Ghoul
Member
They're still not identifying specific materials at the molecular level. They're identifying the density of a material and the relative absorption of high and low level xrays. Yes, it can be tuned to identify materials, but it can also be defeated. The manufacturer is pretty specific that this device is tuned to identify explosives and is marketed at baggage handling. It's in the name of the products themselves, "Explosives Detection System".
It's quite a large logical leap to presume that this technology will stem the flow of packages into the US any time in the near future. Sure, the de minimis ruling allows for direct shipments of packages to individuals in the US via air freight. At some point, that may be compromised, but that's years away and once compromised we're presuming that the technology can't be defeated or that there aren't alternative ingress routes.
Ultimately, I think the real issue is that importers are avoiding duties, which leads me to wonder whether simply declaring something on the declaration "cosmetics" and paying a nominal duty would avert a great deal of scrutiny.
Here's how I expect it will go:
It's not a logical leap at all. It's not "tuned" to anything, as if explosives all share some signature the machine is detecting. Half the banned liquids aren't even explosives, like bleach, acids, poisons. It detects whatever algorithms it's loaded with, and it's not as if that's limited in any serious way. While TSA may not be looking for drugs. and as a matter of policy not load the "cocaine algorithm" that hardly means it's not capable of it.
I'm not sure where you get "they can be fooled" from, because if you know that's possible, so would an attacker intent on blowing up an aircraft, setting up the switch to these machines to be a colossal disaster.
But those relatively simple machines, are a non-sequiter, since that's not what customs would use. In fact, the video points out checked baggage scanners are more advanced, using SPECTRAL CT. Instead of 2 x-ray powers, those are capable of switching between thousands of power levels, along with backscatter detectors capable of identifying the relative proportions of mixed powders in a bag. They can easily discern varieties of beer.
The fact that even without spectral power hundreds of substances that are 97-99% water can be discerned from each other doesn't constitute "identifying materials at the molecular level" according to you just shows how much in denial you are.
Using the more
sophisticated units equipped with spectral power, backscatter, density, 3d modeling, and AI analysis I'd love to hear what it is you think can't be detected with that rich set of data and why.
Just a short while ago you insisted a vial of steroids in castor oil could not possibly be identified by X-rays, a liquid with 25% testosterone content for instance, and would at best be seen as castor oil and nothing else. Yet even the lowest end machines for carry ons can discern 97% water, in a steel container, with just 3% hydrogen peroxide, from the same bottle with 3% fruit juice, or 3% Sulfuric acid.
Look, even the guy who made this video, an engineering expert, was taken aback by the capabilities of these devices and how quickly things have progressed. Most people, including myself were unaware of what these devices can do. Just 3 years ago papers were discussing these capabilities as some future tech still on the drawing board. Yet today, many companies are advertising their machines as having these capabilities ready to use, and it's happened at a very surprising pace.
Not just for uses like customs, that's actually a minor use relative to everything else, but pharma is using it to test tablets for the amount of active ingredient. Hospitals are beginning to analyze the content of blood samples with spectral x-rays and AI.
Last edited: