Naked scanner in airport trial
- Thread starter Josh Kelton
- Start date
If they do, from what I've heard degradation, indignity & lack of respect is all part of the training. And as for invasive, that's their goddamn job description.
Oh, you serious?
You're familiar with the term, "closing the barn door after the horse has escaped"? That's all the new "security" theater is. The 9/11 attackers exploited the existing rules and regulations to take control of those planes. All the security theater in the world won't prevent that from happening again.
Does anyone really believe that taking their shoes off keeps the plane safe? That only being able to bring 3.40z or 100ml of liquids or gels through the checkpoint will keep the plane safe? Or that matching your ID to your boarding pass keeps the plane safe?
Until every piece of cargo is screened before it enters the secure area to be put on the plane, planes won't be safe. Until everything that is delivered to the secure area is screened before entry, planes won't be safe.
A 9/11 type attack or take over of an airplane won't happen again because of the passengers. The rules changed on 9/11 when the planes were flown into buildings. Passengers won't surrender control of the plane meekly any more.
I like the optimism behind the use of the word "if".[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't worry too much about that, I suspect Boo Radley has a longer attention span.
Last year, I flew somewhere 44 weeks of 52 so I got to become quite familiar with airport "security" procedures.
I flew through an airport that was "testing" one of the body scan machines. It was supposed to be random, but everyone in front of me got the "opportunity" to test it out. My turn came up and I asked for the pat down. The TSA goon looked pissed off that, I knew to ask for it and that I had the balls to ask for it.
They were done in a minute and I was on my way. I predicted then that these machines will soon become mandatory.
This seems appropriate.
So what would you suggest we do? Drop all security altogether?
This may mean nothing to you, but I agree that some of those rules are indeed rather silly (such as the thing about liquids). That doesn't mean that all security procedures are automatically invalid, though.
Take this scanner, for example. It can be used without inconveniencing people - all you do is walk through the thing. And since your face is hidden, the image is rather washed out B&W, and the person looking at the picture can't actually see you as you walk through, there's minimal invasion of privacy.
There needs to be passenger screening so that obvious hazards aren't taken on board aircraft - knives, guns, explosives and the like. A federal bureaucracy doesn't need to be created to do that.
The theater part is that it only looks like something is being done. I'll come back to the scanner in a minute.
Here's a scenario for you. I pass through the checkpoint with no problems because I'm not carrying anything illicit. My compatriot, who works at the airport and is subject to a cursory at best screening before entering the secure area carries in my weapon of choice. We meet airside and make the exchange. I now board my aircraft, carrying my weapon, having been thoroughly "screened", and am able to wreak whatever havoc I care to. The holes in security aren't at the checkpoint, but that's where all the time, effort, and resources are being allocated.
As to the body scanner, it's pure and simple an inconvenience and invasion of my privacy. I doubt that images are deleted immediately. If an object is discovered and the passenger has to be detained a searched, the image can be used as probable cause.
The theater part is that it only looks like something is being done. I'll come back to the scanner in a minute.
Here's a scenario for you. I pass through the checkpoint with no problems because I'm not carrying anything illicit. My compatriot, who works at the airport and is subject to a cursory at best screening before entering the secure area carries in my weapon of choice. We meet airside and make the exchange. I now board my aircraft, carrying my weapon, having been thoroughly "screened", and am able to wreak whatever havoc I care to. The holes in security aren't at the checkpoint, but that's where all the time, effort, and resources are being allocated.
As to the body scanner, it's pure and simple an inconvenience and invasion of my privacy. I doubt that images are deleted immediately. If an object is discovered and the passenger has to be detained a searched, the image can be used as probable cause.
Given Wal-Mart's typical clientele...soon, I hope.
Although, on second thought, these are people that you would probably NOT want to see naked.
So who would you suggest DO the screening, then? And where, if not at the checkpoint?
As to your other example: I realize that collusion can get around a lot of rules, but that doesn't mean the rules shouldn't exist. Secondly, how can the body scanner be an invasion of privacy if they can't identify you? Your face is not on the image. And if they say the image is deleted immediately, I see no reason not to take them at their word. To do otherwise smacks of paranoia and tinfoil-hattedness.
There needs to be a screening checkpoint but it doesn't have to be staffed by federal employees who have to justify their existence and continued funding. Google search "TSA mission creep" and you'll see what I mean. TSA recently lost two coutt cases related to mission creep.
Private screeners would have no motivation to extend to searching for everything to generate positive publicity for an agency in dire need of positive publicity.
I never said the rules shouldn't exist, but in focusing only on passenger screening the obvious holes aren't being addressed. Only that which looks impressive -i.e new uniforms designed to "garner more respect" and a big show of theater designed to make the informal traveler feel safe.
Directly related to the body scanners, a recent article had this gem:
The original intent of the body scanners would be only as a secondary screening technique to replace the pat down. Now, they are intended to replace the metal detector which is the primary screening device. Tell me why I don't trust the TSA?
Retaliatory secondary screenings are prohibited. I saw at least 20 last year simply because someone questioned a TSA goon or didn't move fast enough.
Private screeners would have no motivation to extend to searching for everything to generate positive publicity for an agency in dire need of positive publicity.
I never said the rules shouldn't exist, but in focusing only on passenger screening the obvious holes aren't being addressed. Only that which looks impressive -i.e new uniforms designed to "garner more respect" and a big show of theater designed to make the informal traveler feel safe.
Directly related to the body scanners, a recent article had this gem:
The original intent of the body scanners would be only as a secondary screening technique to replace the pat down. Now, they are intended to replace the metal detector which is the primary screening device. Tell me why I don't trust the TSA?
Retaliatory secondary screenings are prohibited. I saw at least 20 last year simply because someone questioned a TSA goon or didn't move fast enough.
Those obvious holes being what, exactly?
As I said upthread, the fact that not every piece of cargo/ mail is screened before being loaded onto an aircraft, not all deliveries to the airport are fully screened, and that airport employees have their own security entrance where screening is often a cursory process at best.
But instead, the focus is on what people can see, so they feel safe.
All that's being protected against is the last attack.
But instead, the focus is on what people can see, so they feel safe.
I sympathize, but you gotta admit, how else are people supposed to know that anything is being done? It's in human nature to want to feel safe.
Is anyone else (like me) thinking of that gag from the beginning of Airplane II?
But anyway, embarrassment aside, it looks pretty impressive. A neat alternative to being prodded and stripped.
Now all they need to do is devise technology to make all the molecules in one's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left.
It is amazing how prophetic that movie was. The old lady getting pulled aside and frisked. The naked cam showing the women's tits. I figure we are about 5 years from the common body cavity search before getting on the plane.
Yikes!! do we really want to see some people naked?
I know they wouldn't want to see me that way, no one would, lol
Seem like an invation of privacy, but it may stop certain indviduals from boarding due to religious beliefs if they say you must go through it or you stay grounded.
john titor
Captain
If you were serious about security for air travel, you'd handle it like the Israelis do.
True but the airlines and airports will run to the Government wanting money to help do it - just was seen post 9/11.
If the tax payer is gonna eat the bill then tax payers might was well be employed by the government to run it.
Then again are you sure that the actual operation of the air port's security is actuall run by the government rather than the government setting the guildines?
You're absolutely right. El Al does not mess around. They are absolutely badass about security.
But would American flyers put up with that kind of thing?
Last edited:
They'll want to use it on me. OOOOOOOOOOOh, yeah.
I'm not disputing the fact that security procedures need an overhaul. I do dispute how much of a big deal this scanner is. It's not an invasion of privacy (at least as not as much as people seem to think), it appears to work better than the metal detectors, and it could actually obviate the need for a lot of that lameass TSA stuff like the liquid/gel limit.
What I actually would like to know is, what do people with pacemakers do? Can they go through this? My stepmom has such a device, and it causes her some inconvenience at airports because of the need for manual screening.
