Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Russ Parker)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Fri Aug 10 13:50:01 2001
Thank you for rejecting it. It takes a special kind of Idiot to forget to
cut the Digest off the bottom of the email.

Please reconsider the post below.

Thanks,

Russ

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Parker
Sent: Friday, 10 August, 2001 9:56 AM
To: 'shadowrn@*********.com'
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security


If it was me I would just carry a laptop with 3 spare batteries. I only
rarely have Security even power my laptop on and have never had them check a
spare battery. There is plenty of room inside a battery if you remove the
guts of it. If you are really concerned that they will check then you could
rig the Laptop to have an internal battery as well that would allow it to
still remain powered even if you put one of the fake batteries in.

I am 99% certain that batteries are X-Ray opaque (and if all of them are
not, some almost certainly are) and they definitely have metallic
components. For that matter so does the transformer on the external power
cable. Once again it would just take a small internal power source and a
disabled AC input to make it look like the external power cable was working.

The battery for my current laptop is basically a rectangular block 8" long,
2" wide, and ~3/4" think. Think you could hide anything in something that
size? My old laptop had a battery that was about 4"x4"x1".

This is in addition to the fact that they are supposed to be firmly sealed
so no one is going to try and open them or question the fact that they do
not even look like they should be openable.

This does not even mention the possibility of having the Laptop be only a
shell with its Guts replaced.

Russ
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (C J Tipton)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Fri Aug 10 14:50:01 2001
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:45:28 -0700 Russ Parker
<russ.parker@*********.com> writes:
> This does not even mention the possibility of having the Laptop be
> only a
> shell with its Guts replaced.
>
> Russ


I love using stuff like that. In a Star wars game I managed to break down
a blaster pistol by dissassembling it and placing the barrel in the tube
of a flashlight, placing the action inside a pocket radio, and attaching
the top
of an electric razor to the grip. Having left the clip in the action, I
drained it of blaster gas and cleaned it so as not to fall victim to a
gas scanner, placing two blaster gas cartridges inside a can of shaving
cream which I pried open and then resealed. I carried the explosives I
needed for the mission(well, maybe needed is too strong a word... used on
the mission anyway) inside a sealed plastic bag, which was then sealed
inside another plastic bag filled with flower petal oils, which was then
placed under the speaker of a portable stereo/aroma therapy device. It's
what I later called "gearin' up to take a vacation."

(Some people call me the Space)COWBOY
CJ
Arkades@****.com
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Steve Collins)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Fri Aug 10 15:15:01 2001
I missed the original post of this somehow so I'm not sure of the exact
scenario that you're trying to get past security in but it looks like
you'r talking about Airport Security. Well the easiest way I can think of
to do this is to go to a smaller regional airport where the security
measures are much more lax, sneak in in there, and then take a flight to
a major Airport where you cxan get anywhere.

For example about a year ago we had a case down here in Atlanta of a
woman going to the Carribean on her Honeymoon. She had borrowrd a piece
of Carry on luggage from her mother that unknown to her had a loaded .22
Cal Pistol. She just walked right through Security at the Birmingham
Alabama Airport where she caught a short hop flight to Atlanta. While she
was waiting in the International terminal she discovered the gun. The
point is that she was already past any security measures because she
arrived on in Atlanta from another Airport. Had she been a terrorist then
she easily could have used that gun to hijack the plane she was getting
on to the Carribean. Instead she tried to turn the gun in to the Cops who
promptly arrested her for having a firearm in an Airport (stupid move on
their part I know).

So if you've got to get a weapon past Airport Security go to a small
Airport where the security isn't as comprehensive and take a flight from
there to the bigger one where you can get a flight to anywhere rather
than deal win the better security systems installed at large
International Airports.


Steve
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dave Post)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Fri Aug 10 23:50:01 2001
Currently (in 2001), there is work going on in detecting explosives (in the
mine detection area) not by detecting the metal, or metal parts, but
detecting the actual the actual explosive itself. If you're interested
check out this website: www.qm.com

It's the company I currently work for, among other things, and I see no
reason why, by 2061, the technology won't be advanced enough to also detect
the explosives involved in gunpowder, or what currently passes for
gunpowder, the propellant in a gun.

I would say scanning technology is going to be a lot better in 2061 than it
is now, and I'm helping develop that :)


Dave
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 04:15:01 2001
<snipt!(TM)>
> I would say scanning technology is going to be a lot
better in 2061 than it is now, and I'm helping develop
that :)
> Dave

Dave, you bastard! Are you trying to curtail my
running career before it even gets started?!

;)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 06:10:21 2001
According to Dave Post, on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> It's the company I currently work for, among other things, and I see no
> reason why, by 2061, the technology won't be advanced enough to also detect
> the explosives involved in gunpowder, or what currently passes for
> gunpowder, the propellant in a gun.

Check your SR3, the top of the table on page 294 :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dave Post)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 08:25:01 2001
At 11:50 AM 8/11/2001 +0200, you wrote:

>Check your SR3, the top of the table on page 294 :)

You are, of course, refering to the chem sniffer, which is a different
technology. On the other hand, the effect is similiar, and you can't
expect the SR designers to accurately predict the future. ;)

However, judging by what I know of the current technology, I would say that
in 2061 it would be near impossible to sneak ammunition past security, esp.
airport security, even if it was encased in an airtight container like a
sealed laptop battery or shaving cream can.

Dave
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Deidre M Van Hise)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 12:10:01 2001
Stealing X-wings from the Empire again? - grin.
Who was that, Piper or Jake?
Anywho...
Probably the easiest way to sneak a gun through
airport security (and what are you doing flying commerical you
SINless person, strip down and open all your baggage...)
is to bribe the cargo loaders, or charter a personal flight.
If you're very clever and have a great set of fake papers,
declare yourself a diplomat, and have your contrabanded
personal arsenal declared immune to customs searches.

"You mean you broke into a Triad whorehouse, killed the guards
and stole their latest girl away for 30 lollipops?"
"No, it was a Yakuza whorehouse. Good lollipops too..."

>
> I love using stuff like that. In a Star wars game I managed to break
> down
> a blaster pistol by dissassembling it and placing the barrel in the
> tube
> of a flashlight, placing the action inside a pocket radio, and
> attaching
> the top
> of an electric razor to the grip. Having left the clip in the
> action, I
> drained it of blaster gas and cleaned it so as not to fall victim to
> a
> gas scanner, placing two blaster gas cartridges inside a can of
> shaving
> cream which I pried open and then resealed. I carried the explosives
> I
> needed for the mission(well, maybe needed is too strong a word...
> used on
> the mission anyway) inside a sealed plastic bag, which was then
> sealed
> inside another plastic bag filled with flower petal oils, which was
> then
> placed under the speaker of a portable stereo/aroma therapy device.
> It's
> what I later called "gearin' up to take a vacation."
>
> (Some people call me the Space)COWBOY
> CJ
> Arkades@****.com
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 12:20:01 2001
Don't know if anybody's mentioned this, but one way to do it is not take a
plane if you can avoid it. That leaves two modes of travel...bus and train.
Train I saw done in a movie (Get Carter - not bad), which I guess they don't
check your baggage as thoroughly...not as many trainrobbers these days,
yaknow. And as for bus, I just travelled on a bus recently to move home and
let me tell you...NO SECURITY! I was thankful there weren't any clever
terrorists or anything cause they woulda gotten away with it easily. Only
problem there might be with that would possibly be moving between territories
(CAS - UCAS for instance)...not sure what border security would be like for
bus travellers...
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lubzens Opher)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 13:10:00 2001
At Sat, 11 Aug 2001 05:20:23 -0700 Dave Post claimed:
<SNIP!>
>However, judging by what I know of the current technology, I would say that
>in 2061 it would be near impossible to sneak ammunition past security, esp.
>airport security, even if it was encased in an airtight container like a
>sealed laptop battery or shaving cream can.

Dave, does your estimate include the 2029 global crash and all the
information lost in it(not to mention the chaos it created), if the
corporations could lose high-end project like the one that Shadowplay
talks about, won't security measures like weapon scanners be worse hit,
since it is mentioned in Shadowplay that the global virus had bigger
appetite for encrypted files, something that scanners R&D will most
probably would have been.

Opher
-every light casts shadows
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 13:40:00 2001
According to KiltedJamesman@***.com, on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 the word on the
street was...

> Don't know if anybody's mentioned this, but one way to do it is not take a
> plane if you can avoid it. That leaves two modes of travel...bus and train.
> Train I saw done in a movie (Get Carter - not bad), which I guess they don't
> check your baggage as thoroughly...

In the US, I've taken several trains and never had my luggage checked at
all. In Europe, the whole concept of a luggage check when boarding a train
is completely alien, even if it were possible to do so (how do you check the
luggage of everyone on a filled-past-capacity commuter train?).

> And as for bus, I just travelled on a bus recently to move home and
> let me tell you...NO SECURITY! I was thankful there weren't any clever
> terrorists or anything cause they woulda gotten away with it easily. Only
> problem there might be with that would possibly be moving between territories
> (CAS - UCAS for instance)...not sure what border security would be like for
> bus travellers...

Judging by when I crossed the US-Canadian border by Greyhound back in 1998,
you're subject to an ID check as well as some questions about what you plan
to do in <insert country here> and how long you intend to stay there. No
luggage check, except for asking me if I was carrying any alcohol or
tobacco products.

In Europe, it's "Border security? What border security?" (Unless, of
course, you're travelling outside the EU or to the UK -- which sometimes
seems to amount to the same thing :)

In SR, though, I'd expect there to be checks at every national border in
North America, with luggage searches if you look at all suspicious
(<gripe>which always gets me picked for a luggage check, even though I'm
not even _thinking_ about doing anything illegal...</gripe>).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 13:40:14 2001
According to Dave Post, on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> You are, of course, refering to the chem sniffer, which is a different
> technology. On the other hand, the effect is similiar, and you can't
> expect the SR designers to accurately predict the future. ;)

I dare say that you can expect the SR designers to accurately _not_
predict the future ;)

> However, judging by what I know of the current technology, I would say that
> in 2061 it would be near impossible to sneak ammunition past security, esp.
> airport security, even if it was encased in an airtight container like a
> sealed laptop battery or shaving cream can.

What if you prepare it well in advance, taking the time to meticulously
clean the outside of the airtight container to remove traces of the
explosive inside?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dave Post)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 15:50:00 2001
At 08:05 PM 8/11/2001 +0300, Opher wrote:
>.
>
>Dave, does your estimate include the 2029 global crash and all the
>information lost in it(not to mention the chaos it created), if the
>corporations could lose high-end project like the one that Shadowplay
>talks about, won't security measures like weapon scanners be worse hit,
>since it is mentioned in Shadowplay that the global virus had bigger
>appetite for encrypted files, something that scanners R&D will most
>probably would have been.


Well, it's nice to blame things on the virus, but we are developing things
*today* that can detect awful small amounts of explosives, like 1/10th the
amount of explosive in a typical anti personnel mine. Give it ten years,
and it will detect bullets easy. That global virus can erase lots of
things, but one thing it can't do is erase the intelligence and education
of the physicists and engineers who develop this stuff

Seriously, I'm not trying to pimp my company, but check out www.qm.com to
see what we are working on. Keep in mind that what is on the website is
the unclassified version, for whatever thats worth.

Dave
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dave Post)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 11 15:50:05 2001
At 07:33 PM 8/11/2001 +0200, Gurth wrote:


> > even if it was encased in an airtight container like a
> > sealed laptop battery or shaving cream can.
>
>What if you prepare it well in advance, taking the time to meticulously
>clean the outside of the airtight container to remove traces of the
>explosive inside?

Well, for SR tech like the chemsniffer, I can't talk much about, but for
what we do, the airtightness makes no difference whatsoever. Nuclear
Quantum Resonance (NQR) is the technical term; it sends out magnetic
energy, which causes the nuclleus of an atom to excite to a higher state,
and then, it will quickly decay to a lower state. When it does so, it
emits a certain frequency of E-M radiation, which is measurable. Problems
include analyzing the signal, knowing what frequency the different types of
gunpowders/explosives resonate at, accounting for background noice, etc...

These problems are not insurmountable, however. :)

Dave
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sun Aug 12 07:20:01 2001
According to Dave Post, on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Well, for SR tech like the chemsniffer, I can't talk much about, but for
> what we do, the airtightness makes no difference whatsoever. Nuclear
> Quantum Resonance (NQR) is the technical term; it sends out magnetic
> energy, which causes the nuclleus of an atom to excite to a higher state,
> and then, it will quickly decay to a lower state. When it does so, it
> emits a certain frequency of E-M radiation, which is measurable.

I remember that much from college and a number of TV programs I've seen
about atoms :)

Airtightness wouldn't matter in that case, no, but what if you can mask the
explosive from the magnetic field? Is it possible, or am I just imagining
things? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sun Aug 12 08:55:01 2001
Gurth writes:

> Airtightness wouldn't matter in that case, no, but what if you can mask the
> explosive from the magnetic field? Is it possible, or am I just imagining
> things? :)

Electric fields and magnetic fields are the same thing, right? (Just at
right angles, or some-such-thing.) I believe that it is possible to shield
against electric fields by using what is known as a "Faraday Cage", which
is, essentially, a wire mesh enclosure surrounding an internal cavity. I'm
not exactly sure just how well this kind of system works, or what sort of
design parameters it might need (shape, wire thickness, wire spacing, size
relative to objects inside, etc.). But if so, then it may be possible to
shield against probing magnetic fields by building an appropriate fine wire
mesh into your briefcase shell.

The other option, of course, is the Meisner Effect. A superconductor will
completely expel magnetic flux (magnetic fields). This is the principle used
in all those levitating magnets/superconductors that you see on science
shows. Build your briefcase out of room temperature superconductors (hey,
they exist in SR!), and no magnetic probing system is ever going to be able
to see inside. (Well, actually, if the probe system has a ridiculously
strong field, it may cause the superconductor to fail, but it'd need to be
rather much more beefy than would probably ever been required for normal
operation.)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dave Post)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sun Aug 12 13:15:01 2001
At 12:46 PM 8/12/2001 +0200, Gurth wrote:
>ograms I've seen
>about atoms :)
>
>Airtightness wouldn't matter in that case, no, but what if you can mask the
>explosive from the magnetic field? Is it possible, or am I just imagining
>things? :)


Yes, it is possible. Conducting materials cause distrubances in E-M
fields, and surrounding the explosives entirely in a conducting material
will mask it. However, the conducting material is detectable, so you
design a two stage detector. First it searches for the explosives, and
then it searches for the conducting material. If it finds conducting
material, then you take the person aside and do a manual search...

Oh, and by conducting material, I mean metals. Metal detection is a rather
proven science at this point, and easy to implement.

Somebody mentioned a faraday cage; sure, that would work, but its overkill
and elaborate. Any form of metal entirely surrounding the object masks it
from the E-M field. But then, again, the metal is easily detectable.

Derek
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lady Jestyr)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sun Aug 12 17:35:01 2001
At 10:05 AM 12/08/01 -0700, Dave Post wrote:
>
>Oh, and by conducting material, I mean metals. Metal detection is a rather
>proven science at this point, and easy to implement.
>
>Somebody mentioned a faraday cage; sure, that would work, but its overkill
>and elaborate. Any form of metal entirely surrounding the object masks it
>from the E-M field. But then, again, the metal is easily detectable.

So wouldn't that mean you could hide your explosives in something all-metal
and innocuous-looking? They'd be masked from detection, although you'd have
to make sure that they were also hidden from visual inspection in case the
security staff got curious...

Lady Jestyr
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just
have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird
* jestyr@*****.com | URL: http://www.ladyjestyr.com/ *
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sun Aug 12 23:20:00 2001
>> Well, for SR tech like the chemsniffer, I can't talk much about, but for
>> what we do, the airtightness makes no difference whatsoever. Nuclear
>> Quantum Resonance (NQR) is the technical term; it sends out magnetic
>> energy, which causes the nuclleus of an atom to excite to a higher state,
>> and then, it will quickly decay to a lower state. When it does so, it
>> emits a certain frequency of E-M radiation, which is measurable.
>I remember that much from college and a number of TV programs I've seen
>about atoms :)
>Airtightness wouldn't matter in that case, no, but what if you can mask the
>explosive from the magnetic field? Is it possible, or am I just imagining
>things? :)


ok call me stupid for asking this but isn't that pretty much what the
"static bags" that most computer hardware comes in does?
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Mon Aug 13 01:10:02 2001
Derek Hyde writes:

> >Airtightness wouldn't matter in that case, no, but what if you can mask the
> >explosive from the magnetic field? Is it possible, or am I just imagining
> >things? :)
>
> ok call me stupid for asking this but isn't that pretty much what the
> "static bags" that most computer hardware comes in does?

I think those anti-static bags have carbon imbedded in them, for the purpose
of making them conductive. Being conductive means that they are unable to
build up static charge (like normal plastics), and thus cannot zap your
sensitive computer bits. OTOH, depening upon how the principle of shielding
with metallic layers works (ie, does it rely on induced electric current?),
then this sort of item may well perform the same function for you.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dave Post)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Mon Aug 13 01:50:06 2001
At 07:31 AM 8/13/2001 +1000, Lady J wrote:

>So wouldn't that mean you could hide your explosives in something all-metal
>and innocuous-looking? They'd be masked from detection, although you'd have
>to make sure that they were also hidden from visual inspection in case the
>security staff got curious...


Well, yes, you could hide it in something all metal. The point is having a
seperate metal detector, and if that goes off, then you pull the person
aside and do a better search.

Detection is all about screening out, and different levels.

The 1st level has a 100% detection rate, but a high false alarm rate, and
is quick. Something gets detected there, it gets passed to the next level.

The next level also has a good detection rate, but the false alarm rate
is down, and the time is longer. Something gets detected there, it may or
may bot be bad, but they get passed to the third level, which is a full
physical, visual inspection.

Having enough metal to fully surround a gun, or gun compnents, or even
worse, explosives, looks suspicious and gets passed to the next level, and
perhaps warrants a visual inspection.

Dave
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Mon Aug 13 05:45:01 2001
According to Dave Post, on Sun, 12 Aug 2001 the word on the street was...

> Yes, it is possible. Conducting materials cause distrubances in E-M
> fields, and surrounding the explosives entirely in a conducting material
> will mask it. However, the conducting material is detectable, so you
> design a two stage detector. First it searches for the explosives, and
> then it searches for the conducting material. If it finds conducting
> material, then you take the person aside and do a manual search...

So basically, there's no way around it (yet): either you set off the
quantum resonance detector, or the magnetic anomaly detector.

I think for Shadowrun, it's better to stick to chemsniffers -- at least
players should be able to get around those with decent preparation :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Tot straks en poppelepee maar weer.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Keith Duthie)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Tue Aug 14 08:00:01 2001
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Lady Jestyr wrote:

> So wouldn't that mean you could hide your explosives in something all-metal
> and innocuous-looking?

Which, coincidentally enough, is a good description of a can of shaving
cream I've got sitting right here...

--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://users.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Robert Fanning)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 18 05:50:00 2001
Well, if you purchase the "Cannon Companion", they have a small variety of
different weapons all made of composite materials.

Hi-C plastic rounds are used for them, as they have no metal at all for a
MAD to pick up.

However, I am not sure which SR3 rulebook it is in, but there are rules for
Chem Sniffers that will detect ammunution. A couple of Hi-C rounds is hard
to find, but if you have briefcase modular weapon and a couple hundred
rounds of ammo, you are in a lot of trouble.
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Robert Fanning)
Subject: Getting a Weapon through Security
Date: Sat Aug 18 06:00:01 2001
> The other option, of course, is the Meisner Effect. A superconductor will
> completely expel magnetic flux (magnetic fields). This is the principle
used
> in all those levitating magnets/superconductors that you see on science
> shows. Build your briefcase out of room temperature superconductors (hey,
> they exist in SR!), and no magnetic probing system is ever going to be
able
> to see inside. (Well, actually, if the probe system has a ridiculously
> strong field, it may cause the superconductor to fail, but it'd need to be
> rather much more beefy than would probably ever been required for normal
> operation.)

I can just imagine the look on the security guards face while watching the
briefcase float off the MAD when they switch on the magnetic
field [or worse, catapults in a different direction].

The best thing to do is make arrangements with a fixer at your destination
to supply you with weapons. However, given that cyberwear detectors are
included in most X-ray airport checks, that pretty much means the street
samurai is in trouble. There are advantages of bioware, or being a physical
adept.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Getting a Weapon through Security, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!