backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by pjs.. on Mar 9 at 1:03 PM


Prepare to be scanned: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security plans to follow in Britain's footsteps and roll out a pricey deployment of 450 scanners to U.S. airports despite health, efficiency, and privacy concerns.  (Source: Daily Mail UK)

Some experts say the plan is to give the perception of security, even if it doesn't make airports much safer.  (Source: Textuality.org)
Scanner deployment is part of $1B USD airport security upgrade

Even as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security races to deploy full body scanners at airports across the U.S., significant concerns have been raised.  The scanners have been shown to be ineffective at detecting dangerous low density materials like liquids, powders, or plastic weapons.  In addition, some studies have linked them to potentially cancer-causing DNA damage.  Perhaps most importantly, major privacy concerns remain unresolved around the scanners, which digitally disrobe passengers

Despite those problems, the DHS appears to believe that the perception of security is too important to wait for further study.  It is instead beginning a mass deployment, rolling out new scanners in 11 cities including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

The advanced imaging technology (AIT) units were installed at the Boston Logan International airport on Friday and will be installed at Chicago O'Hare International in the next week – all installations will be completed by the summer's end.  

Currently, forty AIT units are in limited use at 19 U.S. airports.  The new units will mark the first mass deployment of the technology to the U.S. airports.  More units are expected to be deployed later this year.

The scanners will come at a relatively high expense to taxpayers.  They are funded by a $1B USD appropriation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  The spending plan -- crafted by Congress, President Obama, and the Department of Homeland Security -- calls for $700 million in new screening for checked baggage and $300 million in checkpoint explosives-detection technologies.

The nine other airports receiving scanners will be: Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FFL), Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International (CVG), Mineta San Jos International (SJC), Los Angeles International (LAX), Port Columbus International (CMH), Oakland International (OAK), San Diego International (SAN), Kansas City International (MCI), and Charlotte Douglas International (CLT).  Of the airports, only LAX previously had full-body scanners.

The DHS is defending its pricey plan, arguing that there's no privacy risk.  It says that images of passengers unclothed won't be stored, despite the recent revelation that the scanners had the built in capability to do so.  They also admit that the scanners are only efficient at detecting metal objects, but say that could be very helpful in detecting knives or metal-based guns.  

They also claim there's no health risk with the non-ionizing radio frequency energy in the millimeter wave spectrum used by the scanners to generate their images.  They say the system's energy is 100,000 times less than a cell phone transmission.  (Recent studies, however, have suggested that DNA damage may certainly be possible).

For better or worse, though, the 450 new scanner units will soon be a common sight in the 11 airports on the mass deployment's front.  The U.S. appears to be marching in Britain's footsteps, moving towards a "no scan, no fly" policy.

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

better than the alternative
By omnicronx on 3/8/2010 1:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
I went to New York two week ago from Toronto from a terminal that did not yet have one of these machines. I had to go through a security check after the main security metal detector check. They made you rub your hands in your pockets and they took a sample and put it into a bomb sniffing machine which gave a pass or fail grade. (they split everyone by gender, and nobody could pass the check point without doing it)

I would rather walk through a machine than do that again. Worst part is, this check was right in front of where you boarded the plane. As a result we almost missed our plane as we sat down to eat after the initial security check. Little did we know that we had to wait another 40 minutes just to be allowed into the boarding section.

So in total I went through three checks, customs, security, and bomb check for a total of around 3 1/2 hours wait (not including the original check in) for an 11am flight on a weekday (i.e I can't imagine going through these checks during peak hours)




RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 1:51:05 PM , Rating: 5
"I would rather walk through a machine than do that again"

Personally (and I say this in all seriousness), I'd rather take the microscopic chance of being blown up in midair, than having to deal with these ridiculous security measures.

How many tens of thousands of people die in auto accidents each year? Compared to that, flying -- with or without these mostly-ineffective security measures -- is still far, far safer.


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 5:48:37 PM , Rating: 5
"So why have police and fire departments ? "

There are hundreds of thousands of crimes and fires in the country each year. How many air bombings are there?

Police and fire departments don't add 3 hours to the flight time of millions of citizens, for little to no extra protection. Are you seriously naive enough to believe that a gang of terrorists couldn't still take over a flight, just we now check for boxcutters before boarding?


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 6:50:01 PM , Rating: 5
"Point is, nobody likes to be held up."

The point is you are (especially in certain areas) very likely to be held up. You're very UNLIKELY to get blown up in a terrorist incident.

Even still, would you agree to spend 3 hours standing in line to get searched, every time you want to go outside your home, if it meant a reduction in muggings? I certainly wouldn't. So why should we abide it for flying -- especially when the risk is negligible, and the increase in safety minimal?


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 7:26:23 PM , Rating: 4
"That's a REALLY bad analogy. When I'm in my home. I have a gun..."

Please read posts before replying to them. When you leave home to travel to a public place, you're no longer in your home. And in many of those public places, you're legally barred from possessing a gun anyway.

"Another terror attack on a plane is unavoidable"

Yes it is. So what? Should we all consent to a 3-week background check. multiple body cavity searches and a polygraph test prior to boarding -- on the forlorn hope of preventing it?


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: better than the alternative
By ebakke on 3/8/2010 8:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Based on his original post:
quote:
Personally (and I say this in all seriousness), I'd rather take the microscopic chance of being blown up in midair, than having to deal with these ridiculous security measures.
It sounds like his suggestion was that we do nothing. Just go about our lives. Maybe a simple metal detector or something, but if we're fighting the inevitable, then why fight?

Now, I personally don't know if that would work well. It seems like if we dropped the security requirements down significantly, then the number of attacks would rise proportionately. But who knows.

My solution as of late has been to skip flying all together.


RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 8:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Still a stupid analogy."

Then why did you use it? You began the "police and fire" analogy; I merely debunked it.

"why don't YOU tell me what we should do?"

What should we do about old age? Or falls in the bathtub? Or venemous snake bites? Shouldn't we pass laws to prevent this loss of life?

The idea that every problem should be attacked by a mass of new government laws is a symptom of the liberal mind. I'm surprised to see you falling into that morass.


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: better than the alternative
By siuol11 on 3/9/2010 8:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
I beg to differ about the "liberal mind" comment... These draconian security measures are being hyped just as much by the political right- you could go so far as to say it's their bread and butter. Laser planes anyone?


RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 10:37:44 AM , Rating: 1
Beg all you want, but the liberal mind conceives of more government as the solution to all problems. Unemployment, poverty, education, heath care, energy, environment, racism, gay rights...the solution is always more and more laws.

In the area of crime and security, conservatives are also falling into that mental trap as of late...but it is indisputably and irrefutably the "bread and butter" of the liberal mindset.


RE: better than the alternative
By MadMan007 on 3/9/2010 12:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
What I would suggest is people stop being a bunch of vaginas and accept that

quote:
Another terror attack on a plane is unavoidable.


It's not as if airplane security threats are a new thing although the suicide aspect of it is. Especially given that these devices seem to mainly 'detect metal,' which was just like TOTALLY impossible before, this is just pure security theater.


RE: better than the alternative
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 6:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
"But you probably aren't for profiling either..."

Actually, I am. If we're going to engage in these pseudo-security measures, wasting time frisking Grandma Goldstein makes the situation even more ludicrous.


RE: better than the alternative
By adiposity on 3/8/2010 6:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
Fire departments:

Without them, a single house fire could easily destroy a whole block or more of houses, instead of being contained and possibly even saving the house. Entire cities could be destroyed every year without firefighters. For one person, the likelihood that a fire will destroy their home is low, right now. However, that number would be much higher without firefighters.

Police departments:

Um, this was a poor example. One of the things police do is enforce traffic laws. Without them, the number of car accidents (the thing that is supposedly more likely than all the crimes you listed) would undoubtedly increase. But police departments help to reduce the crimes you list. Without them, those crimes would surely be more common.

You have a major fallacy in logic here. The police and fire departments are already doing their jobs. That is why the likelihood of the various crimes and out of control fires is so low. Contrast that with the situation we are discussing: the likelihood of a terrorist blowing up a plane is already low, so why do we need to implement further scanning procedures? Additionally, I'm not sure what evidence we have that those procedures will dramatically reduce such a threat.


RE: better than the alternative
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2010 8:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally (and I say this in all seriousness), I'd rather take the microscopic chance of being blown up in midair, than having to deal with these ridiculous security measures.


I just told someone this today and they acted like I was crazy. Mainly cause the average person is filled with emotional responses and rarely thinks.

I have a great idea to fix the majority of the issues, put two shotguns up with the pilot and co-pilot and make sure they know how to use them properly. Any silly weapon someone can sneak aboard likely pales in comparison. As for the makeshift bombs, time to start profiling by culture (not by race cause that has nothing to do with the driving force behind terrorism or anything else for that matter).


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2010 8:22:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Mainly cause the average person is filled with emotional responses and rarely thinks.


Or maybe cause the average person likes living ?


RE: better than the alternative
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2010 8:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or maybe cause the average person likes living ?


Appeal to emotion with no actual backing, people will continue living without that BS, they have for a long time. This would be like me running to Chile now and saying my magic rock protects them from earthquakes and they must all buy one. Then when they don't have an earthquake for whatever time period point out how well my rocks work. Then when another earthquake hits, I could blame it on them for not buying my better rocks.

Once again, you are borderline retarded and I hope for the sake of the world you are working in a factory.


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: better than the alternative
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2010 8:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't "back" this. If you traveled back in time and told everyone who has EVER died how/what/when/where they would die, 99% of them would laugh at you.


Your point? If you can't back it, you have no right to say one way or another. Logic dictates you assume a negative until a positive is proven. The same is said for our legal system. Coincidence? I think not.

quote:
The issue isn't black and white or as clear cut are you think it is. Stop pretending that you have all the answers. Because you don't.


I find this laughable coming from you as you are horribly steadfast in your bold statements of anything involving this country and its policies and other countries for that matter. You are a pro at deference when someone points out your BS.


RE: better than the alternative
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2010 8:44:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I find this laughable coming from you as you are horribly steadfast in your bold statements of anything involving this country and its policies and other countries for that matter


Uhh that's because I'm always right. Haven't you figured it out yet ?


RE: better than the alternative
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2010 8:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm? That is a new one, widening your repertoire I see.


lol?
By Murloc on 3/8/2010 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 3
They also admit that the scanners are only efficient at detecting metal objects, but say that could be very helpful in detecting knives or metal-based guns.

metal detectors aren't enough?




RE: lol?
By R6Raven on 3/8/2010 10:41:43 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed. Looks like we're paying $1B for the illusion of security.


RE: lol?
By BrandtTheMan on 3/8/2010 10:59:55 AM , Rating: 4
It'll be WAY more than $1B after all the lawsuits


RE: lol?
By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
Lawsuits will be coming for sure. Check out how the scanners have already been abused: http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/28976634/a...

You can bet my wife (who is gorgeous) won't appreciate someone ogling her naked body. You can bet I won't appreciate this being done to my kids.

These companies saying that these images can't be saved or printed is COMPLETE BS.


RE: lol?
By Aloonatic on 3/8/2010 11:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, they could just buy a few real ones, and have a bunch of metal boxes that beep at random or something for the rest of the country.

Human error will still let someone/something slip though though. Most of the problems with airport security come from the people who work there too these days. It's not like the Christmas day "bomber" could not have been stopped either. Money would probably be better spent elsewhere than these things.


RE: lol?
By wempa on 3/8/2010 12:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I was actually going along with it until I got to that part too. What an incredible waste of money ! Do they not realize that we ALREADY have to go through a walk-through metal detector and then also possibly get a once over with a handheld unit as well ??? If this can only detect metal objects, what value is this adding ? Why not just have us go through 2 walk-through units ??? Please tell me that these units can be upgraded in the future to detect other types of objects too.


RE: lol?
By porkpie on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: lol?
By porkpie on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: lol?
By rippleyaliens on 3/8/2010 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Metal Detectors cannot detect carbon fiber knives.. IE VERYYYYY light weight, and undetectable.. And realistically there are MANY!!! Ways to smuggle things on aircraft.. IE, Childrens bottles.. HOW often does a TSA rep, check bottles for liquid explosives?? 2-3 bottles with different articles added together = Big boom.. A disposable camera w\ flash produces enough spark to ignite. The dumb african who tried on christmas, IF HE WAS GOOD, he would have just went to restroom, and did it, DUH!!! AND Technically, IT IS VERY EASY... 2x 50cal smiper rifles, Take out Pilots, or both engines at same time. IN WHICH THE BARRET w\ APIT (armor piercing incindary tracer).. The bio scanners are just for a good piece of mind, and to catch the idiot terrorists.


RE: lol?
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 5:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Actually Metal Detectors cannot detect carbon fiber knives"

Actually, these Terahertz scanners can detect carbon fiber knives.

"HOW often does a TSA rep, check bottles for liquid explosives??"

Since any bottle over a certain (very small) size is prohibited, and the TSA reps generally make you drink from anything even remotely suspicious, I'd say the restriction is more effective than you belive.

"The dumb african who tried on christmas, IF HE WAS GOOD, he would have just went to restroom, and did it, DUH!!"

Had he done so, the jet would not have been seriously damaged, and still would have landed...according to the most recent tests done by the NTSB.


RE: lol?
By munky on 3/8/2010 7:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
The dumbass african was already identified as a suspect threat by existing intelligence. Had airport security been allowed to do their job, he would have never gotten on the plane in the first place.


RE: lol?
By geddarkstorm on 3/8/2010 4:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, now you can be undressed... with SCIENCE!

But really, I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on. These things are cool from a tech perspective, but for the security they provide is the cost of them justified? When's the last time we had an issue with a security breach endangering a domestic flight in the US? The Christmas thing was an international fail. Something like this will decrease the odds of that happening further, but it'll never be 0.

So I dunno, I feel we're at the point of diminishing returns with this.


RE: lol?
By arazok on 3/8/2010 3:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
As the photo clearly indicates, they are also good at detecting balls.

How does one design something that can detect your balls and guns, but nothing else. It’s genius!


How to stop these BS
By chick0n on 3/8/2010 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 1
you know why DHS doesn't cared? Cuz they dont have to walk thru that thing.

Just force those overweight fat ass (trust me, I travel a lot and most of those so called security people dont do shit just sit there all day) to walk thru those scanner once a day.

See if they would deploy it

Now I think Im more happy to stay in any country other than US/UK. At least I wont get cancer/modified DNA/deformed babies for stupid reasons.




RE: How to stop these BS
By walk2k on 3/8/2010 2:52:31 PM , Rating: 1
Lol so true. DHS has to be the most ineffectual branch of US government, and that's saying something (see: Katrina).

I especially love it when someone who can barely speak english and has probably been in this country for about 5 days asks me to produce my ID. Makes me feel so "safe"...


RE: How to stop these BS
By Chaser on 3/8/2010 3:53:47 PM , Rating: 3
Hold on now. The post Katrina rescue operation conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard was admirable. It's what got the former Admiral Chertoff promoted to the post of Secretary of Homeland Security.

FEMA certainly could have done much better but the incompetent Governor of Louisiana then Kathleen Blanco and the corrupt mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin, share far more of the blame.


RE: How to stop these BS
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2010 4:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lol so true. DHS has to be the most ineffectual branch of US government


I don't see how you can actually say that without top secret government clearance. Good men and women have been keeping you safe more than you or I will probably ever know. We have had NO domestic attacks since the inception of the DHS. If that's "ineffectual" then well... okay.

But then again, I am talking to Walk2k so why bother lol.


RE: How to stop these BS
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 4:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
"We have had NO domestic attacks since the inception of the DHS."

And we had ONE before its inception.

You might want to google the concept of a "statistical universe", before you repeat that claim.


RE: How to stop these BS
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2010 4:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Umm the USS Cole (not domestic, but still) ?? The first trade center bombing ??

And yeah, I can see George Bush after 911 saying " Look folks, we don't have to do anything. Go and Google the concept of a "statistical universe" and sleep well tonight"

Are you f'ing serious ? Yeah let's do nothing and just roll the dice. How moronic.


RE: How to stop these BS
By porkpie on 3/8/2010 5:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Umm the USS Cole (not domestic, but still) "

Not "but still". The DHS is not preventing overseas attacks on US naval ships, now is it? Don't try to move the bar.

"Yeah let's do nothing and just roll the dice."

Don't distort my remarks. Your claim was that the DHS had been marvelously effective. I was pointing out the error in your logic, not voting for inaction.


RE: How to stop these BS
By Gzus666 on 3/8/2010 8:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But then again, I am talking to Walk2k so why bother lol.


Yea, he is the issue.

Seems like you are always the common denominator in every one of these silly tiffs where you go all "Captain America" on everyone and spout logical fallacies like they are going out of style. Couple that with your insane bigotry and it is like you basically are the personification of the rebel flag, filled with all its ignorance.

Correlation does not equal causation you dolt, brush up on some basic logic and stop spouting ridiculous fallacies.


kudos
By kattanna on 3/8/2010 10:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite those problems, the DHS appears to believe that the perception of security is too important to wait for further study.


and thats all these new security measures do.. provide a "perception" of security.




RE: kudos
By WinstonSmith on 3/8/2010 11:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, just the perception. Google:

"Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers"

Another on the same subject:

"Saudi Suicide Bomber Hid IED in His Anal Cavity"

And this about non-anal techniques:

"The Things He Carried - Magazine - The Atlantic

Airport security in America is a sham—“security theater” designed to make travelers feel better and catch stupid terrorists. Smart ones can get through security with fake boarding passes and all manner of prohibited items—as our correspondent did with ease."

The only FIX for terrorism is addressing the CAUSES of it. Period. Full stop.


RE: kudos
By myhipsi on 3/9/2010 8:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
I whole-heartedly agree. Not many Americans want to admit it, but we all know the answer; American foreign policy (aka. the policeman of the world). When you have American military bases in 170+ countries in the world and perpetual war since world war II, you're going to piss a lot of people off.

The only group that really benefits from America's current foreign policy is the massive Military-Industrial complex which Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in 1961:

quote:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


Well, Eisenhower's warning has become stark reality, and America's foreign policy feeds this mighty war machine.

Stop the wars, Shut down the bases, and bring the U.S. military home. Not only would the terrorism stop, but national defense would be much more effective with a military that is at the ready, and not mired in perpetual war all over the world.


RE: kudos
By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely! Couldn't have said it better. If I could rate you up, I would. :-)


RE: kudos
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
"When you have American military bases in 170+ countries in the world..."

Err, more like 24 countries, but why stick to the truth when lies are so much more convincing, eh?

"...and perpetual war since world war II"

What color is the sky in your world?


RE: kudos
By myhipsi on 3/9/2010 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, more like 24 countries, but why stick to the truth when lies are so much more convincing, eh?


I didn't lie, I was wrong, and so are you. I stand corrected, It's around 58 countries. So what, it's still intervention to the highest degree any way you look at it. And my point still stands, that more military intervention leads to more enemies.

quote:
What color is the sky in your world?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_St...

Just to name the Major conflicts since WWII: (none of which were declared)

1950-1953 - Korean war
1959-1975 - Vietnam war
1991-1999 - Gulf war
2001-present - War in Afganistan
2001-present - War in Iraq

This excludes the numorous conficts that occured during and in between these major conflicts. Refer to the wikipedia article for more examples.

It's not that I have anything against the U.S or it's military. My point is simply that when you excercise an agressive foreign policy involving the military in many countries that oppose your presence, you are bound to be attacked at some point, simply put.

Nobody, especially in the U.S. wants to face those facts. Instead, it is ignorantly claimed that "they hate us for our freedoms". I mean, come on, logic tells you this simply isn't the case.


Very expensive metal detectors?
By Flahrydog on 3/8/2010 10:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They also admit that the scanners are only efficient at detecting metal objects, but say that could be very helpful in detecting knives or metal-based guns.


Isn't this what metal detectors do?

I fly out of Boston and will most definitely be requesting a pat down if asked to be scanned.




RE: Very expensive metal detectors?
By Qapa on 3/8/2010 11:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
Is that really an alternative?

I mean, will they really do that _instead_ of putting you through this scanner, and then let you go to the plane?

Just trying to know, because I will/would do that as well, and hope everyone would... that might prevent more from being bought.


RE: Very expensive metal detectors?
By Flahrydog on 3/8/2010 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
I do not know if they would. Not sure what their complaint would be, from my understanding a pat down is more effective at finding threats. But you can't pat down every passenger, too time consuming.

If they don't allow you on the plane, someone needs to file a lawsuit.


RE: Very expensive metal detectors?
By Sulphademus on 3/8/2010 12:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Im right with you and Ill be requesting the frisk as opposed to the scan as well (should the time ever come). Customer service has lost that personal touch anyways.

This wont stop anything and will just be another $1B+ down the sh!**#r.


By Yawgm0th on 3/8/2010 1:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ill be requesting the frisk as opposed to the scan as well (should the time ever come). Customer service has lost that personal touch anyways.
I see what you did there. Ten points.


Big waste of money
By Nutzo on 3/8/2010 1:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much in campaign contributions the company producing these scanners made last year…..

Donate a few million, make billions.

I’m glad I rarely fly, so I don’t have to deal with this.




RE: Big waste of money
By MadMan007 on 3/9/2010 12:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
+1, that's exactly what I was thinking. Does anyone know the contractor on these?


RE: Big waste of money
By MadMan007 on 3/9/2010 12:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
And yes I know there are restrictions on contractors and contributions but with the recent Supreme Court decision I'm just saying...


RE: Big waste of money
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 12:53:49 AM , Rating: 1
Lay off the goofy conspiracy theories. Do you really not see why airport screeners want these machines? Are you blind? Can you not see the ultra-detailed high-res images they generate? Comparing them to just waving a metal-detecting wand over someone's tush is ludicrous.

I don't really support these security measures, but invoking bribery to explain the motivations here is real tinfoil hat material.


RE: Big waste of money
By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's not conspiracy theory if it's true, is it? :-) Come on, the supreme court just ruled that corporations can give unlimited campaign funds now, while you and I are still limited in our giving. This has just handed them an ENORMOUS amount of power. They have much more freedom than a regular citizen now.

If you don't think this is a nation of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, you are not paying attention. I can tell you that a politician WILL BEND to who puts them in office. Direct bribe? Maybe not, but trust me, they know whose money got them elected, and keeps them elected.

Besides that, do you ever watch candidates to see what corporations some of these guys come from? VERY interesting, and VERY telling if you look into people's history and connections.


RE: Big waste of money
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 10:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not conspiracy theory if it's true, is it?
Then prove it. So far all the evidence is against your little conspiracy theory, and you've had nothing but vague innuendo to support it.

quote:
the supreme court just ruled that corporations can give unlimited campaign funds now, while you and I are still limited in our giving.
Please don't spread disinformation. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation, as an 'association of citizens' has the same rights of political free speech a citizen has. Period.


Just wait - it'll get more interesting
By bildan on 3/8/2010 11:01:29 AM , Rating: 4
Just wait until the bad guys figure out how to use clothing itself as an explosive.




By EricMartello on 3/8/2010 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
New spring fashion from MuhumadAlQuadahar 2010:

- Detcord Hoodie (with logo)
- Snazzy Shapecharge Sandals
- Woven Fiberglass Shirt with Thermite Accent

I heard these hot fashions are going to blow the competition out of the wa...er..sky...


Yes
By damianrobertjones on 3/8/2010 11:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
It first started with the first release scanners that appeared in airports, then expensive bars and eventually, nearly every shop in the high street.

We never knew how it would alter our DNA until the first one's started appearing, genetically altered human beings, changed by the scanners, eventually, becomming brain dead zombie like vessels.

Agggghhhhhhh




RE: Yes
By HotFoot on 3/8/2010 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 3
Eventually becoming? Some might say we're already there.


Who's Running These Agencies?
By Ard on 3/8/2010 1:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Another typical knee-jerk reaction from the US political system. Damn the research, damn the potential deleterious effects, our "security" is too important to ignore. Your health can wait if it means stopping those terrorists, which, we forgot to mention, these scanners won't do.

Does anyone in the political space use common sense anymore? What happened to rational, well-constructed thought? Where is the cost-benefit analysis? How is this a good idea? Please, someone tell me without using nonsensical political rhetoric.




RE: Who's Running These Agencies?
By siuol11 on 3/9/2010 8:40:51 AM , Rating: 1
To answer all your questions at once; they've gone down the shitter, coincidentally along with responsible political discourse between our two major political parties.


RE: Who's Running These Agencies?
By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
It makes sense for the corporations, which are now the entities that control Washington. Yes, they use corporate common sense, not "common" sense. Makes perfect sense if you're making your money base happy, and are a horrible person as most politicians in DC are. Please note I said most, not all. :-)

By the way, I'm not anti-corporations, or anti-profit. I AM against corporations getting MORE freedom and power than an individual. This is why our politicians on both left and right appear to have little to no common sense. They simply don't serve us, the people. They serve their money masters.

If you don't believe me, just look to the "government" health care. It's nothing more than a takeover of the health industry by PRIVATE insurance companies. There is no public option (google it if you don't believe me), and their stocks are up over 30% across the board because of what this "Obamacare" means to their precious money coffers. It's one of the largest scams this country has ever seen.


The Ultimate Metaphor for Our Government
By nstott on 3/8/2010 11:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
'Butt' do the airport nudometers have anal penetruder capability? We have to make sure that we all feel really safe and secure.




By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! I wish I could rate you up for that one. Watch, something will happen, and they will insist on a machine that goes up there and "sniffs" for something dangerous. With the kind of gas I have, I'll never get through security. Lol...


DTW
By Gunbuster on 3/8/2010 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
I know these things are a total sham but find it funny that Detroit Metro Airport is not on the list for getting a nude-o scanner...




Taking jobs
By DizzyMan on 3/9/2010 5:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
What i don't understand about this, these machines cost more than some security guard will earn in his whole life...

with the added health risk, why not create security jobs and just start searching people manually again?
The whole reason to push these scanners was in instance which would not have been avoided with it...

This is totally stupid.




By inperfectdarkness on 3/9/2010 11:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
the 9-11 attacks cost an estimated $250,000 to pull off. the rewards have continued to pay dividends ever since. it's not only the initial cost in lives or economic impact--you're witnessing the latest of those costs; continued airport security.

you're paying for the TSA to have the latest in equipment & you're also paying in time and hassle. there may never another attempted airliner hijacking--and it would still be "mission accomplished" for the cause celebre for terror.




By pjs on 3/9/2010 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't fly unless I absolutely have to. Between the so called airport security that dehumanizes people and the way that airlines treat customers, I don't fly if I don't have to.




Transparency?
By evolveNow on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Transparency?
By porkpie on 3/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Transparency?
By MojoMan on 3/9/2010 10:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
Lol! I second that! Good one!


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki