Slashdot Mirror


How X-Ray Scanners Became Mandatory In US Airports

OverTheGeicoE writes "ProPublica has a story on how x-ray scanners became the controversial yet mandatory security fixtures we in the US must now endure. The story title, 'U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray Scanners,' summarizes a substantial part of the article, but not all of it. The story also describes how government attitudes about the scanners went from overwhelmingly negative in the early 1990s to the naive optimism we see today. How did this change occur? The government weakened its regulatory structure for radiation safety in electronic devices, and left defining safety standards to an ANSI committee dominated by scanner producers and users (prison and customs officials). Even after 9/11 there was still great mistrust of x-ray scanners, but nine years of lobbying from scanner manufacturers, panic over failed terrorist attacks, and pressure from legislators advancing businesses in their own districts eventually forced the devices into the airports. The article estimates that 6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused by the x-ray scanners."

264 comments

  1. It was a lobby, and some panic... what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason why there are scanners: not because there is an actual need, or statistics that say so, or science or anything objective.

    It was a result of panic and greed.

    Just like the rest of that War on Terror.

  2. That's a good tradeoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, 100 people a year could get a death sentence from a system that has yet to save a single life? That makes as much sense as anything else this government does.

    1. Re:That's a good tradeoff by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Do the scanners really pose a health threat?
      Aren't they non-ionizing radiation so it wont affect your cells?

      I know some people out there see Radiation = BAD, and don't take it beyond that.

    2. Re:That's a good tradeoff by heypete · · Score: 4, Informative

      X-rays are ionizing radiation.

    3. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the X-rays are ionizing radiation.

    4. Re:That's a good tradeoff by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      X-rays arent good for you but mostly is the weak shieleding and poor maintience that is the long term problem. Those 100 people will be the security guards standing by the machines for 40 hours a week for 5 years.

      Every 5 minutes or so they are getting a full xray dose.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:That's a good tradeoff by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Millimeter-wave scanners are non-ionizing radiation (in not-so-small quantities). Backscatter X-ray scanners are ionizing radiation, though in very small quantities.

    6. Re:That's a good tradeoff by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

      There has been a long debate on this, most of which you can easily find by search engine. These devices do a raster scan with a fairly intense spot beam (most of this radiation goes right through you; the spot beam has to be strong as the signal is actually the fraction scattered off of your skin). The spot beam would be a problem if it was to sit on one location for any length of time, so you are totally reliant on the software to not get a serious dose. That alone is a real worry, as most medical Xray radiation problems are due to software errors. That also means that any repeated glints out of the device (say, by people's metal buttons) are likely to cause problems for nearby agents (as they tend to stand in the same place, and so could get repeated exposures). It also means that just wearing a dosimeter is pretty worthless. The agent's chest might get no glint exposure and their feet or crotch might get a serious one.

      The above is pretty much the conventional wisdom. As a physicist, I also worry about the way that they calculated dosage (whole body versus surface exposure) may seriously underestimate the risk, but that worry is not very conventional. If I am right, look for skin cancers to start appearing in frequent flyers in areas normally covered by clothing. Of course, that will take a few years; Michael Chertoff is likely to have retired with his loot by then.

    7. Re:That's a good tradeoff by mr1911 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do the scanners really pose a health threat?

      It is quite certain they are not good for you.

      Scanning tools at the hospital have to pass high hurdles to be certified for use. The scanners at the airport were installed such that they circumvented such certification. Do you think it would have been necessary to circumvent the certification if they would have passed?

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    8. Re:That's a good tradeoff by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Maybe if this becomes public knowledge, no one will work the scanners.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:That's a good tradeoff by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice post. Just one correction, at the beam energies used in these devices (50 kVp - 120 kVp), most X-ray photons certainly do not go straight through you. At about 120 kVp, about 75% will get absorbed through the torso - and in the case of 50 kVp, essentially 100% will be absorbed (with only a fraction of a percent getting scattered, as 50 kVp is below the optimal range for Compton scattering in body tissues).

      In fact, it was widely stated in the marketing information and propaganda for these scanners that the X-ray beam does not penetrate skin. This statement is patently false at all energies in commercial use. If they can get away with deliberate lies as basic as that, how can you reasonably believe any more difficult claims?

    10. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Nadaka · · Score: 0

      Thats ok, the TSA agents are pretty eager to do fondle and grope downs now that the porn machines don't produce photo realistic images.

    11. Re:That's a good tradeoff by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There is still considerable debate about whether millimeter wave emissions can damage DNA. Not all damage is from ionization.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are quite correct. General public will mostly not be affected, unless there is major malfunction of these devices. But the people standing next to them for hours and hours, every day, I would not take that job!

      My objection to these x-ray machines are invasion of privacy more than anything else. So I refuse to fly these days, unless it became absolutely necessary.

      PS. This is stated by someone that does not believe in the LNT model of radiation that is used to calculate these numbers. Actually, there is NO proof of LNT except blatant extrapolation that has been shown over and over again to be false.

      Here's a very good quote about this,

      The LNT (no safe dose) view assigns in one version of it .04 statistical deaths per sievert of radiation. Such a statistic does not discern any hormetic effects accompanying low dose radiation (DNA repair mechanisms) despite massive scientific evidence of its existence and it does not distinguish between a high dose to one person and a tiny dose to many that would add up to the high dose. so it does not distinguish between one person getting a dose of 1 million millirem from one million people getting a dose of one millirem.

      Now: the difference between global average background radiation and U.S. average (620 mrem due to nuclear medicine and testing) is about 260 mrem. The way no safe dose works is that you can calculate the statistical deaths of this excess 260 mrems (which most people think saves many lives) by multiplying 300 million (pop. of U.S.) by .0026 (in Sieverts. One sievert equals 100,000 mrem).

      If you do the calculation, you get 780,000 Sieverts, which you then multiply by .04 to get 31,200 excess deaths annually.

      Those who doubt no safe dose thus tend to think that people employing it are crying wolf. Even as both sides agree that beyond a certain threshold, there is a correlation between increasing dose (dose rate obviously matters a lot) and increased cancer incidence.

      To complicate matters, the reality of the rhetorical situation is that on average, liberals and leftists oppose nuclear power and assume no safe dose. Among right wingers who know a little about this stuff, they are attracted to nuclear power, despite often being climate denialists, because theyâ(TM)re technocrats/because liberals hate itâ"very mature behavior etc. and they are attracted (often without exercising due care) to the theory of radiation hormesis for similar reasons.

      So, on the one side, if you are anti nuclear, you can generate what one author (a libertarian) on hormesis called theoretical corpses. Think about the statistical deaths that can be produced by taking the difference between high and low radiation areas and multiplying by respective populations (to get deaths per 100,000 people for example per unit of time). Just take the difference between denver and new orleans (5-600 mrem), multiply by your .04, multiply by 50 years and see lots of statistical deaths, deaths THAT IN REALITY NEVER APPEAR as Denverâ(TM)s cancer incidence is significantly lower than New Orleans, in contradiction to LNT.

      On the other side, you have people like Ann Coulter, who defends the idea of radiation hormesis in order to accuse the liberals of paranoia and exaggerationâ"with the purpose of whitewashing general corporate criminality.

      Anyhow, I think LNT is wrong, however convenient it may be as a standard (the alternative would involve huge amounts of government research to determine with some precision the hormetic zone in terms of dose rates for different cancers: very complicated and open to dispute). So I donâ(TM)t buy the excess deaths per year generated by the LNT coefficient. I donâ(TM)t think itâ(TM)s at a

    13. Re:That's a good tradeoff by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      You do realize that 50 kVp does not mean that the x-rays are 50 keV x-rays, right? Most of them will be (off the top of my head) 10-20 keV and skin deep sounds about right for that range.

    14. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly the gropers that stand by the checkpoint all day long harassing travelers that die, the risk for passengers are negligible. (cynical remark)

    15. Re:That's a good tradeoff by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Do the scanners really pose a health threat?

      Radiation only kills off the weak cells.

      As a result, the remaining cells, and by extension my body, on average are stronger.

      And yes, drinking alcohol does make you smarter.

    16. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well what about all the passengers who are standing in line as they wait for the person who doesn't know their head from their ass to go through security. Unfortunately for my job I fly frequently so if the airports that I go through have this I would probably get the equivalent of 15 to 20 full X-Ray doses a year. If the TSA does unionize then maybe they can get some protection, but that would spook the hell out of people seeing a bunch of TSA agents standing around in heavy lead lines suits for protection from the X-rays that they are going to be bombarded with.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    17. Re:That's a good tradeoff by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      There is still considerable debate about whether millimeter wave emissions can damage DNA.

      In the sense that there's "debate" over whether there are ill health effects from 802.11 devices, yes. There's been a couple of papers studying possible DNA damage in the THz range, which is a shorter wavelength than mm-wave scanners use.

      Not all damage is from ionization.

      Obviously not. Microwaves can destroy DNA thermally if you give them long enough, after all. At the energies used in these scanners, though, all of the damage is from ionization.

    18. Re:That's a good tradeoff by nightfell · · Score: 1

      If they are getting absorbed by the skin, isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd want in terms of radiation dosage? I.e., more photons absorbed == more chance for DNA damage and cancer?

      Also, it would seem that that would skew the danger from different dosages such that what would normally be a low risk dosage (because most of the photons would fly through you) would be a higher risk, because the actual absorption is higher, even at lower dosages?

    19. Re:That's a good tradeoff by nightfell · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the first two sentences of your post have been augmented by putting into practice the last sentence?

    20. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Matt.Battey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are also required to be enclosed in lead lined rooms, with leaded glass, and use lead lined doors and door frames. This is to protect the radiologic technologist, the radiologist, and patients in surrounding corridors and rooms. When anyone must be present in a room when the HE photon gun is activated, they are required to wear full body leaded gowns, and neck collars to protect the thyroid. Patients are also provided shields to cover the torso or thyroid when that region is not being scanned. This is particularly important for women, as female zygotes 100% present from birth, unlike male zygotes which are fully regenerated about every 15 days. Hospital workers are required to be licensed by the state health board in order to operate the machinery, as it is up to the operator to ensure that overexposure does not occur. Many boards require yearly continuing education to maintain the license as well.

      In the airport the machines are in open air rooms, with the majority of the TSA staff standing with in 10 meters of the system. There is no shielding for the TSA employees or other airport workers near by. Compare that to the baggage scanner that is completely enclosed in lead, and has leaded curtains at both the entry and exit of the machine. I'm fairly certain that none of the TSA FBS operators are licensed by state health boards.

    21. Re:That's a good tradeoff by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense in my head place, but in my gut place I know that it makes America safe

  3. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat a Ham Sandwich, Drink a beer.

  4. Broken window fallacy by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...pressure from legislators advancing businesses in their own districts eventually forced the devices into the airports.

    The idea is that you create "make-work" for people to do, and then there'll be more jobs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

    The problem is the money you're spending is coming out of taxes, which is reducing the amount that would have been invested in other productivity-enhancing or job-producing activities in the economy.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Broken window fallacy by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2

      In this case, I agree.

      In other cases though, it has a benefit... so long as the project has long-term benefits worth the cost. Like the Hoover Dam was pretty much busy work to get the economy going again (jobs, money flow, pride, etc) and when it was complete it became a large source of electricity.

      Or perhaps a bridge, of course assuming it doesn't go to "nowhere," where the long-term fiscal benefits are harder to calculate but still there. Easier travel to a city = less gas used + less traffic + fewer accidents + etc.

      However with the scanners, it's mostly "to make the public feel safer, so long as they don't think it causes cancer." Sure, if stops someone from sneaking onto a plane with a weapon than you can say "it just saved X lives + plus the cost of the plane + plus the cost of insurance pay-outs + plus the cost of property damage + etc" but have they REALLY stopped anything? If someone wants to do something to the plane, they know enough not to just walk into line... they'll just try to infiltrate the employees that don't use them.

    2. Re:Broken window fallacy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      productivity-enhancing

      Why would we want to increase productivity in a world where labor is a buyer's market?

      We'd be better off if everyone did half as much. Assuming you believe in a "free market". Which I don't.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Broken window fallacy by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      >In other cases though, it has a benefit... so long as the project has long-term benefits worth the cost.

      Yeah. That'd be investment.

      The problem is you get people who are radical Keynesians (not people from Kenya!) who believe spending on something, anything will always be a net benefit.

      That's why you get stuff like these scanners. And the Osprey.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:Broken window fallacy by khallow · · Score: 0

      If someone wants to do something to the plane, they know enough not to just walk into line... they'll just try to infiltrate the employees that don't use them.

      Not everyone can infiltrate employees. It is an effective barrier to entry.

    5. Re:Broken window fallacy by grumling · · Score: 5, Informative

      Like the Hoover Dam was pretty much busy work to get the economy going again (jobs, money flow, pride, etc) and when it was complete it became a large source of electricity.

      Bad example. The Hoover Dam was planned and sent through Congress during the Harding and Coolidge administrations. It was a happy accident that it was built during the 1930s, and Six Companies made out like bandits because they got labor at a much better price than estimated, and lots of it. In fact, the reason it is called the Hoover Dam and not Boulder Dam is because Hoover got the states together to sign the Colorado River Pact in the late teens and early 1920s. And the benefit to the US (and the world) is easily calculated in irrigated land in the southern US and the massive increase in food production that resulted.

      A make work project would be about 1/2 the various epidemiological studies that look at cancer rates and power lines. Or locking up drug offenders for life.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    6. Re:Broken window fallacy by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I don't know... at the air ports I've been to the eating area and shops are behind the scanners and such. Getting hired to work there probably requires more security checks than your average McDonalds or grocery store but I doubt it's THAT hard.

      Besides, the concerns are usually less along the lines of the FBI's most-wanted list doing something, but some recently converted kid making a suicide run. Such a person might have a clean record.

    7. Re:Broken window fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that, the only people living who can recall the madness of things like the shoe-fitting flouroscope are in their 70s'+ and are too senile and cranky to care about things like this.

    8. Re:Broken window fallacy by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      The problem is you get people who are radical Keynesians (not people from Kenya!)

      No, that would be Kenyans. Keynesians are people from Milton Keynes.

    9. Re:Broken window fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      productivity-enhancing

      Why would we want to increase productivity in a world where labor is a buyer's market?

      We'd be better off if everyone did half as much. Assuming you believe in a "free market". Which I don't.

      Well, we saw what happens when you ramp up the efficiency when all the remaining hard disk drive factories ended up in the same flooded-out city.

      Anyway, the "broken window fallacy" doesn't apply well when the money leaves the local economy (US). Government employees employees pay local taxes. It may be churning more than it is productive, but at least it keeps local business in play.

      Offshore labor doesn't pay local taxes, but it does siphon off local cash. That means less revenue for the government, which means that the government isn't going to contract out as much local business and the laid-off government employees won't be shopping local businesses, either. Double whammy.

    10. Re:Broken window fallacy by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 0

      The scanners possibly have the benefit of making people confident enough to fly, and so are not totally make-work ...

      Money is put into circulation, beyond what is spent on the scanners...and people will fly who wouldn't otherwise, so there is a benefit - unlike the broken window where the end product is the status quo but money has been spent....

      Keynesian economics works when you spend money on beneficial items, it doesn't if you waste it ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    11. Re:Broken window fallacy by Ma'at · · Score: 2

      The problem is you get people who are radical Keynesians (not people from Kenya!) who believe spending on something, anything will always be a net benefit.

      Well, the point that Keynesians make is that during a demand slump, spending on something, anything will be a net benefit, they don't say that it will ALWAYS be a net benefit. In the current economy, where consumers can't spend because they are debt-constrained, and industry won't spend because there are no customers buying, then government should step in and spend to fill the demand gap and cut taxes to give consumers and industry more spare cash to spend. The corollary to this is during good times, you raise taxes and pay off the debts accrued during the bad times which we were actually doing a great job of until the Bush tax cuts. Since we went into this recession with very low tax rates, further tax cuts have little benefit and it would be, under these specific economic conditions, a net benefit for the government to spend money to put people to work doing almost anything, since they will turn around and spend that money and create further economic activity.

    12. Re:Broken window fallacy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It may be churning more than it is productive, but at least it keeps local business in play.

      More important, it keeps food in peoples' mouths.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Broken window fallacy by anwaya · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Hoover dam does more than just make electricity: it is part of the system of dams that control the Colorado's propensity to flood uncontrollably, and this control allows a stable agricultural system to flourish, which feeds tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. You know, rather than the fields being wiped out every ten years, or permanently flooded like the Salton Sea.

      Lake Mead is named for the genius from the Bureau of Land Management who made this happen. He was from the government, and he was there to help.

    14. Re:Broken window fallacy by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The problem is the money you're spending is coming out of taxes, which is reducing the amount that would have been invested in other productivity-enhancing or job-producing activities in the economy.

      The politicians know this. All that they care about is that the money is being spent in their electorate, and that they are seen by the citizens as being at least partially responsible for bringing it there.

    15. Re:Broken window fallacy by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      >Keynesians are people from Milton Keynes.

      For the people following along, that would be as opposed to the people from Milton Friedman.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    16. Re:Broken window fallacy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And the Osprey.

      The Osprey is what you get when the one branch of the military that isn't completely bogged down by inter-service political bullshit about who can use what kind of aircraft to avoid stepping on each other's toes asks for an aircraft that actually suits their needs which turned out to be a difficult thing to deliver in practice (but is working now).

      I mean I'm not saying this was a good use of money compared to, say, funding extra science curriculum in high schools across the nation.

      I just find it disappointing that of all the military boondoggles to pick on, people seem to gravitate towards the one that was actually something useful and innovative but risky, rather than the truly unnecessary money sinks (the Crusader mobile howitzer would be the first one that springs to my mind).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Broken window fallacy by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Blue jumpsuit and a fake ID should do it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    18. Re:Broken window fallacy by fermion · · Score: 1
      It is unclear in terms of economic growth whether deficiet spending on the part of government or private individuals produces different results. Certainly government can borrow money much more cheaply than private individuals. Furthermore, there is not necessarily a finite amount of money to lend. If businesses want to borrow to expand, there is money, but no sane business is going to expand because there is no demand.

      In terms of government spending, there may be a difference between airport screeners and jobs where actual infrastructure is created. The economic benefit of airport screeners ends if and when those jobs are ended. If someone builds a useful road, or write useful code, or creates a new knowledge through research and development, that is money that is invested and will continue to generate economic growth long after the jobs or funding ends. Just look at the uproar about closing military bases. The economic growth spurred by those bases end the minute those bases are closed. This is the kind of government spending we need to minimize, spending that is not long term or can be used or repurposed to a large variety of industries.

      One thing that is true is that small firms, that is firms that fall under the number of employees that require a large amount of regulation, do create jobs. What is also true is that the tax burden on these small firms, firms of a few to tens of people, creates an environment where such firms have an extremely difficult time surviving and employing people. What is also true is such firms must be are crucial as they make everyone a job creator, which takes the government out of the equation. We do not need to bail out a bank, as it becomes better from a tax perspective to be a small independent bank rather than a mega bank.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    19. Re:Broken window fallacy by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      It also assumed that the dam, bridge, road, etc... didn't already exist. Unfortunately this logic is all too often used (incorrectly) to justify tearing up perfectly good roads and bridges and replace them with new ones that have no more capacity than the originals. Besides the obvious wasting of tax dollars the year long or more construction cycle results in more gas used, more traffic, more accidents, etc...

    20. Re:Broken window fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You union people are so defeatist and enamored with mediocrity.

      Heaven forbid I plug in my own computer into the power outlet right in front of me in my company's trade show booth: nay, I have to go beg a union brother to do that for me after he gets off break. But hey, at least we are keeping him employed at 50k/year + gold plated benefits for this valuable consideration he provides: plugging computers into outlets is challenging!

      You luddites have been afraid of technology and efficiency "stealing your jobs" since the 19th century. You're quite wrong: it makes everyone richer. Or are you upset that clothing, pins, cars, and damn near everything else no longer costs a fortune and is affordable for the masses?

      Let efficiency peak. Attempting to entrench inefficiency in order to "save jobs" is defeatist. Thank god the US didn't listen to your kind of insanity during the early 20th century or we would still be forced to employ people to build every car as a one off. I mean, assembly line efficiencies steal jobs in your mind, right? Better to pay 10x the number of people to accomplish the same task. Who cares if no one can afford a car anyway?

    21. Re:Broken window fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, shoe-fitting fluoroscopes were still in use in the mid-60/70s, so still remembered by people in their 40s or 50s - and not too senile or cranky to care.

    22. Re:Broken window fallacy by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I don't know... at the air ports I've been to the eating area and shops are behind the scanners and such. Getting hired to work there probably requires more security checks than your average McDonalds or grocery store but I doubt it's THAT hard.

      Well, to get my security badge I had to sign a form indicating whether I'd been convicted of various crimes like murder, arson, hijacking, etc, in the last 10 years. So, I guess, if one of the 9/11 hijackers had survived, they could honestly answer no to those questions.
      (In all fairness, they also fingerprinted me and did a background check, so they maybe could prevent one from getting a badge regardless of that particular form.)

    23. Re:Broken window fallacy by jbengt · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be enough in any of the airports I've ever worked in. Typically you would need a badge with a forged RFID or magnetic stripe plus a fingerprint or PIN to match up within the security database.

    24. Re:Broken window fallacy by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Sure, if stops someone from sneaking onto a plane with a weapon than you can say "it just saved X lives + plus the cost of the plane + plus the cost of insurance pay-outs + plus the cost of property damage + etc" but have they REALLY stopped anything?

      No. Especially since lots of stuff gets past them now without issue. I have accidentally brought a number of dangerous items through security and they have never found them. It is not like I was even trying to hide them. I have brought the following through at one time or another since the TSA came about, all of which should have been easy to detect and have been banned since day 1:
      1. A handful of 3 inch magnum 12 gauge shotgun shells (about 10)
      2. almost 20 7.62x54r rifle rounds
      3. my small pocket knife (3 blades the largest of which is 2.5 inches)
      4. my large pocket knife (4 inch lock blade)
      5. 2 straight edge razors

      I have never been stopped or questioned about any of that, but god forbid if I bring my old 35mm film SLR with the metal chassis, filters, bulb, flash, and assorted lenses then it is off to the side with you and we play 20 questions and wipe for explosives. Now just to be a pain in the ass I keep a roll of 3200 speed film in the bag so I can make them check it by hand but still I end up playing 20 questions since it appears that no one knows what camera equipment is any more.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    25. Re:Broken window fallacy by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      The scanners possibly have the benefit of making people confident enough to fly, and so are not totally make-work ...

      Sure, although they also may have the *opposite* effect, in making people NOT want to fly.

    26. Re:Broken window fallacy by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. How many people refuse to fly anymore with the crap they make you do at the airport. I have heard (read) a few people here say they don't fly anymore. My brother also refuses to go on a trip if it involves getting on a plane. I myself refuse to use the scanners and have taken the pat-down even though I think that is stupid also.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    27. Re:Broken window fallacy by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The scanners possibly have the benefit of making people confident enough to fly, and so are not totally make-work ...
      I don't know about everybody else, but the inconvenience of succumbing to the security and the increased costs of flying due to the security has made it almost a surety that I will never fly again unless my company makes me.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    28. Re:Broken window fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they the ones that have the nice feature of sometimes spontaneously falling out of the sky?

    29. Re:Broken window fallacy by astar · · Score: 1

      progress?

      Locating humans within the general planetary biological processes, we can say something like "the proper measure of an economy is the increase in the productivity of labor". Hee, as opposed to a garbage scalar like increases in GNP. But I was amused at the free market types crawling out of the sewer in response to your post. You really need to cherish them...after taking away their sharps..

  5. Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess I just won't ever go on holiday to the US again then. Problem solved!

    On a more serious note, as an existing radiation worker in the health industry, I personally object to being exposed to this which I see as completely unnecessary on health grounds

  6. Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by ebonum · · Score: 1

    ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.

    Perhaps the terrorists are actually hyper intelligent beings who knew all along that if they could only trick us into radiating ourselves out of fear of them and we would do their job for them while they kick back and enjoy some of that great Mideast sun and sand. 1000 dead and all they had to do was say "Boo!"

  7. I for one... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    do not welcome our new x-ray overlords.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then sign a petition. Why are there only 5000ish signatures? That should be 5000000.

  8. The TL;DR version. by crow_t_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "How X-Ray Scanners Became Mandatory In US Airports" --> Raw, unmitigated fear.

    1. Re:The TL;DR version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How X-Ray Scanners Became Mandatory In US Airports" --> Raw, unmitigated GREED.

      Fixed it for you

    2. Re:The TL;DR version. by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that's not correct: It was raw, unmitigated corruption.

      Or did you think it was an accident that then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, in charge of DHS when they made the decision to use the scanners, just happened to have a financial interest in the company that makes the scanners?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:The TL;DR version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Our chief weapon is fear...fear and corruption...corruption and fear.... Our two weapons are corruption and fear...and ruthless inefficiency.... Our *three* weapons are corruption, fear and ruthless inefficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to spending.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as corruption, fear.... I'll come in again.

    4. Re:The TL;DR version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All this is to condition us to accept a more intrusive police state.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQYiau7ba20 excellent expose

      I also understand Chertoff maintains dual citizenship

    5. Re:The TL;DR version. by Think+less! · · Score: 0

      Where most of them are obscured from the public eye, this is an obvious case of acute cronyism, America's greatest threat. Occupiers around the nation and world, as international fliers are subject to the machines too, should be demanding Michael Chertoff's head on a spike. I'd join the occupy movement if it was outspoken about obvious, distinct threats like this one.

    6. Re:The TL;DR version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr - also known as a summary, or even title.

      Now go back to your homework.

  9. Revolving door corrupt politics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The people that do not seem to care about politics in this country.. or think they actually get news from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or any of the country's big newspapers.. do not realize how thoroughly corrupt the entire system has become. Michael Chertoff is corrupt.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html

    These unelected public officials go from decision-making positions in government to lucrative private industry that sells more bullshit back to government at the expence of taxpayers. We, as taxpayers, need to start looking at these big-money solutions as spending OUR money.

  10. Airport security is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Airport security is a farce. Tell me this, what sense does it make to limit liquid tubes to 6oz? Why do we simply throw any liquid tubes into the trash can if they really believe the liquid is explosives? Now there is a trash can full of `explosives`. What is to stop someone from having 3 6oz bottles, when mixed together you now have 18oz? These policies make no sense. It's no surprise to me that we use x-ray scanners in airports. They're mostly a deterrent but if someone really wants to take a plane down I'm sure they can figure out a way to get around airport 'security'.

    1. Re:Airport security is a farce by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even better:

      I was once in an airport queue with an American friend who had, somehow, managed to bring a can of CS spray into a country where any sort of offensive weapon is illegal. CS spray is illegal for anything but police use over here. You will be arrested just for having it on you, whether you use it or not, whether it's for "self-defence" or not. It's just an instantaneous "arrest me".

      They'd managed to bring it from the US, through all the "heightened" airport security post-9-11, onto a plane, into my country, through my airport security, carry it around London for several weeks in her handbag (including through museum entry security checks, public transport etc), and only because her friends spotted it when she opened her bag IN A LONDON AIRPORT as she headed home - specifically, the queue to security scanning - that anyone knew she'd had it.

      In London, carrying CS spray is an instant arrest that would pretty much provoke an immediate armed response anyway, especially in an airport which is about the only place the average Brit would ever see live weapons in real-life (carried by the policemen).

      We quietly and hastily had her dispose of it into the wheelie-bins used for over-size deodorants etc. (as you say, they're just a large, unchecked "trash can" full of material that you're NOT allowed to take on a plane because of it's contents or size, sitting in the middle of an airport foyer) and passed through the airport unhindered onto our destination.

      God knows what happens in that bin. The incineration must be fabulous when they do it, because it could literally contain anything at all. And, as you point out, prime target to drop a couple of things in, along with a dozen or a thousand "innocent" items that your accomplices can put in there earlier in the day and be pretty much untraceable which one caused the explosion. Right by the entrance to a security queue which can take hours to pass through and contain thousands of passengers sounds pretty much perfect - and the risk is just that of dropping someone off at an airport and them dropping something in a bin designed for things to be dropped into anonymously, because those bins are not "airside".

    2. Re:Airport security is a farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why bother bringing the plane down when there are large lines of people waiting in line to go through the security checkpoint that are all vulnerable to attack...and as an added bonus you don't need to get through the security checkpoint to bring your bomb to them...and you are even expected to be carrying luggage or bags so it is easy to hide your bomb.

    3. Re:Airport security is a farce by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why bother bringing the plane down when there are large lines of people waiting in line to go through the security checkpoint that are all vulnerable to attack

      Because terrorists want western society to become a police state, or dictatorship, or whatever isn't free. Their goal is to incite fear of freedom, and to make society beg their government to make them less free (in exchange, of course, for something like security).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:Airport security is a farce by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      I know your post meant to highlight how bad the TSA is, but it really pointed out the UK is much, much worse because you live in fear of women that might want to protect themselves from physically stronger assailants.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    5. Re:Airport security is a farce by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    6. Re:Airport security is a farce by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is a good example. Personally, I never put my toiletries in a clear plastic bag when I go through airport security. I use the original containers, regarless of size, and keep them in my toiletry bag in my carryon like a normal person should. I put the carryon bag through the x-ray scanner. 9 times out of 10 I get the bag back at the other end without issue. In fact, the only place I have been stopped is at LAX, and they just took one of the oversize bottles, leaving the rest.

      It is a sham and a farce. The American people are kept afraid of a largely non-existent threat in order to line the pockets of insiders and tighten control of the population.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re:Airport security is a farce by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because terrorists want western society to become a police state, or dictatorship, or whatever isn't free. Their goal is to incite fear of freedom,

      Bullshit. Al-qaeda et al, don't care what kind of government you have at home. You're all infidels, you're going to hell regardless. They want to influence your policy in the Middle East. Either simply to make you butt out and let them install fundamentalist governments; or to provoke you into such violent overreactions that you are thrown out by your former allies. That's what they want, they don't give a fuck about you and your civil rights either way. Just getting your army out of their way is their aim.

      Sure, after that they'd like to convert the whole world to Islam, by the sword if necessary, but that's for the next generation.

    8. Re:Airport security is a farce by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If they allow you to take more than 6 oz through security, then the vendors post security will not have the ability to fleece you for water and toiletries.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  11. Just say you can't raise your arms over your head by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    If your're really worried about the x-ray scanners just claim you can't raise your arms over your head.
    Then they grope you instead. This is TSA SOP nowadays.

  12. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.

    ...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...

  13. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, a real shame that keeps happening every year...

  14. Re:Just say you can't raise your arms over your he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    just claim you can't raise your arms over your head.

    Bob Dole isn't sure if he is offended or honored by this comment.

    Sincerely
    Bob Dole

  15. Re:Just say you can't raise your arms over your he by heypete · · Score: 2

    Or you could just politely say "I opt-out of going through the scanner." with the same results.

    Hasn't been a problem.

  16. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eat a Ham Sandwich, Drink a beer.

    I'v travelled in several muslim countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Turkey) and saw people in each of those countries drinking alcohol. I also questioned a muslim colleague about things like this, and his off-handed remark was that he would "pay for it in the next life".
     
    When it comes down to it, the average people are the same all over the world - they'll pay lip service to appear to be doing what the are supposed to do, but if no one notices, then they'll just do what they want to do.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  17. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would x-ray scanners prevent that from happening again?
    I can think of more than one way of killing 1000+ people without an x-ray scanner stopping me.

  18. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.

    ...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...

    Which has happened once in 500 years.

  19. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Feinu · · Score: 2

    This assumes that the only terrorist threat is from Muslims, which is rather simplistic. Additionally, there is no way that a policy which is that discriminatory could be implemented without violating the constitution. It would be the equivalent of only requiring scanners for people in a certain skin colour range.

  20. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    When it comes down to it, the average people are the same all over the world - they'll pay lip service to appear to be doing what the are supposed to do, but if no one notices, then they'll just do what they want to do.

    Those aren't really the people we're concerned with.

  21. 6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by fredrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, more people will die from exposure to the scanners than would have died from the supposed terrorist attacks they 'protect' us from. And why? Money of course, that is what runs this country (into the ground).

    1. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by QBasicer · · Score: 2

      In other words, more people will die from exposure to the scanners than would have died from the supposed terrorist attacks they 'protect' us from. And why? Money of course, that is what runs this country (into the ground).

      Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, they number would skyrocket. That's like saying 'we have this drug that virtually eliminates cancer, but rarely people will die from it". The overall net effect is that more lives will be saved than lost, just it's unfortunate that they can't all be saved. At least if you die from cancer you get to say goodbye to your family.

      --
      x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
    2. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      'we have this drug that virtually eliminates cancer, but rarely people will die from it"

      Ah, the "Patented Quicksilver Cure". Prevents cancer 99.7% of the time with only minor side-effects!

    3. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying 'we have this drug that potentially virtually eliminates cancer, but rarely people will die from it".

      FTFY

    4. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What terrorist attacks would scanners have effectively stopped? It's a solution to a problem which doesn't exist and never has.

    5. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No.

      The US is not filled with terrorists at every corner, just waiting for us to relax airport security so they have a chance to blow up as many Americans as possible. You've fallen into the fear.

      Ignoring the fact that there are still ways to get a bomb past security despite these scanners, here's a list of places where you could kill more people, with less security, by blowing up a bomb there instead of on a plane:

      Pro Sports Event
      Mall
      Large classroom auditorium
      Popular (i.e. rivalry) High School Sports Event
      Concerts
      Conventions
      etc...

      Why have there been no terrorist attacks in these places? Oh yeah, because the number of terrorists in America willing and able to blow themselves up in one of these locations is so incredibly small that we are actively killing more Americans using this technology than they could ever hope to achieve.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    6. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, when did not have that many deaths when we did not have the scanners.

    7. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      Just like all the hundreds of terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11, when security was so lax that you could easily smuggle anything onto flights ...

      US internal flights were an extremely soft target for years ... and yet almost no terrorist attacks occurred ?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    8. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      "sell all the living for more safer dead"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but don't let facts get in the way of installing x-ray machines at airports.

      Just wait. The idiots at DHS will realize what you said one day, and then we'll have scanners at all the venues you listed. For your safety, of course.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    10. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your idea, why not better you nuke the country so terrorists lose their interest in it?

    11. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, they number would skyrocket.

      That's your fear talking. These scanners have only been in place a few years. It's not like there were frequent attacks before that. So what are they preventing? All of this hysteria is caused by our reaction to a singular event over a decade ago; an event these scanners would not have prevented.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Skyrocket? Seriously? (fortunately, there's many replies on this regard so I won't repeat the arguments)

      "At least if you die from cancer you get to say goodbye to your family." wow. If you ever got cancer because of these "security measures" I doubt you'd so quick to dismiss the issue.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    13. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And why? Money of course, that is what runs this country (into the ground).

      But if only there were more government we could stop the corruption! Only paranoid lunatic nutzos think that wherever there is vast power and wealth shady dealings will find a way to break through.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, the number would skyrocket.

      That's provably false.

      No terrorist sees the security at airports and says, "Oh well, I'll just give up, go home and play xbox."
      Instead he looks for another target that is less well defended and hits that instead.

      So why haven't the number of attacks on other targets - like movie theaters and shopping malls or even just sabotage on unguarded train tracks - skyrocketed? The number of such attacks in the last decade is so small that you can count them on one hand with fingers to spare.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      But fear mongering is a tried and tried method to get people to accept changes. Think of the children! Besides this is all security theater. What happens when some idiot shoe bomber tries to blow up the waiting line of people going through security.. some sort of x-ray screening before you get to the x-ray screening? Or perhaps we could try the Israeli approach of highly trained people to spot terrorists. That'd just be too.. logical!

    16. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's usually the (sometimes dubious) work of real law enforcement.

      The TSA needs to be dismantled. In its place should be competent local law enforcement. I mean, you don't see huge security lines at the train station or bus depot. The most you'll encounter are M16's and bomb-sniffing dogs, and that's on a bad day. The dogs alone do more to discourage explosive-carrying terrorists than anything else.

      But in the end, it's all about shutting down the cell before it can carry out its plans, and shutting down the funding before even that.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    17. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      In other words, more people will die from exposure to the scanners than would have died from the supposed terrorist attacks they 'protect' us from. And why? Money of course, that is what runs this country (into the ground).

      Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, they number would skyrocket.

      So your contention is that current U.S. airport security is effectively stopping significant numbers of terrorist activities?

    18. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Hydian · · Score: 1

      We didn't have scanners for the first 90 years of commercial aviation and yet we didn't exactly have airplanes falling out of the skies. Now we have scanners that don't actually work, but have a chance of randomly killing people. I don't care how much of a coward you are, that doesn't seem like a good trade off.

      The overall net effect is that more lives will be saved than lost, just it's unfortunate that they can't all be saved.

      This is true whether there are scanners or not. The difference is how much privacy we give up so that cowards can feel safer despite there being zero effective difference in the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack.

    19. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, the number would skyrocket.

      That's provably false.

      No terrorist sees the security at airports and says, "Oh well, I'll just give up, go home and play xbox."
      Instead he looks for another target that is less well defended and hits that instead.

      So why haven't the number of attacks on other targets - like movie theaters and shopping malls or even just sabotage on unguarded train tracks - skyrocketed? The number of such attacks in the last decade is so small that you can count them on one hand with fingers to spare.

      Because it's not about causing fatalities as much as it is about terror. If you are in a mall when a bomb explodes but you are far enough away, chances are you will survive. If a bomb goes off in a plane then it's 1 to 3 minutes of panic, screaming, and wondering why they don't put parachutes on the plane, before you are guaranteed to expire.

    20. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also realize that there are still a handful of airports that don't grope or scan. I am familiar with these because they are the only airports I will use anymore. Leave out of one of these and you can get a connecting flight to anywhere you want. So the scanners are zero percent effective, because anyone intending harm can bypass them if they want.

    21. Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not about causing fatalities as much as it is about terror. If you are in a mall when a bomb explodes but you are far enough away, chances are you will survive. If a bomb goes off in a plane then it's 1 to 3 minutes of panic, screaming, and wondering why they don't put parachutes on the plane, before you are guaranteed to expire.

      Uh yeah, its about causing terror to the survivors. It doesn't matter how shitless the dead were scared, its only the living that matter afterwards. A couple of orders more magnitude people go to the mall each day than fly on an airplane - bombing a couple of malls would scare way more people than bombing the same number of airplanes.

  22. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2

    We still wouldn't be safe from five-month pregnant white females.

  23. Re:Just say you can't raise your arms over your he by wren337 · · Score: 1

    When they passed seat belt laws in Michigan it was a "secondary offense" - you couldn't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. Until they changed the law after about 10 years, once everyone had gotten used to it.

  24. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    And if you fly first class : eat real maple smoked old style peppered bacon and have a glass of cask strength 12yr aged in a sherry oak bourbon opened with one small ice cube

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  25. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2

    I read that as "spit on the Ur-Quan" at first.

  26. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.

    ...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...

    Yep .. they sure did kill 3000 in one day. However the preventative measures to stop them doing this again seems to be killing more that 300 people a year through increased road traffic (and hence car crashes) and (as reported in this article - although this is not news) another 100 or so a year from cancer.
     
    Terrorism is not something you can eradicate (especially if your foreign policy is to continually piss people off), so combatting it is always going to be a trade off/balance between how much hurt you can accept from the terrorists vs how much hurt you will inflict on your own people in the name of "protecting" them.
     
    In this case I find it strange that the solution to stopping the terrorists from killing off US citizens is to institute policies that effectively cause the US government to kill off even more citizens than the terrorists have.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  27. Opting out by magamiako1 · · Score: 2

    I opt out of these things every time I fly. My buddies insist "you get more exposure to radiation flying in the aircraft than you do going through the scanner." They proceed to go right through them.

    Amusingly enough I've had an easier time voluntarily subjecting myself to the search than I have ever had when involuntarily being forced into being searched. I travel a lot, single white guy, long hair--most people assume drugs, search accordingly.

    At the end of the day though; someone touching my crotch very briefly (trust me, they don't want to be touching me any more than I want to be touched) isn't going to give me cancer.

    1. Re:Opting out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A significant portion of the time those going through the scanners end up receiving a pat-down as well, so why even bother subjecting yourself to it.
       
      Realistically, the cancer potential is _probably_ small. But then again, back at the beginning of the 20th century radioactive products were commercially advertised and sold as life-enhancing and curative...sometimes that longitudinal study is worth waiting for! Unfortunately, it will be another 50 years before there is solid evidence either way, and even then it will depend on how well these "non-medical" devices are actually maintained and calibrated.
       
      In the end the question is whether it is worthwhile increasing your risk, however small, just to ensure the scanner manufacturers can justify sales of their products.

    2. Re:Opting out by bberens · · Score: 3, Informative

      At the end of the day though; someone touching my crotch very briefly (trust me, they don't want to be touching me any more than I want to be touched) isn't going to give me cancer.

      No it wont' give you cancer, but it should be considered an unreasonable search under the Constitution.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    3. Re:Opting out by magamiako1 · · Score: 0

      That depends on what you would consider valid under the Constitution.

      First and foremost, the TSA is a government institution, for the time being.

      Airports, however, are private entities (some are state run, but very few). A private entity is not governed by the Constitution. So technically speaking, a private airport is a Constitution-free property. You can argue all you want against this but most of the arguments for the Constitution argue exactly for these very rights.

      Airplanes are also private objects, they are not public goods. So an airline could say that you cannot fly without being searched, and an airport is freely able to install as many searching mechanisms as they want. If they really wanted to they could also insist you pray to Allah and the Quran and there's nothing you can do about it except not fly.

      The only real sticking point here is *who* is conducting the searches. But once the TSA goes private, which they have been trying to do for years now, any semblance of a Constitutional argument you have completely goes out the window. Why? Because the entire process is a private entity process at that point.

      In fact, if they really wanted to they could FORCE us to go through the cancer scanners if we wanted to fly at all, period. The fact that they provide an opt-out is rather generous, IMO, and an option I take advantage of every time.

    4. Re:Opting out by icebrain · · Score: 0

      Your argument is invalid because the government still requires the searches, private property or not. If it was that easy to legally get around Constitutional restrictions simply by hiring a private contractor, every police force and LE agency would be privatized by now.

      In fact, if they really wanted to they could FORCE us to go through the cancer scanners if we wanted to fly at all, period. The fact that they provide an opt-out is rather generous, IMO, and an option I take advantage of every time.

      The fact that the government insists we need to be virtually strip-searched and/or felt up at all is unreasonable. You're suggesting we need to be grateful that we're being fucked over because we're being offered lube.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    5. Re:Opting out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opting for a pat down is a false choice.

    6. Re:Opting out by bberens · · Score: 1

      Most of the airports are owned by local/regional governments. They lease out the day to day operations to private companies, but they're owned by government. Secondly the requirement for the unconstitutional search comes from the federal level. The airport may not choose to skip the scanning/groping regulations.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    7. Re:Opting out by JayBat · · Score: 1
      Your friends' argument is bogus; they don't need to worry (much) about what happens the the damn thing is working correctly; what matters is what happens when it is broken.

      I go ahead and use the millimeter wave scanners and opt out of the backscatter x-ray scanners.

      That's based not on civil liberty, but on safety. There's really not much the mm-wave scanners can do to you if they fail; the hardware just isn't there to give you the microwave popcorn treatment no matter what breaks. On the other hand, a broken backscatter x-ray scanner could hit you with an x-ray hot-spot and do serious damage.

      -Jay-

    8. Re:Opting out by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      It is. Fortunately for the TSA, the Constitution is no longer in effect.

    9. Re:Opting out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the TSA won't even give the test reports to their own employee's union and those people work with it 8 hours a day I get one of two thoughts:

      1) The results are so bad they don't want to release them
      2) They claimed the tests were done and pocketed the money but no tests were done.

      The TSA lied when they said the tests were done by the military and a university. Those 2 said "not so fast, we only did the initial deployment testing and not the ongoing tests". So who knows how far out of calibration those scanners are.

  28. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    When it comes down to it, the average people are the same all over the world - they'll pay lip service to appear to be doing what the are supposed to do, but if no one notices, then they'll just do what they want to do.
    Those aren't really the people we're concerned with.

    And neither are the muslims that are rocking up to airports and flying to business meetings across the US

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  29. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why El-Al asks if you if you have any sort of stuff carried on anyone else's behalf, and if you do, they check all your stuff.

  30. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Kohr-Ahn?

  31. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's why El-Al asks if you if you have any sort of stuff carried on anyone else's behalf, and if you do, they check all your stuff.

    Whenever I get asked the question "Has your luggage been out of your sight for any length of time or handled by other people" I really have to bite my tongue to stop saying "Yes .. the taxi driver loaded/unloaded my luggage and I haven't seen it for the last hour or so" .. That would be the honest answer, but unfortunately that would be the wrong way to answer.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  32. The Terrorists Win!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Terrorists Win!!! How many Americans have died in vain in wars designed to "stop terrorism"? How effective have those efforts been? How many man years have been lost to security theater? And now, how many will die from security theater?

  33. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by AlecC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was told by a Muslim that the actual ruling in the Koran is that you should not "allow alcohol to rule you". His interpretation was that he should not get drunk, and was quite happy to drink a single beer.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  34. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    This assumes that the only terrorist threat is from Muslims

    And, like it or not, that is a prevalent assumption in the U.S.

    Additionally, there is no way that a policy which is that discriminatory could be implemented without violating the constitution.

    I'm no constitutional lawyer... And I'd like to think that we're better than this... But I really wouldn't be all that surprised to see such an obviously discriminatory policy at least proposed, if not actually approved.

    It would be the equivalent of only requiring scanners for people in a certain skin colour range.

    Or kicking folks off planes because they look too Muslim?

    Granted, it's a private corporation that's kicking people off of planes, so they don't really have to worry about constitutionality the way that the government does... But it's just as discriminatory, and just as stupid, and just as effective.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  35. How many TSA cancers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA claims 6 to 100 passenger cancers, but how many TSA agent cancers? A passenger gets a scan a couple times a year, and the machines are claimed to be equivalent to 0.001 medical X-ray images (assuming the calibration is correct -- I've seen reports of 0.1 or 0.001 for misaligned machines). They claim it's equivalent to the ionizing radiation from the cosmic rays at cruising altitude. How many passengers get scanned during a shift, and how much of the X-ray gets reflected or scattered to the agents standing just outside the machines? At 10 seconds per scan, that's 6/min, 360/hour, 2340/day (8 hour shift - 1hr meal and 2 15 min breaks). The agent would be standing a few feet away from a couple medicals a day. X-ray radiation is cumulative. Whenever I get a medical x-ray, the radiologists (who know something about radiation) leave the room and hide in a lead-lined booth. TSA agents don't even get film badges to monitor how much they are getting exposed to.

    I try to get in the lines without the scanners and opt out and get groped if I can't.

  36. Therac 25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I see these machines, I'm reminded of the Therac-25, and wonder if the scanning beam in the backscatter devices has ever gotten 'stuck', and what sort of exposure people get from that.

    There's a reason we regulate these devices.

    There's also a reason we don't expose people to X-rays for non-medical reasons.

    1. Re:Therac 25 by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      We expose people to X-rays for non-medical reasons all the time, just not in very large quantities. Like stepping outside.

      Therac-25 illustrates that design failures can be fatal. While that could be true in an X-ray scanner (it would take about 5 minutes to expose you to a dangerous, not lethal, amount of radiation in such a scanner), it's also true in, for example, the airplane you're about to get on.

  37. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by game+kid · · Score: 1

    The Cora-Ann?

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  38. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    Actually a lot of the hijackers believed that performing jihad basically exempted them from pretty much any of the rules of Islam, and as such many of the hijackers drank.

  39. Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My safety is a small price for someone else to pay so that I may live a little longer. I am glad my neighbour is such a self sacrificing person

  40. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by LordNimon · · Score: 2

    Ironically, those who are afraid to drink a beer are effectively ruled by alcohol.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  41. Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This corporate greed at the expense of the rest of us is exactly why the Occupy movement was born. There is no longer a sense of the greater good, only a sense of me me me.

  42. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 1

    I was told by a Muslim that the actual ruling in the Koran is that you should not "allow alcohol to rule you". His interpretation was that he should not get drunk, and was quite happy to drink a single beer.

    The same thing is related in the Bible as well: Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-35; 31:2-9; Isaiah 5:21-23; 56:9-12; Hosea 4:11-12, 1 Peter 4:1-5. Yet, I know too many people who claim to be Christian and still drink to excess.

    --
    The cake is a lie.
  43. The answer is simply by kurt555gs · · Score: 2

    The US government is acting in the interest of both the insurance companies and the politicly connected makers of the X-Ray machines. They never cared about the safety of the people. They never do. The insurance industry does not want to pay out for airplane crashes, and will roast every traveller like popcorn bags in order for those greedy bastards to keep their money.

    Simple.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:The answer is simply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, fooey, "the government" is a pretty broad swath of people, and lots of airport security folks are fine regular citizens who want to do a good job. Those 75 or 95 percent of workers do care about the safety of the people.

      The few oligarchy connected folks who made the rule to sell machines are a problem though. I can remember clearly when the machines first came out they promised that they would only be used on volunteers who wanted to cut ahead of the line.
      They broke that promise, so they can not be trusted. However, I have no idea of who "they" are.

      And then the comment about microwaving all the passengers, I know it isn't all of them. Has anyone done a study? The ones selected for naked pictures, does it tend to be large breasted women?

  44. Oh please.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people should be thanking the TSA for being allowed to die such a noble death -- for their country, safeguarding the lives of others.

  45. It's all about profit. by mbone · · Score: 1

    These machines were rolled out because of lobbying. People are going to die because of security theater.

    By the way, most of those people will be TSA agents. Whatever the general public is getting, they are getting as well.

    1. Re:It's all about profit. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Really? JUST lobbying?

      There was no interest on the politicians side to "Do something" about domestic terrorists?

      Both sides were looking for the other.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  46. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Leebert · · Score: 1

    The summary didn't say 100 DEATHS per year. It said 100 cases of cancer per year. And that was the high side. I'm as anti-scanner as anyone out there, but succumbing to the same style of sensationalist rhetoric as the scanner supporters does our cause no good.

  47. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not alone :)

  48. Now that is some wrong thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, no. Not one terrorist attack has been stopped by these damn things ever. So they do kill more people than terrorists, period. Sky marshalls, building more secure planes, and having actual trained security staff is what detects and prevents terrorism.

    1. Re:Now that is some wrong thinking... by QBasicer · · Score: 1

      Of course not, the terrorists aren't dumb enough to do something that they KNOW will get themselves caught.

      --
      x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
  49. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And used cocaine, and visited strip clubs. So they believed it as all ok because of their jihad? Is that how we are continuing to believe they were radical Muslims?

  50. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Barnett · · Score: 2

    Nor did it say that scanners will prevent all deaths from terrorism.

  51. 6 to 100, smells like bad statistics to me by MonkeySpaceCapsule · · Score: 1

    One linear model purports 6 incidents of cancer, though no standard deviation on the maximum likelihood is given. Another model suggests 100 incidents of cancer, again without a stddev. The wild difference in the maximum likelihoods of the different models, combined with the fact that the 1st model's lower bound is at zero incidents suggests that the two models don't agree.

    So, will this cause more cancer, yes. Do they have any idea how much, not really. Does the media do an accurate job of reporting statistics, almost never. Should we draw hard legislative conclusions from the numbers in this study, probably not (unless we want to do so in ignorance of science and statistics).

  52. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know people that aren't perfect? Wow, me too!

  53. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Denogh · · Score: 2

    Don't be so hard on them. Of course they could kill well over 1000 people on US soil in a year. All they need to do is bomb the bloody security checkpoints. There are hundreds of people in close quarters in an unsecured area, just waiting in line to be groped and irradiated. Put a bomber in the middle of that crowd and you've got the biggest vulnerability in the whole damned air travel system.

  54. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a certain large, stentorian magician who came up with "Bacon and a Kiss Airlines." You can skip security screenings if you agree to eat some bacon and kiss someone of the same sex.

  55. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by bberens · · Score: 1

    Yes it does. Sensationalist rhetoric gets votes. It's really the only way to get things done in an American Idol world.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  56. I didn't know they WERE mandatory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe they actually have ever been made mandatory. It's just one of those "repeat the lie often enough" scenarios. As to why we put up with them being there, I suppose it's because most Americans simply enjoy being slaves. There's really no other explanation.

  57. Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good tradeoff by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    X-rays are ionizing radiation.

    Yes, but most of the full-body scanners are millimeter-wave scanners. That's non-ionizing. The headline and summary conveniently blurs this distinction-- it says that X-ray scanners are "mandatory" in US Airports, but thats for baggage, not people.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  58. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who are afraid to smoke crack are effectively ruled by crack.

  59. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    ...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...

    You've killed hundreds of thousands of them in return. Isn't that enough?

    --
    No sig today...
  60. Not as bad as other statistics. by Kludge · · Score: 3

    The point is that these numbers are better than the numbers that justify the existence of the scanners. What cost/risk/benefit analysis has been done to demonstrate that these scanners are useful? The answer is none.

    So, will this cause more cancer, yes.

    So will these scanners save any lives? No.
    End of analysis.

  61. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair it didn't really say that it would prevent any deaths from terrorism.

  62. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by mr1911 · · Score: 2

    And used cocaine, and visited strip clubs. So they believed it as all ok because of their jihad? Is that how we are continuing to believe they were radical Muslims?

    No. We continue to believe they were radical Muslims because they killed themselves, a plane load of people, and thousands on the ground in the name of their faith.

    Sincerely,
    Captain Obvious

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  63. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I don't think they''l prevent any deaths from terrorism.

    a) A terrorist can blow up the airport.

    or

    b) He can put the C4 up his ass where the scanners can't see it and the gropers can't feel it.

    --
    No sig today...
  64. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Comboman · · Score: 1

    ...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...

    ... 10 years ago, and not a single one since. 3000/10 = 300 per year (and falling). In medicine, a drug that saved 300 people per year but killed 100 people per year due to side-effects would never be approved.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  65. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

    How many terrorist attacks has it stopped .... ?

    Probably none : the only failed attacks since have used things the scanners would not pick up .. i.e. various explosives

    The attacks prior would have been stopped by scanners, but would also have been stopped by much simpler and safer checks...The single most effective anti-terrorist device since 9/11 is the locked door to the cockpit .,,

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  66. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are still not safe.

    You do understand that since the TSA is searching for the rogue bottle of water or shampoo that is 3.1 oz instead of 3 oz they are letting guns, knives, and who knows what else through the checkpoints. You do understand there are multiple paths to get nefarious things on an airplane. You do realize that the passengers on the plane no longer believe that compliance is the proper response and will deal with threats onboard such as the shoe and underwear bombers.

    The TSA ensuring your "safety" is an illusion. If you believe it, then good for you - Santa still comes down the chimney and eats the cookies you left out. The TSA is security theater -- it looks like they are busy doing useful things, but in the end it is all an act.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  67. Body Scanners installed at my local airport by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

    New body scanners were just installed at my local airport. This year for Thanksgiving we are driving 2 days to the in-laws instead.

    1. Re:Body Scanners installed at my local airport by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Constitutional issues aside, you know you can opt for a pat-down instead of the machine, right? I do it every time I fly.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  68. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those who are afraid to smoke crack are effectively ruled by crack.

    Those who are afraid to shove a red hot poker up there arses are effectively ruled by red hot pokers up their arses

  69. Re:It was a lobby, and some panic... what a surpri by mr1911 · · Score: 2

    Mod parent up, although he did leave out ignorance to complete panic and greed.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  70. Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's hoping every one of those 6 to 100 people who get cancer are TSA lobbyists and employees.

  71. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by djmurdoch · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to TFA, about half of the ones that scan people are millimeter-wave, and half are x-ray.

  72. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I was once asked to take a sealed package with a hard drive for my employer. I answered truthfully. result - a five hour wait as I was bumped to the next flight to give security time to investigate

  73. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    This is especially true because the "terrorists" largely do not exist. Oh sure, there may be a pissed off radical or two, but that has always been the case. This newest enemy is useful for profit and power however. Seen from that angle, these machines make pefect sense.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  74. As I recall by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

    One of the main proponents of X-Ray scanners, former Bush-Era Homeland Security Secretary Michael "Jackoff" Chertoff, the man who apparently was too deaf or STUPID to hear and see the hundreds of American citizens trapped in a shopping center in New Orleans, is well-connected to the manufacturers of the body scanners.

    So when Bush fell asleep on 9/11 he was not only proving for the nth time in his life that he's a useless fuckoff who shouldn't be trusted to watch grass grow, let alone the security of a nation, he was also serving a valuable function to his well-connected toadies in providing a fear-based marketing system to screw the public out of all kinds of money in the guise of making us safe.

    Heckuva job, Bush!

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  75. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    How about if I just latch on to any argument that furthers my agenda?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  76. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by CCurzon · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the terrorists are actually hyper intelligent beings who knew all along that if they could only trick us into radiating ourselves out of fear of them and we would do their job for them while they kick back and enjoy some of that great Mideast sun and sand. 1000 dead and all they had to do was say "Boo!"

    Actually, that's pretty much what they want to do. Terrorists operate by trying to frighten you into doing the hard work. Attack once and let the fear of that one attack cause government clamp-downs, make it impossible to live your life day-to-day as you had before.

  77. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muslins, or Americans?

  78. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whenever I get asked the question "Has your luggage been out of your sight for any length of time or handled by other people" I really have to bite my tongue to stop saying "Yes .. the taxi driver loaded/unloaded my luggage and I haven't seen it for the last hour or so" .. That would be the honest answer, but unfortunately that would be the wrong way to answer.

    Check out this story It's about dwarves being put in suitcases and smuggled into coach holds to steal from other passengers cases during the journey.

    What's to stop one putting a little something extra in one of the cases?

    My luggage doesn't leave my sight until it's checked in. Ever.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  79. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Thanks, Rush Limbaugh!

    Don't forget the tens of thousands we'll kill in return for them killing hundreds!

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  80. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by morari · · Score: 1

    Doesn't sound any different than the radical Christians running around.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  81. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truth hurts.

    Seriously though, 6-100 cases per YEAR in a very large population. I mean, I *HATE* those scanners. I would dearly love for some hacker to figure out how to fry those things from the inside out.

    Still, I'm in much more danger from my boyfriend's mother's incessant smoking than I am from those scanners. And no, we don't live together. God help me if we did, I'd probably load her packs on the clay-pigeon launcher and use them for target practice...

  82. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but will they think the fuse is a tail?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256380/

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  83. Re:It was a lobby, and some panic... what a surpri by morari · · Score: 2

    Panic can only come from ignorance.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  84. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Please don't make flying harder than it is by telling the idiots in charge where the vast, gaping security holes are.

    Thanks,
    The American Public

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  85. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Try taking a classified military radio (in a properly marked courier bag with all the paperwork) through security. Between what the xray of the bag showed, his truthful answer to "did you pack this bag yourself" and his response to requests to open the bag (he correctly said that he couldn't do that nor allow it to happen) he spent the night with airport security and only got out when someone from the base personally came to get him and told the TSA that he had done everything correctly.

  86. Terrorists kill 6-100 more US citizens per year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Headline should have been 'Terrorists kill 6-100 more US citizens per year'. The net result of the terrorists' actions is that now the US is killing its own citizens out of fear - surely that will be cause for rejoicing in various parts of the world. Bit depressing for the rest of us, though....

  87. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by ComaVN · · Score: 1

    In medicine, a drug that saved 300 people per year but killed 100 people per year due to side-effects would never be approved.

    Why not? (as long as the patient is aware of the risks)

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  88. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by SlippyToad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About four years ago I went on a business trip. My then-wife had given me a small medallion with a chinese symbol on it. I could SEE when the cunt checked me in at the counter she noticed this medallion with a "funny foreign symbol on it" and lo and behold I was selected for a pat-down at security.

    And as far as I know the cargo area of my plane was wide open to whoever the fuck wanted to get in there. That's my beef. This security theater shit is old. I did not have to take off my shoes in China or South Korea when boarding a plane (something I did 7 times in 10 days on a trip just a couple years back). It's all a sham.

    We've been talked out of our privacy, our rights, and our dignity and now the elite of the world giggle and profit as we are made to parade naked in front of them like fucking zoo animals. Fuck them in the ear.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  89. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by aenigmainc · · Score: 1

    i would argue that 100 cancer victims/year is worst than 100 cancer deaths/year. when i was in the army i was taught that injuring a an enemy soldier was better than killing an enemy soldier. The injury takes out the 1, but it also takes out the support personnel and an abundance of resources. So i could almost argue the terrorists are using that playbook, and they are doing a better job. they have the US government doing the injury. That injury then causes a downward spiral of emotions for the immediate family which impacts their life/job. It also consumes medical resources that now can't go towards other needy individuals. in many cases it will bankrupt individuals and the debt may be passed onto their children, again demoralizing. If you think about it, its a pretty good plan. Not that i actually think it was a plan, but if it was thats someone playing the real slow game. Does that make our government the Terrorists?

  90. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by cjcela · · Score: 2

    Right, because spitting on a book they consider sacred will fix things. Instead of having alternative ideas to outrage others, you should be outraged ourselves with our politicians. I wish WE do the obvious thing, which is refuse to go through a scanner every single time. The safety argument is bogus (if you do not get it, read Schneier website, or his newsletter on security), and even knowing that, we give up on our dignity, and submit ourselves and our children to be groped and radiated. I just cannot believed how a bunch of people with special interests cajole a whole country into this. Oh, I forgot, we Americans like convenience, and 'safety'; or are just spineless. Maybe we deserve what is coming to us, then.

  91. It's Terrorism! by frankxcid · · Score: 0

    Always amazes me that the aupposedly smart /. reader will turn anything like this into an arguement over what produces or prevents the production of a body count. I mean comparing that 1000 people will die with scanners versus few people if there was no scanners. Please look up the definition of terrorism and the desired effect of that type of warfare. Heck, it's even in the name. It is to foment terror. Yes a measly 3000 people died in the towers but that body count was not the true success of that attack. It was the TERROR! People who were no were near new York were affected: fear to fly; fear of losing their job (yes my company's reason for going bankrupt was 911); fear of making ends meet; fear of another attack; fear of travelling abroad. Compare those numbers now and you can see that 911 is easily a success at making 300 million people have terror. So 100 people a year could get cancer in a year of going through a scanner. To get the risk, i suppose you have to know the number of people that would go through the scanners and most would go through it more than once. Are people less afraid to fly than before? If yes, then it is a success.

    1. Re:It's Terrorism! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      You could require all passengers to enter the plane completely naked and undergo cavity searches more thorough than you would get upon entering prison. You could give everyone medical xrays to see inside their bodies. You could only allow white US born citizens on commercial aircraft. You could forbid anyone of certain religions or nationalities or skin color from flying. You could require full background checks of the kind you would get applying for a government security clearance for everyone who wants to fly. Do you think placing all people appearing to be of Middle Eastern descent in extermination camps would be enough to calm people's fears? How far would you be willing to go to make people less afraid? Who gets to decide how far is too far?

      Some of these things are more than security theater. Forcing everyone to fly naked and undergo full cavity searches and x-rays really could make flying safer. They won't stop your plane from being struck by lighting though. It would be safer never to leave your house. You could die in a car accident or be struck by lightning or even be abducted by aliens. Perhaps the government should place everyone under house arrest until further notice. That wouldn't stop terrorists from invading your home however. For that we would need heavily armed security agents on every street in America. To keep us safe.

      And why draw the line only with aircraft? What about trains and subways and buses and bridges and tunnels and rush hour traffic jams and sporting events and cinemas and hospital emergency rooms and New Years Eve celebrations and shopping malls and schools and even busy restaurants? Should we have x-ray, strip search, cavity search, interrogation checkpoints for all of these?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  92. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Agripa · · Score: 1

    "Yes, it was out of my sight while TSA agents inspected it."

  93. So much disinformation by Cephacles · · Score: 2

    The article is filled with speculation and disinformation. Here are the research links on both backscatter and millimeter wave technologies, provided by TSA:
    http://www.tsa.gov/research/reading/index.shtm

    You can see in the John's Hopkins August 2010 assessment that passengers get less than 2 microrem from a scan. You get about 238 microrem per hour of flight, two orders of magnitude larger (per hour!):
    http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

    Stick to the science. 6 to 100 cancers per year is pure speculation, and impossible to verify. I don't believe it at all.

    1. Re:So much disinformation by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      And... you are assuming that: (a) the paper from the TSA is good science (this did not go independent peer review, so it is as good as any paper my garbage man would write on quantum chromodynamics); (b) that the paper from the TSA is not "active propaganda" to sell us on the fact that the scanners are safe (since they are actively interested in us believing them why wouldn't they write that?); (c) that even if the machines are safe when working properly they cannot malfunction (all machines do, and when the only reassurance is that the manufacturer--not an independent party--will check them, then I am not at all confident).

    2. Re:So much disinformation by Cephacles · · Score: 1

      a) The various independent papers were publicly presented in August 2011 to a large group of medical physicists and professionals in the radiation oncology industry, of which I'm a member. The papers were presented by knowledgeable authorities, and a TSA rep phoned in and took questions. The only thing the audience took TSA to task for was that they did not disseminate this information very well to the public.
      b) You should have a healthy amount of wariness (avoid being naive), but given what I read in these documents and the presentation mentioned above that I attended, I do not see any reason to be paranoid or cynically distrustful by assuming malevolence. The TSA is a bungling bureaucracy like so many other parts of the government, and they screwed up how they handled public inquiries on the safety of these devices. That doesn't mean they are hiding harmful effects or that the devices are unsafe.
      c) X-ray devices can be compared with light bulbs, they fail off (zero dose) but due to physics it is hard to conceive of them failing in the more-powerful direction.
      I worry about how much X-ray radiation I get from my dentist and my doctor. After learning about airport scanners, I lose no sleep at all about them.

    3. Re:So much disinformation by cpotoso · · Score: 1
      a) The papers were "presented", not "peer reviewed". I am a physicist and often present papers in conferences, where I can present anything I want (people may or may not like what I present, but I can still do it).

      b) Except that they seem to act in a malicious way by the way they set things up with minimal input and review, and by not allowing sufficient monitoring by cognizant agencies (which they aren't on radiation safety).

      c) Light bulbs occasionally fail by briefly producing a higher flux (and then burning), so your argument is not very good. Furthermore, the rapiscan machines produce an image by quickly scanning a beam on 2 axes, hence there can be a VERY HIGH dose locally if the beam is not properly scanned (think software bug, think mechanical failure of a scanning mechanism). In addition: even highly monitored devices like radiotherapy instruments, which are handled by highly trained and remunerated professionals occasionally have severely failed and produced a very high dose of radiation (even leading to death). So... I can only guess that your over-reliance on how good things are is really just that... over-reliance (or perhaps you do not really like to be reminded that people in your profession managed to really screw-up and kill people with erroneous overdoses, hence you minimize the likely problem of these machines, in any case you sound highly unscientific in my view, if not unethical).

  94. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by fatboy · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the tens of thousands we'll kill in return for them killing hundreds!

    Perfectly symmetrical warfare never solved anything ;)

    --
    --fatboy
  95. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Good point.

    However, asymmetric warfare never solved "terrorist" problems either.

    Getting out of their country, and stop pissing them off usually does. See American Revolutionary war.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  96. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Leebert · · Score: 1

    i would argue that 100 cancer victims/year is worst than 100 cancer deaths/year.

    I don't think I'd agree with that, particularly since my mom just made it through her uterine cancer. I'm pretty certain I'd have rather seen her go through the relatively simple surgery and a few weeks of recovery than go to her funeral.

    Yes, in war is one thing. But if you're trying to make an economic argument, I think it falls pretty flat. For example, you didn't consider the economic contributions of a relatively young person dying vs. the cost of cancer treatment. I'm pretty certain that killing me right now vs. 100 grand or so in cancer treatment would be a net loss for society.

  97. If it's busy, it doesn't matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I left X airport on Thanksgiving Day last year, I was wondering why the lines were moving so fast. There were at least 500 people in front of me waiting to be scanned. They just unplugged the metal detectors to get everybody through more quickly. I didn't realize it until after I was looking for my belt, and I forgot to take it off.

  98. But they're not mandatory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you fly private, you will have 0 scanning at all. I walked right on a private jet last summer. Great time. I could never have even afforded the shrimp.

  99. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Kagura · · Score: 1

    Try taking a classified military radio (in a properly marked courier bag with all the paperwork) through security. Between what the xray of the bag showed, his truthful answer to "did you pack this bag yourself" and his response to requests to open the bag (he correctly said that he couldn't do that nor allow it to happen) he spent the night with airport security and only got out when someone from the base personally came to get him and told the TSA that he had done everything correctly.

    Good for him, but it sounds like he could have been more assertive to get through security in a timely fashion. Ask to speak to their TSA supervisors, call his issuing S2 back on base, etc. Very interesting story, nonetheless!

  100. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by aenigmainc · · Score: 1

    i wasn't talking about cancer in general, i was talking about cancer caused by the machines. Two completely different emotional factors. A familial response will almost always be warm, responsive and positive (uplifting). A response to the government giving me cancer will almost always be negative. the negativity can cause protests against the source of negativity, just look at occupy wall street. Thats the impact i was talking about. When analyzing the situation the same initial stimulus (cancer) can illicit very different responses depending on the catalyst. Cancer that can be determined to be natural we think of as just bad luck or some other benign reasoning. But, cancer that we determine to be caused by an external force we fight against. Look at tobacco. People went after the companies like they were Satan and his/her hordes (i've always pictured satan as a woman, normally my ex-wife). Any external catalyst we will, and have, fought against. And thats the impact i was talking about. and it would be worst with a lingering death. Humans tend to build their anger slowly over time until it reaches a boiling point. And with some cancers you have quite a lot of time to get your mad on. So, are you telling me the Occupy Wall Street, and various other protests haven't had an impact? Emotional and Financial? How about the riots in LA after the Rodney King beating? Or the Million Man March in DC? All it takes is an external catalyst. Had Rodney King gotten his ass beat by a transvestite prostitute instead of a cop there wouldn't have been a march (unless the transvestite prostitute was also a cop).

  101. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

    Try taking a classified military radio (in a properly marked courier bag with all the paperwork) through security.

    I had a friend couriering a similar piece of equipment - he didn't have any problem at the airport because his security officer made the proper arrangements with whoever at the airport handles that stuff. In fact he got to short-cut all the TSA bullshit.

    BUT, he was indian. American citizen, security clearance and all that, but very brown. Because the parcel was classified he had to keep it with him at all times. So every time he went to take a piss he had to bring it with him. The flight attendants made it quite obvious that they were not happy about a brown man taking a big box into the bathroom every couple of hours.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  102. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. We continue to believe they were regular Muslims because they killed themselves, a plane load of people, and thousands on the ground in the name of their faith.

    FTFY

  103. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a fucking idiot.

    Most terrorist ARE muslims.

    True or not, I don't care. A lot of people say most Americans are stupid idiots. Does that mean that every stupid idiot must be an American and should be treated as such? I don't think so at all.

    It is not our responsibility to accept Islam as peaceful, it is the responsibility of those that are musilm to prove it to be peaceful.

    This one's partially Ok, but who do you listen to? What about the sects of Islam that are peaceful versus the ones that strictly are not? What about the sects of christians that are very peaceful and tolerant versus the ones that are vengeful, hateful, and definitely not peaceful? Should we also call all christians terrorists, because some of them are? And atheists: a lot of atheists are peaceful, but I know a lot of atheists that I wouldn't call peaceful at all. Should we call all atheists terrorists as well, because some of them certainly don't prove that atheism is peaceful at all.

    And Islam is not a religion, it is a idealogy.

    You can say that of any religion or lack there of. Islam IS a religion. It is also an ideology. Stop trying to pin it as just one when it is very clearly both. This is true of every religion and lack thereof out there. Christianity is for sure. Judaism is for sure. Buddhism is for sure. Atheism and agnosticism are both collections of different ideologies as well, even though I wouldn't classify them as a religion. In fact, in atheism and agnosticism you can see it a little more clearly: some atheists/agnostics are "anarchists" (or one of other sects equal in effect) who are just as much of terrorists as any muslim may be, but you also have those that are very peaceful. I certainly hope you don't lump them all together just because some of them are bad in your eyes.

    A form of government that is not compatible with western styles of government.

    There is often a form of government associated to countries whose leaders are muslim and rule accordingly, but I would not call Islam a form of government on its own at all. Even if their holy book describes a form of "good government" for them, that doesn't make it a government itself. Judaism and christianity have the same thing in their bible (in fact, there's a couple of "good governments" described, from simply having a collection of judges as the ruling body with God recognized as the real leader to a monarchy with a king to rule the people). Secular people also have the same: democracy vs. dictatorship vs. etc.

    The next major terrorist attack (things that cause real world death and destruction in large numbers), will be some muslim with a suicide vest at a so called airport security checkpoint. They will kill a couple of hundred and all the security in the world will have been wasted.

    Whether that comes to fruition or not, you're being an intolerant prick. It could just as easily be some sociopath who is an atheist and "anarchist" or sorts, or some secular organized crime ring like drug cartels (and they are much more effective at terrorism by keeping it there as people being killed one or several at a time over a longer period instead of just a one time "oh shit, lots of people died", if you ask me).

    I'm growing very sick of these arguments. Especially when they come from christians, as it runs so contrary to what Jesus actually taught and what they claim to be living their lives according to. You don't have to be perfect--in fact, I expect christians to not be perfect--but don't spread hate and call it love. You become the pharisees that Jesus preached against. I don't know if you are a christian, but the majority of the people who talk like that tend to be. Most atheists I know actually tend to follow Jesus' teachings better, without even accepting him as a deity. That should tell you something is wrong, right there...

  104. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    No it doesn't sound any different. And radical christian terrorists are responsible for just as much brutality around the world as radical islamic terrorists.

  105. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    The next major terrorist attack will more likely be by the Lords Revolutionary Army (a christian terrorist organization) in or near Uganda.

  106. Bad quote by surfdaddy · · Score: 1
    " we in the US must now endure..."

    We DO NOT have to endure them. I regularly opt-out as my own little act of civil protest. I take the patdown. The TSA is not real happy about it, but it's my right. If everybody did this we wouldn't have the scanners in the first place.

  107. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    Interestingly enough, the Japanese did something similar to this when Christianity was spreading throughout their country. They used Fumi-e, a plate or stone with a picture of Jesus or another major Christian religious figure or symbol on it. One had to step on it to prove that they were not a Christian. Essentially, they were assuming that people who cared so much about their faith to risk death would not dare blaspheme it, and they were right.

    However, I doubt it would actually work in preventing, say, a fundamentalist terrorist (of any faith) from getting past a checkpoint. They'd just do it and rationalize that "God will forgive me as I am carrying out his mission and this is what is required to do that". Christianity has a lot of prohibitions against killing and yet that didn't stop a few of them from shooting abortion doctors.

  108. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Monkk · · Score: 2

    "Juffo-Wup fills in my fibers and I grow turgid. Violent action ensues."  :)

    --
    TomB

    "You can't take the sky from me..."
  109. Misleading title, IMHO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't fly a whole lot, but when I do, I've never come across an X-Ray scanner. I've been in a few millimeter back-scatter style scanners, but never an X-ray. I was disappointed that the article only states:

    "About 250 X-ray scanners are currently in U.S. airports, along with 264 body scanners that use a different technology, a form of low-energy radio waves known as millimeter waves."

    so far down the article. Further the submission headline would have you believe that they are ALL X-ray, which doesn't seem to be the case just shy of half are. I mean X-Rays are bad and all, but the scanners are not ubiquitous at all airports. And as far as I know, usage is not a requirement to fly.

    Just my $0.02 (not adjusted for inflation or current USD exchange rates....)

    1. Re:Misleading title, IMHO... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      And as far as I know, usage is not a requirement to fly.

      Actually it kind of is. If you are selected for x-ray harrassment your choices are:
      1) Be irradiated with x-rays and be viewed naked by some snickering perverts in a back room. And then maybe sexually molested anyway.
      2) Engage in sexual activity with an ugly, obese, same-sex, authoritarian sicko pedophile. This basically involves a bit of a hand-job and/or anal exploration for the men and a bit of breast-squeezing and shallow fingering for the women.
      3) Leave the airport and don't fly that day. This choice may or may not involve being arrested or even fined by the TSA for failure to complete the screening process. This is the correct choice, but it is also the most expensive one (if you don't count therapist bills for the sexual molestation).

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  110. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    X-rays are ionizing radiation.

    Yes, but most of the full-body scanners are millimeter-wave scanners. That's non-ionizing. The headline and summary conveniently blurs this distinction-- it says that X-ray scanners are "mandatory" in US Airports, but thats for baggage, not people.

    Do you get a choice of technology in your full body scanner? Do you know which is which?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  111. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by modecx · · Score: 1

    Hey now, doncha know...when packing a dwarf in your suitcase is outlawed, only outlaws will pack dwarves in their suitcases.

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  112. Or, six. [Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT!] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    The summary didn't say 100 DEATHS per year. It said 100 cases of cancer per year. And that was the high side.

    Right, what it said was ten to a hundred cases of cancer per year. The actual article gave an estimate of six, and continues, "even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes."

    I'm as anti-scanner as anyone out there, but succumbing to the same style of sensationalist rhetoric as the scanner supporters does our cause no good.

    Agree.

    What I find most frightening is the possibility that the machines malfunction and produce higher does. The only guard against this, as far as I can see, is the company's statement that "nothing can possibly go wrong."

    --wait, isn't that a /. meme?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  113. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dwarves. Dwarves are very upsetting.

  114. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.

    ...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...

    So what?

    And before you say I'm being flip or callous, remember this: more than that die every month from lack of medical care. Or this: more than 3000 died on 9/11 from cancer and heart/lung disease. There's no national day of mourning for the 9/11 victims of disease. Or the 9/10 victims. Or the 9/12 victims. And so on.

    The only thing that makes the 3000 terror victims special was that they were concentrated in just a few places where large scale acts of vandalism took place. The others had the common decency not to bother the general population by passing away in houses, hospitals, nursing homes and on the street.

    Go ahead, take a look at the National Vital Health Statistics and see what kills Americans. Pick any number you can imagine dying every year from terrorism and see what trivial thing beats it. 3000 a year? Peptic ulcers. 5000? Anemia. 20,000? Parkinson's. 45,000? Motor vehicle accidents. 75,000? Alzheimer's.

    So in the 11 years since 9/11, including 2001, what's the average deaths by terrorism? Under 300, right? (And that's low because of my terror-repellent rock). That's about the same number as deaths among Eskimo and Native American women in "transport accidents."

    My point? We're spending way too much time, causing way to much inconvenience, sacrificing too many liberties, and frankly being way to scared of one thing, when there are far better ways to spend our time, money, national soul, and global reputation on. We've ruined the country all in the cause of innumeracy.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  115. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    In medicine, a drug that saved 300 people per year but killed 100 people per year due to side-effects would never be approved.

    Chemotherapy drugs.... Desperate people are often willing to take desperate risks.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  116. Rules for Airlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the Airlines themselves being charged to do as far as shoring up their hiring practices? What are the regulations that apply to securely checking backgrounds of the very people responsible for loading and maintaining and even flying their aircraft? This would seem obvious that eventually terrorists, possibly lying in wait, working year in and year out for these, our 'American' airline corporations, could be called to perform some dastardly deed at some point and once again we will be blaming the airlines for their lack of security and coordination with the authorities

  117. How To Get It Fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we in the US must now endure"

    No we don't. I stopped flying and you can too. If everybody just stops, the TSA *will* get straightened out and this problem will get cleared up.

  118. This is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The amount of ionizing radiation you receive at high-altitude in an airplane from cosmic radiation FAR exceeds the minuscule dosage you get at the airport security. These kinds of articles are unnecessarily whipping uninformed people into panics. Shame on the author.

    1. Re:This is nonsense by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Its not nonsense. In addition to the people that contract cancer from the high altitude radiation, you then get to add the 6 to 100 more people that get it from the scanners. Plus, those TSA people that OPERATE the scanners are REALLY getting zapped, and have been getting cancer far above the average because of them. The X-ray machines should be outlawed. I'll drive wherever I want to go until then.

  119. And if the scanner finds something, they will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    grope you anyway. I always go for the groping . I prepare first by wearing a panty liner but they haven't ever groped that much.

  120. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

    Who told you about King Fire-in-me-bottom? His secret majesty will be most displAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH that's good leaderhip.

  121. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    You have to face the cold hard fact that if you don't discriminate you are being indiscriminate by definition. Being indiscriminate is just plain stupid. Being Muslim certainly should not come close to justifying an automatic pat down. However, it should be on a list of things to consider when evaluating threats. Wasting time patting down African American 4 year olds and 80 year old Japanese grandmothers doesn't do anyone any good.

  122. As a frequent flyer, I always opt out by zuki · · Score: 2

    It's very simple. Just calmly tell them you want to opt out. By now they are used to the idea that a small percentage of us will refuse, and they'll just go through with their manual search without much of a fuss. While you are being searched, it's usually pretty easy to mention in passing to that TSA agent that beyond the unknown potential cumulative damage to frequent flyers like myself who would be made to pass through this devices fifty to sixty times a year, they themselves are all possibly working in an unsafe environment, around devices which have been rushed to market without proper long-term testing and whose effects are in truth at best poorly understood; therefore those who remain close to them for long periods of time may be candidates to develop some future problems from this, themselves being - of course - very much included. Let that sink in...

    I would expect these units to be removed from all but the most sensitive locations in the not-too-distant future, and become reserved for people who already are a likely security risk, rather than for them to remain in use with the general public. All it'll take is one workplace hazard lawsuit by a TSA screening staff's lawyer looking for the glory of a precedent-setting decision with their names attached to it.

  123. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps that is a reason you don't get any :P

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  124. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Not too good at reading, are you?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  125. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    No, and yes.

  126. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    In about 20 trips these past year I have yet to see a mm wave machine. All I've seen are x-ray. I feel very sorry for the pregnant women and infants that go through them. Personally I managed to avoid the machines so far, and only had to go through one pat down ("opted out"), which was fast and professionally done. If everyone refused then the machines would be rapidly dismantled. Anyone who goes through the x-ray deserves to get the chance cancer for acting as sheep and not standing up to the abuse.

  127. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    They should have been stopped by metal detectors. They would have been stopped by the locked hardened cockpit doors we currently have. In one case they were stopped by the passengers.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  128. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by lasinge · · Score: 2

    It is exactly that plan, the plan is a long term war of attrition - if anyone in the West would have actually bothered to listen to what {O | U} sama Bean Laiden said was his plan, but then you'd actually have had to get out of your comfort zone and go to AlJazeera's translation for that. His plan was that for every "dollar" the terrorist spends the US (and the West) would spend one million. It is working, at this rate they will drain us before we drain them. I'm not a sympathizer, repeat I realize that he was an enemy, but that is the clear strategy and they even said so. In our zeal to demonize and depersonalize the enemy we lose the ability to *respect* the enemy which is a terrible mistake to make in war. Isn't that from some old book somewhere? Nah, who reads books anymore, it doesn't apply to the old USA we transcend all that and make our own rules. Pride before the fall.

    --
    you are in a twisty maze of different passages.
  129. Re:Just say you can't raise your arms over your he by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    How about I raise a couple of fingers to them instead. I would get the same treatment either way.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  130. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

    The 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have been stopped by all the screening in the world, simply because box cutter knives weren't illegal at the time (any knife under 4 inches was allowed).

  131. Why the need for scanners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a national motto "In God We Trust", why fear terrorists and why the need for scanners and how can a little radiation hurt you? Surely a few simple prayers should do the trick.

  132. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    In about 20 trips these past year I have yet to see a mm wave machine. All I've seen are x-ray.

    Depends which airports you go through, I guess. I've never seen a backscatter x-ray detector in the airports I've been to, only millimeter-wave machines

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  133. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Minor nitpick. The commandment is mistranslated as "Thou shalt not kill" but it should be closer translated to "You will not murder". In the case you speak of however, it does not make a difference, though I can see justification of it in that they are trying to stop the future murder of many of unborn children, I still do not agree, and any proper christian would not do it. Here is a good summation of the difference between kill and murder:

    http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  134. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

    Actually I have a better idea. How about respecting everyone's freedom and human rights? No matter what their religion or skin color may be. Even when they look different from you. How about accepting that nothing in life is without risk? How about remembering that this country used to stand for liberty and freedom at any price. Bad things occasionally happen. That's life. It doesn't require changing the whole philosophy of our Republic from a Republic of Liberty to a Republic of Fear and Paranoia. We have come full circle from Liberty at Any Price to Security at Any Price. East Germany was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  135. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    How can you tell the difference?

    In BWI they have a scanner of some sort, and I looked at the output as I walked out of the machine. It showed a generic outline and highlighted areas for further inspection. For me, it highlighted my forehead as I forgot to remove my sunglasses, as they are plastic with very little metal, I am guessing it was a mm-wave machine.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  136. Check out the article pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Alan "Skipper" Hale. I guess Gilligan was busy frisking some toddler.

  137. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    Lucky you! I have 0 problem with mm wave. Does what it needs to do (if anything) without any harm.

  138. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    All that I've seen have prominently written "backscatter x-ray" and/or "rapiscan" (rapiscan = the brand of the backscatter x-ray machines).

  139. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Well, I as a Christian would have no problem with spitting on a Bible or an image of Jesus or whatever, as those are just symbols. Putting some special significance on treating those objects as sacred would be worshiping false idols as I see it. I mean, I wouldn't go out of my way to step on a picture of Jesus, but if somebody said to do it or I can't get on a plane, I would just think "whatever, idiot" , and do it. Or refuse to do it, but not on religious grounds , but on the grounds that that is stupid and unbiblical.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  140. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

    Grey box and L-3 written on the side: Millimeter wave
    Blue box and Rapiscan written on the side: X-ray

  141. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Do you get a choice of technology in your full body scanner? Do you know which is which?

    Yes - you accept whichever they machine they have or chose the manual grope method. The terahertz scanners have a cubicle and a vertical sensor bar which moves across in front of you. The back-scatter X-ray are static and consist of two rectangular blocks which you stand between to get irradiated.

    What surprised me, on the one occasion I saw the X-ray device, is that there was no protection for the security workers operating it. While the dosage has a low (but non-zero) risk for one passenger the cumulative dosage for someone nearby and operating the machine could be a lot larger. There is a reason the operators of X-ray machines for medical/dental use always go behind a shield before operating the machine.

  142. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Depends which airports you go through, I guess.

    I think it also depends on the country. As far as I know Canada only has the safe, terahertz scanners.

  143. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by writeRight · · Score: 1

    Yes, full body scans of a person are voluntary. Like a stupid test, those who are stupid choose not to opt out of the voluntary full body scan.

  144. Last Flight A Couple Weeks Ago by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Came back from Iraq a couple weeks ago. Retiring in a couple months. So, that was my last flight, since I'll have the time to drive where I want to go, I don't want to go overseas any more, and I'm not OK with getting X-rayed or felt-up. Also not wild about having my luggage lost, sitting in a cramped seat for hours (my knee hurt for a week after the return flight from the middle east), arriving 2 hours before the flight, sitting for hours in an airport where a connection is to be made since non-stops are getting like hens teeth and expensive, paying for parking that is a 10 minute bus ride away, paying $25 for each of 2 bags both ways, being starved for lack of in-flight meals, having to pay for blankets or pillows, or possibly getting trapped on the tarmac for 7 hours. They can stick it all.

    Driving from Virginia to Tucson next March. Yeah, it'll take 3 or 4 days each way, but I enjoy that. And, I'm sure I'll find some interesting stuff to visit on the way out and back.

  145. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Genda · · Score: 1

    Actually, this entire conversation is over simplistic. We didn't get here simply. So what are the ingredients? The mess in the middle east is the result of primitive superstitious people, who've received a religion that was tainted by the Turks (who for one example destroyed the part of Islam preaching equality between the sexes), pissed on by half a dozen or more cultures including the violent off-shoots that were the result of the Christian Holy wars. Add huge oil reserves, global oil corporations, petro-economics, American manipulation of middle eastern governments (The Shah, Saddam, etc.), their subsequent falls (without or without us) and then cap the whole thing with a heaping helping of Israel and serve piping hot! That my friends is a recipe ongoing disaster.

    The really sad part, is the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving, decent people who are simply interested in the same things as everyone else. Its only when people get squeezed between oil and national conflict that terrorists and martyrs are born. We've been complicit for years in creating an environment where these things not only existed but flourished because of our choices and blind self interest. We've had dozens of opportunities to avoid these problems. We could have pressure the Saudis to stop using their wealth to build schools for radical Islam all over the world. We could have demanded the Palestinians were treated fairly and with dignity before implementing Israel. We could have spent a paltry 20 million dollars on Afghanistan after its war with Russia, to ensure that real social reform, education and the seed of a working economy took root (after having spent a billion dollar to help Afghanistan screw Russia.) Most of all, we could have worked more closely with India and Pakistan, to ensure these nations grew peacefully, and that rabid Muslim sects got nipped in the bud. Instead we did the American thing... short term profit followed by long term disaster. You know, don't fix the levies, drown a few thousand poor folk, and call it urban renewal. the GNP never looked better.

  146. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    How would you like to ignore the situation, then, and have them show up tomorrow with 2 tons of anthrax spores that the spread upon the wind of the east coast population density, and kill 500,000? It could happen. We have to neutralize this threat.

  147. Appropriate question is by jawahar · · Score: 1

    WHY X-Ray Scanners Became Mandatory In US Airports

  148. Not really as dangerous as the flight itself... by stuffman64 · · Score: 1

    These x-ray scanners often give a dose under .1uSv, which would theoretically result in one cancer death per 200 million scans.

    The dose on the actual flight itself from cosmic radiation is .005mSv/hr, or about two orders of magnitude more radiation on an average-length flight of 2-6 hours.

    More info can be found here

    --
    --- At my sig, unleash hell.
  149. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by hughk · · Score: 1

    There are no automatic arrangements for the military. The only stuff that you can put on a plane uninspected is a Diplomatic Bag which is protected by the Vienna Convention. Anything may be put into a diplomatic bag that does not compromise the safety of an aircraft. There is no automatic exemption for military stuff, but it is possible for the military to contact the TSA in advance with details of who is carrying the package and what external identifications there are on the package. I am not certain though what happens to transplant organs that may be put on scheduled flights. They must also get some kind of exemption.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  150. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

    Those who are afraid to shove a red hot poker up there arses are effectively ruled by red hot pokers up their arses

    After I shove this red-hot poker up my ass, I'm going to chop my dick off.

    --
    In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
  151. Re:Millimeter-wave scanners Re:That's a good trade by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Yes - you accept whichever they machine they have or chose the manual grope method. The terahertz scanners have a cubicle and a vertical sensor bar which moves across in front of you. The back-scatter X-ray are static and consist of two rectangular blocks which you stand between to get irradiated. What surprised me, on the one occasion I saw the X-ray device, is that there was no protection for the security workers operating it. While the dosage has a low (but non-zero) risk for one passenger the cumulative dosage for someone nearby and operating the machine could be a lot larger. There is a reason the operators of X-ray machines for medical/dental use always go behind a shield before operating the machine.

    So the X-ray machine with you describe is the Rapiscan that GizmoToy refers to? I.e., there's just the one using X-rays? I hope . . .

    Another thing that the X-ray techs all get, at the doctor, hospital, dentist and even vet clinic is a dose badge. Do they routinely issue these to the TSA guys? I guess I also wonder if you can buy your own. They'd probably make you take it off as a passenger to keep people from publicizing exposure, but if I was the TSA goon operating the thing, I like one for myself.

    Hm. To answer my own question, it looks like you can buy dosimeter badges from medical equipment suppliers. I think you'd want to get your whole team to chip in to keep the annual cost down.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  152. Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    How would you like to ignore the situation, then, and have them show up tomorrow with 2 tons of anthrax spores that the spread upon the wind of the east coast population density, and kill 500,000? It could happen. We have to neutralize this threat.

    This kind of appeal to fear is exactly the problem we're faced with. It gets people to think irrationally and put disproportionate effort into thwarting unlikely events, when actual, real problems -- much more serious, certain to occur, real problems -- are out there. You've only got so much time and treasure, squandering them on fantasy is no way to deal with life's dangers.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  153. Re:I wish they would do the obvious by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    That is a better idea and I wish we would do that. However, if they want to go down the path of taking our liberties, they could at least have the courtesy to do it somewhat intelligently so we at least get some benefit from giving up our liberties. We currently give up our liberties and get virtually no benefits other than making some people feel safer.