If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   "Naked" body scanners to be removed from airports, transferred to other government agencies. Have fun taking your kids to the Smithsonian museums, suckers   (bloomberg.com) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, Osi, U.S., U.S. Transportation Security Administration, underwear bomber, L-3 Communications, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Waters, airports  
•       •       •

9247 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 9:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-18 10:45:49 AM
2 votes:

freewill:
The risk from backscatter was always low, but apparently higher than the risk of actual terrorism.


The risk of virtually anything you can imagine is higher than the risk of actual terrorism.
2013-01-18 10:31:52 AM
2 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com

I have never been through one of these. I "opt out" when I fly. I love making a scene about it too.
There is no way to generate an image like that without using high frequency radio waves (I am a wireless radio engineer, I know wtf I'm talking about).
High freq waves are damn good at causing cancer, the scanner is about the equivalent of standing under a cell tower for 8 hours or so.


Do you have kids? Do you want those thugs at airport security looking at your underage daughters naked body? Because they are...
2013-01-18 10:01:02 AM
2 votes:

Liese: I knew all my refusals to go in one and instead get the pat down would result in them going under! *raises mighty fist*

TFA: The TSA will instead use 60 machines manufactured by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. (LLL), the agency's other supplier of body scanners.

...wait what

*uncertain as to whether or not should slump and slink away*


It's my understanding that these are non-ionizing millimeter wave scanners, as opposed to ionizing backscatter scanners, so this is a significant improvement.

The risk from backscatter was always low, but apparently higher than the risk of actual terrorism.
2013-01-18 09:58:29 AM
2 votes:
I always find it amusing that the software was called "Rapiscan."

img.photobucket.com
2013-01-18 11:32:36 AM
1 votes:

HartRend: www.libertystickers.com


Yes, comparing a TSA blueshirt patting you down to rounding up Jews to be roasted alive isn't hyperbolic at all.
2013-01-18 11:23:59 AM
1 votes:
this whole system is a crock of shiat. When I took my kids to Disney last summer, they pulled my wife and kids off to the side and escorted them right through then pulled me for one of these b.s. scans. I asked how much sense it makes to assume I would carry contraband on my own person while my wife and kids are automatically deemed to be innocent. I was told they were following procedures, to which I said your procedures make no sense. The best part of this entire sham is that if they do find a bottle of shampoo, pocket knife, etc - they put it in a big container that they then stand next to all day while shaking down everyone else coming through. The largest bottle neck in an airport is the security checkpoint. If they are so concerned your grandma's fruitcake is a bomb, why do they put it in a bin right next to a place where hundreds of people will congregate all day while waiting to be felt-up? What's even better, is that it is then sorted and sold to make a few bucks. If they are confiscating items that are bombs, wouldn't it make more sense to dispose of them as if they were bombs rather than sell them in a gift shop? They know your bottle of water is safe, they know your shampoo is soap, they know your ugly-assed eagle figurine with a 3" sword in the talons is just a nick-knack, they know your snow globe that says "I got blown in Cancun" isn't sarin gas. The whole system is a dog and pony show that nets billions of dollars - and that's what it's all about.
2013-01-18 11:20:50 AM
1 votes:

what_now: Gaseous Anomaly: A 9/11-style attack can't succeed anymore, now that we know a hijacker might try to kamikaze the plane. Flight 93 shows that. Between that knowledge, and locked/reinforced cockpit doors, it's covered.

No of course not. The next terrorist attack will take place in the security line of LAX or Atlanta.


The truth is we are all pretending that if we legislate, enforce, and condemn enough actions, that the evil people on earth will stop bothering the good guys.
The truth is, we are all always vulnerable to "terrorist" (AKA EVIL) actions. They won the moment we dumped billions in to security, instead of feeding our homeless, or helping the needy with that money.

America's selfish, self centered, narcissistic reaction to 9/11 has done more to give the enemy the advantage than any possible action the enemy could have taken on their own.
We lost people, it's time to fix this shiat.
2013-01-18 11:14:52 AM
1 votes:

Carth: I can't believe the TSA bungled this technology so badly. Just buy the exact same scanners Amsterdam's Schiphol uses. The screen displaying the image is right where you can see it and it shows a default human like blob instead of your actual image.

[s3.jrnl.ie image 390x285]


You know what I take it back I can believe the TSA messed it up.


I was based out of Schiphol for the last 3 years. My casual observation showed them showing about half false-positives. This is the reason that the Germans and Italians declines to buy these machines. The political pressure on the Dutch was higher since they let that guy who set his pants on fire through a few years back. Not that these machines would have stopped that...
2013-01-18 11:14:19 AM
1 votes:
Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?
2013-01-18 11:13:43 AM
1 votes:

thornhill: Meh.

As someone who regularly flies for work, I just didn't see the outrage.


I don't fly much, but the trouble I personally have is that it's expensive, inconvenient, and doesn't actually make us any safer.

A 9/11-style attack can't succeed anymore, now that we know a hijacker might try to kamikaze the plane. Flight 93 shows that. Between that knowledge, and locked/reinforced cockpit doors, it's covered.

If we reverted airport security to pre-9/11 practices, and spent the money instead on undercover agents, intelligence analysis, emergency response and the like, we could actually be safer. (E.g. infiltrate every militia group that's not already infiltrated).
2013-01-18 11:09:20 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: what_now: Ok, has anyone tested these at all? Because fark you, TSA. I still won't go though them.

Test for what? Microwave radio energy *by definition* isn't ionizing.


Yeah, here's the thing: I don't know what that means. I work in finance, not science. I trust the TSA about as much as they trust me: not at all.

This is security theater. That's all it is. It makes stupid people feel safer, it's a major jobs program for the less than bright among us, and it's a huge boon to the makers of these machines- one of whom just HAPPENS to be a former Secretary of Homeland Security.

Yeah. I feel sfer.
2013-01-18 11:06:57 AM
1 votes:
disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com
2013-01-18 11:04:42 AM
1 votes:

Maul555: theorellior: Well, all righty then. I always opted out. I'm not doing a naked scan just because people need security theatre. Every time I got the pat-down the TSA blueshirts were professional about it, and I'm not gonna be a dick to a guy just doing his job.

I know the blueshirts get a lot of crap, and sometimes rightfully so, but they're basically low-scale actors in the giant clownshow that is the Department of Homeland Security. They don't get paid enough to put up with some of the bullshiat that's flowed down the pipe.

screw that. He signed up to be employed in security theater and brush peoples crotches, fark him. Every single last TSA agent deserves to be harassed as often as possible. It is a profession that deserves no respect and we as a society are doing ourselves no favors by pretending to tolerate these dicks.


www.libertystickers.com
2013-01-18 10:55:03 AM
1 votes:

theorellior: Well, all righty then. I always opted out. I'm not doing a naked scan just because people need security theatre. Every time I got the pat-down the TSA blueshirts were professional about it, and I'm not gonna be a dick to a guy just doing his job.

I know the blueshirts get a lot of crap, and sometimes rightfully so, but they're basically low-scale actors in the giant clownshow that is the Department of Homeland Security. They don't get paid enough to put up with some of the bullshiat that's flowed down the pipe.


I completely concur.
2013-01-18 10:51:46 AM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: what_now: Ok, has anyone tested these at all? Because fark you, TSA. I still won't go though them.

Yeah as long as they waste my time I'm going to do my best to waste theirs and make the dropout feel a little uncomfortable.

//fark airports


I have a relative in the TSA, I got her a radiation badge from my wife who works at the hospital around x-ray machines.
The TSA "director" at her location would not allow her to monitor the radiation levels she was exposed to.
Walks like a duck... and quack quack... do the math.
2013-01-18 10:51:36 AM
1 votes:

freewill: Do you an erection would trigger it? Because if so, I have a hobby now.


If you have an erection, does that show up on the scanner? Because if so, I think forcing the TSA goons to look at my boner would please me. Some perspective for you: For a time in my youth I spent three months incarcerated in a US Army stockade for a dumb drug offense. One policy was that if you left the facility for any reason you had to be strip-searched upon return. Part of the search is the "turn around, bend at the waste, and spread your ass-cheeks that the guard (usually an E3 or E4) could see you were not concealing any contraband there. Now, some of the other prisoners found this extremely degrading and humiliating. I challenged them, though, to consider which is worse: to assume the pose or to be required to look at your rancid asshole. YES! Hey Sergeant, fark YOU, AND LOOK INTO MY EYE!

That made the whole thing a little easier to endure.
2013-01-18 10:28:54 AM
1 votes:
The TSA has killed more people than the terrorists ever will.

By their own article 131 million people used the scanners if 1 in a million or 1 in 10 million got cancer, well they kill 131 or 13 people last year respectively.

Lets not forget the people who refuse to fly now and drive and get into accidents causing hundreds of additional deaths.

We'd be better off with no security at all now and let the passengers handle now that the sheep mentality is gone. We need to stop relying on some government agency to protect us and go back to doing it ourselves.
2013-01-18 10:26:22 AM
1 votes:
"It became clear to TSA they would be unable to meet our timeline," Waters said. "As a result of that, we terminated the contract for the convenience of the government."

What a passive aggressive self aggrandizing asshole.
2013-01-18 10:14:43 AM
1 votes:
I can't believe the TSA bungled this technology so badly. Just buy the exact same scanners Amsterdam's Schiphol uses. The screen displaying the image is right where you can see it and it shows a default human like blob instead of your actual image.

s3.jrnl.ie


You know what I take it back I can believe the TSA messed it up.
2013-01-18 10:13:15 AM
1 votes:

what_now: Ok, has anyone tested these at all? Because fark you, TSA. I still won't go though them.


This falls more under the category of "general physics". My understanding is that ionizing radiation can fark up your atoms and thereby your DNA, while non-ionizing radiation can't, because, well, that's why it's called that. It doesn't have the energy it needs to knock electrons off your atoms and create ions.

That said, in my decidedly non-expert opinion, the whole body scanner thing is idiotic to begin with and should die. I'm yet to see a compelling argument that this is vital to security, as opposed to a huge boondoggle for manufacturers.
2013-01-18 10:10:33 AM
1 votes:

freewill: It's my understanding that these are non-ionizing millimeter wave scanners, as opposed to ionizing backscatter scanners, so this is a significant improvement.

The risk from backscatter was always low, but apparently higher than the risk of actual terrorism.


I always opted out because I figured between flying across the Pacific multiple times a year and whatnot, I didn't need any extra help with regard to the cancer risk. Most TSA officials are pretty laid back about the pat down and just hurry to get it over with, but every so often you run into a dick cheese.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report