Slog - Comments on �A Small Inconvenience to Ensure Their Safe Arrival�

Comment by Marko Constans

Marko Constans — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:58:52 -0800

Jesus effing christ! A couple of accidental heart-stopping electrocutions ought to be just the thing to save the ailing airlines.
But, whatever it takes for the Homeland.

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:59 -0800

They really are trying to cure all of us of the desire to ever fly on an airplane again, aren't they?

Comment by Dougsf

Dougsf — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:04:47 -0800

"I SAID, what until the aircraft is at a stop and the fasten seatbelt sign is turned OFF to retrieve item from the overhead bins!"

TTZZZTT! TTZZTT! TTTTTTTZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Comment by Giffy

Giffy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:06:17 -0800

When this passes beyond the 'letter from some guy' stage, let me know.

Comment by Giffy

Giffy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:08:25 -0800

Here is the actual letter if anyone is interested. Notice the lack of reference to strapping one to every passenger.
http://www.lamperdlesslethal.com/news/upload/pg1HomelandSecurity7_06.pdf

http://www.lamperdlesslethal.com/news/upload/pg2HomelandSecurity7_06.pdf

Comment by Cow

Cow — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:10:25 -0800

It'd take, what, a week max? before a non-DHS official has a copy of the controller.

This'll be awesome!

Comment by Big Sven

Big Sven — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:11:30 -0800

I've said it before, I'll say it again: "Running Man" is our future.

Comment by Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:13:05 -0800

Two ways to defeat an EMD "safety bracelet":

1) Stuff a piece of cloth (or other non-conductive material) between your wrist and the device, insulating you from the signal.

2) Stuff a piece of metal (or other conductive material) between your wrist and the device, touching both contacts and thereby shorting it out.

Safe flying!

Comment by Dominic Holden

Dominic Holden — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:14:00 -0800

Giffy, it's true that the DHS is only considering it now, but it's pretty clear by watching the video, what this company is pushing: Taser bracelets for commercial passengers. And, according to the letter, DHS is considering it for passenger flights.

Comment by Frequent Flyer

Frequent Flyer — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:15:37 -0800

What's to prevent someone from simply removing the bracelet and leaving it in the seat pocket?

Comment by Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:15:45 -0800

Two more ways to defeat an EMD "safety bracelet":

3) Wiggle it off your wrist. (Like it's going to be perfectly sized for you? Come on.)

4) Just fucking rip it off your goddamn wrist.

Comment by Will in Soviet Ruled Red Seattle

Will in Soviet Ruled Red Seattle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:17:30 -0800

It's official, we really have become the USSR.

Comment by kentankerous

kentankerous — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:19:22 -0800

That's better than anything I could have ever made up. Ever.

Comment by laterite

laterite — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:19:51 -0800

The United States has nuked the fridge.

Comment by Jubilation T. Cornball

Jubilation T. Cornball — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:22 -0800

Standard on Poe Air.

Comment by rb

rb — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:23:17 -0800

1) Why are you reposting from the wingnut Washington Times?
2) That letter was from like two years ago
3) The letter states that "We see the potential uses to include prisoner transportation, detainee control and the military security forces might have some interest. In addition, it is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes." If the author of that Times blog post instantly makes the leap to TSA slapping these on your wrist when you fly, then he probably also hears the black helicopters over his house at night.
4) The author is a "Project/Program Lead" in the "Science and Technology Directorate" at DHS. He is a mid-level bureaucrat. I doubt he has the authority to start popping these things on the wrists of passengers.
5) This has nothing to do with the Stranger, but the original letter is very poorly written and contains numerous grammatical errors, which just irks me.
6) What @4 said.

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:34:22 -0800

Uh, gross.

And you'd like to think it won't happen, but if recent history tells us anything, it's that the U.S. has a hair trigger for this paranoid bullshit.

Hell, some folks flew planes in to 3 buildings a few years back, and that resulted in the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay, various other successful attempts to shred the Constitution, and 2 (potentially 3) wars. Electroshock bracelets on commercial airplanes isn't far-fetched at all.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:44:03 -0800

This thread was over at comment 1. The liability here is awe-inspiring; by the third death (which ought to come sometime in the first day of operation) this program will be rescinded. There are a LOT of weak, old, and/or sick people flying.

Comment by DJSauvage

DJSauvage — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:45:41 -0800

Well, there's a new fetish waiting to be born. How many guys will behave badly just to have the hot flight attendant shock them into submission?

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:36:58 -0800

Poe Air would have electro-shock cockrings, JTC.

Which'd probably interfere all of Mr. Poe's gentlemen-friends' pace-makers.

Comment by emma's bee

emma's bee — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:46:37 -0800

I wasted a tedious 5.5 minutes on that poorly produced corporate promo hack job. From it I surmise that "many if not most" Canadians are even more eager to give up their civil liberties than we poor saps in the States.

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:47:28 -0800

Airlines hate spending money on security. The cost alone will keep this from being implemented.

Comment by CP

CP — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:37:49 -0800

@16, why just prisons and the military? Employers could use this to limit bathroom breaks and chit chat.

Fnarf @ 18, everything you say makes sense, so I expect all of the asthmatics dying of pepper spray and folks with weak hearts dying of tasering will get the police's attention and make them reconsider their policies, uh, they're not. We're all supposed to be grateful for not being plugged with 9mm rounds.

As for cost, I fear the same thing as the police tricycle yesterday -- that it costs more than a better solution is not a bug, it's a feature. Lobbyists & manuf's don't care about value for dollar, that's the elected representative's job, to be done poorly while being pummeled with sacks of cash by lobbyists.

That is to say, it's 2008 and we STILL don't have Israeli-style armored doors on our planes' cockpits? Bah. Too simple. Too low tech. Not invented here. Too cheap. Let's make a gizmo!

Comment by Mike

Mike — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:52:24 -0800

This is double-plus ungood.

Comment by yucca flower

yucca flower — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:46:39 -0800

This is either a hoax or a Simpson's episode.

Comment by Reverse Polarity

Reverse Polarity — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:05:00 -0800

This'd be awesome fun at my next party.

Comment by Giffy

Giffy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:56:16 -0800

@9, no some guy said it might have application on passenger flights. That could mean anything form when passenger aircraft are used to transport potentially dangerous people, to tagging the whole lot of us.

Here's the thing though. Its never going to happen. Paranoid fantasies notwithstanding, people will never accept having to wear such a device. Now detainees, prisoners, etc, maybe, but everybody, not going to happen.

Comment by COMTE

COMTE — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:40:37 -0800

Actually, I kind of like the idea. These should be mandatory for any passenger under the age of 11.

Comment by catalina Vel-DuRay

catalina Vel-DuRay — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:03:09 -0800

...and everyone thinks I'm so weird for taking Amtrak.

Comment by Phil M

Phil M — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:42:42 -0800

TSA recently addressed this on their blog.

Comment by Jen

Jen — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:29:34 -0800

Take a boat!

Comment by Bushies Butt Buddy

Bushies Butt Buddy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:25:45 -0800

twist it around and use it on someone else! lol! ZAP ZAP! so much fun!

Comment by Johnny Liverwerst

Johnny Liverwerst — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:08:57 -0800

I have a legitimate question here: how will the trigger devices used by aircraft personnel be able to successfully single out that single person to administer the shock exactly?

From the video it seemed like the transmitter simply sends out a radio signal that causes the bracelet to arm- but what is stopping it from arming every other bracelet on the plane? How can the arming device know which person to single out and shock during a time of necessary split-second decision making? Will they need to punch in a code? How will the stewardess or other personnel know that number in the heat of the moment?

This simply seems like a half-baked idea bordering on a Police State. It doesn't appear like it would solve anything. Also: what is to keep a passenger from removing the device during flight? What if a child accidentally tries to remove it if there are repercussions to doing so?

Once again: the way the device is armed seems to be just a broad signal- which in such small quarters as a plane would probably trigger everyone's band. How is this anything but the dumbest idea I have ever heard?

Comment by Greg

Greg — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:19:33 -0800

Pretty much, #33. Suppose that an air marshal has just tackled a guy, and then the stewardess triggers both their bracelets (as well as those of the poor saps in the seats on either side). I'm sure that would go over really well.

Comment by Jane

Jane — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:34:36 -0800

The nice thing about this is that it's virtually guaranteed that somebody will end up getting zapped who didn't deserve zapping. That zap is pretty unlikely to actually KILL said person. And then said person can sue the airline, the specific crew member who accidentally zapped them, the maker of the bracelets, and anybody else they can think of for gazillions of dollars and then retire.

I hope they start handing these out ASAP! I can't wait to accidentally get tasered and then retire!

Also, @5, I don't see how they could NOT require all passengers to wear them. They can't exactly select specific people to put them on, unless they want to be accused of racial profiling or discrimination. And doing it "randomly" wouldn't make any sense either.

Comment by Middle Seat

Middle Seat — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:50:19 -0800

Still sounds better than the last Southwest flight I was on...

Comment by Will in 98103

Will in 98103 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:01:20 -0800

@30: thanks for the clarification. All of you post-@30: please read @30.

Comment by Jane

Jane — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:42:10 -0800

@37 -- Yeah, seriously. I mean, if you can't trust a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, who CAN you trust??