"New" TSA screening (Page 3)

lisac957 - 2010-01-07 9:51 AM



Someone else posted the more accurate version (with the privacy filters) of what the TSA employees would see in a link - this is directly from the TSA web site:



There is no way anyone would be able to identify who this person was.
Are we really concerned about images like this?
 

KSH - 2010-01-07 10:21 AM THAT chalk image I am not concerned with. To which I have to ask... what's the point? To see a lump? And that lump might be explosives? But many Americans will be. There are tons of people out there who won't even undress in front of their spouses.

KSH - 2010-01-07 11:21 AM  THAT chalk image I am not concerned with. To which I have to ask... what's the point? To see a lump? And that lump might be explosives? But many Americans will be. There are tons of people out there who won't even undress in front of their spouses.

WelshinPhilly -

Then they'll need to deal with that insecurity if they want to fly.

Passengers' safety shouldn't need to be compromised because somebody else has a self-esteem issue.

Comet - 2010-01-07 11:17 AM

Exactly. If people have issues with the screening, should we put them on seperate planes with other unscreened people?

I'd gladly go through whatever screening to HELP reduce my risk of being unsafe.

Whizzzzz - 2010-01-07 12:57 PM



Brilliant idea, Haley. People that don't want to be screened can all fly together.

The rest of us can be xrayed and felt up and... SAFE.

GulfCoastSwimmer - 2010-01-07 12:14 PM

It's with issues like this that I have two overwhelming thoughts.

1. Americans are so concerned about their freedom to do whatever they want that they'll compromise their safety, and I find that terrifying. If a plane gets blown up because someone shy didn't want to have their rear end outlined on a monitor, that would be tragic. The same people who buy those stupid tabloids and magazines showing celebrities taking their kids to the park or grocery shopping are screaming about their own privacy. Granted, those celebrities aren't naked (well, most of the time) but sometimes I think our concept of freedom goes a little too askew. It's what makes the US so great and so frustrating at the same time.

JBrashear - 2010-01-07 12:35 PM



This would be a more valid argument if there wasn't a viable alternative shown earlier in this thread(namely El-Al's methods) that involves no invasive technology & gets just as good results. That's why this new tech is unnecessary.

GulfCoastSwimmer - 2010-01-07 12:14 PM It's with issues like this that I have two overwhelming thoughts. 1. Americans are so concerned about their freedom to do whatever they want that they'll compromise their safety, and I find that terrifying. If a plane gets blown up because someone shy didn't want to have their rear end outlined on a monitor, that would be tragic. The same people who buy those stupid tabloids and magazines showing celebrities taking their kids to the park or grocery shopping are screaming about their own privacy. Granted, those celebrities aren't naked (well, most of the time) but sometimes I think our concept of freedom goes a little too askew. It's what makes the US so great and so frustrating at the same time.

2. The media needs to chill the f- out and stop blowing things out of proportion. I know it'll never happen, but still...the media is making the full-body scanner look like the be-all and end-all of anti-terrorism. I think we've developed such tunnel vision with stuff like this that we've stopped considering all of the options. What if there's a better way? There could be, but as long as CNN is fixated on the stupid scanner, we'll never get to explore that method. We'll start shouting to our politicians that we need the scanner, or we refuse to accept the scanner, and decisions will be made based on "what the people want." What if the people aren't informed enough to know what the scan looks like, or what it can even detect?

 A year ago everyone was shouting about how we needed to stop torturing detainees. Now Americans want the underwear bomber guy waterboarded. I wonder if there are terrorists in a cave somewhere laughing at us. They know there'll always be a way to get to us because we'll never give up our privacy. It makes me sad.

lisac957 - 2010-01-07 8:51 AM

Someone else posted the more accurate version (with the privacy filters) of what the TSA employees would see in a link - this is directly from the TSA web site:



There is no way anyone would be able to identify who this person was.
Are we really concerned about images like this?
 

kmanus - 2010-01-07 1:28 PM

 

I'm sorry, that is NOT the image TSA sees. 

That is more like the actual images.  However, some TSA agents have offered that the images are actually more clear than those above.

Yes, there is the issue of privacy and modesty...but these scanners still WOULD NOT have caught the explosives in the underwear.  It also can be foiled by leather- so just by leather undies and pack em up.  It also can't see between skin and into body cavities, so you can hide anything in a fat roll, or between/under breasts...it won't get noticed.  So what good is it doing? 

kmanus - 2010-01-07 3:07 PM

But even still, the image you showed isn't the backscatter from the TSA page.  This is:

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html

 

GulfCoastSwimmer - 2010-01-07 12:14 PM  If a plane gets blown up because someone shy didn't want to have their rear end outlined on a monitor, that would be tragic. The same people who buy those stupid tabloids and magazines showing celebrities taking their kids to the park or grocery shopping are screaming about their own privacy.

kmanus - 2010-01-07 3:07 PM

But even still, the image you showed isn't the backscatter from the TSA page.  This is:

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html

 

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-01-07 4:22 PM

All I know is that I got patted down last week. They searched my Chrome messenger bag, and did not find the "secret stash pocket". WTG TSA!

NavyTRIChief - 2010-01-06 2:00 PM Ironically, a current tactic of insurgents is to use women (do to Muslim cultural thoughts on touching women), and mentally handicapped people (esp. women) to carry IED's.  This is not a new thing.  BTW, if you think children carrying an IED is far fetched, ask a Vietnam vet about it.

I teach Anti Terrorism and will tell you the same thing I tell my students.... Terrorists are not stupid.  They adapt to new ideas, are very creative and are only limited to what can be thought up.  We cannot, ever, stop terrorism.  All we can do is implement measures to try to mitigate not only the events that may happen but also the consequences when they occur.

Bigfuzzydoug - 2010-01-06 12:31 PM

I don't think it's an invasion of privacy considering the potential devastation an airliner can do... obviously.  But I do question why it would be considered necessary for everyone and how you even attempt to make it cost effective to scan everybody.

Some people here know that I used to live in Israel, so I sort of grew up flying back and forth on El AL a couple of times.  So my idea of "security" and "acceptable time in an airport" may be drastically different than other people here.  But from that experience I do take away one big issue:

Why does the US and other countries insist on focusing on the bags and materials?  Close inspection of luggage and your carry-ons, but what plans, builds and executes an airline hijack or bombing?  A piece of luggage?  No.  It's a person or people.  So why not focus on the people?  Here we go again, "the Israeli method".  Their security is drastically different in three main ways:

1.  It's multi-staged.  From the moment you get out of your car, bus, taxi - before you walk in the door to the airport, someone is asking you a couple of questions.  Then more questions at the check-in counter.  Another round at the security check-point, more in the waiting area and even more before you get on the plane.  The TSA puts all of their eggs into one basket in one place.  Just a handful of high-school drop-outs in one spot to get past.

2.  While they do search the luggage and you do go through a metal detector, it's your answers to the questions they ask that are most important.  And the questions mean nothing.  It's all in reading your answer.  "Do you have a pet?  What kind?  What's his name?"  You try to fabricate an answer, they can tell.  if you're not truthful about something innocent, then what about other things.  Who cares about grandma with nail clippers - they're looking for liars.  What this leads to is...

3.  The ugly "p" word... PROFILING.  A 4-letter word in the US, perfectly acceptable in Israel.  If security doesn't feel you're honest or maybe hiding something, you get escalated to higher levels of screening.  Maybe a 5-minute interview in a small private room.  Maybe only then, a full-body scan.  Whereas in the US, the TSA might have every passenger go through a full-body scanner, the Israelis might only have 5% of people go through one.  Why?  Because those are the only people that warrant a privacy-invasive scan.

And understand that Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, etc. have been flying through Ben Gurion and other Israeli airports for years.  They're treated just like everyone else.  No one is profiled by how they look or what religion they are.  They're profiled by the level of suspicion they give off.  I was once detained for an hour in private interagation because, well... I was already drunk before my friends and I even got to the airport.  My answers weren't coming quite so quick and that did it for me.  That's why you leave about a 2-3 hour buffer when flying El Al.  You never know.

The "crocth bomber" would never even had made it to the gate at Ben Gurion.  A Yemeni, on the watch list, with a one-way ticket paid in cash...  Hello!  Instant profilied!  Never mind the fact that his father reported in Nigeria that he had joined Al Qaeda.

The proof is in the number of incidents on El Al planes over the years.

Say each passenger flying through a U.S. airport received on average 10 minutes of questioning from one guard. That would work out to 7.35 billion minutes, or 123 million hours, of work annually. We'd need 3 million full-time guards to perform it. That's 200,000 more people than the total number of active and reserve military personnel, and twice the number of U.S. Wal-Mart employees. It would cost somewhere north of $150 billion a year. Sheesh.

Working the math out another way, let's say that the U.S. decided to spend as much per passenger as Israel does, according to the Bloomberg analysis. We'd then pour around $62.2 billion a year into airport security -- more than 10 times what we currently spend on airport security, and about as much as we spent fighting the war in Afghanistan last year.

lisac957 - 2010-01-07 2:18 PM

 

No problem,  I should really stay out of these discussions anyway.  I tolerate TSA for its purpose of being able to fly, I just can't tolerate how some of these "rules" make us safer in any means.

This latest batch of rules (no IFE, must stay in your seat for the last hour, etc - I fly mostly intl) has almost compelled me to not want to fly anymore.  Which truly sucks as I love to travel and I have a lot interest in other countries.

Pector55 - 2010-01-06 11:22 AM Fwap Fwap fwap

kmanus - 2010-01-07 1:28 PM

 

I'm sorry, that is NOT the image TSA sees. 

That is more like the actual images.  However, some TSA agents have offered that the images are actually more clear than those above.

Yes, there is the issue of privacy and modesty...but these scanners still WOULD NOT have caught the explosives in the underwear.  It also can be foiled by leather- so just by leather undies and pack em up.  It also can't see between skin and into body cavities, so you can hide anything in a fat roll, or between/under breasts...it won't get noticed.  So what good is it doing?