Full-body security scanners in airports - yay or nay?

[vespergirl]

So, what do you all think about these things? Personally, I would like to see better targeting of people who fit the terrorist profile, or who are on watchlists - I think the scanners are an invasion of privacy. They also don''t seem to be all that effective, since they can''t scan body cavities, which are frequently used to smuggle illegal items onto planes.

I think that I would have less of a problem with them if they were to use the version of the software that presents a stylized, standard male or female silhouette on the screen than the software they keep showing on TV that shows an individual''s actual body. I also hate the fact that they are planning on saving the images. Maybe I''m being too touchy about this, but I have a "Jessica Rabbit" type figure, and even when modestly dressed, I get a lot of men leering at me. The last thing I want is some perv checking me out without my clothes on, and then posting the pics online (I promise you that there will eventually be some weirdo peeping tom website featuring these images).

It also irritates me that when I flew over the Xmas vacation, I was a 6 months pregnant lady traveling with a 3 year old. I had put all of my liquids/gels in plastic baggies, but had forgotten one tiny tube of Desitin that was hidden at the bottom of the diaper bag. My son & I and our bags were forced to go through security several times until the Desitin checked out OK (I admit it''s my fault that I forgot to stick that in the baggie with the rest of the liquids) but seriously - how much of a threat is a pregnant woman traveling with a 3 year old? Apparently a lot more of a threat than a man who was such an Islamic Jihadist that HIS OWN FATHER reported him to the authorities as a suspected terrorist (but our government is too incompetent to get this guy on a no-fly list). He''s apparently free to get on a plane without a second look ...

I just think it''s ridiculous that EVERYONE is subjected to these constant invasions of privacy, when targeted intelligence profiling could narrow down the suspect pool to to a more realistic and manageable number of suspects to investigate before they get on a plane.

OK, I just had to vent this on my PS soapbox. I''m just curious about how other people feel about being subjected to these endless steps of airport "security" that are still totally ineffective in keeping terrorists off of airplanes ...

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Meh, I''m ambivalent. If having these scanners present in the airport gives would-be terrorists pause, then sure, I''m all for them. But I agree with you, our government needs to get its act together when it comes to this stuff. Better safe than sorry IMO.

 

[zoebartlett]

I''m not against it. I''m for doing anything to make things safer, and I wouldn''t consider it a real inconvenience. If doing a full body scan helps, I''m all for it. I also think that the government needs to get its act together and take appropriate measures when needed. It''s like certain things (warnings, concerns, etc.) fall on deaf ears, and it''s REALLY frustrating to see story after story about these screw-ups.

 

[monarch64]

Date: 1/11/2010 5:24:33 PM
Author: ZoeBartlett
I''m not against it. I''m for doing anything to make things safer, and I wouldn''t consider it a real inconvenience. If doing a full body scan helps, I''m all for it. I also think that the government needs to get its act together and take appropriate measures when needed. It''s like certain things (warnings, concerns, etc.) fall on deaf ears, and it''s REALLY frustrating to see story after story about these screw-ups.

Ditto, Zoe and HH. I don''t have a problem with doing a full body scan in principle if that would actually resolve the problem. If not, though...I''m with VG on the closer eye on/profiling thing. The full body scan thing to me really isn''t much more of an invasion than having to remove my shoes, go through various security devices, etc. If it works and throws another wrench into terrorism via aircraft, then I''ll give up some privacy for the cause.

 

[doodle]

I''m completely opposed to it for a number of reasons, my right to privacy just being the tip of the iceberg. All the BS security enhancements they''ve done so far obviously haven''t deterred much if a guy could board a plane with bomb materials in his underwear. We''re talking about people on a mission here--one way or another, they''ll find a way to cause problems, and in the meantime, focus is being placed on ineffective security measures rather than dealing with the actual problem. What gets me is that, even with all the crap they''ve put in place that''s supposed to keep a terrorist off of a plane, what happens when one gets past? Where are the precautions to enhance safety once you''re actually ON the plane? To me, body scanners are a waste of time and money with the potential for a lot of drawbacks and with very little likelihood of effectiveness. Basically, what we''re doing is training terrorists to find new ways to get through. Oh, and let''s not forget that the scanners are optional--you can still request being patted down instead of scanned. Don''t you think someone with the intent of blowing something up would place the materials somewhere likely to not be patted down very thoroughly (oh say...in the underwear...because that''s NEVER happened before) and get right through anyway? I don''t think it''s even about trying to enhance security so much as making it *seem* like it so that people *feel* safer. Sorry folks, but I''m not feeling any safer with the knowledge that someone in a remote location at the airport is viewing a body scan of my eleven year old stepson.

 

[Julianna]

To quote Isaac Yeffet, the former head of security for El Al (the Israeli airline) who is now an aviation security consultant in New York:

"I am against it, this is once again patch on top of patch. Look what happened, Richard Reid, the shoebomber, hid the explosives in his shoes. The result -- all of us have to take off our shoes when we come to the airport. The Nigerian guy hid his explosives in his underwear. The result -- everyone now will be seen naked. Is this the security system that we want?


We have millions of Muslims in this country. I am not Muslim, but I am very familiar with the tradition, I respect the tradition. Women who walk on the street cover their body from head to toe. Can you imagine the reaction of the husband? Excuse me, wait on the side, we want to see your wife's body naked?... This is not an answer.

I appreciate what the president said, but we need to see the results on the ground at the airports. ... I strongly recommend that TSA call experts ... and not let them leave before they come to conclusions about what must be done at each airport to make sure that we are really pro-active. Let us be alert, let us work together, and show no mercy for any failure, no mercy.

If we do this system, believe me we will show the world that we are the best proactive security system and the terrorists will understand that it's not worth it to come to attack us."

Well, that pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/12/2010 2:29:20 PM
Author: Julianna
To quote Isaac Yeffet, the former head of security for El Al (the Israeli airline) who is now an aviation security consultant in New York:

''I am against it, this is once again patch on top of patch. Look what happened, Richard Reid, the shoebomber, hid the explosives in his shoes. The result -- all of us have to take off our shoes when we come to the airport. The Nigerian guy hid his explosives in his underwear. The result -- everyone now will be seen naked. Is this the security system that we want?



We have millions of Muslims in this country. I am not Muslim, but I am very familiar with the tradition, I respect the tradition. Women who walk on the street cover their body from head to toe. Can you imagine the reaction of the husband? Excuse me, wait on the side, we want to see your wife''s body naked?... This is not an answer.

I appreciate what the president said, but we need to see the results on the ground at the airports. ... I strongly recommend that TSA call experts ... and not let them leave before they come to conclusions about what must be done at each airport to make sure that we are really pro-active. Let us be alert, let us work together, and show no mercy for any failure, no mercy.


If we do this system, believe me we will show the world that we are the best proactive security system and the terrorists will understand that it''s not worth it to come to attack us.''

Well, that pretty much sums it up for me.

Julianna, I read the same interview, and I totally agree. I believe that El Al has never had a terrorist attack in the 40 years it has been in existence. I think that they interview every single person getting on their planes, and I don''t know how that would work logistically, but I would prefer that we use profiling and highly paid professionals to weed out & question the possible terrorists as opposed to barely trained, mimimum wage security line workers to try to spot terrorists - because the current system clearly isn''t working ...

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/12/2010 4:17:06 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/12/2010 2:29:20 PM
Author: Julianna
To quote Isaac Yeffet, the former head of security for El Al (the Israeli airline) who is now an aviation security consultant in New York:

''I am against it, this is once again patch on top of patch. Look what happened, Richard Reid, the shoebomber, hid the explosives in his shoes. The result -- all of us have to take off our shoes when we come to the airport. The Nigerian guy hid his explosives in his underwear. The result -- everyone now will be seen naked. Is this the security system that we want?




We have millions of Muslims in this country. I am not Muslim, but I am very familiar with the tradition, I respect the tradition. Women who walk on the street cover their body from head to toe. Can you imagine the reaction of the husband? Excuse me, wait on the side, we want to see your wife''s body naked?... This is not an answer.

I appreciate what the president said, but we need to see the results on the ground at the airports. ... I strongly recommend that TSA call experts ... and not let them leave before they come to conclusions about what must be done at each airport to make sure that we are really pro-active. Let us be alert, let us work together, and show no mercy for any failure, no mercy.



If we do this system, believe me we will show the world that we are the best proactive security system and the terrorists will understand that it''s not worth it to come to attack us.''

Well, that pretty much sums it up for me.

Julianna, I read the same interview, and I totally agree. I believe that El Al has never had a terrorist attack in the 40 years it has been in existence. I think that they interview every single person getting on their planes, and I don''t know how that would work logistically, but I would prefer that we use profiling and highly paid professionals to weed out & question the possible terrorists as opposed to barely trained, mimimum wage security line workers to try to spot terrorists - because the current system clearly isn''t working ...

It''s a conundrum. If we beef up security enough to make it enough of a hassle/no win for the terrorists, it also becomes a hassle/no win for the travelling public, air travel declines, and airlines struggle or go bust and the support industries around them suffer and go bust. Also, in a time of shrinking budgets, mass unemployment, and dwindling revenues, where are we going to find the money to pay these "highly paid professionals"? Are they supposed to be paid for by the airlines? The airports? The government? Are we ready for the increase in ticket price that will create? You want that farmed out to contractors? Because it most likely will be, and the goals of government contractors are NOT the goals of the government. They don''t have the dedication to "the mission" like government employees. That sounds corny, but in many instances it''s true.

We CAN have better security, but it IS going to come at a cost that many people will just not be willing to pay. I certainly don''t travel for "pleasure", and will only get on a plane for an extraordinary circumstance. Enhanced security is only going to hammer another nail in it for me....

 

[princesss]

I have no problem with them (and I''ve got a similar "Jessica Rabbit" figure that you''re talking about, vesper), but I think we''re focusing too much on what just happened. We''re trying to protect against an attack that already happened - we''ve learned from it, and now that tactic won''t be used again for several years. We need better communication between intelligence agencies and different governments so we can spot the people that are most likely to be problems, and not let ourselves get distracted by a person''s appearance - a white boy with blonde hair can be a terrorist, just like an Arab man, just like a Nigerian woman, just like a Chinese grandmother. So if we can get a generic image and have hot spots light up for where things are hidden, that''d be good. There are machines being developed that can see inside orifices, which I think is important. But this is too much of us looking backwards and protecting ourselves from what just happened, not what''s about to happen.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Nay - the idea creeps me out. In the paper it said these machines wouldn''t be used on children (thank goodness). Hopefully that''s accurate.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/21/2010 3:01:18 PM
Author: princesss
I have no problem with them (and I've got a similar 'Jessica Rabbit' figure that you're talking about, vesper), but I think we're focusing too much on what just happened. We're trying to protect against an attack that already happened - we've learned from it, and now that tactic won't be used again for several years. We need better communication between intelligence agencies and different governments so we can spot the people that are most likely to be problems, and not let ourselves get distracted by a person's appearance - a white boy with blonde hair can be a terrorist, just like an Arab man, just like a Nigerian woman, just like a Chinese grandmother. So if we can get a generic image and have hot spots light up for where things are hidden, that'd be good. There are machines being developed that can see inside orifices, which I think is important. But this is too much of us looking backwards and protecting ourselves from what just happened, not what's about to happen.

Oh HELL NO. I'm afraid my personal boundaries and dignity take precedence over safety, if that's what it takes. And the fact is, it does not take that level of personal invasion, nor should we expect it to as a norm. Besides, they CAN'T get it together at the TSA or anywhere else for that matter, when it comes to security. What on earth makes you think that a virtual cavity search will help? Even if it would, and I doubt it, it only works when they actually search people who might be actual terrorists, instead of little old ladies and 2 year olds. Yes, I said 2 year olds....

Read this. It's an eye-opener. Meet Mikey, 8: U.S. Has Him on Watch List He's white. And blonde. Could be a terrorist.

And of the 648 responses to that piece, this one is my favorite. Pretty much says it all.

"I used to work as a Federal Air Marshal. I have seen kids, even disabled kids searched repeatedly. In the meantime, I have gotten through airport security with a handgun, 2 spare magazines, two pairs of handcuffs and a knife, even without my badge. Even through secondary screening. The whole system is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Even the best and brightest TSA screeners could not identify a suicide bomber if one detonated in front of them. On the cargo side, one could easily sneak a heard of elephants onto an airplane. On the ground, planes are being serviced and cleaned by people that have been in the country for only a few months, yet they are 'required' to have a 10 year criminal background check. I can tell you from my 4 years as part of that circus that it is a GIGANTIC waste of money and not much else. I minimize my flying because it is such a pain in the neck these days. ..... we spent hundreds of billions and can't even keep KNOWN terrorists out of passenger airliners. .... Then, there were all those Secret Service retirees that had to be kept on the payroll, so guess who got to be the managers of the Air Marshal Service to the tune of $ 250,000 each per year between their retirement AND a salary. If you want to see the net effect of all of this stupidity, go to GSA Auctions and see the pocket knives, screwdrivers, corkscrews and nail clippers that were taken away from honest people being auctioned of - by the ton. We have seen the enemy and it is us. I am just amazed at how the public has put up, even seem to appreciate being abused by this system because the majority of travelers seem to think that the government is 'trying to keep them safe'. Sorry, you are on your own. Rely on this bloated, ineffective, incompetent and arrogant government system and you might as well be walking towards the Superdome."

Recommend Recommended by 684 Readers

** Edited to remove anything political-ish. The guy did smash both admins. But I think the point is, the man has seen it from the inside and it ain't pretty....

As I said before, let's all watch the airlines fail because a)the economy is in the crapper, and 2) people just flat out don't want to mess with it. We'd all be really REALLY safe if we just allow ourselves to be encased in lucite too, but I'm not doing that either. WSJ reported today, that overall the airline revenues were down by 18%, even more down than after 9/11. And scanning me from guggle to zatch ain't gonna help.

 

[princesss]

K, like I said, I think it''s more important to focus on communication between intelligence agencies and gov''ts so that we ARE really finding the terrorists. But no, I have no particular discomfort with being searched at that level. I understand most people do, but I don''t. So yeah, if they find a way to search every nook and cranny of people, I want them to be able to. But first, I want them to be able to spot the bigger threats and search them. But if that means my nooks and crannies get searched in the process, well, so be it. My family spends a ridiculous amount of time flying, and my father''s job takes him through Africa and the Middle East all the time. I''m all for beefing up security in any and every way possible.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/24/2010 12:01:20 AM
Author: princesss
K, like I said, I think it''s more important to focus on communication between intelligence agencies and gov''ts so that we ARE really finding the terrorists. But no, I have no particular discomfort with being searched at that level. I understand most people do, but I don''t. So yeah, if they find a way to search every nook and cranny of people, I want them to be able to. But first, I want them to be able to spot the bigger threats and search them. But if that means my nooks and crannies get searched in the process, well, so be it. My family spends a ridiculous amount of time flying, and my father''s job takes him through Africa and the Middle East all the time. I''m all for beefing up security in any and every way possible.

And therein lies the fundamental difference in how we view the world. I am NOT willing to give up all my freedom, all my privacy and all my autonomy, to satisfy some people''s seemingly endless and pathological need for security, and wouldn''t be even if I HAD an eternally 22-year-old hourglass figure. I won''t do it for my OWN safety, and I''m sorry, but I am unwilling to do it for anyone else''s. If you and your family are SO concerned about the safety issues with air travel, then perhaps your father needs to exercise his autonomy and find a job that doesn''t require air travel, rather than try to require everyone else on the planet to give up their rights to bodily privacy at the cavity level.

When did this happen? That we became willing to do ANYTHING, give up ANYTHING, to be safe? I guarantee you, it IS an illusion. We''ll end up giving it all up, and we still won''t be guaranteed risk-free travel.

Honestly, if it''s as important and effective as you seem to think it is, then we really SHOULD do cavity searches. NOW. Real ones. Performed by real people on real people. It''s only a matter of degree, isn''t it? What is the difference, honestly?

 

[perry]

Ksinger:

Thanks for posting the comments that state what I have known for years. Our airport security system is a sham.

I am not against full body scanners. But they should only be used if part of an effective airport security system.

We actually have the knowhow and expertise to have an effective airport security system. The model is what is used for nuclear facilities (I work in one). All workers entering the area are screened (including the security guards) via metal detectors & Xray of carried items, sniffers. All packages and cargo is either X-rayed or searched. All vehicles are searched. By the way - they allow me to keep my pocket knife.

Worker screening for unescorted access (an employment badge) is a 2 step process: Initial screening takes a week (50% of new people don''t make it through this), and full screening takes about 3 months. It really is a 10 year + background check (and cost between $5000 - $7500 per person). As a long term employee they rescreen me every 5 years.

I''ll bet half of the TSA "agents" and 3/4 of airport employees would not pass the screening process.

If the US really wanted to secure the airports - then we do know how to do it. Almost every nuclear power plant in the US had to retrofit most of their security equipment and processes onto existing plants. Airports could be retrofitted with the same system and controls. I doubt that it would cost that much more than what the TSA has already spent; and it would be far more effective.

Of course, you still need good intelligence to catch the terrorist in the planning stage (which is a current problem). An intelligent terrorist can always figure out a way to beat the system.

Perry

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/24/2010 10:34:07 AM
Author: perry
Ksinger:

Thanks for posting the comments that state what I have known for years. Our airport security system is a sham.

I am not against full body scanners. But they should only be used if part of an effective airport security system.

We actually have the knowhow and expertise to have an effective airport security system. The model is what is used for nuclear facilities (I work in one). All workers entering the area are screened (including the security guards) via metal detectors & Xray of carried items, sniffers. All packages and cargo is either X-rayed or searched. All vehicles are searched. By the way - they allow me to keep my pocket knife.

Worker screening for unescorted access (an employment badge) is a 2 step process: Initial screening takes a week (50% of new people don''t make it through this), and full screening takes about 3 months. It really is a 10 year + background check (and cost between $5000 - $7500 per person). As a long term employee they rescreen me every 5 years.

I''ll bet half of the TSA ''agents'' and 3/4 of airport employees would not pass the screening process.

If the US really wanted to secure the airports - then we do know how to do it. Almost every nuclear power plant in the US had to retrofit most of their security equipment and processes onto existing plants. Airports could be retrofitted with the same system and controls. I doubt that it would cost that much more than what the TSA has already spent; and it would be far more effective.

Of course, you still need good intelligence to catch the terrorist in the planning stage (which is a current problem). An intelligent terrorist can always figure out a way to beat the system.

Perry

1st highlight: And until they show can actually effectively implement the common sense precautions and the screenings supposedly in place, they don''t get to look in my rectum, stomach or vagina, thank you very much. I consider this to be too wide a net to cast, and that it falls under the heading of unreasonable. I''m not holding my breath for this level of effectiveness anytime soon though, since they have buggered it up since the git go.

2nd highlight: The level of screening you''re positing for airports would again reduce the elective flights of many people. I don''t fly anymore not because I don''t have enough money to do so, but because I just don''t want the hassle, and so generally choose vacation spots that I can drive to in one or 2 days. As the restrictions and hassles become greater - and they will - more people will make my choice and refuse to spend their dollars on air travel. If we are happy with the idea of nationalizing the airlines, then we can be OK with a single airline only servicing a predominantly business market. But I don''t think that is a goal, or that most people want that.

 

[perry]

Date: 1/24/2010 11:37:09 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 1/24/2010 10:34:07 AM

Perry

1st highlight: And until they show can actually effectively implement the common sense precautions and the screenings supposedly in place, they don''t get to look in my rectum, stomach or vagina, thank you very much. I consider this to be too wide a net to cast, and that it falls under the heading of unreasonable. I''m not holding my breath for this level of effectiveness anytime soon though, since they have buggered it up since the git go.


2nd highlight: The level of screening you''re positing for airports would again reduce the elective flights of many people. I don''t fly anymore not because I don''t have enough money to do so, but because I just don''t want the hassle, and so generally choose vacation spots that I can drive to in one or 2 days. As the restrictions and hassles become greater - and they will - more people will make my choice and refuse to spend their dollars on air travel. If we are happy with the idea of nationalizing the airlines, then we can be OK with a single airline only servicing a predominantly business market. But I don''t think that is a goal, or that most people want that.

I totally agree with you on the first point. Adding full body scanners (and cavity searches later on) does nothing for the current system. I am convinced that someone will bomb an aircraft with supplies from airport workers or shipped in as supplies to the vendors.

I do not believe you understand that the nuclear plant security gate processing is actually fairly quick - and is currently a lot less hassles than TSA airport screening. That is also true of unbadged people who are escorted into and around the plant (I''ve heard truck drivers remark on how its a lot quicker than they expected for themselves - except for the time searching the truck). Should the NRC decide that we need full body scanners - it will only add another moment - and I suspect still be less of a hassle than the current TSA Airport system. Proper screening does not need to be complex.

While I do understand the threat from a small bomb (and do understand how small a bomb that would crash an airplane can be) - I cannot support applying another technology (body scanners) to the passengers until they fix the other much larger security issues (while I doubt I could get a case of dynamite through in my carryon; I am quite sure I could get a truck load of dynamite (hundreds of cases) onto the airport and into the hands of cargo handlers (not to mention any other weapons that are readily available).

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[swimmer]

Date: 1/21/2010 3:01:18 PM
Author: princesss
I have no problem with them (and I've got a similar 'Jessica Rabbit' figure that you're talking about, vesper), but I think we're focusing too much on what just happened. We're trying to protect against an attack that already happened - we've learned from it, and now that tactic won't be used again for several years. We need better communication between intelligence agencies and different governments so we can spot the people that are most likely to be problems, and not let ourselves get distracted by a person's appearance - a white boy with blonde hair can be a terrorist, just like an Arab man, just like a Nigerian woman, just like a Chinese grandmother. So if we can get a generic image and have hot spots light up for where things are hidden, that'd be good. There are machines being developed that can see inside orifices, which I think is important. But this is too much of us looking backwards and protecting ourselves from what just happened, not what's about to happen.

Princess, exactly. The cows are already out...why do we keep trying to prevent what already happened? It blows my mind that the US still allows people to bring lighters onto flights...um, yeah. FIRE. Years ago, on an El Al flight (yes, security is much much higher in Israel) a pregnant woman was being rushed through security as she was running late for her flight. She was still searched, and her bags were opened just like any other El Al passenger, her boyfriend had packed her bags with plastique (which is not detectable by standard issue xray machines currently in use in the US. Just goes to show that anyone can be the bomber...

Personally, I am used to having my bag searched when going to the mall...I like not being blown up. I do wonder sometimes about American's focus on safety on airplanes when everywhere i go people are texting and driving, making rather dangerous every-day decisions about diet, alcohol, prescription drug usage, etc. It seems peculiar funny to me that so much time and energy goes into the prevention of this super super rare event when statistically there are other, much more likely scenarios that we just don't even think about preventing in the US.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/24/2010 10:47:08 PM
Author: swimmer

Date: 1/21/2010 3:01:18 PM
Author: princesss
I have no problem with them (and I''ve got a similar ''Jessica Rabbit'' figure that you''re talking about, vesper), but I think we''re focusing too much on what just happened. We''re trying to protect against an attack that already happened - we''ve learned from it, and now that tactic won''t be used again for several years. We need better communication between intelligence agencies and different governments so we can spot the people that are most likely to be problems, and not let ourselves get distracted by a person''s appearance - a white boy with blonde hair can be a terrorist, just like an Arab man, just like a Nigerian woman, just like a Chinese grandmother. So if we can get a generic image and have hot spots light up for where things are hidden, that''d be good. There are machines being developed that can see inside orifices, which I think is important. But this is too much of us looking backwards and protecting ourselves from what just happened, not what''s about to happen.

Princess, exactly. The cows are already out...why do we keep trying to prevent what already happened? It blows my mind that the US still allows people to bring lighters onto flights...um, yeah. FIRE. Years ago, on an El Al flight (yes, security is much much higher in Israel) a pregnant woman was being rushed through security as she was running late for her flight. She was still searched, and her bags were opened just like any other El Al passenger, her boyfriend had packed her bags with plastique (which is not detectable by standard issue xray machines currently in use in the US. Just goes to show that anyone can be the bomber...

Personally, I am used to having my bag searched when going to the mall...I like not being blown up. I do wonder sometimes about American''s focus on safety on airplanes when everywhere i go people are texting and driving, making rather dangerous every-day decisions about diet, alcohol, prescription drug usage, etc. It seems peculiar funny to me that so much time and energy goes into the prevention of this super super rare event when statistically there are other, much more likely scenarios that we just don''t even think about preventing in the US.

Yet not one person has responded to the article about how ordinary travelers are unduly hassled (as in the 2-year old) simply because their name is on a list. I don''t have a problem with commonsense searches either, but honestly, what does a person have to do to get off some list? It appears that nothing will do it, and that every one who shares the same name will be singled out for extra attention. This is inefficient, and certainly doesn''t give me a warm fuzzy. The time some moron spends frisking a 2 year old (and never the parents apparently) is time when the real terrorists are getting through.

I do get amused at times myself, when people point to Israel and say, "Well, THEY know how to do it." Well, yeah, they are a country not much bigger than NJ, that started life pretty much at the military ready. I suspect that they actually require a brain to be hired as a screener, and pay accordingly. America is HUGE, the airlines are not nationalized, the airports are numerous and are owned and funded to a great degree by states, not federal, and yet are required to operate as businesses for the most part. The kind of rigorous control necessary to obtain the level of safety that people say they desire, is going to be difficult to achieve with the system as it now stands.

I too like the thought of not being blown up in the air, or anywhere for that matter. But dead is dead, and we''ll all end up there one day regardless. We simply cannot protect against every eventuality no matter how hard we try. Fact is, life IS dangerous. Americans have been sheltered from that for a long long time. And now we cry like babies that there isn''t SOMEONE who can make life perfectly risk-free for us. Time to grow up. And you''re absolutely right about the hypocrisy of wanting perfect safety when traveling by plane, yet stridently opposing anything that might infringe on my RIGHT to use a cell phone while driving, or to drive a giant SUV with highly touted safety for the occupants, yet is 6 times more likely to kill the passengers of any car it collides with. It''s insane.

IMO, It''s really just the "oogy factor". It''s oogier to die in a big plane explosion than to die in a car wreck. In fact, I read a neat article some years ago about that very thing - about the psychology of people fearing the super-rare event - and giving it undue attention - than the common everyday dangers around them all the time. It may have been in an issue of Scientific American Mind magazine....

 

[swimmer]

Ksinger, I was with a student whose name is on the watch list when we came into the US from a school trip, it took less than 8 mins to clear the name thing up and the Customs guy was joking about it. I didn''t see it as harassment. Now spelling has never been a strong suite of Americans, so who knows how effective these lists actually are.

So what does concern me is that someone I know who works in the diamond district used to always use his shoes for transporting diamonds from SA to NYC to avoid paying import fees...how are the new security protocol impacting diamond importation? This is a matter for PS to really research.

Ha, yes Israel is the size and temperment of NJ, but the scanners tend to be just out of the military and not paid much. Once I was really being grilled when flying home and it finally dawned on me that security was just getting my deets. What cracks me up is being in small US airports and they do silly things like check under the car with mirrors, what are they looking for, oil leaks?

Yes, I look at the world through statistical probability and am in shock that people fear being murdered by a stranger (super super rare) but stay with abusive husbands (um, the person most likely to kill you is your spouse.)

 

[Andrew1975]

Agreed, they''re terribly invasive AND they don''t really work AND they''ve been called a potential health hazard due to the type of radiation they use.

 

[Rank Amateur]

I don''t know what to think other than to look around and say to myself, "What a huge waste of money."

So many great things could be done in the world with the tons of money we spend on security, crime, and punishment.

 

[princesss]

Ksinger: If you ever find that article on the "oogy factor" I''d love to read it. I''ve been crazy busy, but I''ve bookmarked the link you posted to read when I get a chance. I''m interested in anything else you''ve got up your sleeve on this.

 

[ksinger]

Just FYI - after I posted that, I really DID try to remember where I read it. I''m pretty sure it was in a print magazine, but my online searches of the the indexes of the ones I think it might be yielded nothing. I really don''t remember whether it was 2008 or 9 or...you get the drift. I just recall that the gist was that we assign WAAAAY too much prominence and attention to things that are very very unlikely to happen to us, like a plane highjacking or somesuch, while we are quite nonchalant about the much more dangerous daily risks we face.

Sorry I couldn''t find it.

 

[Indylady]

Date: 1/11/2010 4:35:37 PM
Author:vespergirl
So, what do you all think about these things? Personally, I would like to see better targeting of people who fit the terrorist profile, or who are on watchlists - I think the scanners are an invasion of privacy. They also don''t seem to be all that effective, since they can''t scan body cavities, which are frequently used to smuggle illegal items onto planes.

I think that I would have less of a problem with them if they were to use the version of the software that presents a stylized, standard male or female silhouette on the screen than the software they keep showing on TV that shows an individual''s actual body. I also hate the fact that they are planning on saving the images. Maybe I''m being too touchy about this, but I have a ''Jessica Rabbit'' type figure, and even when modestly dressed, I get a lot of men leering at me. The last thing I want is some perv checking me out without my clothes on, and then posting the pics online (I promise you that there will eventually be some weirdo peeping tom website featuring these images).

It also irritates me that when I flew over the Xmas vacation, I was a 6 months pregnant lady traveling with a 3 year old. I had put all of my liquids/gels in plastic baggies, but had forgotten one tiny tube of Desitin that was hidden at the bottom of the diaper bag. My son & I and our bags were forced to go through security several times until the Desitin checked out OK (I admit it''s my fault that I forgot to stick that in the baggie with the rest of the liquids) but seriously - how much of a threat is a pregnant woman traveling with a 3 year old? Apparently a lot more of a threat than a man who was such an Islamic Jihadist that HIS OWN FATHER reported him to the authorities as a suspected terrorist (but our government is too incompetent to get this guy on a no-fly list). He''s apparently free to get on a plane without a second look ...

I just think it''s ridiculous that EVERYONE is subjected to these constant invasions of privacy, when targeted intelligence profiling could narrow down the suspect pool to to a more realistic and manageable number of suspects to investigate before they get on a plane.

OK, I just had to vent this on my PS soapbox. I''m just curious about how other people feel about being subjected to these endless steps of airport ''security'' that are still totally ineffective in keeping terrorists off of airplanes ...

Vesper, I''m amazed you''d say this. If you aren''t following the rules, you''re going to get pulled over. Its as simple as that. I''m sorry that you were pregnant and it was uncomfortable, which I bet it was, but are you really serious? How much of a threat is a pregnant woman with a 3 year old? Probably not much, but its just part of the rules. They''re clearly posted, and I see that you tried to follow them, but its standard procedure. Everyone is subjected, because anyone could be a terrorist. Who do you think falls into the ''suspect pool''? If it was that easy, and there was a small and limited suspect pool, wouldn''t it already have been done?

 

[galeteia]

Personally, I would rather be scanned by a machine and have some dude in another room getting an eyeful of my assets than be strip-searched, which is what I have seen it compared to in some articles. I am not sure what people think strip-searching is, but I know I would rather have some scanned image of my bust on a screen somewhere than have someone''s fingers in various orifices. It''s not the same thing at all, but I keep seeing quotes from people saying exactly that! That''s my pet peeve with all the discussion about it.

Argue the valid points, like y''all are here in this thread, instead of sending up this hysterical hue-and-cry using ridiculous comparisons.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 1/21/2010 9:29:28 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 1/21/2010 3:01:18 PM

Author: princesss

I have no problem with them (and I''ve got a similar ''Jessica Rabbit'' figure that you''re talking about, vesper), but I think we''re focusing too much on what just happened. We''re trying to protect against an attack that already happened - we''ve learned from it, and now that tactic won''t be used again for several years. We need better communication between intelligence agencies and different governments so we can spot the people that are most likely to be problems, and not let ourselves get distracted by a person''s appearance - a white boy with blonde hair can be a terrorist, just like an Arab man, just like a Nigerian woman, just like a Chinese grandmother. So if we can get a generic image and have hot spots light up for where things are hidden, that''d be good. There are machines being developed that can see inside orifices, which I think is important. But this is too much of us looking backwards and protecting ourselves from what just happened, not what''s about to happen.

I wonder what they would make of my Diva cup?

THAT might get awkward!

 

[miraclesrule]

Vespergirl...

You made the case for full body scanners in your initial post. There is no common sense among the TSA. They will put you through hell over some diaper ointment, or in my case, I forget to pack my teasing comb (I love high hair). The dude literally broke off each of the 4 "metal" picks on my comb before I boarded the plane.

I wanted to tell him "Dude, seriously, I train with an MMA trainer...my arms and legs are more of a lethal weapon than my comb...but feel free to knock yourself out, I left my gloves at home" Of course, I didn''t say that because they would arrest me.

 

[movie zombie]

not ony is there no common sense within TSA, they do NOT have sense of humor.......

mz

 

[Hest88]

This is my favorite article on airline security, written right after the underwear bomber incident:
http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/01/05/askthepilot346/index.html