Full body scanners yay or nay

[SteamWake]

Here is an article on full body scanners for airport security checkpoints.

I personally have no problem with them if someone wants to oogle my sagging belly and little package well thats just strange. But its not like its going to be on you tube.

Though I can understand why some folks might find it 'invasive'. Lets say a famous 'hot' acteress was asked to pass through the scanners. Those motives may be questioned.

Anyhow get out those x-ray glasses and let me know what you see :03:


The Transportation Security Administration wants to install more of the devices, known as whole-body imaging scanners, but the agency has met resistance from civil liberties groups, passengers and some members of Congress.


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Airports-Slow-to-Receive-Whole-Body-Imaging-Scanners-80233757.html

Privacy concearns

WASHINGTON (AP) - High-tech security scanners that might have prevented the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a jetliner have been installed in only a small number of airports around the world, in large part because of privacy concerns over the way the machines see through clothing.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091229/D9CSM1SG1.html

[Jimbuna]

This may well be the price/inconveniance that people will have to put up with in the ongoing battle against terrorism.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with it...if it enhanced my safety whilst travelling.

I only hope they don't think I'm smuggling a python on the plane :DL

[danlisa]

Generally, I'm in favour of anything that ensures public safety BUT in this instance where it becomes the norm is plain wrong!

These scanners should only be used when a handheld scanner returns an anomalous result or a person who is suspected (thanks to prior knowledge) arrives at check in.

It should not be used in the same way as baggage scanning.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would agree with Jim on this. However, as far as the python....we have seen more meat on a fish hook Jim. Python...yeah sure. :har:

[Jimbuna]

I would agree with Jim on this. However, as far as the python....we have seen more meat on a fish hook Jim. Python...yeah sure. :har:

:DL:03:

[SteamWake]

Generally, I'm in favour of anything that ensures public safety BUT in this instance where it becomes the norm is plain wrong!

These scanners should only be used when a handheld scanner returns an anomalous result or a person who is suspected (thanks to prior knowledge) arrives at check in.

It should not be used in the same way as baggage scanning.

There you have highlighted one of the biggest failures in the system in this instance.

A metal detector or hand wand would detect nothing.

This guy was indeed on a 'watch list' or a suspected person with prior knowledge. Yet nothing happened.

This guy payed for his ticket in cash. An action that is supposed to trigger a 'suspicious' activity. Yet nothing happened.

This guy checked in for a two week trip yet checked no baggage. Again this is supposed to trigger 'suspicious activity'. Yet nothing happened.

So they had not one not two but three reasons to pull this guy aside. Yet nothing happened.

If the guy had passed through one of these xray glasses machine there is a very good chance something may have been done.


I had to chuckle one of the recommendations to help avert this type of thing is to "Unionize the Screeners". Yes of course that will make them much more dilligent.

[danlisa]

There you have highlighted one of the biggest failures in the system in this instance.

A metal detector or hand wand would detect nothing.

This guy was indeed on a 'watch list' or a suspected person with prior knowledge. Yet nothing happened.

This guy payed for his ticket in cash. An action that is supposed to trigger a 'suspicious' activity. Yet nothing happened.

This guy checked in for a two week trip yet checked no baggage. Again this is supposed to trigger 'suspicious activity'. Yet nothing happened.

So they had not one not two but three reasons to pull this guy aside. Yet nothing happened.

If the guy had passed through one of these xray glasses machine there is a very good chance something may have been done.

I had to chuckle one of the recommendations to help avert this type of thing is to "Unionize the Screeners". Yes of course that will make them much more dilligent.

So, they had 3 chances to pull this guy and failed at every opportunity. How do you think a 4th chance would make any difference?

Human error or laziness each time allowed this individual to pass through unchecked.

Airport security need to amend their policies rather than trample on peoples civil rights. Governments of every country are too quick to exercise terrorist laws & capture methods without consideration for the law abiding public. Just because the people in the 'first line of defense' are failing at their job does not mean we must be subjected to this idiotic technology as the 'be all and end all' solution.

[SteamWake]

I'm not so sure if it was lazyness or error insomuch as a desire to be politically correct and not offend a person by singling them out.

There is no question the system failed in this case in spite of what Napalitano (sp?) might of said.

[Skybird]

Terrorism is already planning ahead of full body scanners, by explosives being carried inside the body. I just wait for a chemical genius turning the body tissue itself into a bomb by having a special drink.

If you want total control over passengers, there is one solution, and only this one is safe: they get brought onboard stripped to a stretcher, in a condition of full anaesthetic. :O:

[Platapus]

Some good points have been raised.

However tools can only do so much. It is the operator who has to interpret the data and the security officer that has to analyze the data that is the weak link.

Perhaps if we paid TSA screeners a decent wage, it would be easier to attract better people.

My friend was one of the first batch of TSA screeners. They were lied to by the government, not paid any wages for over 9 weeks. Not paid for working overtime (which was mandatory). She said that TSA had almost a 100% turn over rate at her airport the first six months. That does not bode well for security.

She left TSA after almost three years and by that time she was the senior female screener and one of the senior screeners at her airport.

She took her job very seriously but she told me that many of the TSA screeners were there only for the paycheck (such as it was).

I hope it has gotten better but not keeping my hopes up.

If there are any TSA screeners on this forum: Thank you for the job you do. It is not an easy job and your successes are often hidden and your failures are often exposed. Thank you for trying to keep us just a little bit safer. :salute:

[August]

I would agree with Jim on this. However, as far as the python....we have seen more meat on a fish hook Jim. Python...yeah sure. :har:

You seem to be inordinately well informed about Jims genitalia. :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

I would agree with Jim on this. However, as far as the python....we have seen more meat on a fish hook Jim. Python...yeah sure. :har:

Did you think ol' McBee would miss this one? I don't think so:yeah:

No, Jim really does have a python...
(from tarjak's photoarchive:salute:):har:
http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.vipersgarden.at/kurios/2head_python.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEzND_M3Dq_zD2Uz0ksd_9bHLEfXg

The laidies run in terror from what I hear.
:har::har:

[nikimcbee]

I just had a great idea.:hmmm: They should absolutely put these in and here's what they could do do make it self funding:

1. Segregate the lines between "hot" people men/women and fat/ugly people.
2. Make the "hot" line a pay per view live internet feed to watch the scans.

3. the ugly line, have a live feed into gitmo for our guests:haha:.

Just think of all the money they would make off Dowly alone!:haha:
:yeah:
It would practically be a self funding department.:haha:

[Skybird]

It seems that the latest systems do not need operators looking at the real video footage. The systems trigger an alarm all by themselves if they find something, then draw an artifical human figure on a screen with a symbolic markingat the location where the suspicious find is. Then the finger-search begins right there.

This would allow to dismiss any concerns about privacy and "naked scans" (in German they are indeed called "naked scanners", not body scanners). the pics we got used to showing skin silhouettes reminding of X-ray photographs are already a thing of the past with the new generation of systems.

However, I think that technology gets overestimated here. As I already said, the bad guys already have started to hide things inside their body. and in another thread somebody said - correctly, imo - that all this control stuff cannot compensate for human intelligence operations, human infilitration, human information gathering inside the networks of terror, in short: classical counter espionage and counter terrorism operation.

I find it ironic that in economic discussions time and again some people tell me how little politicians can be trusted to regulate financial business and the precious market in anglosaxon, classical understanding of capitalistic economy theory - but when it comes to giving these same politicians all the tools to x-ray society and private people, and giving them the tools that could be easily used to erect a totalitarian police state and an absolute control of the one and the many, and to sneakingly abandon basic, fundamental rights and freedoms - then there is surprisingly little criticism.

One could be lead to worrying cobclusions, when thinking about that. At least of one claims to stand up for "democracy" and "freedom". As far as I am concerned, I think that in the West "freedom of the individual" possibly gets massively overestimated even when it does a lot of damage to the interest of the community. We are as much off balance as is the Chinese society, maybe, with its prioritizing of state and collective and society. we are both extremists, but at different poles of the spectrum.

Maybe we should start thinking about models located somewhere inbetween the two.

[UnderseaLcpl]

This scanning technology is called millimeter-wave imaging, and it is nothing new. IIRC the first production models were introduced in 1997, but they were ruled as being unconstitutional because they violated the Constitutional directive against unwarranted search. They also violated the privacy act of 1974 in many ways.




Perhaps if we paid TSA screeners a decent wage, it would be easier to attract better people.

My friend was one of the first batch of TSA screeners. They were lied to by the government, not paid any wages for over 9 weeks. Not paid for working overtime (which was mandatory). She said that TSA had almost a 100% turn over rate at her airport the first six months. That does not bode well for security.

She left TSA after almost three years and by that time she was the senior female screener and one of the senior screeners at her airport.


This is a good point but you would be remiss to assume that any TSA reform would be much any less worthless. One way or the other, the TSA is a government-sponsored monopoly directed by persons who have little fear of losing their job or prospect of being rewared. No matter what the directives are, there is no incentive, and as such there is little performance. Contrary to popular belief, TSA stands for Thousands Standing Around.

What we should do is to privatize all airports and all air-traffic control systems. Private companies have a vested interest in performance, especially when they are replaceable. Of course, there should be a public air service to fill any gaps, but it must be made to compete with private services, and it must be made efficient by competition and a lack of taxpayer funding. If we are to have a public service in this sector, it should indeed be a public service, not one mandated by fiat law and funding.

You are also mistaken in the assumption that better funding for the TSA would attract better employees. The TSA, as well as many other government employers, is bound by many laws to hire the least eligible employees. First of all, look at every other govenrment service. Not a single one provides adequate service for the funding it is given. There is a reason for that beyond legisated hring quotas.

Think for a few moments... where else can we find exceptionally substandard service for ridiculous prices? It is only natural that a government entity would attract the least ambitious and most greedy members of the populace. After all, they don't give a flying ******* whether or not they perform well. Their jobs are protected by the state. Why should they worry about serving you?

The one other place you can find such performance is within a monopoly, but even monopolies are not so irresponsible as the state. They still have a public image to consider, and people still have the power to choose to but their products. There has never really been a monopoly that existed without co-opting the state, but let me give you a good example of a natural free-market monopoly; Microsoft.

Microsoft is a natural monopoly because it licensed its software to IBM, which in turn alllowed other companies to clone its machines and its operating system. IBM and its clones were inferior to Mac, but it was much cheaper and so it found greater purchase within the public market.
IBM/Microsoft machines became the de facto standard for many years, but Mac eventually caught up and established a significant market sector of its own, a sector which has fostered competion and innovation all its own. Mac is still behind in the software market, but it offers consumers a choice in personal computers, phones, and data storage devices.

The government does no such thing. Social security sucks as much as it did fifty years ago(more, actually). The Department of Health and Human Welfare is still universally worthless. The Department of Education fails the nation more and more as time goes on.

You can suggest reforms and reinventions of federal services to the end of time, but there is no way to make any kind of fiat agency effective, ever. It all comes down to the people performing the service, and they are nothing without incentive. If you deprive them of competition, there will be no incentive, and there willl be a predictable drop in performance.

[SteamWake]

a symbolic markingat the location where the suspicious find is. Then the finger-search begins right there.

Calling Dr. Ben Dover.. :haha:

[SteamWake]

Some good points have been raised.

However tools can only do so much. It is the operator who has to interpret the data and the security officer that has to analyze the data that is the weak link.

Perhaps if we paid TSA screeners a decent wage, it would be easier to attract better people.

My friend was one of the first batch of TSA screeners. They were lied to by the government, not paid any wages for over 9 weeks. Not paid for working overtime (which was mandatory). She said that TSA had almost a 100% turn over rate at her airport the first six months. That does not bode well for security.

She left TSA after almost three years and by that time she was the senior female screener and one of the senior screeners at her airport.

She took her job very seriously but she told me that many of the TSA screeners were there only for the paycheck (such as it was).

I hope it has gotten better but not keeping my hopes up.

If there are any TSA screeners on this forum: Thank you for the job you do. It is not an easy job and your successes are often hidden and your failures are often exposed. Thank you for trying to keep us just a little bit safer. :salute:

I think the point is that this should have been picked up way before it came down to screening.

Lets review shall we?

* On watch list
* Bought ticket with cash
* One way ticket
* No luggage
* US embasy notified by a freakin former Economic Minister (His father BTW)

and not one alarm went off :nope:

[Jimbuna]

You seem to be inordinately well informed about Jims genitalia. :hmmm:

Did you think ol' McBee would miss this one? I don't think so:yeah:

No, Jim really does have a python...
(from tarjak's photoarchive:salute:):har:
http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.vipersgarden.at/kurios/2head_python.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEzND_M3Dq_zD2Uz0ksd_9bHLEfXg

The laidies run in terror from what I hear.
:har::har:

Behave rersels,jelousy is no defence http://www.spreadtheiris.com/images/smilies/smacka.gif

http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/img144/3336/tonguecm5.gif

[Platapus]

One way or the other, the TSA is a government-sponsored monopoly directed by persons who have little fear of losing their job or prospect of being rewared. No matter what the directives are, there is no incentive, and as such there is little performance.

Is this also your opinion of the United States Military also?


What we should do is to privatize all airports and all air-traffic control systems. Private companies have a vested interest in performance, especially when they are replaceable.

Private companies are concerned with profit first, second, and third.

The last thing we need is to put our security in the hands of corporations not interested in security but in profit.


First of all, look at every other govenrment service. Not a single one provides adequate service for the funding it is given.

You must have a very low opinion of the Military. Not to mention Fire Departments/EMS.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. :yep:

[Skybird]

Blackwater, anyone?

[LiveGoat]

Penn Jillette had the best solution for airport security:

Post a male and female airport employee next to the departure gate. They would both be nude (possibly jewish for good measure). Each would hold a plate with bacon strips.

To get on the plane you follow two easy steps.

1. Kiss the exposed genitals of one of the nude staff (your choice of gender).

2. Then eat a strip of bacon.

Voila! You may now board the plane.

[geetrue]

The objective has been met ... that objective is fear.

Exposure to what they have done wrong is just training them to be more carefull next time.

Heck with full body scans ... I say, "Spread em" :yeah:

I'm not getting on any airplane unless they do it to everyone in front of me.

TSA should be standing by for anyone that tries to avoid the front line handlers.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Is this also your opinion of the United States Military also?

Most certainly. I'm amazed that isn't your opinion already. Have you already forgotton the multi-billion dollar defense-spending scandals of the past.....forever? Do the lives of soldiers that were lost due to inadequate training, equipment, and tactics not weigh upon your assesment of US military performance?

You'll have to excuse me for implying that you would be so callous or imperceptive. I get a little riled when it comes to this topic. I'm sure your position is a lot more complicated than that, but this is one subject that means a great deal to me, so if you'll just give me a moment to climb on my soap box......:DL

The quality of the US armed forces is not in doubt. One way or the other, the United States posseses the most powerful military force the planet has ever seen, and it a force comprised entirely of volunteers, which sets it apart from many of its rivals.

However, it damn well should be the best fighting force in the world with what we spend on it. I can't remember the exact figure and I can't be bothered to look it up right now but the US defense budget is greater than or equal to that of the next...what, ten countries or something? It's almost seven-hundred billion dollars! That's absolutely outrageous. With that kind of spending the US military should be eating every foe and crapping faberge' eggs........ but it doesn't, and why would it? Despite all the trappings and traditions it is still a federal agency and the waste and frivolous spending associated with any federal agency are part of the bargain.

I think it is pretty common knowledge that the performance of US armed forces has always been less than acceptable. If you dispute the point I'll invite you to provide me with a single example of the US ever entering a significant conflict in a prepared fashion, wherein it did not suffer unacceptable casualties. I'll also invite you to consider the current conflicts. Take, for instance, the "troop surge". What brilliant strategic mastermind dreamed that garbage up? Zhukov? Grant? Mao Zedong?
I've wiped my ass with better strategies than that; "Hey, here's a thought, let's quell the insurgency by throwing a bunch of men at it! That's sure to provide a cost-effective long-term solution!" The troop surge worked, but at what cost?

Now you're probably asking yourself what brilliant strategy I would propose. I have to say, I really don't know. It isn't like anyone has ever experienced the problem of an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency before. It's not like we could learn anything from history. At least, I assume that was the line of thought pursued at the Pentagon.

To fight an insurgency you must fight......an insurgency. That does not mean adopting the failed conventional tactics that have been used thus far. If your foe hides amongst the populace you must become the populace. To put it in a more readily recognized form: "The first rule of jungle warfare is to eliminate the jungle". That means placing counter-insurgency agents around long before any regular military boots hit the ground.

The US military is a broadsword, not a scalpel (I'm pretty sure I heard that in some movie), and broadswords are meant for killing, not surgery, hence the tremendous amount of collateral damage that has been incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've said it before but I'll repeat myself becuase I like the point: I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the decision was made to use naval assault infantry to garrison Fallujah; Gee, what could possibly go wrong? It isn't as if a bunch of kids with guns who have been trained to kill everything in sight could possibly incur some kind of discord in an area rife with sectarian violence. Go ahead, send in the Marines! And that is just what they did, and we predictably failed utterly. We killed and imprisoned a lot of people, and some of them were actually insurgents, but most of them were relatives of people who are now really pissed off, and who will doubtless cause us a lot of trouble later.

The inadequacies of the US miitary aside, it is difficult to find a good comparison of mercenary and government forces, mostly because mercenaries have not existed in force since, like, the 16th century. They were outlawed by governments in most cases. There are a few exceptions, such as the Swiss Guard and the Hessians, but for the most part the world's states have preferred to keep military force to themselves.

There is, however, one really good example in the form of a modern company called Executive Outcomes. EO managed to broker peace agreements in Angola and Sierra Leone in a matter of months, and it had its contracts in both countries terminated mere months after it succeeded due to diplomatic pressure from the UN. Angola and Sierra Leone have since been occupied by UN peacekeepers and remain in conflict to this day.

State militaries of any kind are subject to the same mechanisms that any state agency is subject to. They are driven by politics, not performance. Have you learned nothing from the laments of great generals who were driven to destruction by the states that governed them? Do you not remember MacArthur or Rommel? Udet? Anyone?

Private comapnies on the other hand, must deliver acceptable results or they will be fired. Leave it to Skybird to provide a perfect example;

Blackwater, anyone?

Okay, what of it? Blackwater was once involved in a scandal where its troops killed a dozen or so Iraqi "civilians" in the midst of an ambush. The incident was regrettable, and Blackwater paid heavily for it. The company no longer exists. It has been restructred under the name of Xe or something and it has changed many policies.

The US military, on the other hand, kills civilians by accident all the freaking time, but I don't see any press outrage about that. I have personally witnessed more civilians being killed or having been killed by the US military than Blackwater was ever deemed responsible for, and that was in one nine-month tour of duty, so where is the outrage? Why have the US Marines not been outlawed and forced to restructure? Where is our accountability?

I'll tell you where it is. It has been drowned in a political sea, lost to the whims of politicians eager to please their constituencies and journalists fearful of reprimanding the conduct of the amred forces. It has become custom to hate the war, rather than the troops, but in doing so we have not only sabotagued the efforts of our troops but the war itself. It is pure madness. It is also curious to note that the PR lessons from the Vietnam war have stuck with us through the decades while the military lessons did not. The US never lost a battle in Vietnam, but US forces hamstrung by restrictive rules of engagement and poor training managed to lose the war anyway.

Private companies are not subject to such perpetual foolishness. They are hired by clients and they are expected to perform. If they fail, they are fired. If they are fired often enough, they cease to exist. Not so with state militaries. They can fail and be wasteful time and time again with no immediate consequence. In time the populace can change the legislature and the generals it appoints, but nothing ever changes the flawed structure. Generally, troops do not give a flying crap about the political careers of their officers. We can change generals and Rules of Engagement and what have you until the end of time but it will never result in a truly effective fighting force until we use a soldier-centric tactical doctrine, and that will never happen so long as there is political control of the military.

We have learned these lessons already, and the US armed forces support a doctrine of small-unit leadership in name, but not in practice. As a Marine NCO I can tell you that NCO stands for No Consequential Orders. That's not the cleverest acronymn but it's the best I could do at the moment:DL Nonetheless, it is true. As politicians become more involved in warfare we are actually regressing to the kind of military thinking prevalent in the Crimean War. That is, we are entrusting war to field-grade officers and politicians, not to the men who are actually fighting. The lessons that the Wehrmacht of 44' taught us have already been forgotten in favor of the ever-popular belief that some central authority can somehow orchestrate such complex matters with greater efficiency.





Private companies are concerned with profit first, second, and third.

The last thing we need is to put our security in the hands of corporations not interested in security but in profit.


And I suppose that the TSA puts altruism and public service first, second and third? Maybe you should tell that to the TSA employees and administrators, as they seem to be pissing everyone off by offering unsatisfactory service at a ridiculous price.

What, exactly, makes you think that a person serving a government agency is any less driven by profit than a person serving a private compny? TSA employees go to work every day because they are paid to do so. TSA administrators lobby congress for more funding for the same reason. There is no nobility in their actions, just a purported nobility in order to justify additional funding.

What makes all this very bad is that we cannot get rid of them if they fail. If the federal government were to employ private security agencies, those agencies would live in perpetual fear of being dismissed from service for failing to provide stisfactory results. They would also live in fear of customer complaints. It only takes a few dissatisifed customers to apply political pressure to a government-sponsored company. Politicians have elections to think about and constituencies to satisfy. To fund a company that is not doing its job is political suicide. As such, the companies they choose to employ will be treading on eggshells to provide the best possible service at the best possible price. They cannot do otherwise or they will be gone.




You must have a very low opinion of the Military. Not to mention Fire Departments/EMS.


I do have a very low opinion of the military. I have served on the front lines and seen men killed for no reason other than the failures of the men who commanded them. I have personally wasted thousands of dollars' worth of taxpayer money because the military made it expedient to do so. I have also wasted thousands of dollars' worth of taxpayer money in a futile effort to protect my troops. We can talk about that more if you would like.

I don't really know anything about the fire department, but I do have a very low opinion of the EMS. The EMS was more than happy to shuttle me to a hospital two blocks away when I had a motorcycle acccident... to the tune of $500! To be fair, they did examine me and determine that I did not have a broken hip (after a lot of pressuring) for free, and I commend them for that, but their insistence that I take their ambulance to the hospital and pay a half-thousand dollars for the trouble was ridiculous. I'd rather crawl there myself.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. :yep:

Perhaps, but I'd much rather encourage you to question the nature of the state you place so much faith in. In the end, a state is comprised of people, no different from those who make a living from private enterprise.
Why would you assume that they who are employed by the state are any different from the rest of us? Is their cause somehow more noble because it is dressed in the rhetoric of politicians? What is it that makes them different?

[Snestorm]

The objective has been met ... that objective is fear.

Yep. That sentence says it all.

The governments' reach their objective of fear,
add a-little more security,
and take away a-little more freedom.

Just remember to check the price,
before you put it on the card.
No Refunds. No Returns.

[Skybird]

The background of the Delta attack:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1262/316225m1t1w620q80s1v609.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/i/316225m1t1w620q80s1v609.jpg/)

"Ssssh, my company produces body scanners, but sales numbers are not how we would like them,
so here I have a little deal to offer to you..."


found in: Der Tagesspiegel

[Fish]

Here is an article on full body scanners for airport security checkpoints.

I personally have no problem with them if someone wants to oogle my sagging belly and little package well thats just strange. But its not like its going to be on you tube.

Though I can understand why some folks might find it 'invasive'. Lets say a famous 'hot' acteress was asked to pass through the scanners. Those motives may be questioned.

Anyhow get out those x-ray glasses and let me know what you see :03:



http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Airports-Slow-to-Receive-Whole-Body-Imaging-Scanners-80233757.html

Privacy concearns



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091229/D9CSM1SG1.html


The latest scanners do there job without human intervention.

[SteamWake]

The latest scanners do there job without human intervention.

As mentioned in another thread I overheard an interview with a former El AL security official "We dont need machines ! We need pepole, qualified and dilligant pepole." Then he went on about how 'profiling' had stopped many hijacking / terror attempts in the past.

[Onkel Neal]

This article is one of the best written (http://www.slate.com/id/2240209/) and most compelling I have seen. Although I am not happy with the necessity of full body scans, I sure like the feeling of safety this lends.

I've always wanted to find a good way to express this:

"If there are a hundred tactics and I protect against two of them, I'm not making you safer. If we use full-body scanning, they're going to do something else."

Wrong again. It's true that if we use the scanners, bombers will change tactics. But that isn't failure. It's success. Security is a constant arms race against innovative malefactors. By pursuing them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you force them to Yemen. By tracking their cell phones, you force them to use couriers. By hunting them with drones in the mountains, you force them into cities. You can't stop them, but you can cripple them and keep them off balance.

Whether it's police, security or military action, war on terror, war on drugs, etc. someone always says "you can't win".

Lol, I love the comment below
Because if you and I are squeamish about nooodity, imagine how a middle-of-the-road practicing Muslim feels about a naked scan of his non-terrorist wife?

[Skybird]

This is also a way of asymmetrical war. And terrorism wins it in that it dictates what is being done, how big investments are beeing made, how many liberties and rights get reduced or cut - and that it already is one step ahead when the technology gets fielded. Just days ago it was reported that Al Quaeda already is trainign systematically with body scanners and systematically tests what methods work to trick them.

This is all about symptoms. As long as the disease exists and is strong enough to prject power and influence (which is also a problem with our weakneing culture! Remember Huntington'S thesis of a clash of civilisations being fought in the cultural field, not so much in miliutary field anymore), the symptoms must be adressed, yes. However, be aware of the financial, economical and non-material costs, too. I feel that this is a race where we can only avoid loosing battles (= no plane blown up). But how we could win the war (the confrontation with foreign cultures disliking western culture and learning it only in order to learn how to defeat it), I do not really see as long as we do not will to play real mean and dirty. just look at china, India, increasingly Brzail, and islam anyway. They all give a rat'S a$$ for western moralistic demands. Trying to buy them, bribe them or appease them, has failed.

If you want full security, then passengers must board the plane naked, and being bound with handcuffs.

Unfortunately so far only in German:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,669589,00.html

And in a wider context, on the cultural clash and the cultural defeat of the West:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/Michael-Schindhelm-Dubai-Peter-Sloterdijk;art772,2988289

[geetrue]

Quote:
"Because if you and I are squeamish about nooodity, imagine how a middle-of-the-road practicing Muslim feels about a naked scan of his non-terrorist wife?"

Muslim women shave acording to an old Muslim law to obey the husband (NS)

so TSA would be looking directly at her birthing space :o

Dogs are the answer: "Just let them smell your crotch mam ... "

"Sir don't get angry with me it's just a dog" ...

we must maintain security and a sense of humor at the same time. :up:

[Rockstar]

Only if it's known any of you mugs are flyin in the same plane with me. :D

[Skybird]

I listened to a longer analysis of the security at the airport in Tel Aviv, on radio. Very convincing, imo. They act by the principle of not trying to find the bomb, but to find the guy smuggling it. that means: more psychological training, more behavior observation (and with greater competence), less technology.

Instead of rushing to spend much money on even more scanners that sooner or later will be bypassed by terrorists, we should learn from the Israeli model, and invest in training and paying security personell according to their standards. It makes much more sense. And their record is better than that of any machine. The West, especially America, is obsessed with too much hightech at the cost of too little HUMINT.

[Platapus]

we should learn from the Israeli model

There is a problem with scalability.

Israel has about 11 million airline passengers per year and the United States has about 700 million airline passengers per year.

Israel has seven airports. The United States has 556 Primary Airports and I don't know how many secondary and smaller airports.

While the numbers of passenger/airport/year are about the same, the logistics involved are not.

According to ACAIS our 20th busiest airport (Fort Lauderdale) alone handles more passengers than all of Israel per year. (http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/)

Five of our smallest commercial airports (numbers 552-556) handle more passengers per year, than all seven of Israel's airports.

One can't assume that what works in a small scale can be effective/efficient at a much larger scale.

The best airport security I ever experienced was in South Korea during the Olympics.

The first security check you had to pass through was at the entrance to the airport parking lot.

Second, you never left your luggage until it was screened (outside the terminal).

After check in, you went through the scanners and you were wanded and patted down (different line for genders).

In the skyway just prior to entering the aircraft, you were wanded and patted down.

And you know what? It went fast. Everyone was professional and through. All throughout the airport there were teams of armed guards patrolling and there were cameras everywhere.

There was no profiling. Everyone got the same search and it went smoooooth.

It was the safest I have ever felt in an airport.

[Skybird]

I do see no reason why a country with more flight traffic should not train it'S security staff in the Israeli way, just becasue there are more passengers to be checked - these higher passenger numbers are accopmanied by more security staff already now, right? In that docu I listend to they said that in Tel Aviv passnegers should be 3 hours early to undergo all security checks and not miss the plane. In Germany the major hubs currently have waiting times of 2-4 hours, due to the current security status. where is the difference? And if short distance travels via airplane gets discouraged by having such a waiting time, then I would say that this is only a good thing. Professionals got quoted in that docu that they can absolutely imagine that things get done on European hubs like they do it in Israel. Layman that I am i do not see myself in a position to question them on that statement on security's logistic capacity.

[Skybird]

A thorough read on the matter:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-669968,00.html


Many believe that a different -- and better -- approach already exists. It too involves inspections, even stringent inspections, with the difference being that more emphasis is placed on the potential perpetrator, on things like suspicious behavior, while his tools become a secondary concern. The Israelis prefer this method, known as profiling, but Europeans see it as a violation of their culture, which for many is inconceivable.

In Europe today, all passengers are required to throw away items like their children's sharp-tipped compasses or walking sticks found in their carry-ons, because the assumption is that everyone is a suspect. The question is: What good has all this done? And where does one draw the line? How many risks can air travelers nowadays endure before deciding to give up flying altogether, for safety reasons?
(...)
In a recent incident in the United Kingdom, the members of a German flight crew, pilots and flight attendants, triggered a security alarm because they were carrying cups of coffee. When they asked security officials whether it would be sufficient to drink a few sips of their coffee, to prove that the liquid did not pose a threat, they were told that regulations required them to either drink up or throw away the coffee.

Drink up? A passenger booked on an Air Berlin flight from Düsseldorf to Kavala, Greece, decided to comply with security officials' requests, removed a bottle of port from his carry-on luggage and, instead of throwing it away, drank the entire bottle at the checkpoint. But then he was not allowed on the flight, because he had become too inebriated.

"It's a classic case," say airport inspectors. In other words, it happens again and again. In another incident, a passenger was carrying a tube of toothpaste that was almost empty. But because it was a 125-milliliter tube and only 100-milliliter tubes are permitted, it was confiscated at the security checkpoint. Why? Because rules are rules.

If a group of Islamists that was discovered in the United Kingdom in 2006 had hatched a terrorist plot to drive the Kuffar, or infidels, to insanity, it would have come a long way. As a result of its foiled plot, the world is now confronted with liquid checks that have little to do with reason or even logic. And if the jihadists had wanted to rob the "Crusaders," they would have been tremendously successful. To this day, passengers at Frankfurt Airport alone are forced to throw away 1.5 tons of liquids every day, "the biggest wave of abandonment of ownership that has ever occurred in the history of postwar Germany," says Horst Lang, who runs the federal police unit at Berlin's Schönefeld.
(...)
Counterterrorism work is primarily the work of police and intelligence agencies, whose job is to keep their eye on potential attackers and trace their connections, infiltrate groups and compare data. Lufthansa CEO Wolfgang Mayrhuber was correct when he said that "not a single terrorist has been caught yet by examining carry-on luggage," and he still is today. The most recent case, the thwarted Detroit bombing, underpins Mayrhuber's remark. Abdulmutallab strolled through the security checkpoint carrying his bomb-making ingredients.
(...)
Despite the fact that airport inspectors have been scrutinizing the clear plastic bags since 2006, not even industry insiders are aware of any inspector ever having discovered liquid explosives. And how could they? To this day, airports still lack the kind of imaging technology in their passenger security checkpoints that would make it possible to detect these substances. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the liquid is kept in carry-on luggage, which is banned, or displayed in clear plastic bags, as required -- or whether it is concealed in a half-liter bottle (banned) or filled into small, 100-milliliter bottles (required). "Only the size is checked," says the chief of security for a German airline, "nothing else."

Naturally, a terrorist could combine the contents of several small bottles after passing through security, perhaps in an airport bathroom. And several attackers could combine the contents of their small bottles to yield even more explosive material.

There is another rule which an official with the Brussels commission, who also happens to be an aviation security expert, describes with two words: "regulatory overkill." Under the rule, anyone flying into Europe from a non-European country with his carry-on luggage containing an item like a bottle of Glenfiddich whiskey, which he purchased in a duty-free shop before takeoff, can enter the EU and leave the airport with the bottle. But what he clearly cannot do is board another plane with the bottle in his carry-on bag, or else the Glenfiddich will end up in the trash first.

This raises an important question: Why shouldn't a terrorist somewhere in the world who has managed to board a plane bound for Germany with liquid explosives in his carry-on luggage detonate his bomb during the plane's approach to a German airport? Or in the terminal? Why should he even attempt to board another flight in Germany?

Besides, many a terrorist will simply ask himself: Why should I pack liquid explosives in my carry-on luggage in the first place when there are so many other, much easier ways to bring down an airliner? The walk-through metal detector is called that for a reason: because it only responds to metal. But would-be bomber Abdulmutallab simply walked through the metal detectors with his powder and liquids attached to his body. The devices beep occasionally for random checks, but that's about the extent of it.
(...)
However, many experts no longer believe in this approach, this method of waiting for the next attack so that a security loophole can then be closed afterwards. The most prominent among those experts is Rafi Ron, the former chief of security at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv.

His mantra is to look for dangerous people first and only then to search for dangerous objects. According to Ron, the basic pattern of attacks has always been the same since 2001. Whether it was shoe-bomber Richard Reid, the London gang with its soft-drink bottles or the Nigerian in the foiled Detroit bombing, all were looking for a gap in security -- which they found.

"It happens again and again, and yet we still don't change our approach to security," says Ron, who swears by the Israeli method. He founded a security company that offers a program designed to enable security officials to detect criminals on the basis of their behavior. He does business with airports in Boston, Phoenix and Miami. In Miami alone, says Ron, close to 300 suspects, including many drug dealers, have been pulled out of airport waiting lines within the last four years. He has also presented his program to German federal police officials in Potsdam outside Berlin, who found it "interesting." The agency is currently examining whether the use of specially trained employees as "active patrols" in airports and train stations could be a promising strategy.

The behaviors Ron's program is designed to detect are related to high levels of adrenaline output, warning signals inspectors can look for, such as perspiration, bulging veins, nervous glances and a few other signs that are only visible to trained eyes.

The approach is called profiling, and it goes hand-in-hand with another idea, also a radical departure from conventional practice at European airports: trusted traveler programs. "Our biggest mistake is to treat all passengers as being equally dangerous. This actually results in a decline in security," says Ron. So why not give so-called "trusted travelers," such as businesspeople with frequent flyer status, the option to register once and undergo a thorough check? These passengers could then pass through a fast lane for all future flights. "We need the time to search for the real suspects," says Ron.
(...)
We need better-trained people for this," he says. And he too believes in the third approach. "What we are doing today is pure show. Instead, we should think about which perpetrators have the potential to commit attacks in aviation."

[Onkel Neal]

Newark TSA Security Officer Walked Away from Post (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/newark-airports-security-cameras-broken-slowed-tsa-security/story?id=9494827)

The TSA cameras were not working, the TSA officer left his post.
At 5:21 p.m. a man who had been caught on camera loitering nearby walked through the exit lane into the sterile area. By 5:22 p.m. the TSA officer had returned to his podium, and at 5:23 p.m. a bystander was seen telling the TSA officer what happened.

The TSA had to get access to Continental's cameras to figure out what happened. I'm dismayed the Govt has to rely on private enterprise to manage its responsibilities.

[Platapus]

I am starting to wonder if this whole thing was not staged.... just wondering

No cameras operating, guy loitering, TSA leaves for one minute, no one can find the guy.......

[Skybird]

German TV news today. The Slowakian police smuggled several packages of plastic explosives into the luggage of regular passengers, real explosives, and none of the people knowing it, they all were really civilian, unknowing "victims of circumstance". They wanted to see how many came through at Slowakian airport controls. Many did. Then they collected the exploisves again, and the flights left the country. They just forgot one package. The passenger landed in I think Ireland - and there again the explosives in his luggage were not found. Days later the police stormed his appartment and interrogated the poor fellow for hours , who did not know of nothing, after the Slowakian police had told the Irish police.

The excuse of the Slovakians: it was only the explosives, no fuses.

We need expensive body scanner, and many of them (it also secures jobs in the factories). Yea, sure.:yeah: Body scanners would have prevented this dilletantism demonstrated in two countries.

P.S. I fear this is the trick to cheat the Israeli profilers, too: to smuggle the bomb into the luggage of unsuspicious civilian passengers who indeed do not know of anything, and thus cannot show signs of being nervous. Drug smugglers already do this.

[Platapus]

Dogs, I think can do a better job at detecting high explosives, gunpowder, gun oil and such.

[Wolfehunter]

Naw I don't like the idea of these high tech scanners.

I'm not here to show them my personal credentials.. :D

But there are other options of traveling...


The only solution to prevent terrorism.. Build a wall around your land and prevent people from entering your country... Shoot anything in your kill zone wall. Then your free... but are you really free?.. I wonder....

What next steps are they going to take after this nonsense scanner? What? Shoving probes up your arse? ;)

I say nay to this crap.. It going to far... :down:

[Platapus]

The only solution to prevent terrorism.. Build a wall around your land and prevent people from entering your country... Shoot anything in your kill zone wall. Then your free... but are you really free?.. I wonder....




And the Timothy Mc Veigh's? or the Major Hasan's?

You can NEVER be safe from terrorism. :nope:

Not that I am considering Hasan a terrorist.

[August]

Nobody can be safe from a lone killer like McVeigh but there wasn't a group or organization that put him up to it either.

[Wolfehunter]

And the Timothy Mc Veigh's? or the Major Hasan's?

You can NEVER be safe from terrorism. :nope:

Not that I am considering Hasan a terrorist.Exactly my point.. If your nation is about freedom... then there are risks... Even criminals have a level of rights.. May not be right but hey...

Ether practice freedom or become fanatics under a police state.

The way I see it soon you all be wearing GPS dog tags or anal probs.... :hmmm: Big brother is watching.. :yeah:

[August]

Ether practice freedom or become fanatics under a police state.

Just curious, why are the two extremes the only choices?

[Wolfehunter]

Just curious, why are the two extremes the only choices?Because nothing is normal anymore... if there was ever such a thing... :D

Could there be a middle ground? Maybe... I haven't seen it.. Too much chaos.

[August]

Because nothing is normal anymore... if there was ever such a thing... :D

Could there be a middle ground? Maybe... I haven't seen it.. Too much chaos.

Sure you have. Not having the freedom to yell "Fire!" does not turn you into a slave of the state.

[Wolfehunter]

Sure you have. Not having the freedom to yell "Fire!" does not turn you into a slave of the state.I have yet to see that happen.. ;) But most people don't want to loose there comfort zone... As long as they think there immune to the global events nothing will change.