|
Grex > Agora41 > #113: Security nazis at Detroit airport | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 167 responses total. |
void
|
|
response 100 of 167:
| 
May 6 19:57 UTC 2002 |
Where does one get gaffer's tape?
|
other
|
|
response 101 of 167:
|
May 7 02:15 UTC 2002 |
I have previously ordered it by the case from a supplier in another city,
but you can get it at theatrical/lighting supply houses, of which there
are a few in the Detroit area. I've usually only needed it when doing a
show, and have just bought it by the roll from the house tech at Power
Center, out of the house stock.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 167:
|
May 7 02:59 UTC 2002 |
Is it different from duct tape?
|
ea
|
|
response 103 of 167:
|
May 7 03:51 UTC 2002 |
Gaffer's tape is matte, not glossy. It is also a lot better than duct
tape at not leaving residue behind when you remove the tape. It's also
a bit more expensive, being more of a specialty item (that being said, I
think I've seen it at Ace Hardware).
|
other
|
|
response 104 of 167:
|
May 7 11:20 UTC 2002 |
It was developed specifically for the characteristic of not leaving gummy
mess behind when removed. Since gaffers are constantly dressing cables
in temporary locations, a tape that would not gunk up the cables is a
tremendous timesaving asset in efficient production. Ace Hardware??!
|
gull
|
|
response 105 of 167:
|
May 7 13:01 UTC 2002 |
The California government recently ruled that duct tape is not suitable for
sealing ducts.
|
jp2
|
|
response 106 of 167:
|
May 7 13:03 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
ea
|
|
response 107 of 167:
|
May 7 13:05 UTC 2002 |
possibly not infants, but I have seen it used to secure a person to a
wall. I'd post a picture, but the server that it's hosted on is going
down this afternoon, and will probably be down for a few days.
|
jp2
|
|
response 108 of 167:
|
May 7 13:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 109 of 167:
|
May 7 13:09 UTC 2002 |
Stadium Hardware has some different colors of shiny tape, but I don't recall
seeing actual gaff tape. As a budget-concious musician I carry a cheap roll
of the shiny black stuff. :)
|
keesan
|
|
response 110 of 167:
|
May 8 21:42 UTC 2002 |
We use expensive aluminum foil tape with acrylic (?) adhesive on the back for
sealing aluminum vapor barrier. It is sold for use on ducts. About $10/roll.
|
gull
|
|
response 111 of 167:
|
May 9 14:27 UTC 2002 |
I used to use that aluminum foil tape for quick, temporary exhaust system
patches. Clean the dirt off the pipe, slather muffler cement over the hole,
then cover it with a wrap of aluminum tape. Let the cement set before
starting the car. Lasts much longer than either tape or cement by itself,
though not nearly as long as a soupcan patch. It works in spots where you
can't use a soupcan patch for one reason or another, though.
|
gull
|
|
response 112 of 167:
|
May 17 13:15 UTC 2002 |
Some examples recently of new high-tech security measures not being all
they're cracked up to be:
A researcher has found he can defeat fingerprint scanners with a bit of
ingenious kitchen chemistry:
http://www.theregus.com/content/55/24956.html
First he used gelatine and a plastic mold to create a fake finger with his
own fingerprint, which he found would fool fingerprint detectors about 80%
of the time. Then he figured out a way to make one based on a latent
fingerprint from a glass, meaning that he could make a fake finger with
someone *else's* fingerprint. None of the equipment he used is particularly
high-tech or hard to get. Apparently he tried this technique against
several commercially available fingerprint detectors and was able to fool
all of them.
The ACLU has obtained information from a facial recognition system test in
Palm Beach showing that the system correctly matched only 47% of the time,
and could be defeated just by wearing sunglasses:
http://online.securityfocus.com/news/420
This is with high-quality source photos, too, something we probably wouldn't
have for actual terrorists.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 113 of 167:
|
May 18 07:13 UTC 2002 |
Cheap fingerprint detectors can be easily defeated by cheap
methods. So it eliminates 90% of the criminals who are too
stupid (and cheap) to plan the crime in advance. Most of
the modern 'hi-tech' "biometric" fingerprint scanners cannot
be so easily defeated. (They can, but it costs $)
So the facial detection automated system *only* detects
about half the bad guys. I'd say that was pretty good, and
then have the security guards watch out for people wearing
sunglasses indoors...
Nothing is as good as a Mk-1 eyeball of a human, but whatever
one can do to assist the human from being bothered by noise
is a good thing and will probably reduce cost. If you are a
bad guy and know that there is only a little less than 50%
probability that you will be detected by a cheap 'facial
scanner' won't you tend to go elsewhere to do your thing?
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 167:
|
May 20 01:06 UTC 2002 |
The 47% false-negative rate isn't the whole story, though. There's also a
significant false-positive rate. Consider the number of people who walk
through a major airport each day, multiply by that false-positive rate, and
you'll immediately see the problem. (If your smoke detector went off on its
own several times an hour, every hour, would you pay any attention to it
after a while?)
The system also requires high-quality full-face photos. We don't have those
for many terrorists. Let's see, who *do* we have good digital photos of?
U.S. citizens with recent driver's licenses. Hmm, interesting.... Not that
our government would ever think of using something like this to track the
movements of, say, political foes, of course...
|
scg
|
|
response 115 of 167:
|
May 20 06:30 UTC 2002 |
Wow, where do I get this drivers license with a *good* digital photo? ;)
The last couple drivers license photos I've gotten have been taken after a
considerable amount of yelling at me about my head being in the wrong position
to prevent the flash from glaring off my glasses, so I end up with pictures
of me looking very annoyed with my head in some bizarre position it would
never be in if I weren't having my picture taken at the DMV.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 167:
|
May 20 12:34 UTC 2002 |
That's okay, the report notes that eyeglasses are a serious problem for the
facial recognition software anyway. ;) Maybe they'll make us evil
glasses-wearers go through a seperate line so we can be identifed by a
human.
|
slynne
|
|
response 117 of 167:
|
May 20 15:39 UTC 2002 |
I'll bet that the facial recognition software will get better in time
so that the problems with false negatives/positives wont be an issue.
Then all we will be left with are the other issues. Would the
technology be abused. It easily could be but would it be? How much can
we trust the powers-that-be with this kind of stuff?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 118 of 167:
|
May 20 17:56 UTC 2002 |
I guess that is the million dollar question. Also, wouldn't it take
forever for this system, if implemented, to come anywhere close to
being efficient?
|
gull
|
|
response 119 of 167:
|
May 20 18:12 UTC 2002 |
As it stands now, it's probably a big waste of taxpayer money. Yes, the
systems will probably improve over time, but that's a good reason *not* to
invest in one yet.
|
mdw
|
|
response 120 of 167:
|
May 21 06:20 UTC 2002 |
Actually, with modern CCD cameras, there's not much reason to use a
bright flash.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 121 of 167:
|
May 26 19:32 UTC 2002 |
Re: 41 - If they implemented airport-style security measures on busses and
trains, there would be an immediate lawsuit filed. The court case that
established the "legitimacy" of the airport searches as not impinging upon
the Fourth Amendment and the right to travel pointed to the availability of
alternative modes of transportation allowing someone to avoid the search
simply by not boarding a plane. The minute they start feeling up little old
ladies at train and bus stations is the minute that the premise for that court
case collapses, and along with it the legal validity of traveller searches.
|
slynne
|
|
response 122 of 167:
|
May 26 20:06 UTC 2002 |
If I owned an airline, I would search everyone getting on the plane
even if it werent required by the government. I expect that is
perfectly legal.
|
other
|
|
response 123 of 167:
|
May 26 20:56 UTC 2002 |
Russ, if it is so damned important to you then file a small claims suit,
but quitcher damn whining!
|
lk
|
|
response 124 of 167:
|
May 27 09:38 UTC 2002 |
Michael, wouldn't private cars -- and walking -- also constitute alternative
modes of transportation to busses and trains?
|