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.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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