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

[MiniGirl]

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.

I believe it was also a one way ticket as well. I mean was there a red flag that was NOT raised. He should've never even made it to security -- much less through security and on to a plane. Once again if the regs that are already in place would've been followed, it wouldn't have happened.

 

[crz4mm2]

It's not like they are showing the pics to the other passengers.
I think if it makes me safer, I am ALL for it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I believe it was also a one way ticket as well. I mean was there a red flag that was NOT raised. He should've never even made it to security -- much less through security and on to a plane. Once again if the regs that are already in place would've been followed, it wouldn't have happened.

While it should have flagged him, his replacement would have just bought a RT ticket to avoid that flag.

 

[MiniGirl]

While it should have flagged him, his replacement would have just bought a RT ticket to avoid that flag.

Perhaps, but that really is beside the point, isn't it? He raised every red flag in the book. If there are guidelines in place, shouldn't we try following them first before we declare that more security is needed?

I have also enjoyed the discussion about this man being a enemy combatant as opposed to a criminal, and what his attorney would claim, etc. It raises another question about the scanners. I would think there has to be a way to save or upload these images to another computer to be saved. It would be a crucial piece of evidence in a trial. Otherwise the defense could claim profiling or misidentification or any number of things. Even if he was found with the stuff on him, there would need to be a way to show the further search was warranted.

 

[AndyLL]

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.

Sorry. You are mixing old procedures with the new. That's what happened in 9/11. Today the cockpit door will not be opened in that case because they know the goal is likely to crash the plane. The passengers would not allow it these days even if the flight crew would.

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

You just made my point. You could strip search everyone and there would still be ways to get exposive chemicals on a plane.

That's why it is time to quit worrying about trying to get 100% perfect screening on every passenger and start trying to use all the information we have on all these extremists and single them out for the extra screening.

In both cases ( this and the shoe bomber) airline data alone should have raised red flags. ( cash and no luggage for international flights).

In both cases they were on the watch list.

We don't need better screening of everyone... we need better use of the already collected data.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Perhaps, but that really is beside the point, isn't it? He raised every red flag in the book. If there are guidelines in place, shouldn't we try following them first before we declare that more security is needed?

I have also enjoyed the discussion about this man being a enemy combatant as opposed to a criminal, and what his attorney would claim, etc. It raises another question about the scanners. I would think there has to be a way to save or upload these images to another computer to be saved. It would be a crucial piece of evidence in a trial. Otherwise the defense could claim profiling or misidentification or any number of things. Even if he was found with the stuff on him, there would need to be a way to show the further search was warranted.

Hmmm....

Well--everyone should follow the rules, so thus no security is needed to make sure they follow them. I guess I do not follow that logic at all.

I do feel we need to stop being reactionary--but we really aren't since the scanners in question have been in testing for several years, right now.

They don't need a photograph of anything to prove they had cause for search at all. Plus everything is videotaped--so once he went through the nekkid scanner, and they saw something questionable and went to seek it out further...I'm not sure it would be much of a defense to say it was planted.

Further searches in the airport are never really warranted. They can hold you up, plain and simple. I already know that when I go through security. I can cry that they searched my bag or had to pet me down when I set off some type of concern.

Even the whacky crazy lady who posted a diatribe on a blog about how awful she was treated in security--they were able to pull the complete tapes of her security process. So the process isn't completely without documentation.

I don't think a copy of a nekkid scan is all that critical. I mean...the guys undies were all stitched up--he wasn't nekkid scanned, but yet his undies are still evidence without a nekkid photo.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Sorry. You are mixing old procedures with the new. That's what happened in 9/11. Today the cockpit door will not be opened in that case because they know the goal is likely to crash the plane. The passengers would not allow it these days even if the flight crew would.

There are other doors on the plane.

No need to crash a plane to kill people.

 

[Wall-E1]

One thing that hasn't been discussed are the screeners that are assigned to the job of looking at these x-rays all day. I really feel for them. They have to look at crack for eight hours a day. That's not a job I would want. So, lets give them a thumbs up when we see these brave men and women who are protecting America by viewing our cracks.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You just made my point. You could strip search everyone and there would still be ways to get exposive chemicals on a plane.

So we shouldn't screen for them at all?

What does that do?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

One thing that hasn't been discussed are the screeners that are assigned to the job of looking at these x-rays all day. I really feel for them. They have to look at crack for eight hours a day. That's not a job I would want. So, lets give them a thumbs up when we see these brave men and women who are protecting America by viewing our cracks.

I thought they rotated?

I've actually seen them switch positions at the airport.

 

[LisaR]

That's why it is time to quit worrying about trying to get 100% perfect screening on every passenger and start trying to use all the information we have on all these extremists and single them out for the extra screening.

Why can't we do it all? As you state, we will never get it right 100% of the time. Why not have body scans or anything else that *might* offer that extra level of protection when people fall asleep on the job?

I do agree that this latest attempt was easily preventable. So was 9-11. We have a system in place that should prevent these things from happening but they aren't working. We need to fix them quickly.

 

[MiniGirl]

Hmmm....

Well--everyone should follow the rules, so thus no security is needed to make sure they follow them. I guess I do not follow that logic at all.

I do feel we need to stop being reactionary--but we really aren't since the scanners in question have been in testing for several years, right now.

They don't need a photograph of anything to prove they had cause for search at all. Plus everything is videotaped--so once he went through the nekkid scanner, and they saw something questionable and went to seek it out further...I'm not sure it would be much of a defense to say it was planted.

Further searches in the airport are never really warranted. They can hold you up, plain and simple. I already know that when I go through security. I can cry that they searched my bag or had to pet me down when I set off some type of concern.

Even the whacky crazy lady who posted a diatribe on a blog about how awful she was treated in security--they were able to pull the complete tapes of her security process. So the process isn't completely without documentation.

I don't think a copy of a nekkid scan is all that critical. I mean...the guys undies were all stitched up--he wasn't nekkid scanned, but yet his undies are still evidence without a nekkid photo.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't talking about passengers following procedures. I'm talking about the airline and airport personnel. They have procedures in place. If they had followed them, this man would not have been allowed on the plane.

I also don't understand when you say further searches are never warranted. Certainly they are. It happens all the time. Currently, if you set off the machine, you are searched again. With this system, if something shows up on a scan that is suspicious, you will be searched.

Yes, his undies are still evidence, but we have all seen or heard of cases in which crucial evidence was thrown out because it was obtained illegally. Unless prosecutors could prove the search was warranted, a defense attorney would argue to have the evidence thrown out. I would think there would have to be a way to show what was on the scan.

Oh and about the doors.... they are designed so that they cannot be opened during the flight. I was actually working a flight and heard a "pop" right around my galley door. The handle on the outside of the airplane had popped up and in the "open" position. I went up to tell the cockpit and they were not the least bit worried. It has to do with the door actually being larger on the inside of the plane than the outside. It can only be opened after the cabin has been depressurized.

 

[AndyLL]

Why can't we do it all? As you state, we will never get it right 100% of the time. Why not have body scans or anything else that *might* offer that extra level of protection when people fall asleep on the job?

False security is the not same as better security and in some ways hurts security.

The weak link is the carry on items and the x-ray machine tied to humans trying to detect illegal items amoung 1000s of valid items.

Money for security is finite and is better off being spent on machines to detect explosive devices as opposed to a machine that like the x-ray machine relies on humans to detect hidden items. (poorly paid ones at that)

BTW... congress tried to hugely increase TSA spending this year including funding for explosive powder devices and most of it was stripped. HR 2892 for those that want to see how their congress people voted on it.

I do agree that this latest attempt was easily preventable. So was 9-11. We have a system in place that should prevent these things from happening but they aren't working. We need to fix them quickly.

I agree. Fix the current system before trying to change it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I also don't understand when you say further searches are never warranted. Certainly they are. It happens all the time. Currently, if you set off the machine, you are searched again. With this system, if something shows up on a scan that is suspicious, you will be searched.

Misspoke/mistyped--

Agree with what you say.

Meant to say/imply that a warrant or proof for further seach is not needed. If they find something, you have no "defense" that says your rights were violated.

 

[mhsjax]

Hmmm....

Well--everyone should follow the rules, so thus no security is needed to make sure they follow them. I guess I do not follow that logic at all.

I do feel we need to stop being reactionary--but we really aren't since the scanners in question have been in testing for several years, right now.

They don't need a photograph of anything to prove they had cause for search at all. Plus everything is videotaped--so once he went through the nekkid scanner, and they saw something questionable and went to seek it out further...I'm not sure it would be much of a defense to say it was planted.

Further searches in the airport are never really warranted. They can hold you up, plain and simple. I already know that when I go through security. I can cry that they searched my bag or had to pet me down when I set off some type of concern.

Even the whacky crazy lady who posted a diatribe on a blog about how awful she was treated in security--they were able to pull the complete tapes of her security process. So the process isn't completely without documentation.

I don't think a copy of a nekkid scan is all that critical. I mean...the guys undies were all stitched up--he wasn't nekkid scanned, but yet his undies are still evidence without a nekkid photo.

Now come on, I see you live in the south. YOu have to know that Naked is when you are without clothes and nekkid is without clothes and doing something you are not supposed to. lol Thought I would add a little humor to this.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Oh and about the doors.... they are designed so that they cannot be opened during the flight. I was actually working a flight and heard a "pop" right around my galley door. The handle on the outside of the airplane had popped up and in the "open" position. I went up to tell the cockpit and they were not the least bit worried. It has to do with the door actually being larger on the inside of the plane than the outside. It can only be opened after the cabin has been depressurized.

Had not considered that...interesting.


Which is why screening for guns and anything that can cause an explosion is important. One hole/small breech is all it takes. to cause this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Now that was a series of failures/maintenance issues--but something that this small explosion could have caused if it went off as intended.

I'd much prefer measures in place to stop such people from successfully getting through security in the event red flags are ignored or in the event it is someone how is a first time psychopath.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Now come on, I see you live in the south. YOu have to know that Naked is when you are without clothes and nekkid is without clothes and doing something you are not supposed to. lol Thought I would add a little humor to this.

My momma done me wrong.

 

[TDC Nala]

IF it will prevent some other idiot trying to blow up their pants in midflight I'm all for it.

 

[bicker]

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

Incorrect. Reducing the chances of something bad is of value.

 

[NotUrsula]

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!

The Reagan Building is a federal office building. ALL of them now have security gates, thanks to Timothy McVeigh.

As to the scanners, no, they won't stop a determined person. They will just change tactics. They used box cutters when box cutters would go through, they tried explosives when explosives could get through ... they will try something else if they change the rules again. We cannot keep piling on more rules in a vain attempt to stop these folks, because it won't work, and it will drive everyone else insane and get a lot of innocent people humiliated for no reason. (What happens to Granny who is wearing Depends and needs to get to a bathroom when she passes that scanner? A solid is a solid; it will register. Same with your baby's diaper.) Even a pat-down would not have worked, because even in a pat-down they won't touch the crotch.

If explosives are what they are looking for, then let's look for explosives. You don't do that by the appearance of it, you do it with a chemical signature. I don't believe for a minute that there is no way to do it by passing your hands and shoes over some kind of test surface. There is no way that someone carrying that kind of load won't be sweating; swab for it, and bring on the beagles. But not everyone needs that kind of scrutiny most of the time.

Everyone mentions the Israelis -- their system works because it has nothing to do with what race/nationality you appear to be (a LOT of Israelis look like a LOT of Arabs ; they come from the same part of the world, after all.) It works because they are looking for behaviors. The problem is that Israel only has one international airport, with only a small number of flights in and out. Try the same system at JFK and you would need 3000 trained officers and at least a couple of hundred dogs just for that one location.

The bottom line is that WE CANNOT GUARANTEE SAFETY!!!! You choose to fly, you choose to take a risk; it is as simple as that.