Are full-body scanners on the way?

Are full-body scanners on the way?

There are 32 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Dec 31, 2009, titled Are full-body scanners on the way?. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

Transportation Security Administration program analyst and instructor Sherrie Soto, left, stands in the "millimeter wave" unit as TSA security officers learn how to instruct airline passengers through the screening process at Salt Lake International Airport in Salt Lake City.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Amused

Wayland, MA

#22 Jan 9, 2010
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>He wasn't talking about airline safety.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But Louid Brandeis most certainly had exactly this type of scenario in mind when he wrote:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Lil

Granby, CT

#23 Jan 9, 2010
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, perhaps not. But Louid Brandeis most certainly had exactly this type of scenario in mind when he wrote:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Weird post!! The Gov'ts intent is to protect, not benefit. And that line about not understanding?? I understand we need to do more to protect ourselfs from terrorists. Some people fail to realize we are at war.
just an allusion

Clarksville, TN

#24 Jan 10, 2010
TDavidHudson wrote:
There was a short-term excuse for excessive measures when there was some further risk of airplanes' being used as weapons. But the retarded ban on small, sharp items; the nationalization of airport security; and the refusal to apply intelligent techniques to passenger screening make it clear that the TSA isn't about even passenger security. What is being woven is a web that will make it possible for a small number of people to control a very large number of people, whether they have drunk the Kool-Aid or not, without mass cooperation.
If Al-Qa`ida rodents were interested in killing people rather than in killing a smaller number spectacularly, there is no shortage of ways they could do that. Are we going to install full-body scanners, or substitute full patdowns, at sporting events, high-school proms, or political conventions, for example?
You have to wonder if the recent intelligence failure that is a pretext for installing those expensive scan machines is a relict of the infamous "wall" between domestic and foreign intelligence that was erected by the Clintons and that was "investigated" officially by, among few others, the political operative who set it up.
Full-body scanners are the one ready, most "PC" solution that we have available to us to confront these many obstacles we face in securing the lives of our people, of airline commuters, of humanity, as it is through the application of this technology that we are able to circumvent fears, paranoia and whatever religious or inter-personal demons or zealotry that might drive someone to the lunacy of concealing explosives or weaponry on their person for detonation or use while in flight as scanners do not care what religion, political affiliation, stereotypical orientation, racial demographic, age or gender you are.

ALL life, young or old, deserves the right to live out that gift free of the constant, oppressive threat of having it ripped away from them by some disillusioned sociopath just as ALL families deserve to experience the lives of their children.

So I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) would keep your efforts to play on the people's insecurities to yourself and, instead, try appealing to our common sense as it makes MORE sense to employ the technology than it does to not merely because of someone's overblown, narcissistic concerns over possible exposure of whatever physical attributes or flaws exposed to an unknown and ambiguous stranger.

THINK about it....
Amused

Newton Center, MA

#25 Jan 11, 2010
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>Weird post!! The Gov'ts intent is to protect, not benefit. And that line about not understanding?? I understand we need to do more to protect ourselfs from terrorists. Some people fail to realize we are at war.
You really need to invest in a dictionary. It would be great if you could enjoy posts employing words consisting of more than one syllable. If you made such a purchase, you would no doubt be shocked to learn that "beneficent" does not mean "intending to benefit", but means:
Entry Word: beneficent
Function: adjective
Meaning: 1 having or marked by sympathy and consideration for others <a beneficent couple who are regular volunteers at a homeless shelter> see humane 1
2 having or showing a concern for the welfare of others <a beneficent effort to help out the needy during the holidays>

The meaning is that government is most dangerous when it acts out of concern, and with the intention to do good, but its means of doing good is to reduce our liberties, "for our own good". As Justice Brandeis noted, Americans are easily able to spot government attempts to limit freedom for evil purposes, but it is harder to see the threat to liberty when freedoms are taken as a means to a good end.

BTW, the dictionary would also clue you in that "ourself's" is not a word in the English language.
Amused

Newton Center, MA

#26 Jan 11, 2010
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Full-body scanners are the one ready, most "PC" solution that we have available to us to confront these many obstacles we face in securing the lives of our people, of airline commuters, of humanity, as it is through the application of this technology that we are able to circumvent fears, paranoia and whatever religious or inter-personal demons or zealotry that might drive someone to the lunacy of concealing explosives or weaponry on their person for detonation or use while in flight as scanners do not care what religion, political affiliation, stereotypical orientation, racial demographic, age or gender you are.
ALL life, young or old, deserves the right to live out that gift free of the constant, oppressive threat of having it ripped away from them by some disillusioned sociopath just as ALL families deserve to experience the lives of their children.
So I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) would keep your efforts to play on the people's insecurities to yourself and, instead, try appealing to our common sense as it makes MORE sense to employ the technology than it does to not merely because of someone's overblown, narcissistic concerns over possible exposure of whatever physical attributes or flaws exposed to an unknown and ambiguous stranger.
THINK about it....
Actually, the Israelis approach to security is much more effective. They focus on identifying the *persons* who represent a threat instead of identifying the *things* that such a person could use to carry out an attack. When you focus on finding dangerous objects, you find yourself locked in a "Spy vs. Spy" duel where terrorists are always finding ever more undetectable lethal implements. We will always be reacting to the last threat, and one step behind. The Israelis understand that the terrorist is the weapon, the explosives are only accessories.
Amused

Newton Center, MA

#28 Jan 11, 2010
Kenny wrote:
<quoted text>You are afraid the scanner will show an empty head!! ha hahhahahhahahahahahhahahah!!!! !!
You accidentally raise an interesting point. The scanners detect what's outside the body, but under clothes. They don't see what's inside the body. No doubt, after the next terrorist takes it to the next level and carries the explosive onto a plane smuggled inside a body cavity, TSA will be proposing rectal exams as part of the screening protocol. Again, the focus on detecting things leads us down the wrong road. We need to focus on detecting dangerous people, not their tools.
Nuts

Lowell, MA

#29 Jan 11, 2010
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know the scanners had magnifying capability.
You people are crazies!!
Bagdad Harry

United States

#30 Jan 11, 2010
If it were 1998...I would say...
alt.binaries.adult.fullscanima gesfromairport....
Do they even have usenet groups anymore?
Poi

Salt Lake City, UT

#31 Jan 11, 2010
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
You accidentally raise an interesting point. The scanners detect what's outside the body, but under clothes. They don't see what's inside the body. No doubt, after the next terrorist takes it to the next level and carries the explosive onto a plane smuggled inside a body cavity, TSA will be proposing rectal exams as part of the screening protocol. Again, the focus on detecting things leads us down the wrong road. We need to focus on detecting dangerous people, not their tools.
I said it earlier. I'm all for rectal/oral exams. I prefer the generic KY lube over teh name brand though.

I see no problem with a digit exam. Bring it on.
57th State

Lexington, MA

#32 Jan 12, 2010
Didn't the feds say one could opt out of the scanner and submit to a body search? That alone makes the scanner useless. I contend a body search will not be effective because of reluctance to touching sensitive body areas. Thus the scanners are a waste of money. Having traveled many times to Israel I can tell you they do have a better approach.
Amused

Newton Center, MA

#33 Jan 12, 2010
Bagdad Harry wrote:
If it were 1998...I would say...
alt.binaries.adult.fullscanima gesfromairport....
Do they even have usenet groups anymore?
Yes and no. The unmoderated groups are now just overgrown jungles of spam, with an occasional on-topic post thrown in for variety. Last I checked, alt.flame had degenerated quite badly, with all the old time flamers who had any wit and style gone. Those were the days!
Pok

Salt Lake City, UT

#34 Jan 12, 2010
Usenet was the original form or talk on the web. Unlike Prodigy, Compuserve and AOL, usenet was not moderated (too a point) and allowed one and all to comment as they liked.

Shame really that most ISP's discontinued carrying them and the morons in the third world countries exploited and spammed the hell out of most groups.

Ah the days of an XT with a 40MB HDD, 5.25 floppies and a 2400bps modem. Could it get any better? At the very least we did not have the morons on the line as we do now.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scientific Instruments Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Danaher Corporation (DHR) Insider William King ... Jul 27 jasondjh 1
Kitchen For Sale In Glasgow Area UK (Oct '16) Oct '16 Anonymous 1
News OSI Systems's Sell Rating Reaffirmed at Benchma... (Dec '13) Jan '16 Human 35
News Microvision, Inc. (MVIS) Coverage Initiated at ... (Dec '15) Dec '15 emanresu 1
Simisometer (Jan '13) Aug '15 DC from LA 2
News EARTHQUAKES: University of Oklahoma developed q... (Jun '15) Jun '15 great 1
News 3D Systems: Weighing The Bankruptcy Risk (Mar '15) May '15 SuriJohn 2
More from around the web