“Airport Security” Is Impossible

“Airport Security” Is Impossible
Ohio Scientific C8P-DF

Ohio Scientific Model C8P-DF

As a boy, when my friends and I played Star Trek in the back yard, I was always Spock.  The character held an “A7 computer expert” rating.  When questioned about his qualifications during Kirk‘s court-martial, he testified simply:  “I know all about them.”  He was an expert with a Tricorder, able to extend its functionality using primitive technology.

In 1979 (I was 14 years old), my father purchased his first business computer.  It was a state-of-the-art Ohio Scientific C8P-DF, notable for its dual 8″ floppy drives capable of storing a massive 275K.

I was hooked.

The first computer I owned was the venerable Commodore 64.  Even today, it remains the best-selling personal computer of all time.  It sold over 17 million units and boasted over 10,000 software titles.

Motorola Droid Tricorder App

Android Tricorder App

My current computer of choice is the Motorola Droid.  Aside from scanning for life forms, it embodies all the functions of the Tricorder — and considerably more.

I eventually made my career in computing.  I have touched IBM mainframes, AS/400s, servers, PCs, Macs, laptops, netbooks, blades, virtual machines, iPod/Phone/Pads, Androids, routers, switches, load-balancers, mass storage devices, and firewalls.

With a career in computing comes degrees (I hold both an Associate and Bachelor of Science in Computer Science) and certifications.

One of these is the CISSP or “Certified Information Systems Security Professional.”  I obtained this in the year 2000 — before the tragic events of 9/11.  I might also add that it is the single most difficult exam I’ve ever taken.  No college exam in any subject, nor any other certification, comes close to the difficulty of the CISSP exam.

A typical data center

A typical data center.

While the CISSP is devoted to security as it relates to information systems, a major part deals with physical security as it relates to data centers.  This is important, as today’s data center can hold exabytes of data.

An exabyte is a million terabytes: roughly one million times the amount of data found on modern commercial hard drives.  Indeed, it’s estimated that Google alone processes about 24 petabytes of data every day (only a thousand times the size of commercial hard drives).

Information stored in modern data centers can include everything from your financial and medical history to the blog you’re reading now.  Obviously, one of the jobs of a qualified CISSP is to make sure that no one can simply walk into a data center and access the data storage hardware.

It was while studying the physical security section of the CISSP that I realized that what’s called “airport security” is nothing of the kind.  In fact, “airport security” is simply impossible.

The concept of “airport security” is actually Access Control.  “Access Control” is a catch-all concept that basically boils down to the idea of controlling who can get into a particular area and who can’t.

The reason that access control is impossible in an airport is very, very simple.  The underpinning of all access control is this concept:

Deny access to everyone but a few individuals.

“Airport security” attempts the reverse:

Allow access to everyone but a few individuals.

This is flatly impossible.

No individual, company, military, or government has ever devised a method to allow everyone in but keep a few out.  Every single individual, company, military, or government in existence implements access control by denying access to everyone but a select few.

Imagine, for a moment, that the Secret Service were to emulate “airport security” as regards access control to the President of the United States.  Starting tomorrow, anyone who wanted access to the President could have it and the Secret Service would concentrate on screening out those individuals bent on doing him harm.

The President could count his life expectancy in hours — perhaps only minutes.

The Secret Service handles access control the only way possible:  by establishing a perimeter around the President.  This perimeter denies access to everyone and only allows through a select few that were screened.

Maintaining this perimeter when the President is in public is what causes Secret Service agents to have nightmares.  It’s why entire freeways close when his motorcade passes.  It’s why Air Force One exists instead of the President flying via commercial jet.

Access control in a public place (such as an airport) is by definition impossible.

I’m rather naturally prone to a certain level of paranoia.  It’s part of what makes me good at information security:  I’m willing to imagine that which the average individual will not.  It’s why I’ve engaged in a now 15-year-long series of mental exercises regarding “airport security.”

TSA Porn

This is not “security”.

Since the Oklahoma City Bombing, every time I’ve been in line at “airport security,” I have amused myself imagining ways to subvert it.  Nothing — I repeat, nothing — the Transportation Security Agency has ever put in place would deter me from causing death and destruction if I so desired.  This includes their most recent institution of invasive X-Ray machines and “pat-downs” that would qualify as sexual assault were it to occur anywhere other than airports.

Indeed, I’m absolutely certain that I could smuggle a small-frame revolver onto any aircraft I liked.  I’ll not go into details unless asked, but there is absolutely no barrier to a determined individual doing so if they wish.

Were airports to institute true access control, their makeup would change radically — and in the process violate every one of the Bill of Rights.

The precepts of physical access control rest on three pillars:

  1. Something you have
  2. Something you are
  3. Something you know

Something you have is usually a magnetic key card issued solely to you.  If lost or stolen, it is immediately reported so that it will invalidated and a new one issued.  Magnetic key cards are swiped or held against a scanner that then checks with a computer database to ensure that this key has access to the area being controlled.

Something you are is biometric data, usually hand or fingerprints (though retinal and other biometric information is becoming more common).  The user places their hand on a scanner which then checks it against a computer database to ensure that this hand/fingerprint has access to the area being controlled.  It’s cross-referenced against the key card to ensure that the individual associated with the key card is also the individual associated with the hand/fingerprint.

Something you know is usually a password or PIN that the user changes at regular intervals.  Password rules are typically enforced as well, so as to prevent the user from choosing one that is easily deduced.  This password is also checked against a database and cross-referenced with both the key card and hand/fingerprint to assure that all three are assigned to the same individual.

Let’s imagine an airport where true access control is implemented:

Firstly, freedom of movement would be restricted.  Anyone who wished to travel by air would be required to undergo an extensive background investigation of the kind usually associated with government security clearances.  This is at best a multi-month process involving reams of paperwork in which the passenger would be required to report everything from their blood type to their credit history.

A handprint.

If the individual passed the background investigation, they would then be issued a permanent air access pass.  Their fingerprints, hand prints, and other biometric information would be collected by the TSA and held permanently.  They would be establish a secure password, which they would be required to change every few weeks, regardless of whether they’ve traveled by air or not.

A "secure" airport

A truly secure airport.

Physically, airports would resemble prisons.  At the least they would be surrounded with high fences (optimally concrete) topped with barbed wire.  Optimally, they would be entirely enclosed, save for jetways, aircraft parking slots, and runways.

Passengers would not have access via car, limousine, or public transportation.  Commercial vehicles of any kind would be restricted to parking areas well outside the airport.

A passenger wishing to enter would swipe their permanently issued pass key, place their palm on a hand-reader, and enter their password.  This would allow them physical access to the airport facility, but not allow access to any boarding area or flight.

Diagram of a Man-Trap

Diagram of a man-trap.

The passenger would then enter a man-trap.  This is a hallway containing two doors.  Only one door will open at a time: the entry door are closed before the exit door open.  The interior consists of concrete walls, floor, and ceiling.

At this point, the passenger would be required to surrender their baggage by leaving it in the man-trap.  There would be no carry-on baggage.  It would be placed on a stand resting in front of the only other exit from the man-trap:  a suitcase-sized 6″-thick steel sliding door operated remotely.

Utilizing the pass-key/handprint/password again, the passenger would leave the man-trap.

Baggage Search

Mandatory baggage search.

An operator would then open the baggage door and baggage would be transported via conveyor to inspectors.  The inspectors would then subject it to a rigorous manual search prior to tagging it with a radio sensor for tracking and appropriate routing.

Meanwhile, the passenger would proceed to the boarding area for their flight, again utilizing the key card, hand/fingerprint, and password to enter the boarding area.  The system would allow entry only to the boarding area of the flight for which the passenger is booked.

When boarding the flight, the passenger would enter the jetway via the same method.  The jetway, however, would be another man-trap, allowing only a single passenger at a time.  Entry to the aircraft would be accomplished using the key card, hand/fingerprint and password.

The same methods would then be used at the passenger’s destination, in reverse.

That would be airport security.

Understand that anyone with training in access control knows that it is impossible to secure a public place.  Every officer in every military in every country knows it.  Every Secret Service agent knows it.  Every FBI or CIA agent knows it.

Every TSA agent knows it.

What is occurring now, with naked x-rays and pat-down-rapes provides absolutely no barrier to terrorists.  Every single individual who has ever had experience with true access control knows this, and that includes every President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Congressman, and Senator.

What, then, is the purpose of “airport security” if not to provide a barrier to terrorists?

It’s two-fold:

Firstly, the overwhelming majority of individuals in the United States has no experience with true access control.  Their experience is limited to their workplace, which may issue a magnetic key card.  By itself, a key card offers very limited security, but in the workplace, it’s typically adequate.

After 9/11, passengers realized that airports could be accessed by terrorists and demanded the Federal Government “do something.”  Since there is no way to implement access control at a public place, those in power chose to use the event to establish procedures that offer no barrier to terrorists — but that are mistaken as such by the general public.

Over the next decade, these procedures became increasingly draconian, to the point where we are today:  airports that afford easy access to terrorists while only violating the rights of all passengers in the process.

The second (perhaps unintentional) purpose of “airport security” is far more dangerous and sinister than simply making passengers feel safer:

It has conditioned almost an entire generation of Americans that their rights are taken from them any time government claims it’s for the “common good.”

In short:  it has conditioned us to be sheep.

Is there a solution to the problem of terrorists having access to aircraft?  Indeed there is, and it can be implemented without resorting to the means described above.  It costs nothing, and in fact will allow the TSA to be disbanded and all “airport security” to be torn down.

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights

The solution is simple:  enforce the Bill of Rights on aircraft.

That is, instead of making sure that every passenger is disarmed, degraded, and treated like criminals, simply allow the Second Amendment to be exercised by anyone who cares to do so.

There is, after all, no wording in the Second Amendment that says “unless the Federal Government says otherwise.”

I’m sure there are readers who will find this an alarming solution, but consider:

Until 1978, any passenger could board any aircraft in America with any form of firearm.

You read that right:  from 1903 until 1978 — a period of 74 years — any American could board any aircraft carrying any weapon of his/her choice.  Knives, handguns, and rifles were permitted; either concealed, carried openly, or packed in a briefcase.

For almost a three-quarters of a century, not a single individual was shot, nor a single cabin depressurized by a stray bullet, nor a single aircraft flown into a building.

It’s true that aircraft were occasionally hijacked.  It should be noted that their success depended on the Federal Aviation Administration’s policy of complying with a hijacker’s demands.

In a post-9/11 world, no would-be terrorist would successfully hijack a plane filled with armed passengers.  They would simply overwhelm the terrorist, even if it meant injury or death to some passengers in the process.

The alternative — another 9/11 or worse — would be unthinkable to armed passengers.

Indeed, there is ample evidence that were aircraft filled with individuals capable of defending themselves with lethal force, a would-be terrorist wouldn’t even make the attempt.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I’ll leave you with the immortal contribution to this subject by the fantastic Scott Beiser.  Even if you place guns in the hands of the would-be terrorists, it makes no difference.

Scott Bieser September 11 Cartoon

What might have happened on 9/11 if this were truly the “Land of the Free”

Mystery Missile Is No Mystery

Mystery Missile Is a Contrail

I’m willing to say without any fear of being eventually disproven:

This is a contrail.

I like to a site below that explains this, but I’ll explain why I’m convinced it’s a contrail:

First, you need to do what I did when you watch this video, which is mute it and ignore the words on the screen. Ignore all the video accompanying it and just watch the footage of the object.

The first thing you notice is that even in 720p, you’re seeing an extreme digital zoom. The image is too pixelated to make out details.

The second thing you notice is … well … it looks exactly like a contrail seen at dusk on the Upper Great Plains, the kind that criss-cross our skies all day long.

We have jet traffic passing overhead at 30K feet all day and all night long. It comes from O’Hare, LAX, NYC, Canada, Texas, everywhere. Sometimes our skies look like a gridwork of parallel and perpendicular lines.

On a clear day in the Upper Great Plains, you really can see to 30K feet and above. Sometimes the sky is so clear you can actually see the glint of the aircraft at the head of the contrail. If the aircraft is at 10K feet or so, you can make out the details of the wings, lights if they’re on, etc.

What we have here is a contrail.

The reason it looks as though it’s going up with its trail billowing behind it is this:

It’s approaching the viewer. The aircraft is at the head of the contrail heading roughly east at about 30K feet. The contrail is behind it, trailing west. The contrail is spreading out and being blown somewhat south by high-altitude winds.

My guess is that the passengers or cargo of the aircraft were probably experiencing some chop from the winds.

I see these things all day. Seriously.

The color is because it’s early evening and the sun is giving a slight reddish tint to the clouds and the contrail.

I have, for almost 46 years, looked up in the sky every day and every night wishing I could boldly go where no man has gone before.

Consequently, I’ve seen a ton of contrails. 😉

You have to understand that apparently, most people just don’t look up very much.

Let me give you an example of why I’m sure that CBS News is a bunch of morons:

In 1991, I took a 100-level astronomy course that met at about 11am. The instructor asked the class if the Moon was ever visible during the day.

The class (with myself being the only exception) agreed that the Moon was never visible in daytime. Indeed, they maintained that the Moon was always on the opposite side of the planet during the day.

The instructor took the class outside and pointed to the clearly-visible moon.

These kids were all 18-20 years old, from suburban Chicago — and had never looked up during the day and noticed the moon.

Similarly, this CBS cameraman had never seen a contrail like this before.

Our news agencies are simply filled with lazy ignorami who don’t know a jet when they see one.

This doesn’t surprise me having debunked no less than three major stories of theirs in one week.

The other two were that Obama took a 11% of the US Navy to India (including an aircraft carrier) and that Jakarta was sending 25% of their cops to guard him while in the city.

In those cases, both were easily debunked. In the first case, I could prove it from easily-Google-able public records. 11% of the US Navy is neither concentrated in the Indian Ocean, nor anywhere else. Further, Jakarta (a city of nine million) could no more afford to throw 25% of their cops at Obama than could the NYPD.

These people are ignorami who no longer perform any verification of any stories. Indeed, the Onion News Network really is probably as accurate as the American press.

Here’s the link:

As they said in Fantastic Four:

“Now imagine that — but everywhere.”

That’s the skies in the Upper Great Plains.

It’s just a contrail, and CBS News are a bunch of ignorami trying to find news all day long and never, ever fact-checking it.

-30-

What Is A Syrranite?

I’m a lifelong Star Trek fan. It was much easier to be a Trekkie (a politically correct term when I became one—I’m barely First Fandom) when I was a communist actor.

Star Trek portrays a small-c communist utopia in which:

  • Humans have evolved beyond the need for material wealth.
  • A wise, omnipotent central government sees to the needs of every individual.
  • We are led to infer that even in a galactic government, the activities of every individual are closely monitored. There is no Federation citizen about whom the various crews of the franchise cannot obtain instantaneous, detailed information.
  • Weapons ownership is tightly controlled. In almost every instance, only government operatives are allowed the right of self-defense. In 24th-century-era Star Trek, individuals’ weapons are removed automatically by transporter before they can even materialize.
  • Capitalism is portrayed as either evil or ridiculous, particularly as embodied by the Ferengi.

It’s easy to enjoy this when you’re a communist actor. It became increasingly difficult to do so as I embraced the Zero Aggression Principle. So much so, in fact, that I ultimately found it impossible. A year or two ago, when the current series’ Captain Archer actively participated in institutionalized slavery, I stopped watching the series altogether.

Well … almost altogether. In fact, being the Trekkie that I am, I couldn’t help but watch a handful of episodes. However, last year’s Xindi story arc (which started as a parallel to 9/11 and quickly devolved to the usual hackneyed crap) left me so disinterested that I can count the episodes I watched on one hand.

T'Pol of Vulcan

Jolene Blalock as T’Pol of Vulcan. Blalock tells anecdotes about her bra being so heavily-padded that she was often unaware when someone bumped into her chest.

I wasn’t alone. Star Trek: Enterprise‘s ratings declined throughout the season as more longtime fans left the show; while simultaneously the catsuit and two-cupsize-padded-bra of the series “chick character” failed to capture the high-school/college males. It wasn’t about philosophy for the majority of viewers: over the last ten years, the franchise has steadily devolved into formulaic A/B plots and last-minute technobabble rescues. This doesn’t make for compelling drama.

As a lifelong fan, one of the bothersome things about Enterprise has been its portrayal of the Vulcans. Given the dignified, intelligent, and almost ruthlessly ethical character of Spock, the Enterprise versions were a shock. They are uniformly portrayed as deceitful, power-hungry, manipulative, prejudicial, intolerant, and outright racist.

This year, faced with plummeting ratings, Trek franchise owner Paramount Pictures hired writer/producer Mannie Cotto to undertake fixing Enterprise‘s little red wagon. One of his first chores was to clean up the Vulcans. For the last three weeks, a story arc aired that was intended to reconcile the Spock version (embodied in the story in the Syrannite group) with the deceitful, power-hungry, manipulative, prejudicial, intolerant, racist version (the non-Syrannites).

The following bit of Star Trek trivia may not be of interest to everyone. However, as a Zero Aggression Principle philosopher, I beg your indulgence, because there is a point that directly relates to the ZAP.

According to Star Trek lore, Vulcans weren’t always logical, unemotional pascifists. In fact, they were more emotional than human beings, almost entirely ruled by their passions. As a consequence, about two thousand years in Star Trek‘s past, they nearly succeeded in destroying themselves via nuclear war.

Surak of Vulcan

Barry Atwater as Surak of Vulcan

Enter the Vulcan philosopher Surak, who advocated … well, something. It’s never stated precisely what. We’re told he’s the father of Vulcan civilization, which infers that he brought logic, reason, and emotional suppression to his people.

Yet, particularly as I embraced the ZAP, it seemeed to me that there would have to be something even more philosophically tangible to make it actually work. Logic is nice, but how would that actually reform a society? One can use forms of logic to justify almost any action: Hitler no doubt found extermination of the Jews entirely logical.

During the last three weeks, in the course of attempting to reconcile the Enterprise Vulcans with those who come chronologically later in the franchise, viewers were introduced to the 1800-year-dead Surak.

Actually, they were introduced to Surak’s Katra. Hang on tight, because this is where it gets a little wierd:

In an original series episode entitled “Return to Tomorrow,” it was revelaed that Vulcans (who are exceptionally psychic) can literally remove an individual’s consciousness from his or her body. In that episode, the minds of Kirk, Spock, and Dr. Anne Mulhall (Diana Muldaur) are swapped with those of three aliens. And that’s not all: one alien later appear to have killed Spock. It was revealed that at the last minute, he transferred his consciousness to the body of semi-regular Nurse Chapel.

On the surface, this kind of plot device might appear to be nothing more than the usual alien mind control so common in low-grade “skiffy,” but over the years, Star Trek used it to good advantage. In 1985’s Star Trek III: The Search For Spock it was revealed that the Vulcan consciousness is called a Katra—and it is nothing less than their immortal soul.

What Star Trek has studiously failed to address are the implications of this: if Vulcans have a Katra, and if we have seen human minds manipulated the same way as Vulcans, then humans have Katras as well.

In other words, in the Star Trek universe, Vulcan psychic abilities have scientifically proven the existence of the immortal human soul. By extension, this should apply to every other sapient race—and possibly even lower animals. There is, after all, no logical reason for Vulcans to be strict vegetarians unless they know that animals also have Katras.

This is a fairly Earth- (or Vulcan- ) shattering revelation. It should have been central to the story arc just completed on Enterprise, yet all three episodes managed to mention it only in passing.

What we learned in this cycle of episodes was that what differentiated Syrannites is that they embrace their psychic abilities and learn to control and master them. Non-Syrannites shun such abilities.

Without taking into account the spiritual aspect of these psychic abilities, this seems to be a fairly minor difference. It’s even less important when one considers that the Syrannites are portrayed as no less decietful, manipulative, power-hungry, prejudicial, intolerant, and racist as their non-Syrannite counterparts.

In fact, given what we’ve seen of Vulcan psychic powers, the Syrannites are vastly more dangerous. They’re decietful, manipulative, power-hungry, prejudicial, intolerant, and racist—and they lack any social injunction against the use of their psychic abilities to nefarious ends.

Sybok of Vulcan

Laurence Luckinbill as Sybok of Vulcan

In one particular case, Sybok (the antagonist in the movie Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) is shown to be capable of using his psychic abilities to cultivate an army of fanatical followers ready to obey his every whim. This isn’t portrayed as an unusual ability, but rather a misuse of the psychic powers common to all Vulcans.

Imagine what might happen should a group of Vulcans use their psychic abilities to bring Surak’s teachings to the galaxy at large? They could create converts of world leaders between courses of a meal at a state dinner.

Unfortunately, Manny Cotto didn’t succeed in providing the Vulcans with a workable ethical construct that would make them anything other than horrifically dangerous.

As a Zero Aggresion Principle philosopher, the answer seems obvious. I doubt Manny Cotto or any other Hollywood statist could possibly understand, but what the Vulcans need is really quite simple:

They need the Zero Aggression Principle, which states:

No human being has the right—under any circumstances—to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation.

If, after almost forty years, it were to be revealed that in addition to preaching logic, Surak also taught non-aggression, Star Trek would become something that it has not been for at least ten years:

It would be exciting again.

Unfortunately, if past performance is any indication, Star Trek will not only fail to address this issue, it will also continue to side-step anything remotely resembling relevance. It was one thing in the late 1960s to raise such tantilizing issues on a TV series but never examine them. It’s impossible to imagine a TV network in 1966 willing to suggest that initiation of force rather than force itself is immoral. Certainly the presentation of the immortal soul as independant of a Judeo-Christian God concept would have been potentially disasterous on 1960s television.

As bad as Star Trek has been over the last decade, it’s almost painful to admit that yes, I’m still a Trekkie. I’d like to enjoy the show again. If Star Trek is to continue, these are exactly the kinds of issues it needs to address. If the franchise wishes to prosper beyond the end of the 2004/2005 TV season, it needs to boldly go where no TV show (with the possible exception of the not-quite-gone-but-sorely-missed Firefly) has gone before:

It needs to embrace the ZAP.

Unfortunately, post-Babylon 5, post-Firefly, post-Farscape, post-any modern TV SF, the failure of Star Trek to take innovative approaches to science fiction is precisely what defines the franchise a remnant of the past rather than a herald of the future.

When Star Trek Was New

When Star Trek Was New

You know, I think I’m getting old.

I’ve had this feeling increasingly, particularly when talking with newer fen – the ones who find the original Star Trek (no bloody A, B, C, D, E, or NX-01) quaint at best and ridiculous at worst. I admit that it bothers me to hear the TV show that I’ve been following for my entire life dissed by kids who can barely remember the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

The particularly surreal part of it is that it puts me in mind of when Star Trek – and Star Trek fandom – was new. It wasn’t always fashionable or socially acceptable to be a Star Trek fan – a “Trekkie,” as we called ourselves in those days.

(No, not “Trekker” – that particular fannish argument didn’t come along until the mid- to late-1970s. In the beginning, we called ourselves “Trekkies,” and it’s still the term I prefer.)

Only with the advent of the Star Trek movies in the 1980s did it become acceptable to be a fan of an in-production movie series as opposed to a dead TV series.

Now we have to face social derision again – only this time not from our peers who don’t understand what we see in a silly “sci-fi” show about a guy with pointy years. Now we face it from our own “offspring,” the fans of the later series of the Star Trek Franchise, who don’t understand what we see in a hokey-looking old show.

I think these youngsters lack something of a sense of perspective – not surprising or unusual, considering perspective requires age and experience in order to obtain it.

If you’ll indulge me for a moment, let’s step through the Guardian of Forever and take a peek at the world 1972. I choose this year because I, myself, am a member of Star Trek‘s “Second Fandom.”

(By way of brief explanation, Star Trek‘s First Fandom is are those old enough to have watched the original show during its original broadcast on NBC from 1966-1969. Second Fandom are those Trekkies too young to have watched Star Trek‘s original run, but discovered it in the 1970s during syndication.)

In 1972, there are only three TV channels. Well, four if your count PBS – but almost no one does. PBS is considered children’s fare for before or after school or highbrow stuff like Masterpiece Theater that almost no one watches.

The three TV channels hit your TV set after being broadcast through the air, and the picture quality is dependant on:

  • The distance between the TV station’s transmitter and your TV.

  • Your antenna – specifically its orientation. If you have a good roof antenna, the three stations probably come in fairly well (except during periods of high wind when the screen will vibrate with the antenna). If you have rabbit ears (a portable TV antenna that sits on top of the TV), then you probably find yourself adjusting its position for clearer reception every time you change channels.

  • Local electromagnetic conditions, such as your mom running the vacuum cleaner. Broadcast TV is highly succeptible to electromagnetic interference, so during storms, high sunspot activity, or use of the vacuum cleaner, the screen turns into a mass of jumbled images and static.

There is no Internet.

There are no computers – at least, none outside the local college data center. As soon as I discovered them, I cultivated a couple of computer science majors as friends specifically so that I had access to computers.

Even if you’re lucky enough to have a couple of older CS friends who get a kick out of the gradeschool kid who follows them around begging to be allowed to play with the computer on their user account, you don’t have a screen, mouse, and keyboard. You have a teletype machine as a terminal – essentially an electric typewriter plugged into the mainframe.

This is state-of-the-art equipment. In 1972, you thank your lucky stars that you’re not working with punch cards. If you thought hanging chads was interesting in the 2000 American Federal election, try dropping a box full of punch cards that must be inserted in the correct order for your program to run.

Any output the computer generates is printed, line by line, on extra-wide green-and-white computer paper. In the world of 2002, imagine being at a DOS prompt or Bash shell – only everything is typed out on paper rather than viewed onscreen.

(Also in 2002, somewhere in a landfill near Lincoln, Nebraska will be ream after ream of paper with “Super Star Trek” battles on them.)

A few years later in 1979 (shortly before the release of Star Trek-The Motion Picture), my father will purchase his first business computer. He’ll let me use the word processor to write reports for high school and college.

His computer will represent the state of the art, inasmuch as the display will be a CRT – an actual screen and keyboard! Of course, the screen will be a portable black-and-white TV plugged into the computer via an RF modulator, but it will be far more advanced than a teletype machine.

The fact that it will have an actual display will open up a wealth of new games. I’ll spend hours playing the ASCII version of “Tank.”

And it will have two – count them, two – nine-inch floppy drives! No more having to keep print-outs of everything: I’ll save files on my very own, portable, 180K floppy disks! There will be no hard drive (or DASD, as it’s called in the early 1970s) because even the largest IBM mainframes can only be equipped with – at best – a 200MB drive. A pair of nine-inch 180K floppies will be wonderful, because you’ll boot the OS from a floppy, remove it to put in the word processor floppy, and save your files to the other disk.

High school teachers and college instructors will be impressed when I turn in actual typed reports from a state-of-the-art dot-matrix printer. My classmates will be stuck with typewriters until the early- to mid-1980s, meaning that they’ll have to manually type multiple drafts of the same document, correct mistakes with liquid paper, and generally engage in far more effort than I will in order to do the same work.

The word processor itself will be somewhat more primitive than UNIX’s “vi” editor. Its name will be WP6502, used so often that the name will be burned into my memory at least until 2002. This demonstrates the superiority of using a word processor as opposed to a typewriter – even though the word-processor will be non-GUI and will require formatting codes that make HTML look simple.

My first formal computer training will be in the mid-1970s: a junior high (middle school) summer school class in BASIC. We’ll all bus to one of the high schools, which will have a bunch of teletype machines in the computer lab, each of which will dial up at 300BPS to the public schools’ mainframe downtown.

Of course, in 1972, all of this is in my future. Right now, I’m just a young Trekkie with a lot of life ahead of him.

There are no MP3s or CDs, and not even much in the way of cassette tapes.

Music is on vinyl. In the mid- to late-1970s, there will be a brief (and rather dubious) flirtation with 8-track tape before cassettes become economically viable.

There are no cell phones. Hell, there are no cordless phones. And no satellite dishes.

There are no malls. You heard me right, children of the new millennium: there are no malls in the world of 1972.

There are some places where a few stores have congealed more or less in the same place, and one day these may become malls. The largest such conglomerations will be found “downtown,” where the taller buildings of your city or town are located. Later in life, I’ll ask my father if I can go downtown with my friends. He’ll ask why, and lacking any more constructive purpose other than “to hang out with my friends,” he’ll wisely forbid me from doing so. Just as “hanging out at the mall” won’t an advisable activity for a teenager of 2002, “hanging out downtown” is no more advisable in 1972.

The concept of “anchor stores,” food courts, and totally-enclosed walkways between stores is a concept for the 1980s. There is a McDonald’s downtown, but it’s next to the main bus stop and a haven for all kinds of disreputable individuals. If you want to get from one store to another, you use the sidewalk outside.

There are no convenience stores. There are no self-service gas pumps. There are “service stations” that employ a mechanic or two that pump gas in between performing tune-ups, rebuilding engines, and replacing trannies. You might be able to buy a map, cigarettes, soda pop, or candy bar at a service station, but that’s all. Service stations exist to service cars – if you want groceries, you go to the local IGA, Safeway, or Piggly Wiggly.

There are no theater complexes. Movies are shown in huge theaters that were themselves converted from live theater. In Lincoln, Nebraska in 1972, the Grand Old Lady of such theaters is the Stuart Theater (by 2002, it will have become the Rococo Theatre), a beautiful, ballroom-style, three-balcony affair. In 1977, I’ll watch Star Wars (what post-millennial fen will call “Episode IV” in 2002) from the first row of the Stuart with a packed crowd, and leave remarking that this movie was much better than Logan’s Run.

On December 7, 1979, I’ll stand in a line three blocks away at the Stuart’s main competitor, the State Theater. I’ll stand there from 2:30pm when school lets out until 6:30pm when the doors open for the primiere of Star Trek -The Motion Picture. By the time the doors open, the line wil extend all the way around the block – I’ll be fifth in line and will be able to talk to the people at the line’s end.

I’ll also be in the first phases of contracting Chicken Pox. In the world of 1972 and 1979, there is no Chicken Pox vaccine, and it’s a routine childhood illness. That I will escape it until almost 1980 will be something of an oddity.

In 1979, I will have a fever of approximately 101 degrees – a fact that I’ll neglect to tell my parents. Over the course of the next two days, I’ll susequently expose 1200 people to the virus by virtue of watching the movie four times to packed houses of 300 people each. I’ll ultimately have to leave the fourth screening halfway through, by virtue of being too feverish and dizzy to stay. I’ll spend the next week home in bed, with my mother remarking that I’m getting what I deserve.

In 1998, during a visit to my parents’ house, I’ll take my daughters to watch Episode I from the same seat in the Stuart that I saw Episode IV. I’ll be astonished at the theater’s dilapidated condition and sadly remark that the days of real theaters are clearly gone.

There are no VCRs, not even in TV studios. TV stations send out camera crews that shoot actual celluloid film that takes time to transport and develop. Hence, it’s not uncommon for the local news anchor to tease a story during a station break by ending with the phrase “film at eleven.” If they shoot a story in the afternoon, the film won’t be transported back to the station

and developed in time for the 6:00 evening news, but will have to wait for the 11:00 broadcast.

If you want to watch Star Trek, you watch it the moment that it aired, or you don’t watch it.

A few years later, when portable cassette recorders become viable, some of us will hang the recorder’s portable condenser microphone down from the channel knobs to the TV’s speaker, and thereby get an audio tape of the episode for later review. God help any family member who will make the mistake of speaking during an episode, because we’ll have to wait the entire 78-episode cycle to get another crack at a good recording.

In 1972, all isn’t lost, however. Since Star Trek was cancelled in 1969, the demands of advertisers have required local TV stations that show Star Trek in syndication to cut minutes out of the show. Since the stations use 35mm film to show the episodes, that means that they are literally cutting out pieces of 35mm film and throwing it away.

Enterprising fans discovered this, and by 1972 had approached local stations to help them dispose of the film. They snip the footage into single-frame sections called “film clips,” bind it in a slide board, and then show the frames as part of a slide-show at the local Star Trek fan club meeting.

The local fan club in Lincoln is Star Base Andromeda, which I joined in 1972. I will remain a member for many years and will still be on speaking terms with some of the members until at least 2002. In 2002, the club will still be holding meetings. In 1972 and for years to come, there will be weekly slide-shows of episode film clips.

There is no SF on television. Well, there was some, actually, but it’s Lost In Space, Land of the Giants, and similar fare that no self-respecting SF fan wanted to watch.

Between Star Trek ending in 1969 and Star Wars (Episode IV) in 1977, the only weekly TV SF of note will be Space: 1999. Gene Roddenberry will try to recapture some of his glory with Genesis II, Planet Earth, The Questor Tapes, and Spectre. One of these in particular (The Questor Tapes) will be excellent and provide the genesis for the character of Data in The Next Generation. None of them will every be anything other than a movie of the week, however.

The only SF movies of note will be the Planet of the Apes movies and Logan’s Run.

Consider also the political climate of 1972, of which I’m largely ignorant (though I’ll later ask my parents what President Nixon did wrong):

The Cold War is in full swing. The Cuban Missile Crisis isn’t long in the past, and most people lived with the expectation that they would ultimately die by nuclear fire. The Kennedy assination is still very fresh in everyone’s mind, and the news is filled with images of young American men being brought home in body bags from Viet Nam.

Such is 1972, when Star Trek is new.

For its time, it is an astounding TV show. By the standards and production values available in 2002, it will appear dated and occasionally childish, but in 1972, it’s certainly no worse than any of the cop shows, westerns, and sit-coms on the air.

As far as SF goes, it is light-years beyond anything anyone ever cooked up for TV. Hard as it will be for the youngsters of 2002 to believe, its visual effects and set design are considered state-of-the-art. They won’t be surpassed by TV SF until the advent of Space: 1999.

In 2002, some of the alien planetscapes look a bit hokey – like they were shot on a soundstage with a scrim behind it that was lit with an odd color.

In 1972, I can catch a rerun of Bonanza and watch Hoss and Litte Joe climb off their horses onto a soundstage that’s just as obvious by 2002 standards.

In 1972, however, it’s just not possible to have the kind of location photography you saw in Lawrence of Arabia. Viewers don’t expect that from a TV show. What Star Trek gives them is at least as good – and often better – than what other shows do.

My first memory of Star Trek is of the Mugatu from “A Private Little War.” In 1972, I watch the episode from the family room of my father’s Lincoln, Nebraska house. I remember it from his 1967 Vermillion, South Dakota house when I saw it in it original run: the used color TV had black wooden case, wooden legs, and white channel knobs with glossy black lettering.

The Mugatu scared the crap out of me in 1967. But now, in 1972, I’m fascinated by the notion of a group of space explorers, far from human civilization, whose mission is to “boldly go where no man has gone before.”

This in and of itself is a departure from a lot of TV and movie SF of the time. Consider Star Trek‘s major contemporary, Lost in Space: a story about a group of people who didn’t want to be where they were at all. Even the later Space: 1999 – unquestionably a superior show on a production level (though hideously stupid scriptually) – will be a show about how stupid humans had caused the moon to be blown out of orbit, causing its inhabitants to wander the universe rather aimlessly.

For a high-quality SF show to go on the air and specifically say, “We made it past all that and got to the stars,” is not only a breath of fresh air, it is a brief, hourly ray of hope in an otherwise dismal world.

How could you not be a fan, in a world like that?