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

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-bea...-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

[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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by 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.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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.

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by 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.

You seem to be inordinately well informed about Jims genitalia.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

No, Jim really does have a python...
(from tarjak's photoarchive)


The laidies run in terror from what I hear.

[nikimcbee]

I just had a great idea. 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.

Just think of all the money they would make off Dowly alone!

It would practically be a self funding department.

[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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.