Does MCO have the new Body Scanner that everyone is chatting about?

[CPT Tripss]

I'm wondering about wearing an underwire through the machine but I'm not seeing any info on that.

PP is correct. If the underwire shows up, you may find yourself getting a lift and squeeze from a TSA employee.

 

[bicker]

Thanks but I thinks these threads are just causeing panic more then help

Yes, but that's simply a tactic used to hide the fact that someone is really just trying to assert that their personal preference should be the law, regardless of the fact that the law reflect a consensus view of others, and has prevailed through due process.

If you can't win on the merits, take it to the tabloids.

But, do these scanners make us safer?

The people who our society has duly put in place to make that determination have determined that the scanners are indeed a necessary and positive contribution to satisfying the objectives that our society has set forth for them.

 

[n2mm]

Flew out of MCO this morning. They were not being used at our security check-point in terminal B.

I also flew out of MCO yesterday (Friday, 11/12) and didn't see them at Gate A (gate 101). It was a normal procedure, except there were hardly any crowds and it barely took 5 minutes to get through security.

 

[maxiesmom]

But, do these scanners make us safer? Or do they just require the bad guys to be slightly more innovative.

That could be said of security measures that have been proven to work as well. So should we just stop trying to make the flying public safer, because some bad guy with a will will find a way?

 

[bicker]

Good point. This is a very common tactic that critics of copy protection and pirates use to try to attack property rights of content owners. They claim that because someone can work their way around the copy protection and therefore violate the copyright, that everyone should be able to do so easily. It's nothing but a self-serving bit of rhetoric, without any legitimate foundation.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Most of the measures employed by TSA that are visible to the public are smoke and mirrors. The measures that have proven effective are not easy to see.

I don't disagree that some of the measures used at airports are effective, but a lot are not. It isn't necessary to invade the privacy of citizens to protect us.

 

[eliza61]

But, do these scanners make us safer? Or do they just require the bad guys to be slightly more innovative.

Then why do any measure? The nature of the bad guy is to keep coming up with ways to hurt you.
My dad, who was a nyc police man his entire life use to tell me "for every alarm we make, there are crooks trying to find a way around the alarm".

For every security measure, there is a possiblity of getting around it.

The measures that have been proven effective, have been proven effective in "certain" situations. Explosive puffers, profilers, explosive scenting dogs all have issues, all have ways around them and all have a degree of privacy issues concerned.

The basic problem is that we want 100% security, we want it cheap, we want it not to be intrusive and we don't want it to inconvenience us.

Not gonna happen.

 

[WDWisTheBest]

Most of the measures employed by TSA that are visible to the public are smoke and mirrors. The measures that have proven effective are not easy to see.

I don't disagree that some of the measures used at airports are effective, but a lot are not. It isn't necessary to invade the privacy of citizens to protect us.

I think you hit on the main question, which is, is it necessary to invade travelers' privacy?

I don't know.

Traveler associations have weighed in. "We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying," Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, told Reuters.

A 2008 survey found that air travelers "avoided" 41 million trips because they believed the air travel system was either "broken" or in need of "moderate correction," the U.S. Travel Association said. The decisions cost airlines $9.4 billion, the survey said.

One online group, "National Opt Out Day" calls for a day of protest against the scanners on Wednesday, November 24, the busiest travel day of the year.

Full-body scanners are invasive. Pat downs are invasive. Are they necessary?

 

[eliza61]

I think you hit on the main question, which is, is it necessary to invade travelers' privacy?

I don't know.

A 2008 survey found that air travelers "avoided" 41 million trips because they believed the air travel system was either "broken" or in need of "moderate correction," the U.S. Travel Association said. The decisions cost airlines $9.4 billion, the survey said.

One online group, "National Opt Out Day" calls for a day of protest against the scanners on Wednesday, November 24, the busiest travel day of the year.

Full-body scanners are invasive. Pat downs are invasive. Are they necessary?

LOL well depending on who you ask those 2008 travelers have bounced back or gotten over their outrage. Air travel this Thanksgiving is projected to increase.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...ed-to-increase-over-thanksgiving-holiday.html


The Thanksgiving holiday is traditionally the busiest travel weekend of the year in the U.S. and this year, despite a still weak economy, more Americans are expected to fly to their destinations.

The Air Transport Association of America (ATA), the industry trade association for the leading U.S. airlines, says it expects a 3.5 percent year-over-year increase in the number of passengers traveling on U.S. airlines during the 2010 Thanksgiving holiday season.

A total of 24 million air travelers are projected over the period, with daily passenger volumes ranging from 1.3 million to 2.5 million.

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...-over-thanksgiving-holiday.html#ixzz15CTkCYQ9

Now of course this is from the airline trade industry paper so they may be spinning the news but no one I know has changed their travel plans (but that ain't saying much)

 

[bicker]

Most of the measures employed by TSA that are visible to the public are smoke and mirrors. The measures that have proven effective are not easy to see.

So effectively, if they just did the things you are labeling effective, it would look like they're doing nothing, correct?

Given that there are myriad objectives and obligations applicable to the agency and the government, there are many different ways that something that an agency does can be "effective". A TSA agent being respectful, helpful and friendly isn't effective at thwarting terrorism, yet these are things that we expect from them.

 

[Brian Noble]

My guess is that people will become accustomed to this new process, just as they have to liquid limitations, removing shoes, etc. etc.

But, I was visiting William & Mary yesterday, having been invited to deliver a distinguished lecture, and at dinner with several other faculty members, the conversation turned to leisure travel. We all travel a good chunk for business, and we all remarked on the fact that we had increasingly been planning more drive-to vacations, and fewer fly-to trips, because air travel is just getting to be so unpleasant.

If enough people really *do* start cutting back on air travel for such reasons, the pressure that the airline industry will bring to bear will be significant.

 

[*Meagan*]

I think you hit on the main question, which is, is it necessary to invade travelers' privacy?

I don't know.

Traveler associations have weighed in. "We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying," Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, told Reuters.

A 2008 survey found that air travelers "avoided" 41 million trips because they believed the air travel system was either "broken" or in need of "moderate correction," the U.S. Travel Association said. The decisions cost airlines $9.4 billion, the survey said.

One online group, "National Opt Out Day" calls for a day of protest against the scanners on Wednesday, November 24, the busiest travel day of the year.

Full-body scanners are invasive. Pat downs are invasive. Are they necessary?

I would rather feel safe on a flight than not. They are necessary. And to put it bluntly people can not be trusted. Too many terrorists out there trying to take us down.

I could understand why people are upset about these scanners. But its for our safety not for anything but that. I personally do not mind them at all. And highly prefer them over some grubby hands all over my body.. the only person allowed to put there hands on me is my DH. I personally feel more violated over someone physically touching me than seeing me on some screen in a far away office. To each is own.

 

[eliza61]

My guess is that people will become accustomed to this new process, just as they have to liquid limitations, removing shoes, etc. etc.

But, I was visiting William & Mary yesterday, having been invited to deliver a distinguished lecture, and at dinner with several other faculty members, the conversation turned to leisure travel. We all travel a good chunk for business, and we all remarked on the fact that we had increasingly been planning more drive-to vacations, and fewer fly-to trips, because air travel is just getting to be so unpleasant.

If enough people really *do* start cutting back on air travel for such reasons, the pressure that the airline industry will bring to bear will be significant.

And that's the million dollar question Brian. If I were a betting gal, my odds would be the airlines have nothing to fear.
Sorry kinsmen but we are notoriously short sighted.

Remember immediately after 9/11? When everyone was waving American flags. We swore we would endure any hardship, go through any type of security etc, etc to be safe. fast forward 2 years after the fact. people whine if you so much as delay them 15 mins.

And remember when gas went up to 4 bucks a gallon? every body and their mama swore up and down, that's it. no more being held hostage to oil and hostile countries that we buy oil from. Fast forward 2 lousy years and we are already back to our large minivan, cadillac escalade, large gmc truck for 1 person driving ways. Don't even get me started on our "not even thinking about alternative energy" ways. The only reason people are freakin out about cap and trade is because it will cost them a few extra dollars.

Face it, we talk a good game about privacy and our constitutional rights but pretty much if we can get on a plane to WDW from California for 19.99, the planes will be full.

I fly from Philly to Chicago and Philly to Boston on average 2X a month I have yet to see one person on my morning commutes complain. not one.

just my view, by I'm a cynical NY'er.

 

[Tinkerbell58]

Flew out of MCO yesterday afternoon and did not go through a body scanner.

 

[CPT Tripss]

So effectively, if they just did the things you are labeling effective, it would look like they're doing nothing, correct?

Given that there are myriad objectives and obligations applicable to the agency and the government, there are many different ways that something that an agency does can be "effective". A TSA agent being respectful, helpful and friendly isn't effective at thwarting terrorism, yet these are things that we expect from them.

You are incorrect in your opening.

There is a need for some of what TSA does today to pax and their belongings. There is a need to do other things . . . "puffers" and increased ETD for example. Also, there is a need for TSA (not the "trusted shipper") to screen everything that goes onto the plane.

If flight crews are to be fully screened, then TSA employees and airport employees need to be fully screened each time they enter the secure area.

All of this can, and should, be done with politeness.

 

[Dax]

I work at MCO, and yes the scanners are here, but in what capacity, I am not sure.

I go through security on the A side of the terminal, which is where Southwest, Delta, Jet Blue, Virgin Atlantic and America, Luthansa, British Air, and also Airtran all go out of. From what I could gather, there are at least 2 of the machines installed, in lanes 1 and 2 from the looks of it. I am usually in the middle of all the lanes as an employee, so I dont ever get close enough. I know it was being used this morning on the A side, as one of the passengers on the tram with me was complaining about being groped cause she opted out.

I havent ventured over to the B side to see whats going on over there...

 

[mysumi]

We didn't see them at MCO on Tuesday, we went through the lines as normal. I'm curious if it will be in place next year?

 

[bicker]

You are incorrect in your opening.

I doubt that, but if you care to explain perhaps your point can be made clear.

All of this can, and should, be done with politeness.

Of course. No one here has suggested otherwise.

 

[CPT Tripss]

There are some measures at the TSA check points that are effective. Many are not (shoes, liquid bans, ID checks) and are simply feel good smoke and mirrors to comfort some travellers. These should be stopped so that more effective measures such as screening everything that goes into the cargo hold can occur.

Law enforcement "intell" efforts and investigations have proven to be effective at times. One can observe the check point activities, but not the investigations/"intell" - only the results are observable.

 

[eliza61]

There are some measures at the TSA check points that are effective. Many are not (shoes, liquid bans, ID checks) and are simply feel good smoke and mirrors to comfort some travellers. These should be stopped so that more effective measures such as screening everything that goes into the cargo hold can occur.

Law enforcement "intell" efforts and investigations have proven to be effective at times. One can observe the check point activities, but not the investigations/"intell" - only the results are observable.

I thought this was suggested but of course every one screamed that their "privacy" was be violated with all the cameras watching their every move?

Not to be redundant but this is the wall we keep hitting, every body seems to have a problem with almost every measure. You have privacy issues, I'll fight tooth and nail against profiling. What's an agency to do?