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

Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties

[gbulmash]

Okay, first thing... the woman in the scanner looks like she's trying to keep a hula hoop in motion.

Second thing:

The scanners do a good job seeing under clothing but cannot see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin, said Peter Siegel, a senior scientist at the California Institute of Technology. "You probably could find very common materials that you could wrap around you that would effectively obscure things," Siegel said.

Wonder if it would be legal to sell a line of rubberized scan-proof lingerie?

"Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties: The TSA won't see your va-jay-jay today"
"Bodacious Ta's Rubber Bras: If the TSA wants to see your nipples, make 'em buy you dinner first."
"Mr. Happy's Super Sleeves: Take a 'tripod' through the TSA scanner."

- Greg

Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties

[Mista2]

I'd rather just write Fuck You in zinc cream or something I know will be reflective to the scanner all over my body 8)

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,

[mrbluze]

From FTA:

"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do." Yeah, most people just wish deep down they could walk around the airport naked in the first place.

Re:Geez,

[chaosite]

Mind you, El Al has tested these sort of scanners before, and gave up on the idea because Israeli privacy laws currently forbid it.

Just saying.

Re:Geez,

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Actually, it's fat people that can compromise security. You could quite easily hide something such as a knife in a fold of fat (OK, obese people). That won't get picked up by the scanner.

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,

[DerekLyons]

Hell, even after a week of working in a strip club filled with hotties... you pretty much cease to notice it.

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:Geez,

[zappepcs]

You are almost there. For any given metropolitan area, I can find out how to bring it to it's knees in less than 30 minutes and no loss of life. If you want loss of life, I guarantee that it's possible. The whole idea was to make Americans afraid. If they are afraid, the world is (more or less) and the terrorists have won.

There is no method to make any mode of transport safe, or any building other than restricting all access to it/them. So by spreading fear, they win. Logic loses, fear wins. Think it through, just for a minute. Any target but airlines is now easy, just as easy as the airlines were on 9/11 because all efforts are spent on screening passengers... not airport staff, not water supplies, not power stations.

You are buying into the fear and somehow believing that this 'extra' measure makes you more safe? Who would want you to believe that? If there was genuine fear of terrorism in the USA it would cover every possible attack vector, not JUST airlines. See what the MSM wants you to be afraid of? remember who rattles their leashes?

I'm not saying there is some big conspiracy, just saying hey! why wouldn't terrorists attack water supplies? If they really wanted to harm citizens, why try to smash into buildings when a small vial of poison is enough?

They were making a statement, one that would put you and others in a frenzy, one that would cause you to waste all your money and liberties on protecting yourself from something that does not exist.

They won.

Re:Geez,

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea was to make Americans afraid. If they are afraid, the world is (more or less) Yes, we are very afraid of you Americans being afraid. We're afraid of the terrorists running your country.

Re:Geez,

[catxk]

If you're so fat you can hide stuff in your folds, I doubt you'll be able to cause much damage either way.

Re:Geez,

[supremebob]

True... but you know the first time a Paris Hilton or Jessica Alba type celebrity walks through one of these scanners, the pictures will be on TMZ or The Superficial within a matter of hours.

(Yes, I know that there are rules about bringing cameras into the scanner rooms. That said, the tabloid sites pay a hell of a lot more than the TSA does!)

Re:Geez,

[Free the Cowards]

You think that would really stop them if they were really useful? I'm sure the law could be changed to give an exception for this. Of course, Israel and El Al are both good at implementing actual security, as opposed to the rampant security theater we get in the US.

Re:Geez,

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said.

Unless I misunderstood TFA, most passengers don't actually know what the machine does.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if they instead asked most passengers to step into a little room marked "strip search office" and take all their clothes off, the number of protests would be significant.

Re:Geez,

[mdwh2]

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,

On that note, it's mad that porn - images of people who freely consent to it - is often demonised, yet coercing everyone into having their naked bodies viewed by random men is okay...

Re:Geez,

[Reziac]

I used to have this bamboo forest surrounding my house -- it was really quite impressive. People always asked why it was there, and I'd say, "It keeps the elephants away. You don't see any elephants, do you??"

And everyone agreed as to how it must work, since there weren't any invading elephants. But one day someone had a different response: "Only the pink ones..."

It's the same thing with these scanners. They keep the terrorists away -- you don't see any terrorists, do you?? Nope, only the imaginary ones.

That's why I'm working on my . . .

[rev_sanchez]

Silence of the Lambs style human skin suit. A man needs his privacy.

Re:Ewwww...

[Martin Blank]

They physically search you. The scanner isn't mandatory; it's just faster than a physical search and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing.

Re:Ewwww...

[Verteiron]

Since I'm pretty sure you can't board the plane without showing ID at some point, what will probably happen is you won't fly anywhere that day.

Unless you look foreign. Then you'll fly down south for a nice vacation somewhere sunny. Like Cuba.

Re:Might be a good thing

[corsec67]

Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine. But now they want to see our wimmin naked! That's going too far!

Even worse: They want to see our children naked!

Please will someone (aside from the TSA and pedophiles) please think of the children!

Would the recorded images of people under 18 be considered child porn?

Constitutional law

[l0ungeb0y]

Wouldn't this fall under the auspices of unreasonable search and seizure? It seems to me this manner of search invades personal privacy for no other reason than everyone is a criminal in the eyes of the TSA.

I would hope that this matter gets brought up in SCOTUS

Re:Constitutional law

[Martin Blank]

No.

Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.

Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.

Re:Constitutional law

[zippthorne]

And that would be correct.. BEFORE THE TSA. when the airlines were contracting private security companies to do the screening, they could set whatever terms they wanted on the ticket.

But TSA doing it, as an agency under a cabinet level department, is pretty squarely in the unconstitutional realm.

Re:Constitutional law

[gbutler69]

* 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?

just say no

[drDugan]

I recently saw signs for this when going through LAX - but the serurity point I wnt through did not have them installed yet.

The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.

Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."

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

[SoapBox17]

It occurred to me recently when they started charging to bring almost any luggage with you at all, that actually they are trying to make flying such a ridiculous process that people will just stop doing it unless they really need to.

Think about it. The new fees on checked luggage are just going to cause people to push the envelope of carry on bags to the point the boarding/unboarding process is unbearable. Add on to that the 3-1-1, you can't bring liquids with you at all if you can't check baggage and you're not allowed to carry them on. Now they also are going to be looking at basically naked pictures of you as you get on the plane, and, oh yeah, don't forget you are paying a lot of money for this poor treatment, and soon the sodas won't even be free.

No one in their right mind would fly at all under these circumstances, and that's exactly what they want.

Re:Ewwww...

[Martin Blank]

You can board a plane without ID. However, you have to go through more intensive security measures, and you go into a separate line for that.

At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.

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

[Martin Blank]

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.

Re:um, radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the wavelength. It uses radio, I'm assuming like ultrasound, except it doesn't penetrate your skin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave
It would be within the range of 57-64 GHz.

Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves

[IvyKing]

If I recall correctly, the systme uses ~30GHz radiation for the scanning. Power levels are in line with a normal urban environment (I've read the safety report on the machine) - think people walking by with cell phones. Since the wavelength is about 1 cm, the image resolution isn't going to be much better than 1 cm - which is certainly adequate to determine gender.

Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

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.

It's a millimeter-wave imaging system

[Animats]

This isn't an X-ray machine, or even a Z-backscatter machine. It's a millimeter wave device. TSA has a web page for the thing. It's not as detailed as a Z-backscatter image.

Here's the product page for the ProVision scanner. It's made by Level 3 Communications.

This thing was first announced last year, so the story is out of date.

Actual images of scans

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/you-asked-for-ityou-got-it-millimeter.html

I'm going through with a hardon

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Gotta give those TSA pukes a little thrill. Or maybe I'll go through wearing a wig and a dress. The female screener will REALLY enjoy that. I wonder if anyone ever rubbed one out as the passed through the metal detector?

I'm just trying to make travel more enjoyable for everybody.

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.

Re:um, radiation

[Animats]

In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves".

Er, studied physics where?

There's nothing mysterious about millimeter waves. They're from about 30GHz to 300GHz. They're not ionizing radiation, like X-rays. Here's a simple scanning millimeter wave radar system with pictures of the components and images from the system. Note the tiny waveguide and feed horn. It's a radar in miniature. This little unit runs at 35GHz, so it's just barely into the millimeter range.

In the millimeter RF range, it seems to be possible to get up to about 100GHz with off the shelf components using Gunn diodes and GaAs transistors. Above 100GHz is still mostly an area for experimental work. There are people working on "to 100GHz and beyond!. But not much is really working up there yet.

This isn't a backscatter X-ray system. That's a completely different technology.

Make it fair

[mathkicks]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Re:Ewwww...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get searched manually all the time. The wankers see the scars and can't figure out that I'm not going to rip weapons from the body. I guess they think I'm a T-101 or some crazy s**t like that. Heck, it's not like I'm wearing concealing clothing either, standard shorts and tank top. I figure it's easier for them to wand me when the TSA boy's and girls can see the f**king scars. Winter obviously makes this harder.

I was in a bike accident a little ways back. I have enough surgical steel in me to beep many place, but it has taught me a couple of things. The first being that many airports obviously turn down the sensitivity during busy times. I've had detectors that I've gone through and set off, not go off. Now if I, with 62 screws, 5 plates, and two pins don't set it off then WTF does? I doubt it's because they remembered me six months later at some busy hub.

Still, you gave up your freedoms and privacy to be safe, right? I'd feel safer guarded by girl scouts at this point.

Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

People bitch and moan about airport security yet they keep voting for people who give them bigger and more intrusive government.

No one bitches and moans. No one. Americans, at best, grumble and murmur under their breath.

In a nation infamous for its loud and litigious protesters, the silence, the absolute and utter _silence_ on this issue is screaming. Where are the protestors? Where are the acronymed activists groups? Where are the calls to senators and paid for TV ads against these intrusions? Where are the B-list celebrity messages? Where are the class action lawsuits?

Jesus. Even the ambulance chasers have been battered into submission. You're not going to be able to fix this for decades.

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

[fyngyrz]

maybe you should tell us how to decide who is informed and who isn't? and who gets to decide what is informed and what is uninformed?

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.

I'd rather have democracy than fascism.

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.

Fourth amendment??

[spineboy]

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.

Re:Fourth amendment??

[The Only Druid]

You don't have a right to fly; your constitutional right to travel works whether you walk, drive, take a bus or a train, or fly. If you choose to fly, you submit to a different set of security measures than if you walk, drive, etc.

I fully agree with everyone saying how pointless these devices are, just as with the fluid bans, the taking your shoes off, etc. But just because they're pointless doesn't mean they're unconstitutional; just stupid.

Re:Fourth amendment??

[twizmer]

They don't need a warrant if you submit. This is a basic premise of 4th amendment case law; if the goverment asks if they can search you or your property, and you say yes, that's all they need. Works for personal searches, houses, cars (this argument was used to defend certain kinds of drunk driving checkpoints because people were free to drive around them). You are not compelled to enter the secure area and board a plane; the TSA will not detain you if you walk away from the airport and go home. You are submitting willingly to a goverment search so your rights are not violated.

Re:Fourth amendment??

[atriusofbricia]

But the question is, is a choice of no choice, still a choice? Say I have to be on the other side of the country by the next day, or I get fired from my job. Is the choice of a) potential economic ruin or b) submitting to a search of my person and effects really a choice? I know it isn't life or death, but still.

I suppose they would say that even that is a choice and you 'willingly' submitted when in reality you did no such thing. You did it because if you didn't you'd get fired.. and if you don't submit they won't let you fly. I say, it is a choice of no choice.

Furthermore, if your argument is correct, then at best the only Constitutionally protected mode of movement is walking. So as long as you are free to walk from Tennessee to Washington state then your rights are just fine. Is that what you're saying?

Re:Fourth amendment??

[TheFlannelAvenger]

I just noticed I was modded troll. I find that very interesting. I merely stated my opinion on the matter. Although you may choose to submit, and voluntarily give up your rights, I do not. You may either not fly, or you may give up your rights. There is no choice, there is an implied consent at airports, and nowhere else in my experiences traveling by bus, or train, have I been required to give up those rights afforded me as a citizen of the United States. Why is it that Americans just accept that an airport is a magical place where the Constitution does not apply?

Cavity search?

[spineboy]

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?

Re:Cavity search?

[Admiral Ag]

If someone puts a ceramic knife in his rectum, then my bet is that he's so hardcore he can't be stopped.

Re:Cavity search?

[Hydian]

A detonator doesn't need to be metallic either.

Re:Cavity search?

[Grym]

You still need a detonator though, which it would detect. You can just ask the C4 very nicely to explode.

Easy. Bring along (or buy once you get at the gate) a disposable camera. When the leads to the flash are removed, it can deliver quite a shock. I would assume it is strong enough to set off an unstable material like C4.

I think the truth of the matter is that if somebody wants to sneak something on board, at some point you're not going to stop them. Why is it that some people are constitutionally unable to accept that remote possibility?

-Grym

Re:Cavity search?

[josecanuc]

C4 is not unstable. Even so, an electric shock will not cause C4 to detonate. Such explosives require a large and quick physical shock (pressure) to start detonation, usually supplied by a blasting cap, which can be triggered electrically.

Re:Cavity search?

[archont]

You need a blasting cap. One or two grams will be just enough. All you need to do is hermetically seal off that amount of substance (depending on which substance you're using and it's ignition temperature it can be anything from resin to wax), wash it in a solvent or any aggressive substance that'll remove traces of the primer and then put it inside your digital camera, watch, laptop or any other physically complex device. Modern blasting caps are detonated by very low voltages. I used to detonate them with those flat little button cells. Considering it's really easy to blow up a plane today there are only two possible explanations why it's not raining aluminum: 1. The terrorists are idiots and can't do this kind of attack because they lack knowledge. 2. There are no terrorists willing to hijack planes and kill civilians in modern countries just for the fun of it.

Re:Cavity search?

[archont]

I'd say it's probably a bit of both. Anyone who's smart enough to blow up a plane is probably smart enough to find a solution to whatever problems they think they face without blowing up a large number of people. Blowing up large numbers of people isn't meant to solve anything, that's ridiculous. Especially civilians whose only wrongdoing was at most putting an X by the wrong name.

If you're determined to go and kill civilians you're out for revenge and to cause fear, panic and mayhem. There is no solution to having your family killed for no apparent reason. No matter how smart a man there's no way to resurrect your family and undo the injustice. In such cases intelligent men are even more determined and capable of carrying out such acts than their less gifted counterparts.

Re:Ewwww...

[Phroggy]

Now if I, with 62 screws, 5 plates, and two pins don't set it off then WTF does? A gun, one would hope. Or perhaps a knife.

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

[masamax]

Who makes the test? The people in power obviously. Systems like this are doomed to failure because in the end, the 'best' are not chosen, merely those who fit into the mold that will continue the current leadership. Not only that, how long until those excluded from power (which would be the majority by your definition) start to resent that? Your system would fall and we'ed be back at square one. Including everyone has its drawbacks, but not including the MAJORITY of people is unsustainable. History has taught us that your system would quickly devolve into an aristocratic oligarchy, and probably from there to a dictatorship.

If you don't agree with me, I'd can cite many history examples to prove my point.

Re:Ewwww...

[masterzora]

Just because you show your ID three times doesn't mean others can't get away with not showing their IDs. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71115

Re:Ewwww...

[Martin Blank]

Yes, you can. Bruce Schneier did it. So did author Tim Ferriss. So did journalist Jim Harper.

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

[Admiral Ag]

I take it you haven't been a patron of the British rail system then.

No... "now more than ever, you need ExtenDik"

[JavaRob]

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/

Re:Ewwww...

[BJH]

So the best way to get a weapon through the metal detector is by sticking it in your pocket?

Thanks for the tip...

Re:Ewwww...

[Free the Cowards]

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.

Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD

[Free the Cowards]

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.