> we need everyone to resist in whatever
> ways they can

Yes. Yes. Yes.

This includes mockery and emotional abasement. I think as many people as possible should get as close to incitement as they possibly can.

Imagine if someone touched Sasha Obama that way every time she stepped onto Air Force One or other federal aircraft.

Now ask yourself why the First Daughters don't have to face that.

Y'know, all four of FDR's sons served in WWII. Why can't Obama's kids, just as an example to us all, show us how to comport ourselves in a pat-down or in a field of radiation? What kind of Democrat is Barry, anyway?

US Immigration cannot legally keep a citizen out of this country - corrected that for you.

It is my understanding (non-lawyer, non-professional) that you cannot be denied entry on on immigration issues, thinks like customs can prevent you from entering - or at least from bringing items in. You can also be searched.

note the border search exception from the 4th amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

Little article on lobbying by the scanner maker.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm

This passenger is an idiot for acting the way he did. He served no one any good and he should've been arrested. Since the passenger was terminating his travel in Cincinnati, there is no reason for him to be screened. The only reason he encountered the checkpoint is because of how it is designed. The passengers empty into the sterile area for easier connecting operations to other flights. The fact that he was not arrested shows that the TSA and airport police at Cincinnati have common sense. What's worse is this passenger probably caused those government workers to work overtime at the tax payers expense.

RealAm, are you for real? As a "real American" you ought to value the fourth amendment: the government has no right - zero, zip, nada - to search you without probable cause.

The passenger in this case arrived in the US, showed his passport, and was admitted to the country. Then he was told he needed to be searched in order to leave the airport. That is entirely nonsense - and he deserves kudos for standing up for his rights.

A search at this points makes zero sense. He has just departed a plane. He was screened when he got onto that plane, and has not yet retrieved his baggage. If there is some gross misconfiguration of the airport, then that is the problem - not his refusal to be needlessly searched.

Be a Real American: stand up for your rights the next time the government attempts to trample them.

Real American: I call bullshit. Americans have a little thing called constitutional protections, see in this document called the constitution, the rights of the government and citizens are clearly outlined for all to see, some of these things, the first 10 of them to be precise, make up the part known as the bill of rights, which specifically outlines the things the government has no right to override or prohibit, and the government that does so, is to be considered illegitimate, moreover, the constitution also authorizes Americans to rebel against the government if it should begin to abuse its citizens and revoke their rights. So, let me put the question to you, if this round of intrusions is insufficient to cause you to question the government harshly...what precisely would it take? What action would the federal government and its agencies have to take, to make you resist?

It's not about safety and radiation. It's not about sexual assault.

It about the simple fact that submitting to a strip search, albeit a digital one, or getting groped for the privilege of travel is beneath the dignity of a free man, and it needs to STOP.

THIS is simply what the powers that be want you to do.

It's that simple.

There's nothing more to it than that.

You are a carnival mark, whose sole purpose is to cough up cash for people better than you. Who are these people? The ones in charge. How can you tell who they are? You do what they say, without question. The screener knows it's the wrong thing to do. The passenger knows it's the wrong thing to do. Yet they do it, demonstrating that they are not in charge, and in a way, that they do not deserve to be.

This is a power exercise because, as I have pointed out already, there are far more horrible ways to attack the American public than even flying a 747 into the Capitol building. Again: look for the term, "ERG 2008".

The TSA says that the radiation exposure from the scanners is minimal, the equivalent of a cell phone call for one machine, the equivalent of two minutes in a plane for the other. This doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

And we believe TSA why? Why pull him out to get back INTO the country?

Wake me when Pelosi or Frank get the pat- down

Americans have a little thing called constitutional protections,

For how long? Barry Hussein and Incompetano have pretty much made sure A.Q. is getting the best of the current situ.

Taubes's whole book is based on studies by "people with actual medical degrees." He rightly decries the politicization of nutrition, but it doesn't follow that every word that comes out of government is a lie. (Taubes himself calls for studies on low-carb diet; studies that, if they ever occur, will almost certainly be funded by government.)

Many Americans don't know much about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like Real American, which is why the TSA can get away with what they are doing all in the name of security.

It about the simple fact that submitting to a strip search, albeit a digital one, or getting groped for the privilege of travel is beneath the dignity of a free man, and it needs to STOP.

This.

and it needs to STOP.

Until the government is ready to focus their security measures on those who pose 99.9% of threat, I don't believe it will stop.

I also keep coming across people who are saying "if you don't like it, don't fly"... like they think that they'll still be able to fly when the industry no longer exists. They're too damn stupid to realize that if the majority of people stop flying, either prices will go up and they won't be flying either or the airlines will shut down altogether!

On the issue of how much radiation from the scanner, a friend at JPL says it's about the same as the radiation you get from flying a 1/2 hour at altitude.

The scanner gives you less radiation than eating a banana. So some guy oogles an image of your tits for 10 seconds, this matters?
But please, right-wing nut jobs, keep drumming about airport security. You have pushed the important QE2 off the right-wing nutjob attack list, and replaced it with something more or less trivial.

Therefore, let me reconider what I have said.

Here is what I mean to say:

Amy Alkon, it is a travesty, an injustice of the highest order, a monumental waste of precious taxpayer dollars that a woman of your peerless stature, perched on the very pinnacle of righteousness, wrapped in a mantle of virtue, should ever have to be sullied by creepy lowlife TSA goons and pervs!!!!

And rape victims are crying at airports, where they are harshly fondled and groped by obvious prison-warden type lesbians!!!

Fight the TSA!!!!

This isn't about someone ogling my tits. They're damn fine, thank you, and I'm proud of them. This is about civil liberties. I'm actually not a right-winger, thanks, but I am a lawyer and a history buff. And I really cannot fucking believe our country is doing this. I just can't.

Don't you get it? If they can force you to forfeit your Fourth Amendment rights at the airport, without any cause for suspicion, all in the name of "security" (despite the fact that these scanners don't actually give us additional security), there is NOTHING to stop them from implementing strip searches and patdowns everywhere. Buses, trains, shopping malls, sports arenas, office buildings, apartment complexes, the streets. Terrorists could kill just as many -- or far more -- people in those places as on a plane (especially now that the cabin doors are locked). So why not implement the scanners and pat-downs everywhere?

There is nothing to stop them from adding body cavity searches to that routine. Hell, since there are ass-bombs that can bring down a 747, body cavity searches would in fact make us safer (unlike the scanners, which don't pick up powders, liquids, thin plastic, flesh-colored objects or thing in body cavities, and therefore have been rejected by the Israelis as "useless"). So why not make us all have body cavity searches before entering any public venue or form or transportation? Don't be a prude. You let your doctor check your asshole. It will make us all safer if you let the police do it, too.

Actually, though, we should be catching the terrorists before they get to those places. Random searches of people's homes, property and people would catch a lot of terrorists before they put anyone at risk. We'd probably find a lot of other criminals that way, too. We'd all be safer. Let's do it. If you have nothing to hide, why would you mind?

We should be wiretapping everyone, too, and randomly monitoring phone calls and emails. The Patriot Act will be a big help on that one. Good thing we put that in place.

And shouldn't we really all be carrying around papers proving who we are? If we checked these things routinely, we'd catch more terrorists and criminals. Surely we're all willing to submit to this small bit of inconvenience in the name of extra security. And if you're not doing anything wrong and you are who you say you are, why would you object?

This is how Hitler, Stalin, the Stasi, and just about every totalitarian state gets started. You move step by step, convincing people that they should give up their freedoms one by one in the name of security. The trouble is, you don't get them back very easily once you've surrendered them. And it's hard to stop when you start on that road. Read some goddamn history, including our own, for Christ's sake! Why do you think we have the fucking Bill of Rights to begin with?

It's killing me that people won't stop and think about this. It's killing me that they're willing to throw away something so goddamn precious for a one in 10 million chance of getting killed by a terrorist (especially when the scanners won't even do any good against the terrorists). And it's killing me that if you object, the fucking sheep try to tell you that you're just a prude who's ashamed of her body.

If we let this happen, it is the end of our country as we know it. I don't know how else to put it. Only some of you asswipes aren't going to see it until the police come in your house unannounced and strip your daughter naked to check her vaginal cavity. And then you're going to wring your hands and wonder how the hell we got there.

We are talking about walking through a scanner. We used to walk through metal detectors.

What's the diff? I think I still have my civil liberties. If it is not about your excellent tits, why did you not raise Cain when it was metal detectors?

I concur the risk we face from terrorism is miniscule, and should be downplayed. Terrorism is usually a heinous PR stunt, and should be dismissed as such.

But El Presidente Bush jr. found that he might get re-elected as a "war president" and so hyped terrorism and got us into a couple of wars, following Rove's advice. The military loved having an enemy, even a midget-micro enemy, and now they get double the funding they had in 2001, even adjusting for inflation.

If you want to be afraid, consider that roughly 300,000 Americans have died in accidents and another 180,000 in gunshots since 9/11. Terrorists have tried to kill a few hundred Americans, but failed.

What galls me is that dimwits have seized upon harmless scanners as some sort of terrible deed, but blightly ignore the rather serious $3 trillion we have wasted in Iraqistan nor the $1 trillion a year military-foreign policy-VA complex we have built.

$1 trillion a year--all to fight a few mentally imcompetent loo-loos using homemade bombs.

That's called fighting terrorism through federal agency, aided by lobbyists.

PS Please post a scan of your "damn fine" tits.

"The TSA says that the radiation exposure from the scanners is minimal, the equivalent of a cell phone call for one machine, the equivalent of two minutes in a plane for the other. This doesn't seem like a big deal to me."

That's not the point.

Whether the scanners are magic, emitting nothing at all, or they produce flash burns and ignite your clothes is irrelevent.

You are being presumed guilty of a crime for wanting to travel by aircraft.

When you allow this, you allow the exact same presumption of guilt to be extended to anything else you want to do!

That's not the point.

It was very much the point to which I was responding. Amy said: or subjected to X-rays (of which we cannot be sure of the risk).

I responded that the risk seems to be quite small. How is that not to the point?

As for your argument that we allow them to presume us guilty of a crime, well, did you make the same protest when you were required to walk through a metal detector? If not, why not?

What much of the media, and officials in government, fail to consider is that the public may actually have a good idea of the risks they face, and are willing to tolerate them. For many Americans, privacy and dignity trump the marginal gain in safety offered by body scans and searches.

First of all, kishke, a number of eminent independent scientists and experts disagree that the health risk with regard to the scanners is minimal. See this, for example: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

Second, actually, I've been protesting airport procedures for a while now. But that said, I do think there are distinctions to be made between metal detectors and scanners.

The metal detector doesn't actually do anything if you don't have metal on you. It doesn't touch you and it doesn't reveal anything about any other contents of your pockets or your body or anything else. It just says "hey, there is something metal here." Time was, back in the dark ages before 9/11, you said "oh, sorry, forgot about my keys" or "that's my knee replacement", and life moved on. They didn't grope your testicles and breasts because your keys set off the metal detector.

The metal detector showed if there was any cause to think someone might have a weapon, and therefore there might be cause to do a more intrusive search. Something that smelled explosives (and only explosives) would do the same.

The intrusion on people's privacy under those circumstances is generally minimal, and any further search resulting from them could be limited and take place only when there was cause. There's a line of law allowing limited warrantless searches under certain circumstances. BUT those cases stress that the intrusion must be minimal, be proportional to societies' need for the search, and there must be no other effective way of doing it. I'd argue that the metal detector could maybe arguably fall under that heading. At least, as a lawyer, I could make a reasonable argument for it.

In contrast, the scanners and gropes are extremely intrusive. They are full-on explorations of the body and clothing of everyone, even if there is no reason to think they are carrying anything dangerous. They've got no reason whatsover to think you have explosives in your underwear, but they are fondling your testicles anyway.

You guys know that a single successful terrorist bombing of an airplane, the media tide will turn immediately, and you will all shut up.

Good points, Gail. Barry stated that the constitution is flawed, will the current situation give him a chance to correct it?

Butthole Of The Universe, your name says it all. FYI, I'm an NYC dweller who witnessed the twin towers go down and knew people working in the buildings. But I accept the one in 10 million risk a terrorist may kill me on a plane. Just because you have no firm principles doesn't mean no one else does.

biff, I'm really worried that Obama has boxed himself into a hole. I've been listening to what he's been saying, and I actually think he knows he made a mistake. But even assuming I'm right, now that Obama's gone forward with these fucking things, if he backtracks, he'll look even weaker than he does already. And I'm afraid he'll care more about that than the Fourth Amendment.

Gail, thank you for the link. That definitely does raise my level of concern. I am not a very frequent flyer, but I will be traveling in a few weeks, so I'll have to think what to do. Having seen that link, I may just opt for the pat-down, distasteful though I find it. (Although I'm not sure whether or not Newark has these scanners yet.)

Re. the difference between scanners and metal detectors, your argument is reasonable, but not definitive. I can see someone arguing the extremes too, that they are the same, in that they both violate our rights or are both equally necessary suspensions of our rights.

What's incredibly annoying is that none of this would be necessary if the govt would stop playing PC games and target those who pose the threat, and lay off those who obviously pose no threat.

Your congressman, like Sasha Obama, is exempt.

'We hate obese passengers and people with personal hygiene issues:' Now 'abused' TSA staff vent their anger at patdown searches

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332307/Now-abused-TSA-staff-vent-anger-security-patdown-searches.html#ixzz169fUvWrM

kishke, FYI, Newark does have the scanners. They're at all three of the New York City area airports, although not necessarily at every terminal yet. For any number of reasons, I really hope you'll go for the grope, as distasteful as it is. Those scientists are not the only ones objecting.

It seriously pisses me off that our congressmen, the whole Obama family, etc., are exempt. Sure, they're no terrorist threat, but neither is my three-year-old niece or my 93-year-old great aunt. If they want to show that we all have to do our part and be treated equally even though there's no cause for suspicion against us, Sasha Obama should be molested or irradiated along with the rest of us.

I'm looking into the possibility of donating my legal services to an organization that is working against this travesty.

"You guys know that a single successful terrorist bombing of an airplane, the media tide will turn immediately, and you will all shut up."

Like the bulk of your commentary, this is useless noise.

What that scenario will mean is that I - and quite probably Patrick Smith, professional pilot - was right about these measures being useless and easily bypassed.

-----

And kishke - this blog wasn't here when the metal detectors started. Since 1979, I have had security clearances higher than those at any position at any commercial airport, and I have always resented the rules. Others were intent on the same thing you see today: "I'll bend over and spread 'em if it makes me safer!" -- uttered by people who don't know anything other than to believe the same idiots they accuse of misbehavior.

How is it that people are so schizophrenic as to complain about government in every endeavor, then turn around and say they're doing everything they can about security? What!?

You'll notice that on 9/11, the boxcutters made it past the metal detectors.

This demonstrated their ineffectiveness to anyone who was paying attention.

Were you?

Now, someone else has noticed that they are scum, not to be trusted. How's it feel, now that you've noticed?

-----

By the way, taxpayers: you paid for my security ID card to be "upgraded". I once had a civil servant visit friends and relatives and conduct an investigation prior to my receiving an ID badge to attend work at Savannah River Site. I was ordered to report to the Badge Office to surrender that badge and get my US Access Card. This miracle of engineering would be "harder to counterfeit", not demonstrated to us at SRS. The system was invented for the bulk of government agencies - which aren't nuclear plants. What did I have to have to get it? A driver's license and a voter registration card. Oh, wow. Hey, Amy, how reliable is a driver's license for ID?

I'm not kidding. Look here.

And get this: I'm not supposed to use this card anywhere I go. Even for work.

Men: children with car keys. Government agencies: Men with a blank checkbook. The public will buy ANYTHING if it LOOKS good enough!

The question here is astonishingly simple, and it isn't esoteric, so that the average person can understand it.

Does the Backscatter Machine or the enhanced pat down detect explosives?

This is the ONLY measure of their effectiveness.

The answer is: NO. THEY ARE NOT DESIGNED TO DO THAT.

So, the premise under which they are used is entirely false, as is the sense of security any of the 2million people travelling tomorrow will feel from undergoing the search.

Gail's point about the legality of it all is a separate but very important issue. BOTU's point about money being wasted on wars, is important but entirely different, and not part of the conversation.

EVEN IF a plane had been brought down somewhere by explosive, that wouldn't change the fact that these machines would NOT have detected it, because they aren't designed for that.

So, all the people who are saying: "bend over for the good of the country" are entirely wrong about that, INCLUDING Obama, Napolitano, etc.

Because it isn't doing what they say it does....

Damn Rad, I got the government anal exam too, and I didn't even get a card! I feel left out!

Gail is absolutely right about the nature of what's going on here: the purpose of the scanners is to strip-search you, and it's no more legal than a warrantless physicaly strip search would be. Also, and a real lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for a warrantless search to be allowed, it usually has to be a situation that is time-critical, i.e., the perp will escape or evidence will be destroyed unless the search is performed immediately. That's obviously not the case with airport screenings.

So a friend of mine was just escorted from Denver Int'l Airport for refusing both screens. I haven't gotten hold of him yet to see what he was really expecting or if he did it because he knew that it would be covered by the news. He is definitely a person who would stand on principle, so...
opt out from 9news

The interesting thing in the piece I saw on TV and what the DIA spokesperson said:
""Think about the consequences of what you do. If you opt out of security you hurt other travelers just like yourself. Think about the impact your actions will have on other people traveling," Laura Coale with DIA media relations said."

Now TSA and DIA are trying to make this about people's convenience... essentially trying to de-legitimatize the concerns, ANY concerns, about what is being done. As if it's just a buncha rabble who would question authority.

I'll try and find out if he's going to drive to TX to be with his wife and the rest of the family or if he is going to stay here. In any case I don't know if enough people are going to do anything to make a difference, through disobedience like this or not.

Speaking as someone who flies for a living …

This is much ado about nothing.

Equating this imaging to a strip search is to completely lose any sense of proportion. (To restore some proportion, read this Slate article). The radiation is truly negligible; the actual invasion of privacy is nil. And the scanner makes it so much harder to smuggle things onto an airplane that it will ultimately take the pain out of screening.

And please do not talk about how the Israelis do it. They don't process as many passengers in a year as the US does in a day.

You'll notice that on 9/11, the boxcutters made it past the metal detectors.

This demonstrated their ineffectiveness to anyone who was paying attention.

Correction. Prior to 9/11, all manner of knives were allowed on airplanes. So the fact the hijackers got them onto the airplanes says not a darn thing about the metal detectors.

----

I find it odd that people are so willing to slam TSA measures as ineffective, while failing to note that same ineffectiveness has forced the splodeydopes to resort to ever more fantastical measures.

After all, they resorted to a panty bomb because getting all manner of more practical (for their purposes) things on board was unlikely to succeed.

With these scanners, it will be extremely difficult, to the point of operational impossibility, to smuggle explosives onto an airplane with enough energy and in the right configuration to bring an airplane down.

Yes, it will still be possible to put things in body cavities, but those cavities aren't particularly large, and no small amount of explosive energy will go into sundering the splodeydopes body in the first place.

——
It is common to hear people say they are happy to assume in infinitesimal risk.

To them.

That is wonderful, but that isn't the risk to worry about.

Imagine the consequences if the splodeydopes manage to bring down six airliners in a day.

The odds of any one person dying are just as negligible as the radiation risk from these scanners.

What about those economic dominoes?

Also,

If I was making policy, I would get rid of the pat downs entirely.

Either go through the scanner, or find another way to get where you are going.

Skipper, I refuse to be assumed guilty for wanting to ride in an airplane.

Maybe you like being guilty. You'd be right there with Patrick Smith, getting your Delta butterknife confiscated because it would let you take over the plane...

It must be true, because your bosses say it's so.

> Imagine the consequences if the
> splodeydopes manage to bring down
> six airliners in a day.

What is the fucking point of this thinking? Isn't this cocksuckingly demented?

Golly, Skippy!— "Imagine the consequences if," as you were on the way to to donut shop tomorrow morning, thirty ninjas on pogo sticks bounced out of the bushes and pulled your daughter from the car and flayed her alive right there in front of you with sharpened sticks, before you'd even had your cruller 'n coffee!

What is the purpose of this rhetoric? Does it hold any meaning about how you're supposed to live your life? Does the fact that some unpleasant scenario can be imagined mean that you have to install supermagnetic ninja-pogo repulsion units to the bumpers of your Camry?

Specifically, does fear of Pogo Ninjas mean you get to hire pizza-eaters to put on rubber gloves through which they can fondle your daughter's genitalia?

Is that what you think being an American means?

Here's what would happen if six airliners went down in a day: The civilized world –from the bowels of the National Security Agency to every Googling sixth-grader with an Iphone– would commence an investigation unprecedented in human history. We'd find the people who planned the attacks, and we'd hurt them.

> Either go through the scanner, or find
> another way to get where you are going.

I can't believe my eyes.

No, coward. No no no.

YOU stay home. Free men will continue to travel.

_____________

I'm gratified as Hell that Megan too is wondering why the little Obama girls aren't getting their underwear probed every time they fly.

Just a quick question for everyone.

If the airports can tell the TSA to take a hike, and set up their own security, how can any of this then be mandatory by the TSA, if the TSA is optional?

Skipper, I refuse to be assumed guilty for wanting to ride in an airplane.

No more security checks for anything, then?

Imagine the consequences if the > splodeydopes manage to bring down > six airliners in a day.

What is the fucking point of this thinking? Isn't this cocksuckingly demented?

No, it is along the line of imagining if splodeydopes managed to hijack and fly airplanes into buildings.

The splodeydopes goal is to use asymmetric warfare in order to cause us a great deal of damage at practically no cost to themselves.

So, imagine the cost to us if they managed to bring down six planes on the same day because that is what they want to do.

Here's what would happen if six airliners went down in a day: ... and we'd hurt them.

You mean like we hurt them after the Mumbai atrocity?

> Either go through the scanner, or find > another way to get where you are going.

I can't believe my eyes.

No, coward. No no no.

YOU stay home. Free men will continue to travel.

The scanner has no risk.

It does not invade your privacy.

Yet you, Mr. Braveman, squeal like a pre-teen girl when faced with a hairy spider.

For pete's sake, grow a pair.

Imagine the consequences if the > splodeydopes manage to bring down > six airliners in a day....

No, it is along the line of imagining if splodeydopes managed to hijack and fly airplanes into buildings.

Imagine if someone managed to blow up six trains in a day or six security check point waiting lines or six grade schools or six crowded movie theaters or six high-rise stadiums or...or...imagine if there's a lion outside!*

You cannot prevent terrorism by treating everyone like a terrorist. It is impossible!

*That's from Proverbs 22:13 for the culturally challenged.

"With these scanners, it will be extremely difficult, to the point of operational impossibility, to smuggle explosives onto an airplane with enough energy and in the right configuration to bring an airplane down."

Nonsense. It's trivially easy. I can come up with any number of ways to do it. Here's a clue: you are making a big mistake assuming that everything that gets on the airplane goes through the security checkpoint.

"Imagine the consequences if the splodeydopes manage to bring down six airliners in a day."

Imagine the consequences if they manage to do so in spite of all of these scanners and patdowns.

"Yet you, Mr. Braveman, squeal like a pre-teen girl when faced with a hairy spider."

Hey big man: You go right ahead and devise the most intrusive security measures you can think of. I can assure you that I can defeat it in about five minutes.

I can come up with any number of ways to do it. Here's a clue: you are making a big mistake assuming that everything that gets on the airplane goes through the security checkpoint.

You could probably come up with numerous ways to smuggle explosives or weapons through the checkpoint despite the scope and grope.

Hey Skipper, this might be the dumbest thing you've ever said, to anyone: "The scanner has no risk. It does not invade your privacy."

The manufacturer and the pictures and videos of it in use say otherwise.

Meanwhile, Patrick Smith points out again why theater is not security.

Anybody search for the term "ERG2008" yet?

"You could probably come up with numerous ways to smuggle explosives or weapons through the checkpoint despite the scope and grope."

Oh yeah. For one thing, there's any number of social-attack methods that could be devised. The thing about highly intrusive security regimes is that they encourage people who have no intention of doing anything bad to find ways around the security, just so they can do what they need to get done. The bad guys will observe what people are doing and use this as the basis of their attack.

I've seen this countless times in the computer security area. A legendary way of hacking into computer systems is the "yellow sticky attack". This is when a computer system admin creates ridiculous rules for composing passwords, such that it's impossible to devise a password that is both memorable and acceptable to the system. When you are stuck with a password like "jU&b6f%uNi(", what do you do? You write it on a yellow sticky and stick it to the edge of your monitor. All the bad guy has to do is gain access to your office under some pretense, and walk around and look at the yellow stickies.

Here's a clue. Every airport these days has concessions that are on the sterile side of the checkpoint. Obviously, supplies for the concessions have to go through or around the checkpoint. I have yet to see an airport with an X-ray machine big enough to examine a pallet of restaurant supplies. They hand-inspect the stuff, but they aren't about to open and examine every box on the pallet -- can you imagine how long that would take? And meanwhile, anything that's refrigerated or frozen is thawing out.

Hey Skipper --

The scanner does not pick up anything in a body cavity. Nor do the gropes. But there are bombs (they already have been used) that fit neatly in your anus, and are powerful enough to bring down a 747. Do you think even one terrorist will be deterred by having to put the bomb up his ass?

The scanners also do not detect powder, liquids, very thin plastics, or flesh colored items. Many experts believe they would not have spotted the underwear bomber.

That's why the Israelis decided the scanners were useless. That's their word -- useless. And trust me, if the scanners served any good point, the Israelis would be using them.

On the radiation risk -- actually, many eminent independent scientists think that there could be serious risks with regard to these machines. I have attached a link earlier in this thread that you might want to read before you take the TSA's word for the radiation thing.

I've already gone into the privacy issues, and why these things are a substantial step away from the Bill of Rights and toward a police state. But even if you don't give a crap about that, you might want to stop and think and put the other stuff together:
(1) The machines are useless and the terrorists can get by them easily.
(2) They just might be a health risk.
(3) The government is forcing them on us anyway...
(4) .... just so they can look like they are doing something about terrorism.

But maybe you want to live in Sparkle Pony Land, and are happy to have someone tell you you'll be safe, whether or not it's true. A lot of people do.

> The scanner has no risk.

Sez you, Mr Fizzicks.

> It does not invade your privacy.

Of course it does, otherwise you wouldn't be attracted to it.

This is the smirking chant of fascists throughout history: "Well, if you have nothing to HIDE...."

Skipper:

Also,

If I was making policy, I would get rid of the pat downs entirely.

Either go through the scanner, or find another way to get where you are going.

Nope. Policy: get rid of metal detectors, scanners gropers. All of it. Allow passengers with CCW licenses to carry firearms. Allow passengers to carry any legal weapon they like.

Nobody's going to hijack a plane, ever again. If finding bombs is your goal, you go with the one proven technology for finding bombs: dogs.

Cargo should be checked for bombs, because that's the most logical place to put it now.

Leave the passengers to fly unmolested. Knock a few billion off the federal budget at the same time.

Gail:

The scanners also do not detect powder, liquids, very thin plastics, or flesh colored items. Many experts believe they would not have spotted the underwear bomber.

The makers of the machines has said that they would not have detected the cock bomber. Period.

Therefore, useless. Unless the goal was to make the public more docile or create a gigantic shadow-porn business. You only do things that are known to be ineffective in order to reward political supporters.

Everyone involved in the deal should be investigated under RICO. The corrupt organization is the government itself.

So this may/may not be a trivial aside about Isreal's Ben Gurion Int'l...

"And please do not talk about how the Israelis do it. They don't process as many passengers in a year as the US does in a day." heyskipper

oh, yeah? BULL. Sorry darlin' you have to compare apples to each other. Ben Gurion serves one metro area, NOT an entire country the size of the US. Compared to say Perth, or Geneva, it is the same, for ~# of passesngers and area served... Are you saying you couldn't scale that to airport size? That because BG is the size it is serving ~11million people a year, that a larger airport couln't scale the proceedures up?

Your straw man is on fire. But not in a good way.

oh, and? MYTHBUSTED...
Adam savage forgets and flys with 2 12" razorblades from afoam cutter on his person...

and the backscatter machine misses them. His responce? WTF TSA?

Adam Savage WTF

>>Adam savage forgets and flys with 2 12" razorblades from afoam cutter on his person...
and the backscatter machine misses them. His responce? WTF TSA?

SwissArmyD,
Not remotely arguing here - but it IS aggravatingly unclear both from the video & the transcript (and a number of comments raise the same query) whether the very long razor blades were actually on his person when he went through the pornoscan.

It seems possible they were in his carry on laptop bag - which didn't go through the backscatter?

(Sure, the blades were undetected - which is, of course, a problem either way.)

Agreed, Jody, it isn't clear exactly where they were.

Imagine if someone managed to blow up six trains in a day or six security check point waiting lines or six grade schools or six crowded movie theaters or six high-rise stadiums or...or...imagine if there's a lion outside!*

You cannot prevent terrorism by treating everyone like a terrorist. It is impossible!

The point is to do risk-cost analysis.

Regardless of trains, grade schools, theaters, Islamofascists have targeted, and continue to target, aviation. Since they have already proven their desire to destroy multiple airplanes on the same day, when considering what countermeasures are worthwhile, it only makes sense to consider what effect those countermeasures will have on the risk of an attack, keeping in mind all the consequences of such an attack.

Nonsense. [Getting explosives on an airplane is] trivially easy. I can come up with any number of ways to do it. Here's a clue: you are making a big mistake assuming that everything that gets on the airplane goes through the security checkpoint.

If getting explosives on an airplane is so trivially easy, why are the Islamofascists resorting to such convoluted plots? They aren't stuffing their panties - a very ineffective way of shaping an explosive, BTW - because simpler means of smuggling explosives on board stand some reasonable chance of operational success.

—

The scanner does not pick up anything in a body cavity. Nor do the gropes. But there are bombs (they already have been used) that fit neatly in your anus, and are powerful enough to bring down a 747. Do you think even one terrorist will be deterred by having to put the bomb up his ass?

Yes, there are bombs that will fit in the anus, but, but while such a bomb could clearly do some damage, I doubt they could bring down a 747. Why do I doubt it? The Islamofascists have no shortage of motive or opportunity; if the means were as easy as you say, it would have happened by now. As the Quantas 380 recently showed, airliners can survive explosions far more powerful than a butt bomb.

The scanners also do not detect powder, liquids, very thin plastics, or flesh colored items. Many experts believe they would not have spotted the underwear bomber.

Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement (The seventh page in the Google Docs version)

Backscatter systems produce an image from x-rays that are scattered from the screened object. Because low-Z [effective atomic number; explosives have values in the low end of the range] materials are more efficient at scattering x-rays, explosive-like materials are imaged as bright in the backscatter image, while they are barely visible in the transmitted image. The backscatter system produces two images and both the backscatter and transmission images are displayed. The backscatter image is usually most effective for the detection of low-Z materials such as explosives, narcotics, and plastic handguns while the transmission image is most useful for viewing metals.

That's why the Israelis decided the scanners were useless. That's their word -- useless. And trust me, if the scanners served any good point, the Israelis would be using them.

No, that isn't the Israel's word; that is the word of an Israeli security expert.

And no invocation of Israeli security procedures is complete without considering problems of scale.

In 2006, Israel had 8.9 million airline passengers. The US, 2005, had 720.5 million. To further put that in perspective, the US has 40 times as many people, and 80 times as many airline passengers.

On the radiation risk -- actually, many eminent independent scientists think that there could be serious risks with regard to these machines. I have attached a link earlier in this thread that you might want to read before you take the TSA's word for the radiation thing.

I looked at the quote. Those scientists may well be eminent and independent, but, in this regard, I wouldn't equate four of them with "many".

I'll bet the actual risk these things present is on par with cell phones and vaccines.

I've already gone into the privacy issues ...

After walking through one of these scanners, no one knows anything more about you (other than whether it appears you are carrying something suspicious) than before hand.

How does that represent a privacy issue?

——

I am no fan of the TSA, having far more experience of it than any of you here, but claiming TSA efforts are worthless (as opposed to overdone, inefficient, understaffed, wasting too much effort on a now non-existent hijacking threat) seems to defy reality.

Islamofascist splodeydopes have not successfully attacked a Western airliner since 9/11.

Since they clearly want and have the means to do so, then something must be making opportunity operationally very difficult.

Also, I find it ironic that people who willingly submit to rectal and gynecological exams are pitching a fit over having a totally anonymous picture taken, of such quality that the porn industry would disappear overnight if forced to rely on such a thing.

Skipper,

We've addressed your points ad nauseum above. You've just got your fingers in your ears and we can't do anything about that. But I can't help myself -- I have to call you out on a couple of things.

(1) You say: "Also, I find it ironic that people who willingly submit to rectal and gynecological exams are pitching a fit over having a totally anonymous picture taken, of such quality that the porn industry would disappear overnight if forced to rely on such a thing"

Are you fucking kidding me? Tell me you are fucking kidding me. You are comparing getting scanned at an airport to getting health exams by doctors -- exams that (unlike the scanners) do stand a substantial chance of saving your life? Similarly, my doctor sticks her finger up my ass and vagina to check for problems. So I shouldn't mind if the TSA does it?

(2) those four scientists aren't the only ones who have problems with the scanners. I posted that particular link because it's short and easy to understand, readily verifiable as genuine, and the experts are indeed eminent -- therefore, people might actually look at it and think twice. But let's assume they're the only four who objected. You acknowledge that they are both eminent and independent. And yet it doesn't trouble you in the least that they see serious health risks with the scanners? And that the government is rushing into putting the scanners into place and forcing us to go through them without looking a little more deeply into those concerns?

(3) You say "No, that isn't the Israel's word; that is the word of an Israeli security expert."

Really? So you're saying that Israeli security expert is lying and Israel really DOES have these machines and is using them? Or are you saying that Israel does find the machines useful, but despite spending a fortune and a lot of effort on security the we don't have at our airports, Israel still stubbornly refuses to implement them?

(4) I am curious about why you have so much more experience with the TSA than all of us frequent fliers (I've been to 31 countries and travel pretty routinely in the U.S.). Unless you work for the TSA -- which would explain a lot.

If I have to take your word that you're such a TSA expert, how 'bout you take my word as a lawyer that this is a major violation of the Fourth Amendment and our civil liberties. I'd say I'm more of an expert there, m'kay?

Oh -- and on the butt bombs? See, e.g., here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/why-cavity-bombs-would-make-the-tsa-irrelevant/66849/

A quote:
"Three experts I spoke to this weekend -- two of whom are currently serving in government in counter-terrorism capacities -- believe it is only a matter of time before the technique is tried here. "We have nothing in our arsenal that would detect these bombs," one told me. "There is no taboo that we can see against this technique. Suicide is suicide, it doesn't matter how gross it is." I asked one of these experts if the body of the terrorist would actually mitigate the power of the blast, as had apparently happened in Saudi Arabia. "My assumption is that a bomb carried onto an airplane in the anus could be removed in the bathroom and detonated clear of the body," this expert said. "You're dealing with a thin-skinned airplane, so even a detonation of a pound of explosives in the anus could punch a hole."

> claiming TSA efforts are worthless (as
> opposed to overdone, inefficient,
> understaffed, wasting too much effort on
> a now non-existent hijacking threat)
> seems to defy reality

By any mix of those factors you care to compose, the TSA is worthless: It's a too-punishing drag on the value of air travel, American dignity, and horse sense. Got that? You're wrong.

> Since they clearly want and have
> the means to do so

Says who? You're trying to prove a negative. I contend that the pizza-eaters have done NOTHING, zero, to make anyone safer in the sky. At all. Ever. And you can't prove I'm wrong. And since your the one who wants to spend my money, dig around in my underpants, and irradiate my flesh, you're the one with the burden of proof.

> You've just got your fingers in your ears

It's pathetic. And it's weird.

More on the butt bombs:

""This is the nightmare scenario," said Chris Yates, an aviation security consultant.

On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.

"Absolutely nothing other than to require people to strip naked at the airport," said Yates."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

You'd have to do more than strip them naked, actually. You'd have to stick your finger up everyone's ass and vagina if you wanted to find them. Willing to go there, Skipper? After all, you do it with your doctor.

Skipper - you want to know why all their attempts at taking down an airliner (including the bomb-in-a-box technique) fail?

because we are dealing with stupid people. The wars inm Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan have killed off most of the competent ones.

As soon as they find someone competent, we're fucked. All it would have taken was a modicum of brainpower and the Times Square bombing wouldn't have been a mere 'attempt'. And the cock-bomb would have taken that plane down. And who knows how much damage a half-dozen cargo planes blowing up would have done.

But they are all tied together by a common thread: the guys that did 9/11 were competent and they succeeded. All the recent bomb plotters were fucking idiots, and they failed.

All they need is someone that's not dumb, and things are gonna blow up, and there's fuck-all anyone can do about it.

One more thing not addressed here, but called out by Patrick Smith:

You think you're made safer by these scanners? Hello - they're on domestic routes. Somebody coming, oh, from Iraq doesn't go through these.

Hmm.

so, HSkipper, you are trying to tell me that you have a sense of proportion, when you can't tell the difference between one Airport, Ben Gurion, and the entire airport system of the United States? For the record B.G. had 9.2 million enplanements for 2006, and 9.93million this year through October. So they'll be somewhere between 10-11million for the year. In an airport that is a destination and not a hub. Could we compare that to say, Salt Lake City Intl or San Diego.

why yes, it would actually make sense to compare ONE non hub airport to ONE non hub airport, of a similar size. Instead of comparing one airport to an entire country of airports.

but that doesn't mean that security proceedures couldn't scale up, unless you are desparate to be obtuse.

Also, I find it ironic that people who willingly submit to rectal and gynecological exams are pitching a fit ...

Are you fucking kidding me? Tell me you are fucking kidding me. You are comparing getting scanned at an airport to getting health exams by doctors -- exams that (unlike the scanners) do stand a substantial chance of saving your life?

I am asserting that airport scanners will make it much harder to smuggle explosives (or anything else, for that matter) on an airplane, thereby reducing the chances splodeydopes will be able to kill other passengers.

Of course, as with any terrorist situation, the odds of you personally being involved are almost nil.

Statistically speaking, scanning help will save someone else's life, not yours. But what the heck, this is all about you, right?

Never mind that most exams don't save anyone's life.

those four scientists aren't the only ones who have problems with the scanners. … You acknowledge that they are both eminent and independent. And yet it doesn't trouble you in the least that they see serious health risks with the scanners?

No, it doesn't, because their being eminent and independent doesn't make them right.

I do not pretend any particular expertise here, other than what I have read recently. What is not disputed is that the radiation dose from a scan is far less than what you get on the flight following it.

If your concern about the harmful effects of these scans is to retain any coherence, then I fully anticipate you permanently swore off flying and going to the beach the moment you read those scientists' concerns.

You say "No, that isn't the Israel's word; that is the word of an Israeli security expert."

Really? So you're saying that Israeli security expert is lying and Israel really DOES have these machines and is using them?

Here is what you wrote: That's why the Israelis decided the scanners were useless. That's their word -- useless. And trust me, if the scanners served any good point, the Israelis would be using them.

The Israelis have said nothing of the kind; your statement is false. Instead, a security expert, who happens to be Israeli, said that.

And just because he is an Israeli doesn't necessarily make him right. From my cite above, in case you missed it: Because low-Z [effective atomic number; explosives have values in the low end of the range] materials are more efficient at scattering x-rays, explosive-like materials are imaged as bright in the backscatter image …

Also, did it ever occur to you that at least one reason the Israelis don't use these machines is because they haven't been produced anywhere until recently?

Trust me, the Israelis cannot use something that does not exist.

I am curious about why you have so much more experience with the TSA than all of us frequent fliers.

I am an airline pilot, flying both domestically and internationally.

"Three experts I spoke to this weekend -- two of whom are currently serving in government in counter-terrorism capacities -- believe it is only a matter of time before [butt bombs] are tried here. "We have nothing in our arsenal that would detect these bombs … You're dealing with a thin-skinned airplane, so even a detonation of a pound of explosives in the anus could punch a hole."

Remember I noted above that the point of screening is to make it very difficult to get onto airplanes an amount of explosive in sufficient quantity and and of the proper configuration to bring an airplane down.

Your three experts are right, detonating a pound of explosives in the anus could punch a hole in the side of a plane. But what your experts didn't mention is that the volume of a pound of PETN is roughly six tenths of a pint. And that is ignoring the required detonator.

I have no idea if it is possible to shove that much volume into someone's rectum, or if PETN is flexible enough to not perforate it once having gotten there.

Assume all that stuff away. Keeping that volume in the rectum for any appreciable amount of time, never mind at least an hour, and not showing obvious discomfort all the while would be far more difficult.

So difficult, in fact, that the reason it hasn't happened yet is because the physical barriers to having a big enough butt bomb to put an airliner at risk are insurmountable, not because the Islamofascists lack the idea, motive, or PETN.

----

Which gets right back to what I have been maintaining all along. Yes the TSA has performed its mission so inefficiently and annoyingly as to eliminate until the end of time any possibility of ever finishing second in either category.

Islamofascists do not want to mess with things like binary explosives or panty bombs. The fact that they are must be due to the difficulty of getting what they do want on airplanes. They may be irrational as all get out, but they are not idiots.

—

You think you're made safer by these scanners? Hello - they're on domestic routes. Somebody coming, oh, from Iraq doesn't go through these.

Hmm.

Is that an argument for, or against, scanners?

In my experience of other countries' airports, the only significant difference is shoes. Security screening in Japan, for instance, is pretty much like it is here, no matter the destination.

—

so, HSkipper, you are trying to tell me that you have a sense of proportion …

why yes, it would actually make sense to compare ONE non hub airport to ONE non hub airport, of a similar size. Instead of comparing one airport to an entire country of airports.

but that doesn't mean that security proceedures couldn't scale up, unless you are desparate to be obtuse.

What I very specifically did was compare one country's emplanements against another's.

But if you want to use airports as the basis, by all means compare Ben Gurion against ATL, ORD, DFW, JFK, EWR …

I'm not desperate to be obtuse; rather, when one country has 40 times the population and 80 times the airline passengers as another, only a fool would take scaling for granted. Heck, you couldn't scale something as simple as a cake recipe that far.

——

My predictions:

* Scanners will be found to present no more risk than cell phones or vaccinations.
* Scanning will not have any relation to privacy (if no one knows any more about you after than before, you privacy cannot have been violated)
* Scanners, even in their initial production versions, provide a means to clearly distinguish between the body and everything else (it is baffling how people can complain about their offended sensibilities because of the images detail on the one hand, then immediately insist those images cannot detect contraband on the other)
* Scanners will eventually remove all the hassle from pre-flight screening. You will chuck your carry-on into the X-ray machine, walk through the scanner, and head to the gate.

You know what? skiper makes a good point, I'm going to argee with him.

FYI skipper the local cop want you to photograph every peice of property you own and produce a recipt proving you acctually paid for it - failure to produce such a recoept will be seen as proof of theft.

Also give me your banking info and passwords, I need to make sure you arent funneling money to terrorists. I'm also going to need to look inside any security deposit boxes you might have.

Hey that reminds me we need to tag you with a gps chip so we can know where you are at all times just in case we ever need to find you - you dont mind right? Its for your saftey.

Good news, we recenly developed this experemental nural bio chip - we insert it into your brain and it releses seretonin and oxycyclene any time you start to get upset - YOU DONT MIND A LITTLE INVASIVE BRAIN SUGERY DO YOU? Afterall you have nothing to fear being a law abiding citizen, right?

LA LA LA LA LA LA! If I keep saying the same thing over and over no matter what anyone else posts, I will be right! And safe! And the world will be filled with rainbows and sparkly unicorns instead of those mean old ninja pogo guys! LA LA LA LA LA!

OK, now that I have that out of my system --

Skipper is a pilot. The pilots kicked and screamed until they were exempted from these procedures. Now Skipper is exempt like Sasha Obama. That's fine for you, Skipper. But the rest of us still have to deal with them.

Since when do the Israelis timidly look to other countries before implementing airport security technology. They've had plenty of time to implement these things. They've chosen not to. And Rafi Sela is just some talking head -- he was in charge of designing security measures at Ben Gurion. The Israelis implement anything and everything they find useful. The specifically considered these and found them not useful.

You admit you don't have any idea how many explosives you can fit up your butt. So perhaps you should consider what the actual experts think, hmmm? And they think you can easily fit enough to blow up a plane.

So it doesn't make it much harder. They still have an undetectable place to put the explosives. What, you see them going "oh, no, I'm not glorifying Allah if I have to put the bomb up my butt. I'll just forget it and eat some cheetohs"? Really?

Actually, the scanners could make passengers (who don't know better) complacent and less watchful of suspicious activity on the plane. Now we all have our eyes peeled for underwear bombers and are ready to tackle them. If most people have the false impression you can't get explosives on board, that could change.

Similarly, you don't know crap about radiation risks, and might want to consider what some experts say. Did you read that entire article by the scientists? That dose is concentrated in the skin, and the government has only tested that level of radiation when spread throughout the body. The machines could easily malfunction in airport conditions and concentrate an enormous, cancer-causing dose in one area. Certain groups of citizens should not expose themselves to them, period. (Hey people -- skipper might not read that entire article, but you should.)

The fact that the scanners can outline the size and shape of your genitals (something private the scanners were presumably not familiar with), but cannot detect powders, liquids, light plastics, and flesh colored objects (See http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1951529,00.html ) is well-known and indisputable. You just don't want to believe it because you want a magic fairyland screener that will detect those things.

> Scanning will not have any relation to
> privacy

Where's the omniscient supernatural being who'll authorize this conclusive finding? How could it not be the opinion of the person being scanned that assesses this "relation to privacy"? How could this possibly, possibly be a matter for "prediction"?

> (if no one knows any more about
> you after than before, you privacy
> cannot have been violated)

If someone learns the shape of your body with an intimacy hitherto unpredictable by the must mundane clothing, how can you say there's been no violation?

Make no mistake: A woman in chador is being private. I believe that showing her face is very definitely an exposure, one she might regard as a violation... But I don't care. I don't therefore think that her breasts and genitals deserve routine exploration by the pizza-eaters.

> it is baffling how people can complain
> about their offended sensibilities

You're "baffled" because you have –with a pathological, Storm Trooper hatefulness that would make any dictator proud– decided that it's OK to do whatever you want to do to make sure that each and every passenger in the sky isn't a terrorist.

You're wrong about that. You do not and will never have that authority, no matter how smug you are about your career. If you're that afraid of what travel means to other people, you should quit your job and learn to sprinkle salt on french fries: We don't want YOU in the skies, either.

You think you're made safer by these scanners? Hello - they're on domestic routes. Somebody coming, oh, from Iraq doesn't go through these.

So? There are plenty of Muslims flying domestic routes. Hell, the 9-11 bombers flew domestic.

Skipper is a pilot. The pilots kicked and screamed until they were exempted from these procedures.

Because, for operating pilots, they are completely pointless.

When I travel and I'm not in uniform, I still have to go through the same procedures as everyone else.

Since when do the Israelis timidly look to other countries before implementing airport security technology. They've had plenty of time to implement these things.

How long have practical full body scanners been available?

You admit you don't have any idea how many explosives you can fit up your butt. So perhaps you should consider what the actual experts think, hmmm? And they think you can easily fit enough to blow up a plane.

Read your own cites more carefully. They said a pound of PETN inside someone can put a hole in the fuselage, not "blow up the plane."

Also, you and your experts do not mention any detonator, which PETN requires. The explosive will not show up, but the leads to the detonator surely will.

Yes, I admit I don't know whether putting a pound of PETN is physically possible. Imagine for yourself putting something more than half the size of a pint bottle in your rectum. In the spectrum of easy to impossible, where do you suppose that fits?

However, as I mentioned above, and you apparently failed to take on board, that isn't the most difficult problem: keeping it up there for a long period of time is.

Another point you fail to acknowledge is reality. There has been one butt bomb that I know of; it was an attempt to assassinate the Saudi Arabia assistant minister for security affairs. Result: one dead splodeydope, one slightly injured prince. Do you think the Islamofascists didn't put as much up there as they could fit? If a butt bomb can only slightly injure someone in the same room, how the heck is it going to "blow up an airplane"?

The second piece of reality you have either failed to take on board or are unwilling to acknowledge is that, despite being easy (according to your security experts), it hasn't yet happened.

Why is that?

Similarly, you don't know crap about radiation risks, and might want to consider what some experts say.

I don't know how old you are, so you might not remember the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion. At the time, the experts predicted thousands of deaths due to cancer from the radioactive fallout.

Do a little googling. See for yourself how big the surge in cancer was afterward.

Did you read that entire article by the scientists?

Yes, I read the entire thing. As a coherent attempt at persuasion, it failed to impress (it makes two completely contradictory claims; see if you can find them). Ultimately, its strongest objection rests upon a malfunction concentrating radiation in one area. Oddly, they don't cite a single case where an X-ray machine caused injury due to malfunction. Why is that?

As for those who should not expose themselves to the scanners, they bloody well better stay off the airplane, just as you should.

Unless, of course, you don't give a whit about coherence.

(As for not knowing crap about radiation risks, I have had three semesters of college level physics, and worked for a couple years at a company that makes controllers for medical X-ray imaging equipment.)

The fact that the scanners can outline the size and shape of your genitals (something private the scanners were presumably not familiar with), but cannot detect powders, liquids, light plastics, and flesh colored objects.

This is the second time you have made the same mistake. Once is ignorance -- heck, everyone is ignorant about lots of things -- twice requires an explanation.

The color of the object is irrelevant to an X-ray. Moreover, your cite does not say "flesh colored", it says "skin like".

Speaking of cites. You slavishly (mis)quote parts of that article that say what the scanners cannot detect, yet are silent about quotes to the contrary. Even more astonishing, you are happy to give credence to a Time magazine article over a technical paper devoted to the subject.

The cite to which I provided. You read it, right?

And then there is the ultimate contradiction: The scanners can see something as tiny as a man's penis, but fail to a whole host of other things that would have to be much larger to present the slightest risk to anyone?

You're right on only one thing -- I said flesh-colored when I should have said skin-like. My bad. I'm citing Time because it's easy to read and people trust it to do its research. But tell me -- Are you saying the scanners DO detect those things (powders, liquids, etc.)? You're saying Time made it up?

Did you note that the experts in those articles point out that the bomb that didn't work so well in Saudi was still in the guys ass, but that if it were removed (say, in the plane toilet) that would be another matter?

What happens if you blow a big hole through the side of the plane while it's at 30,000 feet? Will everyone be fine?

Finally, Skipper, if these scanners are so safe, and so quick, and so very, very, useful, why is the TSA now only putting a few totally random passengers through them, and simply sending most through the metal detector? They are NOT screening everyone with the scanners and patdowns -- just a few. And judging from the interviews with the screened passengers, most seem to be harmless types that obviously pose no threat -- not red flag types. Why? And do you really feel safe as a result?

Ok. Now I'm going to eat some turkey and argue with my family instead of Skippy. Although actually, this is one thing we won't be arguing about. My family is split between conservatives, liberals and libertarians, but this is one issue we all agree on. Isn't that wonderful?

Are you saying the scanners DO detect those things (powders, liquids, etc.)? You're saying Time made it up?

I don't think Time made anything up. They did a survey article that fairly balanced varying viewpoints, some of which said the scanner can't, and others that said it can.

The technical article I cited falls out on the side of "can".

I will happily admit I don't have the expertise to know the answer for myself. However, as with so many things in life where we don't possess the expertise, there is no choice but to subjectively assign a likelihood to which assertion is most likely to be objectively correct.

Since I think the technical article is closer to the actual truth -- your thinkage may vary -- I think it is probable that these scanners can detect explosives when they are present in destructive forms and amounts.

Did you note that the experts in those articles point out that the bomb that didn't work so well in Saudi was still in the guys ass, but that if it were removed (say, in the plane toilet) that would be another matter?

Yes. But they seem to have glossed over the problem of holding very much in for very long.

That isn't to say I think there is no threat from a butt bomb; rather, that such a thing is obviously not the Islamofascists' first choice, and the more we can push them away from the most effective means of immolation, the lower our risk is they will succeed.

Also, granting that scanners won't detect butt bombs doesn't mean we shouldn't use them for what they can do, anymore than we should stop vaccinations because they don't work on malaria.

What happens if you blow a big hole through the side of the plane while it's at 30,000 feet? Will everyone be fine?

Depends on the size of the hole and where the plane is when it happens.

Aloha Airlines Flt 243 (Boeing 737) lost the entire upper half of the fuselage from the flight deck door back to the leading edge of the wing.

The airplane landed safely, and the only fatality was a flight attendant who was blown out of the airplane.

However, should such a thing happen to an airplane over the mid-Atlantic, many people would probably die of hypothermia before the airplane could reach a runway.

But what your experts are talking about is much more limited -- a one square foot hole in the fuselage would mean the cabin would lose pressurization, but temperature wouldn't be a problem.

The airplane would have to descend to 10,000 feet within 30 minutes due to passenger oxygen supply limitations and divert to the nearest suitable field.

BTW -- all transoceanic flights carry enough fuel to handle this sort of thing.

Finally, Skipper, if these scanners are so safe, and so quick, and so very, very, useful, why is the TSA now only putting a few totally random passengers through them, and simply sending most through the metal detector?

I have no earthly idea. The TSA's reasoning on most things is a profound mystery. Unlike Crid, I think the TSA does make things much harder for the Islamofascists. But it absolutely beggars my imagination to think of any way they could make it more painful than they already do.

It is worth noting that some security experts say profiling is essential, others say just as definitively it is an absolute mistake.

Also, in reading up on this stuff, I saw that the Netherlands requires everyone to go through these scanners.

Now I'm going to eat some turkey and argue with my family instead ...

Good for you.

I'm between trips, stuck in a hotel room, with the rain positively bucketing down.

"Because, for operating pilots, they are completely pointless."

And for me, they are completely pointless. I have a security clearance superior to that of anyone at the airport - but blind rule-following has led to a circus incapable of recognizing this possibility.

Meanwhile - and I will point this out repeatedly - baggage handlers have full access to the plane, and avenues of terror attack exist that dwarf what one might do with your 747.

A search routine can and will be avoided.

What I don't understand is why Matt Kernan had to go through security again on returning to the US. He would've gone through all that at the airport he departed from, wouldn't he? Or is that standard procedure now on reentry to the US?

> I'm between trips, stuck in a hotel room

Oh, you poor little dear.

I can't believe we've been listening to a fucker who's EXEMPTED from these intrusions tell us how to be good little customers. Could you BE a more self-interested little cunt?

Every now and then, the gall of a blog commenter causes an audible groan.

I can't believe we've been listening to a fucker who's EXEMPTED from these intrusions tell us how to be good little customers.

If I'm not flying the airplane, I'm going through the same procedures you are; going through a scanner doesn't bother me in the least.

If I am, then they are pointless. With control of the plane, what do I need a gun, or a bucket of PETN, for?

Meanwhile - and I will point this out repeatedly - baggage handlers have full access to the plane, and avenues of terror attack exist that dwarf what one might do with your 747.

And it is repeatedly irrelevant to the question of full body scanners.

Should we make screening better for baggage handlers? Absolutely.

Does the fact it should be better mean we shouldn't make passenger screening better?

If people in crew uniforms are automatically exempt whats to stop them from carrying weapons and explosives for terrorist planning to take over a different plane then the one they are working on?

Huh Skipper? If you are planning on crashing a plane and can get past security why woudnt you smuggle crap past the checkpoint?

Whats to stop people from packing c4 into palate crates of goods being delivered to resturants and kiosks past the checkpoint?

Why are you so fucking stupid?

Recently read an article relevant to lujlp's point. Some pilots on some pilot forum theorized that a terrorist could kidnap a pilot's family and threaten to kill them if the pilot didn't convey the explosives through the checkpoint and pass them to the terrorist. Unlikely? Sure. But so is a terrorist attack.

Also -- true, the pilot will ultimately control the plane. But the flight attendant won't. So why are they exempt and not Radwaste?

Actually, if Patty Hearst could be brainwashed, why not Sasha Obama?

All damn unlikely. But so is the possibility that the nice retired couple have explosives in their depends.

Huh Skipper? If you are planning on crashing a plane and can get past security why woudnt you smuggle crap past the checkpoint?

---

Recently read an article relevant to lujlp's point. Some pilots on some pilot forum theorized that a terrorist could kidnap a pilot's family ...

Good question. I had only thought about it in terms of the pilot -- ALPA's position is what I was parroting.

Some security experts insist we screw up by not profiling, other security experts insist that to profile would be a huge screw up.

IMHO, the latter are correct.

If it was up to me, pilots would not be exempt.

Interestingly, these full body scanners allow both options. Everyone goes through, but not everyone gets scanned (reducing the workload on those looking at the images). Various forms of entry area observation will allow deciding who should get scanned.

Since the profiling is completely invisible, then the Islamofascists have to assume there is none.

Also -- true, the pilot will ultimately control the plane. But the flight attendant won't. So why are they exempt and not Radwaste?

SFAIK, flight attendants are not exempt.

Whats to stop people from packing c4 into palate crates of goods being delivered to resturants and kiosks past the checkpoint?

I have no idea what screening is required for that stuff.

However, it is a truly interesting argument to insist that because vendor screening isn't good enough we should not make passenger screening better.

Flight attendants were made exempt just before Thanksgiving, unless the media is just making shit up. See, e.g., http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/today-in-travel/flight-attendants-exempt-from-scanners-pat-downs.html?id=6309835

I hadn't heard that.

Just like with pilots, I think exempting flight attendants is a mistake.

You hadn't heard it? I know I've been following this issue pretty obsessively, but I would think you'd be chatting up flight attendants on a daily basis. Are there no jokes about giving them an enhanced pat-down?

This pretty much dashes all of the images I had gathered from television sitcoms about airline pilots and flight attendants.

I haven't flown since the day before the change.

Besides, for reasons I really don't care to know, flight attendants seem uniformly capable of failing to note my presence.

Those sitcoms must be about the other guys.

Fear not— I'm certain you're the punchline for many jokes.

Skipper, the FAs are getting the exemption for one reason: they're union, and we all know how much Obama kisses up to unions. I expect that pretty soon, you'll be able to bypass security at any airport by showing an AFL-CIO card. Then, the sole purpose of airport security will be to punish people who refuse to get on board with the re-unionization of America.

Which demonstrates that, again, it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with flexing authority muscles.

Skipper wrote:
>Yes, I read the entire thing. As a coherent attempt at persuasion,
>it failed to impress (it makes two completely contradictory claims;
>see if you can find them). Ultimately, its strongest objection
>rests upon a malfunction concentrating radiation in one area.
>Oddly, they don't cite a single case where an X-ray machine caused
>injury due to malfunction. Why is that?

Probably because they figure you're smart enough to find your own
cites. STFW, it's not that difficult. It helps that I remembered
a specific case, but it's not that difficult without. Anyway, see
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=3032491ADFE355A0D82097170D3449B2.inst1_1b?docId=5002135197

Since it's one URL per post, I'll do a second post with another cite.

Second cite, as promised:
http://www.dailytech.com/Radiation+Overdoses+from+CT+Perfusion+Brain+Scans+Spark+FDA+Investigation/article17154.htm

Note that, in both these cases, the machines were in hospitals and
had FDA oversight. Imagine machines where the oversight,
maintenance, and monitoring were of less concern.

The first cite appears to be inaccessible without signing up for a free trial with questia. The second discusses a case in which the problem was not a malfunction, but that the technicians reconfigured the machines' settings to comply with doctors' requests for better images.