Comments on: Whole-body scan survey results

By: Paulette Baker

Paulette Baker — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:39:54 +0000

I’m with you, John. The questions are highly biased and couched in terms that are designed to cause a knee-jerk negative reaction. I’m female and pro these machines, and even I found myself reacting to the questions instead of thinking about the issues represented.

By: Hapgood

Hapgood — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:16:09 +0000

someone, that’s one of the TSA’s major failings. They have an extremely narrow definition of “security” as “preventing a repeat of 9/11.” So everything they inflict on us is intensely focused on the aim of protecting us from a very devastating but extremely rare threat. They therefore completely ignore all other aspects of security that involve protecting passengers and their belongings from unspectacular but very common threats.

The TSA’s screening processes increase the risk of theft. Checked bags have to be unlocked so that screeners can easily open them when their high-technology x-ray alarms (often due to a false positive, since the machines can’t distinguish between explosives and books). And the stressful distractions of screening at checkpoints (plus the need to “separate” belongings for ease of inspection) make carry-ons particularly vulnerable to theft.

Now they want to increase the risk of identity theft by separating passengers from their wallets during the strip search. Since this has nothing to do with terrorism, the TSA is oblivious to the problem. It’s outside their mission, so it doesn’t matter. But the consequences to individual passengers can be devastating.

Any “security” system that actually increases the risk of theft, loss, or damage to passengers’ property can only be called a failure. And the fact that the TSA doesn’t care makes that failure a disaster.

By: someone

someone — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:05:54 +0000

Exactly, Hapgood! Didn’t I see something on this site recently that most thefts at airports happen at the security checkpoints? A few years ago my mother–in-law had her purse stolen at the “security” checkpoint at LAX. With all the wallets that would also be going into the bins, the temptation for thieves is going to be even greater.

By: Hapgood

Hapgood — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:14:14 +0000

There is also the problem that our pockets have to be completely emptied before entering the scanner, so the view of our naked bodies isn’t blocked by wallets, keys, money, or whatever. It’s currently possible to carry a wallet in a pocket through the metal detector without any problem, as long as anything metallic is removed first. But that’s no longer possible with the scanner. The wallet has to go in a bin or in a carry-on bag. That brings a new risk of losing identity papers while we’re separated from them during the strip search, which is far more devastating than the loss or theft of any other belongings. This is a far more serious and troubling concern than any loss of privacy, but the TSA seems to completely ignoring it.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:53:05 +0000

kimberly–if the current scanners are not accurate enough to keep terrorists off of planes, then how come we have had a dearth of terrorist attacks on airplanes? Even thinking over the last 8 years, I can think of about 6 planes that were subjected to terrorist attacks. Out of the millions of planes flying during those 8 years, that is an extremely low percentage.

And of those 6, four of those were taken over by using weapons that were allowed on the airplanes–so no matter what security hardware was in place, the weapons would have been allowed.

While we should figure out something to help find real weapons (like explosives), I am betting these scanners are going to be a real pain for me–the magnetometers rarely pick up on the fact that I wear an insulin pump–the scanner will show it up every time, leading to more questions and delays than I want.

By: kimberly

kimberly — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:23:15 +0000

I don’t have a clue why people are so bugged about this. The TSA guards are going to be so bored looking at 10,000 bodies why would they give a “flip” what’s under my clothes. People are waaaaayyyyy too sensitive about this. I think it will be a LOT less invasive and less time consuming than having people ask me to take off this, take off that and where’s my doctor’s waiver for my knee implant or whatever….(no I don’t have a knee replacement but I know a LOT of people that do).

I personally think this survey is REALLY bias considering the greatest percentage are people over 50 that came from an era where they tend to be more private about something like this.

I’d MUCH rather have something like this because I don’t belive the current scanners are accurate enough to keep terrorists off the plane.

By: Cliff Woodrick

Cliff Woodrick — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:35:04 +0000

I would rather be scanned than getting patted down because my steel hip and shapnel trigger the portal scanner. Frankly at my age, I don’t give a damm if someone looks at the scan and gets a charge. So the question is what is worst – a scan or a patdown after I remove my suspenders and belt – then try to hold up my pants with one hand while walking with a cane with the other going through the magnetic portal.

I vote for a scan and I am not an exhibitionist as Father Goose claims. Do not call names until you walk in my shoes.

Thank you and have a wonderful day – Cliff

By: Louise

Louise — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:32:16 +0000

How much radiation in a body scan? I know, just a teensy-weensy bit added to all the other teensy -weensy bits in our lives. How much invasion of privacy? I know, just a teensy-weensy bit . . . .

By: Anonymous1

Anonymous1 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:27:03 +0000

The survey results would be much different if people were given THE FACTS.
First, and foremost, sensetive areas of the body, from a privacy perspective, would be corrected to hide any telling detail. Also the person doing the scan would not be the person viewing the image, so they wouldn’t be able to “put your image on the internet”. Even if they could (which they can’t) the image amounts to a standing posed body with no facial distinguishment possible, and color added.
This doesn’t exactly scream “identifiable” or “interesting” as either the person in the picture, or as someone who would look at such an image. In other words, this is mainly about hypersensetivity, paranoia, and a lack of facts. Grow up.
It probably should only be used for secondary screening, just from a practical perspective, but let’s stop the misleading context please.

By: BunnyFaber

BunnyFaber — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:59:25 +0000

Let’s re-write those questions to get a different answer..

1. Are you willing to participate in a technologically advanced screening method that ensures safer air travel for everybody?

2. Do you hate babies, widows and America SO MUCH that you would refuse to participate in a technologically advanced screening method that is COMPLETELY HARMLESS? As if you were some kind of TERRORIST?

etc.