Full-Body Scans Rolled Out At All Australian International Airports

suraj.sun writes in with a story about the spread of full body scanners. It reads in part:"Passengers at airports across Australia will be forced to undergo full-body scans or be banned from flying under new laws to be introduced into Federal Parliament this week. In a radical $28 million security overhaul, the scanners will be installed at all international airports from July and follows trials at Sydney and Melbourne in August and September last year. The Government is touting the technology as the most advanced available, with the equipment able to detect metallic and non-metallic items beneath clothing. It's also keen to allay concerns raised on travel online forums that passengers would appear nude on security screens as they had when similar scanners were introduced at U.S. airports. The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex."

Comments

Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

> "What problem does Australia have that this is solving?"

Liberty.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[g0bshiTe]

My guess would be none, other than some influence from the US. Maybe in the form of extra funding this way the US can say to it's citizens "hey look Australia is using them".

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[pjr.cc]

In Australia we have two huge problems that need solving - paranoia and a willingness of our government to spy on everything we do.

How the internet firewall didnt get rolled out is a mystery to me (even though in part it did manage to make a small appearance in a different form).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Rogerborg]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

They may be getting on top of their skin cancer problem, and need to drive some demand.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Swampash]

I wonder which large North American nation might have leant on Australia to install these things.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Vanderhoth]

I can't understand why Canada would do that! Damn beer drinking, hockey rioting, tuke heads.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[stanlyb]

Mexico? Canada?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[geogob]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

It solve only one problem : the lack of contract to some firm that did a good lobbying job.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

The problem that it solves is the ability to fly aircraft to the USA - the US lays down the requirements for the security of flights that are flying to a US airport or over their airspace, and if the flights do not meet the requirements, tehy do not fly direct (see the issue of the Pakistan International Airlines issues where for a long long time after they bought their brand new Boeing 777s, they had to do a stop over in Manchester, UK on all Pakistan-USA flights, deboard the aircraft and everyone was put through UK security before the plane could depart for the US (the plane was also subject to search while the passengers were offloaded).

If the security measures do not match up to what the US wants, you have problems flying to the US...

Sure, its a self made problem, but its a problem none-the-less.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "What problem does Australia have that this is solving?"

Liberty.

Or paranoia?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Tsingi]

I can't understand why Canada would do that! Damn beer drinking, hockey rioting, tuke heads.

Hey man, it's took eh!

Hoser.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Mexico...

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[ToadProphet]

It's 'toque'

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[agwadude]

Seriously. Who don't more people ask this? Check out the Wikipedia article Terrorism in Australia and notice not only the shortness of the article, but also the distinct lack of aviation attacks. It will only take one death from cancer caused by these body scanners and they will have caused more aviation deaths in Australia than terrorists.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

I have a mismatched parenthesis in my last post (one less closing bracket than I should have), so for those of you who get driven insane by that, here you go - ).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[alphred]

Clearly, it must be for preventing Australian terrorists from flying away to other countries.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[ackthpt]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

Unauthroized export of Vegemite.

"Crikey! This one's actually a kangaroo!"

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[NotQuiteReal]

Come on, there are only about 20 other countries in North America... keep guessing.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[loneDreamer]

What any sane goverment should do is just that, clean their hands of all the hassle of traveling to the US, till every passsanger or turist thinks twice about doing so. The dependence on the US and the following import of laws and regulations is doing no favors to any other country.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this happened in my country, I would organize riots, take over airports and smash the scanners to pieces. Any government agent standing in my way and forcefully trying to stop me would hit the floor. I would wreak havoc and die for my freedom and my rights but more importantly, the freedom and rights of my children as I don't want them living under a tyranny and the Gestapo. I'd never let my government shoot me with cancer-rays like the govs of the USA and Australia do to their people.

Of course in Australia, it will be just like in the USA: the majority will be against these scanners, and even though the majority could fight back and easily win, nobody will do anything. In the USA they even have GUNS and nothing happenes, so I don't expect squat from Australia.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

Tourism and business is a big part of travel between the US and Australia... they wouldn't want to lose that income.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[geogob]

That only works because other nations willingly accept this. I'd like to see the day where the US security moguls state that as of now, no flight from Australia can land in the US due to security concerns like they did with the flights out of Pakistan (I didn't know that btw. Interesting).

You can do something like that with a country where you have little to no economic dealings. Try that with a country in the EU, Eastern Asia or Australia and you'll be surprised by the reactions both locally and abroad. If at some point a country that has a major economic footprint in the US decide that it's enough already, I fear there is little the US authorities can do other than 1) try to pressure said other country through diplomatic channels and 2) accept it.

Of course, for some countries - or rather some countries' leadership - such measure might fit their own agenda. You can't expect them to take any provocative action against security measures imposed by the US. Also, many measures introduced by the US might be accepted officially by other international organizations as basic security measures for passengers. In that case, we are not talking anymore about a measure unilaterally imposed by the US, but rather a measures ratified by an international committee. It makes it more difficult to go against such measure. Because how widely scanners are not established, I believe they are at least partly mandated by international organizations (but i don't know for certain, it's only an assumption on my part - maybe someone knows here?)

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Vanderhoth]

It can also be spelled 'toqué', 'tuque', or 'tuqué' depending on which part of the country you're from and which keys are on your keyboard or whether you know the character codes.

In Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland I primary see it spelled 'tuke'.
The spellings 'toqué', or 'tuqué' are the french spellings, which I know are used in Quebec and New Brunswick.
The rest of the country it's one of the three, but without the acute e -> é

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised. Canadian government lately is trying as hard as they humanly can to be like the USA. It wouldn't shock me if it WAS Canada, purely so that Harper can say "Look USA, look... we're just like you, pushing these scanners!"

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[The Archon V2.0]

You can't solve paranoia. Give a candle to a man jumping at shadows, and he'll just start panicking about the shadows moving.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[alex67500]

You can't solve paranoia. Give a candle to a man jumping at shadows, and he'll just start panicking about the shadows moving.

Yeah, but you can stand there and watch. You have to admit it's quite fun...

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

If the security measures do not match up to what the US wants, you have problems flying to the US...

If that were the reason they could figure out a way to only screen US-bound passengers.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[speculatrix]

I used to happily fly to the USA at least twice a year, for work (employer has offices there) and vacation (I have relatives there). I even thought of emigrating there, I could probably get a visa without too much trouble as a senior working in IT and a fair amount of personal assets.

With all the hassles of flying to the USA, I now try and avoid it, managing to reduce my trips by one or two a year. Total cost to the US economy is about US$3000 per trip. There must be many others doing likewise. Cost to the US economy overall is probably millions of dollars, a direct loss to the travel industry (airline, hotel, car hire, restaurants, entertainment etc). Add in the burden to the economy to support all the spurious security measures and it adds insult to injury.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[loneDreamer]

Australia would loose no tourists at all, the US would (and has). In business, maybe the added difficulty would provide incentives to do business with other countries, lessening the dependence and interconnecting the world in a better, healthier way. The point is how much crap are people going to take for short term gains. When do we begin to say: Stop, no more, time to look for alternatives!

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

Australia certainly would lose tourists as it would eliminate US tourists...

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

They certainly could do, but Im willing to bet that its not worth the hassle to the staff to have two queues and have to check tickets for destinations etc before going through security.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[geogob]

And I should proofread before posting... among all the small insignificant errors, one significant stood out. Of course, I meant "Because how widely scanners are now established,[...]".

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[ghostdoc]

Australia certainly would lose tourists as it would eliminate US tourists...

The exchange rate has already seen to most of that. Australia is ridiculously expensive in US Dollars.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

its not worth the hassle to the staff

how about the hassle to the People?

Wouldn't they need to buy many fewer machines and have many fewer employees? Don't the screeners always look at the tickets anyway (that's been my experience in the US)?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

And for those of us driven crazy by the less/fewer problem in your sentence? Nothing? :D

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[SupplyMission]

Wrong, "toqué" is an adjective. It is never used, anywhere, to refer to the hat, which is a noun. You'll never find a Frenchman who says "toqué". If someone does write "toqué" or "tuke" when they mean "toque" then they belong to the same group that misuses quotes and hyphens (a.k.a. illiterates of questionable moral standing).

Toque is the correct spelling.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[wiedzmin]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

Healthcare costs are too low, additional sources of cancer sought.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[elsurexiste]

Really? I don't doubt your info., but I flew from Buenos Aires to Dallas/Fort Worth and back, and they didn't have controls *that* stringent. In fact, I was only irradiated/groped in domestic flights. Go figure :-/ .

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.

And no, it wouldn't mean a reduction in the number of machines, because you either have them at entry to the secure terminal area, or (more increasingly, like at Schipol, Jo'Burg, Heathrow T5, Entebbe and Nairobi - all the airports I visited in the past 10 days) at each gate - and any aircraft can be assigned to any gate, so you need one per gate.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

at least compilation won't be stopped by a trivial syntax error, The subtle runtime errors caused by the use of the wrong but similarly functioning variable remain.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

They *already* do this. Often times when flying from Australia to the US, you'll pass through normal security and customs to find the gate you're going to is completely walled off. To enter the 'secure gate zone', every passenger has to submit to a pat down and a carry on bag search. Adding these scanners gains them nothing beyond what they were already doing.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 'toque'

Take off, hoser. It's took, as in "I took a toke in my took."

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

toqué means 'crazy'... very different word.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.

So these aren't shoes-off, no metal objects, remove your nipple rings and artificial-hips detectors?

and any aircraft can be assigned to any gate, so you need one per gate.

So, you assign US-bound aircraft to particular gates.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

So these aren't shoes-off, no metal objects, remove your nipple rings and artificial-hips detectors?

Seems to be dependent on the operator at the time - I usually go through with my belt off but shoes on, but I have been asked to take my shoes off on a few occassions and also have forgotten to remove the belt and not had an issue.

So, you assign US-bound aircraft to particular gates.

Not as easy as you think - if you restrict certain aircraft to certain gates then you can very quickly find yourself with a flight that doesn't have a gate to go to on arrival, or you have to start repositioning aircraft between deboarding one set of passengers and boarding the next.

Lots of things to go wrong, you need to keep the maximum amount of flexibility in your gates at airports as you can - take Friday for instance, heavy snow shut Schipol for a couple of hours, and even when it was reopened they still had to plough each gate. There is no point in having a flight waiting for their gate to be ploughed when there is another gate next to it which has already been ploughed and vacated.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[j2.718ff]

The US is losing potential revenue? They can add additional taxes and fees to airplane tickets to make up the difference. Problem solved.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed it's not more ridiculous. They've doubled their money supply and only lost 20% of the value. Goes to show the benefits of being world reserve currency.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

There is no point in having a flight waiting for their gate to be ploughed when there is another gate next to it which has already been ploughed and vacated.

There's "no point" only if you set the value of privacy and liberty to zero. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and when you place convenience above all else, you lose the principles that are of long-term importance.

In theory, a government is instituted to protect our liberties. Australia's position is, apparently, to tell most of its citizens, "we're sorry, we know you're not flying to a repressive regime, but we wouldn't want to inconvenience those who are, so we're going to have to virtually strip search you anyway."

Yeah, they say they're deleting the images afterwards. The US DHS said the same thing, until it was proved they were lying. Since Australia is acting as a client-state of the US, it's not unreasonable to assume they're following the same policies as well (for compliance with US law and to assure easy entry, of course).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about Canada, right? Wouldn't it be "toke"?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Matt_R]

Last time i flew SYD-LAX (2006), there was another screening just before the gate, only for the USA flights. Full pat-down search and bag inspections for everybody.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

There's "no point" only if you set the value of privacy and liberty to zero. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and when you place convenience above all else, you lose the principles that are of long-term importance.

Im sorry, but a business doesn't give the slightest toss that you think something is invading your "freedoms" - you are more than welcome to fly to another airport or use another travel method.

Lets remember here, it is *you* that has the issue, not the airport - the airport will have one form of security or another, to them its neither here nor there (full body scanners probably cost more, but will certainly have come down in cost in recent years - plus most airports get grants for security usage from governments).

So my point stands - to the airport, there is no point in having a flight wait for a "suitable" gate to become available, when the one next to it is completely unused. Airports are in the business of making money, and the more they delay that flights operations the less money they make from that flight - good luck making an airport board consider your perceived freedom above the tens of thousands of dollars they make from getting you on and off that plane as quickly as possible.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a loss to other countries too. I don't travel as much outside the US because of the security in my own country. I just hate flying now.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means the US economy won't recover "fast enough", Obama will get ousted from office, and a Republican will take over and force in more naked body scanners.

You might want to reconsider.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[EdIII]

They already are.

I won't go through one of those "naked porno scanners" and not just for privacy reasons. It is still up in the air about the actual safety with some people saying that they are off by a whole order of magnitude.

There is absolutely no way I would subject a child to it. That's just sick.

Don't think I am alone in this. People I talk to that like to take vacations in different parts of the world make their decisions, in part, on totalitarian bullshit like this. I can't tell you how many friends and people from Europe just don't want the hassle of coming to the US (Land of the Free). I get asked to come over there.

Fuck England too. Not only is there the bullshit of getting through the airport, but I am not spending my money to be watched on camera my entire fucking vacation.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh... Greenland?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[EdIII]

Replying twice because I forgot about mentioning the alternative which is the whole ball groping deal.

Flying in the US I have that choice (when I absolutely must fly for business) and I choose the ball groping.

Seriously... is the guy going to draw a picture of my junk with crayons from memory? While I might find the situation distressing I feel better knowing that *he* had to touch my balls. Not just *my* balls, but every single other person who refuses those naked porno scanners. Looking at the big picture, I am not one forced to fondle dudes nuts for a living. Which is why I have never mentioned that I have an itch a little to the left.

So if Australia would give me the option of the ball groping, I might still decide to visit there. Always wanted to go.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[toriver]

Pity trans-Atlantic boat trips take from half to a full month... otherwise they could have been an option.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Malc]

When I was there six months ago, and several other times in the last four years, there were no ID checks when checking in for domestic departures, and (IIRC) no complaints about water bottles.

Seems like a radical step up.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Im sorry, but a business doesn't give the slightest toss that you think something is invading your "freedoms" - you are more than welcome to fly to another airport or use another travel method.

This has nothing to do with businesses - it's not a private airport that's implementing the procedures, it's a government. In the English Common Law countries, governments are held to not be above the law themselves. Australia has quite a few privacy laws, and the High Court has held that privacy largely stems from Common Law. Governments must also follow the rule of implementing the minimum infringement of rights necessary and cost isn't a factor - scanning every passenger due to US rules hardly qualifies. These kinds of searches also contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for whatever that's worth.

If this was really driven by the airline businesses, there'd be no screening at all, except for airlines that specialized in pandering to the fearful. Those lines and machines cost airlines money, not to mention all the people who won't fly because of them.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[billstewart]

Martinique!

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[anyGould]

What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.

I personally file being forced to choose between sexual assault (maybe they can plead down to "interference") and having nude pictures taken of me to be "hassle".

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Richard_at_work]

You have a point when talking about security at airports as a whole topic, but we were discussing the merits of limiting the required security measures to specific individual gates for use by just those flights that require the additional security measures and that is the context in which I replied.

To the airport, their job is to get you on and off the plane as quickly as possible, so they can free the facilities up for the next aircraft - they have also been given the job of administering security measures, and to be frank they don't care if its done one way or the other, but it does cause them less hassles to implement the more stringent scans at all gates because they can then use more gates in airport operation planning, and in reality whether the passenger passes through a metal detector or a full body scanner, the time element is largely the same for both and thus the operational cost to the airport is the same.

You are correct about english common law and privacy, but you miss the fact that its also been ruled in the UK that travel through an airport is a privilege and not a right (an airport is a private business and not a public entity - therefor the airport has the right to refuse you entry if you refuse their security measures, just as an airline has the right to refuse you passage).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yeah, it is important to be careful about the specific country's rules, laws, regulations, and jurisprudence when talking about the topic.

In the US, for example, right of transit of the airways is an express right by statute. Fat lot of good that does, though it is always possible to charter and avoid molestation.

Similarly, in the US, the courts, if they were confronted with Australia's problem, and were they following jurisprudence, may have required the government to build a new terminal, if the issue of efficiency you raised were severe enough. Minimizing infringement of civil liberties is more important than the cost. Also, in the US, most airports are government owned, which makes a difference. But these specific common law findings may not exist in Australia.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[davester666]

Until he sets you on fire for causing the shadows.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[freman]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[freman]

Welcome to the United States of Australia (little USA)

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Nyder]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

This is a test for using them in America, of course.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[littlebigbot]

And this just makes bigger shadows.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[freman]

It would seem the greater (easier, safer) solution would be simply not to fly to the US...

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[freman]

My question is, am I entitled to a full refund on my ticket price because I refuse to go through a scanner?

I'll strip naked for you if you like, but I'll be farked if you think I'm going to subject myself to extra unnecessary radiation no matter how small.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Cost to the US economy overall is probably millions of dollars, a direct loss to the travel industry

I saw it estimated the other day as $600 Billion and counting. That 6x10^11, to keep our cross-pond communication working.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[socceroos]

The Australian Firewall has been around for a while now - there are some places you can't get without some wriggling, you know. Mostly though, its the passive logging and data mining that is done for *everything* that bothers me. It makes wanting to keep your privacy very difficult.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[AHuxley]

If we suck up to enough US tech (gov, ex gov now running "security") we might get special export consideration for airforce related source code one day.
We also get reduced rates (thanks US taxpayers) on some generational military contracts for been such good friends over so many wars.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[caitsith01]

With all the hassles of flying to the USA, I now try and avoid it, managing to reduce my trips by one or two a year. Total cost to the US economy is about US$3000 per trip. There must be many others doing likewise. Cost to the US economy overall is probably millions of dollars, a direct loss to the travel industry (airline, hotel, car hire, restaurants, entertainment etc). Add in the burden to the economy to support all the spurious security measures and it adds insult to injury.

Was about to post something similar - flying into the US is now so unpleasant, demeaning and intimidating that it actually has a serious impact on the decision about whether to fly there or go somewhere where unaccountable uniformed guards won't treat me like a likely criminal, fingerprint me and scan my retinas.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[bigbird]

I flew to the US from Australia a couple of months ago to do the New York Marathon, and I didn't really find the security too big a problem. It's there, it's a bit painful, but quickly forgotten by me. Certainly wouldn't stop me flying there again.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Kell Bengal]

Which is why paranoid reactionaries are setting the world aflame.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[painandgreed]

Wrong, "toqué" is an adjective. It is never used, anywhere, to refer to the hat, which is a noun. You'll never find a Frenchman who says "toqué".

I believe we are talking about Québécois here and not Frenchmen, and it would not be the first time I've heard a Frenchman say that the Québécois are not speaking French.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Cimexus]

Australia has flights to the US. I suspect that is one of the primary reasons.

Previously, if you were on a flight to the US, you had to go through regular airport security, and then, there was an additional security check at your gate (for US flights only). This was because Australia's standard airport security procedure was not 'up to the standards' of the Americans.

So you had to do the whole liquids in plastic sandwich bags, shoes off, bags searched crap at your actual gate, after you had already been through one layer of security.

Then, several years ago, Australia brought in the liquids restrictions that the US has (international flights only). So we no longer had to have quite as extensive 'extra' security for US flights. But there is still an extra check, usually consisting of a baggage search.

So my guess is that introducing these scanners is a further step to that end. Perhaps now US fights will be treated like all other flights and we won't need to go through security twice anymore?

The other saving grace of this situation is that it's only for international flights. Domestic flights are still fine: basic metal detector, no nudie scans and you can take liquids etc. on board just as you've always been able to. But don't think that Australia would have introduced this kinda stuff if the US hadn't ... a big party of it is the restrictions placed upon airlines if they want to continue to fly to the US with regards to security (and airports recognising that US-bound travellers going through security twice was a very inefficient way of doing things).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Cimexus]

And it's still the same. The scanners (and for that matter those stupid US liquids restrictions) are ONLY for international flights.

Domestic flights are as they have always been and hopefully will continue to always be.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[dwywit]

The security staff in domestic terminals have (in my recent experience in BNE and SYD) been pretty cool (with minor issues, anyway). In Brissie, their carry-on baggage scanner detected a tiny pair of tick tweezers (made in the USA, oh, the irony) in the first aid kit of my wife's handbag and took them off for a supervisor's opinion. "Sorry, you can't take them. If you'd care to go back outside to the newsagent, you can buy a padded envelope and stamps, and post this back to your home address, then come back through the scanner." Ditto in Sydney. My son's little RC helicopter included a small screwdriver whch we hadn't noticed in the box. The security staff were OK with finding it (had to lose it, but no big deal), they said "this happens all the time - some of these toys have toolkits, some don't, and we expect to find these things. Have a nice flight". Hopefully the international security staff will be equally calm and pleasant.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[z0idberg]

Or perhaps to stop the world-wide spread of drop-bears.

http://www.rollercon.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drop-bear.jpg

They have been caught trying to board aircraft in the past standing 3-high on each others shoulders under a trench-coat.

Trust me, you don't want drop-bears to get off this island.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[telso]

If you look at the dictionary from the Office québécois de la langue franÃaise you'll find that the "tuque" (n.f.) is a "Bonnet tricoté, souvent en laine, que l'on porte généralement pour se protéger du froid." whose English equivalent is "tuque" while the "toque" is a "Casquette hémisphérique que portent les jockeys et dont les couleurs correspondent à celles de leur écurie." whose English equivalent is "cap" (no internal links allowed).

Further, if you look at the the Commission de toponymie's website you'll see that tuque has 32 hits while toque has three. The Town of La Tuque's description sites its name dating back to the end of the 18th Century, with part of the following description reading: "Par ailleurs, l'explication du toponyme est fournie en 1823-1824 par l'explorateur FranÃois Verreault :  un Portage nommé Ushabatshuan (le courant trop fort pour le sauter). Les Voyageurs le nomment la Tuque, à cause d'une Montagne haute, dont le pic ressemble à une Tuque. Ce portage est d'une lieue, avec des fortes cÃtes à monter.  Le toponyme, également attribué à un bureau de poste ouvert en 1887, a donc pour point de départ l'existence dans le passé d'un énorme rocher dominant les chutes à l'endroit du Saint-Maurice oà la ville a été établie. La forme de cette masse de pierre rappelait le bonnet de laine en forme de cÃne naguÃre largement porté par les Québécois et dénommé ici tuque."

If that's not enough for you, you can always rely on Wikipedia.

(And yes, I'm not pretending this is cut and dry, as the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary lists the entry under "toque (also tuque)", but as much as I love the COED, I always spell it with two u's.)

P.S. Nice to know DNF did indeed beat Unicode support on Slashdot; will Hurd beat it? And no, I'm not changing all those accents; look at the links yourselves if you care to read a website that does other languages properly.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks, but what happens if I .....

(

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

We also have alternatives for 'losing' American tourists..
http://ozmagic.homestead.com/australiancrocodileattacks.html

Here's a nice shot!
http://www.news.com.au/travel/australia/m-saltwater-croc-brutus-photographed-on-adelaide-river-jumping-croc-cruises/story-e6frfq89-1226092924868

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not enough revenue for oncologists.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

billions, not millions. there is a multiplier effect, where by the expenditures foregone by travelers also result in less expenditures by airlines, hotels, &c.,

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzzzt! - Greenland is not in North America.

Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
St. Kitts & Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent & The Grenadines
Trinidad & Tobago
United States

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

Healthcare costs are too low, additional sources of cancer sought.

Don't need a full body scanner for that. You can stay at home and ask your GP/Specialist for a full chest CT scan. I mean CT scans are beneficial to you, right?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[NotQuiteReal]

Ummm, Greenland IS in North America - it is just not a "North American Country", I guess by reason that it is an "autonomous country within the kingdom of Denmark"... so it is a country, it is in North America, but it is not on a list of countries in North America. Got it?

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Cimexus]

Well we obviously get some US tourists but, with the exchange rate and the fact that the Americans get no annual leave (relatively speaking compared to all other OECD countries), a far off destination like Australia isn't high on their list. If you ask them, most would love to visit Australia, but they just can't do it with their paltry 1-2 weeks of leave (considering you basically lose 3-4 days of that due to the length of the flights and the time difference).

The decline in US tourists in Australia in the last 10 years has more than been compensated for by an increase in tourism from Asia and some European countries (GFC impacts notwithstanding).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Toqué means "an insane person".
Toque is that hat restaurant chefs wear.

Tuque is the word you're looking for.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[tehcyder]

What problem does Australia have that this is solving?

They've not had any Al Qaeda attacks in their country, so as part of the "Western" world they are overdue for one?

Oh, no, sorry I forgot, obviously it is just an evil oppressive government curtailing citizens' liberties for the fun of it. Silly me, this is slashdot after all.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[tehcyder]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you

Neither does it mean that they really are.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[graphius]

Are you sure about the French spelling? I have never heard the word pronounced with an accent on the last e

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[Vanderhoth]

That's how I've seen it spelled. According to others, on /. and in my office, it's incorrect, and I'm probably wrong.

But also according to others, Quebec French, which I speak very little of, is not "proper" french. Just like Canadian and American English are not "proper" forms of English.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[graphius]

From my high school French, if there is an accent over the e it is pronounced "eh". I know it is Canadian, but it is not pronounced tuk eh...eh....

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[AK Marc]

I had a friend in China who could get into the EU without trouble, but couldn't get in the US. When they deal with US companies, they invite them to China, and if they don't want to come (giving the Chinese homecourt advantage), the Chinese suggest meeting in Japan or the EU. They buy from the EU (a German company) because dealing with the US company became to hard. Billions (yes, billions) lost because of silly visa requirements. The US doesn't care. The US will suffer a complete collapse within 20 years, I only hope the real estate market doesn't collapse completely, as I still have a house in the US, in case I'm wrong and the US ever becomes livable again.

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[AK Marc]

I know of a Chinese company that used to buy US equipment, but switched to buying billions of dollars of equipment from Germany, as getting in to the US to meet with the makers (something you like to do when signing contracts for billions of dollars) was exceedingly difficult (mainly visas, but security didn't help in the decision).

Re:Government Contract in Search of a Problem?

[AK Marc]

Not as easy as you think - if you restrict certain aircraft to certain gates then you can very quickly find yourself with a flight that doesn't have a gate to go to on arrival, or you have to start repositioning aircraft between deboarding one set of passengers and boarding the next.

They do this at Japan (Narita), as US-style security was done at the gate with permanently-installed metal detectors. They figured it out, so I have to assume your "it's hard" complaint was solved by people smarter than you.

new meaning to down under

[Joe_Dragon]

Now will they have pat downs as well?

Re:new meaning to down under

[slyrat]

Now will they have pat downs as well?

I have to wonder about this too. Depending on the way the scans are done I'm sure that there will be medical reasons some people won't be able to go through the scanner. The ones in the US force me to not go through the scanner because I'm type one diabetic and have an insulin pump / real time blood glucose sensor. I find it hard to believe that all cases will be covered as far as medical equipment and safety of the scanners.

Re:new meaning to down under

[Anonymous Coward]

Now will they have pat downs as well?

When flying to the US from Australia there has been pat downs for years. Every other country is fine but flights to US have a second security point where pat downs and body searches occur.

Re:new meaning to down under

[bakes]

We have pat-downs already, although they are not at all like the genital-grabs that I have heard about from US posters here. According to other articles I've read on these scanners, you cannot choose to have a pat-down instead of going through the scanner. (Some exceptions will be made for medical conditions etc).

If you go through the machine and it detects something, you get a pat-down as well, which seems absurd. Why not just stick with the current system?

Re:new meaning to down under

[Builder]

In the UK, if you are selected for the scanner and refuse, you are not allowed to fly. There is no pat-down option.

Re:new meaning to down under

[slyrat]

In the UK, if you are selected for the scanner and refuse, you are not allowed to fly. There is no pat-down option.

Does this mean that not everyone is 'selected' for the scanner? Are there medical options for it there?

Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Sorry, Australia. You just became unvisitable.

Well, here's 22 hours in a flying tube, that I can take off my list, now...

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, another country to add to my no-fly list.

Who else employs this garbage other than the US?

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[GameboyRMH]

+1, really sad to have another interesting country on my no-fly list :-(

I look forward to the possibility of traveling there if they ever stop this nonsense.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Joce640k]

I got scanned last year in Manchester, UK.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Australia. You just became unvisitable.

Seconded -- and I was looking forward to going to Australia with my GF to spend some serious cash. Their loss.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[offsides]

No, it just got CHEAPER to fly to Australia. Think about it - you no longer need a round-trip ticket. SInce you won't be allowed to board a plane as a "normal" passenger for the trip home without going through the body scanner, just buy a one-way ticket, do your visit, and when it's over get yourself deported. Since you're sure to be searched properly in custody, you don't need to go through the scanner, and you don't have to pay for the flight home either! Of course, you probably can only visit Australia once, so you better make it a good one...

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame on Oz for buying into America's paranoia. The bad guys won't do it the same way next time, so this is a multi-billion dollar waste of time. The employment of these machines shows we've sacrificed our dignity out of fear. The terrorists did more damage to us then they could have imagined. tsko

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

One way international longhaul is usually more expensive than international longhaul return.
FYI.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[speculatrix]

yeah, I saw the nude xrays posted to twicpic
:-P

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't let you into the country without a return ticket, so your stay will just be overnight in jail, but if that's your thing, go for it!

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Australia. You just became unvisitable.

Well, here's 22 hours in a flying tube, that I can take off my list, now...

Canada, already reeling from the rejection of the controversial Keystone pipeline by US President Barack Obama, was dealt yet another blow today when it was announced that contrary to previous reports, Jerimiah Cornelius will not in fact be leaving the Dominion for Australia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was unavailable for comment, but according to sources he is outraged about the conduct of, and I quote, "the perfidious Australians." The head of Australia's High Commission is rumored to have been summoned for a meeting at the Foreign Ministry. It is unclear what the Government's next step will be. More on this story as it develops.

Late today a permit for the export to Australia of 100 tons of prime quality back bacon was canceled. No reason was given.

It is now half past three, and you are listening to the world service of the CBC.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[portraitofsanity]

At least you can opt out in the US. "The proposed Aviation Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will make it mandatory for any passenger selected to participate in undergoing a body scan. The "no scan, no fly" amendment closes a loophole in the legislation, which allows passengers to request a pat-down instead of having to pass through a metal detector." I guess everyone gets bugged by their own particular thing, long before these scanners I would almost always get an "extended search" on par with what the opt-out pat-down is now, while flying in the US. I take no issue with getting groped, and the TSA has actually been much nicer/more professional on the opt-outs the past month (In four flights this month I've yet to be treated with any animosity as opposed to right after the scanners showed up, just the procedural patdown and a polite professional molester.) Also, you can cross off Ukraine, at Kyiv Borispol International you have no choice but a scan and even asking otherwise can lead to unpleasantness.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[portraitofsanity]

This is wrong. #1 Proof of means(bank statement works) and intent to leave do not require a round-trip ticket. Just saying you plan to leave via boat to somewhere in Oceania/SE Asia will work #2 If refused entry at an airport, you get to hang out in the international terminal until you make your way to somewhere else. The only countries I can think of that will "jail" you instead of getting rid of you are countries that are really harsh with transit visas, and that can usually be bypassed by passing the transit visa cost officially or unofficially.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

That. Don't go. I encourage people who don't live here in the US to not come here because we're visitor-hostile.

I'm also essentially a prisoner in my own country because I refuse to have my electronics copied and probed illegally by US Customs upon my return. I minimize flying internally too and thus don't contribute as much to the economy because I refuse to step into any body scanner, and getting those damned pat downs is annoying. If they ever mandate the scanners with no option like they seem to want to do in Australia, then I won't fly ever. I already just put Australia on my "someplace I'll never get to see now" list.

Maybe we'll all grow up one day and stop acting like frightened children spooked by ghosts, but as long as we have panicky, fearful, easily led populations I doubt it.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[thegarbz]

Just do what every other tourist does. Arrive and then never leave.

This actually begs the question if you end up on a no-fly list, and you overstay your Visa, ... do they through you in a detention facility despite actively telling you that you couldn't leave the country when you tried?

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries, you can fly into Indonesia and catch a boat from there.

Departures aren't advertised though.

Re:Who Would Jesus Scan?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got scanned last year in Manchester, UK.

Manchester & the London airports have scanners. The rest dont.

It's not /just/ the nude thing

[MrDoh!]

The cancer causing radiation is also a bit of a concern too...

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

its not even the nude thing for me, I don't want to be irradiated by these machine until they are proven safe. I don't really have any body issues and will happily strip naked and parade up and down the concourse and allow their security guards to fondle my genitals for a reasonable period of time to ensure nothing is hidden therein, but I do not want to be irradiated by these machines until they are proven safe.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

'Cancer causing radiation'? From microwave backscatter? Better not go anywhere that has microwave ovens, radars, or mobile phones then. Oops too late.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

'Cancer causing radiation'? From microwave backscatter? Better not go anywhere that has microwave ovens, radars, or mobile phones then. Oops too late.

Or actually board a flight.

"The radiation you get from body scanners is the same as what you get in two minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet." http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[jpstanle]

You've got your technologies confused. The back-scatter-type body scanners utilize x-ray back scatter, and I think we can all agree that x-rays are ionizing radiation with known biological effects. Sure, they levels may be very low, but repeated low-level exposure to ionizing radiation can be dangerous, and it's not so simple as just dismissing it as non-ionizing radiation.

The other type of scanner are terahertz millimeter-wave scanners. While not technically ionizing, terahertz radiation is much more energetic than UHF microwaves, and the jury is still out on their exact biological effects.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

..."The radiation you get from body scanners is the same as what you get in two minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet." http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html

But the feelings caused by having your liberty, freedom, and dignity taken away will last the rest of your life.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Remus Shepherd]

There's a difference.

The radiation you get from airplane travel is full-body and full-spectrum, consisting of X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, and everything in between.

The radiation you get from the terahertz scanners deposits all of its energy into your skin, in a small band of frequencies. That makes it potentially more likely to cause skin cancer than the broadband, full body radiation you get from air travel.

Look, either of these sources is insignificant compared to the energy you get from spending a minute out in the sunlight. But the type of energy and where it is deposited matters, and the terahertz scanners have not been proven safe. Making them mandatory is short-sighted and stupid...and inevitable, given the way governments work.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[joshtheitguy]

Concerns of the levels of radiation being safe or unsafe doesn't matter to me. What matters is the fact that numerous experts have proven the scanners to be completely ineffective at stopping threats and that is what people should care about.

Why expose yourself to the radiation in the first place? I refuse these machines every time I travel domestically and if they are required by some other country I'm not going to go there just wish everyone else did the same.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[cheekyjohnson]

And the terrorist paranoia. And the fact that it's a complete waste of money.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[blueg3]

The radiation you get from airplane travel is full-body and full-spectrum, consisting of X-Rays, Gamma rays, radio waves, and everything in between.

This is why such things are all converted into rem, which is an adjustment for the type and energy of radiation and what part of the body is being irradiated. So that they can be compared more or less directly.

The radiation you get from the terahertz scanners deposits all of its energy into your skin, in a small band of frequencies. That makes it potentially more likely to cause skin cancer than the broadband, full body radiation you get from air travel.

For one, the broad-spectrum radiation from the Sun is deposited at a variety of depths. It's not strictly full-body. For example, the THz radiation from the Sun is deposited in the skin with the exact same depth profile as the THz radiation from a scanner. While I don't know the specific details, most of the energy from the Sun will also be deposited at the skin layer. Penetration depth increases as energy increases and, as a black-body radiator, the Sun's energy is weighted toward lower-energy radiation. (You shouldn't be surprised that this is the case -- the sort of cancer you frequently get from exposure to the Sun is skin cancer.)

For another, THz radiation is below the ionization threshold, so it's enormously less likely to give you skin cancer than radiation from the Sun. By "enormously less likely", I mean that there is no mechanism that we have discovered that would cause sub-ionizing radiation to cause cancer. It's radiation in the same sense that your WiFi antenna and your incandescent lightbulb produce radiation.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure radiation from the sun causes cancer.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Grishnakh]

Only some of the TSA scanners use microwave backscatter (these are the round-looking ones with transparent walls).

The other scanners are good old-fashioned cancer-causing X-rays (these are the ones where you walk between two big monolith-looking things), sorta like getting a CT scan every time you fly.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Grishnakh]

Honestly, I'm more concerned about the X-ray scanners than the terahertz scanners. Here in Phoenix, they only have X-ray scanners.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Remus Shepherd]

The X-ray scanners are worse, yes. But everyone knows that, and they're likely to be replaced with terahertz scanners before long. The problem is that the terahertz scanners, while better than X-rays, are still not proven safe.

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, terahertz waves (photons) are about a billion times weaker, individually, than a gamma ray photon.

it's way, way, way too weak to do anything to an atom. Been tried, and proven, over and over again, since Einstein got the Nobel prize for this (photoelectric effect).

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong terahertz scanner could possibly damage DNA, and no where near enough safety testing has been to discount the possibility.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_full-body_scanners_DNA.html

Re:It's not /just/ the nude thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The terahertz scanners are non-ionizing - I think you are confusing them with backscatter x-ray technology, which is ionizing.

Stick figures?

[srussia]

FTFS: The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex.

This gives a whole new meaning to "obligatory XKCD".

Re:Stick figures?

[pjr.cc]

Kewl, so all you need to do to hide things is apparently swallow them?

Re:Stick figures?

[One Monkey]

obligatory XKCD http://xkcd.com/434/

Re:Stick figures?

[GameboyRMH]

So for women it will say "WARNING - concealed body cavity detected" and for men it will say "WARNING - foreign objects hidden in front of pants"

Re:Stick figures?

[j2.718ff]

for men it will say "WARNING - foreign objects hidden in front of pants"

In front of pants?! I don't want to imagine how you wear your pants.

Re:Stick figures?

[ignavus]

FTFS: The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex.

This gives a whole new meaning to "obligatory XKCD".

Now I have a mental image of body scanner operators sitting around all day looking at XCKD cartoons.

How do I get that job?

Radiation anyone?

[TWX]

Until they allay the concerns of being irradiated I don't think I'll be visiting Australia.

Yes, the amount of radiation is theoretically small, but if one flies a lot, getting irradiated frequently is not something I wish to subject myself to, nor is something that I should be forced to undergo, especially when there are no good studies of the effects of the radiation from these machines.

Re:Radiation anyone?

[jc42]

... the amount of radiation is theoretically small, but if one flies a lot, ...

The problem with sort of reasoning is that it assumes proper maintenance of the equipment. We've already seen some pretty bad news about the maintenance level (and the resulting radiation levels) of the scanning equipment in the US and some other countries. Do you want to trust that every Australian airport with keep all their scanners tuned up and well within spec?

I keep thinking it'd be interesting if someone were to carry a few radiation meters in their pockets, which would of course be detected, but by then they'd have already measured the radiation that they had just been exposed to. It'd be "interesting" if the airport people tried to confiscate them, especially if they showed an out-of-spec level.

I always wanted to go to Australia

[Satis]

...but if this law passes, it may never happen. That sucks. I have never gone through a full body scanner and never will. Sorry Australia, guess I'll be spending my tourism dollars in a country less hostile to privacy rights.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[g0bshiTe]

Of course you could still fly to NZ and perhaps take a cruise ship the rest of the way, just saying if you really wanted to go without a full body scan.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Nadaka]

Or you could boycott Australia and actually make them suffer for this terrible decision.

If I could boycott America I would, but I live here and am not rich enough to move to New Zealand.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Hatta]

Why would you go to Australia when you're already in New Zealand?

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Mashiki]

Well, you could go by cargo ship. It's about the same price as flying, sometimes less, takes longer. Meals are almost always included, some require you to bring your own food or pay on ship. But it's a hell of a lot of fun, most of the time the crew is pretty decent having someone new on board and don't mind showing people around, or even having someone else to do things with. You can get private, shared cabins or crew bunks.

You'll still have to do port of entry calls and all that, but it will save you from having to go through the airport and the scanners. I did a trip from Halifax to Panama and back for round trip $400 back in '03ish on two different Maersk cargo ships. I stayed a week in Panama and returned. If you want to experience something unique, try it.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you go to Australia when you're already in New Zealand?

Topless Sheilas on the Australian beaches!

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[eineerg]

Good luck flying to New Zealand without going through Australia considering most international flights stopover there. If this shit keeps up hopefully that will change.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

To get a job

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Unemployment benefits are better?

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[toriver]

Maybe he likes dry deserts better than lush forests?

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[ben_kelley]

Baaa.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Cimexus]

Keep in mind that these scanners are only being deployed for international flights from Australia. So you can come to Australia without being scanned (unless you're leaving from the US or UK...). You can even fly around Australia domestically without being scanned. It's only when you leave again that you'll have to be scanned. So, just don't leave :)

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[ignavus]

Of course you could still fly to NZ and perhaps take a cruise ship the rest of the way, just saying if you really wanted to go without a full body scan.

Or swim. Then you don't even have to go through customs and immigration.

Kiwis (New Zealanders) swim across the Tasman all the time. That's why we have so many in Bondi - that's where they all land.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[zdammit]

Why would you go to Australia when you're already in New Zealand?

To get a job.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[flibbajobber]

Just off the top of my head, you could fly to NZ via Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo, San Francisco, Los Angeles or Vancouver. I think also Dallas.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Kittenman]

Good luck flying to New Zealand without going through Australia considering most international flights stopover there. If this shit keeps up hopefully that will change.

Nonsense. I went direct from Vancouver BC to Auckland last month. And Air NZ fly to places all around the Pacific. Not to mention Heathrow.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[VJmes]

Because using sheepskin condoms on sheep is wrong.

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you do that ? Like....how do you make a booking, get prices etc ?

This sounds like a cool idea but how do you go about doing it ??

Re:I always wanted to go to Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I'm Aussie and was thinking the same thing in reverse: that I might go via a cruise to NZ on the way out of here.

Why?

[hoggoth]

I didn't know Australia had a terrorist problem.
I never heard of any plane being hijacked or blown up or any attempts or any other terrorist activity.

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

Re:Why?

[mitashki]

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

A proof-of-concept for USA and Europe should the follow?

Re:Why?

[chomsky68]

Sure, the guy who's company delivered the scanners is a second cousin of AVIA's chairman. Or something like that.

Re:Why?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The whole damned island is a penal colony inhabited by venomous everything and criminals! Obviously no amount of Security is too much!

Re:Why?

[imroy]

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

It's to cover polititian's arses. Even though we've never had a real problem with terrorism, no polly wants to be held responsible for "not doing enough" when/if something does happen.

Re:Why?

[mr1911]

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

A proof-of-concept for USA and Europe should the follow?

Apparently you haven't flown in the USA recently. The Aussie version isn't too far off.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Australia had a terrorist problem.

Seems that the UK shipped a bunch of terrorists over to Australia back in the day. The locals have been a bit upset about it ever since.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part is if something did happen, people would claim they didn't do enough even with the protections in place. You can't cater to the people that would irrationally blame you.

Re:Why?

[Hatta]

This is for the profitability of the military industrial complex.

Re:Why?

[Richard_at_work]

As I posted further up in the comments, this is due to requirements laid down by the US for all flights to the US or that go via US airspace - Australia are just making it easy for themselves and setting it as a standard for all flights.

As an aside, Im not sure why Australia are getting all the attention - I flew back from Uganda on Friday and hit Schipol just as the snows started. In Schipol they have full body scanners at all gates, and also between the Schengen zone countries and non-Schengen zone countries terminals - as my flight was cancelled, I ended up going through about 20 of them in a 24 hour period, several times asking for a patdown instead (when they were having problems with the scanner) and being refused.

Re:Why?

[iggymanz]

well geez, can't they just have another pointless war? that would have to have a higher profit margin than this and also the bonus of heavy influence over new resource allocation. Or is this for those contractors that didn't do well in the war machine bidding?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the outcry in the US, the DHS has stopped it's rollout of these scanners. So now the manufacturers are left with stock but without buyers. I imagine the conversation went along the lines of:

US ambassador to Australia: "You should buy lots of these scanners for security. You know, to prevent terrorism."
PM Gillard: "But we don't have a terrorism probl... oh, ok, that wasn't a suggestion. We'd better buy lots."

Re:Why?

[mrbester]

When were the scanners put in at Schiphol? They weren't there last August...

Re:Why?

[Richard_at_work]

Not sure, they weren't there when I flew last January, but they were everywhere this time.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure, they weren't there when I flew last January, but they were everywhere this time.

Flying out of Berlin and Paris over the past week and there are no scanning machines- just the usual metal detectors.

Re:Why?

[Richard_at_work]

"Everywhere" in my comment being within Schipols terminals and gates, not everywhere in the world.

Re:Why?

[TBerben]

I travelled to China little over half a year ago, departing from Schiphol and I didn't encounter any full body scanners. I didn't even get a pat-down. Maybe having a Dutch passport helps, but I didn't see any of the fellow passengers go through any security screening more rigorous than having their carry-ons X-rayed.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were denied a pat-down? Is that not in violation of EU rules?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got refused a pat down? I thought there required to always give that option?

Re:Why?

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

I didn't know Australia had a terrorist problem. I never heard of any plane being hijacked or blown up or any attempts or any other terrorist activity.

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

To show that the Australian government (regardless of being either liberal (NB that's a "capital L" liberal written in lower case to show well earned contempt) or labour (they can't even spell their own name correctly) party) is determined to lick American boots and eat American shit if at all possible.

Julia and Tony - grow up and get your acts together!

Re:Why?

[matthobbs05]

I never heard of any plane being hijacked or blown up or any attempts or any other terrorist activity.

While there hasn't been any plane-related incidents, there has been a few bombings in the past.

In the past decade alone there have been several groups charged for plotting terrorist attacks on Australian land. The most recent was in August 2009 when four men "allegedly connected with the Somali-based terrorist group al-Shabaab" were arrested for planning an attack on an army barracks near Sydney.

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

Re:Why?

[caitsith01]

One reason Australia is getting attention is that, unlike the EU and USA, here pat downs will not be an option - it's "scan" or "don't fly".

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the "free" trade agreement Australia signed with the US, we are now actually goverened by the USA.

Re:Why?

[Mitreya]

As I posted further up in the comments, this is due to requirements laid down by the US for all flights to the US or that go via US airspace

We sorta understand that this a combination of US and clever lobbying by the contractor firm
But what explains the non-opt-out nature of scans? I'd like to believe (as unlikely as that is) that the outrage was somewhat stemmed by the opt-out option here. Pat-downs are still annoying, but it is a better choice.
An unproven-safety machine that can store images despite all the lies claiming otherwise...

Re:Why?

[toQDuj]

They are, at Schiphol, required to give you the option of going through the old type metal detector gate. It's in the leaflet you can download from here http://www.schiphol.nl/Travellers/AtSchiphol/CheckinControl/SecurityChecksUponDeparture/SecurityScan.htm

B.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?

A proof-of-concept for USA and Europe should the follow?

Apparently you haven't flown in the USA recently. The Aussie version isn't too far off.

We don't have a terrorist problem in Australia. Whether this is by good luck, good management, or sheer geographic isolation, I don't know. I do know that it is becoming more of a pain in the arse to fly though. In the last year or so I've been pulled aside and tested for explosives residue three times. When that happens it makes you feel more uncomfortable and nervous, because you're being singled out as a potential threat, however random the process might be. I do understand the need for security for all passengers, but this introduction of compulsory body scanning is just another step in the process of making us all feel like we are not to be trusted by the government. In short, the government is effectively saying that we're all potential terrorists and that is a huge issue for a lot of people.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our government had been over-reacting to nonexistent terrorist threats since 2001, when it gave ASIO (our FBI) the ability to detain people without trial or warrant. No, there has never been a terrorist threat in this country. The loses we have come to this is when Chasers War on Everything, a political comedy show, accidentally managed to infiltrate the APEC summit with one of their members dressed as Osama Bin Laden. Google it, it's actually worth watching.

Re:Why?

[Builder]

Pat downs aren't an option in the UK either, and we're part of the EU. It's scan or no-fly here too if you're selected for the scanner.

Re:Why?

[mr1911]

We don't have a terrorist problem in Australia.

There is no terrorist problem in the US either. There is a major problem with the government eroding our liberty in the name of a non-existent terrorist problem.

because you're being singled out as a potential threat, however random the process might be

That's the problem. If it were about terrorists, it wouldn't be random. It is about control over the general population.

I do understand the need for security for all passengers

Invasive airport screening has nothing to do with security. Once you start arguing that as the basis of what is going on, you have completely fallen for the decoy argument and lost.

making us all feel like we are not to be trusted by the government

the government is effectively saying that we're all potential terrorists

These are not the same thing. The first is absolutely true. The second is a smoke screen for the distrust. It is about power and control. The government wishes to institute controls to retain and expand power.

Re:Why?

[Dracophile]

what is this for

This is for and because of voting as if there were only two parties in the country.

Re:Why?

[qxcv]

TAA Flight 408

An *attempted* hijacking, but I'd say this is the specific incident the new law is trying to address. I predict a dramatic decrease in the number of skyjackings by armed Communists in Australia over the next fifty-two years or so with this new technology.

Won't Stop Everyone

[Iskender]

From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts. Unless something has changed this should still get past the scanners without a problem.

Not that anyone seems to be very interested in bombing planes these days.

Re:Won't Stop Everyone

[Mitreya]

From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts.

Don't give them ideas! If any clever contractor invents an automatic prostate examiner, they will be installed next in the airports!
It was never about protecting us. TSA has very little to show (so far passengers have been apprehending odd individuals with no external help) for the last decade. Since they don't seem to need to justify their existence or show a single major terrorist plot thwarted per at least 5-10 years, a workaround vs the machines appears to be irrelevant...

Re:Won't Stop Everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Gives a whole new meaning to LMAO.

Enough Already!

[na1led]

And when the scan doesn't reveal enough, they have an Anal Probe ready for you in the side room!

Re:Enough Already!

[thegarbz]

Just be sure not to moan the wrong TSA agents name. That really pisses them off.

Who in the Aussie government got the kickback?

[schwit1]

The EU banned these contraptions due to unsafe radiation.

Re:Who in the Aussie government got the kickback?

[tgd]

There are two kinds of body scanners -- XRay and terahertz. EU banned the former, not the latter.

The picture in the article is a terahertz machine. That's what L-3 makes.

Re:Who in the Aussie government got the kickback?

[qxcv]

The same EU that almost banned cordless phones and Wi-Fi in schools because of unsafe radiation?

Sounds like they won't

[Tekfactory]

Summary says go through the scanner or be banned from flying, why would you pat down someone banned from flying, you just send them home. Tell them to take a boat or something if they'd like to leave.

Re:Sounds like they won't

[jittles]

Summary says go through the scanner or be banned from flying, why would you pat down someone banned from flying, you just send them home. Tell them to take a boat or something if they'd like to leave.

How do they send them home if they refuse to go thru the body scanner? This makes me want to go to Australia and then when they ask me to go thru the scanner, I would opt for a pat down. When they tell me that I can't fly home without going thru the scanner, I then ask them where to apply for citizenship! Its brilliant, right?

Re:Sounds like they won't

[ben_kelley]

Coming up this week on Border Security:

Immigration Officer 1: ... so the passenger has presented at border control, and has refused the normal safety scan.

Immigration Officer 2: Right, so effectively endangering the safety and security of the nation?

Immigration Officer 1: Yes. That's right sir. What should we do with him.

Immigration Officer 2: Normal procedure. Plastic cuffs, scan him, put him on the next plane out.

Immigration Officer 1: Should we tase him first?

Immigration Officer 2: If you like. It has been a quiet morning, hasn't it? Yeah go for it.

Immigration Officer 1: Thankyou sir.

Use Google history to find terrorists

[concealment]

These scanners improve on the American version, but are still an unacceptable method.

Why must we penalize all passengers, when what we need is to find those few who are likely to be actual threats?

Let's hire Google to do it. According to their new privacy policy, they'll have a record of everything those people ever did online. Just look for those with interest in explosives and politics.

Damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uncle Sam, tell Australia to stop copying me"
"Australia, that is not nice. Apologize."
"I'm not so sorry, mate."

Sterilization

[concealment]

The radiation used in the scanners might also sterilize us.

That way not only does the world learn that you have a miniscule penis, but they also know it's no longer a working one.

Re:Sterilization

[toriver]

Well, then perhaps installing these all around the world is the solution to over-population. :)

Re:Sterilization

[freman]

Only if they install them at entry/exit points of bogan populations - the kind of people who would go through a radiation scanner frequently have higher iq's and make better breeding stock if they ever get around to breeding.... vs the bogans who do nothing but breed and can barely manage to dress themselves

Re:Sterilization

[deniable]

Front door at Centrelink perhaps?

I'm gonna report this

[dr_dank]

I'm gonna report this to me member of parliament.

HEY GUS!

Re:I'm gonna report this

[GameboyRMH]

*floating in pool 20 feet away*

WHAT!?

ANYthing to make money.

[unity100]

See, now instantly they have a 'thriving security industry' in australia too. $28 mil just the initial setup.

What?

[jopet]

No anal probes for everyone who wants to fly? Think of the security threats!

Re:What?

[PPH]

You must be thinking of the flying saucer ride you took last summer. Different airlines.

Re:What?

[kpoole55]

Hey, how about getting some qualified people in so that you can be probed for contraband and get your prostate checked at the same time? What a great service that would be.

Re:What?

[BlueStrat]

You must be thinking of the flying saucer ride you took last summer. Different airlines.

Are you sure?

The truth is out there...

Just sayin'

Strat

Full on

[retech]

I had the "privilege" of going through the Sydney international hub quite a few times over the past 5 years. I'm a US citizen. I've been to Australia quite a few times the first of which was 1989. Back then I noticed that my accent and demeanor got me a lot of very friendly greetings, people assumed I was Canadian. I learned it was in my interest to not correct them.

Flying in and out of Sydney of late I noticed that a large number of Non-Aussies were getting pulled from the international line for "random" security pat downs. In each case the guards were very verbal about letting us know it was only random. But I don't think so. I had a 3 hr layover on one flight so I parked myself up in the food court which has a perfect view of the security check points for this area. And in 2 hrs of watching I never once saw an Aussie get a random pat down on an international flight. On the return flight I had the same layover and repeated my observation with the exact results. I even went so far as to get prepped for the patdown while in line. When they pulled me I was ready and the guard asked me why. I said: "You pull all the foreigners out, so I just wanted to speed this up." He protested saying it was random and I told him random does not equal 100%.

Time and time again I've been told by Aussie and Kiwi friends that the US military companies are in bed with the Aussie gov't and are selling paranoia at at premium. This news only solidifies that for me and confirms that I'll never return to Oz again. I just hope that Aotearoa remains a bastion of pacific sanity.

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard of random pat-downs for Non-Aussie's?

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

And in 2 hrs of watching I never once saw an Aussie get a random pat down on an international flight.

How do you tell the difference between the Aussies and the non-Aussies?

Re:Full on

[PlatyPaul]

I told him random does not equal 100%.

Can't resist.

The distribution of a single sample is not statistically required to reflect the full distribution; the probability of that particular sample goes down, but never equals zero. This is why anecdotes get so much distrust.

That said, I currently have an "additional screening" rate of greater than 90% in the US, while my wife is never selected. I have to wonder if things would be different, were there more prominent female terrorists.

Re:Full on

[tg123]

This is incorrect I always get patted down flying out of Australia. I reckon chocolate sets their detector thing off as I always have chocolate (cheapest drink) while waiting to fly out of the airport.

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

By looking at the passport?

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww cry me a river! Now you know how the rest of the world feel having to visit the 'land of the free'

Re:Full on

[Overzeetop]

Oddly enough, My wife, daughter, and I have flown twice in the past couple of months (4 boardings; no, we're not heavy travelers), and yet my wife was pulled once for pat down and once for a palm swab. I was randomly pulled for the palm swab just before boarding on one leg.

On one flight, my wife saw a woman get through TSA with an expired drivers license and a marriage certificate, and NO other ID. When she got to security she said nothing, and her husband did all the talking. WTF? A real head shaking moment.

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

I was flying out of Phoenix with a gf several years ago, and was getting a boarding pass, as my horrible-sounding Siberian last name came to their attention, at which point I won a "random" search, with my suitcases pulled back from the loading belt. Next time the winning prize can be a full body X-ray. Do it or lose the vacation trip, I guess.

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been pulled up even on domestic flights, every single time. That said the flights were actually paid for by the military and the haircut and way you hold yourself stand out a bit, combined with being a young male. Still complete bullshit. Fun thing was a friend who was travelling with me once set off those gunpowder residue detecting machines from being at the firing range earlier in the day, fun fun.

Demographics lie to you, until someone actually blows up a building or kill someone etc they aren't a terrorist. All we can do is enforce what you can/can not take on a plane really, the rest is all circumstantial.

Re:Full on

[caitsith01]

And in 2 hrs of watching I never once saw an Aussie get a random pat down on an international flight.

Just checking, but you do realise that not all Australians are white, right? Given that you don't generally have to show your passport when you go through security in Australia, I'm not sure what you're basing your assessment of "Aussie" vs "non-Aussie" on.

In my experience, the factors which affect "extra" security in Australia are: walking speed (slower = more likely to get stopped), eye contact (making it = more likely to get stopped), having a beard (beard = likely terrorist), being male (less perceived risk of someone complaining about harassment).

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I travel to the states I get a 'randomly selected' pat-down too for having an Aussie accent.

Re:Full on

[Cimexus]

I'm Australian and I get the random pat down sometimes for international fights, especially international flights to the US. I'd say you're being overly paranoid and acting on too small a sample size (I've made probably 100s of international flights in and out of AU).

Re:Full on

[flibbajobber]

> I just hope that Aotearoa remains a bastion of pacific sanity.
Sadly the writing is on the wall. We (NZ) used to have the stones to stand up for ourselves on the international stage, but our current Prime Minister just wants to please everyone and I can't see him saying No to increased pressure from the States - he'd much rather smile and get Obama's handshake on his résumé. We've already brought in a guilty-till-proven-innocent three-strikes law for filesharing - that was completely embarrassing to see our politicians demonstrate a complete lack of grasp on the issue.

Australia and the USA are our #1 and #2 export markets so we tend to succumb when they start tightening the screws.

Full-body scanners are currently illegal in NZ, but I'm not sure if that only applies to nudie ones (it might be this aspect which makes them illegal; I'm not sure). I fear it's only a matter of time before that piece of legislation gets removed, or some loophole is found to bring two half-body scanners in - one for the upper body immediately followed by one for the lower half...

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope that Aotearoa remains a bastion of pacific sanity.

Me too. But MegaUpload's episode (USA's reach) is causing me to lose that hope real soon.

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I missed the point, but I'm unsure of where you are heading with this argument. The irrational approach to security selection is randomness. The proverbial little old lady and small child is highly unlikely to be an arch-terrorist, for example. The rational approach is probably to target young men, possibly travelling alone, with minimal luggage (for an int'l flight), etc. I'm not a security expert, but from what I read the Israelis are pretty good at this and they do share there knowledge on the subject. Of course, it's an arms race where the terrorists learn as fast as law enforcement.

If you are implying racism is involved, maybe but there are better explanations. And the paranoia sthick wears really thin - Slashdot laps that crap up. You don't have to think through anything because everything is a massive government plot to deprive a sun-starved dweeb of his (not her) right to broadband downloads anytime, anywhere - and some other stuff too. I suspect most peoples idea of govt "plots" come down to govt bureacracy and stupidity - hence any coverups. Who wants the world to know they are just dumb.

Re:Full on

[Anonymous Coward]

When they pulled me I was ready and the guard asked me why. I said: "You pull all the foreigners out, so I just wanted to speed this up." He protested saying it was random and I told him random does not equal 100%.

You've just described the exact reason I don't fly to the US anymore. Except you guys had about a 10 year head start on pulling every foreigner out of the line for a "random" extra security check.

Turnabout is fair play and all that.

Ok, I will not take my vacation there

[Anonymous Coward]

I was planing a trip to Australia for this end of the year holiday with my family... I think I will go in New Caledonia... wine are better anyway !

AUS is of the holiday list plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

AUS is of the holiday list plain and simple

Either they face reality that over 140+ people on average have access to a single airplane and that it cannot be made "safe" in absolute terms or they will loose my business and get some free bad publicity ...

Fearmongering does not work, it never has and never will.

As far as those two tower are concerned: more people are dying of cancer every week than that people died that day ... look at how much is being invested in that!
Or was there a war on cancer?

Right!

Re:AUS is of the holiday list plain and simple

[caitsith01]

So where are you going to go?

USA - scanners, retinal scanners, fingerprints, aggressive unpleasant TSA employees.

EU - scanners, weird obsession with bureaucracy and officialdom, in France they blow up your luggage at CDG if you leave it unattended.

Asia/Africa/Russia - some scanners in the more developed countries IIRC, approximately 90000% higher chance of corrupt officials detaining or "fining" you.

Enjoy your trip to the Antarctic!

PS - I oppose these scanners, but the reason we're getting them is because the US and EU already have them.

Strong radiation

[Hentes]

The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex.

They claim that the radiation is comparable to that of a cell phone but a machine with effects like that is one strong X-ray.

Very disappointing

[agwadude]

This is very disappointing, especially after the EU passed strict body scanner regulations, which both banned X-ray scanners and required passengers be allowed to opt-out of non-X-ray scanners. Germany scrapped all body scanners, not just because of the health concerns, but because they actually don't work . I know someone who accidentally took his pocket knife through security and the body scanner didn't detect it. These things aren't making anyone safer: between the decreased effectiveness and the cancer risk, they're actually making flying more dangerous.

Re:Very disappointing

[blueg3]

The problem they discovered in Germany (using microwave scanners) is actually the opposite: the false positive rate is too high. This isn't something you'd normally associate with "doesn't work", but is a legitimate concern.

Re:Very disappointing

[LordLucless]

Um, yes, a high false-positive rate or a false-negative rate are both instances of a technology not working. If it weren't, you could just make a device that pings 100% of passengers, and get a 0% false-negative rate.

a + !a

[zephvark]

>able to detect metallic and non-metallic items

...or, as we like to call them, "items". Nice to see the U.S. still has a thriving export market in ideas for government corruption masquerading as expensive security theater.

It's worth noting.....

[Tassidus]

that it is often outgoing flights that are the most scanned/vetted. Chances are the US have put their foot down asking other countries to implement more stringent security to check for danger to flights going to the US. Same as it was here in the UK

And accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The images may be shown on the display screen as stick figures, but the unmodified nude 3d models are still stored as useful biometric information data in government databases. Count on it.

Re:And accuracy

[dgatwood]

Whether it is or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it could be. Thus, this does nothing to "allay concerns" except perhaps among people who don't know anything at all about how technology works.

Either way, I've just added a country to my list of places I will never have the opportunity to visit as a tourist. Because you could not pay me enough money to walk through those things. Ever. Period. No alternative = no visit. End of story, end of discussion, end of my tourism dollars going to your country.

It's a shame, too. Australia was fairly high on my list of places to visit. I just marked it off the list.

Re:And accuracy

[wiedzmin]

Australia was fairly high on my list of places to visit. I just marked it off the list.

Ditto. Joined the list of countries I won't visit over privacy concerns, right after US and UK.

Re:And accuracy

[EdIII]

Ditto. Although I am currently inside the US.... so .... yeah.

Re:And accuracy

[anyGould]

The images may be shown on the display screen as stick figures, but the unmodified nude 3d models are still stored as useful biometric information data in government databases. Count on it.

Actually, let's back up for a second.

How do they plan on displaying the stick figure but still showing what they're carrying? That strikes me as either BS (they'll draw a stick figure over the nude) or a pretty obvious loophole (figure out how the software decides what's "person" and you've beaten the system.

Re:And accuracy

[Fluffeh]

Australia was fairly high on my list of places to visit. I just marked it off the list.

Ditto. Joined the list of countries I won't visit over privacy concerns, right after US and UK.

Dammit, let's keep the big picture in focus here! Now, I am no longer able to be all smug about those stuipd US privacy nuts failing to properly protest getting these into the US and mocking them in patronizing tones. Now I have the idignity of being in the same bucket down here in Australia.

What amazes me thoughis how well this was kept under the radar. I normally think that I am quite abreast of these sort of issues, but now and again they just pop up out of nowhere.

Re:And accuracy

[dgatwood]

Ditto. Joined the list of countries I won't visit over privacy concerns, right after US and UK.

I'm going on a trip to Europe next year, and I'm already taking steps to ensure that I do not have to pass through any UK airports, for precisely this reason.

Unfortunately, I can't avoid flying out of a U.S. airport, since I live here. Well, I suppose I could drive to Mexico first, but that's a little extreme. At least the U.S. does still offer the pat-down option, uncomfortable as those might be.

Re:And accuracy

[walshy007]

Likewise this issue seems to have been well hidden.

Re:And accuracy

[bill_mcgonigle]

Well, I suppose I could drive to Mexico first, but that's a little extreme.

I was going to start making the drive up to Montreal, and then the US Border Patrol installed whole-vehicle X-ray systems that everybody has to drive through on the way back.

The frog - it's getting mighty uncomfortable.

Re:And accuracy

[cloricus]

I was flying to Brisbane from Melbourne just before Christmas and my only thought, as I lined up for 20 minutes to get through the huge crowd at security, was that I felt insanely less-safe in that small enclosed space with 200-400 other people than I did on the plane.

If you attack the plane it requires thought, planning, and luck. Compare that to just blowing yourself up in an unmoderated stagnat enclosed queue. They are shifting the threat to another venue that is easier to exploit which can only support the Security Theatre argument.

Then again, Australia has never had a terrorist attack on its soil and ASIO is doing a bang up job getting those who are plotting, so why aren't we giving them this money?

Re:And accuracy

[Fluffeh]

Then again, Australia has never had a terrorist attack on its soil and ASIO is doing a bang up job getting those who are plotting, so why aren't we giving them this money?

ASIO doesn't have lobbyists with the potential to make some serious kickback cash when whatEverCompany sells the government these $30 million dollar machines.

As for the idea of blowing up on a plane or airport lounge, of course, it is utterly farcical. The only reason I could see for someone wanting to take over a plane is to use it a a missle. Otherwise, I don't see it as a logical target, it doesn't make sense. There are loads of potentially much more devastating targets in Australia. Sadly, this sort of action makes many people "safe". I have actually discussed it with a few colleagues. It is simply stunning how the masses gobble this crud up and ask for seconds.

Re:And accuracy

[dgatwood]

The amount of X-ray energy needed to usefully scan a vehicle can't possibly be safe for its occupants. It really is high time that the citizens of the U.S. hold its lawmakers accountable for the cost of their actions. And by that, I mean, drain their personal bank accounts to pay for their victims' cancer treatments. Only with strict civil liability can we fix such absolute stupidity.

Re:And accuracy

[Kell Bengal]

Unfortunately, that is not true. There have been several. In fact, my father escaped being killed by the 1978 Sydney Hilton bombing only by sheer luck - he was a journalist covering the CHOGRM meeting, and he stepped outside for a break. He believes he may have actually sat on the rubbish bin in which the bomb was hidden... (or so he tells his kids).

Re:And accuracy

[jeremyp]

As a UK citizen, I have flown out of British airports on several occasions in he last year or two. I have never been given a full body scan.

Re:And accuracy

[wiedzmin]

That may be a concession for citizens of your own country. For example, US/Canada citizens are the only ones who do not have to be fingerprinted when entering the US, for the time being.

Re:And accuracy

[rtb61]

In this case the current Australian Prime Minister has a real worship fetish for the US government and simply bends over the Australia people for anything the US government requests. The sooner she is gone the better. Another decision made without consulting the Australian public and without proper discussion in parliament, she is a straight up prostitute for US lobbyists.

Re:And accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ people who can't spell the word "missile".

It's not spelt "missle", and it's not pronounced like that either.

Back to elementary school with you.

Re:And accuracy

[Builder]

Yeah, but if you ARE selected for a full body scan, you can't refuse it. Your choices are take the scan or don't fly.

Re:And accuracy

[Builder]

Nope - nothing to do with that. At this point, the selection of people to go through full body scans is random. Not everyone has to go through one yet.

Most of the people that have refused so far and thus been banned from flying were British citizens.

Re:And accuracy

[tehcyder]

The images may be shown on the display screen as stick figures, but the unmodified nude 3d models are still stored as useful biometric information data in government databases. Count on it.

Who cares?

Re:And accuracy

[tehcyder]

We're really going to miss seeing your sunny smile over here, you paranoid clown. Big deal, you're checked so that you can't carry guns, knives or bombs onto a plane, boo hoo that's really fucking infinging on your human rights and oh-so-precious concerns about privacy,

Re:And accuracy

[tehcyder]

When I went on holiday to Turkey last they had metal detectors/scanners just inside the doors to the airport. This was before going through the passport control/actual departure area.

Turkey has various problems with terrorists, so I don't blame them for eliminating this potential threat.

Christ knows what the paranoids on here would make of it though.

Re:And accuracy

[tehcyder]

As for the idea of blowing up on a plane or airport lounge, of course, it is utterly farcical. The only reason I could see for someone wanting to take over a plane is to use it a a missle. Otherwise, I don't see it as a logical target, it doesn't make sense.

You must be blinkered by memories of 9/11 then. Do you seriously not see the publicity value in the disruption that would be caused by closing at least one international airport, never mind the knock on effect on travel round the whole world as every airline and airport semi-panicked?

Re:And accuracy

[tehcyder]

The amount of X-ray energy needed to usefully scan a vehicle can't possibly be safe for its occupants

That claim requires some sort of backup, please, otherwise it's not more valuable than "mobile phones must cause brain cancer, because I think so".

Re:And accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

X-ray has been documented to be dangerous ever since Marie Courie died of radiation poisoning.

Re:And accuracy

[wiedzmin]

Most of the people that have refused so far and thus been banned from flying were British citizens.

Wow, they ban you from flying for refusing the scan? In US they just get really friendly with you.

Re:And accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you. I left that fascist hell hole for the same reason. They have a saying in Australia "don't like it get out" so I did. Took my tax dollars, my ingenuity, my creativity and good energy and LEFT. Bye assholes. Stuff your scanners where the sun don't shine. Even the briefest of investigations into the Shapelle Corby case proves beyond reasonable doubt that the greatest threat to the Australian public is the Australian government, a corrupt cesspool of corporate interest serving losers who would, no doubt in my mind, stage false flag terror events, and the like to get any legislation or "security" measures passed that they want. What is being done about corrupt baggage handlers at the airports putting drugs in people's bags, like in the USA where the TSA has been caught stashing hard drugs into people's luggage and even bribing them to let them off when they put it there in the first place. Pathetic. Wake up people, this is the hard end of the corporate take over. Stop being so gullible.

Re:And accuracy

[dgatwood]

I guess it depends on how much detail they care about inside the car, but it certainly seems counterintuitive that an X-ray scan that can pass through potentially several feet of random cargo sufficient to usefully identify its contents could possibly use a lower dose than several medical X-ray scans. And if it does use a much lower dose, I would expect it to not provide enough detail to be useful.

If that isn't the case, then our medical X-ray systems are using way too much power and we should dramatically reduce their output. Given that the medical establishment isn't jumping up and down screaming for order-of-magnitude reduction in X-ray dose (as far as I know), this seems to be the less likely assumption.

In my mind, the assumption that a full car X-ray scanner could possibly be safe is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, not the other way around.

This further ignores the question of whether they have the right to such an incredibly invasive search in the absence of probable cause, the question of whether this actually prevents any realistically plausible threat against the United States, and the question of whether there are better, less invasive methods that could achieve the same goals without the same risks or privacy invasion, but those are arguments for another day, ideally in front of the SCOTUS.

Re:And accuracy

[Pseudonym]

And who, exactly, would you put in her place? The Mad Monk? Or do you want Howard back?

Going by our experience with the Internet censorship thing, I'd say your best bet is to letterbomb Q&A. Tim Wilson is coming up soon; he should have a pretty strong opinion on this.

Re:And accuracy

[rtb61]

Well let's see, you have 150 seats in the lower house, 72 are Labour, so take your pick from the 72. Better than the current one who has betrayed Australians twice to US lobbyists becuase of her own pathetic political infatuations. If she is so infatuated by the American political scence she should piss off and go there. As for approving any US led agreements without open and fair discussion, she has betrayed Australians.

Where are the legislated protections for Australian citizens to protect from arbitrary arrests, torture and execution by what will be the largest ready to be deployed military force in Australia. Under US law not only can those US marines not by arrested by Australian police authorities including rape, mass executions and public urination on the people they kill they are also legislated to treat Australian citizens as sub-human foreigners who have no rights under US law.

Until the US is forced to change it's laws to recognise the rights of Australians citizens and to subject US military to Australian law while they are there, the US military should simply be banned from Australia. It is only a treasonous Australian politician that would fail to recognise this. So Rudd in and the skank out and send her packing to the US where she can cosy up to her mates, bloody US lobbyists.

"Full body scan, that's Australian for fascism"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad to see the Aussies follow down the path of idiocy and fascism that all this
hysteria surrounding 'terrorism' represents in truth.

Oh well, I can spend my tourist dollars elsewhere, AND I WILL, because I don't pay to
be insulted by some ignorant fascist government.

It's all according to plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The world as a whole is considered as needing a vast reduction in population. Vast numbers of people travel by air and so get irradiated by these scanners which are almost certainly putting out more ionizing radiation that they're spec'd out for. This will lead to massive numbers of incurable cancers that everyone will shake their heads at and wonder what could have caused them but with the desired result of reducing the population. Many people will find that after their chemotherapy treatments to try and lengthen their lives they also won't be able to have children so you get a double benefit.

I was told that I'd be rendered sterile buy the chemo that treated my indolent Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma so I've already done my part and I didn't even have to go through a scanner to do it.

That could be the new ad campaign, "Fly, enjoy, die, have no children and save the world."

I had to go through a cancer machine

[fedos]

the last time I flew out of Providence, RI. And they felt me up afterwards anyway.

Treated like a terrorist until....

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in July 2011, I flew out of LAX. I got to the security check and they told me to go through the scanner. I said no way. I was looked at like I am a terrorist (I look more like a young Steve Jobs than a terrorist). As the TSA employee is molesting me, I mean conducting an enhanced pat-down, he tries to strike up a conversation with me. He asks me if I have kids. I said "yes, why?" He says "Well, typically the only guys that don't want to go through the full-body scan haven't have kids yet. So why didn't you want to go through the scanner?" I said "I don't want to get cancer.......again." He said "Oh, I would have done the same thing." His attitude changed and he finished quickly.

Yes, I am a cancer survivor.

Re:Treated like a terrorist until....

[am 2k]

I look more like a young Steve Jobs than a terrorist.

Note that Steve Jobs' father is from Syria, and thus Jobs was likely a terrorist (according to TSA's definition at least).

Re:Treated like a terrorist until....

[Grishnakh]

Yep, last time I refused to go through the X-ray scanner (at Phoenix) and got patted down, when the TSA molestor asked me if there's any place he couldn't touch because it'd be painful, I pointed to the giant scar on my neck where a tumor was removed from my throat only a week before.

Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because liberty stands in the way of expanding the business of government. What I'm trying to say is that the political elite don't really give a damn what the law says, as long as the law brings in money.

Let's stop pretending that governments expand for any reason other than money. Power -- the special "right" to employ coercion which defines all government -- is merely a stepping stone to the real goal: money. Don't fool yourself into believing the political elite is power-hungry for the sake of power. The Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world -- those who truly are motivated by power alone -- are extremely rare. The vast majority of political elites are motivated purely by material wealth.

Follow the money. In the business of government, ALWAYS follow the money, because that is precisely where you will find the end goal.

Re:Business

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if "money" is the right term. I'd say it's more like "market dominance" that they want. I rather think it's a mixture, TBH. There are obviously some figures who will actually risk the possibility of money for the sake of more power, but also people chasing dollars like rats on a treadmill. The people hungry for money are a lot less dangerous than the ones in it for the power IMO. For the top of the top elites, money is not really anything of value to them as even a financial loss would see them far better off than any human being, even the greediest, could ever want. I mean, even if they lose, they get free bailouts from the taxpayers, so I don't think money has any real meaning to them at this point.

A good capitalist who wants to make money can do it quite well, but it's the cartelized government revolving door types who want to use government to secure themselves market dominance, which is often used for social engineering purposes far beyond profit.

Why don't the terrorists blow up the checkpoints?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

With all these "security" measures clogging up the place, there must be a lot more targets for them to hit there, and a lot more easily, than on a plane.

I think they don't, because they see we're doing just fine oppressing ourselves and creating our own terror now.

We said they hated our freedom, so to discourage them, we got rid of it.

Re:Why don't the terrorists blow up the checkpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure, then we'll need checkpoints to get to the checkpoints to get to the checkpoints. I can't wait for the day every vehicle traveling to AND from the airport is xrayed, full body scan to enter and leave building, with another scan plus a pat down to enter and leave the terminal.

I guess it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

We are the hollow men

millimetre wave body scanner

[edxwelch]

They're using millimetre wave body scanners, so no ionising radiation.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/australian-airports-to-get-millimetre-wave-body-scanners

Re:millimetre wave body scanner

[Mitreya]

They're using millimetre wave body scanners, so no ionising radiation.

I don't see how much difference that makes. So the point here is that they are using something that is much safer than some other scanners that most certainly do cause cancer? As in, only 1/10000 will get cancer instead of 1/1000 or 1/100? How consoling.
There is a high risk with no noticeable benefit to me. millimeter scanners have medium to low risk still without any benefit to me. So, I am not going to step into one of those machines. In US I have been opting out and thinking sad thoughts about people who just go through.

Re:millimetre wave body scanner

[edxwelch]

It seems a lot safer than the x-ray backscatter system anyway. Basically they are microwaving the passangers, but only a little bit ;)

Re:millimetre wave body scanner

[AK Marc]

I thought non-ionizing radiation has been proven "safe" as much as one can prove safety. Zero risk, zero benefit. Divide by zero error.

Re:Why don't the terrorists blow up the checkpoint

[LuxuryYacht]

>

We said they hated our freedom, so to discourage them, we got rid of it.

That's it exactly!

I blame Murdoch

[ghostdoc]

His media empire has peddled enough fear and confusion that we'd actually accept strangers seeing us naked because it might in some way fool us into believing that we're not immediately going to get raped/blown up/mugged/shot/knifed/run over/whatever in our homes by the rampaging teenagers/immigrants/aboriginals/bikies that infest our cities.

Of course when I say 'us' I mean the general population of Australia, and not "us" the geeks/nerds/intellectuals/speccy gits who are capable of analysing statistics and realise that this is one of the safest countries in the world to live in .

Foil/Metallic leotards anyone??

[RobertLTux]

I just wonder how much metal would be required to put the scanner into reset/ruin the scanned image. If its a low enough amount to work i could see a lot of possibly not Female people traveling wearing a leotard.

I'll take a pat down

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess at age 78 I must be considered a terrorist.
I opted out last summer and drove across the country instead of flying, probably a bit cheaper since I drive a Prius.
Flying over water, not much choice, so I'll probably never get to Australia, and won't go back to Hawaii.
If a pat down were an option, I'd go, but this way, NO

Re:I'll take a pat down

[Grishnakh]

You don't have to fly to get to Hawaii:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070312202806AA3NgZq

I've always wanted to visit Australia as a tourist

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wanted to visit Australia as a tourist. I too will be crossing that off of my list of places to go.

XKCD Scanners

[Jason Levine]

The technology will show passengers on a screen as stick figures of neither sex.

I hereby dub these: XKCD scanners!

thats all well and good

[nimbius]

but has anyone seen Randall Munroe lately?

We are sorry

[robi2106]

From all those americans that tried to prevent this from happening here, I'm sorry the disease spread to your shores. At least some of us are not brain dead. RonPaul2012.com

Re:We are sorry

[tehcyder]

At least some of us are not brain dead. RonPaul2012.com

Definition: oxymoron.

So much for traveling to Australia.

[Goat of Death]

Always wanted to go to there and to New Zealand. Guess I missed my window.

Re:So much for traveling to Australia.

[flibbajobber]

You can still fly direct to NZ from numerous ports in Asia, USA or Canada. You don't need to fly via Australia.

Why is it the anglo-saxon countries?

[lamer01]

That are going bat-shit with this kind of stuff? Really, no one else gives a shit.

Re:Why is it the anglo-saxon countries?

[tehcyder]

Racist!

Xray vs. TeraHertz Scanners

[billstewart]

The Xray scanners have serious risks that the manufacturers and the TSA keep evading any honest discussion about, particularly because the radiation concentrates on your skin rather than being evenly distributed. The terahertz radar scanners don't have that problem - they're not cranking enough power to cook your skin. A number of European governments have decided to use the terahertz ones and rip out any Xray models because of this.

They're still naked porno scanners that the Aussies are putting in to suck up to the Americans, but you'll have to fire your own politicians. And at least the stick-figure displays aren't as offensive as the originals.

Re:Xray vs. TeraHertz Scanners

[EdIII]

And at least the stick-figure displays aren't as offensive as the originals.

That's fine and all, but we both know the full resolution ones that could be used for biometrics will be stored. That's an invasion of privacy.

Plus, reducing it to stick figures is also offensive. I know that they could never get that third stick between my legs right, and god dammit, there are not just sticks. What about the "rocks" too?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Re:Xray vs. TeraHertz Scanners

[billstewart]

Oh, of course the images can be stored - the machines wouldn't be very useful for prosecuting unsuccessful underwear-bombers if they couldn't. But at least most people won't have bored underpaid security guards looking at them unless they're actually carrying something (as opposed to, say, London CCTVs, which are mainly used to follow attractive women.)

Sorry if your stick figure looks like shrinkage, though :-) But yes, it's ridiculous.

Right to privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny that so many folks are up in arms about airport scanners and pat-downs as an invasion of privacy, yet find no problem giving all of their information to Facebook, Google, etc... It's like it doesn't matter until it's up close and personal

(just for the record I'm a fan of neither - but would favor a pat-down by TSA any day)

John Pilger: Australia remains a colony

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Australia remains a colony in all but name. Australian intelligence agencies are, in effect, branches of the main office in Washington. The Australian military has played a regular role as US mercenary. When prime minister Gough Whitlam tried to change this in 1975 and secure Australia's partial independence, he was dismissed by a governor-general using archaic "reserve powers" who was revealed to have intelligence connections.

WikiLeaks has given Australians a rare glimpse of how their country is run. In 2010, leaked US cables disclosed that key government figures in the Labor Party coup that brought Julia Gillard to power were "protected" sources of the US embassy: what the CIA calls "assets". Kevin Rudd, the prime minister she ousted, had displeased Washington by being disobedient, even suggesting that Australian troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

In the wake of her portentous rise ascent to power, Gillard attacked WikiLeaks as "illegal" and her attorney-general threatened to withdraw Assange's passport. Yet the Australian Federal Police reported that Assange and WikiLeaks had broken no law. Freedom of information files have since revealed that Australian diplomats have colluded with the US in its pursuit of Assange. This is not unusual. The government of John Howard ignored the rule of law and conspired with the US to keep David Hicks, an Australian citizen, in Guantanamo Bay, where he was tortured. Australia's principal intelligence organisation, ASIO, is allowed to imprison refugees indefinitely without explanation, prosecution or appeal.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3806462.html

Re:John Pilger: Australia remains a colony

[dwywit]

Yes, well - anything written, said, filmed or commented upon by John Pilger requires a grain, no, a kilo or two of salt and healthy skepticism before responding. "Polemicist" is inadeqate to describe him.

Re:John Pilger: Australia remains a colony

[solanum]

I'm not defending the actions of the GG or the GG's ability to dissolve parliament, but Gough Whitlam was dismissed because the opposition had control of the senate and refused to pass any budget he put forward. The country was about about to be paralysed due to the government no longer being able to pay anyone (much like nearly happened in the US recently, but didn't for different reasons). He wasn't dismissed for not doing what the US wanted. Also the GG's powers aren't archaic, they are there because the Queen is still our head of state.

Re:John Pilger: Australia remains a colony

[tehcyder]

Australia was a UK colony, not a US one. The nominal head of state is still the Queen, not the POTUS.

Re:John Pilger: Australia remains a colony

[tehcyder]

Yes, well - anything written, said, filmed or commented upon by John Pilger requires a grain, no, a kilo or two of salt and healthy skepticism before responding. "Polemicist" is inadeqate to describe him.

Yes, well - anything written, said, filmed or commented upon by anyone requires a grain, no, a kilo or two of salt and healthy skepticism before responding.

Re:John Pilger: Australia remains a colony

[uninformedLuddite]

You would think so.

Bull

[Das Auge]

I hazard to guess that "ridiculous" means something different for you.

As of right now: 1 Australian dollar = 1.0762 US dollars

Re:Bull

[Cimexus]

Yes, when only 10 years ago, the AUD was around 50 US cents. And even then, things were slightly more expensive in Australia than the US. Now that the AUD is worth more than the US (and domestic prices haven't halved, you know)...

Basically an American in Australia is paying 2x - 3x as much as they would for the same thing at home these days. Doesn't affect the Aussies since they are earning AUD, and doesn't affect those from places using currencies that have also appreciated a lot against the USD in the last few years, but for Americans, AU would be close to the most expensive place on earth right now.

Re:Bull

[drsmithy]

It should be around $0.80.

On top of that, the cost of pretty much everything in Australia is 2x to 3x as high as the US (incomes are higher as well, but not that much). So if you're an American (or, indeed, from just about anywhere) tourist, Australia is one of the most expensive places in the world to visit.

Australia's cost of living has been out of control for years and now the insane overvaluation of our dollar in the last year or two, combined with the complete lack of any attempts from either the Government or the RBA to act on it, has all but closed the coffin on our tourism and (non-mining) export industries.

Or, in short, when China stops buying our dirt, we're fucked (yes, Tommy, proper fucked), because we've thrown every other part of our economy to the wolves. Personally, I'm hoping to be ready to move to another country when that happens, and am taking advantage of the high AUD to stash as much money in overseas banks, foreign currencies and gold as I can in preparation.

Re:Bull

[uninformedLuddite]

for Americans, AU would be close to the most expensive place on earth right now.

Thank insertDeityHere! Does this mean I will really see less Seppos when I am out and about?

Re:Bull

[AK Marc]

Just the businessmen. And those of us who left the US to move elsewhere, Australia is surprisingly easy for any American with a masters degree to relocate to.

Re:Bull

[AK Marc]

No, your export industry is thriving. I buy made in Australia cereal and diapers in New Zealand for about half what they sell for in Australia.

Re:Bull

[drsmithy]

No, your export industry is thriving.

No, it's really not.

The mining boom is (barely) holding up overall exports, but individual sectors like car manufacturing or steel making are being smashed, not only by poor productivity, but by the ridiculously overvalued AUD.

Australia is well into a case of Dutch Disease. It's going to be an ugly decade for a large chunk of the 98% of people not employed in the mining industry.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. How?

Re:How?

[Mashiki]

OK. How?

Contact the cargo line of your choice. Then ask them to put you in contact with their passenger service. Simple as that. Nearly all of them do it still, though I do believe that some of the satellites of Maersk no longer do. You can also just use google. People actually act as travel agents doing all the hard work for you.

Scanner safety

[tehcyder]

Does anybody have a link to a credible report on the safety risk of using full body scanners? Not some blog post complaining about how the radiation is being used for government mind control, nor the manufacturers' brochures, but an actual safety study?

There is so much noise here about how evil these scanners are, I would seriously like to know if there are any documented health risks.

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, this is the final stage of the roll out of the police state control grid, it's simultaneous full spectrum assault on liberty worldwide, this is the last two moves to check mate. The board was set and everyone was comfy and believed they were safe, now the string is pulled. "Execute order 66." The trap is closing. Wake the F Up. The ONLY solution is peaceful, well informed, well educated, critical thinking enabled citizenry practising large scale civil disobedience. Also for some reason the "powers that be" cannot handle humour. It really messes up their clinical void-of-empathy retard minds.

so if i've got wood

[Anonymous Coward]

it will show as a stick figure with a stick?