have suffered past trauma, particularly sexual assault and molestation.

Certain breeds of dogs are unobtrusive and medium sized, and dogs can detect as little as a few milligrams of explosive material buried even WITHIN a human body. Hell, dogs can be trained to detect cancer, they surely can be trained to detect if someone shoved C4 up their ass. People stand in line waiting to board planes and go through checkpoints, how traumatic would it be to have a trainer walk a dog up and down the side of the line to sniff out people? In addition, their noses are sensitive enough that they can detect these chemicals from feet away, not inches. They would also be more accurate than the machines and people in place today, a dog can tell the difference between a urine bag and a bag full of explosive chemicals, whereas a person nor the machines we use, can't.

Dogs are commonly used to sniff out drugs on people in airports, if they are sensitive enough to do that successfully, why not have bomb sniffing dogs as well? I really don't see why people are saying that we HAVE to accept strangers copping a feel in order to be safe, that's just stupid. No one touches me there except for my girlfriend and my doctor, and they both have good, if obviously different reasons for doing so.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Chertoff won't make any money from dogs!

:P

[Skittles]

2. DING DING DING!!!

yes INDEED

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Why thank you, my dear Skittles!

yes INDEED

:D

[Skittles]

4. the real reason concerning the dogs

I think the ones most apt to perform well in that capacity are big, ferocious looking dogs (big giant noses) - I guess it would be fine to have a pack of, say, beagles doing it but people become extremely jittery around of bunch of, say, German Shepherds

[Cleobulus]

8. Different dog breeds for different purposes, also its not the size of the nose, but the amount...

of receptors that matter, many of the big dog breeds, bred for hunting purposes have blunted senses of smell, because it wouldn't make sense for them to track prey that passed by a few days ago, but rather hours or minutes ago.

[TorchTheWitch]

20. Sorry, no

The only dogs that may have a blunted sense of smell are those with virtually no snout like French bull dogs, pugs, etc. However, the sense of smell they do have is plenty keen enough to be able to detect bomb chemicals accurately and better than any machine yet devised. If any breed of dog can pick up a specific sent left by something that is NO LONGER THERE than any breed of dog can most certainly detect the scent of something that IS there especially when it is consealed on or in a person's body and not packed in layers upon layers of scent concealing substances.

Breed has nothing to do with smell detection which is why there are all manner of dog breeds that already do work associated with a dog's keen sense of smell. Small dog breeds are sometimes prefered when it comes to smell detection in tight spaces that larger dogs can't get into. Many small dogs are used in bomb scent detection for this reason precisely... so they can buzz through a room full of tight spaces like cargo holds that larger dogs would be too big to manuever in.

The reason most hunting dogs are usually larger breeds is not because of a better or more lacking sense of smell but because larger breeds are often prefered as they are better able to cover ground faster, deal better with rugged terrain and not likely be frightened of going after large prey. ALL dogs are predators, and that means hunters. ANY dog can follow a scent cone detected in the AIR as their very nature requires it so they can eat. If ANY dog can do that, than detecting a bomb that uses chemicals would be child's play.

[tblue37]

16. I think it could remind people of the Nazis walking around the prisoners with

their German shepherds on leash. But it would still be preferable--even though, I admit, there are some people with a dog phobia; but couldn't those people have the option when buying their ticket of specifying their fear and going to a different line for other screening methods?

[SheilaT]

5. Because the people setting the current

policy are idiots.

[jberryhill]

6. Dogs are not what you may think

It would take quite a large program to ramp up. There are very few of them trained for explosives.

Getting a dog to find, say, C4 is fairly straightforward.

Gettig a dog to find C4, TNT, PETN, detcord, Semtex, black powder, dynamite, and an array of other explosive compounds, is another story entirely.

The notion that you can train "a" dog to find even a short list of explosives is the first flaw in your thinking. Yes, a dog can find a short list. Most dogs are trained on a very short list.

There are some countermeasures against dogs as well.

Dogs can only work for relatively short periods of time. While you can have a dog run through a large collection of baggage for a half hour, you can't have it sit at a checkpoint for even an hour shift. Why? They are dogs, not cubicle workers. They need to be active while they are working. The way they are trained is to seek and find as a game. They love the game, because it appeals to their hunting instincts.

Dogs don't hunt by staying in one spot and waiting for a rabbit to show up. You are expecting to do something totally out of character. They don't want to play your game all day.

Lastly, the idea of a stationary dog is inconsistent with the way they are trained to signal. The popular notion is that they get excited and paw at a bag.

That's not what they do. When they get a "hit", they stop moving and sit down. Why? So that the dog doesn't set off a bomb.

Once you settle on a dog, then the profile of what they can - and can't - do is known, and that profile determines the attack method. Dogs find known threats and can't be trained to identify "something unusual".

[Cleobulus]

7. Never said anything about stationary dogs, did I?

In addition, you wouldn't have dogs trained on only one short list, but on several lists, for several different groups of dogs, and I know dogs are underused in the US. There are certain airports in Russia that have dogs, unleashed, roam the airports looking for bombs, they are smaller dogs, about the size of beagles, but also specifically bred for the purpose, over the past 30 years or so. They are given free rein, with observation from the trainers, to seek out the chemicals they are trained to seek out, somewhere around close to a dozen different chemicals I believe.

In addition, dogs do tire quickly, and that is a problem, but one dealing with shifts and times needed, not an insurmountable problem.

[jberryhill]

9. There are roaming,'leashed dogs in PHL

But US airports usually have a number of interconnected terminals with several passenger entries - and some do have roving dogs and trainers.

The object then is to get several "decoys" to tie up the dogs, which lets the attacker through.

[Rhiannon12866]

11. Interesting post. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[shimmergal]

25. Dogs are very adaptable.

Seeing-eye dogs and other service dogs easily learn to sit quietly for well over an hour. Often in crowds of people, although that takes more training than simply getting them to sit still.

In fact, most American dogs spend most of their time just "hanging out" and enjoying their leisure. Not an optimum way for them to live maybe, but they seem relatively content as long as they're doing it with their person or pack. I think that's more the crux of the matter--you need a partnership between the dog and human trainer.

[jberryhill]

27. Oh, yes, they'll hang out for ages

My dog is happy to lounge forever. I didn't mean to suggest they won't stay in one place. Dogs are great sentries, too. They're just not hunting at repose.

[LisaL]

10. Some people are scared of dogs.

Can you imagine some big dog brought in to sniff some five year old?
I certainly don't think gropings are necessary, but dogs sniffing every passenger aren't the answer.

[Politicalboi]

12. Then how about Wasps

http://www.robaid.com/bionics/wasp-hounds-sniff-explosives-and-illegal-drugs.htm

[tblue37]

17. Maybe they could specify that when buying their ticket and then go through a different line with a

different screening method.

[TorchTheWitch]

23. Big dogs aren't required and neither is close contact

Small breed dogs have already been doing this type of work as smaller dogs are often preferred so they can get into and sniff out tight spaces that larger breed dogs can't get into... like cargo holds.

Besides, the dog doesn't need to go right up to a person to sniff them to detect a bomb in or on their person as they can already detect the scent from a distance. These dogs are sniffing out packages concealed in layers upon layers of scent concealing materials... detecting bomb chemicals on or in the orfices of a person would be a cake walk detected from several feet away.

[notesdev]

13. Because the government has become so distant from the people

that they can no longer hear us... they only hear the lobbyists who wine and dine them.

[Greyhound]

14. Because this travesty has absolutely nothing to do with terrorists or security.

This is all about conditioning the flock to accept ever more outrageous intrusions and allowing parasites to loot some more billions of our money through yet another corporate welfare program.

Of course dogs are far better at detecting explosives, but you can't sell a dog for $10M or whatever these machines cost.
:kick: & R

[tavalon]

15. You got it!

[Desertrose]

26. Exactly!!!

I am amazed why anyone who has to fly isn't screaming about this!

[rug]

18. Why is there an assumption that thousands of people are strapping WMDS to their genitals?

[NNN0LHI]

19. So if a dog barks at you its OK for the agent to stick their finger up your ass to check for C4?

Is that what you are saying?

Or is that for someone else?

Don

[katnapped]

21. They're fondling us for our freedumbs! n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

22. Dogs are the best way to go, but there are some drawbacks

such as some chemical or combination of chemicals the dog is not trained to find

(or people with allergies forced to be in the presence of the animals)

[Gin]

24. it is all theatre....the cargo is not scanned...and the most recent

attempt was in cargo...so chertoff is laughing all the way to the bank.