"New" TSA screening (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-01-07 10:21 AM in reply to: #2600083 |
Champion 10471 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening lisac957 - 2010-01-07 9:51 AM KSH - 2010-01-06 8:23 PM Gaarryy - 2010-01-06 12:07 PM here is a link to what an image looks like with the back scatter machine. DUDE that's a total "nude" type of picture of someone. Totally NOT cool. Not cool at all. I would not be comfortable with that. Really let's think about this... who is back there monitoring this stuff and reviewing it? $12 an hour employees... IF the make THAT much. What keeps them from taking pictures of what is on the screen with their phones? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg While I would say it's safe for work, I also work in the medical field so my perception on that might be off. But I thought it was better to post a link than the actual photo here. Working with radiation and physics stuff most of the article I read are on the dose's a person receives and what type of training the people running the machine should have for their own safety,, but in none of the machines out there are you "nude" eta spell check 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? 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. |
|
2010-01-07 10:46 AM in reply to: #2600186 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening KSH - 2010-01-07 10:21 AM lisac957 - 2010-01-07 9:51 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 - 2010-01-06 8:23 PM Gaarryy - 2010-01-06 12:07 PM here is a link to what an image looks like with the back scatter machine. DUDE that's a total "nude" type of picture of someone. Totally NOT cool. Not cool at all. I would not be comfortable with that. Really let's think about this... who is back there monitoring this stuff and reviewing it? $12 an hour employees... IF the make THAT much. What keeps them from taking pictures of what is on the screen with their phones? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg While I would say it's safe for work, I also work in the medical field so my perception on that might be off. But I thought it was better to post a link than the actual photo here. Working with radiation and physics stuff most of the article I read are on the dose's a person receives and what type of training the people running the machine should have for their own safety,, but in none of the machines out there are you "nude" eta spell check 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? Then those people can drive. I don't care what you Xray me with. Look at my chalk outline or my Xray or whatever you want. I'd prefer not to be felt up, but if that becomes necessary, then, well, OK. I don't care. Ask me 1000 questions. That's fine too. I think a lump of explosives in someone's rectum would show up rather readily on one of those scans. |
2010-01-07 11:04 AM in reply to: #2597846 |
Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening For those opposed to scans and other "invasive" measures, what would you propose TSA do to ensure your safety on flights? |
2010-01-07 11:14 AM in reply to: #2600186 |
Extreme Veteran 614 | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. 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. |
2010-01-07 11:17 AM in reply to: #2600357 |
Queen BTich 12411 , | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. 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. |
2010-01-07 11:57 AM in reply to: #2600368 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening Comet - 2010-01-07 11:17 AM 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. 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. 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. |
|
2010-01-07 12:03 PM in reply to: #2600507 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening Whizzzzz - 2010-01-07 12:57 PM Comet - 2010-01-07 11:17 AM 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. 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. 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. Bad idea. They'd have to take a collection for a replacement plane and leave it on the counter before boarding. |
2010-01-07 12:14 PM in reply to: #2597846 |
Expert 764 | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. |
2010-01-07 12:35 PM in reply to: #2600568 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. 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. |
2010-01-07 12:39 PM in reply to: #2600626 |
Expert 764 | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening JBrashear - 2010-01-07 12:35 PM 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. 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. I know...see my comment #2. |
2010-01-07 12:48 PM in reply to: #2600568 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. Very well stated. And I agree. I don't care what methods are used to ensure my safety on an airplane. El-Al methods, body scanning methods, whatever. I'll cooperate. Or I'll drive. |
|
2010-01-07 12:59 PM in reply to: #2597846 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "-Benjamin Franklin There are limits. I think I agree profiling exceeds the limits. I don't feel the scanners do. Complicated question, but the above quote, to me rings true with the thought that governmental agencies don't always have the right and responsibility to wholesale dictate what we can and can't do. |
2010-01-07 1:28 PM in reply to: #2600083 |
Extreme Veteran 700 Tucson | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening lisac957 - 2010-01-07 8:51 AM KSH - 2010-01-06 8:23 PM Gaarryy - 2010-01-06 12:07 PM here is a link to what an image looks like with the back scatter machine. DUDE that's a total "nude" type of picture of someone. Totally NOT cool. Not cool at all. I would not be comfortable with that. Really let's think about this... who is back there monitoring this stuff and reviewing it? $12 an hour employees... IF the make THAT much. What keeps them from taking pictures of what is on the screen with their phones? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg While I would say it's safe for work, I also work in the medical field so my perception on that might be off. But I thought it was better to post a link than the actual photo here. Working with radiation and physics stuff most of the article I read are on the dose's a person receives and what type of training the people running the machine should have for their own safety,, but in none of the machines out there are you "nude" eta spell check 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?
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? |
2010-01-07 1:51 PM in reply to: #2600785 |
Alpharetta, Georgia | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening kmanus - 2010-01-07 1:28 PM lisac957 - 2010-01-07 8:51 AM KSH - 2010-01-06 8:23 PM Gaarryy - 2010-01-06 12:07 PM here is a link to what an image looks like with the back scatter machine. DUDE that's a total "nude" type of picture of someone. Totally NOT cool. Not cool at all. I would not be comfortable with that. Really let's think about this... who is back there monitoring this stuff and reviewing it? $12 an hour employees... IF the make THAT much. What keeps them from taking pictures of what is on the screen with their phones? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg While I would say it's safe for work, I also work in the medical field so my perception on that might be off. But I thought it was better to post a link than the actual photo here. Working with radiation and physics stuff most of the article I read are on the dose's a person receives and what type of training the people running the machine should have for their own safety,, but in none of the machines out there are you "nude" eta spell check 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?
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? Two completely different technologies. It depends on which ones the airports use. Millimeter is the more "high-def" image, while Backscatter is the more "chalk outline" image. http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/which-is-it-millimeter-wave-or.html From TSA web site: Currently, there are 40 millimeter wave imaging technology units in use at 19 airports. Six machines are used as primary screening at six airports and 34 machines are used for secondary, or random screening, as an alternative to a pat down at 13 airports. TSA has tested both millimeter wave and backscatter imaging and announced that it plans to purchase an additional 150 backscatter units. Use of advanced imaging technology is optional to all passengers. |
2010-01-07 3:07 PM in reply to: #2600856 |
Extreme Veteran 700 Tucson | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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
Edited by kmanus 2010-01-07 3:09 PM |
2010-01-07 3:18 PM in reply to: #2601084 |
Alpharetta, Georgia | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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
Actually it is from the TSA web site: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/which-is-it-millimeter-wave-or.html The link appears on Page 1 of this thread, that's where I originally found it. Apparently they have updated the images. Thanks for pointing that out. |
|
2010-01-07 3:21 PM in reply to: #2600568 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. (applauding) |
2010-01-07 3:22 PM in reply to: #2597846 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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! |
2010-01-07 3:22 PM in reply to: #2601084 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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
That still doesn't bother me. Everyone is being scanned. If you've seen one scan you've seen them all. There's nothing erotic or even remotely sexual about that scan. It's not even that revealing. It looks like the outline James Cameron used to make the aliens on Pandora. And if it can keep me safer than I am now... that's OK with me. If I find it offensive or restrictive or invasive, I'll drive to my destination. It's not like the government is mandating we all have body scans as a condition of our citizenship. Flying is an option for travel, not always a requirement. Perhaps these scans and their use will bring back the good old fashioned road trip... and create a bigger demand for Titanic-like Transatlantic cruises. Although I'd imagine there would be some sort of safety screen for those liners as well. |
2010-01-07 3:36 PM in reply to: #2601138 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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! you joke, but if the detroit bomber had been patted down, they wouldn't have found his explosives. no touching of the no-no zones. personally i prefer the pat-down because it's in wide view of everyone, plenty of witnesses. and cause i'm a perv. |
2010-01-07 3:37 PM in reply to: #2598688 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. This is huge. You need to evaluate and adapt, change up, randomize, evaluate, adapt, etc. Once you create any system, someone will work to overcome it. The more static the system, the easier it is to exploit. |
|
2010-01-07 3:38 PM in reply to: #2598058 |
Houston | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening 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. I just came across an article comparing the relative safety and costs of Israel and the TSA. Some interesting highlights if we were to create an identical security system as the Israelis: 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. Comparing El Al with its 1.3 million passengers and TSA which handles over 700 million passengers unfortunately isn't a reasonable comparison. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/07/would_you_pay_25_for... |
2010-01-07 6:52 PM in reply to: #2601125 |
Extreme Veteran 700 Tucson | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening lisac957 - 2010-01-07 2:18 PM kmanus - 2010-01-07 3:07 PM
Actually it is from the TSA web site:
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. |
2010-01-07 7:40 PM in reply to: #2598201 |
Elite 3290 Oliver, BC, "Wine Capital of Canada" | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening I ordered a pair of these when I was 9 years old.....still waiting for delivery.
Pector55 - 2010-01-06 11:22 AM Fwap Fwap fwap |
2010-01-07 8:48 PM in reply to: #2600785 |
Champion 10471 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: "New" TSA screening kmanus - 2010-01-07 1:28 PM lisac957 - 2010-01-07 8:51 AM KSH - 2010-01-06 8:23 PM Gaarryy - 2010-01-06 12:07 PM here is a link to what an image looks like with the back scatter machine. DUDE that's a total "nude" type of picture of someone. Totally NOT cool. Not cool at all. I would not be comfortable with that. Really let's think about this... who is back there monitoring this stuff and reviewing it? $12 an hour employees... IF the make THAT much. What keeps them from taking pictures of what is on the screen with their phones? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg While I would say it's safe for work, I also work in the medical field so my perception on that might be off. But I thought it was better to post a link than the actual photo here. Working with radiation and physics stuff most of the article I read are on the dose's a person receives and what type of training the people running the machine should have for their own safety,, but in none of the machines out there are you "nude" eta spell check 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?
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? See, that's my question... WHAT are these scanning devices going to find anyways? I guess if someone has bombs strapped to them... they would be caught. With that said, I see less drugs coming into the country. |
|