Re: DHS Wants Cell Phones to Detect Chemical, Radioactive Material

["Dennis Henderson" <hendomatic () gmail com>]

On 6/5/07, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf () dione ids pl> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Brian Loe wrote:
>
> > I think I get your point on false positives for chemicals - but
> > radiation?
>
> Smoke sensors, antistatic brushes, certain watches, radiotherapy patients
> on the street (they already set off airport alarms). And it's not exactly
> illegal for unlicensed civilians to buy and posses small quantities of
> radioactive material, you know.
>
> Speaking of which, I'm wondering how much fun it must be to be an amateur
> or professional chemist who for any reason handles nitrides... just how
> much fun it must be at the airport.



Think he meant nitrates...

On the radiation side, I guess it depends on what you're looking for.

If you're looking for a nuclear device that has not gone off, yes the
sensitivity required to detect it would be high. If you're looking for
hotspots where a dirty bomb might be hidden, then  the sensitivity doesnt
have to be that high. Same for chemical devices..

Detecting a weapon prior to activation requires higher sensitivity.
Detecting already deployed chemical or nuclear material doesnt.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.