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."

Comments

Geez,

[Ethanol-fueled]

Government-sponsored voyeurism has reached a new low. Who are we protecting ourselves against again?

Re:Geez,

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully that 1/3 of the population is overweight. so after the first week of watching 'naked' people, the person watching in the closed room would have to block out everything.

Re:Geez,

[zappepcs]

....Who are we protecting ourselves against again? That is the most sane question to ask. period.

Where are the threats? Where are the terrorists? Where is the danger? Is there ANYONE on /. that knows where the proven irrefutable answers are?

These scanners are not necessary in any other country. Not even those that have actual terrorist living there (according to bushco). What is the real reason for these scanners?

I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.

Yes, put on the tin foil hat, pass the ammo pal. Only the most ignorant of terrorists would attack with airplanes again. While we are concentrating on making sure grandma is wearing her support hose and not disguised C4, they will be happily planning to poison water supplies or 'assplode' nuclear power stations... well, that is if there ARE any more terrorist plots.

If you listen to what Bin Laden supposedly said, he has already won. He knew what the neocons had planned for the NWO, and was probably part of it. He played his part.

Now, take off the tin foil hat and put on the thinking one. What are these scanners protecting us from? Where is the evidence,never mind proof, that we need protection from that? Go ahead, give us a list of things, and cite your original source of information provided as proof of such threats.

This is an open challenge to anyone. Show me the money!! Prove that such measures are needed. Don't forget to prove how these measures stop airport staff from planting bombs or drugs in someone's luggage. ......

time passes

I'm waiting... well?

Re:Geez,

[zappepcs]

....You should travel the world some before speaking about countries you've never been to. I have, trust me, that platinum card is not all it's cracked up to be, despite comforts provided by it.

Here is an example of comparisons for you:
http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1566/1/

There are simple, pre-9/11 ways of running a secure air transport system. I have been through Athens airport many times and it is considered a hub of terrorist traffic in it's day. It never needed the same intrusive checks that you see in the USA today. Perhaps before you take someone's comments as off-hand conversational fodder you might consider that they are not ill-considered or uneducated comment.

The world was secure for airport traffic before 9/11, and it is safe now without all these security measures. Nothing on the plane will stop someone from hijacking it if they have enough manpower and willpower. period. think it through. The alleged story from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that it is not possible to hijack if passengers don't want it. It takes multiple security failures to allow it. Up until 9/11 everyone was told that hijackers don't want to kill everyone, they want money or some other media recognition etc. So on 9/11 things failed. Not because there were no scanners or people took toothpaste onboard, but because the terrorists stepped outside the standard paradigm. They will do so again IF they want to attack, despite extra precautions for air transport. If the general thought that terrorists are smart is true, airliners will be the last thing they would use next time. It's far easier to sabotage the electric grid, water supply, or nuclear power plant.

BTW, terrorist acts on the infrastructure are next, not loss of life. The idea is to get us to spend tons of money trying to protect ourselves from what we are told is to be feared. To waste that money and resources. They will always be able to find an easy target that we are not watching.

So, what again is the point of such measures in the airport? Do you mean to tell me that no one in the government whose job it is to predict terrorist acts has thought of this?

What is the point of intrusive security checks again?

Re:Geez,

[Anonymous Coward]

Did _you_ RTFA?

First, 'traveler-selected'? Let me quote you some quotes:

Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

1) The only true consent is informed consent.
2) 'they were directed into the booth' ... how is that a choice in the first place, rather than a default?

TSA spokeswoman Sterling Payne said the agency is studying passenger reaction and could "get more creative" about informing passengers. "If passengers have questions," she said, "they need to ask the questions."

How does this not sound like "We're trying to find ways of skirting the rules that require us to say what we're doing so people don't ask questions."?

Passengers can decline to go through a scanner, but they will face a pat-down.

To me, this sounds more like: "Oh, you don't want to go in? You don't _have_ to, but if you don't, we're going to pat you down..."

90% of passengers choose to be scanned, the TSA says.

If 90% of women had no problem appearing in naked pictures / video as long as their faces were blurred, porn on the internet would be old hat,

Second/finally, you say 'It's not for the vast majority of travelers' ?

Schear said the scanners could eventually replace metal detectors at the nation's 2,000 airport checkpoints and the pat-downs done on passengers who need extra screening. "We're just scratching the surface of what we can do with whole-body imaging," Schear said.

I don't know about you, but I think there's a metal detector that _Everyone_ goes through. If they replace it with this, you are only right in that it is for _every_ traveler, rather than only the majority.

Scanners are used in a few courthouses, jails and U.S. embassies, as well as overseas border crossings, military checkpoints and some foreign airports such as Amsterdam's Schiphol.

Just a little reminder that airports are the tip of the iceberg, the toe in the water. This is just to test what you'll tolerate. Congrats, the water doesn't seem too cold yet.

The TSA effort could encourage scanners' use in rail stations, arenas and office buildings, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

This is why I like the ACLU. They worry about the things that I worry about, except they can help fix them.

In conclusion, how can you so blithely say 'RTFA', when it is blatantly clear that you missed the vast majority of it yourself?

Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves

[cats-paw]

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.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why...

[fyngyrz]

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.

The most telling...

[FSWKU]

...and saddening part of the whole mess is this little gem from TFA:

"Some of this stuff seems a little crazy," Reardon said, "but in this day and age, you have to go along with it."

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.