Slashdot Mirror


Boston Airport Replacing X-ray Body Scanners

OverTheGeicoE writes "Boston's Logan International Airport is in the process of replacing its X-ray body scanners with millimeter-wave ones. According to the article, nine of the new scanners have been installed already, and ultimately 27 of these scanners will replace the 17 X-ray backscatter scanners that were installed in March of 2010. The new devices are 'being installed come with software that replaces "passenger-specific images" — or nearly naked views of travelers — with generic outlines that highlight only anomalies such as belts, jewelry, wallets — or guns or bombs.' Perhaps this will help TSA workers avoid being part of a cancer cluster. Some speculate that TSA will ultimately eliminate all of its X-ray body scanners."

119 comments

  1. Who makes them? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it the same company profiting by replacing their old useless hardware with the new?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Who makes them? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      That was exactly my first thought. Has Michael Chirtoff's company released a new product?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Who makes them? by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      Is it the same company profiting by replacing their old useless hardware with the new?

      Whatever the company is that makes them, you can be sure the TSA have shares in that company.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    3. Re:Who makes them? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the citations, I'm sure you left them out by accident...

      Michael Chertoff, George Soros

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Who makes them? by dragon-file · · Score: 2

      I left out the citations because i'm lazy but I'll claim it was accident.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    5. Re:Who makes them? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      No, the TSA does NOT have shares in that company. Individual employee's of the TSA do.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Who makes them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably left them out because it's an established fact by now.

    7. Re:Who makes them? by sycodon · · Score: 2

      All that's left is for the TSA to replace the complete assholes and morons that man the check points.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:Who makes them? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean pedophiles?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Who makes them? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      TSA Marketing Tag Line, "Come to Boston, it gives you that warm glow."

    10. Re:Who makes them? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Is it cruel and unusual punishment to force a pedophiles to stand next to a TSA Scanner?

    11. Re:Who makes them? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Not if you're paying him.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:Who makes them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely, you must mean 'Sam the Eagle'?

    13. Re:Who makes them? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Here's the citations, I'm sure you left them out by accident...

      Michael Chertoff, George Soros

      Ok as long as King George is involved.

  2. Interesting by tool462 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if ..um... shall we say "abnormally endowed" men will have their endowments highlighted as a generic outline?
    If not, countdown until we hear about the "dildo-bomber" on the news...

    1. Re:Interesting by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is that a bomb or are you just happy to see me?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Interesting by tool462 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Touch it and see if it goes off ;)

    3. Re:Interesting by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Finally, a second reason to be glad if you don't have an abnormally large schlong :-P (the first being "sometimes it just won't fit")

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My johnson *can be* pretty explosive......

    5. Re:Interesting by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      (the first being "sometimes it just won't fit")

      Hint: Girls come in different capacities.

      Whenever you hear a girl say "I prefer big ones" she's really saying "I have a cavernous bucket of a vagina". Remember that and you won't go far wrong in life.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, the wife hates it when I hit her cervix and when I do show her porn her first response is usually about them being too large.

      Also, I have heard that Asian women are rather happy with the real small Asian penises.

    7. Re:Interesting by parkinglot777 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that has already happened before... http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573 Not a pleasant outcome though... :(

    8. Re:Interesting by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Considering your comment I was figuring I would probably cringe when the site loaded, instead I laughed.

      There may have been handcuffs involved, but who is to say that didn't make it even more enjoyable for him?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:Interesting by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A TSA spokesperson declined to comment on this specific case, but said that anyone ejaculating during a pat-down would be subject to arrest.

      I don't think the TSA understands cause-and-effect.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    10. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony batteries?

    11. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if ..um... shall we say "abnormally endowed" men will have their endowments highlighted as a generic outline?
      If not, countdown until we hear about the "dildo-bomber" on the news...

      Listen little dick, you're the "abnormal" one. Someone see that little thing in your pants and they'll think you're trying to smuggle a toothpick on board.

    12. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does the 90 ml liquid limit still apply?

    13. Re:Interesting by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you looked at the website very carefully...

    14. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/patdown.asp
      http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?page_id=2
      "Dead Serious News is a satirical website that is updated on an irregular basis. With the exception of the names of public figures, all names are fictional."

      Stupid sites not putting a disclaimer on the page itself. This is how fictional news gets spread as non-fiction.

  3. tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if these scanners are so important why is rapiscan allowed to make a profit on them?

    1. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Waddaya mean, no benefit? I'm sure the shareholders of Rapiscan are benefiting greatly!

      Oh, you meant benefit to the public. Nah, the TSA isn't interested in that.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Food is essential but farmers are allowed to make a profit on it. The scanners are offensive because of the loss of freedom they represent, not because someone is making a profit on them.

    3. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Dan667 · · Score: 3

      my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.

    4. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Dan667 · · Score: 2

      remember when we use to make fun of communists and their "show me your papers" paranoia? Now you appear to be a fan of it.

    5. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by JazzHarper · · Score: 2

      my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.

      There would be no airlines if no one could make a profit... oh wait.

    6. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is your objection to them making money on a specialized product like that?

      Now, I can understand being upset if lets say the person majorly involved in getting them instituted turns out to own a very large part of that company.

      The politicians shouldn't profit from it, but the manufacturer should.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    7. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem wasn't the communism. The problem was the "show me your papers." We just learned how to import the second part without the first, it seems.

    8. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Food is essential but farmers are allowed to make a profit on it. The scanners are offensive because of the loss of freedom they represent, not because someone is making a profit on them.

      People _need_ food.
      The scanner are _mandated_ by law.

      Profiting from something that had been decreed necessary and made a monopoly by the government is the problem. Where are my non-TSA airports so that I could vote with my wallet? They would probably be cheaper, but I'd pay more to make my point.

    9. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      What is your objection to them making money on a specialized product like that?

      They make money even after devices have been shown unsafe (I believe the old xray machines have been banned in Europe for some time due to health concerns) and even after the devices have been shown ineffective.

      They should be making zero profit (maybe just cover the costs) from a device that has not delivered on the specifications. Without stringent quality control, that's literally just money being shuffled to contractors.

    10. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this a real question? Cars are important, automakers make money. Food is important, farmers make money. Clothes are important, clothing manufacturers make money. Are you for real?

    11. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Ok, I can understand that point, but lets just say for the sake of argument that it does actually work.

      Any objections then?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    12. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jeng · · Score: 1

      True, I believe the Nazis started the "show me your papers", the communists just picked it up faster than we did.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    13. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jeng · · Score: 2

      I think it is the government mandated part that rubs him the wrong way.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    14. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.

      Yeah - Free market rules!

      Oh, wait, these are government mandated devices (pushed through with Chertoff's help who also consults with the contractor). And no one does any quality control - they are proven to be ineffective at actually detecting dangerous items, but more are bought anyway

      It's like saying that if the speeding ticket/toll booth collection wasn't profitable it wouldn't exist.

    15. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect it's because we don't live in a communist country.

      Actually, it would seem we kinda do live in a communist country

      In a capitalist country, airports would purchase the devices if these were needed by shopping around and choosing the best provider. And then if the public wanted the devices in the airport, the airports that had the devices would flourish (or vice versa). Also, in a capitalist country, devices that were demonstrably flawed (at actually detecting things) would be returned for a refund

      Now in a communist country, the government might mandate that the devices must be built, irregardless of whether these devices actually work and installed everywhere. By the one contractor chosen by their government friends

      Which country are we living in, again?

    16. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not communist, thats fascist. Fascism is where the Gov and Business collude.

      It is NOT the same thing. Please get your terminology correct.

    17. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They make money even after devices have been shown unsafe (I believe the old xray machines have been banned in Europe for some time due to health concerns)

      The latter is true: X-ray backscatter machines were banned in Europe because of health concerns. The former is not true: they have not been shown to be unsafe. (It's probably most accurate to say that they've been shown to be safe, but that the level of evidence is unconvincing to many.)

      It shouldn't surprise you that the Europeans, too, sometimes make decisions based on the feelings of their politicians and populace and not on hard evidence.

    18. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism was only a red herring.

    19. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      The economics of airports barely work out as it is, I cannot imagine more than one airport *in the same location* competing with each other. I'm luck and I live near 3 airports, but the time and money involved in getting to/from those airports differs wildly. To really compete, the time/money needed to get to each airport would have to be comparable/competitive.

      The feasibility of competition between airports driving innovation aside, your definition of a capitalist country leaves much to be desired. Would all government services have to be provided by private industry - unregulated - to be a capitalist country? Your definition of a communist country is, as the anonymous coward noted, fascist, not communist. In a communist country, there wouldn't be a contractor chosen by government friends - that's private industry and corrupt government working together (go USA!). Instead the company - if it existed separately from the state at all - would be entirely owned by the state.

    20. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You've pretty much just indicated just what the benefit is.

    21. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      What is your objection to them making money on a specialized product like that?

      My main problem is it seems like a government official created a mandate, so a particular company could profit.
      Were there bids for the devices?
      Was there any study done to indicate the devices would solve the problem (which isn't a problem, but that is a separate issue)
      Was there a study done to indicate the devices would be safe?
      Or were they built, knowing they would be replaced in just a few years?

    22. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the scanners are a money making scheme with no practical benefit. If there was no profit to be made I bet they would magically not be needed any more.

    23. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the US was founded on freedom. People that are willing to give up their freedom to "feel" safer should move to somewhere they can be watched 24/7.

    24. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jeng · · Score: 1

      What in the fuck does that have to do with the point you were trying to make.

      You were making the argument that the company making these machines is making a profit and for some reason you think that is wrong. I was asking what your objection is to them making a profit, not whether or not they were needed in the first place.

      Why should a private company be asked to forsake all profits just because the government is mandating that their product be used? That is the question I would like to see you answer.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    25. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jazari · · Score: 1

      Rightly or wrongly, many things are mandated by the government and sometimes even made monopolistic (seatbelts, vaccines, safety testing, etc.). There is nothing wrong with companies profiting from filling such needs.
      What is wrong is the loss of freedom that comes from the naked scanners (and the fact that they're ineffective, possibly dangerous, and were awarded to a government insider).

  4. just to be clear by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. its still an invasion of privacy as the outline concept or any other concept related to the technology cannot be verified
    2. its still a health risk
    tin foil bonus round: it would also be much easier considering the entirety of the TSA revolves around security theater to simply remove the existing units, replace the chassis, and reinstall them with livery to suggest millimeter wave scanning is in progress.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:just to be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I absolutely should not have to pose nude for an audience and a camera in order to fly. The same goes for entering a courthouse.

      I hate my fellow citizens for being so willing to give up their personal sovereignty so willingly. THEY make the world a worse place for ME.

       

    2. Re:just to be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tin foil bonus round: it would also be much easier considering the entirety of the TSA revolves around security theater to simply remove the existing units, replace the chassis, and reinstall them with livery to suggest millimeter wave scanning is in progress.

      I Just Bought Shares of Alcoa: How do we know they're not doing this? *looks around suspiciously*

  5. That's not the most important problem by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The key problems with the X-ray machines were:
    1. They were invasive searches without anything remotely similar to probable cause.
    2. They don't actually stop people from carrying bombs onto aircraft (as has been tested several times).

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:That's not the most important problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The potentially cancer-causing radiation is not a key problem? I think the standards for security screening need to start with "First, do no harm."

      Waste and ineffectiveness is a problem, but it comes second to directly harming innocent people.

    2. Re:That's not the most important problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the fact that they were unregulated x-ray equipment operated by un-certified amateur radiologists hired through ads on pizza boxes might qualify as a problem.

    3. Re:That's not the most important problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need probable cause or individualized suspicion because it's an administrative search that you consent to by placing your stuff on the belt or walking through the portal. What they are doing is perfectly constitutional and legal. That doesn't mean you have to put up with it but the courts will not stop it. The President could order them to stop or Congress can pass a law but the courts cannot. Write your reps and the White House.

    4. Re:That's not the most important problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that and all I got was a canned response of "thank you for your support".

    5. Re:That's not the most important problem by slimak · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the US virtually all x-ray machines (including medical) are operated by un-certified radiologists. Radiologists interpret the images, they do not (typically) run the imaging devices. Radiographer or radiologic technologist (or just "tech" as they are typically called in the field) run the devices. Fortunately, the techs in medicine are typically well trained and certified. I'm not sure about the TSA team, but probably not so much. So your overall point is probably still accurate.

  6. Looking back at history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're going to look back at this era in disbelief. It will be like us looking back at early medicine where people took elixirs full of Mercury.

    1. Re:Looking back at history by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're going through the Gilded Age and McCarthyism for the second time now, how many times does history have to repeat itself until we learn?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Looking back at history by Applekid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We're going through the Gilded Age and McCarthyism for the second time now, how many times does history have to repeat itself until we learn?

      Fear is instinctual, so learning can't possibly win that fight.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    3. Re:Looking back at history by Githaron · · Score: 4, Funny

      With our luck lately, we will look back at this era as the "good old days" when the TSA was only in the airport and they only irradiated us instead of doing a strip and full-cavity search.

  7. Calibration; Europe by KaiBeezy · · Score: 2

    I always thought the problem was calibration, and more specifically that the company responsible for building and selling these was also responsible for ongoing testing, calibration and certification -- a clear conflict of interest. After that series of articles in the NYTimes a couple years ago about people getting fried to death in misconfigured x-ray machines, fear of ending up like Spock (before re-genesis of course, but I digress) was my main reason for taking the pat-down every time.

    Secondary reason was European airports banning them, but that has since been reversed. UK doesn't let you opt for pat-downs, not sure about the rest of Europe.

    The whole ionizing radiation deal gives me the creeps. Let's hope they do all switch over to millimeter wave. Right? Or is there a fatal flaw with those too?

  8. America's downward spiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The majority of the American public approves of the TSA and their tactics. If you want to fix this broken system, fix the people that continue to support it. That means kicking your neighbor in the balls when they say or do anything in support of the TSA. That means slapping your girlfriend when she says something retarded like "if it means I arrive safely then it's okay".

    The morons in this country who think the TSA is a good idea must be dealt with or we have no hope of seeing liberty again.

    1. Re:America's downward spiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means kicking your neighbor in the balls when they say or do anything in support of the TSA. That means slapping your girlfriend when she says something retarded like "if it means I arrive safely then it's okay".

      So what do we do with the idiots who advocate violence in response to someone freely expressing their personal beliefs?

    2. Re:America's downward spiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Force them to talk to roman_mir about government for eternity.

    3. Re:America's downward spiral by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      That means kicking your neighbor in the balls when they say or do anything in support of the TSA. That means slapping your girlfriend when she says something retarded like "if it means I arrive safely then it's okay".

      So what do we do with the idiots who advocate violence in response to someone freely expressing their personal beliefs?

      Assert our Second Amendment rights and shoot them, of course!

  9. Big whoop... by jasno · · Score: 2

    As my upper-middle-class, female, New Yorker friend just found out, the problem with the sanitized images is that forgetting a dime in your pocket will cause it to trigger a general alert and you'll be whisked aside for gate-rape.

    And let's not forget that a butt-bomb, like that used by terrorists in Saudi Arabia in 2009, is still undetectable by gropers and scanners.

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    1. Re:Big whoop... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Butt-bombs are relatively small. Instead imagine a skinny guy who is turned into an explosive hambeast through surgery.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Big whoop... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Butt bombs tend to shape the charge in such a way that they usually end up blowing it out their ass, the rest of their body shields those not behind him.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Big whoop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That sounds like the aftermath of a trip to the local curry house.

    4. Re:Big whoop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be surprised what you can fit up there. google "anal bellybuster" (NSFW) if you want to see.

    5. Re:Big whoop... by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 2

      That happened to me recently. Actually it was two dimes in one pocket that set off the machine. The process went a little like this: I got asked a few times what I had in my right pocket, waited for a male TSA employee to come over, waited for the TSA agents to stop bickering, got a quick patdown (including a few squeezes of my pockets), turned my pocket inside out, discovered two dimes, went on my way. All the while I was staring at an outline of my body with a couple of red squares highlighting the areas of interest.

      My problem with the pornoscanners is twofold: they're extremely invasive and they're (potentially) dangerous. These newer machine address the first issue pretty well IMO, and as long as they're safer I'm pretty much satisfied. Now if only they could get rid of the bullshit liquid, gel, spreadable rules...

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    6. Re:Big whoop... by jasno · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, but some of us have rectums capable of allowing objects to exit as well as enter. So it may be possible that a terrorist has this capability as well, along with, say, a few of his friends, who could then assemble the device outside their anal cavity.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    7. Re:Big whoop... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Dime? That's high-density metal, of course they can detect it! I was more surprised when I failed the backscatter scan because of a folded-over receipt in my shirt pocket.

    8. Re:Big whoop... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Wow, and I figured someone would have replied with "Well then they just stick their ass to the window of the plane and kiss it goodbye."

      But yes, it is possible for a few people to get on a plane, go to the bathroom, pull bomb parts out of their ass, and then assemble them on the plane. There are simpler ways of going about it, but it is possible.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:Big whoop... by green1 · · Score: 1

      My first (and only, so far) experience with these machines had the machine highlight 3 areas, the button on the front of my pants (no belt, just the plastic button) and both my cargo pockets, 1 of which contained my wallet, the other contained a single piece of paper folded over.
      If these machines don't like things in your pockets, you should be told to empty your pockets first!
      Though the person running the machine did admit that the machine doesn't like cargo pockets, even empty. I think the biggest surprise was that once the machine detected a problem with my cargo pockets, the person running it allowed me to empty my pockets for him without anyone groping me. I found that amazingly civilized of them. Most of the time they insist on reaching in to your pockets instead of letting you empty them.

    10. Re:Big whoop... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      As my upper-middle-class, female, New Yorker friend just found out, the problem with the sanitized images is that forgetting a dime in your pocket will cause it to trigger a general alert and you'll be whisked aside for gate-rape.

      And let's not forget that a butt-bomb, like that used by terrorists in Saudi Arabia in 2009, is still undetectable by gropers and scanners.

      Wouldn't the wire show?

      --

      Ok guys, quit whisking the passengers.

    11. Re:Big whoop... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      This actually happened in my case too -- they identified the piece of paper that caused the error and that was it. Most places I've been to, though, they make it abundantly clear that you need to remove *everything* from your pockets. As you point out, it's a pretty useless system if they don't.

    12. Re:Big whoop... by green1 · · Score: 1

      I had just finished going through the metal detector, and while I was about to collect my tray load of stuff, a person came up to me and asked me to come with him. he carried my tray of stuff and asked if I had heard about the new scanners, I said that I knew of them, but had never experienced one. The entire instructions I got were "stand here, hold your arms up, turn around" then he pointed out the yellow squares on the screen showing the "suspicious" areas. Had I been asked to remove things from my pockets I would have. At least he didn't insist on groping me, he allowed me to operate my own pockets, which I find is quite rare among those types.

  10. Slippery Slope is no longer a logical fallacy by Applekid · · Score: 2

    When the multimeter wave scanners were installed, it was a lot of "don't worry, only a subset of travelers will be subjected to it" and "you can choose to be sexually molested instead". Fast forward a few years and now they're replacing regular X-ray machines with them.

    How soon before you have to pass through one to go into a government building? A grocery store? Outside your own home?

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Slippery Slope is no longer a logical fallacy by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      How soon before you have to pass through one to go into a government building?

      This is already required at some courthouses in the US, they were there before they were in airports IIRC.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Slippery Slope is no longer a logical fallacy by Applekid · · Score: 1

      How soon before you have to pass through one to go into a government building?

      This is already required at some courthouses in the US, they were there before they were in airports IIRC.

      I guess it's been that long since I've been to the courthouse... last I recall there were metal detectors but that's about it.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
  11. Except.... by Luthair · · Score: 5, Interesting

    millimeter wave scanners may unzip dna strands and no studies have been done about the long term effects of human exposure, hurray!

    1. Re:Except.... by claar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whoever marked this as flamebait should read this article posted by numbius above. Worth study, it seems.

      --
      I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
  12. anonymous by fulldecent · · Score: 2

    When anonymous gets a hold of the image data and tags it to passenger's facebook wall... that will be the day public has had enough. It is hard to get people off the theater. When anonymous puts a hold of the image data and publishes senator's likenesses, that will be the day they outlaw it.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    1. Re:anonymous by PPH · · Score: 1

      Wait! That looks like .... Anthony Weiner!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it must be nice to be that naïve.

    3. Re:anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played

  13. Least of their problems by Jeng · · Score: 1

    Boston airport sucks great big dirty donkey dicks with a side order of shit.

    If you have to go to any other terminal in the building you have to go though security again, and again. It can take well over half an hour to move from one part of the airport to another. It is fucking stupid and frustrating, the wife and I will do our best to avoid that airport from here on out considering the fun we had last time going though.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    1. Re:Least of their problems by PPH · · Score: 2

      Boston isn't really all that bad. Occasionally, you do get stuck in a security line behind 19 guys trying to bring box cutters on a flight. But other than that, its OK.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Least of their problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fun aspect of the Boston airport: all ways out cost money.

      No, really, there's a toll to leave the airport. You can also take the subway, but that's again a fee to leave. (And, apparently, crime-ridden and dangerous.)

      If for whatever reason you're thinking of going to Boston - don't. There's no reason to. Never has been, never will.

  14. No longer used in Europe by xaxa · · Score: 2

    Secondary reason was European airports banning them, but that has since been reversed. UK doesn't let you opt for pat-downs, not sure about the rest of Europe.

    Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm about to cite the Daily Mail), but it looks like they're no longer in use in the EU -- the Manchester use was a temporary extension, an exception to the general ban last year.

    According to this the Manchester machines will be replaced by the end of October.

  15. Just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now we've gone from x-raying people to microwaving them.

    1. Re:Just great... by Jeng · · Score: 2

      Yes, now that we can see all these wonderful tasty organs it's time to cook them.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  16. Saw these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are in the Tampa Airpoint already, i was a lot more comfortable going through this scanner with a boner than previously.

  17. No more hand searches by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good, I can stop requesting on a hand search when I fly out of Boston. It's not that I consider the exposure particularly hazardous--I don't; I've voluntarily exposed myself to far more radiation over the years--I just saw no point in additional exposure to ionizing radiation when I can avoid it, and I don't really mind the hand search.

    1. Re:No more hand searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make it a point to always opt out. This saves others from being forced to go through the machine. Hopefully others return the favor.

  18. This thing can't detect shit by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    They tried it on Mayor Menino's skull and found nothing. He was shocked at the results, saying "bwafa nogga rifl plart." Strong words, indeed.

  19. Reliable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went through one with quite heavy continence protection. Saw the markup on screen - nothing in the groin area, some false positives on bare bits of skin (so not hiding anything there). Not convinced they work that well.

  20. New and Improved by edibobb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    mm wavelength scanners will prevent Logan Airport from being blown up by LED T-Shirts.
    We need more scanners.

    1. Re:New and Improved by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      mm wavelength scanners will prevent Logan Airport from being blown up by LED T-Shirts.
      We need more scanners.

      That's when Moononites invade.

  21. I thought they weren't using naked images anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or did they lie to us?

  22. Former Boston and Israel frequent flyer here... by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 2

    At the risk of beating a dead horse... I'd like to share my experience with beating these systems. I'm personally much more interested in Boston's integration of Israeli style interview tactics. I lived in the Middle East for a couple years and went through the borders on an almost daily basis, and several times through the Tel Aviv airport (Israel's only international airport). Israel doesn't use anything resembling our body scanners, and instead relies on brief interviews of every person flying to determine what additional screening will be necessary (all the way up to strip searching), supplemented with American bomb sniffing machines. Their security works. Were it not for the fact that I went through it so often, I wouldn't have been able to beat it.

    You could imagine my surprise when on one of my most recent flights to/from (I can't remember which way) Boston I was treated to such an interview. I was caught off guard, but immediately recognized it as the identical setup. I quickly put on my "set off no alarms" interview demeanor and made it through fine. Frankly I hope this catches on. I would like to think of myself as something of a "getting through borders" professional, I've gotten through Israeli and American airports and onto planes with everything from a can of pepper spray to a live scorpion. You can scan my body (though I always opt out) and my bags all day, but sit me down for an interview and after long enough even the best person will crack if they are hiding something.

    1. Re:Former Boston and Israel frequent flyer here... by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      Why? Why this constant comparison to Israel?
      Why not just get rid of it completely?
      What does the "security" do? Here, in Israel, or anywhere else?
      Interviews are mostly pointless. Any good person will breeze right through it. And only a TRAINED interviewer will have a chance of catching something.
      But really, what is the point? To catch some mythical bombers? IF someone wanted to bomb a plane, they will figure out a way (and wait, they HAVE) whether we have professional interviewers, or radiation scanning machines.
      But why the need to spend so much time and effort to protect such a small section of the population? What terrorist is going to bother, when there are plenty of other juicy targets to go after?

  23. I don't think cancer of TSA empl radiation-origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human bodies are chemical factories. They emit chemicals and they affected by chemicals in environment. Now, imagine TSA employee staying his shift in a middle of people traffic, when each of them are hate him. Just plain hate him and want him to die. People emit chemicals when they experience emotions. When the love, affraid or when they hate. Later cannot be good for you. It is not good for TSA employee. I wonder if anybody ever checked heart problems rate in TSA workforce. Those numbers should be even worse.

  24. Goons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can replace the scanners with whatever they want. I don't care if they are carved out of dead unicorns and rain magic fairy dust on every traveler that goes through them... I'm still not going through them on principle. When I absolutely have to fly, I'll take the pat down. If my rights are going to be violated, somebody is going to have to physically get off their dead ass and do the violating... But mostly I just travel by rail, which is sheer luxury compared to air travel...

    1. Re:Goons... by green1 · · Score: 1

      Just wait... they keep talking about adding airport style security to rail travel... and in some places in Europe they already have it...

  25. Re:I thought they weren't using naked images anymo by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Or did they lie to us?

    Yes.
    Of course they claimed they weren't storing the images... but that was a lie too.