Sweating over scan - new airport body scanner doesn't like perspiration
Aug 2, 2011, 11:39 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Miami, Fl, sometimes
Programs: AAEXP, MRPLT
Posts: 126
Sweating over scan - new airport body scanner doesn't like perspiration
Aug 2, 2011, 1:00 pm
#5
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle, San Francisco, Cyberspace
Posts: 62
And why would anybody have sweaty armpits while standing inline waiting to be irradiated and potentially groped? Except for terrorists, of course.
And great data here:
And great data here:
As if to prove that Germans are relatively consistent in their views, the AFP yesterday reported that the German police, who were testing the scanners at Hamburg airport , declared that in 7 out of 10 cases, they let their alarm bells ring when there was no just cause.
A 70% false positive ratio. Wow.
Aug 2, 2011, 1:01 pm
#6
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: BOS,PIT
Programs: Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, JetBlue Mosaic, United Silver
Posts: 461
It truly is a sad commentary on the US that the Germans and the Australians seem open and transparent about vulnerabilities and limitations of these scanners but the TSA hides behind SSI.
Here's another question: have the backscatter machines been deployed anywhere outside of the US? Perhaps an open and transparent foreign government is the way for the real story to get out about the radiation exposure of these devices?
Here's another question: have the backscatter machines been deployed anywhere outside of the US? Perhaps an open and transparent foreign government is the way for the real story to get out about the radiation exposure of these devices?
Aug 2, 2011, 1:20 pm
#7
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 118
It seems unlikely that we should expect any candid information from either of those countries.
Aug 2, 2011, 1:24 pm
#8
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
The bad guys would have to do the unthinkable, plant a mole in the production departments of the machines. Ooops, too late.
Aug 2, 2011, 1:35 pm
#9
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 616
We might as well opt out. If there is a 70% false positive rate, there's only a 30% chance we won't get groped anyway. Did they test these machines before installing them?
This makes me want to hang out by the checkpoint and count how many NoS victims still get the patdown. Unfortuantely I don't have any trips scheduled for 3+ months. I'm not sure how I would count acceptable additional screenings though. If they were carrying something prohibited, then the scanner did its job. If somebody forgot a tissue or piece of paper in their pocket, then I'm not so sure. If they required additional screening due to perspiration or nothing at all, then it failed.
This makes me want to hang out by the checkpoint and count how many NoS victims still get the patdown. Unfortuantely I don't have any trips scheduled for 3+ months. I'm not sure how I would count acceptable additional screenings though. If they were carrying something prohibited, then the scanner did its job. If somebody forgot a tissue or piece of paper in their pocket, then I'm not so sure. If they required additional screening due to perspiration or nothing at all, then it failed.
Aug 2, 2011, 1:38 pm
#10
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 593
We might as well opt out. If there is a 70% false positive rate, there's only a 30% chance we won't get groped anyway. Did they test these machines before installing them?
This makes me want to hang out by the checkpoint and count how many NoS victims still get the patdown. Unfortuantely I don't have any trips scheduled for 3+ months. I'm not sure how I would count acceptable additional screenings though. If they were carrying something prohibited, then the scanner did its job. If somebody forgot a tissue or piece of paper in their pocket, then I'm not so sure. If they required additional screening due to perspiration or nothing at all, then it failed.
This makes me want to hang out by the checkpoint and count how many NoS victims still get the patdown. Unfortuantely I don't have any trips scheduled for 3+ months. I'm not sure how I would count acceptable additional screenings though. If they were carrying something prohibited, then the scanner did its job. If somebody forgot a tissue or piece of paper in their pocket, then I'm not so sure. If they required additional screening due to perspiration or nothing at all, then it failed.
Aug 2, 2011, 2:59 pm
#11
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Sweating over scan - new airport body scanner doesn't like perspiration
Aug 2, 2011, 4:26 pm
#12
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 175
Same here, and one of the areas that I sweat, makes me dread the resolution grope even more.
http://www.schwettyballs.com/
http://www.schwettyballs.com/
Aug 2, 2011, 4:26 pm
#13
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay area
Posts: 27
We might as well opt out. If there is a 70% false positive rate, there's only a 30% chance we won't get groped anyway. Did they test these machines before installing them?
This makes me want to hang out by the checkpoint and count how many NoS victims still get the patdown. Unfortuantely I don't have any trips scheduled for 3+ months. I'm not sure how I would count acceptable additional screenings though. If they were carrying something prohibited, then the scanner did its job. If somebody forgot a tissue or piece of paper in their pocket, then I'm not so sure. If they required additional screening due to perspiration or nothing at all, then it failed.
This makes me want to hang out by the checkpoint and count how many NoS victims still get the patdown. Unfortuantely I don't have any trips scheduled for 3+ months. I'm not sure how I would count acceptable additional screenings though. If they were carrying something prohibited, then the scanner did its job. If somebody forgot a tissue or piece of paper in their pocket, then I'm not so sure. If they required additional screening due to perspiration or nothing at all, then it failed.
