"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[shrubber]

Apparently these explosives were sewn into the crotch of his underwear. 80 grams is not a lot of material but more than enough to bring down a plane. "Success" was thwarted because the plastic syringe melted. A glass syringe may have made the difference. Considering where the material was, I wonder if the full body scan would have seen 80 grams of explosives. We need a multifaceted approach that includes detection with dogs, etc. We also need to focus on finding the bomber, not just the bomb. Profiling behavior and likely suspects should be part of the security in every airport. It isn't.

As a man I beg to differ...80 grams is more than enough material in my underwear

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Original post:

personally, I think it is long overdue! I know some airports have them, but on GMA they are talking about putting more in place. Then there is the privacy issues. Again, I rather feel safer flying then caring about what is on a scanner!

your thoughts?

I don't think you can do compare the "feel good" silly check that WDW does, compared to actual screening. Sometimes I think that Disney is just looking for a smuggled lunch.

It is interesting that you say that our intelligence organizations didn't do their job. It seems to me that the STATE Dept. didn't do their job. The US embassy was notified by the guy's father. That information should have gone to STATE. What happened? Perhaps the same thing that happened with the Ft. Hood shooter. We can scrutinize a certain demographic. It wouldn't be nice. Furthermore, I am hearing that he may not have had a passport and was assisted in flying to the US without one. What is up with that? When our special ops and CIA agents do do their jobs, they get to stand trial. Note the 3 Navy Seals on trial now. In the meantime, this guy won't be interrogated. His defense lawyer will limit that.

I think bringing in a political rant (aren't those forbidden) about how the government is working is relevant to the original question of how one feels about body scanners in airports.

Now that the thread has been neatly twisted into a political commentary, I predict this thread will be closed in

5

4

3

2

1

 

[Mickey's Minion]

As a man I beg to differ...80 grams is more than enough material in my underwear

 

[sbell111]

Apparently these explosives were sewn into the crotch of his underwear. 80 grams is not a lot of material but more than enough to bring down a plane. ... Considering where the material was, I wonder if the full body scan would have seen 80 grams of explosives. ...

80 grams of PETN is about half a cup. According to the talking heads, this scanner should have been able to image that amount, if it was in place at the outbound airport.

I don't think you can do compare the "feel good" silly check that WDW does, compared to actual screening. Sometimes I think that Disney is just looking for a smuggled lunch.

Disney allows lunch to be brought in. Mostly, I think that they are looking for firearms and booze.

It is interesting that you say that our intelligence organizations didn't do their job. It seems to me that the STATE Dept. didn't do their job. The US embassy was notified by the guy's father. That information should have gone to STATE. What happened?

The problem is, each instance has to be investigated to determine whether the individual is a credible threat. Sometimes, the decision is easy and the person is immediately added to all the various watch lists. Sometimes, the danger is not as evident and it takes longer.

It's easy for us to sit in the cheap seats and second guess those that make these decisions.

Perhaps the same thing that happened with the Ft. Hood shooter. We can scrutinize a certain demographic. It wouldn't be nice. Furthermore, I am hearing that he may not have had a passport and was assisted in flying to the US without one. What is up with that? When our special ops and CIA agents do do their jobs, they get to stand trial. Note the 3 Navy Seals on trial now.

Regarding the unbolded bit, Huh?

Regarding the bolded bit, I'm not buying it. He was issued a visa. Therefore, he had a passport. Every report that I have seen regarding 'no passport' attributes this information to two passengers in the flight. I don't believe taht two random passengers would be privy to this information, even if it was true, which it obviously is not.

In the meantime, this guy won't be interrogated. His defense lawyer will limit that.

First, it isn't his lawyer that will keep him from being interrogated, it's our legal system. Something tells me that if you were arrested, you would be really happy that these protections existed.

 

[DawnCt1]

Original post:




I think bringing in a political rant (aren't those forbidden) about how the government is working is relevant to the original question of how one feels about body scanners in airports.

Now that the thread has been neatly twisted into a political commentary, I predict this thread will be closed in

5

4

3

2

1

I don't quite see how stating a fact, that the father notified the state department that his son had become radicalized and nothing was done; such as putting him on the no fly list, becomes "political commentary". It is what happened.

 

[mhsjax]

Apparently these explosives were sewn into the crotch of his underwear. 80 grams is not a lot of material but more than enough to bring down a plane. "Success" was thwarted because the plastic syringe melted. A glass syringe may have made the difference. Considering where the material was, I wonder if the full body scan would have seen 80 grams of explosives. We need a multifaceted approach that includes detection with dogs, etc. We also need to focus on finding the bomber, not just the bomb. Profiling behavior and likely suspects should be part of the security in every airport. It isn't.

That is because profiling is wrong, but using body scans isn't. That is what gets me, profiling not PC but it is ok to get faded images of a everyones naked body. Also a report I read said that liquids are not easily identifiable.

For what its worth, I have no problem with profiling, if it was a blond white girl that destroyed the twin towers, I would expect to be profiled.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I find it odd that you don't realize the danger of an explosive on an airplane. While the guy was an idiot who couldn't get it to work right, those people were endangered by his actions.

Yeah, I saw one of those endangered people interviewed on my local news last night. He sat 10 rows back from the "mad bomber" and didn't know anything was going on until he saw a stewardess run past him.

Apparently he took his headphones off, asked the people around him if something was going on, someone else said, "I don't know - maybe someone had a heart attack", then he put his headphones back on and didn't really know anything had happened until he was detained at the airport once the flight landed.

I refuse to read anything else into it. First person account, not a huge deal, end of story. At least for sane people.

Look, I'm not saying do nothing. To all those people trying to put those words in my mouth, sorry....not going to accept them. I feel the regs we have now in the US are sufficient - they just need to be consistently enforced. But I do take issue with taking away my right to privacy with the scanner that scanned 99% innocent people and probably won't do anything to stop any future mad bombers. There's more the government can do with OUR data than with any terrorist's data, which is why I don't want to surrender anything more than what we've already lost.

 

[DawnCt1]

Disney allows lunch to be brought in.Mostly, I think that they are looking for firearms and booze.

If they were serious, they wouldn't have a line for those without a bag. I carry my stuff in a surf safe around my neck and walk right in without a security check. It would be easy enough to hide anything under a sweatshirt or in pockets.

The problem is, each instance has to be investigated to determine whether the individual is a credible threat. Sometimes, the decision is easy and the person is immediately added to all the various watch lists. Sometimes, the danger is not as evident and it takes longer.

A father who states that his son is a clear and present danger is a credible source. Put him on a no fly list until he demonstrates he doesn't need to be. They have found out enough about this guy in the last couple of days, so an investigation would not have taken that long.

It's easy for us to sit in the cheap seats and second guess those that make these decisions.Regarding the unbolded bit, Huh?

I don't regard my seat as cheap, nor any other American. We are all taxpayers.

Regarding the bolded bit, I'm not buying it. He was issued a visa. Therefore, he had a passport. Every report that I have seen regarding 'no passport' attributes this information to two passengers in the flight. I don't believe taht two random passengers would be privy to this information, even if it was true, which it obviously is not.First, it isn't his lawyer that will keep him from being interrogated, it's our legal system. Something tells me that if you were arrested, you would be really happy that these protections existed.

I don't think he should be considered a "defendant". An illegal combatant sounds about right to me. He should be sent to Gitmo along with the other illegal combatants. The fact is, radical islam has declared war on the United States and the West. I don't see this as a "criminal matter".

 

[shrubber]

I don't think he should be considered a "defendant". An illegal combatant sounds about right to me. He should be sent to Gitmo along with the other illegal combatants. The fact is, radical islam has declared war on the United States and the West. I don't see this as a "criminal matter".

Precisely.
The premise here is all backwards. We are not dealing with how prevent crime aboard aircraft.
We are dealing, or rather should be dealing with, how to destroy the enemy.
We are at war ya know people.

 

[FireDancer]

I think bringing in a political rant (aren't those forbidden) about how the government is working is relevant to the original question of how one feels about body scanners in airports.

I don't see her post as political. It is about how a threat was or wasn't investigated. That is a police matter, even if the police force in question is the CIA or State Dept.

First, it isn't his lawyer that will keep him from being interrogated, it's our legal system. Something tells me that if you were arrested, you would be really happy that these protections existed.

I don't see him as a defendant but as an enemy combatant.

 

[AndyLL]

I don't think you can do compare the "feel good" silly check that WDW does, compared to actual screening. Sometimes I think that Disney is just looking for a smuggled lunch.

Full body scans provide no additional security. The type of items he brought onto the plane could go through the x-ray machine. Therefore they are comparable to the 'feel good' security at disney.

Preventing liquides over 3 ozs provides no additional security. Same thing.

No allowing access to bathrooms, books, electronics, overheads, books, flight maps, blankets, ect... provides no additional security.

Just things to make people feel safer.

Explosive detecting machines and dogs... yes.

Ban all electronics on a plane... yes.

Ban almost all carry-ons... yes.

Trained security on all flights... yes.

But the Gov't won't do all this because it affects business and is expensive.

It is interesting that you say that our intelligence organizations didn't do their job. It seems to me that the STATE Dept. didn't do their job. The US embassy was notified by the guy's father. That information should have gone to STATE. What happened? Perhaps the same thing that happened with the Ft. Hood shooter. We can scrutinize a certain demographic. It wouldn't be nice. Furthermore, I am hearing that he may not have had a passport and was assisted in flying to the US without one. What is up with that? When our special ops and CIA agents do do their jobs, they get to stand trial. Note the 3 Navy Seals on trial now. In the meantime, this guy won't be interrogated. His defense lawyer will limit that.

State Dept has nothing to do with it. Homeland security maintains the no-fly list and corridinates the intelligence agencies that are supposed to piece together all the red flags.

 

[DawnCt1]

Full body scans provide no additional security. The type of items he brought onto the plane could go through the x-ray machine. Therefore they are comparable to the 'feel good' security at disney.

Preventing liquides over 3 ozs provides no additional security. Same thing.

No allowing access to bathrooms, books, electronics, overheads, books, flight maps, blankets, ect... provides no additional security.

Just things to make people feel safer.

Explosive detecting machines and dogs... yes.

Ban all electronics on a plane... yes.

Ban almost all carry-ons... yes.

Trained security on all flights... yes.

But the Gov't won't do all this because it affects business and is expensive.



State Dept has nothing to do with it. Homeland security maintains the no-fly list and corridinates the intelligence agencies that are supposed to piece together all the red flags.

The State Dept. is in charge of the Embassies. The State Dept. can pull his visa. The State dept can and should have notified DHS.
With regard to banning almost all carry-ons, and electronics, again, it is the flying and paying public who gets punished because we won't profile. While we need to use the technology that is available to keep us safe, the focus needs to be on "bombers", not just "bombs".

 

[FireDancer]

Full body scans provide no additional security. The type of items he brought onto the plane could go through the x-ray machine. Therefore they are comparable to the 'feel good' security at disney.

That isn't really true. Sure, maybe this particular attack wouldn't have been stopped by the machines but anyone carrying non-metallic weapon in a pocket would be thwarted by it. No one in their right mind will claim that the machine will stop all possible attacks but it will stop some types of attacks in the same way a metal detector can stop some types of attacks. They are all one part of the overall whole.

Wearing a seat belt won't stop all road deaths. Neither will crash cages, airbags, anti-lock brakes, or crumple zones. They all work together though to cut down on the total number of road fatalities. The same goes for most of the security measures. They all work together to cut down on some types of attacks, though not all of them. There is a lot more that needs done, training and consistency among the TSA agents is definitely needed. To hold off on the practical for the ideal just keeps anything from getting done.

 

[NatashaDisneyCM]

That isn't really true. Sure, maybe this particular attack wouldn't have been stopped by the machines but anyone carrying non-metallic weapon in a pocket would be thwarted by it. No one in their right mind will claim that the machine will stop all possible attacks but it will stop some types of attacks in the same way a metal detector can stop some types of attacks. They are all one part of the overall whole.

Wearing a seat belt won't stop all road deaths. Neither will crash cages, airbags, anti-lock brakes, or crumple zones. They all work together though to cut down on the total number of road fatalities. The same goes for most of the security measures. They all work together to cut down on some types of attacks, though not all of them. There is a lot more that needs done, training and consistency among the TSA agents is definitely needed. To hold off on the practical for the ideal just keeps anything from getting done.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yeah, I saw one of those endangered people interviewed on my local news last night. He sat 10 rows back from the "mad bomber" and didn't know anything was going on until he saw a stewardess run past him.

Apparently he took his headphones off, asked the people around him if something was going on, someone else said, "I don't know - maybe someone had a heart attack", then he put his headphones back on and didn't really know anything had happened until he was detained at the airport once the flight landed.

I refuse to read anything else into it. First person account, not a huge deal, end of story. At least for sane people.

Whether or not the passengers realized they were endangered--is moot.

Being cognizant of the danger, doesn't make it any more or less dangerous. He had the capacity to tear a hole in the side of the plane. Which in turn can cause death and serious injury and impair the planes ability to fly.

I'm not sure why you are offended by people pointing out the flaw in your viewpoint that this was not a dangerous incident. Passengers ignorance of a problem doesn't make it safe.

 

[AndyLL]

That isn't really true. Sure, maybe this particular attack wouldn't have been stopped by the machines but anyone carrying non-metallic weapon in a pocket would be thwarted by it. No one in their right mind will claim that the machine will stop all possible attacks but it will stop some types of attacks in the same way a metal detector can stop some types of attacks. They are all one part of the overall whole.

None of the attacks would have been stopped by it. Individual weapons are not the threat on airplanes now because of the changed cockpit security and procedures.

Explosives are. Individual parts of bombs can be easily disgised as liquids, powders and electronics and sent through the x-ray machine.

Wasting millions of dollars and inconvencing all passengers to make them think that security has been enhanced is a waste.

I'd be spending my time trying to figure out why the UK pulled his visa but the USA didn't.

Why he was put on the watch list but no extra screening was done.

Why he was able to pay cash for an international flight and checkin with no luggage without raising any red flags.

 

[C.Ann]

My only concern is "time".. Would it make the process of going through security a lot longer - thereby causing people to miss connecting flights and such?

I haven't got anything anyone would want to see anyhow, so that's not an issue for me..

 

[FireDancer]

None of the attacks would have been stopped by it. Individual weapons are not the threat on airplanes now because of the changed cockpit security and procedures.

Explosives are. Individual parts of bombs can be easily disgised as liquids, powders and electronics and sent through the x-ray machine.

No attack in the history of aviation could have been prevented by these machines? I find that hard to believe.

If I try to board a plan with liquid explosives hidden inside a pocket in my cargo pants this machine will see the hidden container. It is the up to the TSA agent to inspect the container to determine it's contents. It may not flash a big red light on the container saying "Hey, constitute part of an explosive device over here" but it sure could make the container seen. At that point it is up to the TSA to determine what it is and confiscate it or detain the passenger. This is precisely what I meant but the machine being one part of the overall picture. In this case the TSA is another part.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

None of the attacks would have been stopped by it. Individual weapons are not the threat on airplanes now because of the changed cockpit security and procedures.

Unless airplanes just became 100% bulletproof, individaul weapons such as a gun, could be a problem. Others could as well--b/c with a knife, you can take the cabin crew hostage and open a door.

It is blindness like this that fails to see the creativity in getting around any system to cause a problem.

Just b/c the cockpit is sealed off, doesn't make individual weapons useless.

And while I would do my best as requested to subdue a passenger about to do something....I'm not exactly the strongest chick on the plane and my kids of course couldn't subdue a mouse.

 

[clovergirl5]

MTE! Thank you Carly for expressing these ideas far more eloquently than I could have. These scanners have been in use since at least 2000, when I took a group of students to Europe, they were in use at Newark airport. No, we weren't subjected to it, but I remember reading about it. And the original scan was FAR more detailed than the ones they're talking about now.

Folks, don't get your tinsel in a tangle over this. This country needs to pay far more attention to security on trains, busses, subways, etc.

We were in DC the summer they raised the terror alert for DC, NYC and Jersey, I think the summer of '04. I expected to see security all over the place, uzi's and maching guns on top of buildings, pat downs on the metro, tanks guarding important streets. Instead, we saw nothing, nada, zilch. Seriously, as much as I disliked bush 43, I didn't want anything to happen to him or our nation's capital.

I mean geez, there are so many ways they can hit us, and naked scanners in airports won't do diddly-squat.

We were in D.C. in Sept. of 2008 and dd had to use the restroom while we were walking along outside. We stopped in one of info centers, I don't remember which one, but I remember it had Reagan's name in it...anyways, the woman gaurd there would not let us in to go unless I showed her my drivers license. For gods sake, dd just had to pee! She would not let us in and we didn't want to go thru the security line because we weren't staying! I had left my drivers license in our vehicle way away from were we were which was probably a dumb idea, I didn't think I would need to show it to pee! We ended up down the stairs to a subway restaurant and they were happy to let us pee!