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

[safetymom]

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

Interesting experience.

 

[bytheblood]

TSA agents to me are the same as a rent-a-cop.

They think that because they are hired by the gub'ment that they hold some high-powered position and can be buttholes to everybody.

 

[bytheblood]

TSA falls under DHS which is chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

And there is the issue.

 

[eliza61]

TSA agents to me are the same as a rent-a-cop.

.

True but would you want your ticket price to go up to get better personnel? My girlfriend is a retired nYC cop, as is her husband. I asked both of them about the TSA salary guide and she said "I make more than $15/hour working security at Yankee stadium" why would I put up with the general public for those wages?

Not defending their attutides but 15 bucks an hour is barely 30K pre tax. that is not liveable wages in NYC or Philly.

Once again, not saying that they can't do their jobs professionally and courteously and without the power trip but if we want qualified people it may help to give them an incentive to apply.

 

[deegack]

I would equate refusal to use the new scanner along the same lines as refusal to submit to a field sobriety test or breathalyzer during a DUI stop. In most states refusal to submit is not an admission of guilt, but allows the officer(s) to arrest the suspect and requires additional tests that may or may not be more intrusive such as blood test performed at a local hospital. Since a precedent has already been established for use during motor vehicle and DUI checkpoints, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of such provisions and in 2009 Ohio vs. Marshall upheld that these methods do not violate the Fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy or the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.[/QUOTE]
I would disagree with this. A field sobriety test or a breathalyzer do not subject you to a virtual strip search or potentially harmful radiation. Since the TSA refuses to release the exact amount of radiation you are exposed to when you pass through the machines, it is reasonable to refuse them.

 

[derricksonb]

I would disagree with this. A field sobriety test or a breathalyzer do not subject you to a virtual strip search or potentially harmful radiation.

I think you missed my analogies in the steps of DUI and TSA screening....

However in your analogy submitting to TSA and allowing full body scans would subject a person to potentially harmful radiation much in the same way that a breathalyzer or blood test would subject a person to herpes from unsanitary mouthpieces or AIDS from dirty needles. The bottom line is that a precedent has been set and one refusal has been given at the lower level it opens the possibility for arrest based on probable cause at which point a warrantless search can be administered. If a person has nothing to hide then why refuse a simple scan?

Since the TSA refuses to release the exact amount of radiation you are exposed to when you pass through the machines, it is reasonable to refuse them.

Not necessarily. The TSA has released some findings from John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratories which conclude that radiation from the actual imaging devices is less than 10 microrem of emission, which is about the same as the passenger will endure for every two minutes of airline travel and falls within the accepted requirements of ANSI N43.17 2002 and 2009.

 

[Dax]

TSA agents to me are the same as a rent-a-cop.

They think that because they are hired by the gub'ment that they hold some high-powered position and can be buttholes to everybody.

THIS!!!

There is definatly a power trip going on with many TSA agents...Whats worse, is that power trip goes beyond the walls of the airport...I have dealt with their general rudeness just getting on the employee shuttle to the parking lot..

 

[crashbb]

THIS!!!

There is definatly a power trip going on with many TSA agents...Whats worse, is that power trip goes beyond the walls of the airport...I have dealt with their general rudeness just getting on the employee shuttle to the parking lot..

It goes both ways. I have seen passengers treat TSA agents very rudely (with no provocation - different situation if there is provocation). Passengers who think that because they can afford to fly they can be buttholes to everyone or that they are better than those who work as TSA agents.

 

[Dax]

It goes both ways. I have seen passengers treat TSA agents very rudely (with no provocation - different situation if there is provocation). Passengers who think that because they can afford to fly they can be buttholes to everyone or that they are better than those who work as TSA agents.

Sadly this is a fact of life in any place you go...

 

[sam_gordon]

Wow, so many items to take note of.

On this point I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not above hurting someones feelings if that means securing the safety of may more.

So throw 'Probable Cause' out the window? After all, if it could save people, we should be willing to go through anything? Earlier in this thread (I think) Eliza(?) talks about the security procedures in use in Israel. From what I've read (not just hear) those procedures could require HOURS (up to 5?) at the airport before your flight. They must work since El Al has never been hijacked, is it ok to implement them?

I'm still not quite sure how walking through an body imaging machine violates anyone's civil rights but the next time my doctor wants me to have a CAT Scan maybe I'll call up the ACLU and PETA.

Honestly, I don't think it does either. But a court may disagree. Keep in mind that CAT Scan is optional. A doctor can't force you have it.

I would equate refusal to use the new scanner along the same lines as refusal to submit to a field sobriety test or breathalyzer during a DUI stop. In most states refusal to submit is not an admission of guilt, but allows the officer(s) to arrest the suspect and requires additional tests that may or may not be more intrusive such as blood test performed at a local hospital. Since a precedent has already been established for use during motor vehicle and DUI checkpoints, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of such provisions and in 2009 Ohio vs. Marshall upheld that these methods do not violate the Fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy or the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.

I see where you are going with this. It's an interesting argument, but I don't think it applies. First, if you refuse a breathalyzer, as you point out, you'll be taken to a hospital for a true blood test. Presumably, you could refuse to give blood and fight that. In theory, what happens? What law have you broken? In the same mode, if you're picked for the WBI, refuse, then refuse the patdown, AGREE to not go through to the secure area, what laws have been broken?

TSA agents to me are the same as a rent-a-cop.

They think that because they are hired by the gub'ment that they hold some high-powered position and can be buttholes to everybody.

I'll admit I don't travel much, but the last time I did (September), the TSA agents I ran into were polite, engaging, helpful, and friendly. I'll admit there are some "bad apples", but you can't assume all TSA agents are the same.

THIS!!!
There is definatly a power trip going on with many TSA agents...Whats worse, is that power trip goes beyond the walls of the airport...I have dealt with their general rudeness just getting on the employee shuttle to the parking lot..

I'm guessing that "power trip" resides in all walks of life. Look at how heated the "line cutting" threads get.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I agree with you (that courts need to decide). But (I think) someone would need to file a lawsuit before the courts become involved (hey, that might be the ACLU).

The other problem is I don't think there's "silver bullet" (as someone pointed out).
X-Ray machines allow explosives and plastic weapons (knives/guns) through
Bomb sniffing dogs allow weapons through, and I don't know if they'd find something hidden in body cavities.
Backscatter/etc machines allow powder explosives & items hidden in body cavities through, also POSSIBLY violate civil rights.
"Puffers" allow weapons through
"Pat Downs" allow items hidden in body cavities & POSSIBLY violate civil rights
"Profiling" (as done in Israel) is time consuming and violates civil rights.

This is a prime example of the government being "damned if they do and damned if they don't".

Actually, x ray machines as used at checkpoints do reveal plastic weapons and explosives. Xrays even reveal one pound blocks of chocolate fudge, which seems to have the same/similar xray density as semtex. (That was some fun trip! I now take my fudge out.) In the hands/eyes of a properly trained operator x rays are excellent screening devices.

ETD (swabbing for explosive residue) is also pretty darn effective, and works well in combination with WTMDs.

I do give credit to TSA administrators for theeir "multi-layered approach" mantra. But they need to get protection of individual rights, including privacy into their layers.

 

[CPT Tripss]

For the record I specifically did not identify a nationality, race or geographic location in my original statement pertaining to my disagreement with the policies of the ACLU.



Ironically I also stand behind the ACLU's right to defend the civil right's of citizens, but often times this, and organizations like the ACLU, goes above and beyond in defending the "civil rights" of those who are in the country illegally or those who are here with the sole intention of causing harm.



The fourth amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure that is not judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. If a person is not trying to smuggle a weapon or contraband, has emptied his/her pockets, shoes and all metal items into the bins for x-ray and sets off the metal detector that establishes probable cause and pat down or imagery is no longer an unreasonable search. Terry vs. Ohio 392 U.S.1(1968) established that law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless pat-down search search on a level of suspicion that leads that officer to reasonably believe that the suspicious person may have a weapon.

No, Terry stops are when the law enforcement office has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred. TSAers are not LEOs. Setting off a metal detctor is not indicative of criminal activity. Metal implants and shrapnel in the body are benign reasons to set off the alarm. So is forgetfulness . . . perhaps a spare key (or a foil wrapping) in a wallet.

At Terry's stop, the court made this finding of fact.

... patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns.

That's a far cry from TSA's "standard" pat down and a whole lot furthe from their "enhanced" patdown.

ETA: TSA's mission is to prevent weapons and explosives off airplanes. "Contraband" such as drugs or cash is outside their mission scope.

 

[sam_gordon]

Actually, x ray machines as used at checkpoints do reveal plastic weapons and explosives. Xrays even reveal one pound blocks of chocolate fudge, which seems to have the same/similar xray density as semtex. (That was some fun trip! I now take my fudge out.) In the hands/eyes of a properly trained operator x rays are excellent screening devices.

Are you referring to the WTMD (I assume 'walk through metal detetor) or what your carryons go through? I didn't think anyone "looked" at results from the WTMD, that it just "alarmed" or didnt, and if it did, then the hand wands were taken out to find out where the item is. So what trips the WTMD to alarm, assuming plastic item or device?

I do give credit to TSA administrators for theeir "multi-layered approach" mantra. But they need to get protection of individual rights, including privacy into their layers.

Ah, but now we're back to the argument what exactly is a violation of rights and what isn't. That will need to be decided by the courts.

 

[CPT Tripss]

The WTMD is NOT xray, it will only detect metal. I meant the carry on xray and assumed that was what you meant.

 

[ccgirl]

I think you missed my analogies in the steps of DUI and TSA screening....

However in your analogy submitting to TSA and allowing full body scans would subject a person to potentially harmful radiation much in the same way that a breathalyzer or blood test would subject a person to herpes from unsanitary mouthpieces or AIDS from dirty needles. The bottom line is that a precedent has been set and one refusal has been given at the lower level it opens the possibility for arrest based on probable cause at which point a warrantless search can be administered. If a person has nothing to hide then why refuse a simple scan?



Not necessarily. The TSA has released some findings from John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratories which conclude that radiation from the actual imaging devices is less than 10 microrem of emission, which is about the same as the passenger will endure for every two minutes of airline travel and falls within the accepted requirements of ANSI N43.17 2002 and 2009.

Thank you for posting this again. I keep posting the same in the other threads but it seems others would like to rebute it. However, nobody has offered a scientific experiment refuting the experiment done by Johns Hopkins. I have seen a "memo" from scientists urging another study. Gee... I wonder who wants a grant. Also, it seems other countries have been using this type of machine as well. Why is there no "negative" data then?

 

[padawans]

True but would you want your ticket price to go up to get better personnel? My girlfriend is a retired nYC cop, as is her husband. I asked both of them about the TSA salary guide and she said "I make more than $15/hour working security at Yankee stadium" why would I put up with the general public for those wages?

Not defending their attutides but 15 bucks an hour is barely 30K pre tax. that is not liveable wages in NYC or Philly.

Once again, not saying that they can't do their jobs professionally and courteously and without the power trip but if we want qualified people it may help to give them an incentive to apply.

What normal person what wan't to rub there hands across others genitals no matter how much it paid?

 

[padawans]

Thank you for posting this again. I keep posting the same in the other threads but it seems others would like to rebute it. However, nobody has offered a scientific experiment refuting the experiment done by Johns Hopkins. I have seen a "memo" from scientists urging another study. Gee... I wonder who wants a grant. Also, it seems other countries have been using this type of machine as well. Why is there no "negative" data then?

If it suits there purpose they will say its safe. How many products have been pulled from the market that were found safe and then later found to not be safe?

 

[sam_gordon]

The WTMD is NOT xray, it will only detect metal. I meant the carry on xray and assumed that was what you meant.

You know what happens when you assume . Yes, I said 'x-ray', but was referring to the WTMD. I apologize. So I still point out a plastic weapon or plastic explosive secreted on the body can be "slipped through" the WTMD. Add your "puffer" to the WTMD and you take care of the explosive (unless it's hidden in a body cavity?), but how do you take care of the plastic weapon?

 

[sam_gordon]

If it suits there purpose they will say its safe. How many products have been pulled from the market that were found safe and then later found to not be safe?

I was thinking the same thing. And that is a possibility, but what other solutions are there?

 

[eliza61]

What normal person what wan't to rub there hands across others genitals no matter how much it paid?

Humm, let's see we have the fine men and women in blue who must do it. then there are the prison guards. of course there are doctors and nurses who exam us. oh I forgot the paramedics who work the city streets every day. Are you saying all these people are "not normal"?
Sorry millions of professions involve the touching of the human body. As a "normal" person I could think of lots of other jobs I would hate more than frisking some one.

And if you noticee a trend amongst these professions is that they are well "professional". they have years of extensive training "at well paid salaries". physchological and physical training. not a 2 week class room course.

some one liken them to mall cops, well the large malls near my home pay almost as much. I think security at king of prussia starts at 11 bucks an hour. not far from the 14 tsa starts out at.

You think if I'm an ex police man or college grad with a degree in criminal justice I'm really going to take that salary?