Slashdot Mirror


Helena Airport Manager Blocks TSA From Taking Full-Body Scanner

OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA recently announced that it would remove all of Rapiscan's X-ray body scanners from airports by June. As part of this effort, it is trying to move a millimeter-wave body scanner from the Helena, Montana airport to replace an X-ray unit at a busier airport. Strangely enough, they have encountered resistance from the Helena's Airport Manager, Ron Mercer. Last Thursday, workers came to remove the machine, but were prevented from doing so by airport officials. Why? Perhaps Mercer agrees with Cindi Martin, airport director at Montana's Glacier Park International Airport airport, who called the scheduled removal of her airport's scanner 'a great disservice to the flying public' in part because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.'"

10 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Think you may want to look at his logs by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm thinking Ron may have been doing most unprofessional things at the scanner monitor. Perhaps ween him off the free peep show slowly.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Think you may want to look at his logs by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He says the scanner provides an excuse for them to do "enhanced patdowns".

      I don't know what sort of people enjoy giving enhanced patdowns to other people, but know I don't want them in my airports.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Think you may want to look at his logs by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, when I go to fly, I do make sure to arrive in plenty of time ahead of flight....and when going through TSA if they don't wave me through the metal detector and instead make me go to the scanner, I refuse and politely ask for the pat down rather than be exposed to the 'radiation'.

      The TSA agents have consistently told me there is no xray or radiation in these, but I smile and ask for the pat down.

      It isn't any big deal so far...but I wish more people would do this as a slight form of protest. If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Think you may want to look at his logs by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The scanners are not the problem. The patdowns are not the problem. The fact that these things are there is the problem.
      Bullshit things like this airport logic are the problem.
      The fact that almost nobody complains is the problem.
      Another nice read from scientificamerican.com

      The security theater and everything that comes with it is the real problem.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. So we are at that point now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scanner "removed the need for the enhanced pat-down".

    Anyone remember the times before the scanners? There were no enhanced pat-downs, those came with the security theater of scanners. It was just a metal detector and a pat-down was only when the metal detector beeped.

    It seems we're at the point now where we don't question any more whether or not a security measure is useful (haven't seen any proof yet that the pat-down or the scanner are beneficial at all), but the debate is now only about which pointless "security" measure is the preferred method of wasting time and money.

    1. Re:So we are at that point now. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (haven't seen any proof yet that the pat-down or the scanner are beneficial at all), but the debate is now only about which pointless "security" measure is the preferred method of wasting time and money.

      Clue: Bad stuff can fit up people's asses. It's how people smuggle drugs through airport security, it's how cellphones get into prisons (complete with chargers!), etc.

      Anybody who's really determined can get a bomb on a 'plane using this method and nothing the TSA does will prevent it. I know it, you know it, Al Qaeda knows it, even the TSA knows it.

      --
      No sig today...
  3. I'm sorry, what? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because it 'removed the need for the enhanced pat-down.

    Or you could just, you know, let people pass through the metal detectors.
    You know, how all airports used to do, and smaller ones STILL do?

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:I'm sorry, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm shocked that people haven't exploited the lax security standards in other countries more. A few years ago, I was flying with a coworker from Mexico City to Detroit. My coworker walked through the metal detector and was not stopped, questioned, or examined in any way. Why is that significant you ask? Because he has a prosthetic leg. I mean, he walked through the metal detector with several guns worth of metal, and the Mexican security didn't even flinch. I'm not sure if they're always so lax, but I can bear witness to this. I know that you get scanned by the TSA once you land in the USA (if you are going on a connecting flight), but what would have stopped someone from hijacking the flight over the USA and doing something bad?

      Fundamentally it's a matter of no one is actually trying to take over/blow up airplanes. That's the main thing that people on the more security side of the argument don't seem to understand.

      It doesn't really matter how crappy your security is when no one is trying to penetrate your security.

  4. Re:more money wasted by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Money was not flushed down the drain. Money was directed to campaign contributors, friends, family, and other connected members of the political class by way of contracts for unnecessary equipment.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  5. Re:more money wasted by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, in the case of Rapiscan machines, one of the people that were going to profit from the decision was Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time that he was deciding whether to use them. No, nothing corrupt there.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/