Comments on: So what’s really up with those full body scanners?

By: TSA makes positive use of intelligence, but clings to technological dependence

TSA makes positive use of intelligence, but clings to technological dependence — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:25 +0000

[...] passengers were who tried to get the drugs, blades, and lotion past TSA on their bodies, while the same items would have been undetected in their body. Wrap those drugs or blades or even an explosive in “Cling Wrap” and put it in one’s [...]

By: Ned Levi

Ned Levi — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:13:04 +0000

That’s good to hear. Thanks for that information.

This being the third type of “full body scanner” if approved in the arsenal of TSA brings up an important point to me.

Assuming the Brijot is approved we’ll have backscatter, and active and passive wave units of different types, how’s a traveler supposed to be able to figure out which is which, what are the safety aspects of the one in front of them, what are the privacy implications of the one in front of them, etc. And from there, how are the passengers going to be able to decide what they should do.

Personally, I’m not getting into any of them. If that mean an explosive sniffing dog, I’m all for it. If that means a pat-down search, I don’t care, as long as it can be done gently and with respect for me. Of course I think most of this stuff by TSA is bad theater and of little value in the long run.

Maybe someday, TSA will actually do something to protect us more than require the door to the cockpit to be secure. Maybe someday every passenger will be psychologically profiled. When that happens, I’ll feel a lot more safe while flying, most because I will actually be safer. Wouldn’t that be nice for a change.

By: Weaver

Weaver — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:07:58 +0000

Brijot is in fact going through the certification process with TSA right now. In addition to alleviating radiation concerns, it alleviates privacy concerns as you cannot see the detailed shape of the traveller (which is why the image doesn’t look the same). As a passive technology, it uses thermal imaging to detect changes in body temperature. This being the case, it actually may have been able to detect the material hidden by the “panty-bomber” because it would have caused an anomoly in temperature.

By: Ned Levi

Ned Levi — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:23:40 +0000

Hi Lyngengr,

I’m not privy to the TSA discussions on the various MMW full body scanners, and why TSA has chosen one unit over another. That being said, I’m under the impression, after looking at the images the different companies’ machines produce, that the Brijot images are more difficult to interpret than the other companies’ images. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t chosen. Take a look at the SafeScreen image at: http://www.brijot.com/assets/pdf/products/SafeScreen.pdf

Actually, none of this makes a difference, in my opinion, as none of these scanners will give an image, at this point in time, which will show a low density explosive with enough definition to alert an agent, and this technology isn’t capable of detecting anything hidden in a body cavity, or in the folds of skin of a heavy person.

Whether the scanner is safer than others is meaningless if it still is ineffective.

By: B.J.

B.J. — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:16:21 +0000

I doubt they will ever proclaim the scanners are safe for PREGNANT
women! If they do I doubt any MD would agree to tell a woman that is pregnant they were safe to go thru.
That for me is the ultimate safety test.
Also if the scanners cannot detect explosives in a body cavity then they are ineffective and not worth buying.

By: janet

janet — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:51:16 +0000

They don’t mean a thing unless they’re used on the right people….and by the RIGHT PEOPLE. By that I mean better qualified TSA staff. With recent events of people passing thru secure areas and with weapons, we’ve certainly taken human error to a new level of ineptitude. Do you REALLY want the TSA in control of a piece of equipment that uses technology? What happens 10 years from now when they say “Whoops, this was bad for frequent travelers”.

Let’s face it – if terrorists want to circumvent even these machines, they can by carrying weapons internally. How about we coordinate better intel in the first place.

By: Lyngengr

Lyngengr — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:55:15 +0000

What about the Brijot Imaging Systems passive mm wave scanner? It does not emit any radiation, just picks up what a body generates normally. And these can be put in concealed locations (like behind drywall) so it will not be obvious you are being scanned. How come these weren’t considered by the TSA?

By: Tweets that mention So what’s really up with those full body scanners? -- Topsy.com

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:37:48 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by S Man, kvfawcett. kvfawcett said: So what's really w/ those full body scanners? – http://www.consumertraveler.com/columns/so-whats-really-up-with-those-full-body-scanners/ [...]