Slashdot Mirror
National Opt-Out Day Against Virtual Strip Searches
An anonymous reader writes in about a protest called for the busiest airline travel day of the year. "An activist opposed to the new invasive body scanners in use at airports around the country just designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 as a National Opt-Out Day. He's encouraging airline passengers to decline the TSA's technological strip searches en masse on that day as a protest against the scanners, as well as the new 'enhanced pat-downs' inflicted on refuseniks. 'The goal of National Opt-Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change,' reads the call to action at OptOutDay.com, set up by Brian Sodegren. 'No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy, and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent.' The US Airline Pilots Association and other pilot groups have urged their members to avoid the scanners and have also condemned the new pat-down policy as humiliating to pilots. They've advised pilots who don't feel comfortable undergoing pat-downs in front of passengers to request they be conducted in a private room. Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip.'"
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum, far to the left and far to the right. Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated. The only people that I have heard even come close to defending this procedure are the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip
An uncomfortable pilot is a distracted pilot. As a passenger I put my full trust in the folk up front to do their job safely and efficiently and I'd rather they weren't getting distracted. It's not like they need any extra tools or equipment to crash a plane.
Most people have a "grab there, get hit" policy (well, less formally acknowledged than that) in their daily lives. I don't think there'd be too much fuss if people applied it to the manual search.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Opting out of the body scanner is opting in to the invasive pat-down. "Opting out" merely validates the false dichotomy put forth by the TSA.
I don't think its the lack of a terrorist attack as much as the utter uselessness of this technology relative to the risk of attack. I think people are tired of being treated like criminals just because they want to take their family on vacation. I think people of tired of having their children treated like criminals and then having to explain to them why it's okay for the government to touch them inappropriately. Furthermore, if we were serious about security we wouldn't be so lax about it everywhere else. In October 2001 you couldn't cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC by truck without having the contents of the truck searched by police. I can't remember the last time I saw one truck stopped traversing a river crossing. I guess the threat of dirty bombs just magically went away, right? Terrorists only care about airplanes I suppose. I ride the commuter rail and subway every day. Do you know how many times I've seen even one cop on a rail platform in the 4 years I've been commuting? ZERO. There are times in Penn Station that the subway platform is lined with cops. Do you know what they do? They poke their head into the subway car, look both ways, and then back away and it proceeds to the next stop. That's security? This country is a fucking joke when it comes to security yet for some reason the airport is treated like the holy grail. If we don't give up our rights and dignity a great calamity will befall us. Give me a fucking break. I'll take my chances getting on a plane with just a metal detector. If it's my time to go, then it's my time to go.
Trying to annoy the TSA for a day will do absolutely nothing. If you want to end these policies, refuse to fly until they're gone. If airlines see their bank accounts turn red with no hope of them being profitable unless the TSA is removed, you better believe they'll start doing everything imaginable to get rid of the TSA.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This is a prime example of where "if you do nothing wrong; then you have nothing to worry about" is shown to be bullshit.
These airport scanners and pat downs dishonor our troops and everyone who has ever died fighting for our country!
We are supposed to be the home of the free and the brave, let's act like it! The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners! Are they braver and more free than we are?! It sure looks like it!
I think everyone on both sides can agree, this is just too much!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I'm willing to bet that list is smaller than the list of terrorists who didn't get on a plain for fear of having their ass kicked by Joe Public when they attempt something.
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
Who is making money on not installing body scanners at the airports ?
Who is making money on not installing cameras everywhere ?
Who is making money on not waging wars ?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You americans crackle me right up.
Discouraged from boarding planes and encouraged to bomb subways. Bombing subways can in fact be even more harmful since it can disable an entire subway line until the damage to the subway can be fixed and the train removed. And with the high volume of traffic that subways get, any kind of security (beyond fare control) is impractical. Given this, protecting planes seems like reinforcing the door with steel while the windows are open.
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today.
Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place.
I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.
* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
I'm a student. I write iPhone apps.
Hello. I have no fear of terrorists whatsoever. The country I live in have never been a target of terrorists.
We also do not make war on other contries, that might have something to do with it.
In about 10-20 years there will be people in Iraq and Afghanistan who saw their friends/parents/family killed by foreign soldiers. Many of them will want revenge, some of them will be willing to die for it.
I think the best way to protect oneself against terrorists is not to create them in the first place.
Hope this helps.
I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
If they're terrorists they should be arrested, not "refused permission to fly".
It shows the system is bullshit. Strip-searching or groping all passengers offends millions for very little if any gain. If the terrorists were discouraged from boarding planes with bombs, they haven't stopped being terrorists and they will find some other way to cause terror.
The problem is the existence of the terrorists. The police, FBI need to be looking for and catching them before they blow up shit. Strip searching everybody at the point of entry to a plane will only cause the terrorist to move their attack to something else. Traditional police and FBI work is geared toward finding the terrorist no matter what their plot is, while the TSA's "enhanced" pat-downs and full body viewing of passengers works only against a single plot, and the terrorists know it. The passengers know that terrorists may want to destroy the plane, so the passengers will fight back. The terrorists know this too.
As Bruce Schneier said, the only useful airline security innovation since 9/11 was the reinforcement of cockpit doors.
I believe what truly created the environment of American resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan was our abandonment of both countries after the Iran/Iraq wars and the Afghanistan/Russia sovereignty conflict in the 80s. This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.
I always assumed it was the way we like to use our secret agencies to overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with dictators favorable to our interests, something the USA has a *long* history of repeatedly doing especially in the Middle East but also in South America and elsewhere. But no, they hate us for our freedoms, yeah, cuz we feel noble and innocent when we say that.
Here's one: replace "random" searches with "searches of people most likely to be terrorists".
Heaven forbid!
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
I think the TSA is counting on most people being to shy and hurried to make this their default choice. Planning ahead to send a message will help more people clear those hurdles.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm willing to bet there are no terrorists whatsoever, this is all just mass hysteria, induced by opportunistic politics, grabbing of attention and votes, selling tons of security equipment, services, jobs, contracts, news, etc. And much of the world is just laughing or terrified of the dangers of the spiraling growth of such mass insanity, based on mass fear, encouraging state violence, the erosion of rights, and reactionary, aggressive politcs on all levels and numerous countries. I left the US, and although I miss many things, the news often reminds me I am relieved to be far from this utter madness.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Well, there's the attitude that leads to us "morons" having to get felt up and strip searched just to go home for Thanksgiving.
Fuck you. I may not like dealing with my customers, but I at least realize they indirectly pay my salary and have some fucking respect, even for the less knowledgeable of them.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Yes. They have another word for that; it's also known as "racial profiling."
Thought crime?
So you're saying we need another false-flag op to bring the masses back under the whips of the bourgeois elite? We can make that happen...
1) Stop flying. I realize this may be hard, but in most cases it is possible. If it is truly impossible, like your work requires it, ok fine but then you just kinda have to roll with what happens. However for just about anyone else you can stop flying. Doesn't mean you can't vacation or visit family, just means you will have to drive. It'll work, really it will. When I was a kid, my parents almost always drove us out to the grandparents place because of cost. I didn't enjoy it, but it was fine.
2) Let the airlines know you have stopped flying, and why. You may have noticed the government thinks the airline industry is rather important. They have bailed them out in the past. This could be because they consider it of strategic importance, could be because the airlines have good lobbyists, etc. Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, they listen and that's what matters. So if you make it clear to them that you are refusing to fly because of the TSA, they'll take notice. One person won't do anything alone, but if more than a few do it, they'll care. Make sure to include things like your frequent flier number and dates you traveled last year so they know you do use their service, and can see you aren't.
3) Write your senators and representative and let them know you find this unacceptable, and that this is an issue that will decide your vote. Write a well reasoned letter explaining why this is not ok, and ask what they intend to do about it. You will very likely get a reply (from a staffer of course but it is still their position). Again, what one person says doesn't matter a whole lot but a bunch of people will make them take notice since politicians have to care about being reelected first and foremost and if their constituency is pissed, they have to deal with it. Goes double if they have pressure from the airlines as well.
4) Actually vote on it. If your representatives say "We think the TSA is fine we aren't doing anything," vote for their challenger. Perhaps when they are running even make a campaign contribution, doesn't have to be large $20 should suffice, along with a letter expressing your support for them so long as they will work to fix/get rid of the TSA.
You cannot expect change over night. However if people who are pissed off start doing this, change will come, one way or another. The TSA gets away with its stupidity due to apathy more or less. People just go along with their shit so it is an issue congress doesn't have to care about. If people tell congress it is a problem, then it will become a problem for congress.
The best thing to do is to have two sets of flights. One set where no one gets body scans, and other flights where everyone get body scans. Let evolution solve this problem.
I don't see why there is a security check for pilots at all. I mean we want to carefully check their identity, we want to make sure that they are who they say they are of course. However after their ID has been established, they should be allowed to go on about their business with no more check. Why? Because such a check is totally worthless. Pilots have hands on the controls of the aircraft, they could crash it and kill all aboard if they wanted. Further, many of them have guns that they carry. Since 9/11 they have been allowed to get certified and have a gun in the cockpit. Many opt to because you get paid a bit extra if you do.
You have to trust the pilots, that is just how it goes. As such once you've identified them as the pilots who should be on the flight, other security checks are worthless.
That pilots are subject to the same arduous security checks as passengers just proves that it is security theater, and nothing that is really useful. They aren't concerned with actual security, just a theater that justifies their jobs, and that they like being the tough guys who get to be in charge.
Remember, while we love to hate the TSA, they have a terrible job: If something happens, then they did not do enough and someone gets the boot; If nothing happens, then they harass the passengers needlessly. It's a lose-lose situation.
So the fuckers are losers -- all the more reason to stop this horseshit.
I am reminded of a magazine article years ago about the ten worst jobs. One had a picture of a guy sniffing people's armpits to judge the efficacy of deodorants.
I'm in my late 60s. If some jerk has so little self esteem that he has to take a job groping me, let him have at it. (He's right down there with telemarketers.) I hope he feels dirty as hell when he gets home at night and wants to play with his wife.
Agree with all of that. But the point of civil disobedience is not to make life immediately more comfortable for yourself. Home of the brave, indeed.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I carry a magic yeti-repelling stone around with me. I haven't seen a yeti in years so that proves it works!
No sig today...
How will anything they're currently doing prevent somebody stuffing their rectum with C4 and boarding an aircraft?
Seems to me like they're really training the population to get used to government invasions of their intimacy.
No sig today...
Flamebait, seriously? This is the only logical comment I've read so far!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I general I agree with what you say and your point make sense. However, your analogy is not apt. You do not catch anyone by locking a cockpit door, but the claim is that pat downs WILL/do. Thus asking the TSA to quantify the voracity of this statement seems very sensible as it is certainly quantifiable. If your point is that this will discourage people from taking any such action instead of stoping such action then I fail to see how where the end point of such a line of argument. If those in power assert that this stops terrorist acts and we blindly accept those assertions then we get what we deserve. But I would prefer to sacrifice a little safety on a plane for a great bit of personal freedom on the ground.
"Uselessness of the technology relative to the risk of attack ..." you got it. Well said, and someone mod this guy to +7.
One problem is that the government has to do something to appear proactive. The second problem, though, is that it's limited
1. By intelligence -- most government drones aren't the brightest lights, and politicians are even worse (background concept: imagine that we've placed the guy who thinks the Internet is "a series of tubes" in charge of security). (Or here's a better one, ideal for Slashdot readers: we've put the US Patent office, who can't even decide whether clicking a Web link is a "new and unique invention," in charge of it.)
2. By thousands of restrictions on what it CAN do -- for example, profiling is out, selecting "likely" passengers to be dangerous based on statistics, etc., etc.
My wife works for the government, and we don't know whether to laugh or cry. Every time there's an incident (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, or the most recent, the toner attempt), they go into Code Orange. They have a guy watch me as I wait for her out front at the end of each day (she's unable to drive due to her vision), even though they know me. Why? Because he was Told To Do So(sm). They are Taking Steps(r). They are proving that they are Serious About The Terrorist Threat(c).
(I've often said that, if the government bureau-crazy really had its way, they could stamp out terrorism overnight: they'd simply choke it with paperwork. "Before you may crash this plane into that stadium, you must fill out these forms assessing the environmental impact ...")
Better yet, whenever we go to Code Orange, security carefully checks credentials at the employee's entrance.
At the EMPLOYEE'S entrance. Even though they recognize each other. "Good morning, sweetie! How's your husband?" "Just fine" [hands over id card, puts purse on belt to go through the scanner] ...
Meanwhile, a milling mass of ordinary citizens wraps around the block, waiting in line at the public entrance, some wearing backpacks and carrying large suitcases .. . .. but no one dares do more than a cursory check of these folks, because they'll start screaming and next thing you know, you'll have An Incident(tm) that makes the news.
There you go. A Crisis occurs, government hurls paperwork, makework and completely (and inexplicably) ineffective procedures in place to give the APPEARANCE that they're doing something. They're the drunk who looks for his keys a block away from where he dropped them because "the light is better" -- writ large.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
The TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist before they attempted to commit a crime. Shoe-tosses, liquid bans, enhanced pat-downs, body scanners, and all the other reactive measures implemented by this agency ignore the simple fact that the FAA red teams still have no problems whatsoever to penetrate airport security zones at will. Why would a determined terrorist be any less able to do so?
Given that neither scanners nor pat downs can detect body-cavity contraband, the argument that terrorists cannot carry enough contraband into aircraft at this point to be dangerous is simply absurd. Plus, the TSA has not allocated any additional space to open up more parallel lines of entry into airports. So, all these scanners do is slow down the rate of passage to the point where massive security lines have become more inviting targets than aircraft themselves (Remember Rome/Vienna 1985?).
Lastly, please consider the very real situation in most airports where the so-called porno-scanners are regularly shut down during peak travel periods for the reasons given above. If it's that simple to bypass a scanner, then having the scanners there in the first place is completely pointless. Any terrorist worth his/her salt would simply observe the usual travel/security patterns and plan accordingly.
I always elect for a pat-down screening simply because I do not trust the statements made by the TSA re: the radiation levels being safe and some radiologists seem to agree. What I found particularly interesting in the context of one screening experience is the language used by the TSA - "opt-out". No, I didn't opt-out of security screening, I opted for an alternative screening procedure that is arguably safer since the gloves that the TSA folk wear are also tested for explosive residue. Language is important and the way the TSA is using it is contrary to what is actually going on.
Given the extremes that the TSA has gone to lie to the public (example: we don't save the pictures, except for the 35,000+ we sent to a private contractor), the arrogance that they treat the flying public with (the constant yelling at checkpoints), and the sheer ineffectiveness of the agency at meeting its objectives makes me conclude that the better approach is to scrap the agency, return its employees into the pools of privately-contracted companies that used to do airport security, and accept that 100% safety in flying is simply not possible.
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
The UK head of Terror. That's all I know offhand.
If a terrorist successfully impersonates a pilot, they don't need to have anything on their person. They have hands on the flight controls and thus can crash the plane. Your life is, in a very real way, in the hands of the pilots on a plane. If they steer the plane to crash, it'll crash the automated systems can't override them. As such it doesn't matter if they also have a knife or something like that because they have control of the plane anyhow.
So the security check for pilots isn't the same as regular people. For them it is an identity check, you need to make sure they are who they claim they are. That makes sense, and is done as far as I know, probably by the airlines themselves. However once identity is established, further checks are stupid.
It would be like the Secret Service checking the Marine guards for weapons. Of COURSE they have weapons, that's the point. What you check isn't if they have a gun, you check to make sure they are who they are supposed to be.
So check the pilot's identity in any way useful, do whatever is needed to make sure they are the person they claim to be. However don't be stupid about the rest. They are the pilot, you have to trust them. If they cannot be trusted, I don't want their hands on the yoke no matter how sure you are they don't have nail clippers or shampoo on their person.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but checking an employee's ID even if you recognise him or her is good practice. When someone is laid off or quits they should have their ID taken and will be removed from the database of employees; checking ID therefore allows you to avoid letting people in who have been allowed in in the past but are no longer allowed, possibly for a reason that would make them a potential threat.
Someone here suggested that "people need to get over being seen naked". I can't find that comment to respond to it because it has (rightfully) been modded into oblivion, so I'll post this as a general response: some of us don't care about being seen naked. Hell, if people are so concerned that I might be smuggling a bomb under my penis (it's not *that* big), I'd go naked all the time; I don't care. The only thing that would bother me is the cold. What *does* bother me is that there are serious health concerns with the scanning machines. I don't know about you, but I've known cancer patients. I've seen some die. It's not pretty, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice our liberty or our health just to FEEL "safe". If anyone needs to "get over" something, the original poster needs to grow a pair and stop being so scared that he's willing to sell out his own country and sacrifice his health to FEEL "safe".
Nathan's blog
...Bush put in place these policies...If Obama or Clinton were in office in 2001 they would have done the same thing...
And that's precisely why there is no "left/right" issue outside of mass media propaganda. Also note there is no "left" in the American government. There is only power and authority and various methods of acquiring it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Actually,THE law says that they can't make a law like that at all. I really don't understand why everyone seems to think the constitution doesn't apply if you have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
IMHO involved parties in a conflict should be named after their goals, not (one of) their of tactics.
Your definition applies to almost every participant in armed conflict in history, and
certainly to the armed forces of all the major powers. As a mental exercise, imagine asking everybody in the world (anonymously/confidentially) if they considered themselves to be "terrorists".
I don't think anybody would consider themselves so.
External labeling and over-simplification will lead us no nearer to real solutions.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Only if they can figure out after the plane comes down, exactly how the explosives got on board.
We seem to be concentrating on the threats that failed.
> I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
I do.
Where I've been, where I'm going, and why; are my business, not yours. And unless I, myself, am a suspect of a specific crime; it's no business of law enforcement* either. And if I AM a suspect in that crime, they damn well better cough up a lawyer for me before asking their questions. You remember things like "probable cause" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your Miranda rights?
(*And let's not forget that the airport security goonsquad aren't even real law enforcement officers. They're just glorified rent-a-cops wearing a fake uniform.)
Imagine all the people...
I'm not scapegoating anybody. I'm not trying to start a flame war. I am not trolling. I stated a simple, objective fact in neutral, non-judgemental terms. Many Muslims resent the US because we are perceived to be the friend of their enemy. In no way does that mean it is the Israelis' fault, or in any way judges their actions.
This predates the Afghani/Iraqi causes of resentment that the GP refers to. My point was simple - our relationship with the Islamic world has been poor for a long time, for reasons that existed prior to the Soviet-Afghan and Iran-Iraq conflicts.
As for your statement that they can't even get along with themselves, consider the Christian-on-Christian violence in Northern Ireland which is only now subsiding. Political violence along sectarian lines is nothing unique to Islam.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Yes, and all those terrorists saw the TSA policies, and decided to instead live out the rest of their lives peacefully, instead of simply plotting to commit terror in other ways against the thousands of other possible targets.
Come on, really, imagine you were a terrorist, and wanted to destroy the infidel, do you really honestly think you'd be incapable of imagining anything other than an aeroplane as a target? Really? You would just give up, and say "oh dear, the TSA has foiled us completely, praise Allah"?
The fact is there aren't that many terrorists. If there were, there would be trains and malls and e.g. tourist hotspots exploding every other month in the US. But, terrorists do exist and always will. The primary question is finding an appropriate balance of safety (true additional safety, not security theater) versus the cost (both financial, and in terms of public inconvenience and humiliation etc.). If money were infinite we could have the luxury of adding as many security policies as we want, the reality is not only is money not infinite, but we are in difficult times.
I don't think the Constitution provided for those. If it's American soil, the Constitution applies, end of story. If they're saying that airports aren't American soil, then why would there be a problem with bombing them into oblivion?
Why? Because the hole in our security that the terrorists identified and used was that heavy aircraft make excellent kinetic strike warheads. In order to exploit this, they must obtain control of the aircraft. If we isolate the flight crew, this is no longer possible. The button further ensures that no relationship with the pilot can be used to leverage control, even to the point of flying over a certain area at a certain time.
The end result would be a security state not unlike that prior to 9/11; very low risk of hijacking, because the rewards are also very low.
What pisses me off the most is the government's presumption not that the best solution would be found in crushing the liberties of US citizens, but that their idea is that any solution was to be found there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The American public just bought into what the terrorists were selling, and the country will take many years to recover its senses.
Liberty is risky! Freedom is dangerous! Embrace the consequences, because the price is more than fair.
I really wish people would stop saying "America has succumbed to fear!" when in reality it's not the majority of Americans, it's just the elected and unelected officials in the Federal government that have succumbed to fear, the fear of responsibility. Airlines are afraid of being sued into the ground by families of airline-related terror attacks, and so the Government puts these security theatrics in place to allay those fears. Most Americans are now of a mindset to take out anyone who tries to take over a plane, even if it's only because they don't want to be held up from getting to their destination any more than they already are. We won't get any change in the security theatrics anytime soon, at least not until we start electing adults to the governments, Federal and state.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
We will never know the answer to that.
Let's look at the major terror attacks that has been carried out and see if the new screenings would have prevented them.
Let's start with the biggest one of all: 9/11. The answer is 'NO'. Neither backscatter screening, nor metal detectors, x-ray machines or enhanced pat-downs would have stopped the carbon fiber box cutters which were used to kill the pilots on the four 9/11 hijacked airplanes. Sure, the air marshals and the locked cockpit doors would make it harder to take over the planes but it is still possible, especially if you are 4 hijackers.
How about Lockerbye? - A bomb in the cargo hold? - Well, sure they screen checked luggage but do they screen the airport employees well enough? - Here's an example: Heathrow in London did an extra screening and found no less than THREE employees who were illegal aliens, i.e. working without proper papers and permits. None used false documentation; they just didn't check anything when they were hired. All three had access to both checked luggage and the secured areas around the planes. It would be childsplay for one of them to place a bomb on a plane. Oh, and all three were from 'high risk countries' in the muslim world... Oh, and recently Al-Queda tried the simple thing of sending the bombs as air freight and it worked like a charm...
So much for the security theater at the airports...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --