Naked Body Scanners

[royal_archer]

Sure it will. It’ll make sure ppl don’t hide weapons under their clothes!

“There are alternatives to those who fear terrorists” you say. Two things wrong with that statement.

1. Business trips a lot of times require quick transportation. There is no other alternative for those people. Some people have family who live out of the country (me) or over seas. There is no other alternative for them either. Believe it or not, they don’t make trains that go to Europe!
2. Great! So whoever wants to fly should just have to suck it up and not fear terrorists. In that case we should just get rid of all the OTHER safety precautions as well. I mean, why run our bags through scanners? If someone is scared of a terrorist carrying a bomb on his carry on, that person should just not fly. Plain and simple!

There are boats and everyday I hold meetings with people in different locations through web conferencing.

I didn’t say get rid of every last safety precaution. I am just advocating some sane application of it.

Some of thes crazy rules are like a mother who lets her child run around with scissors as long as the shoe laces are double knotted. Basically being overly paranoid about one factor while ignoring more serious matters.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I work overseas. I have been through the scanner on my way back to the states. It does not show the body in the way that most people fear. It did show the first time I went through that I was wearing my rosary under my clothes.
I would be more concerned about “inappropriate touching.”

I personally would rather go through the scanners and risk radiation than have the touching. I agree that that is outrageous and “off the mark.”

I’m seriously thinking about buying the now legendary T-shirt that has the now-famous statement “You touch my junk and I’ll have you arrested. Thank you” and going to the airport with it next time I go there.

What we need is the Isareli model----has worked pretty well for them. Profile on behavior and personality. But that would be just TOO “Politically incorrect” for our delicate sensibilities over here.

 

[Debora123]

My going through a scanner does not make anyone safer. my not going through a scanner does not put lives at risk.

The church does not have anything against these acts. I expect the church to remain silent on the entire issue of necesary safeguards for safety and will defer to “local” authority on such issues. Where church teaching comes into play is the decision between necesity and morality. If one has to expose themself to fly is it realy that important that they fly? is the good achieved by the flight out weigh the bad.

Why do you feel that 100 people in an airplane should have such scrutiny while 100 people in close proximity on the ground do not get equal scrutiny?

If it will make it safer how about we have random unanounced searches of homes that are in stinger range of an airport’s traffic pattern? At what point does this blank check for security bounce?

Ok? So at what point should we stop with the safety measures? Should we stop X-raying bags, and letting people take guns on planes??

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

:thumbsup:Chops
I was wondering are the scans 100% fool proof ? Then lead popped into my mind. Fido at the gates can be the answer and I think their cheaper then the scans.

Peace

No, thy’re not. I just saw a report on CNN with Sanjay Gupta—where they touched on the flaws inherent in the scanning. The most egregious one was that the scanner detects Sharp Objects but CANNOT detect round objects----so if the terrorists were to use a round-shaped explosive, it would not be detected. They used as an example the scan of a book with a Rod next to it—which it dtected—bit ut did not detect the Round Explosive at the Center of the Book.

So yes, they’re not 100% accurate. That, plus other problems, like the risk of Radiation Exposure----should give people pause.

 

[royal_archer]

I suspect the poster you quoted meant that there are alternative methods of keeping air travel safe, rather than alternative means of travel?

…

But I’m just not convinced that the safety that might be gained from these new policies is worth the cost.

yes, but I also believe there needs to be a balance. Gang violence is a much more real danger than terrorism so if we are to take these extreme measures with air travel shouldn’t we take even greater security measures to deal with streat gangs? We must also understand that Americans do value our freedom and are willing to forgoe some extreme efforts in the name of safety. Think, we do not have ejection seats in airplanes which would make air travel much safer. As another example we have motor cycle helmet laws which are also on the safety / freedom debate. We as a society have a right to say enough is enough: this has gone from reasonable precaution to irrational paranoia.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Leave it to Israel to come up with something that sounds pretty darn good to me. This is an excerpt. Read the rest at the link.

Israeli airport technology detects intent of terrorists

Built to replace human selectors or random check ups of visitors, the SDS-VR-1000 is based on the assumption that sophisticated terrorists might not be included in suspect lists. Not many terrorists walk into an airport waving a banner announcing who they are. They don’t carry handguns or try to conceal explosives as they debark from an international flight into the United States. And just as rarely do they have police records.

So how can US officials go about identifying potential terrorists? A new solution is Israel’s Suspect Detection Systems (SDS) - a company that has developed an advance automated filtering tool for identifying potential suspects with hostile intentions among masses of tens of thousands visitors.

Consider it a personal polygraph machine, that will make air travelers infinitely safer, says SDS CEO Shabtai Shoval, a former division manager at Comverse Technology who founded SDS along with former head of the Israel Police’s polygraph division Yeshayahu Horowitz and former deputy Mossad chief Amiram Levin.

israel21c.org/technology/israeli-airport-technology-detects-intent-of-terrorists

Sounds pretty darn good to me, too.

Thanks for the link, Miriam.

 

[Morwenna]

No, thy’re not. I just saw a report on CNN with Sanjay Gupta—where they touched on the flaws inherent in the scanning. The most egregious one was that the scanner detects Sharp Objects but CANNOT detect round objects----so if the terrorists were to use a round-shaped explosive, it would not be detected. They used as an example the scan of a book with a Rod next to it—which it dtected—bit ut did not detect the Round Explosive at the Center of the Book.

So yes, they’re not 100% accurate. That, plus other problems, like the risk of Radiation Exposure----should give people pause.

If this report is accurate (OM, I’m not doubting you at all, I’m just saying if the CNN report was accurate ), then the whole thing is a complete and utter joke. Argh! :banghead:

 

[royal_archer]

:thumbsup:Chops
I was wondering are the scans 100% fool proof ? Then lead popped into my mind. Fido at the gates can be the answer and I think their cheaper then the scans.

Peace

bomb dogs and electronic explosive sniffers would be much more practical and less invasive.

Of course people seem fixated on the thought of a bomb and seam to have no clue that the next attack could be biochemical.

I predict we will see some type of medical testing comming out in the next few years. Possibly preventing people with fevers or other signs of sickness from boarding. You may even see the government advocating potential passengers go through a blood, saliva, urine, or other medical screening prior to boarding.

 

[royal_archer]

Ok? So at what point should we stop with the safety measures? Should we stop X-raying bags, and letting people take guns on planes??

keep exraying the bags but use an optical image recognition to sort through the contents and only allow the workers to see images flagged by the machine.

Let people take mini knives (less than two inches) on board as we could a few years back with no problem. (911 was a sucker punch because the passengers did not know the intent of the assailants, even if they were to take box cutters onto the plane, the passengers would never give in like they did on that day) . As for guns, any trained law enforcement officer or equivalently licensed individual should be able to carry a gun on a plane.

I also advocate people being allowed to bring bows on aircraft as long as they are not strung.

But basically security measures up through the mid 80’s did not cross the line. My concern is with the post 911 paranoia.

 

[royal_archer]

No, thy’re not. I just saw a report on CNN with Sanjay Gupta—where they touched on the flaws inherent in the scanning. The most egregious one was that the scanner detects Sharp Objects but CANNOT detect round objects----so if the terrorists were to use a round-shaped explosive, it would not be detected. They used as an example the scan of a book with a Rod next to it—which it dtected—bit ut did not detect the Round Explosive at the Center of the Book.

So yes, they’re not 100% accurate. That, plus other problems, like the risk of Radiation Exposure----should give people pause.

I doubt they would be allowed to publically expose to many of the flaws with the system because that would be a security risk.

 

[royal_archer]

If this report is accurate (OM, I’m not doubting you at all, I’m just saying if the CNN report was accurate ), then the whole thing is a complete and utter joke. Argh! :banghead:

It is a joke that ranks right up there with snipe hunting and sending airmen off for a roll of flight line and a bucket of prop wash.

The thing is that millions of people who do not know any better will be pacified thinking they are somehow safer and the big bad boogie man terrorist won’t get them because their night light is on.

Meanwhile people are completely oblivious to more real and present dangers.

 

[Taurks]

I am completely against this, and I will also not be flying until it is resolved.

The fact that they can do this to anyone - even a 12 year old girl (as I read in one article) is absolutely sickening. The right to privacy has been completely evoked, and I expect public backlash against this very soon.

 

[alih]

it is patently obvious that this procedure is a further attack on morals of the citizens of this
nation by those who seem to be desirous of destroying it.
one can only look at the qualifications of federal judges. 1. they must be for abortion, 2.
they must be for homosexuality.
immorality…the mantra of this government going back years. attack on the church or
anyone suggesting morality is norm.
one may look at the deviant behavior of some clergy, but has anyone examined those
who sat on the courts or juries assessing unconscionable awards against the church?
who is to say what their beliefs were? did they hate the church?
the scanners, in this person’s opinion, are just a continuance of the attack on the
morals of our nation with hopes of bringing it down. have a good year. (alih)

 

[John21652]

it is patently obvious that this procedure is a further attack on morals of the citizens of this
nation by those who seem to be desirous of destroying it.
one can only look at the qualifications of federal judges. 1. they must be for abortion, 2.
they must be for homosexuality.
immorality…the mantra of this government going back years. attack on the church or
anyone suggesting morality is norm.
one may look at the deviant behavior of some clergy, but has anyone examined those
who sat on the courts or juries assessing unconscionable awards against the church?
who is to say what their beliefs were? did they hate the church?
the scanners, in this person’s opinion, are just a continuance of the attack on the
morals of our nation with hopes of bringing it down. have a good year. (alih)

Would, in your opinion, bombs going off in airplanes be a bigger attack on the nation than scanners?

Just wonderin’…

 

[pnewton]

Would, in your opinion, bombs going off in airplanes be a bigger attack on the nation than scanners?

Just wonderin’…

Yes, and nuclear bombs going off in cities is even a bigger attack. And abortion trumps them all. So what?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think it’s selfish to say that I’d rather people be scanned then have people die. I DO think it may be a little selfish to put ppl’s lives at risk just bc you don’t want to go through a scanner.

If a person is not carrying a bomb, then** they** are not putting any one at risk. I do not think anyone is objecting to more intense scrutiny and searching with cause. It is the random unwarranted searches that is problematic. Yet we have an administration that is overwrought with political correctness and do not want to offend those of the same relilgious persuassion that is trying to kill Americans. Therefore they offend others.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

All,

Generally speaking, the scanners do not take “naked photos”. Almost all of the sample images I’ have seen (Google image search: “tsa scanners”) are at worst holographic images of the shape of the subject’s body. The TSA sets the scanners to obscure faces and genitalia. It is a bit disingenuous to characterize this as “naked photos”, because they do not show the surface details of the body and measures are in place to obscure the most private areas.

The pat-downs are abominably intrusive and immodest, however.

If you subscribe to Anthony Buono’s Ave Maria Singles blog, you probably have seen this: he wrote to his spiritual director about this very issue, and the response said in part:

The thought of someone — whether male or female — putting his or her hand on any part of that area that is normally enclosed within my underpants is totally unacceptable to me. [snip

… I’m not enthusiastic about being scanned, but **I think it is obvious that there is a difference between “prurient and prolonged nakedness” and “simple and brief nakedness.” ***The latter is not particularly erotic. The moral prohibition on allowing ourselves to be seen naked is not absolute, as we all know. We permit physicians and nurses to see our naked bodies and we justify it “for a higher good.” I would say, by analogy, that we may allow security persons to see our naked bodies “for a higher good.”

Moreover: (a) the security person who views the image is “in business mode” and is seated in a cubicle not accessible to the public; (b) the face of the person being scanned is blurred; (c) the image is not preserved or filed away. At least that is what they tell us, and I guess I can believe it.

[emphasis added]

I’m inclined to agree with this. While I am not thrilled about being scanned, I believe that the procedure and the safeguards involved remove a great deal of the prurient nature of the imaging – it’s not public, it’s not protracted, it’s not sexual, it’s anonymous, and it’s being done for public safety in a very dangerous time. While it’s not ideal, something has to be done to deal with the threat of terrorism, and the pat-downs are not an option.

Here’s an article from Popular Mechanics that shows a sample scanner image and answers some frequently asked questions. It also offers a thought with which I’m inclined to agree: if you don’t like the scanners and won’t submit to a pat-down, there’s always Amtrak.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Newbie2]

I also advocate people being allowed to bring bows on aircraft as long as they are not strung.

.

I see a movie script here…something like “Die Hard” on an airplane, with the hero having a bow and arrows to fight the bad guys.

I’ve heard of pipers having difficulty bringing their pipes on board (imagine the risk of them going into cargo, even well packed…yikes)

Mine have brass inserts in the tuning slides, which I would imagine would get their attention. I’d probably have to assemble and play the bloody things to show them they are real.

I don’t like the idea of my scanned image being kept for longer than it takes to check me out, but given the current choices, it’s better than having someone paw around my junk.

Here’s the question nobody seems to be asking: Why now? Why weren’t passengers being patted down immediately after the “underware bomber” incident in Detroit last Christmas? If this is really all about safety…why the delay? TSA didn’t have to wait to get scanners to start the patdowns.

What has changed between now and then, in terms of safety and risk?

 

[pnewton]

Here’s the question nobody seems to be asking: Why now? Why weren’t passengers being patted down immediately after the “underware bomber” incident in Detroit last Christmas? If this is really all about safety…why the delay? TSA didn’t have to wait to get scanners to start the patdowns.

What has changed between now and then, in terms of safety and risk?

Because it is a political decision, not a security decision. The CEO of Rapiscan traveled with Obama on his India trip.

Janet Napolitano sees the American people as an easier target, not a greater threat. Thus it is easier to bolster their personal power and scope of control throught the TSA than other more critical agencies. So grandma and the kids get treated like America’s most wanted while Napolitano and the Obama administration fight any attempt to make the border more secure.

 

[John21652]

Yes, and nuclear bombs going off in cities is even a bigger attack. And abortion trumps them all. So what?

What do you mean “so what?”

It’s pretty obvious that if someone got on board and exploded a bomb, people like you would be screaming blue murder.

That’s your “so what”.