Being felt up at the airport

[Andara Bledin]

A Google Images search for 'body scanner images' showed a lot of the same thing, some of the example pictures being males with Ken bulges instead of the actual parts.

Underwear. If a person wears underwear, the definition of their crotch will be much less. The scanners have trouble going through multiple layers of clothing.

Also, anything carried in a body cavity would waltz right through.

How are these things protecting us, again?

^-.-^

[ZedOmega]

That completely misses the entire point of the article. It's not about whether the images can be identified, but that they exist at all. These are images that have been claimed to be deleted and not possible to remove from the scanner, and yet the unit in question not only contained saved images, but they obviously had no difficulty at all in pulling those images off and saving them.

The scanner in question has been returned to someone for some form of maintenance with images intact, no less.

Therein lies the problem, then. The argument as far as the images being saved onto the machine's internal memory can be summed up as 'admissible evidence vs. potential pornography source'. And that's going to be a very slippery slope to climb.

Beyond that you have the safety concerns that come with the radiation exposure. Quite a number of doctors and those in the X-Ray field are stepping forward to express their concern as well as their doubt that they are as safe as is claimed.

A person would have to be screened more than a thousand times in one year in order to exceed the annual radiation dose limit for people screening that has been set by expert radiation safety organizations (see below).

In other words, someone would have to take over 1,000 flights and pass through that many machines of that type to have any risk of ill effects.

Underwear. If a person wears underwear, the definition of their crotch will be much less. The scanners have trouble going through multiple layers of clothing.

Also, anything carried in a body cavity would waltz right through.

How are these things protecting us, again?

I'll admit that they're not perfect, but if the machines can catch weapons and drugs before they get on the flights, said flights become a lot safer. I'd hate to meet the person crazy enough to try to hide a knife or a box cutter in their colons, though.

[draco664]

In other words, someone would have to take over 1,000 flights and pass through that many machines of that type to have any risk of ill effects.

Except that the recommended annual radiation dose limit is for the amount of radiation that can be handled by the entire body, not just the skin, which only amounts to a few percent of a body's mass. The radiation used in the body scanners is absorbed by the skin. There isn't any long term research on *that*.

[Greenday]

That completely misses the entire point of the article. It's not about whether the images can be identified, but that they exist at all. These are images that have been claimed to be deleted and not possible to remove from the scanner, and yet the unit in question not only contained saved images, but they obviously had no difficulty at all in pulling those images off and saving them.

Oh, then you aren't arguing against the scanners themselves. You are just arguing over who controls them.

[Bronzebow]

You're basically saying you'd have beef with the police if they pat-searched you after they stop you for questioning.

You're saying you wouldn't have an issue with having your genitals manhandled by some lacky at a PD station, for the sheer sake of walking into the building? Trying to relate this to a standard pat-down related to a police stop does not make sense.

The way things are going right now, 'security' and 'efficiency' are on opposite ends of the same slider. Ease up on one to improve the other. You can either be safer when flying or more comfortable when going through airports, not both.

Two points:

1.) This is a false dichotomy. There is no reason that increase in effective security must require such brazen disregard of one's rights or comfort.

2.) Furthering this point, these methods have been shown time and time again to be less effective than traditional means. We're actually choosing the path of less security and less efficiency, at the cost of dangerous health concerns and adding the potential for naked pictures of yourself and your children to end up...anywhere.

This would be a valid point if we actually were trading security for freedom, but we're not. We're simply losing both...which sounds like a familiar concept.

[Andara Bledin]

You're saying you wouldn't have an issue with having your genitals manhandled by some lacky at a PD station, for the sheer sake of walking into the building? Trying to relate this to a standard pat-down related to a police stop does not make sense.

Don't forget that you cannot just leave and choose neither option without serious repercussions, either.

If you get there and decide that both options are completely unacceptable and attempt to leave, they can either force you to choose one, or file a civil case against you and level a $10,000 fine. And all of that after they've already denied you any access to the plane and forcibly refunded your ticket.

^-.-^

[ditchdj]

Jeese Ventura hit it SPOT ON!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVKmM...layer_embedded

[Evandril]

Having flown for most of my life, I can say it has been my experience that the more invasive of the new procedures do very little to make things safer, though the 'shoe' one is an exception (IMO, at least) When they take away my nail clippers, but leave me with my pencils, and my laptop, I do not feel safer, I only laugh at the sheer idiocy of it.

The current procedures are more to make everyone feel safe than to really make things more secure, in my opinion. I know of noone who works in the security field that has any sort of respect for the people the tsa use, nor who feels they will stop a pro.

As for the radiation, I'm sure the pilots and flight crews that are exposed to it daily will be happy to know they won't ever get past the threshold of exposures required to cause damage

All that being said...and as painful as it is to do...I'm going to have to side with the people doing the inspection over the woman who claimed it was sexual assault. Everything I heard, including HER testimony, sounded like what it was supposed to be, a thorough inspection that covered all parts of the body. If there is a part of the body that won't be searched, it WILL be used for smuggling, and can just as easily conceal something deadly.

Edited to add: When I have to fly in the future, I do plan on wearing a kilt...properly Should make the screening easier

[IDrinkaRum]

What we need are bomb-sniffing dogs. However, because dogs are considered "unclean" by Muslims, they are going to cry "discrimination" or "religious intolerance" or something like that because OMG ... How dare we have dogs sniffing luggage?

Bomb-sniffing dogs are more accurate than most anything else that can/has been brought up in the airports.

Wands? Not sure if they're effective, but they are less intrusive.

Not sure how I feel about the pat downs as I've never experienced them before.

However, this is just the government trying to make us feel better. Because after an incident, there are people on the news (where the reporters find them, I have no clue) who are clamoring for "more safeguards" to keep these people out of the airports.

[Rageaholic]

What we need are bomb-sniffing dogs. However, because dogs are considered "unclean" by Muslims, they are going to cry "discrimination" or "religious intolerance" or something like that because OMG ... How dare we have dogs sniffing luggage?

Yeah, that's ridiculous. That's when the PC crowd needs to GTFO. We have a 3rd option that can keep us safe without violating our personal rights, and we can't because it violates someones cultural beliefs? Fuck that shit.

[Imprl59]

The whole thing seems so stupid to me. There is no way you can close all the security holes when you have thousands of people going through the gate everyday.

If they want to take out a plane then have the bomb surgically implanted or blackmail a member of the ground crew to get the bomb on the plane.

If they want to hijack the plane one could easily put a decent size switchblade in the exit door and go right through this new scanner.

And after we go through all of this security theatre we get on the bird and it takes off and flys right over open unsecure land. In my town people sit on the other side of the fence at the end of the runway to watch the planes take off. and have lunch I've done it myself many times and they are definitley low enough that you could take the engines out with a firearm you could buy at WalMart.

It seems like a big game of Coyote and Road Runner if you ask me

[Evandril]

What I'm really scared of....Is for someone to realize you'll do more damage with a bomb in the security line/area than you would on the plane, at most major airports....And almost no clue how to prevent something of that sort

[ditchdj]

What I'm scared of is how far is this gonna go???

I've heard of the TSA now showing up at public venues like football stadiums and train depots. So what's next??? Checkpoints at state lines and roads going in and out of major cities??? Unwarranted door-to-door searches???? Because when the latter becomes reality I won't allow it, and I really dont give a shit if it pisses off a lot of people wanting to "feel safe".

[Greenday]

What I'm scared of is how far is this gonna go???

I've heard of the TSA now showing up at public venues like football stadiums and train depots. So what's next??? Checkpoints at state lines and roads going in and out of major cities??? Unwarranted door-to-door searches???? Because when the latter becomes reality I won't allow it, and I really dont give a shit if it pisses off a lot of people wanting to "feel safe".

Seeing as I can't find anything on this, I'm just going to go ahead and say this is completely a strawman argument.

I mean, it's the Transportation Security Administration. Why in the world would they be at football stadiums, especially when they already have security at every gate? That's just a downright ridiculous idea based on making people fear the TSA so more people will fight it.

[ditchdj]

Seeing as I can't find anything on this, I'm just going to go ahead and say this is completely a strawman argument.

I mean, it's the Transportation Security Administration. Why in the world would they be at football stadiums, especially when they already have security at every gate? That's just a downright ridiculous idea based on making people fear the TSA so more people will fight it.

Can't find anything????

Dude, it took me twenty SECONDS to find it!!!!!

Right from the horse's mouth!!!!

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/g...ng_events.shtm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/su...security_N.htm

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1261125/pg1


I'm not stealing ideas out of a Tom Clancy novel here. I'm serious about this.