Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Update: Dept. of Homeland Security weighs forcing passengers to wear stun gun bracelets on airplanes
Back in March, Gadling blogged about a firearm training system, Lamperd, which had patented a bracelet that worked like a stun gun when activated. At the time, Lamperd was lobbying the Transportation Security Administration to make it mandatory for all airline passengers to wear one, with the thinking that it was the best way to thwart a terrorist.
Well, here's an update.
The Department of Homeland Security, ever the shepherds watching over their flocks, appears to be seriously weighing making this bracelet mandatory and has sent a letter to Lamperd encouraging the company to draft a formal proposal for integrating its bracelet into flight security.
That's right. Your tax dollars are funding the R&D arm of DHS, which wants to develop technology that acts essentially as a GPS attached to your wrist, allowing the government to track pretty much everywhere you go once you check in for your flight, and giving the flight crew the ability to waylay you if you get out of hand.
O.K., that might be overstating it: Officials say the bracelet would only be activated in the event of a terrorist attack. But still....
Here is a promotional video for the bracelet that piqued DHS's interest.
The Washington Times today quotes a letter from DHS's Paul S. Ruwaldt, of the Science and Technology Directorate, in which he writes to Lamperd saying, "To make it clear, we are interested in...the immobilizing security bracelet and look forward to receiving a written proposal."
The Times says the letter was written on Federal Aviation Administration letterhead.
The Times goes on to detail what the bracelet could do. It would:
- Eliminate the need to carry a boarding pass
- Contain personal data about you, including your travel history
- Monitor the whereabouts of both you and your luggage after check-in
- Employ Electro-Musclar Disruption technology that could immobilize a passenger for nearly 10 minutes
But seriously, I consider all this with some foreboding. I mean, slipping a bracelet on a little kid that could deliver a shock powerful enough to make an electronic dog fence zap seem like a pinprick is a scary thought. What if a flight attendant accidently activates one of them?
What do you think? Would mandatory bracelets like these make air travel safer, or is this just another way for the government to look over our shoulders?
What other strange things have been found on planes?
Click the image to read the bizarre story...
Filed under: Activism, United States, Airlines, Video, Airports, Consumer Activism
Reader Comments (Page 5 of 11)
erre Jul 9th 2008 9:58AM
how about stun bracelets on diplomats?
Dani Jul 9th 2008 10:00AM
I think if this ever goes into effect, I will never again step foot on a plane. I'm all for preventing terrorist attacks and I do realize that some of our rights must take a back seat to doing so. However, when the day comes where I become subject to the whims of some half-brained flight attendant with a F*** you attitude, well that's the day you might as well stick me in a home. I won't do it. I've never become unruly during a flight nor have my children. But I have had flight attendants with attitudes ruin many a flight. One spilled hot coffee down my back and arm and didn't even bother to appologize! I've flown first class and coach and had bad experiences in both. Too many female flight attendants in First class treat the men--including my husband--like their next paycheck if they're nice enough and treat the women like they're in the way of that. As though a husband and father would leave his family for this bimbo because she leans her breasts into his face while trying to get down the aisle! (Sorry...getting off on a tangent here)
john Jul 9th 2008 10:01AM
and what about the incidents that do not require a shock ? are we to be threatened by the stewardess that is having a bad hair day and she threatens to shock you if you don't sit down or shut up ? what about those with a pacemaker or taking heart medication ? what happens if they are shocked accidentally or on purpose ? are you going to shock pregnant women on the plane as well ? handcuffs are one thing even restraints if required like a straight jacket for belligerent fliers or those who are drunk but not a shock on an aircraft. get real.
john Jul 9th 2008 10:03AM
I could see someone in the FAA saying: "Lets find an easy way to decrease air traffic so we don't have to upgrade our systems and can improve on-time performance." This has got to be one of the best ways to negatively affect the public's interest in flying commercially. Other than the fear of the bracelet being used by accident, add to it, concerns about invasion of privacy, added costs, as well as medical concerns this idea is typical of a government organization interested in serving itself rather than the flying public.
hoffmanuno Jul 9th 2008 10:07AM
Wow. If I was a terrorist, I would be all for this idea. You see, if I was a terrorist, I would research the heck out of this device and how it is used. Armed with this knowledge, I would then proceed to use it to remove my terrorist cell's bracelets midflight, then activate the remaining bracelets, thereby incapacitating most of the plane. Forget having to worry about passenger resistance when you can control them all at the touch of a button, now all you have to do is overpower the flight crew. Please tell me the people involved in this program are being beaten senseless right now, if there is any justice in the world they would be sterilized to prevent contaminating our genepool any further.
Megan Jul 9th 2008 10:15AM
Oh my God... I can't believe this. Not only are there serious ethical concerns (and a serious need for some government officials to stop reading "1984" like it should be inspirational), if this were to be made mandatory and we were to fly as a family, I would have serious concerns for my sister. She has an implanted defibrillator for a life-threatening heart condition and any electrical disturbance could potentially be fatal. She can't even go through a metal detector. I am a second-year law student and you can bet that if ANYTHING were to happen to her I would slap a lawsuit on this so fast...
Not to mention the serious risks of malfunction, hacking, etc. The government wants to think that these things are foolproof, and the scary part is that they are willing to ignore the risk of error in favor of the potential benefit of stopping a terrorist. Believe me, I don't want to die in a terrorist attack, nor do I want another repeat of 9/11, but seriously, do you think that's going to happen again? There are so many more systems and ways to attack us that being paranoid about one potential vulnerability is moot. The bottom line is, the terrorist attack worked. It's making our government do things like this to us, and Al Qaeda or whoever is running operations like that are sitting back and watching our government do things to us that they didn't even anticipate but are now enjoying.
To paraphrase the famous quote by either Franklin or Jefferson (and I'm not sure, my dialup is too slow to check), "Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
jlhj2002 Jul 9th 2008 10:14AM
The looney left liberals in this World always want to always blame the good guy... and excuse the bad guy. Don't blame Bush... blame the Islamo Fascists who want to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons to try and force their religious ideology upon the World!
Does anybody really think people would actually ever fly again if something like that was ever passed in to law? I know I wouldn't. The airline industry would absolutely collapse... and would all go out of business. End of story.
ddenth Jul 9th 2008 10:16AM
I have a better idea, why not just give every passenger a heavy dose of sleeping pill. See no problem, if your sleeping, it would be hard to hi-jack a plane. also it would save on having flight attendants passing out food, magazines etc. That is just as stupid as these bracelets.
dee Jul 9th 2008 10:22AM
We can't tap potential terrorists phone lines ? but we're going to put bracelets on everyone? Please!!!
I would not fly again, because I don't trust that mistakes won't happen. Who decides who gets zapped and for what reason? Who are these idiots?!!
Blue Dog Jul 9th 2008 10:20AM
All should read George Orwell's, "1984". It'll knock your socks off.
cactus Jul 10th 2008 9:52AM
sad
Blue Dog Jul 9th 2008 10:28AM
Stun bracelet? Shades of George Orwell's, "1984". Read it some time.
Marcus Jul 9th 2008 11:38AM
If that woman and her unruly kids had these braclets there would have been no need to kick them off the flight. The airlines could have just zapped the little monsters.
Willis Jul 9th 2008 11:37AM
This is about the studiest thing I've ever heard of.
michelle Jul 9th 2008 10:36AM
Let's all just imagine how this would look when real terrorists do figure out how to break into the cockpit where the device is housed and taser every man, woman and child on the plane into submission. United 93 shows us that passengers, even in the face of certain peril, can and will react to save the lives of countless others. That can't possibly happen when those passengers are incapacitated. Oh, founding fathers, reach out and help us now!
Bradley Jul 9th 2008 10:40AM
One of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard.
Mac Jul 9th 2008 10:41AM
i dont even have a comment on this . I think our country is going frigging nuts. Try to put one of these braclets on me and they will be able to see a nice peace loving, tax paying American man turn into there worse frigiging nightmare. Get rid of this Government now all of the stupid buttheads.
don Jul 9th 2008 10:41AM
LOL, I want all flight attendants to wear one of these. When they are rude the passingers can stun them. Also ticket clerks should also wear them. LOL. This would be the best training ever.
SilverFalcon Jul 9th 2008 10:43AM
I believe you can go to your local pet store and purchase a stun collar for your dog. Now we humans have the opportunity to experience the same condition. Would you feel like an owner or the dog? WOOF!
Willie Jul 9th 2008 10:52AM
Not even considering hackers and those complaining about infringements on rights & privacy, I see many problems.
COSTS: For the activaters and ALL the bracelets (Up goes the airport fee portion of your ticket).
How do they separate each signal (per bracelet) so not to affect others nearby. Example: Imagine 2 rowdy drunks so not to affect those nearby; separate frequencies for each bracelet. If that is so, should you have say 8 terrorists, how do you quickly locate their frequencies once they go into action.
I'm presenting these ideas as a possible airline passenger who would like the security of such a system, but I don't want to pay for it (at least not excessive fees) and I don't want to be a victim of it.
As I say there TOO MANY holes in what's being considered.