US airport security tightened; body-scanners and pat-downs introduced

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
... The new measures include a new type of walk-through scanning machine which uses very low doses of x-rays to scan travelers' front and back, creating what many have called a "naked" image.

In addition, Transportation Security Agency agents are now allowed to conduct a very detailed, very personal, body search of passengers who refuse to pass through the new scanners. The agents are allowed to use fingers and the palms of their hands to feel around breasts and genitalia. ...

Source

Basically it seems like the US will in the future give you three choices in terms of flying:

1. Go through the x-ray scanner.

2. Get patted down.

3. Don't fly at all (don't try to get through the checkpoint, or you will be fined a sizable sum of money).

I don't think any kind of terrorist threat justifies this kind of security or policy. You are not likely to get killed by terrorist hijackers.

Should security take such a priority that it either means exposing yourself to radiation or being subjected to a highly uncomfortable pat-down when you fly?
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
3,877
Best answers
0
They did this to me back in 2008. >_>

They did it all. Take off shoes. Take off belt. Take off hoodie. Take Laptop,DS,PSP, and Xbox out of the bag and run through scanner. Get X-rayed, then metal detector, then pat down, and after that I go through to my flight which had a metal detector before the plane entrance.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
Ah, but this new body-search lets them touch your junk! Good times, eh? And what's your opinion on these kinds of security measures?
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
3,877
Best answers
0
Eh, Whatever floats their boat. If it helps with security then I guess its for the better.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Location
Round Rock, TX
http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-16-2010/back-in-black---nanny-state - skip to around 2:00 for a laugh
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/
http://blog.izs.me/post/1591805056/tsa-success-story

The best way I've heard to resist so far is to simply not fly, but if you absolutely have to be somewhere and you're getting patted down, just simulate pleasure. Make the agent as uncomfortable as possible.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
Why simulate? Just bring lotion and strip naked for them. Good times!
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
I don't get the big deal about this. The body scan shows what you look like naked, big deal, they see millions of naked people. You're not special, get over your self conscious self.
Getting patted down, when properly done and instructed by the person doing it still is invasive. Again, boohoo. So your balls touch your boxer, which in turn touch your pants, and then touch the gloves of the security officer. It's worse for the guy doing it then it is for you.

Also, next time I want to do an terrorist attack on the states, or smuggle drugs, I'll hide bombs/drugs on my three year old daughter.
People should get over themselves, really. I'd rather be patted down, or "X-rayed", then die too some towel wearing idiot lighting up his shoe.

Oh, and yes, the body scan health risk is just another angle to attack it while holding no real merit. People should get it into perspective, you're getting onto a plane! Do you know how much "extra" radiation you have to sit through on those flights? Way way more then going through a body scan, that's for sure.

If you don't like it, take a train.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
I don't get the big deal about this. The body scan shows what you look like naked, big deal, they see millions of naked people. You're not special, get over your self conscious self.
Getting patted down, when properly done and instructed by the person doing it still is invasive. Again, boohoo. So your balls touch your boxer, which in turn touch your pants, and then touch the gloves of the security officer. It's worse for the guy doing it then it is for you.

That's not the point of it. The point is that they're spending a lot of money on something that is completely unnecessary and invasive.

Also, next time I want to do an terrorist attack on the states, or smuggle drugs, I'll hide bombs/drugs on my three year old daughter.
People should get over themselves, really. I'd rather be patted down, or "X-rayed", then die too some towel wearing idiot lighting up his shoe.

I really, really hope this entire paragraph is sarcastic.

Oh, and yes, the body scan health risk is just another angle to attack it while holding no real merit. People should get it into perspective, you're getting onto a plane! Do you know how much "extra" radiation you have to sit through on those flights? Way way more then going through a body scan, that's for sure.

To an individual, the risk is minimal. To groups of people like pilots and frequent fliers, it will increase the cancer percentage. Every time you walk through one of the two types of scanners (one of them is apparently not as dangerous, no idea why that one isn't replaced), you will receive a dose of radiation equivalent of 10-20 minutes of cosmic radiation at altitude. To a pilot, this adds up.

If you don't like it, take a train.

I think it's safe to say that Benjamin Franklin would want to smack you.
I'm disturbed that people think it's okay to put in place make-believe security systems that don't protect you, just to maintain an illusion of safety and danger at the same time.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
I don't get the big deal about this. The body scan shows what you look like naked, big deal, they see millions of naked people. You're not special, get over your self conscious self.
Getting patted down, when properly done and instructed by the person doing it still is invasive. Again, boohoo. So your balls touch your boxer, which in turn touch your pants, and then touch the gloves of the security officer. It's worse for the guy doing it then it is for you.
That's not the point of it. The point is that they're spending a lot of money on something that is completely unnecessary and invasive.
What's the value of a human life to you? Or several in this case. Probably not a lot. Also, what's invasive? It's not like they are doing a cavity search.

Also, next time I want to do an terrorist attack on the states, or smuggle drugs, I'll hide bombs/drugs on my three year old daughter.
People should get over themselves, really. I'd rather be patted down, or "X-rayed", then die too some towel wearing idiot lighting up his shoe.

I really, really hope this entire paragraph is sarcastic.
Why would it be, if people try to get certain types of group to be exempt from being searched. It would make a good target group to actually smuggle along their explosives.

Oh, and yes, the body scan health risk is just another angle to attack it while holding no real merit. People should get it into perspective, you're getting onto a plane! Do you know how much "extra" radiation you have to sit through on those flights? Way way more then going through a body scan, that's for sure.

To an individual, the risk is minimal. To groups of people like pilots and frequent fliers, it will increase the cancer percentage. Every time you walk through one of the two types of scanners (one of them is apparently not as dangerous, no idea why that one isn't replaced), you will receive a dose of radiation equivalent of 10-20 minutes of cosmic radiation at altitude. To a pilot, this adds up.
More like 2-3 minutes. But I guess your "math" should make it look worse then it is. What's 2 minutes on a 10 hours flight? Not a lot. It might add a percentage on a shorter flight, but that might add up to one whole extra flight a year. So it's hardly noticeable. Even for frequent flyers

If you don't like it, take a train.

I think it's safe to say that Benjamin Franklin would want to smack you.
I'm disturbed that people think it's okay to put in place make-believe security systems that don't protect you, just to maintain an illusion of safety and danger at the same time.
Make believe or not, a body scan is fast and hardly a healthrisk. What's the issue really? Even if it stops a single idiot from getting aboard with a gun, it's good enough. If you value human life over profits and money that is.

I wonder why people have started using bolds in quotes, instead of just adding a [ /quote] after the sentence they want to comment on. Makes replying a bit easier.
 
Last edited:
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
It's called Security Theater. A political tactic that uses unnecessary and ineffective security measures to make people feel safe, when in reality they're only being inconvenienced.
Sure it is. It's also is in place to scare people off. And inconvenienced, sure. But if that's what's needed inorder to stop people from blowing **** up, or hijacking planes. Who cares that it takes a few minutes extra to board a plane?
The people that choose who to pat down are quite funny, it's quite obvious they pick the people that look like they won't put up a fight and be annoying which is a generally ineffective tactic for catching criminals.
Mind posting your source on this?
 
Freelance Mappzor
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
17,065
Best answers
0
Location
Stairing at the Abyss
Proz if someone REALLY wanted to get something on the plane, then this would not prevent that. Just decline the X-ray and smuggle explosives in your ass. It may smell bad, but what the hell itll be over in a bang.

WOHA lots of good it did right.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
I totally agree it's not full proof. It's there to create a state of mind. Flying is dangerous, but were trying to make it better.
And yes, it's still "easy" to get explosives on board. But just because it's not full proof, it doesn't mean it's unnecessary? What's being spend on it a year? 170 million dollars right? that's less then 50 cent a citizen, a year.
Isn't that worth it, to stop a crazy person with a gun from getting into a plane?

Just to make it clear, I know I might be a bit extreme in my viewpoint here. But I don't see a real downside to this. Inconvenience, sure. But minor at best.
 
Last edited:
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
@ Proz: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Ben Franklin

Number of terrorists caught by the TSA since 9/11?

Zero.

The only reason the pat downs exist is in the hopes that people will be far too embarrassed to undergo them and choose the body-scanners instead. Now let's think about this. If you were a terrorist who wanted to blow something up, would you bring your bomb-making materials onto the plane with you, where you'll probably only kill the passengers, or do you wait until you land to find a highly populated area? Hmm. Hmmm. Hmmmm. Yeah, this does nothing. If Israel can get through terrorism without all of this sissy **** in its largest airport, then so can we.

As for a person carrying a gun on board, it's hardy an issue. Dude pops up with a pistol, US Marshall shoots him. Mission Accomplished. If he's a pro, he can easily sneak a ceramic pistol into the plane. Just take it apart. Not a big deal. Completely makes all TSA procedures null. Even if they were to open his bag and see a disassembled ceramic pistol, they probably wouldn't know what they were looking at. He gets on the plane, whips it out, makes a demand, bam. US Marshall wins. This and the low body count are why terrorists prefer bombs.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
What's the value of a human life to you? Or several in this case. Probably not a lot. Also, what's invasive? It's not like they are doing a cavity search.
Because of the inefficiency of this method, your argument is pointless. It won't save lives. It'll take them.

More like 2-3 minutes. But I guess your "math" should make it look worse then it is. What's 2 minutes on a 10 hours flight? Not a lot. It might add a percentage on a shorter flight, but that might add up to one whole extra flight a year. So it's hardly noticeable. Even for frequent flyers
Except no, they lied about those numbers.

The TSA says each backscatter scan emits radiation equivalent to just two minutes of cosmic radiation at altitude.

Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University, disagrees. Rez has independently calculated the radiation doses of backscatter scanners using the images produced by the machines.
"I came to the conclusion that although low, the dose was higher than they said," he said.
Based on his analysis, Rez estimates each scan produces radiation equivalent to 10 to 20 minutes of flight.
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/?hpt=Sbin

Read that article for consequences. People will die because of this. What's the value of a human life, Prozac?

Make believe or not, a body scan is fast and hardly a healthrisk. What's the issue really? Even if it stops a single idiot from getting aboard with a gun, it's good enough. If you value human life over profits and money that is.
A healthrisk to pilots and frequent fliers. And no, it's not good enough, considering that people will get hurt from this.

Sure it is. It's also is in place to scare people off. And inconvenienced, sure. But if that's what's needed inorder to stop people from blowing **** up, or hijacking planes. Who cares that it takes a few minutes extra to board a plane?
Yes, let's scare off the people who aren't afraid of death. I'm sure they're terrified of the body scanners.

Isn't that worth it, to stop a crazy person with a gun from getting into a plane?
You know what else stops crazy people with guns trying to get on planes? Metal detectors. Like the ones they're already using. And there are ways to bypass backscatter scans, as well.

I don't see a real downside to this. Inconvenience, sure. But minor at best.
The downside is the consequences it has on the type of society you live in. It becomes a society ruled by irrationality and fear.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

PS:

The reason it's preferred to write in bold is that it takes up far less space. The borders add up.

Edit:

Ah, didn't see that you posted that quote before me, Zeo.
 
Last edited:
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Location
Fryslân Boppe! The Netherlands
In light of this topic, I have looked a bit better into the subject. Dug through some reports of people who actually know what they are talking about. The general consensus seems to agree that this type of scan -doesn't- work as well as they would like. It works for known strategies, however it's worthless when you realize how innovative people can be when hey want.
It won't stop a terrorist from getting onboard with his intestines filled with some form of explosive. But on the bright side. what it does do though, is make it harder. They can't simply strap something around their leg and wonder into a plane. They won't be able to make the explosive they chose, and end up with something harder to put together and quite possibly less destructive and more prone to failure. Not saying that a small explosion on a 10km altitude isn't enough as it is though. :p

Stuff like the patriot act, sure, I see how that is based purely on fear and delusion. Now I originally thought that body scanners were different. People fought them due too being self conscious, for the minor radiation dose you get and what not. Mostly petty things.
But after reading a bit I did remember that flying is one of the safest way to transport you from location a to b, even when factoring in terrorist actions. Which either means that a) Security measures are working or b) It's not such an attractive target as people want us to think it is.

When looking at option a, you realize that prior to 9/11 airport security detections rates are similar to what they are now. So that's not it, which leaves us with option B.
I guess I was just too imprinted with planes flying into buildings to look at the bigger picture.

I still think that having a person, sitting in a room, or an electronic detection system as we've been experimenting with in the Netherlands, looking at random silhouettes for hidden objects is a good thing. But it doesn't do what it advertises to do, what the people want you to think what it does and in that sense, yes it's complete BS.
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
874
Best answers
0
Location
Gothenburg, Sweden
Haven't read the whole thread. Just wanted to say that as a person with a medical condition I think it's a bit too much, makes me wonder what kind of treatment I would get if I flew to the US. I might be regarded as a terrorist because I have a small bag attached to my stomach with some suspicious substance..(feces). On the top of my head I get a little frightened about all this, but I guess that with some proper paperwork and some respect from the personnel there is no need to feel that way. But still, I don't have to think this way when I'm flying from Sweden to any country of the EU.
 
brainfeeder
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
5,179
Best answers
0
Location
Florida
[video=youtube;7CX9Agzeh-c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c[/video]

SEE YA AT THE PARTEH, RICHTAH!
 
Active Member
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
8,229
Best answers
0
Location
December
Not sure if this was already covered cause I read the first few posts then scrolled down, but apparently the full body x-ray thing may give you cancer.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-nbcol-body-scanner-cancer-brochu-120101117 said:
As Americans grow increasingly concerned by the privacy implications of what many are calling "naked" body scanners at the nation's airports, U.S. scientists are offering even more reason for worry.

The full-body screenings don't just display graphic images of airline passengers' and crew members' full, unclothed bodies, they may also pose a risk of skin cancer.

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," said Dr. Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, according to a Agence France Presse story.

Love's comments, reported Sunday on the AlterNet website, came amid calls for a national revolt on airport body scanners, with plans firming up for a "National Opt-Out Day" set for Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving, in which airline passengers are urged to refuse a body scan and opt instead for a pat down in airport security lines on the busiest travel day of the year.

Travel experts are predicting chaos in the terminals. But I'm hoping the added attention sheds more light on the cancer question, because Love is far from alone in venting his health concerns.

Though the story has yet to get much traction in the mainstream U.S. media, journalism outlets overseas were abuzz this summer with quotes from U.S. scientists voicing unease about the health implications of airport body scanners that act in many ways like X-ray machines.

Dr. David Brenner, head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University in New York, told the London Telegraph in a June 29 story that considering the large number of people who frequent the nation's airports, wide-ranging exposure, even to minimal amounts of radiation, could add up to one big concern.

"If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays, then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk," he said. "The population risk has the potential to be significant."

Scientists with the University of California at San Francisco were so worried that they wrote a letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology in April raising "a number of red flags" on the scanners' safety.

"While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high," the letter said in part, adding concerns that "independent safety data do not exist" and raising the potential for further harm if a high dosage was accidentally emitted.

"Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in the software) that stops the device can cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems?"

The Office of Science and Technology last month responded to the concerns with a nine-page letter assuring the UCSF scientists that the doses met safety standards and had been adequately tested.

"The potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use X-ray security system are miniscule," the government agency wrote. "Several groups of recognized experts have been assembled and have analyzed the radiation safety issues associated with this technology."

But one co-author of the UCSF letter, biochemist John Sedat, told AFP in Sunday's AlterNet story, that the government's explanation was "deeply flawed" and insufficient to ease scientists' concerns.

So are the scanners safe? I guess the verdict's still out. But I for one am going to be thinking about more than my nether-regions being exposed the next time I venture through an airport security line.
(Note that I'm being a retard and not reading the article, I just grabbed the one my friend was talking about last night.)
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
If they pat me down, I'm going to tell them I'm gay and demand a woman pat me down, preferably a hot one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom