Breaking news: Whole-body scanning banned as primary screening device by House

by Charlie Leocha on June 4, 2009

After appearing to lose on a voice vote, the amendment to H.R. 2200 – Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act banning the use of whole-body scanners as primary screening devices has passed the House of Representatives.

The voice vote was inconclusive and an actual vote count was ordered. The final tally was 310 for the amendment and 118 against.

Interestingly, the results of our unscientific poll yesterday resulted in almost the same percentage of those who felt uncomfortable with the whole-body screeners as voted yea for the amendment.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: TSA, whole-body scanners

  • Karen

    Yay!

  • Kevin

    Yay!

    Who wants to be safe when we fly anyway….it’s much more fun not known if someone has a bomb strapped to them.

    Morons!

    Kevin.

  • Joe

    I agree with Kevin. The next time a plane goes down as an act of terrorism, all the people opposed to system this should join together and say, “I helped to make that crash happen.”

    But I (and Kevin), on the other hand, will be able to say proudly, “I did everything I could to stop that crash from happening.”

    Unfortunately, it looks like we’re outnumbered by people who are so ashamed of their bodies, that they’d rather see a plane go down than allow a stranger in a remote location to see a ghostly, blurry image of their skin.

    So you got what you wanted. But don’t you dare act like it had nothing to do with you when tragedy strikes.

  • Pingback: tripso.com | Breaking news: Whole-body scanning banned as primary … | Latest World News

  • JL

    Give me a break. You want TSOs to strip search Grandma but the cargo still isn’t screened. You want your 8-year-old son or daughter to be strip searched but not the TSOs or airline employees who come to work with guns.

    And for those that think the image is blurry, please visit http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/uploaded_images/mmwx-742735.jpg

    If you still think it’s blurry (I absolutely don’t), then the technology doesn’t work, right? It could not “see” items carried on a person’s body. And the lawmakers who voted for this bill are morons. Got it. It has absolutely nothing to do with shame about my body. Stop giving up my rights. If you don’t feel safe without this invasive technology, it should be you who stays home. Finally, with this bill, you still have the option of the strip search. This just requires that it not be used as primary screening. If you go through the WTMD and alarm, you would have the choice of a strip search or a pat-down. Go for the strip search, no one is stopping you. With this technology, there is no WTMD, just the strip search.

    I will be thanking my representative for not giving in to the politics of fear and sensibly voting for this bill.

  • David Z

    Could they make them secondary screening devices instead?

  • http://www.tripso.com/author/leocha Charlie Leocha

    First of all, this vote is only the first one in Congress. Nothing is changed until the Senate votes and then their wording is reconciled with the House’s. These whole-body scanners will be used, even if this bill is passed, as secondary screening devices.

    Friends who have seen the technology demonstrated told me that screeners can tell the difference between a dime and a nickle. There is lots of detail.

  • Are you Serious?

    Yes!!! use them when the metal detectors go off!! As a secondary method.

    What happens when people walk through a metal detector with a plastic explosive.

    Looks like we are going to need another tragedy before can see the big picture.

    People who complain about giving up rights need to realize that flying on an airplane is a privilege, not a right.

  • Anonymous1

    To suggest this screening would be tantamount to a physical strip search are ignoring the facts, and blatnently distorting the truth. Yes J’accuse. You are liars, it is false, plane and simple. That’s number one. I was never for this as primary screening, but only for secondary. and still support this, so I have no problem with the house Bill really. The house Bill has no Senate counterpart yet, so the impact is blunted for now. Second, to use the examples of children is both absurd, and frankly, disgusting fear-mongering. The use of this as it stands would be as a SECONDARY screening method. The majority of passangers now are not pulled into secondary, let alone children. As long as the secondary is based on suspicion, and not random nonsense, than I think this will stand.
    Just because people like JL want to type here and grandstand, doesn’t make it true. Get the facts, and make your decisions on facts, not emotional-garbage and we’ll all be better off. I’m not saying emotions are bad, but frankly, the expressions of it here amount to so much nonsense.

  • Hapgood

    Joe, put down that glass of TSA Kool-Aid for a minute and think. The scanner obviously does not produce a “ghostly blurry image.” That would be useless for the intended purpose of detecting concealed items. Rather, it produces a very detailed image the passenger’s naked body, sufficient (in theory) to let the screeners accurately distingush between an innocent traveler and an armed terrorist. That high level of detail is what makes the scanner a (theoretically) effective security tool. If you believe that the TSA keeps us safe, a tool that inspects people in high detail is exactly what you’d want.

    The TSA’s propagandists understandably want to de-emphasize the inherently intrusive nature of the technology. So they’re intentionally vague (or perhaps deceptive) about the level of detail the scanners produce. They would very much like people like you to believe that it produces a “ghostly blurry image” that’s friendly, safe, and efficient. Nobody could possibly object to that. They don’t want you to think deeply about what it actually means. They want you to be afraid of terrorists and therefore willing to accept unquestioningly whatever they want to do. They want you to trust them and believe that it’s all necessary and effective, regardless of whether it actually is either or whether they deserve our trust.

    Call it whatever you want. Surround it with propaganda to prevent the fearful, shallow-thinking public from objecting to it. But the scanner is a strip search, pure and simple. And strip searching all passengers could indeed provide a significant enhancement to the TSA’s ability to provide the final defense against terrorist plotters.

    However, the concept of strip searching every air traveler represents such a significant change to the balance of privacy and security that it demands a full public debate in Congress. An unaccountable bureaucracy should not have the authority to decide that balance unilaterally behind closed doors. That’s the real problem with the scanners that gets lost in the emotional reactions of fear and prudery.

  • John

    Congrats to all of those who ignoed the facts and used fear and hype to make the rest of us less safe.

    Let me see … countries have designed mines that have 0 metal in them so they don’t set off mine detectors. Most mine detectors and metal detectors work on the same principal.

    No. No one could ever sneak an explosive device through a metal detector.

    Do a google search for ceramic knife. Wow a ceramic knife has no metal in it. You could walk through a metal detector with it and not set it off.

    Umm… in 30 secs I just named to threats that current screening does not account for and would be caught in a new system. Its not like you can’t buy ceramic knives on the internet or anything. Ceramicknife.org even admits that the blade would not be picked up by a metal detector.

  • J

    Hapgood – I could not have said it better myself. Bravo.

  • Anonymous1

    @J: He ignored the facts I brought up in my post and instead made broad over-generalizations and didn’t reference any facts. Bravo indeed…

  • JHK

    I see alot of people saying no to many inovative security systems. No racial profiling. No technological body screening. At the same time there are numerous complaints about the level of screening by the TSA at airports. Can any of the nay-sayers give an idea of a reasonable solution? What are you willing to do to be safe on an aircraft?

  • Kathleen Eaton

    For those that believe a visual strip search is the least we can all submit to for national security and that people who object to this are prudes or ashamed of their bodies, well then why not require that all air passengers arrive at the airport naked, with no luggage…..isn’t that even BETTER! Then, if people object to that, they can be called prudes and be told they are ashamed of their bodies and they are just being selfish and not caring about plane’s crashing…..yeah…..that will work!

    K-

  • Anonymous1

    @Kathleen: Yes please continue to bring up extreme, non-sensical, canned-phrase ideas that ignore the facts. It makes your “side” so much more rational in this debate…..not.

  • Hapgood

    Anonymous1, I’m sure you’re very happy with the TSA’s approach of no debate at all. Make the decision behind closed doors, issue the appropriate classified regulation, and then foist it on the public (perhaps with some self-congratulatory propaganda about how it will make air travel safer and more convenient for everyone). If you don’t like it, go take a Greyhound bus.

    Is that really the sort of country you want to live in?

  • Pingback: More full-body scanners? The better to see you naked

  • mirabelle

    I’m always pulled out for secondary screening as my name seems to come close to the name of a terrorist or maybe because I was in the USA on Sept11th. Go figure. Teddy Kennedy was even on a no fly list at some point!
    Obviously I will refuse to be scanned. They can pat me down if it makes them feel safer but that’s it. Luckily noone can force me as it is not mandatory.
    It’s unbelievable that some people accept just any intrusion in their lives just to take a plane.
    Besides the terrorists have found a new way of passing stuff through this scanner as well so it just gives a false sense of safety.

Previous post:

Next post: