Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Body Scanners: Seriously, Why The Drama?  
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12243 times:

So I can't fathom all the controversy surrounding body scanners. Really. Call me naive, call me an exhibitionist, call me whatever you want, but frankly I don't see what's the big deal with them. Between having a blurry picture taken or getting groped by some dude, frankly I rather just have my picture snapped. I got nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed about.

And heck, I fail to see why it's an invasion of privacy, considering the pictures are pretty non-descript IMO



You can hardly make out anything there.

And I don't buy the argument of these images being used in perverted ways. There are MUCH easier ways for would-be perverts to get their porn fix (as in the internet).


So please do tell what's so horrible and atrocious about these evil machines. (or flame away, as surely many of you will   )

159 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedarthluke12694 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12244 times:

There is nothing at all horrible about these pictures, or the body scanners. The only thing that I don't like is the radiation. But most people don't travel enough to worry about it. Pilots are the main people that have to worry about it.

There is nothing at all wrong with these body scanners.


User currently offlineDl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12207 times:

I can see this becoming a flame war and eventually locked but.... I agree with you. I would much rather have a faint image than have q guy grope me looking for a non existent knife. People complain because they treat flying as a right, as much as I hate having to put my quarter inch thick flip flops through the machine I still do it. Sure the tsa notices the chapstick in my pocket but not the pocket knife I forgot was on my keys but I do actually feel safer with this machine. And if you don't feel like goig through the machine then you can get the pat down, if you do though get out of the line and stop holding me up in line. Look it boils down to this, flying isn't a right, there are certain things you must do to be allowed to fly, you may think it's not necessary but too bad it's not your decision. If you don't like the scanner you can do the pat down, stop complaining that you don't like the machine when you can get groped instead if you prefer

User currently offlineCBPhoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1560 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12207 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Thread starter):
So I can't fathom all the controversy surrounding body scanners. Really. Call me naive, call me an exhibitionist, call me whatever you want, but frankly I don't see what's the big deal with them. Between having a blurry picture taken or getting groped by some dude, frankly I rather just have my picture snapped. I got nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed about.

Really buddy, you are going to open this can of worms again   Its all about the radiation levels and the unnecessary exposure to more radiation, that is what the arguments are about. I think MOST would agree, that the pictures are not the issue at this point, as you have pointed out!

Are you just trying to    ?? lol



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12118 times:

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 3):
Really buddy, you are going to open this can of worms again   Its all about the radiation levels and the unnecessary exposure to more radiation, that is what the arguments are about. I think MOST would agree, that the pictures are not the issue at this point, as you have pointed out!

+1

As a flight attendant I could care less if someone sees a blurry image minus my head on a screen in another room. The only issue I have is the health concerns of repeat exposure.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3038 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12094 times:

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 3):
I think MOST would agree, that the pictures are not the issue at this point, as you have pointed out!

And it will become less of an issue when automated target recognition, which is the "stick figure" instead of the image, comes online. That should address privacy issues.

I fly every week, usually 4 times per week, and my issues with the AIT machines are these:

1) The throughput is horrendous. They are slow. The slow the lines down.

2) The radiation from the backscatter machines. I believe it was the NYT or WSJ that said the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increases the risk of fatal cancers according to some experts. If you're predisposed to cancer genetically (it runs in my family for example) than that is a concern. The millimeter wave machines do not have the same risk.

3) I do have an issue with the images; not mine necessarily, but that of my wife and my two children (2 and 4). Something about them, and about others whom I can't even see looking at near naked images of my family, bothers me. To me, it borders on perversion. I can't necessarily explain why, but it's like Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography in the Jacobellis case in 1964: "I know it when I see it." Those images, when I see them, bother me. Of course, this will all be addressed should they go to the "stick figure" image and move the screen to the checkpoint.

4) Think about this next time you go through an AIT machine: look at how long you wait once you come OUT of the machine. Technically you're in a "secure" area. However, it takes, sometimes, up to a minute for them to clear you. During that minute a terrorist with a firearm or an explosive could wreak havoc.

5) TSA still, in my mind, is security theater. It is eyewash. I have no confidence in them at all. They use a cookie cutter, one size fits all approach to security and screen everybody the same way when what they should be doing is managing risk to the threats. They need to use intel to apply greater scrutiny to those who need it. Like I said, I fly, minimum, 4 times per week. Delta Air Lines knows everything about me and, quite frankly I, nor my wife, my 4 year old daughter, and my 2 year old son who has Downs Syndrome, are the threat (I know, I know, no one thinks they're the threat but you catch my drift). I would gladly pay to join a registered traveler program to bypass the AIT machines.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6688 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12088 times:

I thought flying at FL400 already meant getting hit by cosmic radiation ? Especially pilots.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineCBPhoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1560 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12078 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
I thought flying at FL400 already meant getting hit by cosmic radiation ? Especially pilots.

exactly..so why should we get hit before we even get to work?



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3038 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12046 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
exactly..so why should we get hit before we even get to work?

More than that, the lunacy of the pilot issue is, as the USAPA president said: "There is simply no way to predict how far the TSA will overreach in searching and frisking pilots who are, ironically, mere minutes from being in the flight deck. As we all know, it makes no difference what a pilot has on his or her person or in their luggage, because they have control of the aircraft throughout the entire flight."


User currently offlineMNMncrcnwjr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12032 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):
I fly every week, usually 4 times per week, and my issues with the AIT machines are these:

What you said..    ...... AMEN!!!!!



CV340/580DC3DC9super80MD88/90DC10717273747576777A319/20CRJ2/7/9F27AVROJET31CITAT5/7/XSAAB340YS11Dash8E135/45/75
User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12017 times:

I'd suggest that one issue that upsets people (but they aren't consciously aware of it) is that there is something deeply dehumanizing about the machines.

The magnetic detectors don't do elicit that feeling because you can walk through them normally. But you can't do that with the body scanners...you have to stand in this awkward, vulnerable position and let a machine scan you (without seeing the scan, the people examining the scan, or knowing what happens to the scan afterwards.)

So the experience is awkward, mysterious and dehumanizing. And I feel that some of the complaints people make are really about the dehumanization aspect, but they don't know how to explain that well.

And while being patted down is also awkward, it's not as mysterious or dehumanizing. I for one would prefer being manhandled than feeling like an inanimate object at the whim of an unfeeling machine.

(Ok, the last part was a bit poetic.)


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12000 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
I thought flying at FL400 already meant getting hit by cosmic radiation ? Especially pilots.

So why would you want more of it?

Radiation is cumulative over your lifespan. It's not a case of "oh, you're going to get hit by radiation anyway". No. The less you can get of it, the better. The more you get, the higher your risk of cancer.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11918 times:

Quoting darthluke12694 (Reply 1):
The only thing that I don't like is the radiation

I don't have statitics to back this up but I would tend to believe the radiation is minimal. And heck, you don't hear stories about radiologists having significantly shorter lifespans than your average joe. (Though I have heard more than a few cases of radiologists being negligent with shielding and ending up with cancer all over the place).

Also, the weather radars in commercial airplanes are upwards of 10 kilowatts in power, that's a LOT of radiation pilots are exposed to as well. And those used in military AWACS planes are vastly more powerful. AFAIK medical x-ray machines are well below that, so its safe to say these scanners are low output as well.

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 3):

Really buddy, you are going to open this can of worms again

AFAIK I'm the first one to question the outcry rather than just start a thread condemning the system.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):

3) I do have an issue with the images; not mine necessarily, but that of my wife and my two children (2 and 4). Something about them, and about others whom I can't even see looking at near naked images of my family, bothers me. To me, it borders on perversion. I can't necessarily explain why, but it's like Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography in the Jacobellis case in 1964: "I know it when I see it." Those images, when I see them, bother me. Of course, this will all be addressed should they go to the "stick figure" image and move the screen to the checkpoint.

I'll put it this way: before the advent of digital cameras, all the pictures you got were obviously on 35mm film. And to develop those pictures meant putting any potentially private images into the hands of someone else. Who's to say a pervert that worked with those developing machines didn't pull out pictures of naked people (specially of young age) and make copies to use for pretty disturbing purposes? I bet nobody here ever considered that possibility before, yet people did it all the time. The way I see it, even if the images made by these scanners were more detailed and colorful, there are much MUCH tighter controls to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands.

[Edited 2010-11-10 21:38:27]

User currently offlineMNMncrcnwjr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11837 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 12):
The way I see it, even if the images made by these scanners were more detailed and colorful, there are much MUCH tighter controls to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands.

That did wonders for the DOD and their little wikileaks problem......... but the real red hearing IS .. they don't scan your ID before you step into it, so IF you're not famous and recognizable from the tabloids .... IF you saw you on the web .. would you know its you???   

Still, I don't like the new procedures and a fan of Nov 24th Opt Out Day .. (which should be every day)



CV340/580DC3DC9super80MD88/90DC10717273747576777A319/20CRJ2/7/9F27AVROJET31CITAT5/7/XSAAB340YS11Dash8E135/45/75
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11818 times:

In addition to what the posters above said:

Everything TSA does is reactive to the last threat.

9/11: no sharp object of any kind. (regardless of the fact that someone trying to hijack a plane with a folding knife would have their skulls bashed in)
Shoe Bomber: all the shoes on the belt
Liquid bombers: give us the water bottle citizen
Underwear bomber: strip search machine

What happens when the bum bomber shows up? Cavity searches for everyone?



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11770 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 12):
Also, the weather radars in commercial airplanes are upwards of 10 kilowatts in power, that's a LOT of radiation pilots are exposed to as well. And those used in military AWACS planes are vastly more powerful. AFAIK medical x-ray machines are well below that, so its safe to say these scanners are low output as well.

As has been mentioned, radiation is a cumulative deal. It's not like alcohol where you eventually pass it through your system. So why would you want more of it than you really need?

I'll be opting out the next time I fly and encounter a body scanner - we'll see how degrading the "Freedom Grope" actually is (I suspect it's not as bad as it's made out to be).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 323 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11751 times:

I'll take a free feel up every time over a chest x-ray. Anyone with a job that dosen't expose them to radiation each day has NO business preaching to me about it.

User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11732 times:

I have to admit that during my last few flights, LHR-CPT, CPT-LHR and domestic flights to MAN and LGW, that i have not experienced this body scanner or pat down yet, is it only when the metal detector buzzes that they then do this?

I wouldnt mind going through, yeah my penile size maybe not on the large scale but who cares lol!


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5653 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11717 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Thread starter):
Between having a blurry picture

I'm going to shut that down right now: The pictures are not "blurry". They are not "family friendly", as Napolitano put it. There's quite a bit of detail.... after all, TSA agents were able to mock one of their own about the size of his penis during a training session.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Thread starter):
frankly I rather just have my picture snapped. I

I'll take the third choice: do away with these ridiculous measures.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Thread starter):
I got nothing to hide

Not yet. And when you do, it'll be something you shouldn't have to hide.

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 3):
I think MOST would agree, that the pictures are not the issue at this point, as you have pointed out!

Absolutely false. I take it you don't have a 13 year old daughter, or a 5 year old son you have to put through one of these machines.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):
I believe it was the NYT or WSJ that said the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increases the risk of fatal cancers according to some experts.

  

Radiation damage is cumulative. It doesn't just go away.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):

5) TSA still, in my mind, is security theater. It is eyewash. I have no confidence in them at all.

Nor do I. I have never minded going through security, but I've been saying for a long time that the TSA needs to be disbanded and replaced by people who know what they're doing.

Quoting catiii (Reply 8):

More than that, the lunacy of the pilot issue is, as the USAPA president said:

Not to mention that there's a sh*t ton of pilots who are FFDOs.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 12):
I don't have statitics to back this up but I would tend to believe the radiation is minimal.

Nobody has statistics, because TSA and the manufacturer refuse to release them. They give some BS line about "the same exposure as two minutes of flight".

2 minutes worth of that in a few seconds means you're getting wayyy more than you think at once.

Quoting starrion (Reply 14):

What happens when the bum bomber shows up? Cavity searches for everyone?

Or, just up the power of the machine. More radiation. Yay.

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
(I suspect it's not as bad as it's made out to be).

From comments on another forum for frequent fliers, it's hit and miss, just like everything else TSA does. The common story is that one screener will actively feel your genitals, and the next one will stop at the first sign of contact.

I find it disturbing that most criminals don't get treated in such a way during a search. Guess we're all guilty of trying to blow up planes until we're proven innocent...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinekiwimex From Mexico, joined Nov 2009, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11673 times:

Quoting darthluke12694 (Reply 1):
There is nothing at all wrong with these body scanners.

That's what the government told you about Agent Orange, lead paint, etc etc.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 12):
Also, the weather radars in commercial airplanes are upwards of 10 kilowatts in power, that's a LOT of radiation pilots are exposed to as well.

They're not directly exposed to it, and it's non-ionising radiation, like a microwave oven. About as dangerous as having a hot stewardess in your lap for the flight.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19789 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Thread starter):


So I can't fathom all the controversy surrounding body scanners

Speaking about X-ray backscatter, I am going to speak as a physician:

THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF X-RAYS.

I'll say it again, louder:

THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF X-RAYS

Every time someone has come across a "safe" way to shoot X-rays at people, the health effects have become tragically clear in the future when people suffer from them. CT scans, once heralded as "less radiation than a chest X-ray" are strongly associated with the development of cataracts. In fact, if you get five head CT's in your life, you pretty much are guaranteed cataracts.

And when you start talking about frequent fliers, not just crew, you deal with people who will get HUNDREDS of these "harmless" scans per year.

And not only are these scans an invasion of privacy, but they're a waste of money and time. A butt-bombing has already been carried out and when someone tries it on a plane, what are they going to do? Belly films for all of us? Pre-flight colonoscopy?

No.

Basically, it comes down to this: Americans need to buck up and grow some backbone. When you get on a plane, you might die. It might be a mechanical failure. Pilot error. Or a terrorist bomb. Your chance of dying is still miniscule and has not dropped any significant amount since the body scanners. If that's not acceptable, then drive.

But you were not born with a guarantee. Life carries risks and this is one of them. Deal with it.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3038 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11353 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 12):
Who's to say a pervert that worked with those developing machines didn't pull out pictures of naked people (specially of young age) and make copies to use for pretty disturbing purposes? I bet nobody here ever considered that possibility before, yet people did it all the time.

By the same token, who's to say that TSA isn't employing people who are perverts who get off on looking at those images, or in giving patdowns?


User currently offlinedelta2ual From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11306 times:

[quote=DocLightning,reply=20]

Well said!!!



From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual
User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11296 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
Basically, it comes down to this: Americans need to buck up and grow some backbone. When you get on a plane, you might die. It might be a mechanical failure. Pilot error. Or a terrorist bomb. Your chance of dying is still miniscule and has not dropped any significant amount since the body scanners. If that's not acceptable, then drive.

But you were not born with a guarantee. Life carries risks and this is one of them. Deal with it.

I have never heard a better explanation of what needs to happen. On my RU list for that statement.


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 782 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11256 times:

I just read a letter from some doctors that states while this may not be a huge dose of radiation from the machines, it is more dangerous because all of that radiation is dispersed into the skin and tissue just underneath the skin. This may have the effect of increasing the risk of skin cancer from what I understand. I also don't understand how they can send women of reproductive age through these machines. I have to imagine that is a risk to the baby. The bottom line is that these things were rushed into operation without time to conduct a real evaluation of their safety. I am a pilot. I do not go through the body scanner machines. Its not worth the health risk.

25 Post contains images flybyguy : firstly, Secondly, these bodyscanners are just window dressing. I hate the way the U.S.A. conducts the war on terror. So far they've thrown billions
26 ROSWELL41 : To modify a quotation from President Eisenhower's farewell address: 'Beware of the security-industrial complex.'
27 nonrevman : Having had a melanoma removed a few years ago, I feel there is no choice but to opt out of the body scan. Sure, it seems revealing, but the radiation
28 Post contains links and images Fly2HMO : I'm aware of that. But if most radiologists can live with vastly more exposure than the average human then what's to say this is any more hazardous.
29 eksath : Well said. This is serious issue and deadly for some. It would not be a giant leap to say for some people, the protection methods will be harmful to
30 N809FR : I'll remind my doctor the next time I go in that I would prefer if someone without a high school diploma feels around down there, since the TSA is tra
31 crjflyer35 : And you think that's ok? Tell you what, when you get your MD and have proof, then start spattering the internet with your theories, until then this i
32 airbazar : Don't like it, don't go to work there. No one is forcing you. Many of us have to go through the same body scanners to get to our office desks but we'
33 Slarty : I don't want anyone looking at my junk ... rofl
34 Post contains images Fly2HMO : No, but I have worse things to worry about than an extremely blurry naked picture taken of myself. Yeah, this guy said that too:
35 Post contains images seabosdca : Exactly. There is no benefit at all in having some random TSA employee look at my junk or my girlfriend's private parts. And it's pretty unpleasant t
36 ROSWELL41 : I suggest you do some research on what you are talking about before spouting nonsense. The radiation exposures are markedly different. Go ahead thoug
37 Post contains links and images exFATboy : Before I start, let me just say - again - that I am opposed to the scanners. But I'm also opposed to rampant hysteria, and that's what the radiation a
38 ThePinnacleKid : I'm not going to join in the fray about whether or not the body scanners do or don't harm and to what degree... Instead, I would rather go back to the
39 junction : I see your point, but do you really think your chance of dying would stay minimal if everyone knew no further efforts were being made to control the
40 exFATboy : The problem with this argument is that at the checkpoint, the TSA agents don't have an acceptably accurate way of knowing you are in fact who you say
41 Post contains images Fly2HMO : Couldn't agree more.
42 nws2002 : Yet a SIDA or Sterile Area badge will get ground staff through without any screening at all. How does that make any sense? Also there are a few airpo
43 exFATboy : No, the specific question here is "is nude-o-vision the best application of our security efforts, or could we do better?" Personally, I'm far more wo
44 CBPhoto : Ok....that's fine, I won't go to work, neither will the thousands of pilots that fly YOU around the country for your vacations and biz trips. But the
45 exFATboy : That's just my point - security issues like ground staff access are possibly more worthy of our attention, and our money, than nude-o-vision. Or not,
46 junction : The answer to that specific question is yes we can do better, and we have to. The simple fact is it takes at least 30 seconds to pass through the new
47 Fly2HMO : I couldn't care less frankly, cumulative or not. I'm worried more about being exposed in the sun every Sunday for hours on end when I go the R/C fiel
48 Maverick623 : I'm telling you the picture you posted isn't what they see. TSA agents were perfectly able to distinguish another agents allegedly small penis. Reall
49 lewis : First of all, pilots did not sign up for this when they decided to work as pilots, it is a NEW measure. So no, they will not quit their jobs but they
50 exFATboy : And are the TSA agents at the checkpoint able to use those features effectively? The TSA folks seem to spend even less time looking at crew credentia
51 Fly2HMO : Show me a picture of what they actually see then. I heard about that. And of course they can technically do it. But they SHOULDN'T. That person got f
52 Maverick623 : You miss the point. Anytime somebody accesses through a side door (i.e, a theoretical crew pass), there's some sort of keypad where the badge needs t
53 kiwimex : "the FAA estimates" You're basing your argument on a goverment agency estimate? Hmmmmmm. I have a bridge in Brooklyn...
54 ltbewr : Problem is what is the alternatives unless you want more privacy invasive and very time consuming questioning or other processes such as done in Israe
55 exFATboy : Ah...I think we crossed points here. I have no problem with the idea of crew going through a door where the pass is authenticated. My problem is with
56 ThePinnacleKid : Never said that.. I said we crew members shouldn't be screened by TSA at the checkpoints like passengers... I have absolutely no problem with the Cre
57 TristanHNL : Allow a radiographer to answer your question. One thing many people do not realise is that radiologists and other radiation workers (medical or other
58 Post contains images CBPhoto : Thats fine and I could care less, that you care less about the whole radiation topic. However, how many times a year do you travel through airport se
59 N766UA : They bombard you with radiation!!
60 sphealey : From about 1980, every radiologist I have dealt with in the United States has operated their machines from behind a wall with lead shielding and a sm
61 exFATboy : I'm not worried about a fake pilot gaining access to the aircraft, I'm worried about a fake pilot moving through a checkpoint with dangerous material
62 Post contains images Fly2HMO : I'm not getting my stripes ever at this rate so no worries Thanks for the insight. Perhaps the effects of radiation were not so well understood befor
63 cytz_pilot : ...and there would still be people walking gingerly around the airport supporting it, repeating "I've got nothing to hide" over and over and over...
64 spudsmac : Flame me if you wish, but at what point is it worth it to give up even more liberties? At what point do we just say, "OK, this works 99.9% of the time
65 TristanHNL : The only time a radiologist operates the machine is during fluoroscopic exams, and in these cases they're usually required to be right next to the ma
66 EMA747 : Well said imo. We are far more likely to be killed in a car crash on the way to the airport than die in any terror related incident. These days when
67 AirBuffalo : THROUGHPUT! Toss the visceral arguments out ... it comes down to THROUGHPUT The scanners easily take 4-6 times longer per person and require 2x the fl
68 calibansa333 : THANK YOU. I was waiting to see when somebody would point this out. Radiologists are protected from radiation. They aren't impervious to radiation li
69 Fly2HMO : Nobody said they were impervious. And last time I checked no radiologist uses full radioactive suits, they use little more than a vest from what I've
70 FlyPIJets : Scary. You know what the real scary part is??? Not X-rays but this little thing from the US Constitution. "Amendment IV The right of the people to be
71 DocLightning : Yes. The previous measures were sufficient. And may I point out that the underwear bomber had not one, but TWO red flags and was never secondarily sc
72 a340jamaica : Apparently, there are persons deluding themselves that these machines are in any way enhancing safety. You know, if they were an enhancement, there ma
73 malaysia : I have went through this machine maybe 2 times and the most recent one was last week and I felt a sharp pain in my arm, but I am sure that was my mind
74 Post contains links and images varigb707 :
75 DocLightning : There we go. Bingo.
76 eksath : History is full of such actions by individuals and the government. It is an absolute lie to tell people that there is no or minimal risk with these n
77 Glareskin : I think the problem is that with some individuals there is more to make out of and with some less....
78 Post contains images bistro1200 : This is not the image of a free society:
79 GoBoeing : Get informed of the health issues related to these scans and you will see why people are smart to opt out of them. Search on google for a letter from
80 kiwimex : And yet when you ask those people whether they have curtains on the windows of their house, they invariable answer "yes". Weird.
81 Post contains links bahadir : Woman gets arrested for opting out.. http://consumerist.com/2010/11/meg-m...-a-chair-her-ticket-ripped-up.html
82 Post contains images aerorobnz : the drama is because it is completely unnecessary and doesn't make you or me any safer than if it didn't happen at all. There is risk in anything we d
83 noelg : You don't like it? Easy solution. Don't fly. Result: You are happy, we don't have to hear the whinging BS about how you don't want your undersized tac
84 aerorobnz : Rubbish. that's mindless rhetoric if ever I heard it. Just cos there's paranoid dickheads in some parts of the world does not mean the whole world sh
85 TWAMD-80 : As an airline pilot, this is what bothers me most. I am already receiving an above average dose of radiation flying at altitude, now TSA want's to ir
86 Maverick623 : Please inform me just how these scanners/pat downs are going to prevent that. Because I can tell you at least 5 ways just off the top of my head that
87 Post contains images Mortyman : Well said ! You are now on my respected list
88 ltbewr : From various news reports, there is growing pressure on the USA's TSA, the Director of Homeland Security and politicians, from both the 'left' and 'ri
89 Post contains links eksath : Hey guys and gals, Just saw this on line. I am not sure if anyone else reported this here but here goes: http://www.optoutday.com/ "Many people only f
90 jfklganyc : To answer the OPs question directly: People in the United States have had enough. You can read more into that if you want, but for the past decade the
91 billreid : The incremental risk is one thing if we look at radiation versus security upgrade. But the incremental risk that everyone is bypassing is those who c
92 aajfksjubklyn : These machines are a disaster. A once pleasure of security at both JFK and LAX has become a nightmare. In fact everywhere these "things" are....securi
93 kiwimex : Yep. I know a lot of people, like me, that will quite happily spend three times as long in the air, and more money, to avoid a transit through the US
94 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : I am going to choose this whenever I see a full scanner in an airport. I will stand in my undies in the full search room with the TSA woman if needed
95 kiwimex : Right, which is why I'll fly into the UK, but never out. I usually take the Eurostar to AS or CDG. Actually in October, I took the overnight ferry fr
96 huaiwei : Well then unless these individuals can come up with alternative technology, they really ought to quit complaining. If there are no viable alternative
97 ah414211 : I just wish that TSA had used the millions of dollars that they spent on technology to see me naked on technology that can determine that my bottled w
98 Post contains images Maverick623 : There is a viable alternative: do it the way it's been done. Seriously, why all of a sudden the need for a strip search and invasive pat-down? I have
99 huaiwei : You didn't know America and Europe are targets of global terrorism? Well with all honesty if you didn't know Sept 11 occured, than you probably deser
100 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : There seems to be more and more concern about these new stripping scanners as they are being installed in all airports across the U.S. and other airpo
101 Post contains images TheCommodore : The guy is looking for confrontation. At the 5.00 min mark you can hear a female supervisor explain in a very polite civil way what is going to occur
102 crjflyer35 : Then you should be fine with letting your local PD come into your home un-announced and searching at random, while we're at it let's throw a glove on
103 Boston92 : Actually no, thy don't. There is no radiation emitted from the scanners the OP mentioned.
104 CBPhoto : What?? They are countless reports that they do indeed emit some radiation, though the levels are small, their is some form of radiation being emitted
105 exFATboy : Actually yes, they do. At lest some of them do, depending on what definition you use. The OP does not distinguish between "backscatter x-ray" and "mi
106 Post contains images Boston92 : So, in common use, the mmw images (like in the OP) don't emit radiation. Like I said
107 iairallie : This has been answered many times on these related threads but in a nutshell. The drama exists because the negligible safety benefit (ask the Israelis
108 Post contains images Maverick623 : You better watch your language. I guarantee I know FAR more about the effects of attacks against the US, and how to deal with them than you. What the
109 exFATboy : Again, the OP did NOT distinguish between backscatter x-ray and millimetre wave. He uses the generic term "body scanners", which refers to both techn
110 Boston92 : The OP did distinguish when he posted a picture of an MMW image. I also noted that in my original post.[Edited 2010-11-15 15:13:19]
111 exFATboy : Fair enough, I guess, but since just about everyone's posts but yours are talking about the scanners in general (although they may make the distincti
112 Post contains links and images Aaron747 : This entire thread is on the wrong topic - it's not whether or not scanners are needed - but *why* these particular scanners have been pushed by TSA.
113 catiii : To amplify on this, while the Constitution doesn't grant us a right to privacy per se, numerous Supreme Court cases have established it as a right an
114 AA43E : Wrong answer. Two different kinds of radiation with totally different physiological effects. You can call it what you like but the citizens of this s
115 cpd : I think you all need to step back and take a bit of a break. It's an internet forum, there is no need for everyone to get so heated and aggressive ab
116 flybyguy : My mother is flying through JFK this morning. She had asked for the pat down, but the TSA agent on duty said that everyone must go through the full-bo
117 ThePinnacleKid : It is a violation of policy on TSA's part.. No one can be forced to go through the machine... and while you will be pat down... or groped as they so
118 ridgid727 : I don't think he showed what an idiot was. He enlightened many Americans who fly once or twice a year that they are now subject to being sexually gro
119 TheCommodore : I am sorry but I cant understand why you see it this way. The TSA agents are carrying out a security check, stipulated by the US government, why dose
120 ridgid727 : Firstly, I am the patron. The one who is guilty before even going through their line, the one they grope, fondle, feel and molest. I have a notion to
121 Quokka : I have been travelling internationally for many years and have been subjected to pat downs in many countries; removed my shoes; walked through X-ray m
122 ridgid727 : And the thousands that go through these devices are assured from the US Government that they are 100% safe--nice to be assured from a government that
123 retrolivery : Agreed 100% on all points. Well said.
124 Quokka : I absolutely agree with the need to be cautious of assurances provide by Government. In Australia we have seen similar issues arise out of testing of
125 lewis : The Police will not just stop and search you, they will need to have a reason to believe that you are guilty of something. Wanting to fly should not
126 kiwimex : So you're willing to guarantee that the TSA and other security agencies worldwide are pervert-free-zones? Yeah, right. The pedo's are probably fighti
127 catiii : Ok, that's just you. Are you speaking for everyone at the TSA? What do you call it when a TSA agent runs their hand up your inner thigh, and with the
128 Post contains links cpd : It's hardly amazing - because if anyone else attempted it anywhere else, that's what it would be called. I don't know if this has been posted yet or
129 ridgid727 : cpd, thanks for that link, I have emailed it to my Senators and Congressmen too. Additionally I have sent the link to about 200 newspapers around the
130 Maverick623 : Yea right. Congressmen still get paid by the lobbyists, and they could care less if the country suffers because of it. After all, they had no qualms
131 catiii : That's untrue and, not get off on a rant, rhetoric like that is part and parcel of why political discourse in this country is at such a low. Show me
132 cpd : If they look like getting voted out, they quickly change their tunes. A bit of heat from voters or media (or both) and things can change very quickly
133 Post contains images TheCommodore : I understand that, I was just using it as a lose example. I never said that at all. There are perverts everywhere, on every profession, doctors, nurs
134 Smart67 : A big stink over nothing. Americans insist on security - and complain when security gets tight. I don't care if they see my naked body (they'd never l
135 cpd : Okay then, go and do what the TSA is doing in your local shopping centre to some random person - and tell me what the result of your efforts is...
136 Post contains images Markam : Fly2HMO, as it has been already mentioned very times, the main issue with the scanners is radiation, since its effects are cumulative and therefore ev
137 TheCommodore : Get a grip will you ! We are talking about airport security, not walking up to someone in a shopping center and rubbing your hands all over them. Wha
138 Post contains images cpd : For me, it doesn't matter - I've no need to travel to the USA, so it doesn't affect me at all, thankfully. What you are supporting, sadly, is the vic
139 iairallie : There is already lots of annecdotal evidence coming out to sugest that attractive women are being "randomly" selected as a greater frequency than the
140 Derico : Body scanners, patdowns, visas, $$$, delays, photographs, fiingerprints... I still have no idea why anyone from overseas travels to the United States
141 nycdave : As a bit of an exhibitionist, I'd just like to say I support and look forward to participating in the new body scans and patdown procedures!
142 richierich : I'll tell you why these scanners are a problem. Because I have a family member who has already received a "lifetime" supply of radiation for a medica
143 Post contains images Kaiarahi : Here's the alternative to going through the scanner: In TSA's defence, a woman in a floor-length black dress wearing a head covering is obviously susp
144 exFATboy : Keeping in mind that I oppose the scanners and the "freedom grope", I'd point out that passengers do not have to give a reason as to why they're "opt
145 TheCommodore : Well, one could argue anything I suppose if you want to take it to extremes. Israel has its own set of problems, and I'm not even going to open that
146 lewis : While the norm was to place your hand luggage in the x-ray machine, go through the metal detector and maybe open up your laptop, security was never u
147 catiii : Outlandish? Ask anyone working in the industry if that is "outlandish"? Ask anyone who knows anything about security if that is "outlandish"? It abso
148 Glom : And can someone please explain why if this crapola should be considered acceptable for boarding a plane, why it isn't also instituted for boarding a t
149 TheCommodore : Whatever. IMHO is is/was an "Outlandis" statement.And so is your reaction, again IMHO. There you go again ! Being totally hysterical about the entire
150 exFATboy : A lot of it is just the "fighting the last war" mentality - we Americans (and I'm not being American-centric here, the thread is specifically about o
151 catiii : You have a different view on what is acceptable by the TSA. We (and by me I mean me and my "fellow countrymen") by and large have grown up in a count
152 iairallie : How about a simple "It's personal" or "none of your business unless that information is essential for you to perfom your duties" It's not unique to I
153 Maverick623 : A firm, and slightly impolite "None of your business" should do the trick.
154 Kaiarahi : Should. But just try it and see how they react. My son (Kiwi, irreverent like most Kiwis) remarked at LAX while he was being groped "I hope you're en
155 Maverick623 : Well, if there's anything resembling this: The agent trying to detain me would wind up in jail. It's too bad your son didn't know to call the cops on
156 Kaiarahi : Agreed. But instead, he's decided never to transit or visit the U.S. again. Given that he's now the CEO of Australasia's largest after-market auto pa
157 Post contains images mayor : My wife tells me that next time we fly, she's going to put a cucumber down her pants, just to see the reaction, either from the scan or the pat down.
158 meristem : If they want my picture they need to give me a release form. And pay for the rights.
159 exFATboy : Nothing wrong with those responses, but as a practical matter most of us just want to get through security as quickly as possible, and saying somethi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SkyTeam - Why The Stepchild Of Alliances? posted Fri Mar 5 2010 09:18:48 by DeltaDawg
Women Refuse To Go Through Airport Body Scanners posted Thu Mar 4 2010 05:46:48 by oa260
Why The Huge Timespan Between The 744 And 748? posted Mon Mar 1 2010 19:42:12 by c5load
Condor (DE): Why The Heavy Long-Haul Route Cut? posted Wed Feb 3 2010 13:35:31 by Sabena332
Full-body Scanners: What Do They Really See? posted Sun Jan 24 2010 22:46:52 by ManuCH
Economy Class: Why The Name "Coach?" posted Fri Dec 25 2009 12:44:41 by Soxfan
Why The CR7 Over The Q400 For United? posted Sat Dec 5 2009 17:41:31 by PI731
What Was The Drama With JBU717 Today? posted Sat Oct 17 2009 10:26:34 by RobK
SEL To GMP - Why The Change? posted Thu Oct 1 2009 10:34:23 by Airstud
Why The Reverse Take-offs At LAS? posted Mon Sep 28 2009 17:33:56 by Sevenheavy