How do you feel about full body scans when flying?

[scooterbug44]

If a full body scan is what is really necessary, I will do it - though not a fan of someone getting a free show.

But before we spend 6 figures on each machine and bare all, I want to know that we are fixing some of the basic security issues we have. Do we really need a better mousetrap, or do we need to just put our existing mousetrap in a better place and actually bait/check it?

These machines (like all technology) only work when used and when used effectively by well trained and alert personnel who get good information. Airports already do not use all of the technology they have because of cost, lack of personnel, time etc.

And not to be vulgar, but if it is just looking for items hidden under my clothing and NOT detecting the common explosive PEFN or whatever (that both the shoe bomber and the Nigerian guy used), can it be foiled by a "custom" tampon or suppository?

 

[LuciferSam]

I don't like the escalating absurdity of all all these new measures that do no more than give us the illusion of safety. Just one more reason to avoid flying as if there weren't enough already.

 

[BeachSteelers]

How many Rads of radiation do these machines dump into my body? I fly 100k mile a year and I'll take a patdown before I'll accept unwanted radiation. And will these machines see bombs stuffed into a persons rectum or vagina? Because they'll do it.
And if I'm the last line of defense then I'm not sure I'd let them off the plane alive if given the chance to stop one of them!

 

[futurebeachbum]

I travel a lot. When I look around in the airport it ain't all supermodels and studs.

I have to wonder how viewing all of those full body screens will affect the screeners.

Will they have nightmares?

Will it increase the their time out on disability?

Will what they see cause PTSD?

 

[Mango]

How many Rads of radiation do these machines dump into my body? I fly 100k mile a year and I'll take a patdown before I'll accept unwanted radiation. And will these machines see bombs stuffed into a persons rectum or vagina? Because they'll do it.
And if I'm the last line of defense then I'm not sure I'd let them off the plane alive if given the chance to stop one of them!

While getting an x-ray, I asked the technician about the quantity of radiation being received. He said that a flight from New York to California gave off more radiation than the x-ray I was going to receive.

If you do a lot of air traveling now, you already are being radiated. Naturally, we get irradiated from natural sources like radon. When you sit in traffic, you breathe in fumes from other cars. Right now, it just the nature of the environment we live in.

If a full body scan saves even one life and even if it knowingly took one year off my life-- not saying it does-- I would do it in a heartbeat without even thinking about it.

 

[futurebeachbum]

Full body scans don't work

Turns out that neither full body scanners nor pat downs would have detected the 3 ounces of PETN in the bombers underwear.

Here's an article called Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

From the article:

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic ? as well as the passenger's clothing ? the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.
.....
In the US, the "pat-down" search used by security staff was derided as ineffective ? because officials are forbidden from frisking sensitive areas. Analyst Michael Boyd said: "To have people hold up their arms and just pat them ? like I'm really going to carry a bomb down there. You know where you're going to put it, and no one's going to go there."

​

OTOH, it looks like security officials, in a V8 moment, have realized that terrorists come from certain countries and we should look more closely at travelers from those countries.

Here is the article, Tougher US air screening for 'security-risk' countries.

The US has introduced tougher screening rules for passengers arriving by air from 14 nations which the authorities deem to be a security risk.

Travellers from Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Cuba will be among those facing body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks.​

Smacks of 'profiling' doesn't it? I am sure that a huge outpouring of righteous indignation will result and we'll again be spending most of our security efforts applying extra screening to grandmas and returning servicepeople.

 

[LuciferSam]

Turns out that neither full body scanners nor pat downs would have detected the 3 ounces of PETN in the bombers underwear.

Here's an article called Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

From the article:

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic ? as well as the passenger's clothing ? the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.
.....
In the US, the "pat-down" search used by security staff was derided as ineffective ? because officials are forbidden from frisking sensitive areas. Analyst Michael Boyd said: "To have people hold up their arms and just pat them ? like I'm really going to carry a bomb down there. You know where you're going to put it, and no one's going to go there."

​

OTOH, it looks like security officials, in a V8 moment, have realized that terrorists come from certain countries and we should look more closely at travelers from those countries.

Here is the article, Tougher US air screening for 'security-risk' countries.

The US has introduced tougher screening rules for passengers arriving by air from 14 nations which the authorities deem to be a security risk.

Travellers from Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Cuba will be among those facing body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks.​

Smacks of 'profiling' doesn't it? I am sure that a huge outpouring of righteous indignation will result and we'll again be spending most of our security efforts applying extra screening to grandmas and returning servicepeople.

Of course a lot of these new innovations are all a scam. Since 9/11 a security industrial complex has been evolving in my opinion. Contractors have been and will continue to milk the government for all kinds of useless gadgets and gizmos in the name of safety and security.

 

[scooterbug44]

They have been checking certain countries more strictly for some time - I noticed on one of my summer flights that the "ID guy" at one of the regional airports I fly through has an index card taped to the podium w/ the list of countries that bear extra scrutiny.

IMO we don't need these new scanners - we just need to have more common sense and better information analysis.

 

[Teresa]

I fly over 125 legs a year (many of which are to Washington, DC) and am supportive of changes to full body scans at my airport locations. I am wondering what others on Sowal think and why. My reason for supporting is because it can't hurt, and I don"t care what they see. In my numerous trips to areas outside of the US, I find our system one of the least invasive, but the ACLU is up in arms against us changing and I am CONFUSED! Thoughts?

I'm with you BeachSio. If the security measure actually works and is effective in keeping us safe, and even save lives, then its a good thing. surely airport security practices are given very serious and ongoing consideration - I hope the best available, in all security aspects, is used.

But if security measures are used only for certain people. then I don't know if that is the best security method for many reasons.

stay safe BeachSio! Hi to the Missus.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't find our current security measures to be invasive and I don't have a problem with stepping them up more.

I just want us to be doing it properly - and I don't think that $$ new machines that still do not address the basic and recurring problems are the solution.

For the cost of every one of these machines (think they are 190K each) we could hire 3-5 people full time to identify possible terrorists or look for possible connections in all the intel we gather to red flag certain fliers.

The TSA screeners at our local airports do a good job IMO - Pensacola and VPS personnel are alert, careful, and courteous - a major contrast to the larger airports I fly through where rude bored drones are the norm.