CAPPS II: A risky choice concerning an untested risk detection technology

Risk Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 921-924

  Caulkins, Jonathan P ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RISK ASSESSMENT;

COMPUTER SYSTEM; DECISION MAKING; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; TECHNOLOGY; TERRORISM;

ACCIDENTS, AVIATION; AIRCRAFT; AVIATION; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATABASES; FOUNDATIONS; HUMANS; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERRORISM; TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 4544242676     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00491.x     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. Chakrabarti, S., & Strauss, A. (2002). Carnival booth: An algorithm for defeating computer-assisted passenger screening systems. First Monday, 7(10).
2. Hudson, A. (2003). Hill assumes oversight role on airline screening. Washington Times, May 10.
3. Mark, R. (2003). FED CIO says CAPPS II funding at risk. Internetnews.com, March 26. Available at http://www.internetnews. com/bus-news/article.php/ 2170311.
4. O'Harrow, R. Jr. (2002). Air security focusing on flier screening. Washington Post, September 4, A01.
5. Orr, S. (2003). Air security checks raise alarms. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, April 19.
6. Panel on Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security. (1999). Assessment of Technologies to Improve Airport Security: First Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Ritchie, J. (2002). FBI quiet on flight incident. Pittsburgh Tribune Review, May 1.
8. Transportation Security Administration. (2002). Report to Congress on Security Matters, May 19. Washington, DC.