TSA Finishes Removing "Virtual Nude" X-Ray Devices From US Airports 172
dsinc writes "The Transportation Security Administration announced it has finished removing from all airports the X-ray technology that produced graphic and controversial images of passengers passing through security screening checkpoints. The machines, which the TSA first deployed in 2008, provoked public outrage as the technology, better able than traditional X-rays to detect hidden contraband, also created images that appeared as if they were 'virtual nudes.' Critics called this an invasion of privacy and questioned whether the scanning devices truly lacked the ability to save the images, as the TSA claimed."
Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
The analog hole always existed, and always will. If one of the TSA Molesters, err, Protectors, saw an image on the screen they wanted to keep, all they had to do was hold up their cell phone and snap a pic.
Their arguments about how TSA agents aren't able to save the generated images is and always was total bullshit.
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all they need to do is remove themselves from US airports, and preferably, from the US itself!
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Informative)
The TSA would NEVER use a scanning device without the ability to record and save the data. Take it from a former screener. *I KNOW* (caveat, I never used one of these backscatter machines as an operator... they weren't in airports when I was a screener.)
Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the image. We did not open the containers... Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.
If you wanted to be able to prove something, a picture is better than testimony. What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving the images?!
Re: (Score:2)
They probably are, but then again, the screens are no longer seeing actual scans - instead the computer is analyzing the image and identifying suspicious locations on a generic human illustration.
Sure they can probably save the image (probably both the illustrated version and the actual scan) but said images cannot be retrieved directly.
That's the difference in the scanners - instead of looking at actual scans, the new scanners o
Re: (Score:2)
. They probably have to shut down the scanner, remove the disk then attach it to a regular PC.
They probably upload the images to the cloud.
So if a technician needs to review the image; they have to login to a certain Dropbox account.....
Re: (Score:2)
Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.
you may have just posted the only known instance of the TSA doing their job...
Re: (Score:2)
TSA people are NOT allowed to touch firearms. There is no training for that and the potential liability is too high. There are always LEOs available for just such events.
Re: (Score:3)
> Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to
> me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the
> image.
And I worked in Hospital IT. You know what we have in common there.... being responsible for other people's stuff.
What SHOULD have happend when you took that picture you couldn't resist?
In a hospital, we have the same problem with medical records. Whether it was Princess Di or some Saudi Pri
Re: (Score:2)
The human torso was not exactly private property. It was something for medical students or something like that. Either way, it was an MRI image.
Yes, there was a lot of novelty involved there. Privacy? Not so much. But if I had lost my job over it, I would have completely understood. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The human torso was not exactly private property.
I can't think of anything more private.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it was Bullshit. The spec documents the TSA put out for the machines specifically required them to be able to save and transmit the images!
Google for 'epic tsa spec', and find this: http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf [epic.org]
(Not to mention, how'd they get the sample images they show on TSA.gov, if the machines cannot save and transfer images??)
Re:Analog hole (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Analog hole (Score:4, Funny)
Why oh why do you have to bring goatse into this?
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they can. The agents can't (unless they're very technically inclined), but there's nothing preventing the organization as a whole from doing so. Nothing whatsoever. Software can be changed, silently and without any hint that it has been changed. For all we know, this has already happened.
No, from a philosophical point of view, there's no difference between walking through the millimeter-wave scanners at an airport and texting naked photographs of yourself to your boyfriend or girlfriend. Both
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Choice, as well of knowing it's happening. If you send photographs of your naked body to your boyfriend or girlfriend, you have to make a conscious decision to do it, you know who gets it (Although you don't know what they're going to do with it.) and you're OK with it. With the airport scanners, the on
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with you in concept. I would point out in 4 years no random photos of celebrities, hot women, etc found their way onto the internet.
I was fully expecting for the TSA have to denouce some photos and fire a few people by now for actually having leaked some photos.
Of course that doesn't mean the ability doesn't exist just means that those with access are keeping their mouths shut and are behaving. not impossible but I do find it unlikely.
Re:Analog hole (Score:5, Informative)
it was the U.S. Marshalls who leaked pictures in Florida from Gen 2 mm wave machines, the machines for which was claimed the operators "cannot store, print, transmit or save the image"
Re:Analog hole (Score:4)
And I'd like to point out that the only way in which they 'behaved' was by keeping all the juicy pics for themselves. I know this may be hard to accept, but not everyone feels the need to upload every image they may have to the internet. Wanking to images of thousands of naked 14 year olds is their greatest reward. Why would they want to share it?
I actually don't think it's all that surprising that nothing leaked. The vast majority of those people are true believers. Their secret but unclassified procedures haven't been leaked either. Probably because no anti-TSA people have infiltrated their numbers.
Re: Analog hole (Score:2)
I always opt for the pat down, they often try to tell me it's sound waves, I tell them I am a physicist by trade (I am not at all) and that I know what a millimeter wave is, I also tell them I hope they are getting paid enough because it's unlikely they will have a long healthy retirement. They go quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you always make things up to make people feel bad? Or just when the TSA is involved?
Millimeter length waves are not known to decrease life expectancy [in non-boiling power ranges].
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you in concept. I would point out in 4 years no random photos of celebrities, hot women, etc found their way onto the internet.
Just because it wasn't on Twitter or the front page of Slashdot doesn't mean that it has not happened.
Maybe it happened in a manner that neither we nor the celebrity found out about it... because we're not Facebook friends with the guy or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. That's like saying that the ability to photoshop my head onto a naked body is the same as my posting nudes on the Internet. Just not comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
What does photoshopping your head onto a naked body have to do with scanners that can map out the shape of your naked body? Just not comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that I have not chosen to be in a mutually committed relationship with the TSA and never would. I'm not at all convinced that they have my back.
Then again, I have never texted any photograph of myself to anyone in any state of dress.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they could always ban them from taking their phones to the checkpoint.
So we need a TSA to monitor the TSA?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Although the X-ray versions have been removed, the equally invasive millimeter-wave versions are still there. The only difference is that now you have to spend a little time changing the device configuration to save off the images instead of being able to see them live.
Re: (Score:3)
Although the X-ray versions have been removed, the equally invasive millimeter-wave versions are still there.
I am pretty certain that the only reason they have admitted that X-ray devices are "bad" is because they were ready to sell the new and improved millimeter-wave devices (without paying back the money or compensating the victims for defective X-ray devices).
I give it a couple more years -- and then the privacy/health risks of new millimeter-wave devices will probably come into question so that they can replaced by super-particle-wave devices.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
Why do you say they are equally invasive? The laws of physics would seem to indicate that they are not. The few images I have seen have been much less detailed than the xray images which are nearly as good as black and white photographs.
Removing the private wank booths is by itself a huge step forward (assuming they really do get rid of them) and the cartoonish stick figure images on the machines with the newer software would seem to eliminate the privacy issue completely. Assuming of course that the TSA is not lying again and secretly continues to monitor the images in the peep/wank booth.
The millimeter waves are a huge improvement. No ionizing radiation. Based on our current understanding the 27-30 Ghz microwaves are not harmful.
The millimeter wave images are orders of magnitude less suggestive and detailed than the x-ray machine images. They don't appear to be wank material. Many of the millimeter wave scanners in the US are fitted with automatic detection software which effectively illiminates the privacy issue anyway.
The mmw machines with ATD software still have problems however. Based on independent testing they have something like a 50% false positive rate and if the machine alarms you must submit to a potentially sexually invasive procedure in order to fly. If they were to eliminate either the after-scan patdown or the false positives the scanners might be acceptable except for the fact that they don't really achieve anything. Metal detectors are far more effective at detecting real threats, much faster, and do not require any genital patdowns afterward.
The sensible thing to do is to go back to the metal detectors and maybe augment them with explosive sniffing dogs until reliable explosive detection machines are invented.
Re: (Score:3)
"The millimeter waves are a huge improvement. No ionizing radiation. Based on our current understanding the 27-30 Ghz microwaves are not harmful."
A UK report into them said there may be a slight risk of 1 in 100,000 chance of causing cancer which is okay because that means we're only giving 2 people passing through Heathrow each day cancer to save 0.0002 people per day from air transport related terrorism.
Misleading summary, as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
The scanners are still there. They still get the digital data of a virtual nude. They just pass that through an algorithm that replaces the image with a stick figure before the image is shown to the operator.
The government still gets the detailed biometric identifying information it wants, the digital 3d model of your nude body still gets stored in the databases they deny exist. They just don't show it to the operator now, so everyone feels better.
Re:Misleading summary, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
The government still gets the detailed biometric identifying information it wants, the digital 3d model of your nude body still gets stored in the databases they deny exist. They just don't show it to the operator now, so everyone feels better.
I never understood why people just go through these scanners like sheep. I have never been through one despite flying periodically -- one can and should decline the scan.
Re:Misleading summary, as usual (Score:5, Informative)
In the USA, yes you can decline and instead get sexually groped by a TSA employee. In other countries like the UK you can't decline -- if you want to get on your flight, you go through the scanner.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you get the pat-down anyway. The metal detectors at Heathrow are far more sensitive than the metal detectors at US airports.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They'll be on the bus soon enough. What's your argument going to be then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading summary, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people
It appears to be the mainstream opinion in the UK, judging by the fact that the Prime Minister still has the office.
I wonder, is there anything that the UK population will not submit to, if submission saves the life of one abstract child?
Re: (Score:2)
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people
It appears to be the mainstream opinion in the UK, judging by the fact that the Prime Minister still has the office.
That isn't the mainstream opinion in just the UK either. It seems a lot of people feel if there is even the REMOTEST change that it may save one life... Never mind the fact that there is no evidence it has or can possibly save a life...
Re: (Score:2)
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people
It appears to be the mainstream opinion in the UK, judging by the fact that the Prime Minister still has the office.
That isn't the mainstream opinion in just the UK either. It seems a lot of people feel if there is even the REMOTEST change that it may save one life... Never mind the fact that there is no evidence it has or can possibly save a life...
You know what would for sure save many lives? Lock everyone up in a secure padded cell. All your work, entertainment, sustenance, in fact you whole life will take place in that one cell. Interaction with others will occur through video screen. "If it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering. . ." Well that would for sure stop at least one murder so they must be all for it then, huh?
That's the problem with the delusional safety freaks. No amount of logic will get them to see how stupid they are bein
Re: (Score:2)
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people
Is it worse to have no scanners and risk that 200 people might be killed by a delusion nutter; OR to have the scanners, and with high probability, shave several years off the life of 1 million+ people?
Re:Misleading summary, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?
That's not a very good devil's advocate because it is easily debunked. Rights are far more important than safety, and you could use that same argument to justify molesting people at random, regardless of their location. If one nut is stopped, who cares about silly old rights!?
That is extremely dangerous thinking, but I fear that most people truly believe such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading summary, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
As a USian, I'd like to respond.
My country was born when a group of doctors, lawyers, and farmers came to realization that the slim chance of gaining liberty was worth taking up arms against the most powerful military the world had ever seen. They didn't come to that realization in secret; they signed and publicly posted an open letter of treason against the Crown, who controlled the world's most powerful military, and who would have gladly put each of them to death for their treasonous act. They then proceeded to fight not one, but two wars against the world's most powerful military to secure the rights they believed all people were entitled to enjoy. They were not seasoned soldiers or military strategists who knew how to fight the armies of the Crown; they were doctors, lawyers, and farmers who were almost certainly about to die in a completely futile effort. One of the states that arose during this period adopted the motto "Live free or die".
In the spirit of their realization and their actions, please allow me to be the first to say: Fuck your safety. Being free isn't safe. Safety is never, never worth the cost of losing freedom.
I quite honestly wish that all the people who think as you do would go back to England. I think it'd return this country to a much better state; one where we still had balls and did great things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?
Because Subways Exist.
Re: (Score:3)
But so far, it hasn't. Other passengers have stopped a delusional nutter on a few occasions AFTER airport security missed them.
If you want to hire someone to frisk you at the airport, be my guest, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I go thru them because it's fast, easy, and other than paranoid speculation has no detrimental effects. I suppose I could opt for some sort of invasive pat-down but I'm really not looking for that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but you know the pro's and cons of being sexually assaulted. Cant say the same for the machines that they wont run proper tests on and wont take public comment on even after court orders. Also it can be fun to make the guy patting you down mildly uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
Even in the US you an face absurd pressure from the TSA to go through the machine. I have had to wait 15 min+ on an opt-out(causing a run through ORD barefooted to make the flight); insinuations/outright declarations that I must be a "funny man" to want another man touching his "junk" and I must be some sort of queer(the TSA screeners words, not mine; this was ATL); all the opt out point are right next to th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it also wastes more of their time, which is the point. Although I'd rather people not fly at all, if they must fly, I'd rather they take the pat downs.
Re: (Score:2)
Also allows you to make the TSA agent feel uncomfortable. But you must be very careful how you do this as TSA agents have unchecked powers.
Re: (Score:3)
All part of the plan (Score:4, Insightful)
Security industrial complex got its billions and then guess what, it seems the machines have a problem. Ok, we'll buy the version 2 at only twice the price. A few years later ... what? They don't detect the latest terrorist explosives? Hey, we've just come out with version 3 and have we got a deal for you.
All the while the retiring senior TSA folks are getting job offers from the security industry to lobby and sell on these same government contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years later ... what? They don't detect the latest terrorist explosives? Hey, we've just come out with version 3 and have we got a deal for you.
If only they didn't detect "latest explosives" -- that would be understandable. It had been demonstrated many times that they don't detect shit.
I understand that these are government contractors, but still, shouldn't they pay the money back on every device that cannot detect 99%+ of dangerous items? Because I think that is all of them so far.
Re:All part of the plan (Score:5, Funny)
If only they didn't detect "latest explosives" -- that would be understandable. It had been demonstrated many times that they don't detect shit.
To be fair, detecting shit wouldn't really help, what with everyone being -- literally -- full of it.
Waste of money (Score:2)
I just love to hear my tax dollars being put to good use! (And by good use I mean a HUGE inconvenience\privacy invasion, the TSA is government at its finest)
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
Whoever approved this incredible waste of taxpayer money really needs to loose their job along with half of Congress.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
half? all.
The DHS needs to go, the TSA needs to go along with it as well as the other bloat in the government.
As of 3/2001 there were 2,697,602 employees in the Federal Government (682K National Defense/Relations) with a monthly payroll of $11.4B/month.
As of 3/2011 (latest month available) there were 2,854,251 federal employees not including 192,845 in the DHS (including Coast Guard/TSA etc.) For a total of 3,047,096 with a monthly payroll of $17.2B/month. That's a 13% increase in personnel and a payrol
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm trying to think if my income has gone up 50% in the last 10 years.
Maybe if we hadn't been duped into throwing the unions under the bus you might have had an organization negotiating on your behalf to get regular raises to reflect your increased productivity. Also it's not 50% since the number of employees increased too. It's more like 40% increase in wages assuming your numbers are correct. That means they got about a 3.5% raise every year. That's exactly in line with the private sector which also was projected to see on average about a 3.5% raise.
Re: (Score:2)
The unions threw themselves under the bus. The backlash is a direct result of the corruption among many union administrations as well as the exorbetent demands among the larger unions that have/had strangleholds on their industries such as the UAW, ILA, and ILWU, and teacher's unions. The bigger ones grow to the point where they cannibalize their industry by using cartel-like labor monopoly manipulation. They can prevent any sort of technological advancement and preserve 1970's style list-checking jobs a
Re:Waste of money (Score:5, Informative)
Your analysis contains some very important oversights:
Your numbers are taken from the US Census Bureau: 2001 [census.gov] & 2011 [census.gov].
First, let's look at the difference between 2003 [census.gov] & 2004 [census.gov], so that we can see the addition of the Department of Homeland Security. See how the total number of full time employees stays roughly the same, but the 2004 numbers have that extra section for the DHS with ~140k full time employees? Those people weren't all hired that year -- the DHS employees are already in the grand total on the top line. You were double counting them in your 2011 numbers. So let's revise your numbers to account for that:
2001: 2.7M employees with a payroll of $11.4B
2011: 2.85M employees with a payroll of $16.1B
That's a 6% increase in headcount, and a 41% increase in payroll. Still pretty big, right? Well, we ought to adjust for inflation [wolframalpha.com]. Looks like the $16.1B would have been worth $12.7B in 2001.
So really, we're looking at a 6% increase in headcount, and an 11% increase in inflation-adjusted payroll. It's not nothing, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
Let's go into even more detail!
By pulling up the 2008 numbers, we can see which parts are attributable to Bush, and which are attributable to Obama. Since Bush has more years of growth, we'll annualize the results.
(I did this in Excel, and you're free to download the tables from the Census website and repeat my calculations. I'm tired of making hyperlinks.)
Under Bush, the Federal Government grew at an average of 4.5% per year, with the largest contributors being National Defense, Healthcare and Law Enforcement. Under Obama, the Federal Government grew at an average of 1.4% per year, with the largest contributors being Healthcare and the Postal Service (which didn't grow much percentage-wise, but its sheer size meant that even a few percentage points put it over the top). Remember, we're talking about payroll here, so Social Security & Medicare aren't nearly as big.
So under Obama, the government payroll has actually been shrinking in inflation adjusted dollars. And remember, this is pre-sequester. Of course, that doesn't mean all of the cuts were Obama's idea, or all of the heavy spending was Bush's. But it does show that over the past several years, the government has been trimming the fat. Your "throw the bums out" approach is unwarranted.
Re: (Score:2)
Great info! You do bring up a good point though that I had forgotten, there are very few industries that adjust for inflation and Fed jobs are one of those. I doubt though seriously that most of that increase can be attributed to that especially since most of us out here in the private world don't get those kinds of perks.
Also the 2011 numbers are broken out so I didn't double count as Coast Guard etc. were in the 2001 numbers and you're right I didn't go in the middle, it's a 10 year comparison of what t
Re: (Score:2)
What, the ones whose campaigns are funded by millimeter-wave scanner manufacturers?
Claim: Verified (Score:5, Insightful)
Critics called this an invasion of privacy and questioned whether the scanning devices truly lacked the ability to save the images, as the TSA claimed."
It has always had the ability to save such images; The TSA merely claimed that such a 'diagnostic mode' was not available during normal operation. There is no way for you, the passenger, to know if and when it is in such a diagnostic mode, however. So the TSA's claim is technically true.
But since the radiation levels have also not been published, it's also technically true that the radiation levels are safe, in spite of those cancer clusters showing up, because the TSA says they're safe and therefore there is no need to publish the emission limits.
In other words... all you have to go on is their word in both cases. Which, given as many times as their statements haven't been found to be credible, is no assurance at all.
Re: (Score:2)
These machines not only provide, supposedly, security for our air travelers but they also provide fun and entertainment
for the TSA employees as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/ [foxnews.com]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-body-scanned-times-tsa-dallas-airport-cute-figure-article-1.1022803 [nydailynews.com]
http://www.infowars.com/ex-tsa-screener-officers-laughing-at-your-naked-image/ [infowars.com]
We all knew this kind of stuff would happen and it has and let's not forget the guy who
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its a zero-sum game (Score:3)
We are neither safer nor more at risk with these machines gone. As long as we're limited to 1-1/2oz shampoo bottles, we know TSA is on the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot.
Nothing more needs to be sad - the way you ignore what is being said and create statements that couldn't reasonably be implied says it all.
Really? Then explain to me why you'd like your plane to be hijacked / destroyed. That's the choice... you can either check people out, or you can lose a plane every now and again. There isn't any option 3.
Oh really (Score:3)
At least they recently fired the one caught masturbating to the screens while on monitor duty.
Better name: Radiation Scanners (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care that much about the "Virtual Nude" thing. (Although I might care more if I were an attractive young female, I guess.)
My objection to the thing is the X-ray radiation. I am by no means convinced these things are safe.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-glossed-over-cancer-concerns [scientificamerican.com]
Four doctors from the University of California, San Francisco wrote an open letter expressing their grave concerns based on their expertise. They listed dangers of these scanners and requested to see the safety studies and get access to the raw data of the safety studies; they also asked for the names of the people who conducted the safety studies. The government's answer boiled down to "our experts have studied this and it's safe". Completely non-responsive to the listed concerns and not sharing any data.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083 [npr.org]
So I never yet have let them scan me; I always have requested the pat-down. When they ask if I would prefer it in private, I tell them no. I'd rather the patdown be out in the open where anyone could watch. I have no particular reason to think any TSA agent would give me extra trouble in private, but I'd prefer as much publicity as possible.
I guess millimeter wave isn't ionizing radiation? That's a giant improvement right there. Maybe the new machines are safe? Safer, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. Wikipedia says that the government did answer the open letter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effects [wikipedia.org]
Here's the citation:
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm [fda.gov]
I still want to minimize my exposure to ionizing radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners (Score:4, Interesting)
The other thing I've noticed is if you travel with young children they take you out of line and directly to the magnetic scanner. Not just your child and one parent but your entire family. For me it was four adult family members along with my 4yr old - no extra pat down needed.
in summary - the body scanners cannot be completely safe and they know it.
It's not ionizing (Score:3)
mmW is very low frequency, relatively speaking. Remember visible light is in the 750-380nm range and it is (obviously) non-ionizing. mmW, also called terahertz radiation, since that's the range it is in, is obviously much lower frequency. It is below infrared, but above microwave.
As such it is non-ionizing, and there is no reason to believe that it could cause any damage, other than thermal damage, and then only if done in large quantities in a short time. There was a paper that claimed it could "unzip" the
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good argument against these for terrestrial applications, but not at the airport. Your increased ionizing radiation exposure from the flight is roughly two orders of magnitude higher than from the scanners. So complaining about radiation from the scanners makes you come across as either ignorant (didn't know about radiation from flying), or hypocritical (upset about a small dose from the scanners,
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the SCREENERS much more than about the passengers. You forgot those guys who are next to those machines all work-day long. See other articles with links right here about this very topic.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care that much about the "Virtual Nude" thing.
My objection to the thing is the X-ray radiation.
I don't care much about the radiation thing. I care about the affront to our liberty and the insult to our intelligence, not to mention the waste of time and money.
Thankful (Score:2)
I'm still going to opt out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pat me down.
Had the fellow at the airport literally grab my penis last time. So yeah... that was uncomfortable. But that is how you ACTUALLY drives these machines out of the airport. Refuse to use them.
When the TSA finds that pat downs are not effective at forcing people into the scanners they'll let us walk through a metal detector and leave us alone.
Its not as if the xray machines have ever stopped a terrorist attack or likely ever will.
Do you know how you stop a terrorist attack? Know who is getting on the f'ing airplane. Its not that complicated. All the people that have later gone on to do some terrorist attack were on a terrorist watch list already.
Is it fair to profile someone WHO IS ALREADY on a terrorist watch list? That is, if you're on a terrorist watch list... would it be fair to pat YOU down or scan you you or whatever? Again, not simply because of race, national origin, or anything equally specious. But contacts and behavior consistent with someone plotting a terrorist attack.
And if someone is clever enough to stay off those lists while also intending a terrorist attack... do you really think an xray machine is going to stop them? Xray machines would stop a moron that would jam explosives up his sleeves without understanding how an xray machine works. You might claim it would deter a smarter attacker but really all you've done is force him to disguise the weapon or bomb as something else.
In the end, you're pitting the intelligence of someone clever enough to stay off the watch lists against a minimum wage government drone bored off his ass while he scans yet another person that he has no belief is a threat.
When you treat EVERYONE as a threat you threat NO ONE as a threat. You have to have targeted security. Enough passive security to deter morons and really a metal detector is more then sufficient to do that. And then the FBI and CIA need to keep useful lists for the few clever ones that might try something sneaky. And when one of the sneaky ones books a plane flight... they spend an extra 10 minutes in back room as someone gropes them for... whatever. Everyone else though... don't waste our time or dull edge of your security by pretending we're a threat when we're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, or use the fairly large amount of resources and time they seem to have and get a job working for TSA (or any other airport job) and slide whatever they want past the checkpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
Pat me down.
Yep, I always opt out...
Last time through the airport, I opted out. As I stood their waiting, and still on the OTHER side of the machine (I hadn't been let into the secure area yet) their machine jammed or something. So they let the line of people through the metal detector... But because I opted out, I still had to be patted down. Never mind if I had NOT opted out, I would have been sent through the metal detector. So what was the point of these machines again?
Re: (Score:2)
My experiences with the TSA's airport security have led me to conclude the following:
Re: (Score:2)
I've never been intentionally delayed by the TSA. They always deal with me pretty quickly. They're sometimes a little too touchy feely about it but its all over pretty fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, they'll continue to make the pat-down more degrading, invasive, and time consuming to ensure that people go through the machines. Yes sir, you absolutely have the right to not be x-rayed. Just step into that queue over there for the full strip-search. You do have your regulation 3 ounces of vaseline, yes? Current wait time is just under three h
Re: (Score:2)
Opting out saves jobs (Score:2)
Every time I opt out, I am subject to TSA employees persuading me to go through the scanner instead. I always tell them: I am just doing what I can to save your job, as soon you will be replaced by the machine.
They usually do not know how to respond to that, so they shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
and just make profiling part of the ticket purchase agreement
Do go on. We'd love to hear your brilliant plan. No, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
give more consideration to other's feelings. would your mother like this? your grandmother? your sister?
Re: (Score:2)
But we're not talking of your views or my views, we're talking about how your dear departed mom or grandmother would have felt about such thing and it's not about "an adult view", it's about them (if they are like majority of women in USA) likely having similar feeling in their mind as some stranger walking up to them and ripping their clothes off would give. It's about them feeling violated and humiliated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)