backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by bigbrent88.. on Jan 13 at 2:19 PM


Recent research has shown that T-Wave scanners like the full-body scanners at the airport can cause DNA damage, increasing the risk of cancer.  (Source: MIT Technology Review)

Past research showed that scanners, pre-processing, have fully nude images, despite claims to the contrary. Now newly obtained documents reveal that the scanners can send and store pictures, despite TSA claims that they can't.  (Source: Bloomberg)
More evidence indicates that body scanners aren't such a great idea

Body scanners seemed a promising way to protect against terrorists smuggling forbidden items onto airplanes.  However, over the last year the argument for the devices weakened substantially as it was revealed that the scanners would do little to help and could pose serious privacy issues.

The first issue is the price.  According to reports, current T-Wave (Terahertz-Wave) full-body scanners cost around $166K USD each.  The Transportation Safety Administration has thus far been averaging about 2 scanners per airport.  That could put the cost of President Obama's proposed full scale deployment at around $100M USD to cover all of the approximately 600 airports certified for large commercial aircraft (and as much as $3.2B USD to put a single scanner at all airports, including smaller private ones, in the U.S.).

Would that investment be worth it?  Recent studies by the British government revealed that the current generation of full-body scanners are unable to detect lightweight materials like plastics, chemicals, or liquids.  Bags of substances like the chemicals smuggled in the failed Christmas Day attack would likely slip through, as the scanners are unable to detect them.

The TSA claims that the health risk from the high-frequency scans is very low.  However, in population groups with certain mutations that make them sensitive to radiation (typically due to lacking DNA repair mechanisms), this risk could become very serious, though.  Furthermore, recent studies have revealed that this type of scan can cause mild DNA damage -- raising cancer concerns.

And then there's the mountain of privacy issues.  Past reports have shown that the scanners do have fully naked images, generated by the hardware and momentarily stored as raw images, which then undergo processing to obscure breasts and genitalia.  In theory, these images could be extracted, according to security experts.

Well, at least the scanners can't send or store images, said advocates.  However, that turns out to be a false claim as well.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has received 2008 documents from the TSA which not only clearly state that the scanners could have such abilities, but they say that the scanners must have them.

The TSA documents state that all scanners need to be capable of storing and sending user images when in "test mode".  Those documents, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, catch the TSA in an apparent lie.  It's website claims, "The machines have zero storage capability."

A video on the site adds, "the system has no way to save, transmit or print the image."

A TSA official speaking on condition of anonymity claims that "strong privacy protections [are] in place", adding, "There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode."

EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg points out that those claims could suggest any number of hardware or software protections.  About the only way passengers would truly be protected would be if the TSA was removing non-replaceable hardware (such as PCBs) during device deployment.  Mr. Rotenberg suggests that TSA insiders or hackers could overcome more mild obstacles, such as removed storage or software protections.

Mr. Rotenberg concludes, "I don't think the TSA has been forthcoming with the American public about the true capability of these devices.  They've done a bunch of very slick promotions where they show people -- including journalists -- going through the devices. And then they reassure people, based on the images that have been produced, that there's not any privacy concerns.  But if you look at the actual technical specifications and you read the vendor contracts, you come to understand that these machines are capable of doing far more than the TSA has let on."

The TSA official, speaking anonymously, claims the devices cannot be connected to a network.  However, given the fact that past claims were disproven, one can only wonder if that's really the whole truth.

Amid this mountain of concerns, many critics are calling for the President and the TSA to reevaluate the costly program that may endanger both the health and privacy of U.S. travelers.



Comments     Threshold


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

Another layer of harassment
By BernardP on 1/12/2010 10:21:45 AM , Rating: 5
Body scanners would be just another negative to put in the pros and cons equation of leisure air travel. For more and more people, the aggravation of air travel will become greater than its rewards: to the increasing intrusiveness of security measures, we have to add frequent delays, risk of lost luggage, incessant nickel-and-diming and bad service from carriers.




RE: Another layer of harassment
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Another layer of harassment
By Yawgm0th on 1/12/2010 10:56:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't really see it as an inconvenience, so I don't really care.
Personally, I see cancer and an extreme invasion of privacy as way more than an inconvenience.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Solandri on 1/12/2010 1:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I see cancer and an extreme invasion of privacy as way more than an inconvenience.

Your increased cancer risk from the increased radiation exposure during the flight itself (for trans-continental and trans-oceanic flights) far exceeds the increased cancer risk due to the scans. As a rule of thumb, a transcontinental flight gives you about as much increased radiation exposure as a chest x-ray. A trans-oceanic flight a bit more.

As you've already elected to take the flight, you're implicitly agreed that that level of increased cancer risk is an acceptable trade-off for the convenience of the flight.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Solandri on 1/12/2010 1:52:51 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh. Since people are downrating me for speaking the truth, here are some external references. We do not live in a radiation-free environment. There's a substantial amount of background radiation that we're constantly exposed to and which our bodies have to be able to withstand to survive. It makes little sense to fret about a minuscule radiation dose at the scanner when you're exposing yourself to a much larger dose simply by taking the flight.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/cosmic/e...
http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartme...
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/comm...
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_huma...
http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/external/PublicActivit...


RE: Another layer of harassment
By blowfish on 1/12/2010 3:36:30 PM , Rating: 4
As you've already elected to take the flight, you're implicitly agreed that that level of increased cancer risk is an acceptable trade-off for the convenience of the flight.

Sigh!

Boy, if I ran a convenience store, I'd just love customers like you. Since you agreed to buy this gallon of milk for $5 you obviously implicityly agree to me charging you a further $5 on top of that.

Knucklehead logic, though logic is hardly the right word to describe your mental processes on this one!


RE: Another layer of harassment
By monkeyman1140 on 1/12/2010 3:45:06 PM , Rating: 5
Oh come on, the scanner is just like getting an X-ray, only its like getting one over, and over, and over again.

Remember the olde days when we thought mercury rubdowns, cocaine laced beverages, electric shocks, and radioactive water were good for health? We're just waxing nostalgic.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By lco45 on 1/12/2010 5:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'm still in favour of the cocaine-laced beverages. Could really come in useful some mornings...

Luke


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Samus on 1/12/2010 10:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
I've refuse to walk through a metal detector at an airport. I will likewise refuse a bodyscan. I'm certainly not the purist, healthy type, either. I love McDonalds, don't work out a whole lot and could probably stand to drink and smoke a little less.

The difference is I choose to do those things. Nobody is going to MAKE me walk through a field of radiation. So yes, I'm that asshole in security you see getting the full pat-down taking an extra 60-seconds. I've only been asked to strip once, and it only pants, shirt and socks.

I understand these devices are meant to speed up security scanning, but honestly, I agree with Brandon. I'd rather be searched than NOT be searched. The difference is I want a human to do it, because although there is no science to explain human instincts, we do have them, and I believe these machines will have higher failure than common human error when 'searching' somebody.

They're not as accurate, cost a fortune and give you cancer.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Strunf on 1/13/2010 8:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
There's no radiation coming out on a metal detector... it's a magnetic field.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By tmouse on 1/13/2010 7:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
This is absolutely nothing like " getting an X-ray, only it's like getting one over, and over, and over again". That's just a foolish statement. Your assumption is energy is energy? A light bulb produces energy is that like getting an x-ray? What about sound, that's energy too, better wrap yourself in lead foil and place yourself in a Faraday cage then. This energy MAY (the article should change all of the can to may) increase the unwinding of DNA a bit more that the numerous amounts that is constantly being done during everyday normal events like epigenomic modification, replication and of course gene expression. Our level of understanding has come a bit further than the century old examples you felt defended your ridiculous statement. Is there a chance, of course, mainly because it is impossible to prove something cannot happen without claiming to possess all of the knowledge in the universe and showing the event is not present within that set. Good luck trying to live with an absolutely zero chance of risk. The risk of any damage compounded by the chance that the damage could cause a biologically relevant event is multiple orders of magnitude less than the risk you are taking to get on the plane in the first place.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Solandri on 1/12/2010 11:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Boy, if I ran a convenience store, I'd just love customers like you. Since you agreed to buy this gallon of milk for $5 you obviously implicityly agree to me charging you a further $5 on top of that.

Knucklehead logic, though logic is hardly the right word to describe your mental processes on this one!

Correct, except you're off by a couple orders of magnitude. The radiation exposure from a backscatter x-ray scanner is about 1/1000th that of a typical chest x-ray. So it'd be like agreeing to buy the gallon of milk for $5, and not minding an extra 0.5 cents of sales tax added on.

It's so silly to fret about the radiation from these things when you're going on a plane trip which is going to expose you to about a thousand times more radiation. There are plenty of privacy reasons to object to these things. But the radiation safety issue is a non-starter. If you're that concerned about the radiation, you shouldn't even be flying in the first place. (Heck, you probably shouldn't even expose yourself to sunlight.)


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2010 11:36:17 AM , Rating: 1
I'm just saying, that it's the last thing on my mind to worry about. There are far more things to be upset about then security measures at an airport.

When I go to an airport, I don't go there expecting to be treated like I'm going to a 5-star restaurant. It's like a trip to the DMV, but only a little less aggravating :)

Bottom line, I'm not too worried about a 3D image of my body that can't really be tied to my name/outwardly appearance.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Entropy42 on 1/12/2010 12:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think being randomly chosen at the airport for an additional search constitutes "being pushed around." Though taking it as a personal attack is probably a good way to ruin your day at the airport, and possibly delay everyone around you as well. Maybe I'm just on Valium too, but there are enough really annoying things about air travel that I just see the security checks as another step.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2010 12:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't think being randomly chosen at the airport for an additional search constitutes "being pushed around."


Why should I be "randomly" chosen ? Do I look like a terrorist to you ? I'm white with a shaved head and no facial hair. I don't act suspicious and I don't talk about bombs or anything like that and I don't act hostile to others. How do I fit the profile of a terrorist ?

For example, how many white bald headed guys with no facial hair has boarded a plane lately and screamed " I want to kill all the Jews !!! " ?? I'm just curious.

While we're being "randomly chosen" terrorist are boarding planes, unmolested, and attempting to crash them. More Americans SHOULD be outraged at this stupid politically correct security practice.

quote:
Maybe I'm just on Valium too, but there are enough really annoying things about air travel that I just see the security checks as another step.


That kind of apathy is why our government is finding it so easy to walk all over us today. You are letting them ! Rise up ! Stand up for your rights !


RE: Another layer of harassment
By ClownPuncher on 1/12/2010 12:34:28 PM , Rating: 3
Like the white guy that shot up that holocaust memorial museum? Yea, white and baldheaded could equate to skinhead if we are going by stereotypes too. So, yes, there are many who want to kill the Jews.

Also, did you RTFA? DNA damage.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By MrBlastman on 1/12/2010 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, did you RTFA? DNA damage.


I'm curious how far these t-waves penetrate through the dermal layer. The best definition I could find is that t-waves are between radio waves and infrared light on the electromagnetic spectrum. The primary difference between the two extremes is that t-waves penetrate clothing but clearly according to the photograph in the article, do not fully penetrate the body.

Heck, even microwaves (which are essentially ultra-high frequency radio waves) take some time to heat up food and their penetration is not perfect... think about all those times you've had to stir that bowl of food to get it to heat up evenly. So, curiously enough, we do not know how far the pentrate and, more importantly, the article fails to mention exactly the mechanism for DNA denaturization.

Regardless, I find it alarming that it _could_ damage my DNA. I don't know about everyone else, but, I don't exactly want to risk my DNA in the name of fighting terror. To me, doing so declares "terrorists win" as us having to sacrifice yet another civil liberty (our lives) to protect... our lives?

Rather preposterous, don't you think? There have got to be better ways than this to keep us safe.

However, this does all pose one more question--since these scanners "t-waves" do lie between microwaves and infra-red, would it be possible to "cook" a suspected terrorist in the scanner box if it went haywire? This makes me think that the mechanism for harm falls somewhere in the realm of micro-particulate vibration within the cell nuclei who's collisions cause minute molecular re-arrangement of the DNA structure.

Oh well.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Solandri on 1/12/2010 1:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Your DNA gets damaged all the time. The earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic radiation which can damage it. Stepping into sunlight increases the rate at which it's damaged. Being at high altitude for the few hours of the flight increases the rate at which it's damaged.

Your body has built-in systems to repair or withstand most of that damage. People who don't, as mentioned in the article, are destined to die early anyway. I don't mind putting a number on the increased risk so people can make a fair assessment of the dangers. But bandying the fact about as if there were no other causes of DNA damage is dishonest at best, blatant manipulation of public perception at worst. The radiation exposure from the scan is much less than a chest x-ray, which pretty much the entire medical community has concluded is an acceptable level of risk.

As you've surmised, the scanners work because the t-waves don't penetrate the body much. As the image is formed from waves which are scattered back (pretty much like visual wavelengths, except these waves are big enough not to see clothing), they represent little more risk than being bathed in sunlight. IMHO the privacy issue is far more important.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By MrBlastman on 1/12/2010 2:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well sure, lots of things damage our DNA. In our world of tests and scans, the medical community is relying on them more and more every day. The average levels of common radiation exposure to the individual is increasing every year. Granted, despite this fact cancer rates _have_ grown since 1975 but in recent years, are in remission (well, not adjusted for the discrepancy between males and females. It is in fact the males that are bringing this figure down, while females have leveled off at an elevated level).

Source:
http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/browse_csr.ph...

Due to this simple revelation, we can see a 12% increase in prevalence from 1975 to 2006. 12% is not a large number but it is an increase.

Look, something is going to get you eventually, be it heart disease, cancer, a bus, darwin, etc. Cancer is probably the last on anyone's list as a way to go. From all the people I have seen pass on, Cancer is the most insidious of ways to go.

I'm not trying to harp the alarms but simply trying to say that if these screenings add further to the pool of potential genetic mutigens, why not instead try and find a less-harmful way to screen the individuals who pass through these detectors. While I might not fly multiple times a day, there are others who _do_ fly frequently, some on a daily basis, who, with time would sustain a very elevated level of exposure to these processes.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By omnicronx on 1/12/2010 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
12% is not a large number but it is an increase.
That's just incidents though in general, cancer related deaths have actually gone down since 1975. (not going to link that, its on the page you linked.)

Isn't it also feasible that advancements in technology has increased both of these numbers? In 1975 there were many cancers we didn't even know about.. (making it kind of hard to diagnose as such)


RE: Another layer of harassment
By MrBlastman on 1/12/2010 2:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
I chose incidents for a reason. While deaths have gone down (yes, I saw that), the sheer suggestion that an individual would have to go through cancer treatment is horrifying enough. Have you yourself or someone you know ever gone through treatment for cancer?

It isn't that fun at all. People might be able to survive cancer better than ever these days but why even accelerate their chances of having to fight it in the first place?

True, we might be able to better diagnose cancer now than we could before (in the 60's and 70's it was a very invasive procedure known as biopsy and "exploratory surgery"), I think these figures do hold some weight coming from the National Cancer Institute.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By tmouse on 1/13/2010 8:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
I've spent the vast majority of my career working in cancer research and I can tell you the vast majority of the increase in cancer rates can and is accounted for by the significant increase in early detection. This also is the leading factor in the increase in survival. Our treatments have not really advanced that much. Again I want to point out that the best evidence on the "damage" is not in fact damage at all, rather it can brake some of the weak hydrogen bonds that lead to an change in the DNA conformation into a form that could be damaged. We constantly have our DNA moving in and out of these conformations and its seems the amounts are probably insignificant compared to the background amounts that naturally occur. This is not ionizing radiation, it doesn't break phosphodiester bonds or cause free radicals. For this to cause a biologically relevant event you need the small regions this temporarily changes to be effected (at that exact time) by a base altering event (mutation, even then there is a 50% chance of normal repair using the opposite strand) or a double break in the phosphodiester backbone leading to a deletion or a duplication. Now this also has to happen in an area of the DNA that is either coding or regulatory and that region needs to be functional in that particular cell. Now, add in escaping imunosurveillance and avoiding the triggering of an apoptotic cascade and I hope you get the idea. There are probably thousands of cells in your body every day that could be cancerous and never survive.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By omnicronx on 1/12/2010 1:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
You are a complete idiot. Do you seriously proposing that all brown people should be screened, and 'white' people that don't look like terrorists shouldn't be? Did you even see the pictures of those of 9/11? They didn't even look like terrorists, they looked like normal people. Whats worse is do you really think that if the government started searching people of a certain skin colour that terrorists groups won't find those of lighter skin colour to do their dirty work?
quote:
Rise up ! Stand up for your rights !

Furthermore you entire point of view is hypocritical. You complain about letting the government 'walk all over us', but you think its alright to persecute a particular race/skin colour?

Newsflash, as an American CITIZEN, these people you speak of have the exact same rights as you.

You sir are a hypocrite of the worst kind..


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Iaiken on 1/12/2010 2:43:00 PM , Rating: 1
I rarely agree with Omni, but he is absolutely right.

The problem with any system (especially profiling) is that security threats are constantly evolving and changing and threats who didn't fit the profile will manage to slip through.

These days when you are dealing with a customs official, you practically have no rights and no power. They can deny you access to your flight because they just don't like the look of you clothes.

I've a co-worker who was an American-born citizen that married a Canadian. He stayed here long enough to naturalize and eventually became a citizen. He made the mistake of using his Canadian Passport (since his US one had long expired) at the airport on a visit to his parents in Florida. He is currently banned from entering the United States despite having been born there. He was so insulted by the entire ordeal that rather than fight the state department, he renounced his American citizenship.

Why? Because he fit some mouth-breathing southern customs officers profile of potential terrorist. He is a CCNE of Iranian decent and a member of the Christian faith and proof that profiling and the ever-shrinking rights of travelers is a load of horse shit.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By MrBlastman on 1/12/2010 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 3
I am sorry to hear about your friend.

However,

quote:
Because he fit some mouth-breathing southern customs officers profile of potential terrorist.


You yourself just engaged in profiling. You seem to imply that all southerners are mouth-breathers. I can assure you, being of southern descent, that I am not a mouth-breather. My brother is not one either along with many other friends of mine who are southerners.

I just thought I'd point out your hypocrisy. ;)


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Iaiken on 1/12/2010 5:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You yourself just engaged in profiling.


I am just passing along his description of said customs officer... :P


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Alexvrb on 1/12/2010 8:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Discrimination against southern people and rednecks is OK in your book, we understand.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2010 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you seriously proposing that all brown people should be screened, and 'white' people that don't look like terrorists shouldn't be?


Yes because you can clearly see the paragraph where I proposed that. Oh wait, it's not there.

quote:
but you think its alright to persecute a particular race/skin colour?


So you think it's alright to "randomly screen" 80 year old grandmothers to a strip search ? And where, again, did I say let's persecute people ?

I do think it's "alright" to play the percentages and focus on your highest risk profiles first. Yes, yes I do. And nothing you can say defeats that common sense approach.

quote:
Newsflash, as an American CITIZEN, these people you speak of have the exact same rights as you.


Really ? All the terrorist have been American citizens ? I wasn't aware of that.

quote:
You sir are a hypocrite of the worst kind..


I really don't see how. I guess in OmniLand your weird circular logic has somehow nailed me to the wall. I congratulate you. Why bother with things like statistics, common sense, and logic when you can be highly emotional and Liberal.

Remember, airline security isn't about security. It should be about making you feel good that you aren't racists !


RE: Another layer of harassment
By lco45 on 1/12/2010 6:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Being a man aged between 19 and 46 is the primary attribute for terrorists.

I'm a stunningly attractive, immaculately dressed professional in his mid-thirties, and I get stopped for random checks all the time.

On a more serious note, why would full body scans be better than a good old pat search? Nothing spruces a chap up like a full body search by a Japanese or Czech girl at the airport (my two body search experiences thus far).

Luke



RE: Another layer of harassment
By 91TTZ on 1/12/2010 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 1
You may not care, but what about others who do care and bring up valid concerns about the capability or even legality of these devices?


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Chadder007 on 1/12/2010 8:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
So, they store nudes of you, can't detect anything like what was used for the Christmas day planned attack, and can give you Cancer.
Looks like this is FAIL all around.


RE: Another layer of harassment
By Bagom on 1/12/2010 11:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
I am not even sure if these full body scanners will even work. Take a look at the amount of contraband that gets into prisons. If a group of guys know that they may get scanned they can put a small amount of explosives where the sun don't shine and then combine them in the terminal.

I see us one day having to show up at the airport 3 hours before our flight to get through security.


Bah
By realist on 1/12/2010 10:21:00 AM , Rating: 1
Thats why I drive.

Major fail on these scanners, waste of taxpayer $




RE: Bah
By Ristogod on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bah
By chromal on 1/12/2010 10:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
I hear a lot of people say that, but it seems to me quite unrealistic in the context of transoceanic travel, as well as, say, business travel set to a typical time table. Surface travel just isn't going to get you from point A to B fast enough most of the time.


RE: Bah
By heffeque on 1/12/2010 10:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
Have you tried driving from New York to Ibiza? It's kind'a difficult, don't you think?


RE: Bah
By theapparition on 1/12/2010 11:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention you're 1000x more likely to die in a vehicle accident.


RE: Bah
By lelias2k on 1/12/2010 11:20:18 AM , Rating: 1
In the mean time, China is building the biggest high speed railroad system in the world. Do we even have on real fast train in the US? (Amtrak's Acela is a joke, seriously...)


RE: Bah
By mcnabney on 1/12/2010 11:51:54 AM , Rating: 1
90% of America lacks the population density to make midrange rail travel economical. Long range is still best served by air.

That, and America is still in love with the car. You can't even buy a hybird or a compact without being call a p&*^sy.


RE: Bah
By HrilL on 1/12/2010 2:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
California is supposed to get one but its not even going to be that fast and it can't take large payloads. Seems like a waste of money for me. It doesn't follow the coast either so that leaves my area out of the picture. I just hate how the mixed it in with a transportation measure and its either all or nothing. If we get to vote then don't bulk things we want with things we don't.


RE: Bah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bah
By Solandri on 1/12/2010 1:18:57 PM , Rating: 1
The numbers vary depending on how you measure fatalities. The most commonly accepted metric is fatalities per passenger-mile (basically, how much safer is it if I fly to Florida for vacation instead of drive?). Air travel ends up about 5x safer by that metric.

And the BS at the airport typically takes less than 30 minutes, a couple hours on the worst days. I don't know how you can conclude that's more inconvenient than spending an extra 70-90 hours traveling by car.


RE: Bah
By frobizzle on 1/12/2010 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you tried driving from New York to Ibiza? It's kind'a difficult, don't you think?

quote:
Not to mention you're 1000x more likely to die in a vehicle accident.

Yes, driving to Spain would be quite difficult and likely fatal within the first mile after leaving Long Island!


RE: Bah
By kattanna on 1/12/2010 12:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Have you tried driving from New York to Ibiza?


and that really brings up a valid point no one is talking about. ok, lets say we spend those $3 billion to equip all our air ports with these scanners.

aint going to do a darn thing about those flying in from other countries that dont even have minimal levels of security.. like the christmas day bomber.


RE: Bah
By theapparition on 1/12/2010 2:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Airports that don't meet the TSA requirements are not allowed to fly into the US.

Airline security is all the political rage, yet no one seems to give a damn about our own borders. Canada has an rapidly growing Islamic population, and while many of those Muslims are good people, there's bound to be a group of radicals as well. Getting into the US is just a matter of walking through a treeline in many spots. Worse yet, it can be accomplished with heavy arms as well.

And let's not even discuss the southern border.


I don't see the big deal on the images.
By PAPutzback on 1/12/2010 10:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
Would a guy really get a hard on if some model walked thru and he saw the skeletal image of her. I bet the people that would throw the largest fit are the obese ones.

But I'd have to say if there is any medical concern about these that that is a legit argument for getting rid of them.

Perhaps requiring passengers to wear spandex shorts and tops would solve the issue.




By SublimeSimplicity on 1/12/2010 10:34:19 AM , Rating: 5
Is there a difference between models today and skeletal images?


RE: I don't see the big deal on the images.
By lelias2k on 1/12/2010 11:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever tried searching for porn? There's taste for everything...

That said, I couldn't care less if someone saw me naked for a few seconds.

The main problem here, as you mentioned, is the health concerns. And THAT I don't take lightly...


RE: I don't see the big deal on the images.
By HotFoot on 1/12/2010 3:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
So... the healthy alternative is we all will have to strip down and fly naked?


By MrBlastman on 1/12/2010 3:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
Set your masts to full sail! Naked Air, where we give a "hole" lot about your comfort.


RE: I don't see the big deal on the images.
By d3872 on 1/13/2010 2:12:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, I couldn't care less if someone saw me naked for a few seconds.


I see your point. Of course, the article is talking about the ability to store and transmit images. How would you feel if your image was posted on the internet?

Then again, what are the odds of *that* happening...


By MrBlastman on 1/13/2010 10:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure you see his point? If you saw him after he went through one of those scanners you might...


Why are the Tax payers paying for it....
By AEvangel on 1/12/2010 2:59:11 PM , Rating: 3
Privacy issues and health issues not with standing aren't the airlines a private industry?? Why am I paying for their security.

I don't have to pay for Amtrak or Greyhounds Security. Nor do I pay for security on UPS or Fed-ex private air fleet?

It always amazes me how everyone is arguing about all these other issues when the main issue should be why do I have to pay at all, because some Private Industry can't provide for the safety of it's own customers.




RE: Why are the Tax payers paying for it....
By Veerappan on 1/12/2010 4:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Up until 9/11 the airlines did handle their own security. Then after 9/11, the TSA was created and the airlines were pretty much told that they didn't get to handle it any more... there are a few airports that use private security (approved by the TSA), but they're few and far between.

I'm not saying I like that this has been federalized, just adding some background info.


RE: Why are the Tax payers paying for it....
By AEvangel on 1/12/2010 4:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
I knew the history of it, I just have yet to be advised why we need the Federal Govt to handle security for a private business.


By Jalek on 1/13/2010 1:13:41 AM , Rating: 3
Private companies can't come to your house to search and seize property as this agency apparently can.

I don't think anyone's expressed a limitation to what they can do. A few naked pictures may be the least of anyone's problem dealing with this agency.


Why blur?
By twhittet on 1/12/2010 11:39:51 AM , Rating: 3
I'm all for privacy, but I actually disagree with them blurring the private parts. Isn't seeing everything (including weapons and drugs hidden near private parts) the whole point? Simply put the person reading the scan in a separate area. Don't let them see if it's Paris Hilton or their own mom. There are hacker issues and human workaround issues, but ideally it could be done with no blurring and no privacy issues.




RE: Why blur?
By Davelo on 1/12/2010 11:52:24 AM , Rating: 1
Oh, I'm so afraid somebody might see my penis! Haha. People make me sick.


RE: Why blur?
By MadMan007 on 1/12/2010 12:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
Once the 'penis bomber' attempts to or successfully blows up an airplane with explosives hidden in or around his penis blurred pictures will be no more.


RE: Why blur?
By MadMan007 on 1/12/2010 12:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
btw, dibs on the term 'penibomber'


RE: Why blur?
By Chudilo on 1/12/2010 2:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
How long will it take until a boyish looking woman shapes a bunch of plastic explosives into something that looks like a penis?
The point is that there will always be a way around any sort of security. Where there is a will, there is a way. Especially when you take away the very basic instinct of self-preservation. When you take that out of the equation anything and everything becomes possible. They can just swallow a bunch of this stuff, the way Drug Mules do it, and then do some sort of a special yoga stand to puncture something on the inside.

Maybe we should invest the money into making our own energy rather then buying theirs, just to put them out of business. The cost of dealing with people that we enrich by buying their oil should be taken into account when the price of oil is calculated. Canadian gas/oil should be cheaper because we don't have to deal with their religious fundamentalists.
If the terrorists couldn't buy weapons and pay for expensive flight schools, none of this would have been an issue.
I say they should spend the money on Hydrogen/fuel cell research. Yes making and storing your own energy seems like a cost that can be avoided, but it's the price we have to pay for our safety in the long run.


American officials ALWAYS LIE - what's the news?
By T2k on 1/12/2010 10:31:50 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously: all of our officials ALWAYS LIE, private corporation or government, doesn't matter.
It's in the US culture, makes it into the bloodline: when you done something wrong, hide it, if it doesn't worh then try to deceive them and if it didn't work, simply LIE.




By Breathless on 1/12/2010 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
Thats more of a "human race" thing than an "American" thing.


By lelias2k on 1/12/2010 11:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
You're talking about the human race in general buddy...


Maybe it's me...
By 3minence on 1/12/2010 10:28:20 AM , Rating: 2
..but I'm more worried about being at the airport 3 hours before a flight, standing in long lines, dealing with stressed TSA employees and passengers, and being squeezed into a tiny uncomfortable seat more than someone seeing my naughty bits. Privacy issues are a concern, but all the BS pain-in-the-ass crap we go through to fly is more of a concern.

While the occasional perv will get through, I expect most of the TSA people seeing these images are more intent on staying awake.




RE: Maybe it's me...
By lelias2k on 1/12/2010 11:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I still remember coming to the US for the first time and marveling at how anybody could come all the way to the gate. Growing up in Brazil, only ticketed passengers could go pass security.

Now it's hard even for ticketed passengers to get to the gate...


By Motoman on 1/12/2010 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 4
...is that nothing the TSA makes you do does anything to actually increase the safety of air travel. It's all a placebo. Every single part of it. This thing included.

If you want to improve air travel security, do what El Al does and screen the passengers. All of this BS that the TSA does is pure theater meant to assuage the fears of ignorant travelers that are unaware of the fact that none of the things the TSA has you do have any effect whatsoever.




Nice is nice
By croc on 1/12/2010 10:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
Nice is just fine for me, a bit more expensive than Hawai'i... So there goes another 10k USD. Keep it up, the next CES may well be offshore as well. We 'furriners' will only put up with so much BS before we just don't bother.




RE: Nice is nice
By bigbrent88 on 1/13/2010 2:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what to say regarding security. At this point we are trying to find the tiniest of threats with the larger of costs, both in terms of dollars and privacy/comfort. At what point will we ever feel "safe" in air travel. I felt safe before 9/11 and still feel safe after the general measures were put in place, like cockpit reinforcement, restrictions on carry-ons, etc. I don't see a reason for this continued push for new screening, as we have seen the terrorists are normally one step ahead of our agencies.

Regarding air travel, my mom is a flight attendant and I am about to start my pro pilot career, and we have discussed the industry in general. I don't think anyone can expect a massive change in rail travel in this country and we cannot keep all these regional jets going if we want to reduce air traffic problems. Either more airlines have to offer service like Southwest instead of the hub-n-spoke model, or we need to drive to the closest hub airport for the long distance flights. In concerns to airlines trying to rob you of every penny I'd like to remind you that a $250 r/t ticket across the US is an incredible deal that you would never find 10 years ago, mainly from concessions from flight/ground crews. The reason the service you dearly want has gone down is because travelers expect something that cannot be delivered in a "cheap" price, while in a mass transit environment, deal with it.
Sorry for the rant.


Futurama to the rescue!
By The0ne on 1/12/2010 2:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
Slurm episode with Fry and Bender using a scanner to look for the golden cap :) Ops, there goes Frys capability to produce sperm :D




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














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