TSA debuts new (less intrusive) full-body scanners

[WilliamPitt]

TSA debuts new full-body scanners
By Ashley Halsey III

New airport security scanners designed to be less intrusive than machines that captured near-naked images will debut at the Las Vegas airport Tuesday.

They'll look just like the controversial scanners that were introduced last fall, but instead of sending a revealing image to be examined in a private security booth, new software will project a non-gender-specific silhouette on a small screen attached to the booth.

If the passenger is carrying any contraband items a red box will appear on the screen. Otherwise it will flash a green okay.

(snip)

The images produced by the current machines led to an uproar over privacy concerns. Pistole had said in the fall that he wanted to see modifications, but the technology that was being tested yielded too many false positives. Many passengers found the alternative, "enhanced" pat-downs by TSA agents even more disturbing.

The rest: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2011/02/tsa_debuts_new_full-body_scann.html?hpid=topnews

I'll be curious how many people here read this thread. This issue was fully dominant here some weeks ago. With Egypt happening, however...who knows? Anyway, thought I'd share.

[drm604]

1. "If the passenger is carrying any contraband items"

So are they claiming that the scanner can actually tell contraband from innocent items (an extremely doubtful claim), or are they incorrectly using the term "contraband" to mean anything out of the ordinary (colostomy bags, artificial joints, etc.).

[WilliamPitt]

2. What would be your solution for airport security?

[drm604]

6. That's not an answer, it's another question.

As far as I can tell that article is misusing the term "contraband" and therefore giving the public a false impression as to what the machines are capable of.

If the general public believes that red means contraband then when a red light flashes the people in the boarding line will assume the person is a terrorist or some other sort of criminal when they may instead be an innocent surgical patient.

Not only that, but the same innoncents who were being humiliated before by intrusive gropings will still be subjected to the same thing. I don't see what this solves.

[CreekDog]

9. Not x-raying people's bodies

as a starting point, that's a good one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Since you asked, it is far more expensive,

personnel intensive, and not theater... israelize the airports,

Check the belly contents on EVERY FLIGHT. We don't even do this.

[ThomCat]

21. I also wonder as they still radiate everyone with these machines

do they still claim that heavy travelers aren't getting high cumulative levels of radiation? A dubious claim at best.

Medical X-ray machines have to be certified to stay within certain output limits. Their machines apparently don't, or if they do, the maintenance is spotty enough that the certifications are useless very shortly after they are installed.

They don't have certified radiology techs using them. The don't have lead shields anywhere to block exposure to themselves and others.

If this was a medical environment they'd be getting violations left and right for operating machines this way. But because they are a security operation they can do whatever they want and it's all okay, and supposedly radiation is now magically not a concern.

When Cancer rates skyrocket among people with a history of air travel, will they be able to sue the Department of Homeland Security for causing it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. This would have made sense to start from this point

and then the only objection would be to the x-rays...

sP

[drm604]

8. That's not the only objection.

The bigger objection, to a lot of people, is the fact that people who fail the scans for innocent reasons are then subjected to intrusive gropings. These are quite often people with humiliating medical problems that would rather not be groped by TSA thugs.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. I can dig that...

but they might have equally failed the magnetometer scan as well and likewise been subjected to a pat-down.

sP

[drm604]

15. I don't get your point.

Innocent people, some who have embarrassing and even psychologically humiliating medical problems, get intimate pat downs and have their bags, tubes, or whatever, manhandled by thugs with no medical training. Whether it's because they failed an x-ray or a magnetometer or whatever is irrelevant.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. I was simply commenting on the scanner-bit

not the post-scanner encounter. Those could certainly be handled in a more professional and less invasive manner. I am no fan of the pat-down...

sP

[hlthe2b]

4. And, they will, of course rush out to replace the Millions$ of

old machines.... :sarcasm:

Good step, but does this address any of the safety issues from radiation?

[Generic Other]

10. Nope

I don't like being subjected to x-rays. Tell me what causes breast cancer first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUzpykxWh20

[seabeyond]

13. +1. put a few out. keep the old out. and now people really have a tough time with a stand.

and agree

radiation?

[SoCalDem]

5. square image?

[liberal N proud]

7. They'll look just like the controversial scanners...

That way you will not know which type of scanner you are being subjected to.

Damn they think we are stupid.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. It should be a required software 'downgrade'

on ALL scanners before they are even turned back on...of course, there is little to no way to know if it has been done.

sP

[CreekDog]

14. There are two issues, privacy and radiation, this deals with only one of them: privacy

the ionizing radiation issue is not dealt with in this change.

[drm604]

19. It doesn't deal with privacy.

Anyone with anything out of the ordinary (a surgical appliance, for example) will still end up having their privacy violated and being subjected to a "pat down" when they fail the x-ray.

[CreekDog]

20. true

:hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

17. Was that so hard? n/t

[spanone]

22. appears the TSA has unlimited funding