In this week’s article, the author poses the idea that security screeners at airports might do a better job spotting weapons if they spent their downtime playing video games. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment about the article and address my questions.
How do you feel about the government report and the Transportation Security Administration document that were mentioned in the article? Is the money that is being spent to study the problem sufficient? Is the money being spent well? How would you try to improve the situation? Which of the research findings surprised you the most?
Screening Article
12 comments:
Screening Baggage and Playing Video Games
I think that even though the agents created a distraction the screeners should then recheck the entire luggage. In my opinion, its just common sense to recheck anything that you missed that may have a dangerous object. I’m a little confused and annoyed that the human screeners missed three –quarters of the simulated explosives in the bags. I’d say that $100,000-$150,000 would be a sufficient amount of money to solve the problem. I also believe that the money is being spent well on trying to figure out this major problem. I would get at least two people watching the screens so if one missed a bomb the other one could find it. I’d also make the screeners take at least half a minute on checking each of the bags. This would give a sufficient amount of time to check the bag thoroughly. I think that using first-person shooting games would increase the probability for a screener to find a knife, gun, bomb, etc is the most surprising type of research finding that I’ve ever heard of. It’s actually amazing that playing games had this huge benefit on a job.
Sasha
Screening Baggage and Playing Video Games
I think that the Transportation Security Administration should make a habit for the luggage’s to be checked over again this could make better improvement and less people with bombs, guns etc would get away. The distractions that the agents use are in fact a good idea. It’s really sad that they just missed three quarters of the simulated explosives in the bags, that’s why the habit of rechecking would be useful despite the amount of money it would cost. I would suggest that around $200,000 would be sufficient amount even if needed more it’s worth it, because technology these days are increasing in price. The money used to study the problem is being spent well because it’s saving many peoples lives. In some airports there are more than one person watching the screen and I would suggest the same to all the other airports it is a safer way. In fact all of the research findings surprised me but the one I liked the most was the research of radiologists that failed to find tumors in thousands of mammograms and other X-rays, and have a high breakdown rate.
By Ousmane Yonis Digital Media 9th grade
Screening Baggage and Playing Video Games.
- I believe that even though the agents of the screeners created somewhat of a distraction, the screeners should still recheck the baggage to make sure that there are no explosives or weapons that may endanger a flight. I also believe that it is a shame that human screeners miss three out of four objects in the screen. That is sad, we pay so much attention to security these days and screeners can not even get half of the dangerous items out of the luggage/ baggage. I would also say that a couple of dozen thousand dollars bills would do a good job to solve the problem mentioned in the article. I also believe that the money is being spent well most of the time, but some times the companies just waste money for no useful reason. I would also see that there are several people watching the baggage at the same time, so that if one misses something then someone else catches it. I was not amazed when I heard that computer games increases the probability for a screener to catch a weapon, I of course knew that computer games are of course good for you!
By: Nadim K. 9th grade,
The money used to study the prevalence effect seems to be poorly spent. If it is easy to point out the mistakes made by the researchers (as it is mentioned in the last couple paragraphs of the article) it could either mean that the researchers are not competent enough, because reliable researchers are too expensive, or that not enough funds are available for an adequate amount of researchers. The money being spent is therefore, not sufficient to conduct the study. The study however, can help airport staff to be better trained than they are today. We should try to maximize the potential of the technology used in airports today. By spending money on better communications systems, for example, technology will play a much more active role in airport security. Study surprised me that about three in four weapons are not detected by security personnel.
In my opinion, I think it is a magnificent idea to let screeners play shooting games like Halo3 if it helps save people. I am really angry at the screeners for checking carelessly in the baggage. Hundreds of people’s lives depend on these screeners, and if these people were lazy, who knows? There might be another 9/11! Money should be definitely spent on these luggage checking. What is more important, few thousand dollars, or priceless human souls? Definitely souls. As I said, the money is being well spent, since it’s for the sake of humanities. If I were the top head of an airport, I’d hire at least 4 or 5 screeners per checking area. 1 in front of the screening machine, two people looking at the screen, 1 in the back of the machine, and the last one would be checking some bags for any suspicious things. I found that 3/4 of the “fake” bombs were not found at was just let in. If that was in reality, hundreds of people would have died.
I never knew that airport security was so bad and had such a low success rate; I always thought that it was really good and high-tech. I think that the money spent to study the problem isn't sufficient, just a little bit more should be spent, I mean, we're talking about peoples' lives. The money isn't being spent as well as it should be; it should be put into the actual thing, not the study of it. I would try to improve the situation by spending money where it needs to be and by training the security employees much more than their current training. The one that surprised me the most is that three quarters of weapons weren't detected.
In general I feel rather insecure now when I go into public areas, knowing that it is so easy for the screening people not to notice a gun, bomb or knife. Especially the one in the airport alarmed me the most because that is more of threat then the metro, which I never go on. I think that they could put more money into such a serious matter. Later on they might regret not spending enough money on this matter when someone had successfully sneaked a weapon into the airport and it should not be blamed on the security people if what the scientists say is true, that you look more for the common than the uncommon. It overall surprised me quite a lot about the fact that you are less prone to find things than are uncommon to you ten common.
The government report and the Transportation Security Administration probably shocked me the most, and perhaps I was even a bit shocked about how such reports were made public since the reports may indicate to prospective terrorists who read them that they actually have a chance to accomplish their deeds. The numbers that were reported were incredibly for a post-911 world where security in most airports is alleged to be “at its best.” I believe the money that is being spent to study the problem is sufficient and is being spent well since airport security, especially in our modern world where the word “terrorism” seems to be becoming a colloquial term, is extremely important for the wellbeing of humanity. However, a fundamental aspect of psychology is that correlation is not always causation. Even though the statistics reported indicate that security personnel had a high rate of missing items, it does not mean that this is because of a “low-prevalence effect.” I’m also not altogether convinced by the experiments described since experiments need to be able to be replicated in all situations and yield the same results in order to be considered reliable and valid. According to the article, however, Rubinstein does not plan on having “real-world” tests and when Mitroff and Fleck tried to mimic one of Wolfe’s experiments, the results were completely different. I believe that in order to improve the situation, these scientists should examine their experiments more and perhaps even perform more experiments in order to determine if the “prevalence effect” really is an issue and if video games are really effective in counteracting this effect.
I was certainly surprised since these public documents are basically inviting terrorists to attack. I do feel that after 9/11, the security mentioned is doing very well and keeping the public much safer than it was preceding the attacks. I feel like the extra amount spent towards higher security measures was well used to protect the people from terrorism. I would improve, though, treatment of the people by security personnel. I feel it is extreme to scan shoes and belts and coins. I feel this action just annoys people and puts them against high security. I also disagree with Rubinstein, in that to make something work, you must experiment in real-life, not just in the lab. Common video games are truly the best way to help the bad effects of higher secirty and anti-terrorism.
The documents are kind of scary since they tell us that people can smuggle weapons and such easily into the airport and/or on planes. But this also tells me that airport security workers aren't that alert about such items since they believe it's very rare that they will find something harmful. I don't think the money being spent is sufficient enough. I think there should be a larger budget available so they can experiment more with new machines and technology that might be able to solve the problem and provide more thorough search means. The money is being spent well, though, because they're trying to solve the problem using different methods and angles which raise the probability of improving security measures. I would try to improve the situation by providing highly efficient machines that spot the items themselves instead of relying on the security guard, since his attention might slip at any moment. I was surprised by the fact that gaming would help in such a situation. I never knew gaming has the capability of training people to do their jobs better.
In my opinion, I believe that even though the agents of the screeners created a distraction, the screener should still recheck the baggage, to make sure there are no deadly substances, weapons, or explosives to insure the safety of flight attendants. I also believe that screeners should be more precautious of there job because it is an embarrassment that they miss three out of four harmful items on the screen. In my opinion, I think that money could solve the problem by buying more advanced security screens. An other resolution for this problem could be to have two or more watchers at the screen, so if one person missed something the other person will catch it. I was aware that games increased the chance of a screener, to catch a harmful object in a baggage because, games help people be more precautious to what there looking at. Therefore I believe that games should be introduced to all public services such as libraries, schools, etc
Post a Comment