Inventor pushes shock bracelets for airline passengers

The “punishment” factor has been overblown, he said. “What is the big deal, why are people objecting, unless of course they are terrorists.”

WorldNetDaily | Jul 10, 2008

Inventor: Use shock bracelet or pay $14 billion a year

Device suggested for all airline passengers ‘is not a big deal’

By Bob Unruh

A man who worked on the invention of a shock bracelet that the U.S. government has considered for using on all airline passengers says to gain a secure air travel experience, it’s either his device or a tab of $14 billion a year.

In an interview with WND today, Per Hahne, whose device is being marketed now by Lamperd Less Lethal, a weapons corporation located near Toronto, said his product really isn’t draconian.

“I would venture to say most people who are on board with a hijacker would welcome any kind of relief,” he said. “Today the only thing there is is the bullet.”

With his device, he said, “no one gets wounded or killed accidentally, the flight is saved, you’re saved, the air carriers are saved, insurers are saved, all because of a bracelet that can deliver a shock similar to a Taser.”

WND reported earlier that an official with the Department of Homeland Security had expressed interest in having airline passengers wear the bracelets that could track their movements, hold personal information and be triggered like a Taser to stun them into immobility.

Electronic ‘bracelets’ for passengers lauded as the ‘last line of defense’ for air carrier safety

Paul S. Ruwaldt of the DHS Science and Technology Directorate wrote the inventor of “the immobilizing security bracelet,” saying he looked forward to receiving a written proposal, according to Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Denning.

“It is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes,” said Ruwaldt’s letter, posted on website of the company, Lamperd Less Lethal.

“Just when you thought you’ve heard it all,” wrote Denning.

According to a company video, the bracelets would assist pilots and crew members on commercial air carriers as the “last line of defense” against terror attacks.

The video says passengers could be fitted with “electronic ID bracelets” they would wear until they disembark their flights. The device would replace a ticket, carry passenger information, track passengers through terminals and track carryon luggage.

But the key feature is that the bracelets could be discharged, as a gun, and leave the wearer “immobile for several minutes” although without causing “permanent injury.”

Hahne, who described himself as an inventor with 30 years’ experience as a pilot, declined to reveal to WND the cost of the bracelets. But he said they would be a revenue-generator, because of the losses they would prevent from terrorism.

The U.S. government has expressed interested in such ‘bracelets’ for air travelers

And he said the nation’s existing air marshal program to provide security on flights cannot compete on two levels – safety [Who wants an marshal to discharge a weapon on board?] as well as expense. He said only about 4 percent of the nation’s 30,000 daily flights are covered by air marshals now, and if an agent would be assigned to each flight, “it would take a contingent the size of the U.S. Marine Corps and $14 billion a year.”

He said approximately $25 of the average ticket already is used for security.

The need also is tied to the economy, he said.

“If the aviation system experiences another 9/11 scenario, to get back online will cost more than $400 billion. Witness our last experience, it took five years to recover to the levels of pre-9/11,” he said.

The “punishment” factor has been overblown, he said. “What is the big deal, why are people objecting, unless of course they are terrorists engaged in hijacking,” he said.

Existing “safety” procedures have nothing to do with safety, he said. “They have to do with the perception of safety.”

Biometrics, for example, can identify a hijacker only after that hijacker has had some sort of contact with authorities already, he suggested.

“People have to realize this bracelet is not even armed until you are in an aircraft and a hijacking situation is under way,” he said. “The bracelets are just bracelets.”

“I’ve met with a huge amount of opposition to the idea. But I don’t see anybody else stepping up and producing something which is meaningful once the wheels have left the ground,” he said. “The F-16 is not there to help you.”

Whether his bracelets should be adapted for use in other situations where a single person could cause damage: on trains, in stadium events and like, he said, “That’s not a question I can answer. I’m an aviator. I’m only concerned about aviation.”

Denning had objections. “Would every paying airline passenger flying on a commercial airplane be mandated to wear one of these devices? I cringe at the thought. Not only could it be used as a physical restraining device, but also as a method of interrogation, according to the same aforementioned letter from Mr. Ruwaldt.

“Would you let them put one of those on your wrist? Would you allow the airline employees, which would be mandated by the government, to place such a bracelet on any member of your family?”