kennycrudup

Seriously- why should I even care?! I'm just not understanding the outrage and fear.

Combat Medic

1. Waste of money. Has HUGE security holes.
2. Slower than what we have now.
3. Invasion of privacy. These scanners can show if a person is circumcised or not.

Put all three together and this is horrible.

Travelsonic

Perhaps reading the dozen plus topics here will help, but the points that I make when talking to people about it IRL include [but are not limited to]:

- Privacy - we don't let cops strip search us, and they are prohibited from law from doing so in the manner the TSA is doing it - PEOPLE WHO AREN'T LAW ENFORCEMENT, nor have the experience, or in many cases competence, to have a position of power they have more or less. How does this not scare you?

- Safety, including the radiation / health aspect as well as the security of the images.

- Ineffectiveness - as they can't see through certain materials and folds of fat, etc.

Bonnerbl

That is my big concern. The jury is out on whether or not the radiation is at a safe level.

Mabuk dan gila

Because a terrorist could easily bring a handgun on your plane if he cares to simply disassemble it and bring the metallic pieces through one at a time in a .... body cavity. Same goes for a bomb. At least the WTMD would definitely catch the gun. So the strip search scanner is LESS secure than existing screening techniques. Plus expensive, painfully slow, and degrading for allot of innocent people.

By replacing WTMD with these pieces of worthless garbage I predict we will see a gun on a plane incident before to long. It is really asinine not to see that danger.

LessO2

Nobody is saying you have to hate it.

There are legitimate questions about it:
= The GAO questions its effectiveness.
= Michael Chertoff, former DHS Secretary, stands to profit big time from these unproven machines. Cronyism at its finest.
= Why does the TSA release one set of "sample" pictures, whereas CNN shows sample pictures that are in much more detail.
= What are the health risks? Even Europe, where nudity is not nearly as big of a deal, questions the health risks.
= Slows the screening process down.

If you love the machines, go right on through. Nobody here is going to stop you.

FriendlySkies

Why do we even need the machines? We functioned for many years without them! Instead, we should increase the amount of ETD..

6P&E

only the men

kennycrudup

I just couldn't care less. What prompted my question (after seeing all the "NoS Coming to XXX" posts, too) was the recent post by some woman who was brought to tears because of a retaliatory screening by some LAX smurfs after she refused to go thru the NoS. But it was like she'd DIE if she had to go thru the NoS.

I'm all for the right to refuse and to go thru manual search (I've actually had to do that at SFO 'cause if I'd taken my belt off, my pants would have fallen down, and I'm not releasing "NoS-3D" until I have the licensing rights in place first ) but the way so many here are so vehemently angry about these machines is curious to me, like there's a 1:1000 chance you'll get vaporized and never come out.

doober

This is why you should care:

WBI and children

Star Alliance F Flyer

Absolutely agree.

Wimpie

Reconsider the cost effectiveness, personal privacy, and health dangers associated with the roll-out of whole body imaging machines in airports.

This technology is disproportionate to the actual threat to aviation and the ability to detect weapons, explosives and incendiaries. It succeeds in detecting ordinary crime like personal drugs, however, this is not within the mission of TSA. Full body imaging is much more intrusive than necessary as detailed in several court's definition of administrative searches.

This technology produces strikingly graphic images of passengers' bodies. Those images reveal not only private body parts, but also intimate private medical details like colostomy bags. That degree of examination amounts to a significant -- and for some people humiliating -- assault on the essential dignity of passengers that those in a free nation should not have to tolerate.

Also, travelers are being herded into these machines without being informed of the function and implications of this technology, and not being informed that they may opt-out for traditional screening. Complaints are mounting.

Further, several renowned scientists are questioning the safety of these devices, as they employ X-Rays, which are inherently cancer-causing, and although the dose is very low, the measurements of their effects to humans may have been misjudged by a factor of 20-100 times. This may become a significant public health danger.

There is a mounting resistance to the use of these machines, largely from frequent fliers, and this is increasing screening times and necessary manpower to perform an increasing number of pat-down of the refusals. This will only get worse as time goes on and the public gets more aware of the details of this technology. This is a modest Christian nation, with many Puritanical roots and increasing resistance is to be expected.

It's time for some sanity when it comes to security. ^

essxjay

I don't think anyone here fears vaporization, just the steady vanquishing of personal dignity and right to keep one's privates private.

kennycrudup

Er, are y'all serious? She was screened just like anyone else and waved on without incident. I'd seen that thread's title in TS/S and figured someone had been passing the blurry monochromes about on kiddie-pr0n sites or something.

I guess I'm just really looking for a confession (which isn't likely to come) that it's really only about how some folks are aghast that someone's looking at their pee-pee, as that's the only common denominator after the "they're more expensive" and "they don't work" objections, none of which matter when one's between you and your flight as they're not going away.

Wally Bird

This is trite but true: if you have to ask the question there is no chance you'll understand the answer.

Go ahead, use it. Why should I even care ?