<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Explosives detection R&amp;D: the DHS record</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/</link>
	<description>News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: zak822</title>
		<link>http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/comment-page-1/#comment-11370</link>
		<dc:creator>zak822</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/#comment-11370</guid>
		<description>Sigh.  Tech certainly has its place in security work.  But sometimes, low tech is the answer.  

Guy was on ABC's morning show last week, with his bomb dog.  Says it would take about a month to teach him to locate any particular liquid bomb component.  

A month versus how many years to develop a high tech solution for one liquid bomb component.  And we're not even talking about cost factors yet.

But there's no glory in buying dogs, is there?  And it does not enhance ones resume much, I'd bet.  

And the Congress is still sitting on legislation that would require screening of the stuff that goes into the baggage hold, where you can really put a bomb that can take down an airliner.  

Let's hope they get serious about this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sigh.  Tech certainly has its place in security work.  But sometimes, low tech is the answer.  </p>
<p>Guy was on ABC&#8217;s morning show last week, with his bomb dog.  Says it would take about a month to teach him to locate any particular liquid bomb component.  </p>
<p>A month versus how many years to develop a high tech solution for one liquid bomb component.  And we&#8217;re not even talking about cost factors yet.</p>
<p>But there&#8217;s no glory in buying dogs, is there?  And it does not enhance ones resume much, I&#8217;d bet.  </p>
<p>And the Congress is still sitting on legislation that would require screening of the stuff that goes into the baggage hold, where you can really put a bomb that can take down an airliner.  </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s hope they get serious about this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EmergencyTech.org &#187; Explosives Detection R &#38; D</title>
		<link>http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/comment-page-1/#comment-11348</link>
		<dc:creator>EmergencyTech.org &#187; Explosives Detection R &#38; D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/#comment-11348</guid>
		<description>[...] Posted by Jamie on 14 Aug 2006 at 01:00 pm &#124; Tagged as: Homeland Security, Counterterrorism, Aviation, Research and Development, Law Enforcement  This is lifted directly from this post over at Homeland Security Watch. The foiled UK terror plot has prompted the media to reexamine the Department of Homeland Securityâ€™s efforts to develop new explosive detection technologies over the past few years. The AP has a detailed story today that looks closely at this history: As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology. Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left lawmakers and some of the departmentâ€™s own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Posted by Jamie on 14 Aug 2006 at 01:00 pm | Tagged as: Homeland Security, Counterterrorism, Aviation, Research and Development, Law Enforcement  This is lifted directly from this post over at Homeland Security Watch. The foiled UK terror plot has prompted the media to reexamine the Department of Homeland Securityâ€™s efforts to develop new explosive detection technologies over the past few years. The AP has a detailed story today that looks closely at this history: As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology. Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left lawmakers and some of the departmentâ€™s own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Engr</title>
		<link>http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/comment-page-1/#comment-11240</link>
		<dc:creator>Engr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:21:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/12/explosives-detection-rd-the-dhs-record/#comment-11240</guid>
		<description>Airport security is a bottomless pit.  Defensive measures, such bomb detection equipment for passengers, are a monumental waste of resources.  The terrorists will always be one step ahead.  How many terrorists have been caught by airport security since 9/11 (ZERO)?  This, like all battles requires implementing the old saying, "the best defense is a good offense".  Here is how the Israeli's turn the tables on terrorists:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/12/security_notes.html

It makes politicianâ€™s feel good to talk about these things, but they do very little good.  Thoroughly searching checked luggage, not allowing carry-on luggage of a certain type, and interviewing passengers is about the best you can do.  Beyond that, the FBI, CIA, and our military are much more cost effective ways of dealing with terrorists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Airport security is a bottomless pit.  Defensive measures, such bomb detection equipment for passengers, are a monumental waste of resources.  The terrorists will always be one step ahead.  How many terrorists have been caught by airport security since 9/11 (ZERO)?  This, like all battles requires implementing the old saying, &#8220;the best defense is a good offense&#8221;.  Here is how the Israeli&#8217;s turn the tables on terrorists:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/12/security_notes.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/www.schneier.com');" rel="nofollow">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/12/security_notes.html</a></p>
<p>It makes politicianâ€™s feel good to talk about these things, but they do very little good.  Thoroughly searching checked luggage, not allowing carry-on luggage of a certain type, and interviewing passengers is about the best you can do.  Beyond that, the FBI, CIA, and our military are much more cost effective ways of dealing with terrorists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
