airport body scanners

[LeSellers]

How long before some kindly neighbor shows the little girl next door the YouTube videos from the scanners and pat downs and asks, "Do you want to play airport?"

Lehi

[Ahab]

Let the airline decide what risk it is willing to run, and that its clientele will demand.

Above all, the customers should be the ones to decide what they are willing to put up with, and if enough people stop flying because they won't put up with that kind of nonsense, the people who stop flying will no longer be airline customers and the airlines will start squawking about what is keeping the customers away.

As much as I hate money, that's one of the nice things about it.

No customers = no money, so in an economy based on money it's either fix the problem to get the money or put up with having no money while figuring out another way to do things.

I know where I stand and I would (were it available) take the fully armed cabin over the supposed security of the unarmed (meaning the law-abiding have no protection) flight.

Try dealing with reality in the real world. What are you going to do now?

Go through that nonsense to fly on those airlines, or come up with another way to get around?

[AddamS]

How long before some kindly neighbor shows the little girl next door the YouTube videos from the scanners and pat downs and asks, "Do you want to play airport?"

Lehi

Is this an actual argument or are you displaying sardonic wit?

If you're serious; I'm guessing the "kindly neighbor" you mention would have found a different technique. "Kindly neighbors" have been able to accomplish their goals for quite a while before scanners.

[LeSellers]

Because terrorists have used planes as weapons to kill and destroy those not actually on the plane, who is allowed in the air is not just the business of who's in the airplane.

By that measure, the government should regulate everything. There is virtually no activity any of us participates in that is guaranteed not to endangers innocent third parties.

I'd hate to live in the society that tries to enforce total safety. We'd never get out of our beds.

I don't necessarily agree with what the government does sometimes in the name of 'safety' but i also understand that who goes up in an airplane can lead to thousands of deaths on the ground, so it's in the governments interest to regulate it.

Yes, it is in the government's interest to regulate it, but it is not in our interest.

Government does not act except to increase its power.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

How long before some kindly neighbor shows the little girl next door the YouTube videos from the scanners and pat downs and asks, "Do you want to play airport?"

Is this an actual argument or are you displaying sardonic wit?

If you're serious; I'm guessing the "kindly neighbor" you mention would have found a different technique. "Kindly neighbors" have been able to accomplish their goals for quite a while before scanners.

"Either or" is a fallacy. (See "excluded middle", "false dilemma".)

But if it protects just one, it's worth any cost.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

But if it protects just one, it's worth any cost.

Lehi

Isn't that the same logic behind the scanners and gropes?

IMO, there is only so much protecting of society that we can do before we create a society not worth protecting.

[LeSellers]

Isn't that the same logic behind the scanners and gropes?

I thought I was the only one who saw it.

IMO, there is only so much protecting of society that we can do before we create a society not worth protecting.

Bingo! I believe we are there already.

Lehi

[bluebell]

By that measure, the government should regulate everything. There is virtually no activity any of us participates in that is guaranteed not to endangers innocent third parties.

It's usually the number of people that might be endangered that makes the difference.

I'd hate to live in the society that tries to enforce total safety. We'd never get out of our beds.

I get what you are saying, but at the same time, i'd hate to live in a society where drinking and driving was legal, for example, or where building codes didn't exist.

It's a fine line, but i'm still glad it's there.

Yes, it is in the government's interest to regulate it, but it is not in our interest.

The government's not 'skynet'. People are the government.

Government does not act except to increase its power.

Lehi

I realize you are convinced of this.

[Brenda]

The people with the most secure airports in the world are the Israelis. They think all this is nonsense and actually counterproductive.

I keep hearing this. If they've got it figured out, then why on earth aren't we copying them? I don't get it.

[Deborah]

My daughter who used to be an airport cop said that the TSA employees in their airport all used to work for Disneyland. We aren't talking professionals here but people who probably can't get jobs anywhere else and they are in charge of our security? One of the employees said he wanted to be a cop but had a conviction in his past but he was able to get hired for this. It doesn't seem to me that TSA looks for a high caliber of people to do a very serious job. This isn't to say there aren't some sincere decent people in these positions but I seriously question the Feds' sincerity when they say they want to protect us.

[rpn]

I think most aviation experts will tell you that once they hardened cockpit doors and pax became willing to jump/report or otherwise interfere with evil intentions even at the personal cost of their lives they should have stopped. The scanners they should be buying would be explosive sniffing animals or machines.

Americans have been dumping their personal responsibility on governments for some time and they are counting on government to make them safe. Up to now they have allowed, even encouraged, maybe demanded this huge expenditure of funds and loss of personal privacy and civil rights in the name of security. It would be nice if americans accepted that there is no way to really prevent bad guys from doing what they want. That in each new security measure they were responding to the old way terrorists did it.

Fact is there is NO evidence that the full body scanners reduce the threat. And there is evidence that both the scanner and the groping sexual assault searches violate privacy, would be criminal in any other context ,and violate the civil rights.

I hope this is a time when we all step up and say NO, NO and more NO. We are not willing to give up the personal freedom that makes us America because of terrorists. If we fail to stand up now, we will have let terrorists win.

[LeSellers]

I keep hearing [the people with the most secure airports in the world are the Israelis.]. If they've got it figured out, then why on earth aren't we copying them? I don't get it.

Because Federico Pe

[blackstrap]

I wonder,could an airline make money by offering flights without any security pre-boarding to those people willing to be thoroughly screened long beforehand and given an annual?? boarding " easi-pass" ? I think people would line up miles deep for the $100.00 ?? pass.

In other words create a private public service.There could be a sign saying something like " no shoes,no shirt ,no service" but with other restrictions.

[frankenstein]

i think there is very good constitutional violation going on. We are to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, random screening is unreasonable, screening everyone is unreasonable as there is no reason to screen everyone.

there is a definate profile for those intent on committing suicide and murder at the same time. 100% of society does not meet this sociapath profile.

[Deborah]

I wonder,could an airline make money by offering flights without any security pre-boarding to those people willing to be thoroughly screened long beforehand and given an annual??

At one time they talked about a preferred pass where someone already went through a thorough security check. I don't know what happened with that but I would think airline personnel should already have been through such a security check.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Nope. The President is not free to override the US Constitution.

[krose]

I think this is what's causing a lot of the confusion and tension with this issue.

There was an incident last year i believe where a famous actor from Inda went through one of these scanners and then was presented with the naked image of his body to sign later by a fan.

This was after security had proclaimed that there was no way to save or print the images that the scanners were producing and that there was no way for those looking at the images to know who's body was being scanned.

Here's an article about the incident.

I think if people knew with 100% surety that the images could not be saved or printed, and that their faces would not be shown and that those looking at the images could not ever know which body belonged to who, they would be more willing to be scanned. Clearly though, what is being said about the process isn't necessarily true, as the article shows.

As it happens, the Indian actor was telling the scanner story as a joke on a British comedy talk show, as reported in an actual London newspaper. He was laughing about how the scans would be embarrassing if he were not well endowed.

His comments have been widely reported by the media, but it is clear that the actor was joking. BAA has confirmed the unlikelihood of the incident actually happenning saying that the body scanning equipment has no facility for printing images, nor can they be saved or kept in any other form.

By the way, this "Prison Planet" site you linked to seems a bit obsessed with airport security. Most of the articles there are stoking TSA alarm.

[frankenstein]

By the way, this "Prison Planet" site you linked to seems a bit obsessed with airport security. Most of the articles there are stoking TSA alarm.

reading prison planet requires more of the spirit than reading the Apocrypha. PrisonPlanet, is either run by or heavily influenced by Alex Jones, Alex Jones is a big time conspiracy alarmist. Jones does have some good points here and there, but some of his stuff is just conspiratorial sensationalism, which means take it all with a grain of salt.

In one video Jones made about the london tube bombings, Jones made several claims of what was happening "in the wake of " the bombings, he flashed some internet news articles, but when you pause the video and read the articles those articles were written months before the bombings. In the same video Jones makes other claims and will show a quote. What Jones will not tell is the quote comes from a man who claimed to see the shooting of the Brazilian man, this bystander made several claims which turned out to be false, Jones respresent these claims as coming from police, and he make it seem as though the claims are from the police only to feed more into the conspiracy.

As it happens, the Indian actor was telling the scanner story as a joke on a British comedy talk show, as reported in an actual London newspaper. He was laughing about how the scans would be embarrassing if he were not well endowed.

I dont swallow the "trust me, the Government said" pill. I tend to believe the actor, as the Gov. has motive for the story to be false.

[krose]

I hope this is a time when we all step up and say NO, NO and more NO. We are not willing to give up the personal freedom that makes us America because of terrorists. If we fail to stand up now, we will have let terrorists win.

It's a bit late for that. They already won years ago when they got us to give up constitutional rights via the "Patriot Act," and goaded us into starting unending wars that have cost billions of dollars and millions of lives (which they have successfully portrayed as a US war on Islam). NOW you want to start putting your foot down?

I do agree with you about adding sniffers. The main problem I have with airport security is that it's so often reactive (usually over-reactive). A guy tries to ignite his shoes, and now we all have to take off our shoes. Another hides the stuff in his undies, and they try these latest measures in an attempt to prevent that particular method. But I guess it's always the case that the criminals are the imaginative innovators, and the prevention game is one of catch-up. It works that way with computer viruses too.

[krose]

I dont swallow the "trust me, the Government said" pill. I tend to believe the actor, as the Gov. has motive for the story to be false.

It's the newspaper that said he was joking, not the UK government.

But just to get it straight, you think it's more likely that a big-time Bollywood star happily autographed images of himself with his genitals exposed, for some "girls" working at Heathrow, rather than the notion that he was entertaining Jonathon Ross's laughing audience with an embellished story. Do I have that right?

I watched the interview. He was grinning through the story, and dropped a comment about being kind to Asians because of endowment issues. Odd that these signed images haven't popped up on the interwebs in the nine months since, no?

An earlier airport incident involving Mr. Khan definitely did happen, however. He was detained a couple of hours at the Newark airport, supposedly because of his Muslim name. Some angry fans in India burned the US flag as a reaction.

[bluebell]

As it happens, the Indian actor was telling the scanner story as a joke on a British comedy talk show, as reported in an actual London newspaper. He was laughing about how the scans would be embarrassing if he were not well endowed.

If it was a joke then it's good to know. How do you feel about the articles that MnG linked to where government officials have admitted to storing such body scans?

By the way, this "Prison Planet" site you linked to seems a bit obsessed with airport security. Most of the articles there are stoking TSA alarm.

I found the article listed on a dozen different sites, that was merely the one i chose to link too. It's always very difficult trying to determine which websites posters will believe and which one's they won't.

[LeSellers]

The President is not free to override the US Constitution.

And yet ...

Lehi

[krose]

If it was a joke then it's good to know. How do you feel about the articles that MnG linked to where government officials have admitted to storing such body scans?

Yeah, that was a court building in Orlando, of course. The Salt Lake TSA guy I heard on KSL radio pointed out that the machines in the Florida case are different, and that the TSA would not even be able to produce images as proof that they saw something suspicious as probable cause for detaining a traveler.

Of course, he could be lying through his teeth, and he may need to talk to his bishop about it. Perhaps there really is only one monolithic entity called "government," which acts as one, and where the actions of Florida marshals reflect the intentions of other agencies and their employees.

As I have said, I don't think the security efforts at airports are all that effective, and that they are probably wasting a lot of money and effort to provide an inflated sense of safety. But I'm a bit confused with the level of outrage over this. People complain that universal searches like these invade their privacy and are tantamount to presuming guilt without probable cause. Fine, but where was their outrage when employers in the USA were given the right to drug test all employees, without cause, no matter their job function? What is more private than the contents of a citizen's blood or urine?

[Vex]

I'll chuck my 2 cents into the mix as hard as I can. Please forgive any political overtures; they are not supposed to be there.

I've been following the use and development and application of this technology for some time. In effect I'll come right out and say it: I am refusing to fly because of these invasive measures. This means my wife and I will not be letting our money go and buy a product we would like to have. We further have issues with the application of this technology and its uses. I'll approach this in the least amount of writing possible.

1. Effectiveness
   
2. Health Concerns
   
3. Violation of our inalienable rights
   
4. Child pornography
   
5. Inappropriate pat downs and their effects
   

Effectiveness: The scanner images that have been floating around the internet are both graphic and disturbing. Some individuals believe this level of intrusion is necessary to ensure a safe flying public. Unfortunately this is not the case. It has been stated (and affirmed--just do a google search for it) that these imaging machines would not have been able to spot the Christmas Underwear Bomber, or at the very least it has been unclear if this machine could have caught it.

Furthermore the procedures of the TSA only provide theater to an already broken system. The result is a look of safety but no real safety procured. That is, even with the 'enhanced' pat downs an unrestrained individual could blow up a security check point where every one is waiting to get scanned. They could sneak in explosives in their body cavities and blow up a plane. It really isn't making us any safer than if they just let us pass unmolested in the first place.

Health Concerns: It has been said that these machines emit less radiation than an xray. Unfortunately they also emit alternate radiation than xray (they emit mm wave length and back scatter radiation techniques). The effects of which are unknown. Additionally, even if the amount of radiation being emitted from the machine were minimal frequent fliers, young passengers, etc, etc, etc would then receive unhealthy doses of radiation (any radiation that can be avoided should be--unless doctors have recently said that sun exposure, multiple xrays in a confined amount of time, and other forms of radiation are suddenly good for a healthy human being) only after a short amount of flying (I mean, we're already exposed to tons of radiation during flight, why not add more to the pre-flight show?).

Violation of our inalienable rights: This has begun to wear away ever since MADD and drunk driving check points. The idea that an individual can not be secure in his our her positions and persons is an abomination derived from a fevered mind and has no real use in the real world. I could no sooner stop traffic and ask each and every driver to answer a survey about traffic stops than the police should be able to do the same and ask if I've been drinking. But that's the issue at hand. At one point on this slippery slope do we say "enough" and "let us be". For what probable cause is there to stop a traveler on their way to some location of their choosing? Those questions are never answered in situations like this and the result is what we have just now become aware of in popular media.

Child pornography: I will attempt to talk this issue with tact. The issue, as it stands, is that you either are forced to have a child submit to having their picture taken in the nude by the body scanners, or you 'opt out' and have them subjected to inappropriate touching (such as the child that was stripped searched). As can be shown the pictures can be saved and can be printed/stored and so forth. What is the difference between the child pornography stored and sent over the internet from private individuals and the ones taken by the TSA? They consist of the same subject matter, but they claim different application. Does such application make it legal just because it's government? These questions to me seem moot as a duck is a duck is a duck.

Inappropriate Pat downs and their effects: For those individuals who 'opt out' they are subjected to invasive, inappropriate pat downs. The media is rife with examples of these pat downs. Everything from exposing of breasts and other issues to the public at large, to attempting to be 'scared' into complying by the TSA for not submitting to the 'enhanced' pat down. Examples are also prevalent of individuals who have suffered from bladder cancer being humiliated and having their medical apparatuses inappropriately searched leaving the traveler covered in their own urine, or breast prostheses being inappropriately touched, removed, and inspected causing further emotional harm to the individual. I won't go into the details concerning this as they are available online, but what benefit are these pat downs? Have they made us any safer? Have they stopped individuals that would have flown without issue? Yes. Have they stopped individuals that would have desired to cause harm? Not from the information that I've received or found thus far.

There is hope on the horizon though: individual airports can opt out of using the TSA and go with private security forces, there is also a bill in congress right now (called 'The Travelers Dignity Act' I believe) which forces the individuals performing the search subject to the same law as any other citizen. The TSA agents, if perform an 'enhanced' pat down can be liable to groping charges, those that take nude pictures with the body scanner can be subject to 'invasion of privacy' and 'peeping tom' charges, as just a few examples.

In effect anything you are not allowed to do, the TSA and any government official can not do.

I believe I have rambled on enough about this, but to the OP. Yes I see it as a violation of morality of the individual. I am tempted to wear a neoprene suit the next time I fly to show that there is nothing on my person that should not be (although this has already been done and the man was asked to put on his clothes and submit to a pat down anyways).

[thesometimesaint]

Vex:

Well said.