Full Body Scanners Installed In 10 US Airports 454
Lapzilla brings word that airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. We've discussed similar scanners in the past. From USAToday:
"[Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project] said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. 'It all seems very clinical and non-threatening -- you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end,' he said. Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth. Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."
Ewwww... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ewwww... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ewwww... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in a bike accident a little ways back. I have enough surgical steel in me to beep many place, but it has taught me a couple of things. The first being that many airports obviously turn down the sensitivity during busy times. I've had detectors that I've gone through and set off, not go off. Now if I, with 62 screws, 5 plates, and two pins don't set it off then WTF does? I doubt it's because they remembered me six months later at some busy hub.
Still, you gave up your freedoms and privacy to be safe, right? I'd feel safer guarded by girl scouts at this point.
Re:Ewwww... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ewwww... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for the tip...
Fourth amendment?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously - what has happened - have we slid down the slippery slope, or been boiled to death one degree at a time?
I'm just waiting for a clothing manufacture to come out with millimeter wave blocking clothes or underwear. Need a little metallic weave in the cloth to do the trick.
Re:Fourth amendment?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I fully agree with everyone saying how pointless these devices are, just as with the fluid bans, the taking your shoes off, etc. But just because they're pointless doesn't mean they're unconstitutional; just stupid.
Nor do I have a constitutional right to... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously some lose this right because they are a menace to others (drunk drivers, etc).
As someone else pointed out, the TSA is my problem, since it is a governmental agency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose they would say that even that is a choice and you 'willingly' submitted when in reality you did no such thing. You did it because if you didn't you'd get fired.. and if you don't submit t
Re:Fourth amendment?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the TSA that's doing the searching, and they have to abide by the constitution (or what little of it is left). If it was a private company, then all they'd have to do is make you agree to be searched, but as it stands, you have a legal right to walk through an airport without anyone so much as touching your hand.
The airline's a private company. They have a perfect right to refuse to let anyone who's not been searched on the plane.
In fact, there's a strong chance that the airport itself is owned by a private company. In which case, they can decide who is allowed into various parts of the building - and they could easily argue that submitting to a search is a condition of entry to being allowed airside.
Cavity search? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cavity search? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cavity search? (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy. Bring along (or buy once you get at the gate) a disposable camera. When the leads to the flash are removed, it can deliver quite a shock. I would assume it is strong enough to set off an unstable material like C4.
I think the truth of the matter is that if somebody wants to sneak something on board, at some point you're not going to stop them. Why is it that some people are constitutionally unable to accept that remote possibility?
-Grym
Re:Cavity search? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cavity search? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say it's probably a bit of both. Anyone who's smart enough to blow up a plane is probably smart enough to find a solution to whatever problems they think they face without blowing up a large number of people.
Blowing up large numbers of people isn't meant to solve anything, that's ridiculous. Especially civilians whose only wrongdoing was at most putting an X by the wrong name.
If you're determined to go and kill civilians you're out for revenge and to cause fear, panic and mayhem. There is no solution to having your family killed for no apparent reason [iht.com]. No matter how smart a man there's no way to resurrect your family and undo the injustice. In such cases intelligent men are even more determined and capable
Re:Ewwww... (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you look foreign. Then you'll fly down south for a nice vacation somewhere sunny. Like Cuba.
Re:Ewwww... (Score:5, Informative)
At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.
Re:Ewwww... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ewwww... (Score:4, Informative)
Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (Score:5, Funny)
Second thing:
Wonder if it would be legal to sell a line of rubberized scan-proof lingerie?
"Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties: The TSA won't see your va-jay-jay today"
"Bodacious Ta's Rubber Bras: If the TSA wants to see your nipples, make 'em buy you dinner first."
"Mr. Happy's Super Sleeves: Take a 'tripod' through the TSA scanner."
- Greg
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me or does TFA photo [usatoday.net] look like a Skinner box [cogpsych.org] for fear training?
No... "now more than ever, you need ExtenDik" (Score:4, Insightful)
ExTEND YUOR "MEMBER"! Did you hear that hot airport security worker snickering and pointing at your tiny P3N!S when they scanned you?????
Buy now!! Upto 8 inchs loonger!!!! http://as09s8asdfasl.djssef909.com/ [djssef909.com]
Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (Score:5, Funny)
Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Geez, (Score:4, Insightful)
(Yes, I know that there are rules about bringing cameras into the scanner rooms. That said, the tabloid sites pay a hell of a lot more than the TSA does!)
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the threats? Where are the terrorists? Where is the danger? Is there ANYONE on
These scanners are not necessary in any other country. Not even those that have actual terrorist living there (according to bushco). What is the real reason for these scanners?
I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.
Yes, put on the tin foil hat, pass the ammo pal. Only the most ignorant of terrorists would attack with airplanes again. While we are concentrating on making sure grandma is wearing her support hose and not disguised C4, they will be happily planning to poison water supplies or 'assplode' nuclear power stations... well, that is if there ARE any more terrorist plots.
If you listen to what Bin Laden supposedly said, he has already won. He knew what the neocons had planned for the NWO, and was probably part of it. He played his part.
Now, take off the tin foil hat and put on the thinking one. What are these scanners protecting us from? Where is the evidence,never mind proof, that we need protection from that? Go ahead, give us a list of things, and cite your original source of information provided as proof of such threats.
This is an open challenge to anyone. Show me the money!! Prove that such measures are needed. Don't forget to prove how these measures stop airport staff from planting bombs or drugs in someone's luggage.
time passes
I'm waiting... well?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has more to do with fear and making money than it has to do with your worry. Not that the former won't lead to the latter.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
your post hits the nail on the head as to why these otherwise fairly lame methods prevail.
This is CYA on the part of airport security: "we have the latest in technology, spared no expense, how can we be blamed for what happened?"
Re:Geez, (Score:4, Insightful)
And everyone agreed as to how it must work, since there weren't any invading elephants. But one day someone had a different response: "Only the pink ones..."
It's the same thing with these scanners. They keep the terrorists away -- you don't see any terrorists, do you?? Nope, only the imaginary ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lining the pockets of the people who make the scanners. Manufacturing a device the use of which is mandated by the government can be quite profitable, I imagine.
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Interesting)
Just saying.
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is an example of comparisons for you:
http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1566/1/ [bobharris.com]
There are simple, pre-9/11 ways of running a secure air transport system. I have been through Athens airport many times and it is considered a hub of terrorist traffic in it's day. It never needed the same intrusive checks that you see in the USA today. Perhaps before you take someone's comments as off-hand conversational fodder you might consider that they are not ill-considered or uneducated comment.
The world was secure for airport traffic before 9/11, and it is safe now without all these security measures. Nothing on the plane will stop someone from hijacking it if they have enough manpower and willpower. period. think it through. The alleged story from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that it is not possible to hijack if passengers don't want it. It takes multiple security failures to allow it. Up until 9/11 everyone was told that hijackers don't want to kill everyone, they want money or some other media recognition etc. So on 9/11 things failed. Not because there were no scanners or people took toothpaste onboard, but because the terrorists stepped outside the standard paradigm. They will do so again IF they want to attack, despite extra precautions for air transport. If the general thought that terrorists are smart is true, airliners will be the last thing they would use next time. It's far easier to sabotage the electric grid, water supply, or nuclear power plant.
BTW, terrorist acts on the infrastructure are next, not loss of life. The idea is to get us to spend tons of money trying to protect ourselves from what we are told is to be feared. To waste that money and resources. They will always be able to find an easy target that we are not watching.
So, what again is the point of such measures in the airport? Do you mean to tell me that no one in the government whose job it is to predict terrorist acts has thought of this?
What is the point of intrusive security checks again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing on the plane will stop someone from hijacking it if they have enough manpower and willpower. period. think it through. The alleged story from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that it is not possible to hijack if passengers don't want it.
[...]
What is the point of intrusive security checks again?
Maybe we can't make ourselves 100% safe - but the closer we get the more difficult it becomes to hijack a plane. Yes there is no way to stop terrorists 100%, but if they can't get a weapon on board it's much harder, if they can't get into the cockpit it's much harder, if they can't...
I'm not totally convinced that this is a worthwhile security measure - I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision and the article is rather sketchy. But even if it's not it's no reason to throw out all the post-
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no method to make any mode of transport safe, or any building other than restricting all access to it/them. So by spreading fear, they win. Logic loses, fear wins. Think it through, just for a minute. Any target but airlines is now easy, just as easy as the airlines were on 9/11 because all efforts are spent on screening passengers... not airport staff, not water supplies, not power stations.
You are buying into the fear and somehow believing that this 'extra' measure makes you more safe? Who would want you to believe that? If there was genuine fear of terrorism in the USA it would cover every possible attack vector, not JUST airlines. See what the MSM wants you to be afraid of? remember who rattles their leashes?
I'm not saying there is some big conspiracy, just saying hey! why wouldn't terrorists attack water supplies? If they really wanted to harm citizens, why try to smash into buildings when a small vial of poison is enough?
They were making a statement, one that would put you and others in a frenzy, one that would cause you to waste all your money and liberties on protecting yourself from something that does not exist.
They won.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no way you can know that. Learning from the past is the only reasonable thing to do now; planes were hijacked, the loss of life and damage was significant, so we work to stop it happening again. Anything else would be reckless.
No, what is reckless is to "work to stop it happening again" without regard to either the effectiveness or the cost of such work - both monetary and opportunity costs.
These body-scanning machines have a very high cost and as long as checked luggage is not 100% screened, nor is service access to the airplane 100% screened (hell, its barely controlled at all as is) then these machines produce an ineffective increase in security. This isn't layered security, this a finger in a dike where the dike has already
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for airport security... my company has had three laptops stolen out of checked baggage in the last year because people ignored the company policy of carrying them on. If they can't keep the airport baggage
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Geez, (Score:4, Insightful)
"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said.
Unless I misunderstood TFA, most passengers don't actually know what the machine does.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if they instead asked most passengers to step into a little room marked "strip search office" and take all their clothes off, the number of protests would be significant.
Re:Geez, (Score:5, Insightful)
First, 'traveler-selected'? Let me quote you some quotes:
1) The only true consent is informed consent.
2) 'they were directed into the booth'
How does this not sound like "We're trying to find ways of skirting the rules that require us to say what we're doing so people don't ask questions."?
To me, this sounds more like: "Oh, you don't want to go in? You don't _have_ to, but if you don't, we're going to pat you down..."
If 90% of women had no problem appearing in naked pictures / video as long as their faces were blurred, porn on the internet would be old hat,
Second/finally, you say 'It's not for the vast majority of travelers' ?
I don't know about you, but I think there's a metal detector that _Everyone_ goes through. If they replace it with this, you are only right in that it is for _every_ traveler, rather than only the majority.
Just a little reminder that airports are the tip of the iceberg, the toe in the water. This is just to test what you'll tolerate. Congrats, the water doesn't seem too cold yet.
This is why I like the ACLU. They worry about the things that I worry about, except they can help fix them.
In conclusion, how can you so blithely say 'RTFA', when it is blatantly clear that you missed the vast majority of it yourself?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On that note, it's mad that porn - images of people who freely consent to it - is often demonised, yet coercing everyone into having their naked bodies viewed by random men is okay...
And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:2)
I don't fly any longer.
There are other reasons as well, but in a nutshell, the entire process has gone so far downhill I'd rather drive, even all the way across the country.
Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about it. The new fees on checked luggage are just going to cause people to push the envelope of carry on bags to the point the boarding/unboarding process is unbearable. Add on to that the 3-1-1, you can't bring liquids with you at all if you can't check baggage and you're not allowed to carry them on. Now they also are going to be looking at basically naked pictures of you as you get on the plane, and, oh yeah, don't forget you are paying a lot of money for this poor treatment, and soon the sodas won't even be free.
No one in their right mind would fly at all under these circumstances, and that's exactly what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Add to that the fact that the average airline seat was designed to fit the human body perfectly... by testing the fit against a one-armed, one-legged midget with a fetish for being confined.
Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:5, Insightful)
The airlines would love to get back to competing on fares while also having a comfortable profit margin. It's just not in the cards right now.
Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, well, if they're going to be charging a lot of money for an uncomfortable experience, it doesn't seem very smart to pre-annoy the living heck out of the customers before they even get on the aircraft.
They don't need to be doing any of this nonsense. They just need to armor the cockpit and plop an air marshal on each flight. That reduces the threat to the less than it used to be; the trigger for all this hysteria was flying the aircraft into extremely high value and heavily populated buildings. So make that impossible and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
The real problem here is that hysteria is meat and potatoes for political stumping. Politicians have every reason to push this crap around -- it saves them from having to deal with real issues. Like health care, the infrastructure, the national debt, erosion of the constitution... you know, stuff that actually matters. But a huge number of people are gullible and stupid, and that's why this crap will never end, barring total collapse of the government.
Democracy is flawed from the outset. It allows any two uninformed people to outvote an informed person in a context where informed people are rare. Both in the general public and in the congress. Game rigged to fail, right there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:4, Insightful)
The same way you'd qualify anyone for any other important job. Test them. Would you hire an engineer who has no experience in engineering? Would you hire a doctor who hasn't passed the medical boards? Would you put a soldier in the field who doesn't know how to fight? No? Then why are you so bloody eager to employ anyone off the street to decide issues they have no expertise in?
Qualification for any important job is only sensible. The myth that "we are all created equal" was a philosophical blunder that was probably meant to imply no more than "we should all be afforded the same opportunities, and what we make of them is what we get." The opportunity is to try for a job; not get it. The potential should be to pass or fail, not to get it just because you're breathing and slightly warmer than room temperature. As it is, the "qualifications" for political office are to pretend you believe in an imaginary friend and don't get caught doing anything the body politic can't afford to do themselves. As for who should issue the tests, just your average bureaucrat should do fine. I'm sure they could design them, too, that's the just the kind of thing they love to haggle over.
Well, you have a democratic republic. Sort of. Insofar as its been able to obey its constituting authority, which isn't very far. Enjoy it.
Me, I'd rather have some form of meritocracy. The idea of people running an enterprise who are actually qualified to do so -- as opposed to being "popular" -- is alluring to me. Americans made Paris Hilton popular. And Britney Spears. And Flava Flav. If that doesn't tell you how busted the idea of "popular" is, I don't know what will.
Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't agree with me, I'd can cite many history examples to prove my point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's not obvious at all. Look, who picks those who qualify the physicists? How do they get qualified? Why don't we get a majority of dimwit creationists running around physics labs? What about lawyers? Why can't just anyone be a lawyer? Wouldn't that be "fair"? Subject the selection process to scrutiny. Let the academics work it out. Define it as working that way. Etc. This isn't insoluble.
Are you seriously telling me that because it isn't ea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ocean liner. Fine meals, suites, good company, pools, ocean view, time to reflect, luxury in general. When you get where you're going, rent a private vehicle, presuming you're going significantly inshore. Possibly train travel; depends on the country. Trains can be luxurious and fine; or they can be just like aircraft. Research is worth doing before you travel.
When I compare going on an aircraft to an ocean liner, the aircraft comes off as an experience somewhat akin to a few hours in a hamster cage. Wi
Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I'm working on my . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Constitutional law (Score:5, Interesting)
I would hope that this matter gets brought up in SCOTUS
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional law (Score:5, Informative)
But TSA doing it, as an agency under a cabinet level department, is pretty squarely in the unconstitutional realm.
Re:Constitutional law (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.
Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed that for ya'.
Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Here peabrain, I'll save you the trouble:
"Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.
Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."
Didn't notice all of the signs around the checkpoint....hmmm just like 6 year olds.
"How does a passenger refuse the scan if they're not told what's going on un
Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional law (Score:4, Insightful)
* Noone is forcing you to drive. You choose to! So, accept whatever search and seizure or don't drive!
* Noone is forcing you to walk on the public sidewalk. Accept the search or don't walk there.
* Noone is forcing you to live in this country. If you don't want to be searched, then leave!
* Noone is forcing you to breathe the air. Accept the search or stop breathing!
Funny how that works, isn't it?
just say no (Score:5, Informative)
The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.
Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i.e. another form of warrantless search where no probable cause exists that is allowed "because it's just too important not to do it!"
What a waste (Score:2)
Alone? Separate Room? (Score:3, Funny)
It's a millimeter-wave imaging system (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't an X-ray machine, or even a Z-backscatter machine. It's a millimeter wave device. TSA has a web page [tsa.gov] for the thing. It's not as detailed as a Z-backscatter image.
Here's the product page for the ProVision scanner. [dsxray.com] It's made by Level 3 Communications.
This thing was first announced last year, so the story is out of date.
Actual images of scans (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going through with a hardon (Score:3, Funny)
I'm just trying to make travel more enjoyable for everybody.
Make it fair (Score:3, Insightful)
The most telling... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what they want EVERYONE to think. But the truth of the matter is, no, you DON'T have to go along with it. People need to wake up and stop being a bunch of ignorant sheep in the face of all of this. Refuse the scan, refuse the pat-down, refuse to even fly anymore. Prices are going up and so is the amount of bullshit they make you go through to squeeze yourself into a cramped metal tube with not but a package of stale peanuts as food.
Really, why is all of this crap even necessary? All it does is create more headache for everyone involved. I'm not saying we need NO security, but this is honestly going completely overboard. Metal detectors? Good idea. Keeps people from bringing certain bad things on planes. X-ray luggage? Also good, for reasons stated above. Air marshalls? I'm not keen on the idea of firearms at 35,000 feet, but someone in law enforcement is a good idea if someone gets a bit drunk or stupid. Re-enforced cockpit doors? Should have been done a long time ago. That's just common sense.
Beyond that, I don't really see any of it as more than an excuse to spend vast sums of money. Air travel is still one of the safest (albiet nowhere near the most comfortable these days) ways to travel. The only reason incidents get so much media attention is the number of people killed in one event. Wait a couple hours and the number of deaths on the highway will take the lead once again, however. Bombings went out of style in the 80's, and you can forget about any more hijackings. After 9/11, do you REALY think passengers are going to stand for that sort of crap anymore? Not a chance. We're throwing money at phantoms, here. Attacking air travel is pretty much dead these days, but not because of any new security measures. All the same, I think I'll take my chances on the highway. At least nobody is going to attempt coercing me into a full-body scan and cavity search just to get into my car.
One final aside:
Wasn't the whole mantra several years back one of "We musn't change our way of life, or THEY will have won."? Now look at us. We allow draconian measures to be passed in the name of "security". We freak like children with imaginary boogeymen under our beds when someone even THINKS the word "terrorist." We happily give up privacy because we are sold on the illusion that it's for our own good and it will only effect those who have nothing to hide. We have become completely paranoid and changed the way we do pretty much anything, out of fear that we will get hit again. I'm sorry, but isn't that the very goal of a terrorist act? To have us do EXACTLY what we have done in the past seven years?
Society has become so caught up in going apeshit trying to prevent THEM from winning, that the exact opposite effect seems to have occured. Eight years ago, almost nobody had ever heard of the names being tossed about on the news. Now, it's foremost in everyone's mind. Their goal wasn't to savagely murder thousands of people, that was just the tool they chose to use. No, their real goal was to make themselves known, and us frightened. I hate to say it, but they succeeded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
"Wasn't the whole mantra several years back one of "We musn't change our way of life, or THEY will have won."?"
Yeah, I remember hearing that often in all of the press conferences, speeches, etc. right after the attacks.
As a society here, w
Re:Might be a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Even worse: They want to see our children naked!
Please will someone (aside from the TSA and pedophiles) please think of the children!
Would the recorded images of people under 18 be considered child porn?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would be within the range of 57-64 GHz.
Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves (Score:5, Informative)
Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.
Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves (Score:5, Insightful)
No the most embarrassing thing would be that people will willingly submit themselves to this absurd violation of privacy without even knowing, or more importantly, caring, why they should.
Re:um, radiation (Score:5, Informative)
In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves".
Er, studied physics where?
There's nothing mysterious about millimeter waves. They're from about 30GHz to 300GHz. They're not ionizing radiation, like X-rays. Here's a simple scanning millimeter wave radar system [spbstu.ru] with pictures of the components and images from the system. Note the tiny waveguide and feed horn. It's a radar in miniature. This little unit runs at 35GHz, so it's just barely into the millimeter range.
In the millimeter RF range, it seems to be possible to get up to about 100GHz with off the shelf components [terabeam-hxi.com] using Gunn diodes and GaAs transistors. Above 100GHz is still mostly an area for experimental work. There are people working on "to 100GHz and beyond! [farran.com]. But not much is really working up there yet.
This isn't a backscatter X-ray system. That's a completely different technology.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Efficient emission and detection of Submillimeter radiation has not been practical for very long, which may be why you haven't heard of it. It's most often refered to as Terahertz Radiation [wikipedia.org].
If you want stories of people being purposefully mislead, they outright lie about these things in Heathrow airport, Lon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (Score:4, Interesting)
No one bitches and moans. No one. Americans, at best, grumble and murmur under their breath.
In a nation infamous for its loud and litigious protesters, the silence, the absolute and utter _silence_ on this issue is screaming. Where are the protestors? Where are the acronymed activists groups? Where are the calls to senators and paid for TV ads against these intrusions? Where are the B-list celebrity messages? Where are the class action lawsuits?
Jesus. Even the ambulance chasers have been battered into submission. You're not going to be able to fix this for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the flipside, he could and probably would veto pretty much any needless expansion of government, funding bills, etc...
Total Stalemate.
On the plus side, in my experience a government that does nothing is doing better than usual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a population of about 300 million people in the country. Many of them are retired or too young to be able to work. Some are infirm, others do not need to work. Others simply aren't looking for work. All of these are not counted in the statistics. Everyone else -- those working and those actively looking