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

[FireDancer]

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

No, we need both. We definitely need to take out current procedures and make them better. We definitely need use the information available to us better. That doesn't mean you don't also look for new ways to screen out the bad guys.

Doctors are both refining and better understanding current medical procedures while at the same time trying to discover new ones. They aren't holding off on the later until the former are perfected and flawless. Airline security should be the same way. Some people work on refining the current procedures and protocols and training personnel to use the information they have available while others work on new methods to stop attempts before they happen.

To wait until someone crashes a plane in a way that would have been caught by these scanning machines in order to justify them is reactionary and is way too often how we work in all facets of security, not just with airlines. In the information security field there are people who only react to threats that are in the wild instead of being proactive and thinking of them before the bad guys.

Prevention > cure. Look for all possible ways to do the former, even if we don't see a benefit for it now. It is better than implementing it later to act as the former.

If explosives are what they are looking for, then let's look for explosives.

Explosives are only one of the things this system is looking for. It is looking for anything suspicious even if after examination it is a false positive. Yes, that solid that is in your pocket might be a pack of gum, it might be an explosive, it might be a piece of brick. If it is gum it will be checked. If it is C4 you will be detained and sure, a chemical swab could have found it. If it is a piece of brick or anything else that could be used as a weapon and not give off a chemical signature it also would be found. Heck, a solid can be smuggled in a diaper (on a baby or an adult) and if it registers should be checked. It may be disgusting but I would rather someone be disgusted than have it not be what we think it is. A terrorist wouldn't be above using such a ploy, would they?

Going with my previous argument, do them all. Have a machine that takes an image while simultaneously doing a chemical read of the air around you. No need to do only one or the other. Do everything you can. As the technology advances they can do more with less delay. There is no reason that the medal detector can't be developed to do all of this simultaneously as it advances technologically. Then, even after all of the technology is done trying to screen out the bad guys, also have people walking the airport looking for behavior. Do everything you can, not just the most obvious. Sure, we still may miss someone who manages to complete an attack but at the end of the day we know we did everything, not just some things.

 

[clovergirl5]

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.

Ok, ok....cowering down in the corner

 

[MiniGirl]

Explosives are only one of the things this system is looking for. It is looking for anything suspicious even if after examination it is a false positive. Yes, that solid that is in your pocket might be a pack of gum, it might be an explosive, it might be a piece of brick. If it is gum it will be checked. If it is C4 you will be detained and sure, a chemical swab could have found it. If it is a piece of brick or anything else that could be used as a weapon and not give off a chemical signature it also would be found. Heck, a solid can be smuggled in a diaper (on a baby or an adult) and if it registers should be checked. It may be disgusting but I would rather someone be disgusted than have it not be what we think it is. A terrorist wouldn't be above using such a ploy, would they?

Going with my previous argument, do them all. Have a machine that takes an image while simultaneously doing a chemical read of the air around you. No need to do only one or the other. Do everything you can. As the technology advances they can do more with less delay. There is no reason that the medal detector can't be developed to do all of this simultaneously as it advances technologically. Then, even after all of the technology is done trying to screen out the bad guys, also have people walking the airport looking for behavior. Do everything you can, not just the most obvious. Sure, we still may miss someone who manages to complete an attack but at the end of the day we know we did everything, not just some things.

Interesting point. I saw the photo of the news reporter who had to put a piece up paper in front of him because the scan was deemed inappropriate for the evening news w/o it. I've also seen clear outlines of belt buckles in these photos as well, and someone on this thread mentioned her body piercings. I would think that wires in bras would show up as well. So, does it show anything that is not clothing (or organic)? Will it show the huge bandage that I had to put on my dd after she fell off her scooter? Would she then be required to drop her pants to prove that it is just a bandage? What about those wearing hormone, nicotine, birth control, or motion sickness patches? If soiled diapers should be checked, would it also be appropriate to make sure that solid thing on the scan really is just an incontinence or maxi pad? I've had many people on my flights over the years with sprained knees or ankles. They would get on with ice packs held on by ace bandages. Would they need to unwrap their sprain?

I don't know if all these "solids" would show up or not. In the case of the reporter with the piece of paper though, it seems there is no way to tell what the thickness of that solid is. How do these "solids" that are worn next to the body in very private places get checked out?

 

[NotUrsula]

... Doctors are both refining and better understanding current medical procedures while at the same time trying to discover new ones. They aren't holding off on the later until the former are perfected and flawless.

No, but look at the new mammogram recommendations. They determined that the tests spew out too many false positives to be statistically reliant, so they recommended scaling back the frequency of testing. Applying the same logic ...

Going with my previous argument, do them all. Have a machine that takes an image while simultaneously doing a chemical read of the air around you. No need to do only one or the other. Do everything you can. As the technology advances they can do more with less delay. There is no reason that the metal detector can't be developed to do all of this simultaneously as it advances technologically. Then, even after all of the technology is done trying to screen out the bad guys, also have people walking the airport looking for behavior. Do everything you can, not just the most obvious. Sure, we still may miss someone who manages to complete an attack but at the end of the day we know we did everything, not just some things.

But is it worth doing everything? We will spend BILLIONS doing that, and not a single person may try to bring a bomb on board for the purpose of downing the aircraft. IMO, the probable threat just does not justify that kind of expenditure. I believe that we should use as much behavior interpretation as we can, and interdict the LIKELY weapons (and by that I meanly those likely to be SUCCESSFUL), and accept that we may not catch the truly determined.

A liquid bomb is not likely to be successful; study after study has shown that it is just too difficult and time-consuming to do that kind of chemistry in an aircraft lav. Of course, several conspirators could all bring bring 3 oz. of hydrochloric acid and some cyanide pellets if they were still really serious. You see? There's no end to it.

I FIRMLY believe that if anyone manages to bring down a major commercial airliner with a bomb now, it will be one that is placed on board by a maintainance worker or shipped in a cargo parcel. None of these hoops is going to stop that.

 

[bicker]

The bottom line is that WE CANNOT GUARANTEE SAFETY!!!!

Correct. All we can do is increase the chances of safety.

 

[DawnCt1]

There is one fact that has emerged from all of this and it is indisputable.
There really IS a Bank of Nigeria!

 

[DancingBear]

Going with my previous argument, do them all. Have a machine that takes an image while simultaneously doing a chemical read of the air around you. No need to do only one or the other. Do everything you can. As the technology advances they can do more with less delay. There is no reason that the medal detector can't be developed to do all of this simultaneously as it advances technologically. Then, even after all of the technology is done trying to screen out the bad guys, also have people walking the airport looking for behavior. Do everything you can, not just the most obvious. Sure, we still may miss someone who manages to complete an attack but at the end of the day we know we did everything, not just some things.

They blew up commuter trains in Madrid and buses and subways in London. They put a bomb in the parking garage under the World Trade Center. They attacked hotels in Mumbai. Should we impose thorough screening for all of those situations? Then again, they used truck bombs on public streets in Istanbul and in Oklahoma City, should we close down the streets?

 

[MiniGirl]

There is one fact that has emerged from all of this and it is indisputable.
There really IS a Bank of Nigeria!

LOL!!!! And to think of all the e-mails I have deleted from them. If I had just responded, I could afford to buy a private jet and bypass security altogether.

 

[DawnCt1]

They blew up commuter trains in Madrid and buses and subways in London. They put a bomb in the parking garage under the World Trade Center. They attacked hotels in Mumbai. Should we impose thorough screening for all of those situations? Then again, they used truck bombs on public streets in Istanbul and in Oklahoma City, should we close down the streets?

We may not be able to secure all of those areas, but because we can't, does that mean we shouldn't secure anything? We know that AQ has bought those high tech body scan machines and has found a way to get through them. Obviously the crotch location for the PETN was chosen for a reason. Then I heard on the news this morning that on Nov. 13, they arrested a Nigerian man attempting the exact same thing. We then come back to the question, how did this guy get on the plane given the amount of information that the CIA and State had on him?

 

[FireDancer]

There is one fact that has emerged from all of this and it is indisputable.
There really IS a Bank of Nigeria!

I was thinking the same thing. I will never get my millions now.

They blew up commuter trains in Madrid and buses and subways in London. They put a bomb in the parking garage under the World Trade Center. They attacked hotels in Mumbai. Should we impose thorough screening for all of those situations? Then again, they used truck bombs on public streets in Istanbul and in Oklahoma City, should we close down the streets?

That doesn't mean you don't implement something at an airport because you can't implement them ever where else we are vulnerable. We have metal detectors in the airport but not at the entrance of parking lots. Going by that logic we should remove all security at the airport that we can't implement everywhere else.

It might be the case that train stations are treated like airports, that is a completely different and mutually exclusive discussion.

 

[sbell111]

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.

While it is true that more could have been done, when you state that 'nothing was done', you're not being accurate.

... 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.

1) As previously explained, this equipment doesn't violate your so-called right to privacy for a few reasons. The simplest being that even if they scanned 100% of airline travelers, you still would not be required to be scanned. Also, your privacy isn't being violated because no one who sees the image can connect it with you. It is 'private'.

2) This equipment could have stopped the most recent attempt.

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.

Wow. I'm sorry but you sound just a bit paranoid. What is it that you think that they could do with this image?

None of the attacks would have been stopped by it.

Pssst. This most recent attempt could have been stopped by this equipment. Heck, 9/11 might have been stopped by this.

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

The screeners are actually trained to check for these things.

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

That would certainly be true, except for the fact that this equipment does actually enhance security.

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

The UK pulled his visa because he used a school name that didn't qualify (or was fictitious, there are conflicting reports). Perhaps he did a better job at completing the US visa application. Perhaps he learned from his mistake.

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

Objection. Facts not in evidence.

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

Paying cash and not checking luggage does not mean that you can't fly. The only 'flags' that this would raise is that he might be selected for additional screening. He might be patted down. Of course, the very reason that they hid the materials how they did is to beat this security measure.

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.

You are mistaken. The regulations would only require that he receive additional screening at the checkpoint, which for all I know he received.

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.

Since flying is not a right, All screenings at the airport are voluntary. No warrant (or probable cause) is needed.

There are other doors on the plane.

Those doors cannot be opened when the cabin is pressurized.

 

[sbell111]

... We know that AQ has bought those high tech body scan machines and has found a way to get through them.

I don't agree that we 'know' this. I have yet to see a credible source verify this information. Also, their having access to the technology would not be a valid reason for not using the technology.

Obviously the crotch location for the PETN was chosen for a reason.

The crotch location was obviously chosen to beat a pat down, It has been confirmed that this method of smuggling the PETN would have been defeated by the body scan equipment.

 

[DawnCt1]

While it is true that more could have been done, when you state that 'nothing was done', you're not being accurate.

I heard today that someone was arrested attempting the same thing out of Nigeria on November 13. Then we hear that this father repeatedly tried to warn authorities about his son. Yet, he was allowed to get on the plane. I don't know what you think was done? Nothing was done to prevent this.

I don't agree that we 'know' this. I have yet to see a credible source verify this information. Also, their having access to the technology would not be a valid reason for not using the technology.

The crotch location was obviously chosen to beat a pat down, It has been confirmed that this method of smuggling the PETN would have been defeated by the body scan equipment.

I don't know what credible information you need. If you don't think that AQ has the money, and ultimately the means to secure the equipment they need to circumvent security, you are mistaken.

 

[sbell111]

I heard today that someone was arrested attempting the same thing out of Nigeria on November 13. Then we hear that this father repeatedly tried to warn authorities about his son. Yet, he was allowed to get on the plane. I don't know what you think was done? Nothing was done to prevent this.

I don't know what conclusions you are trying to draw from these disparate facts.

Are you trying to argue that because this didn't work in Nigeria in November that it must work in the Netherlands in December? Is it a big shocker that Nigerian and Dutch security apparatuses are not in close communication?

Also, is it your opinion that the authorities should have known that that man's son was going to be a crotch bomber? Couldn't it be just as easily true that his son turned out to not ever try to take down a plane through the use of an exploding crotch?

I don't know what credible information you need.

Any credible information would be a good start.

If you don't think that AQ has the money, and ultimately the means to secure the equipment they need to circumvent security, you are mistaken.

1. This body scanning device is not something that you can go down to the local True Value store and buy.
2. If Al-Qaeda did purchase such a device, it would be unbelievably simple to prove. Yet no proof has been shown.
3. Their purchase of the device would actually aid the authorities in tracking them down, since there would be clear trails to follow.
4. Owning such a device would not render all such devices useless.

 

[DancingBear]

We may not be able to secure all of those areas, but because we can't, does that mean we shouldn't secure anything?

No, but the point is that we already draw lines about how far we should go. So the "we should do everything we can" approach just isn't realistic.

We then come back to the question, how did this guy get on the plane given the amount of information that the CIA and State had on him?

Absolutely right. My understanding is that the Israelis (who have a bit of experience with this sort of thing) have always relied more on intel and observation than on machine screening.

 

[DancingBear]

That doesn't mean you don't implement something at an airport because you can't implement them ever where else we are vulnerable. We have metal detectors in the airport but not at the entrance of parking lots. Going by that logic we should remove all security at the airport that we can't implement everywhere else.

Not at all. Again, I'm just saying the idea of "we should do everything we can" isn't feasible. We should make sensible choices that balance the impact on our time, freedom, budgets, etc. with the marginal safety benefit. And keeping in mind that if we make airplanes and airports impregnable there will still be other targets.

It might be the case that train stations are treated like airports, that is a completely different and mutually exclusive discussion.

I don't think it is separate, for the reason stated above. Why go to the Nth degree to protect one specific target if our overall safety is not significantly improved? Perhaps given limited resources, patience, etc. we should be focusing in different areas (like improving how intel is collected, shared, processed and applied on the ground).

Edited to add: Also have you ever seen where Amtrak picks up out in rural America? There are places where they just stop next to a concrete pad, no kind of station around.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Interesting point. I saw the photo of the news reporter who had to put a piece up paper in front of him because the scan was deemed inappropriate for the evening news w/o it. I've also seen clear outlines of belt buckles in these photos as well, and someone on this thread mentioned her body piercings. I would think that wires in bras would show up as well. So, does it show anything that is not clothing (or organic)?

What does it show besides solids? Every bulge, every roll, and cup sizes for both men and women.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/airport_xray_scanner.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/TSA-body-scanner.jpg

http://notesfromthebartender.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/rapi_scan_lg.jpg

The fact that you can see the bones in the man's legs in the last photo makes me wonder about the cumulative health effects of these devices on the human body. We may find out in 20 or 30 years that we killed way more people than we saved with these intrusive things. And the sad thing is that we did it to ourselves because of our own irrational fears.

Oh, and for those who say that no images of people would be recorded to get out on the internet, please note where I got these images.

1) As previously explained, this equipment doesn't violate your so-called right to privacy for a few reasons. The simplest being that even if they scanned 100% of airline travelers, you still would not be required to be scanned. Also, your privacy isn't being violated because no one who sees the image can connect it with you. It is 'private'.

No. It is not. And I'm not ready or willing for some stranger to be taking naked pictures of me in order to prove I'm not carrying a weapon. Heck, I'm not ready for my own husband to be taking naked pictures of me.

2) This equipment could have stopped the most recent attempt.

Maybe it could, maybe it couldn't. Many things could have stopped this bozo from lighting his lap on fire: a better life, maybe some common sense, diligent screening by the two airports he was in previous to this leg of his journey, having him on a firm no-fly list, the bathroom being occupied when he went in to ready the liquid, the plane being too iced to fly, an act of God, etc, etc, etc.

Not at all. Again, I'm just saying the idea of "we should do everything we can" isn't feasible. We should make sensible choices that balance the impact on our time, freedom, budgets, etc. with the marginal safety benefit. And keeping in mind that if we make airplanes and airports impregnable there will still be other targets.

I don't think it is separate, for the reason stated above. Why go to the Nth degree to protect one specific target if our overall safety is not significantly improved?

Exactly. We're talking about depriving American citizens of their civil right to be able to choose who gets to see them naked; a very basic right. Not only that, if I were a frequent flyer who went through this device once or twice a week for years, I'd have to wonder what that kind of radiation was doing to my body in the long run.

But I guess as long as the fearful sheeple (who probably don't fly very often at all) can feel safe, it's supposed to be worth it? At least until the next "terrorist attack" gets blasted all over their TV screen and instructs them to start panicking about the safety of ....oh I don't know, dog sled races in Wisconsin, elevator bombs in Bismarck, ND or the infamous Fourth of July Parade or Halloween attacks that will happen because "they hate us for our freedom".

 

[FireDancer]

We're talking about depriving American citizens of their civil right to be able to choose who gets to see them naked; a very basic right.

That is an exaggeration. The scan is not the same as being seen naked. Even going with the notion that being scanned is the same as a full color naked photograph you have complete control over whether or not you are scanned by choosing how you do your traveling. There is an alternative to air travel no matter where you go on the planet Earth. Flying might be the most convenient but that convenience will come at the price of a scan if they are implemented at all airports. Feel free to exercise your basic right of choice in that regard.

 

[bicker]

Air travel is not a right. It's a privilege. There are many "civil rights" that are abridged if you choose to patronize the airline transportation offerings.

 

[mariolatry]

What does it show besides solids? Every bulge, every roll, and cup sizes for both men and women.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/airport_xray_scanner.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/TSA-body-scanner.jpg

http://notesfromthebartender.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/rapi_scan_lg.jpg

Holy cow!! I had no idea how much "naked" the "naked X-ray scan" referred to!! I guess I should've assumed it but now I'm really freaked out!