Jeffie

This morning, on one of the local Houston newscasts, they showed a clip regarding the full-body xray machines... didn't see the whole thing. (too busy with making coffee) Cut to the anchors sitting around discussing the current restrictions and privacy issues. One anchor was somewhat ambivalent. One anchor made the almost verbatim statement "It makes us safer so it's good" and the weather guy just rolled his eyes and didn't exactly say what he was obviously thinking. He said something more like "it's stupid...". Guess the FCC regs kept him from being more specific

'we report, you decide' can be quite different from 'we editorialize, you should pay attention'

I wish that FT was required reading for the media.

bocastephen

Yes, the terrorists know, but the chemistry geek at the local high school might not, and who wants to give him easy access to start experimenting in the family garage. Pretty soon some kid will figure out how to fire a 2L bottle of diet coke at the moon using Mentos - the last thing we need is some dingbat punk's car taking out half a Walmart while he's inside stocking up on M&Ms.

Then again, most of these recipes are available ready-made on the Internet, so if someone wants to find out, it's easy to do so.

As for the media? It's not about the truth anymore...it's about sales and access. They want to be exploitive and sensational to generate sales, yet they don't want to be critical or confrontational and lose their access to the 'inside'.

SJCFlyerLG

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The cover story in today's USA Today (hey, I am on the road, so no flaming my journalistic taste!) was on the rage of frequent travelers about the idiotic liquid ban. At the end of the article, some twerp travel coordinator named David Gregory promoted the carry-on ban by saying we do not have a right to carry anything on board. The article referenced a Newsweek poll in which 26% "definitely favor" and 18% "probably favor" a complete carry-on ban. What amount of airline revenue do you suppose those 44% generate? I'll guess less than 3%...

doober

I'm interested to know if the clip showed a picture of what the TSA goon will see, i.e., a naked body. When this kind of item was in the papers and on TV around the NYC area a few weeks ago, there were no pictures shown - just somebody going into the machine.

I guess the x-ray itself wasn't shown because it was x-rated and not something to be shown during family viewing time - either that or they were afraid that Ma and Pa Kettle would finally be driven over to the other side when they realize that their lovely nubile Polly Ann is going to be seen naked by some guy hidden behind a wall.

Jeffie

The 'subject' put a piece of metal down the front of his britches... nothing was 'seen' but it did detect some other stuff that was 'hidden' like a bottle of gatorade in his pocket. VERY intrusive.

justageek

In general, the media should not be interviewing people who are unaffected by the new rules. This includes infrequent (or non) travelers, FAs, and pilots. I'm sorry, but you folks just don't deserve a say in what affects the rest of us on a weekly basis.

thezipper

Some reporters are interviewing the frequent flyer and not the general public... see this thread... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=590777

doober

A bottle of Gatorade "hidden" in his pocket? A 4 oz. bottle, I presume.

Jeffie

No, it was full-sized. Looked like a 24oz 'sports bottle'. This was a 'demo', not an actual pax attempting to smuggle contraband.

There was something else that he hid, and it was barely discernable, but could be spotted with some training. I didn't catch the beginning of the piece, so I don't know what it was.

The manufacturer was Rapiscan, same folks who make a lot of the WTMDs.

trvlr64

I have been a Radiologic Technologist for 24 years now. Let me tell you what I think we all know. It all looks the same. You've seen 1 penis or vagina you've seen them all.

Who the heck cares of some TSAer is going to get his/her jollies looking at a near naked person. Believe me when I tell you. I've seen my share and I don't care.

doober

However, a medical x-ray is done voluntarily and is read, hopefully, by someone who is a medical professional not some TSA goon who can't get a job at McDonald's. Big difference.

trvlr64

There are a lot of retired or soon to be retired x-ray techs out there that I'm sure would go work for the TSA. Sitting on your behind looking at a monitor is a lot easier than lifting patients all day long and pushing around a portable x-ray unit.

:-:


And I'm not afraid of someone looking at "my stuff". I'm quite proud of it

daw617

When it comes to my privacy, I trust my doctor. Doctors have a notion of medical ethics and patient confidentiality, and the profession as a whole takes their responsibilities seriously. Moreover, I can choose my doctor; if I'm unhappy with my doctor, I can switch to some other medical service provider.

When it comes to privacy, I don't trust the TSA. From CAPPS, to Secure Flight, to Privacy Act compliance, to ID checking, the TSA leadership seems to be consistently hostile to passenger privacy. Moreover, if I'm unhappy with the TSA, I don't exactly have a choice; it's not like I can switch to some other airport screening provider.

Frankly, there's no comparison.

Sosiouxme

Perhaps if they called these backscatter x-rays by a more accurate name, people would understand the level of privacy that is being invaded. If the new backscatter x-rays were called "Touchless Cavity Searches" - maybe people wouldn't be so eager to submit to them in the name of safety.

I've seen the scans that these machines produce -- they are quite detailed and you can see into every crevice of your body.

Frankly the TSA screener doesn't need to know if I'm on my period. Period.

--Sioux

Wally Bird

Don't worry, most people grow out of that.