Calls for US nudie perv scanner 'opt-out day' An online protest campaign is urging air travellers in the USA to observe "national opt out day" on 24 November and insist on their right to be felt up by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operatives rather than submit to the new nudie perv scanner technology. It is feared that the protest could overburden the TSA's …
I know that it is not much fun if you opt out, with stories about being taken to separate rooms for very 'invasive' searches. But at least that side of the Atlantic you get the option. Not in the UK. I think people should be able to protest a technology that was rushed out after the trouser bombing incident. A technology a lot of people in the know say would not have detected this type of bomb anyway.
I would much prefer my privates being smelt by a bomb dog any day of the week. Probably more effective to.
So a tip of the hat to the campaign and I hope it goes well....
Can someone tell me why we are not rolling out sniffer dogs for this. I would have thought that the advantages would have been clear.
Less people are worried about a dog smelling their privates than having an extended pat down.
They can pick up explosives the machines can't.
You can quickly scan the whole queue of people instead of having to pick random people. If you want to keep the machines, use the dogs to pick out who you scan.
No health worries. Maybe people who have allergies...
So what's the deal. I bet you it is because using the dogs would be more expensive. So the message is that the goverments don't mind keeping you a bit safe as long as it does not cost too much. But they don't care about how invasive or potentially unhealthy that option is.
Has anyone heard if they even considered the dog option and why they ruled it out? Really I would love to know what the deal is....
On the same lines, it's also unacceptable to be viewed naked or touched by non-family members so full body scanners and pat downs should not be used on muslims.
If security measures are in place then they should be applied to everybody whether they like it or not. I may not relish the thought of a scan, I may not be bothered but as it stands I don't have a choice, neither should anybody else.
A claws in the report forbids use of dogs for 'health and safety' reasons.
On the subject of expense though, these machines look pretty expensive and run a version of Windoze XP, so the license for that will add up.
I bet you could buy any sniffer dog several lifetimes worth of dog food for the price of just one of these machines.
Mine's the one with a tin of Chum in the pocket.
In some places, notably California, the dogs are trained to sniff for fruit. They're quite sensitive, having had a carry-on with a couple of bananas that were eaten on the flight, I've had a dog come sit by my bag more than once. So far the "has been used to carry fruit but there's none there now" has been good enough and I've not had my bag searched.
I'm in the UK, and last time I had to fly, I got the train to France and used one of their airports instead of Heathrow. I think they only scan people going to the US and afaik they give you an opt-out, and use mm-wave not DNA-smashing x-rays. Added bonus, the airport was much nicer. Cost me about the same, and there is £2000 odd of airfares that BAA will never see a cut of.
It's all theatre and we all know it. It's _very_ _expensive_ kit that is yet another excuse to be arrogantly abusive while harassing millions of people, and even a simple high school math sum will tell you it won't catch another terrorist. It, simply put, isn't worth the money, nevermind the invasive harassment, the false positives, the time lost, the collateral damage, the dishonesty, the outright lies, and so on, and so forth. And now, for a nice cherry on top, they're being abusive just to be abusive. The whole thing has started to recurse.
So I do endorse and support this product and/or service. Just get rid of all the scanners and all of the TSA and heck all of the DHS entirely and put some competent people in charge. Schneier for US security chief with a mandate to only enact that which he can prove will work.
- to whom? I think you'll find it's worth the money to Michael Chertoff, a former director of US "Homeland Security" and subsequently "co-founder of the Chertoff Group, a security and risk-management firm whose clients include A MANUFACTURER OF BODY-IMAGING SCREENING MACHINES'' (my caps). The aforementioned client has profited to the tune of about $25 million since the beginning of 2010, largely thanks to Mr Chertoff's contribution to the debate. This article from The Washington Post, for example -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101746.html
Good job, Michael. You must have been working really hard during your holidays to produce that in the five days between the discovery of the underwear bomber and the press deadline for the Jan 1 paper.
Having read the Washington post article, it seems that Chertoff is using the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was not on the suspected terrorist /no fly list as justification to put the perv scanners in airports.
That's Michael Chertoff, the second United States Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush and co-author of the USA Patriot Act, consultant to and shareholder in Rapiscan Systems, which has received $250 million in scanner orders, complaining that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was not on Homeland Security's no-fly list.
Conspiracy theorist, moi? never..
it has been suggested (in some medical forums) that there may be a link between backscatter radiation and cataracts. The concensus was that in ten years time the legal folks will have enough evidence to stop thier use and sue the companies making these machines into the ground.
When I worked fro cray, some senior staff would travel to the states roughly twice a month.
Their laptops (identical to otehr staff laptops) ended up with disk faults in less that two years.
The other identical machines lastes the full three years and after replacement lasted many mor years secondary use.
I somehow doubt US x-ray machines have changed much.
X-Ray machines have nothing to do with the faults in the laptops. After all, X-Ray scanners have not been used on people until pretty much now.
On a transatlantic flight you get much higher radiation dose just by sitting in the plane, so may be that was the cause of the problem.
However, it is much likely that the laptops were failing purely because they were shaken and bumped all the time...
Also back ground radiation is randomly distributed.
The back scatter machine uses a tight beam which is scanned over you.
The x ray frequency is designed to bounce off skin.
Ths skin and exposed sensitive areas (like eyes) will suffer.
The groin area is scanned with extra intensity.
I will always ask to be patted down.
All ionising radiation causes damage and is carcinogenic.
How do people actually get offended by this sort of thing? So someone can see a crappy, blurred image of your genitals, well, kinda. Do these people not visit the doctor? What happens when they need to have an investigation "down there" - do they cry, piss and moan about the depravement and violation that they feel? No, they say something along the lines of "doctors have seen it all" - why not extend that assumption of professionality to the airport crew? I couldn't give a rats ass who sees me in the buff, blurry monitor or not - and if it means reducing queuing time, not having to take metal objects off, or anything like that, all good IMO (the reduction in terror threat is by and large a moot point to me...)
As for the pat down scenario, oh no, someone is touching my clothed body, how horrible, what a sinful situation... Honestly, get over yourselves, for the 1 in 1000000 people in this world who are truly unbelievably stunning (or a-list celebs at a push), yes, you will likely give someone patting you down a nice thrill; but for the rest of the world, they are simply prodding at someone and doing their job. Think of it like an abbatoir worker handling a carcass. They want you to move on as quickly as you do.
Bunch. Of. Idiots.
As you clearly didn't read the article, the main concern about these back scatter X-ray scanners is health related.
Sure some people may be prudes (and who are you to judge other peoples hangups?), but there are a lot more people who are scared these devices could be causing skin cancer and cataracts (as someone mentioned above), and having other negative impacts on our health.
The fact is the only studies done so far have been done by the developers of the devices who have a vested interest in saying they are safe. Until there are some independant studies done, why should our options be a) submit to a device that could cause serious health problems, or b) opt for ourselves, and our children to have our private parts fondled by complete strangers?
"The only studies done..." Bull shit. x-ray radiation and its effects have been studied heavily since its discovery. Just because there's a new term, "backscatter" does not change the fact that it is an x-ray, and that equals MEASURABLE radiation and exposure. Exposure to backsacatter is no different from exposure to direct x-ray, except that the IMAGING SYSTEM uses that radiation differently, and allows for far less of it to be used, fractions of it in fact. The idea here is that instead of smashing a crap load of x-rays THROUGH you, and looking for an image on the back side, they use extremely low doses of radiation and instead of imaging what passed through you, they're only interested in the "scatter" that did NOT, aka, it bounced off an object. A typical x-ray is several seconds of exposure per image, at as much as 100 times the dose of this thing you spend less than 1 second exposed to.
Here's a FACT for you: You are exposed to more rads on a few hour flight during daylight hours just sitting in the plane than you are walking through this device. Try applying some actual science to your objection.
We don;t need to do a study on the machine, we already KNOW what radiation does and does not do. Using it a different way does not change the exposure readings or the amount of radiation used. the machine NEEDS no study, other than to confirm it emits what it claims to (which is in fact independently audited).
I don't really care about the sensibilities of a bunch of goons and their fancy pervin' machines.
We don't need them. We simply don't. Basic math will tell you that, and there's been no studies to prove that this very obvious, very basic math is in fact wrong. The reason we have the security theatre anyway is make-believe, born from political panic. That's all there is to it.
You want to refuse this low res, B&W, simple surface scan operated by someone who (after being pre-screened for psychological conflicts) can not even see you in person to compare to the scan (they're in a different room withj no visibility to the TSA screening area other than pressing a button to alter them to scan you again) and will never know your name unless you're found with contraband, and who's forced to see every fat and elderly person equally in "the buff" as well as the possible rare few that, then here's the deal: The women in your family can never again see a doctor, let along a Gyno, and can't wear bathing suits any more revealing than those used in the 30s and 40s, nor show cleavage or wear revealing shits that expose the bra line at all.
This is a CLINICAL scan, and on so less personal of a level and with such less details its simple absurd to even compare it to a routine doctor's physical, let alone people at the beach or pool who see more of you in greater detail than these machines do. Doctors btw are NOT psychologically screened, and have access to every personal family detail about you, and continually gossip with their staff, your your 13 year old is gonna jump up on that table and spread-em same as your wife. If you're OK with that, you have to be OK with this. You might not like it, but its a fact, it;s gonna happen.
You HAVE to get scanned. It's either this machine, or a FAR more invasive hands on approach. Don't like it? Don't fly.
The airport is not a hospital. Getting scanned doesn't make you better. Neither machine nor any hands-on approach is actually necessairy. If you think they are, then worse things are wrong. Like, wrong rules, incompetent security forces, and all the other glaring things that are so obviously wrong today. Please stop repeating. Please stop repeating. Please stop repea...
No Michael, I no longer take you seriously.
After reading your comments on this matter. I get the impression that you are of the opinion that "other people" shouldn't have a say in this kind of thing and therefore what they want or indeed in this case don't want, doesn't matter. This in turn leads me to believe that you are a total cretin..
However, having said that, I also think that if you don't want this, then don't fly. I sure as hell won't be. I find the prospect of these measures to be much more scary / intrusive / risky, than any current terrorism threat.
But, since you're happy to put yourself in that position, I hope you enjoy your next run through airport security and don't pay any mind what so ever about the security goons behind the scenes, examining and recording your naked body (and you wife and kids, if you indeed have them).
BTW, can't sniffer dogs detect the smallest amount of explosives with no problems? Or can they not do that anymore?
In response to: "You HAVE to get scanned. It's either this machine, or a FAR more invasive hands on approach. Don't like it? Don't fly."
At Security: "Hello, luvvy. No, darling, I don't want one of those x-file doo-dads to invade my body. Would you give me a VERY thorough and delightfully invasive pat-down, oh, and and a box of tissues? Thanks, sweetypie. Take your time, pleeth.
Ooohh, Aaahh, Cantona!!.
I betheeth you, do it again when I've had to nip out for a fag. Or two. Ta muchly."
OK, there's a chance of being frisked by an "uphill gardner", so you might be "shit-out-of-luck", but...
Yep. Let's see.
Every one of these people are far more exposed on a far more frequent bases to people who can see them up close and personal. Every one of the women spread-em wide for a Gyno typically (hopefully) at least once a year. Men let their balls be cupped by a doc when they cough. Everyone goes through a routine physical at lease every few years, almost or complely naked, with not only a doc who knows them personally in the room, but the passing nurses and staff as well.
Every one of these people are also full willing to strap on a bathing suet, pretty much equally if not MORE revealing on a regular basis, in public.
LOOK at these images. They're gray-scale, faces are blurred, they highlight dense material not identifying skin marks, and are low enough in resolution to see an object, but not the DETAIL of an object. They can't pan, zoom, rotate these images, or focus on specific parts. More over, the people seeing them see then 1) all day long (dunning sensitivity to them), 2) are in another room, where they can not see you, and have no idea who you are, and 3) are looking for DANGEROUS THINGS, not boobies.
So what. Someone who will never see you in person gets to see a slightly more penetrating, but far from superior view of you that any Joe Bob at the beach, and far less than you let your doctor see. These people are forced to see not just your curves you might like to hide, but the curves of people that should be hidden... For every half nice looking (in fuzzy B&W) body that comes through, they're forced to see 50 they'd rather not see.
There's many ways to get around using these scanners: get a far more invasive pat down, get national security clearance levels sufficient to walk right on by, or DON'T FLY! The plane must be secure from terorists. Do you seriously care so much about someone you'll never meet seeing a bad image of you on a screen (and having no association of it to you personally) that you'll risk another 9/11, even when you let a doctor, someone who knows you personally, not only see you, but feel you up and sick things inside you? Get your priorities straight... these people are themselves screened and chosen for these jobs. Trust me, they'de rather not be seeing you this way, but they feel it has to be done.
"More over, the people seeing them ... 2) are in another room, where they can not see you, and have no idea who you are,"
Not everywhere, they're not. At Schiphol airport in Amsterdam the monitor is attached to the boarding gate side of the monitor and is checked by the same people who watch you come through the metal detector. Not only can they see you and your scanner image a the same time, but so can all the other passengers in the area.
Steve
You said "Everyone goes through a routine physical at lease every few years, almost or complely naked, with not only a doc who knows them personally in the room, but the passing nurses and staff as well."
No we don't. I haven't been to a doctor where I had to disrobe in coming up on ten years, and don't plan on it the next ten.
You also said: "Get your priorities straight... these people are themselves screened and chosen for these jobs."
Actually, no, they're employed by the lowest bidder, they weren't CHOSEN for the job, they applied for and got the job.
I think that the money spent on all of these preventative meaures would be better spent on scrap metal recycling, replacement airplanes and funeral expenses.
Just a sample -- 2007 August.. single handluggage has been introduced again and laptops to be taken out of bags.. I am entering Heathrow T1 domestic and pulled out the laptop from the bag as I am entering the security and the 'Airport Safety Co-Ordinator' says 'Put the laptop in the bag..' I say ' the laptop would come out before I proceed less than 10 feet and there is enough space in the bag to put it in'. And his voice raises. 'Sir, you NEED TO PUT THAT IN THE BAG'. Everyone looks at me and I say 'can I speak to your boss?' And he still goes high voice 'SIR. IF YOU ARE NOT PUTTING THE COMPUTER IN THE BAG PLEASE LEAVE THE QUEUE. ONLY ONE BAG ALLOWED'. I hit my head couple of times put the laptop in the bag, zip it up and then take ten steps and then have to take off my laptop, shoe, belt, glasses, watch all out. Anger and irritation stayed in though.
Can't ever think of a Doctor or Nurse being that thick headed and arrogant.. Atleast all the ones I have met in my life..
Paris because she would understand rules better than those thickheads..
"Bunch. Of. Idiots."?
Consider this: a rape victim. How would a rape victim potentially feel about this?
They'd have two options: let someone see them naked, or let someone grope them.
Either option sound good to you?
What about a child abuse victim? Spousal abuse? What about the kid that has been tormented for years by his or her peers about their bodies?
Yes, most of us aren't fortunately in these shoes, but when a "screening" technology starts victimizing people (directly or indirectly) who have already had horrible things done to them I think it's time to draw a line in the sand.
I'm not even going to mention the "slippery slope" aspect, because we're already there. When these machines were introduced they said you'd always have the "pat down" option. What they failed to mention is the pat down option would be modified into a disgustingly violating action, purposely so to "encourage" people to step in to the Nudifier.
Sickening what people in the "free world" are willing to tolerate.
All well and good, until some determined nutter works out how to get through with a bomb and we go through the whole pointless charade once again! The nutters have already started posting their bombs again, just like the letter bomb campaigns we endured in the 70s.
Like I maintain, the terrorists have already won and never needed to lift a finger, they only needed to frighten the world's governments and all of a sudden the innocent live in fear and have their liberties and freedoms slowly eroded, while the terrorists sit there laughing at us.
You'd think it was almost planned that way from day one...
>All well and good, until some determined nutter works out how to get through with a bomb
Stuff it up their arse?
Should be capable of getting maybe a kilo up there with determination, plenty to take a plane out.
It's been done as well of course, although removing prior to detonation might be more effective.
this has been tried. I believe it was attempted by Abdullah Asieri in an assassination attempt against Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, of Saudi Arabia. As it turns out, the soft-fleshy bits of the would-be backside-bomber absorb most of the compression-wave as well as the shrapnal. Said prince, (as well as everyone except Mr. Asieri) received only minor wounds.
reports say it was "about 1 lb" which would be about .45 Kg
that we already know the scanners aren't protecting us, for they cannot. The job of figuring out who is going to wear semtex-lined bras and heading them off is for the secret services to do, and if they fail, the scanners aren't even up to the task of being a second line of defence. The pants bomber showed us that. It came down to a guy on a plane to hold him down where the bomber man had to have been picked up before he set foot in the airport. That's a double fail from the highly paid security services topped by a saving of the day by a thorougly disarmed vigilant citizen. How much more stark and dramatic do you want it?
While it has never been proved for certain there is a valid reason to believe that the "chechen liberation fighters" (as the western media likes to call them) blowing up two Russian passenger aircraft a few years back did it this way.
In any case, even if there was semtex in the bra it would have probably gotten away. There are tons of padded bras out there so (partial or full mastectomy till recently was nearly mandatory for breast cancer). If the airport staff will start calling all of them into the "inspection room" they will not get very far.
When someone stuffs some part of their innards with semtex. Backscatter scanners aren't going to detect *that* subtle ruse.
"Privacy whiner", huh? I'll keep my privacy, thanks, and trade off against the vanishingly small risk of having my flight blown up. There are plenty of places you can choose to live if you don't object to having no rights or freedoms. I'd rather this didn't get any closer to being one of them.
Three weeks ago, BA flight out of T5 to Hamburg. Despite taking off belt, shoes, coat, jacket, watch I still bleeped going through the metal detector arch. So, I was give a full wanding. Not a short 30 second job, but one that took several minutes.
That found nothing, so I was subjected to a very serious and intimate pat down. Well, its not so much a pat down as a full, hands on feel up ("err, whilst your down there ....").
The found nothing so I was taken to a full body screener fr a perv scan. It was operated by someone who would have looked more at home on a motorway maintenance gang than airport security. Why do they need a hi-res jacket in an airport? Anyway, I asked if I could opt-out, since I have now been wanded and touched up. The answer was simple "Yes, you have the option to not fly".
In fact the first scan didn't find anything so they did it again.
Not sure who I pissed off in the line, but I definitely got the 3rd degree. They still didn't find anything, but it did eat in to some serious drinking time in the BA lounge. And before anyone suggests that this them wanting to ogle some bimbo, think again: I am the wrong side of 50, grey, and overweight - not what you would call hot-tottie material !!!!
Welcome to Britain.
I would get my coat, but BAA would insist I had a perv scan.
and to get people like you making posts like this.
See, if no one got screened like this for no reason, then the perps would send people through. The machines ARE fallible, but they put on an impression, on regular basis, that they're finding things that are not there. A percentage of people are picked out and screened, if nothing more than to keep the people who have to be there to do them doing something other than posting on Face Book on their mobiles.
A single machine does not detect everything, even a wanding is not good enough, but you go through a metal detector, followed by a wand and a pat down, and then a x-ray scan, nothing's getting past.... Sometimes there's a marking on your ticket they're looking for, sometimes it's a seat number they're hitting, sometimes they do it just because someone looks bored, and sometimes it because something about you they know the person doing the scans detests and they're scanning you just to piss HIM off.
You want to fly, espeically internationally, this is the cost. get over it. If the TSA had its way, these would not be random at all but universally used. The reason they're not is manpower. We can't scan everyone to this level, so instead they make it clear that anyone could go through what you did, for little or no reason, and that gives the perps just enough pause to know its a serious risk to try getting something past them.
Is s pocketknife ever going to take down an airplane again (it took out 4 on 9/11), unlikely. The passengers will handle that *(maybe). However, no shoe bomb is getting onboard again. A laptop battery won't be a bomb. A couple of soda bottles a fireball cocktail when mixed together (yea, simple kitchen ingredients miked in the lavatory sink and a match could seriously damage if not take out a plane, did you not realize that's why you can't have a bottle of water come past security?) If we're not checking (or at least making the game look well played), then they will continue to try, and success breeds more attempts. They ARE trying, as is evidence by the toner cartridges that were very nearly successful).
You sir, are a sheep! Willingly flowing the flock and then trying to justify it with floored logic.
Even during Sep 11 less people died that die on US roads every year and that was a bad bad day. You would have to ring down several jumbos a year to kill as many as die on UK roads. Even with the security of ten years ago the risk when flying is far far less than your journey to the airport.
There is a law of diminishing returns and we've long since reached the point at which an addition measures have any effectiveness. This isn't about security, this is about controlling the population. If people accept this, what else can governments get them to accept. Its a power play.
I have various friends who have genuine reasons why both the scan and or the grope will traumatised. Rape, abuse, in-compatible genetalia to name three reasons. Just image if you are male, with the appropirate birth certificate, passport, etc. accept for one minor issue. You were born female. These transport Nazis will make your journey hell.
To (badly) quote Ben franklin "He who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither!"
What a bunch of softies the UK population has become. At one time people would stand up for their rights and tell officialdom to stuff it.
Now the bulldog has died; Mary's docile, wimpish sheep have arrived. They are not operated by certifiable idiots.
I stopped using UK airports years ago, opting for rail connected.Continental airports.
BAA (British Aeronautical Arseholes) have to easily the world's worst - obviously the UK thinks along these lines as they forced divestiture - and all they seem to be doing us to see who can harass the flying public most.
Next they'll actually be doing security checks on all that freight sitting under passenger's feet.
Doctors go to school for 7 years and are respected professionals doing their checks for our benefit.
Airport security are low paid wannabe hitlers that have been shown to liberally abuse their position. Add to that the literally minutes of training and I know who I would rather have seeing my meat n veg.
Let the train take the strain when you can. A marked reduction in flying and organised no-fly days would be good for the environment and leave lots of vested interests needing new underwear whilst applying pressure to junk the 'security' farce. Flying is a commercial enterprise. Tesco wouldn't do this when you walked into their stores because people wouldn't shop there. If you all blindly continue, like migrating animals, regardless of what they do, they will continue to treat you that way.
If your company wants to force you to fly, remind them of their financial liability when you get groped or irradiated at their behest. This is the age of the net. Video-conference whenever you can. That's what it's there for. Why make savings all over the place, impacting upon your operations, and then burn so much money and carbon flying people around the world? You need staff regularly in another country? Hire them there.
you do realize the "x-ray" exposure level of that machine is less than you are exposed to in sunlight in a few hours, right, or the rads you encounter in flight just by sitting in a seat 30,000 feet off the ground its the tiniest fraction of a photo x-ray since all they care about is detecting solids on the OUTSIDE of your skin. Its not a strong enough blast to pass fully through you. Also, x-ray radiation is not cumulative over life, just short spans of time. You can have several full-on chest x-rays each decade without crossing even potential danger ranges. This stuff is very well understood.
The radiation levels from this machine is not much different from that emitted from the luggage scanners. A device it is safe to stand by 10 hours a day 5 days a week for DECADES, and you;re worried about 30 seconds of exposure...
If you notice in these photo's they require the person being scanned to lift their arms above your head. If you can't do this they'll submit you for a pat down instead. This happened to me when I travelled back through Schipol when I had my arm in a sling after an operation.
...I am simply of the belief that people really give far too much of a shit about some things.
Oh no, someone, somewhere, who I will never meet, and will never meet me (though may have seen me, oh heavens), will see me naked, and possibly later have a wank. How terrible.
Doctors not abuse their position? Hello - Harold Shipman ring a bell? Other "responsible" positions, like that kindergarten teacher? Hell, they were even going to start teaching them how to spot nonces - good way of letting folk know what things to avoid doing eh?
The situation we are currently in - i.e. mega rich governments shitting themselves over potential massive civilian casualties caused by simple methods - dictates that they have some sort of response. These "x-ray" (!) machines are a good solution for checking if someone is carrying something they shouldn't. In combination with other solutions, it has the potential to save lives. I do personally think it is a lip service to the problem at hand, however that is how governments respond, so not a shock. I don't see them as any sort of health threat, as per Michael C, not dangerous!
So again it currently falls down to options:
1. Have some random person see a crap, non-colour picture of your naked body
2. Have someone poke around you with their fingers to check for concealed bad things
I'd rather 1, as I've had both, many times, and 1 was an awful lot fecking quicker!!
If on the off chance one of these machines does stop some plum walking through with 1/2lb semtex gaffa taped to his belly, then bugger me, it really will have been worth it all, but in the meantime, it's not exactly much of an inconvenience, whilst at the same time is another good deterant.
[/rant]
Especially the bit where you're admitting that the measures are essentially effect-free but that's to be expected from panic politicking, followed with concluding that they're therefore a good deterrent.
It still means giving up a little freedom for some fake security. And as they say, a false sense of security is worse than knowing you have no security at all.
Not to mention that the cost of the security theatre means we forego doing more useful things with the resources. So if we're going to fix this we're going to have to admit that the current options are crap and to start giving ourselves better options to choose from.
So the simple answer is: Don't do that then. Don't be panicking, don't be posing, don't waste anything at all on fake security. Instead figure out what really to do and then /do that/.
"If on the off chance one of these machines does stop some plum walking through with 1/2lb semtex gaffa taped to his belly"
The operative word in that sentence is *IF*. And even *IF* it does manage to detect someone with Semtex gaffa taped to their belly, will it pick up the Semtex lining of his briefcase or some other method that any inventive person can come up with to get explosives onto a plane?
The answer is probably not, so please don't be suckered by the nonsense of Security Theatre which is simply aimed at making our leaders look as if they are Doing Something to deal with the threats that can only really be fixed by a change of policy in the Middle East.
OK, let's make this fair. Hang these same example images up where everyone can see them while waiting to be abused in the security queue. Then see how many people agree to go through the machine with their kids, wife, mother, etc. I suspect most flyers have no idea how invasive these searches have become, and for little benefit.
We keep fighting yesterday's war. Go ahead and lock down the airports air-tight (which is a joke - just look at the cargo loophole for starters). The bombers will just head to our schools or malls. You can't protect it all, and what makes airplanes so worthy of all this special security? More people have been killed by bombs in cars, buildings, etc. than all the airplane terrorism combined. We lose thousands of innocent people each year to drunk driving. Where's the outcry and government intervention over that?
Life involves risk. Allow us to weigh the risk of flying vs. driving vs. the train vs. staying home holed up in our homes because we're scared to death of everything. Sorry, but given the risks of living today vs. even a hundred years ago when a bad infection could kill you and the life expectancy was 30 years less, I'll take whatever risks are out there now, sans government "help" thank you very much.
This post has been deleted by its author
terrorists dont board planes with a round object, fizzing away, labelled BOMB
idiots try taking stuff in shoes or baby milk, it's still only good if placed in an exact spot on the plane, and most these people will no doubt still do it and get it past security scanners....do they zoom in on shoes?
Mr terrorist has a mate who works airside, can get a pacjkage past the security either thrown over the fence for later retireval or in a piece of ordered kit, he'll then hide it in the plane for later retrieval.
All scanners will do, is catch the casual schoolkid or chav with his penknife or a bit of the funny old holborn. They have them frames and use them at railway stations, catch 10-15 "criminal tyopes" each time,....out of 10,000 people passing through, statistics tell you they missed at least 2-300 people carrying something illegal
These pictures suggest there are still areas that offer secrecy. The feet and the groin.
Of course the body cavities are completely obscured and offer considerable capacity in which to secrete material - after all babies are quite large.
Now we await the determined female bomber to demonstrate the futility of all this 'high tech' rubbish.
...like a dildo bomb. Had been thinking it even before we learned of the suppository bomber earlier this year, but you get the idea.
Here's another idea. Swallow a sealed packet in the bathroom just before the checkpoint, get past it (since the scans wouldn't be able to see into the esophagus), and then just employ your favorite emetic technique later on to get it out (say it was something you ate at the terminal).
I just wish someone would pull off some (LEO-backed) stunt to prove you can't stop truly bent anarchists (these aren't terrorists--they're out to destroy world order; terror's just their preferred weapon).
As if the excuse to roll out these naked body scanners using the XMAS / Underwear bomber (who was escorted on the aircraft via some state Representative) wasn't bad enough.
Consider,
1. The Government employee who must go TDY.
2. The fact there are mobile versions being aimed at Houses!
3. The Court system. What happens when your called to say Jury Duty and have to go through one of these things.
4. Business which won't happen because this is a barrier to business.
5. TSA calls you a "customer" (Yeah like a customer has a choice)
We need to revisit 911, and roll back these unconstitutional laws, and remove everyone who pushed such unconstitutional laws.
While some of you may be able to say you simply don't care. I can only counter that with the fact I worked on Jets, and I won't go through these devices.
Who ever created these devices ought to be arrested for war profiteering, but since we never declared any war I guess that angle won't work.
For years I've been struck by the boneheaded short-sightedness of a security network which is largely reactive in nature, such as our current air travel screening system. The system lurches through predictable "improvements" each and every time a terrorist is found out - but only after the exploit has already been detected once.
When you think about it, we only add on new security measures in reaction to efforts made by the terrorists. A fellow wears exploding trainers and we've all got to trudge around airports in our stockinged feet. Another fellow wears exploding smalls and we've all got to choose between being viewed in our altogether or be pawed like a teenage girl on a first date with a drunken perv. In both their cases, it was largely their incompetence as bomb constructors, specifically detonation device constructors, which foiled their attempts, not our security apparatus.
What I want to know is what is the official responce going to be when a terrorist is found to have successfully boarded a plane with a quarter-kilo of PETN stashed in a condom in his rectum. Or her vagina. Or what is the official responce going to be when a terrorist adapts the bog standard '12 swallowed condom" drugs mule gambit and fills his stomach with PETN-filled rubbers, one with a small detonator included? Are we then going to have to submit to full-body x-ray scans? MRI's? CAT-scans? Body-cavity searches?
Relying on a largely reactive security system virtually guarantees that the authorities will always being playing catch-up with the terrorists as long as this deadly 'game' persists.
Needless to say you really, really do NOT want to be the unfortunate with something like a DBS implant for controlling epilepsy, Parkinsons, heart pacemaker, prosthetic arm etc. These devices are labelled "Do not X-ray or MRI" for a good reason.
Its going to get to the point when people with these either take the risk of a potentially fatal malfunction or don't fly, travel by boat etc.
AC, because the first time someone flatlines after being scanned there will be hell to pay.
The story was missing a major TSA boner.
If you decide that your privacy is more important than your flight and tell the TSA pervs to get their pron elsewhere by sticking their people nuker and their grope down where they belong you can be subject to a $10k fine and imprisonment.
The fine is not so bad, 10k dollars is something like 30 EU since the rich folks in Washington robbed the taxpayers to pay the rich folks in the banks fatter bonuses but going to jail for saying no is a tad too far.
Put through a full pat down at Gatwick last week?
My wife and kids were only flying south for the winter! (I didn't get invited)
My 6 year old daughter got the full security search thing, I could only watch from entry to security.
She was visably disturbed, I couldn't help as her mum was waved through and she was alone.
It does appear that some security officers have a strange motive
My wife and 3 year old son, didn't get searched!! but 6yo daughter was held up for 10 minutes
The woman searching her must have had a reason! I wonder why
Those pics are revolting, made me feel physically sick! I'm not saying that to be funny either, those are gross. If that's what the security staff at the airports will have to look at each day then I say get rid of the scanners on taste issues at the least! Or at least provide baff bags to ground staff too!
all you rest are the morons!!!!!
Tempest: so you dont mind taking *days* getting places then???? and how do you stop the terrorists who will attack the continental plane you are on??? I would bet their 'prevention techniques' are much more aggressive than UK.... :D
yes, wrong side of 50, or wrong side of alive? It may be a 'blip' but if you were the person watching this, would you let it through, knowing that it may be the reason for terrorism or explosion????
Paul RND*1000: how do you KNOW that they dont???? I have seen pics ages ago, to show they do.. (3rd result in ggl...:P ) I think they are deliberately not saying the FULL capabilities....
I went to the USA last week, and was sent through one of these on the way home (all the yanks got to go through the normal archway, but not the Evil Foreigners). Noone mentioned anything about being able to object. I asked if it was the 'see you naked' scanner and they said 'no, this just shows weapons, like the others'. Obviously lies but you don't dare argue with the agents as they could cart you off to gitmo for a quick waterboarding session at the drop of a hat...
1. Doctors at some universities have stated their concern over the radiation to which passengers will be subjected; there is reportedly a small but definite increase in cancer risk. Spokesperson for the pilots union at one of the airlines raised concerns about pilots and other crew who have to go through security checks multiple times a day as part of their job, which would increase their cancer risk by quite a bit.
2. Passenger who refused the scan and the the grope was told he would then have to forego his flight. He was also threatened with a civil suit (on what grounds?).
*sigh*
lol, that made me chuckle!
For those who are failing to read what I am writing, I do agree with a lot of what is being said above regarding these measures probably being completely useless, I did say that in my last post - "lip service", etc. People who expect our government to do something radical and new to stop new, unknown threats are clearly not thinking that hard. They will be doing their best to stop new forms of attack, they aren't however, going to shout about it from the roofs, kinda a waste of time, dontcha think?
In the meantime using systems that could stop a known form of attack is a nice way to keep the nation feeling safer (arguably they probably aren't, that isn't the complete point here), whilst also being the best way of stopping that kind of attack again (agreed, unlikely to happen, but again, not the damn point).
others who have not read the posts.. the 'radiation ' is actually less than you would get, traveling in the airplane, going for a doc's checkup, or standing next to the microwave.... so its just paranoia, you are mostly safe...
people can moan all the like, until the next big terrorism happens... and then the SAME websites/papers will be saying..
dailytech: plane explosion, faulty scanners or lax staff to blame for not stopping terrorist plot??
rawstory: man let through scanners was terrorism head..
and I think they will pick up tinfoil or lead, and will swiftly take you for a BCS....
Oh, and refusing to go through security checks is your right, while it is their right to refuse you admission! they are NOT public places, it is their duty to protect customers and their business..
>>others who have not read the posts.. the 'radiation ' is actually less than you would get, traveling in the airplane, going for a doc's checkup, or standing next to the microwave.... so its just paranoia, you are mostly safe...<<
Right, but remember that this is highly focused radiation that is INTENDED to go through YOUR body. Those other radiation elements (except when x-rays are used) are not. Now to deal with the "except when..", how many times did you get x-rayed when seeing a doctor? Even though my wife has had several fractures and outright breaks from her career (she works in high-velocity sports), she's only ever been x-rayed four times, including dental x-rays. How many times have you flown in the last year? Me, about 12. If you don't fly often at all you have no clue how dangerous this really can be.
>>people can moan all the like, until the next big terrorism happens... and then the SAME websites/papers will be saying..<<
The problem is that if planes are targeted it WILL happen, and in the meantime all they're doing is barking around like a dog in heat
>>Oh, and refusing to go through security checks is your right, while it is their right to refuse you admission! they are NOT public places, it is their duty to protect customers and their business..<<
Obviously you did not RTFA. A person got FINED for refusing, as well as jailtime on the table.
I get patted down - and I get so thrilled, I tell a little white lie cause I am naughty and need to make a phone call or what ever, I leave the area, and then come back in - only to be searched again, and again and again.....
.
Hint: For a good time - if your flight leaves at 8pm, be sure to get there by 7am...
"If you don't fly often at all you have no clue how dangerous this really can be" - or even if you do...
Thats the point, as soon as they start saying the full capabilities, then terrorists will find out how to work around that...
And I think there are more news worthy stuff like telephone masts for the press to talk about... You could also tackle the fact that many airlines have put in special transponders on board, so you can use your mobile phone while flying across the Atlantic...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
