Boston Airport Replacing X-ray Body Scanners

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boston Airport Replacing X-ray Body Scanners

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 5, 2012 @05:22AM from the we-have-all-kinds-of-light-waves-to-blast-you-with dept.

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."

31 of 119 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Who makes them? by Kenja · 2012-10-05 05:26 · 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 Joce640k · 2012-10-05 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here's the citations, I'm sure you left them out by accident...
  Michael Chertoff, George Soros
  
  --
  No sig today...
Interesting by tool462 · 2012-10-05 05:29 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:31 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Touch it and see if it goes off ;)
3. Re:Interesting by Joce640k · 2012-10-05 06:03 · 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...
4. Re:Interesting by parkinglot777 · 2012-10-05 06:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think that has already happened before... http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573 Not a pleasant outcome though... :(
5. Re:Interesting by kimvette · 2012-10-05 06:33 · 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
6. Re:Interesting by Ksevio · 2012-10-05 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't think you looked at the website very carefully...
tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Dan667 · 2012-10-05 05:32 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:36 · 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 Dan667 · 2012-10-05 06:11 · Score: 3
  
  my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.
3. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Jeng · 2012-10-05 06:29 · 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.
4. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-10-05 06:32 · 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.
5. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Mitreya · 2012-10-05 06:38 · 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.
6. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Mitreya · 2012-10-05 07:18 · 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.
7. Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-05 07:25 · 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?
just to be clear by nimbius · 2012-10-05 05:33 · 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.
That's not the most important problem by dkleinsc · 2012-10-05 05:34 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:46 · 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 · 2012-10-05 06:14 · 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 slimak · 2012-10-05 07:16 · 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.
Looking back at history by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-05 05:37 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:44 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:55 · 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 · 2012-10-05 05:56 · 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.
Except.... by Luthair · 2012-10-05 06:03 · 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 · 2012-10-05 08:45 · 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...
No more hand searches by tgibbs · 2012-10-05 07:07 · 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.
Re:Big whoop... by jasno · 2012-10-05 07:56 · 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/
New and Improved by edibobb · 2012-10-05 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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