Slashdot Mirror
Full Body Scanners Installed In 10 US Airports
Lapzilla brings word that airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. We've discussed similar scanners in the past. From USAToday:
"[Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project] said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. 'It all seems very clinical and non-threatening -- you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end,' he said. Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth. Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."
Government-sponsored voyeurism has reached a new low. Who are we protecting ourselves against again?
No, it would not, because you fail to realise this:
security > constitutional rights
Now it would probably be true, if every politician nowadays didn't shit all over the constitution.
In another article I read they said that the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.
That's not what they want. Fuel has moved from 10% of the airlines' cost to more than half, in some cases. Nearly a dozen airlines have folded in the last few months, and even the largest carriers are getting panicky. If anything, this is more problematic than the post-9/11 jitters, because everyone knew they would subside, but no one knows if this is going to be a bubble or if it's the new standard for oil. As someone who likes to fly 3-5 times a year (and would like to fly more), I'm concerned that what used to be comfortable $300 flights (I'm 5'4") will become crowded $450 flights, and that makes it hard for me to justify the expense.
The airlines would love to get back to competing on fares while also having a comfortable profit margin. It's just not in the cards right now.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.
No the most embarrassing thing would be that people will willingly submit themselves to this absurd violation of privacy without even knowing, or more importantly, caring, why they should.
Absolute statements are never true
Illegal wars? Unpopular, yes... illegal no. There is no real body that decides whether a war is illegal or not... beside it would mean France, UK, Germany, and a bunch of other nations are accessories to a crime.
Torture? I've seen worse done to pledges at a fraternity.
Instead of sitting around and griping, organize. The vocal minority has been ruling the US, and the only way a more moderate government will come to power is if the silent majority actually speaks up for a change. The US is ruled by 30% of the population - either the 30% who vote democrat, or the 30% who vote republican. Most people remain silent and just accept the motivations of the voting extremists, until that changes, then the country will continue to be ruled by extremists.
I don't support Ron Paul precisely because I am well-informed about his positions and the policies he advocates.
I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.
On the flipside, he could and probably would veto pretty much any needless expansion of government, funding bills, etc...
Total Stalemate.
On the plus side, in my experience a government that does nothing is doing better than usual.
From the article:
How does a passenger refuse the scan if they're not told what's going on until after the fact, or given the option of refusing the scan?
Yes, well, if they're going to be charging a lot of money for an uncomfortable experience, it doesn't seem very smart to pre-annoy the living heck out of the customers before they even get on the aircraft.
They don't need to be doing any of this nonsense. They just need to armor the cockpit and plop an air marshal on each flight. That reduces the threat to the less than it used to be; the trigger for all this hysteria was flying the aircraft into extremely high value and heavily populated buildings. So make that impossible and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
The real problem here is that hysteria is meat and potatoes for political stumping. Politicians have every reason to push this crap around -- it saves them from having to deal with real issues. Like health care, the infrastructure, the national debt, erosion of the constitution... you know, stuff that actually matters. But a huge number of people are gullible and stupid, and that's why this crap will never end, barring total collapse of the government.
Democracy is flawed from the outset. It allows any two uninformed people to outvote an informed person in a context where informed people are rare. Both in the general public and in the congress. Game rigged to fail, right there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
How about the officer watching remotely sits in one of these things so all passengers can look at who is looking at them. I bet they'd get a ton of applications for that job...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.
i.e. another form of warrantless search where no probable cause exists that is allowed "because it's just too important not to do it!"
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This is exactly what they want EVERYONE to think. But the truth of the matter is, no, you DON'T have to go along with it. People need to wake up and stop being a bunch of ignorant sheep in the face of all of this. Refuse the scan, refuse the pat-down, refuse to even fly anymore. Prices are going up and so is the amount of bullshit they make you go through to squeeze yourself into a cramped metal tube with not but a package of stale peanuts as food.
Really, why is all of this crap even necessary? All it does is create more headache for everyone involved. I'm not saying we need NO security, but this is honestly going completely overboard. Metal detectors? Good idea. Keeps people from bringing certain bad things on planes. X-ray luggage? Also good, for reasons stated above. Air marshalls? I'm not keen on the idea of firearms at 35,000 feet, but someone in law enforcement is a good idea if someone gets a bit drunk or stupid. Re-enforced cockpit doors? Should have been done a long time ago. That's just common sense.
Beyond that, I don't really see any of it as more than an excuse to spend vast sums of money. Air travel is still one of the safest (albiet nowhere near the most comfortable these days) ways to travel. The only reason incidents get so much media attention is the number of people killed in one event. Wait a couple hours and the number of deaths on the highway will take the lead once again, however. Bombings went out of style in the 80's, and you can forget about any more hijackings. After 9/11, do you REALY think passengers are going to stand for that sort of crap anymore? Not a chance. We're throwing money at phantoms, here. Attacking air travel is pretty much dead these days, but not because of any new security measures. All the same, I think I'll take my chances on the highway. At least nobody is going to attempt coercing me into a full-body scan and cavity search just to get into my car.
One final aside:
Wasn't the whole mantra several years back one of "We musn't change our way of life, or THEY will have won."? Now look at us. We allow draconian measures to be passed in the name of "security". We freak like children with imaginary boogeymen under our beds when someone even THINKS the word "terrorist." We happily give up privacy because we are sold on the illusion that it's for our own good and it will only effect those who have nothing to hide. We have become completely paranoid and changed the way we do pretty much anything, out of fear that we will get hit again. I'm sorry, but isn't that the very goal of a terrorist act? To have us do EXACTLY what we have done in the past seven years?
Society has become so caught up in going apeshit trying to prevent THEM from winning, that the exact opposite effect seems to have occured. Eight years ago, almost nobody had ever heard of the names being tossed about on the news. Now, it's foremost in everyone's mind. Their goal wasn't to savagely murder thousands of people, that was just the tool they chose to use. No, their real goal was to make themselves known, and us frightened. I hate to say it, but they succeeded.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
I'm getting tired of the terrorism arms race. We don't really get anywhere in the end, other than inconveniencing innocent people and wasting tax dollars. What's worse is that it's not even a symmetrical arms race. We re-up our side many times in-between each successively more advanced attack attempt by the enemy.
If I were Al'Queda, do you know what I would do? I would just keep coming up with nifty ways to hide a knife or a bomb that are novel, and send people through airport scanners using these ever-changing techniques and looking suspicious, just to be sure that every one of them are caught anyways. The net result would be that every caught "terrorist" results in the US wasting more money and pissing off more citizens in a futile attempt to improve security against each new method. What easier way to inflict pain on the US is there than that?
New methods that beat the current system are always easy to invent at any given point in time, especially for someone with money and determination on their side. The article says these things can't see through skin or rubber. Like all systems, this new one is fallible too in many ways.
The correct way to combat air terrorism is a 3-pronged approach:
1) Stop pissing people off. I'm *not* a terrorist apologist. Far from it - terrorism is always wrong in my moral book. But you can go a long ways to towards preventing it by not pissing off large groups of angry people to begin with. By this I mean improve our foreign policy.
2) Focus on smart human intervention. There has been some DHS focus lately (I'm not sure how much) on training psychological profilers to patrol airports undercover. This is likely far more effective than anything the TSA screening stations are ever likely to do, and much less susceptible to the arms race problem.
3) Stop trying to turn your own population into sheeple - teach them to be observant, responsible, and empowered. A citizenry which is self-confident and alert is a great watchdog against all kinds of bad events. A citizenry who gets treated like cattle (as in, current TSA practices) act like cattle: they keep their head down, don't observe and react to strange events. They just start assuming the Nanny State must be taking care of things for them, no need to be vigilant.
The same way you'd qualify anyone for any other important job. Test them. Would you hire an engineer who has no experience in engineering? Would you hire a doctor who hasn't passed the medical boards? Would you put a soldier in the field who doesn't know how to fight? No? Then why are you so bloody eager to employ anyone off the street to decide issues they have no expertise in?
Qualification for any important job is only sensible. The myth that "we are all created equal" was a philosophical blunder that was probably meant to imply no more than "we should all be afforded the same opportunities, and what we make of them is what we get." The opportunity is to try for a job; not get it. The potential should be to pass or fail, not to get it just because you're breathing and slightly warmer than room temperature. As it is, the "qualifications" for political office are to pretend you believe in an imaginary friend and don't get caught doing anything the body politic can't afford to do themselves. As for who should issue the tests, just your average bureaucrat should do fine. I'm sure they could design them, too, that's the just the kind of thing they love to haggle over.
Well, you have a democratic republic. Sort of. Insofar as its been able to obey its constituting authority, which isn't very far. Enjoy it.
Me, I'd rather have some form of meritocracy. The idea of people running an enterprise who are actually qualified to do so -- as opposed to being "popular" -- is alluring to me. Americans made Paris Hilton popular. And Britney Spears. And Flava Flav. If that doesn't tell you how busted the idea of "popular" is, I don't know what will.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
* Noone is forcing you to drive. You choose to! So, accept whatever search and seizure or don't drive!
* Noone is forcing you to walk on the public sidewalk. Accept the search or don't walk there.
* Noone is forcing you to live in this country. If you don't want to be searched, then leave!
* Noone is forcing you to breathe the air. Accept the search or stop breathing!
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
What ever happened to freedom from unreasonable search and seizures by governmental bodies (TSA)?
I mean seriously - what has happened - have we slid down the slippery slope, or been boiled to death one degree at a time?
I'm just waiting for a clothing manufacture to come out with millimeter wave blocking clothes or underwear. Need a little metallic weave in the cloth to do the trick.
..........FULL STOP.
I mean - what's to stop a hijacker from hiding a ceramic knife up his rectum? or C4... this and metal detectors wont find it. Can we expect cavity searches next?
..........FULL STOP.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
If you don't agree with me, I'd can cite many history examples to prove my point.
I like to kill your couch. HE DIED HARD! MOO.
Fixed that for ya'.
No, that's not obvious at all. Look, who picks those who qualify the physicists? How do they get qualified? Why don't we get a majority of dimwit creationists running around physics labs? What about lawyers? Why can't just anyone be a lawyer? Wouldn't that be "fair"? Subject the selection process to scrutiny. Let the academics work it out. Define it as working that way. Etc. This isn't insoluble.
Are you seriously telling me that because it isn't easy, we should turn away and let this mess continue sliding downhill? I'm not saying its easy, I'm just saying what we have is BROKEN. Don't think my ideas are any good for fixing it? Fine. Fix it some other way. Just blinking fix it before our torturing, big-brother-esque, rights-eroding, liberty-crushing, save-the-everloving-children at the expense of anything at all society falls apart at the seams.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. You need to look at the employment report to understand it. That link goes to whatever is the current version of the report at the time (it's issued monthly), though archives are available.
There's a population of about 300 million people in the country. Many of them are retired or too young to be able to work. Some are infirm, others do not need to work. Others simply aren't looking for work. All of these are not counted in the statistics. Everyone else -- those working and those actively looking for work -- are considered the civilian work force. Of them, 5.5% are not employed. That works out to about 8.4 million people. Of these, about 38% have been unemployed for fewer than five weeks. Another 29% have been unemployed for 5-14 weeks, and the remaining have been unemployed for longer than 14 weeks.
The unemployment rate in the Europe Union is even worse than in Canada, at 7%.
Full employment is reached at about 4% unemployment. Anything lower than that, and inflation starts to set in because it becomes a sellers' market. Employers have to come up with exorbitant salaries to hold onto their workers, and it becomes an arms race among the employers, who then have to raise their own prices to avoid taking financial losses. This happened in the last couple of years under Clinton, when the unemployment rate dropped under 4% and things started to get messy.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Car analogies break down.
Seriously, anyone want to place bets on how long we have before the penis "enlargement" industry starts mentioning this in their spam?
ExTEND YUOR "MEMBER"! Did you hear that hot airport security worker snickering and pointing at your tiny P3N!S when they scanned you?????
Buy now!! Upto 8 inchs loonger!!!! http://as09s8asdfasl.djssef909.com/
They are metal detectors, not gun detectors. There is no magical setting which detects guns but fails to detect an identical amount of non-gun metal.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
You're right, people who fail to notice the importance of one small sign among the dozens which populate an airport screening area are the ones at fault, not terrorists or insane politicians.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Drive, take a train, ride a bike, horse or walk. But when it becomes necessary to do so, so that one may live in the USA, then restrictions on that activity essentially infringe on our rights.
Obviously some lose this right because they are a menace to others (drunk drivers, etc).
As someone else pointed out, the TSA is my problem, since it is a governmental agency.
..........FULL STOP.