Body Scanners - empty your pockets?
Oct 8, 2010 | 1:38 pm
#16
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
IIRC, star_world is not a screener, Bubba. You will recall that we read a report on PV from a woman who was forced to remove her shirt in front of 2 screeners, allegedly because of an issue with her bra strap. May she was wearing one of those things that protects the shoulders from being cut by the bra strap.
Since we have not heard any reports of travelers being forced to expose their sanitary products, I am sure that TSA is just either giving them a cursory pat down or no pat down at all - or WBI can't even see the sanitary products.
Since we have not heard any reports of travelers being forced to expose their sanitary products, I am sure that TSA is just either giving them a cursory pat down or no pat down at all - or WBI can't even see the sanitary products.
As for intimate pat downs, I know they are not happening, because WBI is about the illusion of safety, not real safety.
And since Star World is not TSA, I go back to stating that the manner in which "anomalies" are resolved post WBI remains unanswered.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 8, 2010 at 2:43 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Oct 8, 2010 | 1:50 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
Do all of these devices expose people to unnecessary radiation? Absolutely not.
Are there specific procedures in place to minimise privacy issues? Of course, but facts don't matter here at TS&S since it is assumed that every TSO is a wannabe voyeur.
Are there specific procedures to allow a passenger's belongings to remain in their sight? Of course. Again, disregarded here.
Are there more pat downs as a result? Make up your mind on this. Either they are happening or they aren't. You seem to be confused on this point
It's hard to have a rational debate with several of the folks here when you all actually seem to be believing your own fearmongering and propaganda.
So you would.... prefer them to be happening? Or not? Or not know whether they should be carried out since you'd rather there were no imaging devices in place that suggested the pax was carrying something on his/her person?
Oct 8, 2010 | 1:56 pm
#18
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Ah, when all else fails back to the good ol' fearmongering ^
Do all of these devices expose people to unnecessary radiation? Absolutely not.
Are there specific procedures in place to minimise privacy issues? Of course, but facts don't matter here at TS&S since it is assumed that every TSO is a wannabe voyeur.
Are there specific procedures to allow a passenger's belongings to remain in their sight? Of course. Again, disregarded here.
Are there more pat downs as a result? Make up your mind on this. Either they are happening or they aren't. You seem to be confused on this point
It's hard to have a rational debate with several of the folks here when you all actually seem to be believing your own fearmongering and propaganda.
So you would.... prefer them to be happening? Or not? Or not know whether they should be carried out since you'd rather there were no imaging devices in place that suggested the pax was carrying something on his/her person?
Do all of these devices expose people to unnecessary radiation? Absolutely not.
Are there specific procedures in place to minimise privacy issues? Of course, but facts don't matter here at TS&S since it is assumed that every TSO is a wannabe voyeur.
Are there specific procedures to allow a passenger's belongings to remain in their sight? Of course. Again, disregarded here.
Are there more pat downs as a result? Make up your mind on this. Either they are happening or they aren't. You seem to be confused on this point
It's hard to have a rational debate with several of the folks here when you all actually seem to be believing your own fearmongering and propaganda.
So you would.... prefer them to be happening? Or not? Or not know whether they should be carried out since you'd rather there were no imaging devices in place that suggested the pax was carrying something on his/her person?
Have a nice weekend. I know I am.
Oct 8, 2010 | 2:01 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
Oct 8, 2010 | 2:03 pm
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,235
It makes things worse because it creates scenarios where objects that previously were undetectable now can be? Interesting...
Ostrich, sand...
I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution by any means - I never have. But some of the anti-WBI arguments on display in this board defy even elementary logic.
Ostrich, sand...
I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution by any means - I never have. But some of the anti-WBI arguments on display in this board defy even elementary logic.
If you want to waste YOUR tax money on machines that have a slim chance of catching one the idiots who have been coming on board with incindiary shoes or underpants, I'll give you the address to the US Treasury and you can send them a check marked "for WBI to keep us all safe"
I prefer not to waste my tax money on garbage that's designed to amplify the security theater experience and treat Americans as filth - all the while, cargo remains unscreened and through-the-fence airport employees have access to aircraft, cargo, catering, fueling, cleaning and other services with nary a glance.
Oct 8, 2010 | 2:15 pm
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
If you want to waste YOUR tax money on machines that have a slim chance of catching one the idiots who have been coming on board with incindiary shoes or underpants, I'll give you the address to the US Treasury and you can send them a check marked "for WBI to keep us all safe"
Real lack of imagination there, guys.
There has been minimal investigation performed into what is / isn't necessary to thwart these scanners. I believe I've read pretty much everything on that particular subject that has been publicly released. Believe me - it's far from being as straightforward as the picture you paint. Have a read for yourself and let me know what you think then ^
You've already lost this battle folks - it's worth focusing your boundless vitriol on an issue that needs to be fixed
Oct 8, 2010 | 2:34 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
I really do not remember any episode of shirt removal on PV. Wow, just wow.
As for intimate pat downs, I know they are not happening, because WBI is about the illusion of safety, not real safety.
And since Star World is not TSA, I go back to stating that the manner in which "anomalies" are resolved post WBI remains unanswered.
As for intimate pat downs, I know they are not happening, because WBI is about the illusion of safety, not real safety.
And since Star World is not TSA, I go back to stating that the manner in which "anomalies" are resolved post WBI remains unanswered.
Anonymous said...
I think it's always worth mentioning so we never forget how the naked body scanners got deployed in the first place......it was the result of the total incompetence of our government to stop the panty bomber from boarding his flight last Christmas. Even after our own intelligence agencies had identified him as having traveled to train with terrorists, and the panty bomber's own father directly warned the state department about his son.
NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN GOVERNMENT WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS INCOMPETENCE. Instead, the law abiding citizens of our country must now be blasted with radiation and viewed naked by the very same government that failed to prevent the most obvious terrorist from boarding a plane.
That said....I just experienced my first "enhanced" pat down yesterday at the Baltimore airport for refusing to be radiated in the TSA nude-o-scope.
As others have observed, there was an instant, palpable negative attitude towards me by the TSA agents for my choosing a pat down instead. They kept referring to me as "a refusal", and I believe there is an attempt to punish people for not complying with orders.
After waiting and not being allowed to gather my belongings I went off for my enhanced pat down.
The TSA agents apparently were not aware of something called a bra strap, so I was then escorted to a "private area" where I had to remove my shirt in front of two TSA agents.
The whole thing took about 25 minutes, and it was humiliating and an absolute outrage. I had tears running down my face -- from both anger and sadness. The USA as we've known it is over. It's just over.
September 15, 2010 2:06 PM
I think it's always worth mentioning so we never forget how the naked body scanners got deployed in the first place......it was the result of the total incompetence of our government to stop the panty bomber from boarding his flight last Christmas. Even after our own intelligence agencies had identified him as having traveled to train with terrorists, and the panty bomber's own father directly warned the state department about his son.
NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN GOVERNMENT WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS INCOMPETENCE. Instead, the law abiding citizens of our country must now be blasted with radiation and viewed naked by the very same government that failed to prevent the most obvious terrorist from boarding a plane.
That said....I just experienced my first "enhanced" pat down yesterday at the Baltimore airport for refusing to be radiated in the TSA nude-o-scope.
As others have observed, there was an instant, palpable negative attitude towards me by the TSA agents for my choosing a pat down instead. They kept referring to me as "a refusal", and I believe there is an attempt to punish people for not complying with orders.
After waiting and not being allowed to gather my belongings I went off for my enhanced pat down.
The TSA agents apparently were not aware of something called a bra strap, so I was then escorted to a "private area" where I had to remove my shirt in front of two TSA agents.
The whole thing took about 25 minutes, and it was humiliating and an absolute outrage. I had tears running down my face -- from both anger and sadness. The USA as we've known it is over. It's just over.
September 15, 2010 2:06 PM
Oct 8, 2010 | 2:36 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
Oct 8, 2010 | 3:58 pm
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
"While officials said AITs (Advanced Imaging Technology devices) performed as well as physical pat down in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information the GAO has received."[/URL][/I]
Thanks for posting.
Oct 8, 2010 | 4:08 pm
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Grand Cayman
Posts: 18,740
Oct 8, 2010 | 4:14 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
Wirelessly posted (Motorola DynaTAC: BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.624 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/104)
Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?
Thanks for posting.
Yes, the Nude-O-Scopes are an unproven waste, unless one wishes to advocate complacency or perhaps submitting to government wishes without question. 
Originally Posted by star_world
"While officials said AITs (Advanced Imaging Technology devices) performed as well as physical pat down in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information the GAO has received."[/URL][/I]
Thanks for posting.
Oct 8, 2010 | 5:54 pm
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 49,101
I
There has been minimal investigation performed into what is / isn't necessary to thwart these scanners. I believe I've read pretty much everything on that particular subject that has been publicly released. Believe me - it's far from being as straightforward as the picture you paint. Have a read for yourself and let me know what you think then ^
There has been minimal investigation performed into what is / isn't necessary to thwart these scanners. I believe I've read pretty much everything on that particular subject that has been publicly released. Believe me - it's far from being as straightforward as the picture you paint. Have a read for yourself and let me know what you think then ^
The last thing either of these groups want is to publish any loopholes or weaknesses they might find.
Oct 9, 2010 | 6:33 am
#29
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Certainly, but does the current terrorist threat consist of "trained, determined inividuals"? There's no question that a Special Forces operative can get lots of stuff through airport security, but that's not the threat it's supposed to be preventing. One can argue that the purpose of security isn't to prevent any threat from getting through (which is impossible), but merely to increase the amount of resources (e.g., training) necessary to get the threat through and the hope is that other efforts (e.g., what's going on in Pakistan, various intelligence efforts, and tracking money) will make it harder for terrorists to be able to bring those amount of resources to bear on the target.
Oct 9, 2010 | 7:15 am
#30
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
Any radiation exposure at a checkpoint is unnecessary radiation. While these machines are claimed 'safe', they've been rubber-stamped through and have avoided most regulatory channels in the war on terror, and a grand ol' spending spree.
Many products of the past have come back as dangerous years later -- how the people living near manufacturing plants where emission levels were once labeled as "safe" or "non-existent", etc, have gotten seriously ill, en-mass?
My concern of the machines are two fold, safety and privacy. The machines exceed the scope of a primary administrative search, IMHO, when other technologies such as ETD, or even canines are more effective.
Are there specific procedures in place to minimise privacy issues? Of course, but facts don't matter here at TS&S since it is assumed that every TSO is a wannabe voyeur.
Are there specific procedures to allow a passenger's belongings to remain in their sight? Of course. Again, disregarded here.
Are there specific procedures to allow a passenger's belongings to remain in their sight? Of course. Again, disregarded here.
With respect to passenger belongings remaining in ones sight, this frequently doesn't even happen when you take the "Nude-o-Scope" out of the picture.
Many US airports are old and have "security checkpoint areas" that were never meant to house such equipment.