backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 90 comment(s) - last by spluurfg.. on Dec 16 at 7:30 AM

Backscatter technology reveals hidden non-metalic weapons
Phoenix Sky Harbor first to deploy controversial scanner

Frequent flying passengers may start to find themselves searched not by metal detectors but by electronic eyes that see through clothes. Thanks to a technology called backscatter, passengers walk through an x-ray type machine that is sensitive to peer through clothing but not through skin, making the image appear as though only clothes have been removed. The first airport to deploy the technology will be Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

Originally, the controversial technology was deemed to be too invading allowing security officials to see through people's clothes without appropriate consent. However, the Transportation Security Administration said that it has since modified the technology so that certain areas of the body are blurred. The technology displayed such a clear image of a person's body previously. Privacy concerns remain high but the TSA assures that privacy will be maintained. Only an authorized security official will be operating the scanner and only from a remote location for example. This prevents the person operating the scanner from being able to see what the passenger looks like in person and possibly causing a problem. Pictures scanned by the new x-ray machine will not be available to those around it and only to the main operator.

The plan is to launch the new x-ray device in more airports across the U.S. Some airports in Europe have already deployed the new x-rays and the technology is being used in high security areas such as prisons. The main need for the new machine is to help detect non-solid explosives and chemicals that would otherwise escape traditional scanner.

More airports are to deploy the new x-ray scanners in early 2007. Interestingly, passengers will have a choice of either passing through the scanner or use the traditional pat-down method. Passengers who fail the first phase of scanning however, will be automatically subjected to the new x-ray.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not a privacy issue?????
By JWalk on 12/5/2006 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 5
It amazes me how quickly people are willing to give up their rights these days. All you have to do is say the word "terrorist" and the majority of American citizens will bow down and let you strip them of every liberty.

This x-ray scanner is an invasive breach of privacy. Period.

And the argument that you can always take another form of transportation is asinine. How long will it be before we are required to drive our cars through machines like these at designated checkpoints. You know, just to be "safe".

Or, how about random body cavity searches. After all, we need to "make sure". And the day that happens, you will have a bunch of people on here saying, "That shouldn't be a problem, unless you are trying to hide something."

This country is quickly trading in their rights to life, libery and the pursuit of happiness for the illusion of safety. If you are that afraid to live your life, then lock yourself up in your basement and cry yourself to sleep each night. The rest of us are going to live as best we can.




RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By spluurfg on 12/5/2006 5:14:37 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. The most common thing I hear is 'well I have nothing to hide'. That seems to suggest that only those who have something to hide would object to sacrificing their civil liberties. This, and the notion that the authorities are run by powers more perfect than the average citizen have created a mindset that doesn't even utter a peep when we lose our rights to privacy.

Remember that not all of those who are in power are shining paragons of virtue who would avert their attention from an interesting telephone conversation or security photo. Remember Senator McCarthy?


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By OxBow on 12/5/2006 5:32:31 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree in this case. Most of the crazy ideas that this administration has put forward for our "protection" would make George Orwell roll over in his grave. However, flying is a priveledge and not a right, just like driving. No one is forcing you to go into the airport. They aren't installing these in the supermarkets, etc.

I just feel sorry for the poor schmuck who gets the job of monitoring this thing. It's not like it's a string of supermodels are the only people who will be walking through this thing. I, for one, would not want to have to watch 10,000 middle aged businessmen walk across my work monitor nude all day long.


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By JWalk on 12/5/2006 5:56:12 PM , Rating: 3
The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment ... Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases."
-- Justice William O. Douglas, Kent v. Dulles (1958)

I believe Justice Douglas would disagree with your assertion that air travel is a privilege. It is not. It is a right.


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By rcc on 12/5/2006 6:18:49 PM , Rating: 5
Don't be silly. Air travel is not a right. The ability to travel where you will is. The method is not. After all, what right to a flight does someone have if they can't afford the fare.



RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By phil126 on 12/5/2006 6:59:49 PM , Rating: 1
You do have the right to fly domestically. That is major leagal reason why domestic passports could never succeed. Being able to afford something does not change whether or not it is a right. You always have the right to property in USA. It does not say you if you can't afford something it should be cheaper.


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By smitty3268 on 12/5/2006 7:30:23 PM , Rating: 1
There is no right that says you can fly if you have the money, if there were then the No Fly list wouldn't be able to have any Americans on it.


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By deeznuts on 12/5/2006 8:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
No you don't. There is no right to fly. If all airlines went bankrupty tomorrow would we be able to demand the government set up a state-run airline? No.

Ever watch the southwest show? Refuse passengers all the time.



RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By rushfan2006 on 12/6/2006 10:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Flying is not a right. Any airline can refuse any passenger for any reason(*). (*=as long as its not soley based on discrimination like race, religion, gender, etc.).

Now on the larger picture with the topic at hand, I don't know what the answer is -- if I was smart enough for that I'd probably be making millions a year. ;)

But I know the answer lies somewhere in the middle of addressing the privacy concerns while also addressing the security concerns.

You can say both views of "If you got nothing to hide" AND "What are we supposed to do live our lives in a basebent crying" (to borrow another poster's wording).....but Actually yeah if you have nothing to hide is the view I have, but yet this x-ray scanner is a bit much.

On the other hand, its straight out ignorance to think no security measures, even ones that are a little intrusive on our sense of total freedom, shouldn't be taken.

That's just stupidity to me....the world changes, you have to change with it. It is the product of our society -- when people blow up planes, when more and more hijackings happen each year, when millions of religious fanatics are obsessed with ruling the world and have the elimination of this country (USA) on top of their hit list.....of course you must have more security measures.

And for those that like to quote the consititution just keep in mind two things....the constitution was written over 200 years ago, there were no threats from unstable nations seeking atomic bombs...there were no such thinks as commercial jet traffic to crash into buildings....AND the constitution is a living document....which means the forefathers of the constitution they themselves knew that the document had to be able to change with the times and the challenges of the times that they couldn't foresee.



RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By NaughtyGeek on 12/6/2006 10:43:31 AM , Rating: 5
Let me start this off by explaining that I am playing devil's advocate and that the following thoughts don't necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs.

Now, let's say for the sake of argument that terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11 and various other recent attacks. How about the governments of several influential nations conspired to carry out attacks to instill a sense of fear in their respective populations.

Following these attacks, the easiest way to quell the public concern is to enact new laws foregoing centuries of precedent. These new policies begin a transition within world governments to track the actions of their citizens with greater ease.

These governments start out targeting high profile groups who have, through previous actions, alienated themselves from the general public. Because of these groups high profile social dissent, the public in general has no problem singling them out for higher levels of scrutiny.

Fast forward a couple decades. Which group is now socially unacceptable? The majority of people don't belong to the "insert your political or religious preference here" group, so the public feels it's OK to single them out as possible threats.

You now find that because you're Jewish, Catholic, Republican, or whatever so you're labeled a terrorist and are therefore not granted due process because of your beliefs. They lock you up in a secret prison and throw away the key.

These recent changes are a culmination of previous and current generations view's that "I don't have anything to hide, so it's OK if that right is removed." It's a slippery slope we're on and Big Brother is more prevalent and powerful than most people realize.


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By Donkeyshins on 12/6/2006 3:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You now find that because you're Jewish, Catholic, Republican, or whatever so you're labeled a terrorist and are therefore not granted due process because of your beliefs. They lock you up in a secret prison and throw away the key.


Actually, given who has been running the country over the last six years, you'll probably be safe if you are any one of the groups you listed...


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By iNGEN on 12/7/2006 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about that. The tyrants of the world have a tendency to do terrible things to groups politically & ethnically similar to themselves. Hitler was a Jew and Stalin was a Georgian...


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By Visual on 12/12/2006 3:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, it is a right. Buy a plane, fly all you want, whereever you want.
Well... except, you do need to have a licence, you do have to follow a bunch of regulations about where, when, how and what to pilot, etc. Much like driving a car, air travel is a right noone can deny to you if you do it properly.

But getting on the plane owned by some other individual or company and having them transport you is certainly not a right. That plane is a private property, the owner grants you the privilege to use it against a certain reward, and only then you do have a right to go there. He can ofcourse deny to grant you that privilege, even for no reason at all.



RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By spluurfg on 12/16/2006 7:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to say that Airport security isn't necessary -- I think it definitely is. It's just that we, as citizens, have an obligation to understand and demand the rights dilineated in the Constitution, which the earliest American patriots fought and died for. These security measures deserve DEBATE and consideration of all aspects that they entail.

Basically I'm afraid that the average American is too quick to simply permit the 'powers that be' to make whatever decision they like, and also that the decision making process which governs our rights are too far removed from our control.

How often do we hear about these security measures BEFORE they're signed by executive order?


RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By lukasbradley on 12/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By rushfan2006 on 12/6/2006 10:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
What is really amazing -- is the overwhelming number of US citizens (of which I am one btw)...that are living in a fantasy world completely ignorant of just how truly volatile the middle east is right now and just how honestly dire the situation is.

But yet we are all arm-chair quarterbacks to our military and our government's decisions, as we sit back playing our wii's and ps3's....and stuffing our faces with cheeseburgers and french fries without a care in the world....

Not that I think (and trust me I sleep well at night) one should be doom and gloom and paranoid -- that isn't a way to live...but at least be aware of how dangerous the times really are that we live in.



RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By Screwballl on 12/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Not a privacy issue?????
By rykerabel on 12/7/2006 11:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Veteran here.

Um, no, we need the armchair warriors too. Someone has to say what they feel is right or the thought does not spread.

personally, this further restriction of American Liberties is an insult to every soldier who has died defending the Liberties that we keep loosing to our legislators.

Security is the lamest excuse ever. Its a direct example of fight for freedom or loose it. "Fighting for your freedom" by definition is NOT SECURE.


RE: Not a privacy issue?????