Ever been in one of those airport full body scanners?

[Cant trust em]

They have them at SFO. Every time that I get into one, it feels like I'm stepping into a time machine or teleportation device. It feels pretty invasive. I wasn't really all that ruffled when they started making us take off our shoes, but this feels a step too far. I guess now it's just going to be the norm. I hate how flying feels like such a dehumanizing experience now.

[hlthe2b]

1. I need to educate myself further on the tech, but I also worry about health

effects for frequent travelers...

[hedgehog]

6. I'd like to know more myself. According to my son, they use a wavelength

that is stopped by the skin. If so, this would suggest that they are less harmful than radio and television wavelengths.

[Salviati]

14. UV rays are stopped by the skin too, and they are more harmful than radio waves...

It's not about how much they penetrate as much as how much energy they carry. UV rays carry much more energy than radio waves, thus they can hit molicules of DNA and mess them up. Radio waves are much longer wavelength, thus carry much less energy, hence they don't have enough energy to do any harm. The type wavelength used for this type of detector is on the order of a milimeter or so, which is much longer than visible light, so they are going to be as safe as standing in front of a lightbulb.

[snot]

2. My only concern is, are they safe? I recently read re- CAT scans

that many people have unwittingly been subjected to does of radiation thousands of times higher than had been understood, resulting in a significant increase in their risk of cancer.

How have the airport scanners been tested?

[Warpy]

3. I prefer them to getting groped

Besides, think of me as your revenge: I'm old, I'm fat, everything slid south, and trust me, they do not want to look. But they have to.

[Don Caballero]

4. If these scanners save one American life I support their widespread use

We must get over the privacy issue. We deserve privacy when in private, not when we are in public.

[ret5hd]

7. Requiring full background checks for travel papers before every trip could save lives.

Getting a visa for interstate travel might help also.

[truebrit71]

11. Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

I sure hope so because what you suggested, if serious, is beyond fucked up...

[ret5hd]

17. So is the idea that if something "saves one American life I support their use"

20 mph top speed limits would save many more lives than these scanners will.

[ret5hd]

8. dupe

[tbyg52]

9. >>We deserve privacy when in private, not when we are in public.

You're kidding, right? Want your car searched without a warrant? Want to be told to "present your papers"? :eyes:

Edited to add: "Present your papers" while just walking down the street? It's happened, and it's been found unconstitutional.

[mike_c]

12. how Orwellian-- "we must get over the privacy issue"

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin

[backscatter712]

13. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Are you fucking high?

Privacy was considered so precious, that our Founding Fathers went to war over it. They risked getting tried for treason and hanged for it. They picked up guns, pointed them at other human beings, and killed them, so we could have the Fourth Amendment.

I will not subject myself to the digital strip search. It's completely unacceptable, and I fully understand that there is a risk of death. It's worth it.

I'm sorry you hold privacy to be of such little value.

Besides, we do not have to give up privacy, dignity or civil liberties to get security. The only thing that full-body scanners will do is cause the next bomber to put the bomb in his rectum, where the scanner cannot pick it up. You get much better security by using counterintelligence to catch the terrorists long before they head to the airport, by doing things like having trained officers watch the crowds for sketchy behavior, and so on, not through electronic strip searches.

The Republicans are creaming themselves because they've got an incident they can exploit politically to demand more authoritarianism, and I'm sorry you're falling for their bullshit.

[freddie mertz]

22. How about banning cars, motorcycles, bikes, boats, trains....

Getting up in the morning, going to sleep at night? Etc.

It's a matter of what works BEST, not anything they can think up.

[SteelPenguin]

25. Statistically at what point do we stop giving up rights?

Right now the chances of dying in a terrorist attack on a plane are 1 in ten million (compared to dying in a bus accident at 1 in 100,000 or dying in a house fire at 1 in 1,500, or dying riding a motorcycle at 1 in 802.

Heck contact with Hot Tap Water has a lifetime chance of killing you at 1 in 119,998.

We've already made terrorist attacks so unlikely on airplanes, that don't we have to ask ourselves, at what point do we statistically say, they're safe, and keep doing what we're doing, but admit that nothing is 100% safe and never can be?

There has to be a line somewhere.

[gmoney]

34. Yes. Living well is the best revenge.

Some asshat from Nigeria is going to make us waste billions in new "safety" measures and lost time. Seems to me like we're declaring him the winner.

BTW, what are the odds of dying from inadequate access to health care? Probably a lot more likely than dying from a terrrist attack on a plane.

[kctim]

40. There is a line

and it goes to the point where we force people to train, register and carry papers in order to exercise their rights.

This would never happen if ALL of us cared about ALL of our rights. Instead, we cheer the lose of rights we fear and only condemn the lose of rights we hold dear.

[spanone]

30. yea, that silly privacy issue....it's right up there with those stupid individual rights..silly

[izquierdista]

31. 3 for 3

For Palin type stupidity. :silly: :dunce: :silly:

[TroglodyteScholar]

37. I've yet to see this poster express any sentiment falling to the left of center

Quite the contrary. Like my mother always said, "consider the source."

[seabeyond]

5. dehumanizing. that is it. exactly. thank you

and i have never been receptive to that experience.

[Jersey Devil]

10. Can those things really beat these guys?

So who is going to complain about getting sniffed by a doggy before boarding a plane?

[enlightenment]

15. People who are afraid of dogs, maybe?

Especially big ones. As a child, my son was badly bitten a large dog, which first cornered him and and then chased him (bleeding and terrified) through a townhouse complex like a hare. It took several adults to save him (literally). He was absolutely petrified of large dogs for many years afterward and would freak out if one came close to him. It took us a long time to get him past that and even now (as an adult) he prefers to stay a healthy distance away from large dogs. I don't know how he'd feel about having one sniffing his crotch, but I doubt he'd be thrilled.

If he panicked or starting showing anxiety, that would probably just be 'proof' that he was 'guilty' of something.

[Jersey Devil]

21. No - not with well trained dogs

The dogs are trained to sniff and then point, not bite. A trainer could easily train a dog to detect but not touch.

[enlightenment]

39. I know that - but that's not my point.

If someone is very afraid of dogs, they aren't going to care if they're well-trained/on a leash/etc - proximity would be enough to elicit a fear response. Fear is a funny thing.

[SoCalNative]

16. People who are allergic to dogs

I'm guessing.

[Jersey Devil]

23. Well, then maybe they get a choice

They can submit to other "sniffing" devices or be x-rayed, but a least that would limit the invasive nature of the searches overall and it would be much cheaper than buying x-ray machines to look at every single passenger.

[hughee99]

18. I have to get sniffed by a dog every day before entering my house.

My beagle doesn't miss a thing. He can get a little "invasive" though.

[Jersey Devil]

20. Yep, even shrink wrapped plastic can't hide scent from a dog

I'm no expert on it but I do know that a dog's sense of smell is over 200 times more sensitive than a human's and that dogs can smell several different scents at the same time and differentiate between them.

My own dog last week somehow managed to detect an odor and open the door to the spare bedroom, go into gift boxes and remove a large plastic jar with chocolate cookies in it that was completely sealed and tightly wrapped with shrink type plastic. We caught him (heard doggy noises at 3 a.m.) before he could fully bust open the container but there is no doubt in my mind that a dog could sniff out chemicals or explosives (if trained to do so) in someone's shorts.

But again, dogs and dog training are not cheap. But when you compare that cost to the cost of one x-ray machine (which I understand cost something like a half mill each), it may be a bargain.

[gateley]

19. 'Dehumanizing' nails it. How infuriating, and how impotent we would feel. Do

they use those at SFO? Or are they just getting ready for the inevitable?

[Cant trust em]

26. I've been through them several times.

They're very sensitive.

[gateley]

35. I was just reading an article on cnn.com or msnbc.com, that shows new

software that shows a stylized body -- not our ACTUAL body. That actually seems okay to me. Have you been through those, or the ones that show every bulge and bump (or in your case, the 6 pack abs)?

[Cant trust em]

36. I haven't asked to see the image they take. nt

[SteelPenguin]

24. I have. I've also been strip searched.

Nothing quite like being taken to a small room in an airport and strip searched with an automatic weapon pointed at you, for doing nothing but being a young man with an arab name. I expect it though (though now that I'm not young I don't get it as much). I always give myself a little extra time (an hour more than most people) just in case I get the 'what-for'. Sometimes it happens, sometimes I have extra time on my laptop at the gate. The scanner doesn't bother me given that perspective (it's much faster and I don't have to get naked), though I don't see it as being necessary.

We're already at a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of dying in a terrorist attack on an airplane with our current security measure. We're looking at a exponential loss in privacy and rights to nudge that already incredibly rare figure. You're more likely to be killed by lightning than in a terrorist attack on a plane. Heck, if you take a bus to the airport you're far more likely to die in the bus in an accident, than in a bombing on the plane. 100 times more likely (1 in 100,000 lifetime odds you'll die in a bus accident.). So we need some perspective on that as well

I'm not saying we need to ignore our security, and obviously there are things we can do to make ourselves safer. This latest guy probably shouldn't have been on that plane given what we're finding out, so we'll improve the process. But even if we strip search everyone, make they fly naked, restrained, and sedated...it still won't reach 100% certainty of safety. Swallowed bombs, baggage, corruption...We'd never get there.

So if we can never get to 100% secure, then we just have to ask ourselves is 1 in 10,000,000 acceptable, and if not, what are we willing to give up in order to increase those already astronomical odds. For me I don't think the answer is to give up our basic privacy rights to up the odds from 1 in 10,000,000 to 1 in 20,000,000.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

27. I was scanned two days ago at the Indianapolis Airport

I had no problems with it whatsoever.

I'm a pretty nervous flier to begin with and was triply worried after the Detroit incident. After realizing that everyone on my plane had had a full scan, I felt much safer and relaxed a little bit.

As far as dehumanization/privacy issues are concerned, it never really crossed my mind. The TSA already goes through my luggage, pats me down if they so desire, etc., etc. so I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Besides, my doctor and whatever nurse she has available see me naked whenever I go to the doctor (also in the interest of preserving my life) and that doesn't really bother me so I don't see why this should instead.

[seabeyond]

32. and since they now have a picture of you naked, an oh well to a glove and telling you to bend over

cause after all, everyone else would be bending over, so you can feel even more safe.

[global1]

28. The Media Seems To Be Pushing These Whole Body Scanners......

they should do us a service here and discuss the technology behind them and any potential risk associated with the scanning devices. As someone pointed out in this thread - CT Scanners have recently come under criticism. Before the public is subjected to these body scanning devices - we need to be informed as to the level of radiation (if any) is used in the process. We should demand this as consumers.

[nickinSTL]

29. if this stuff gets widespread use...

I'm not going to be flying anymore.

I do NOT agree to have complete strangers in an airport looking at images of me with that kind of detail.

The fact that they're seeing hundreds or thousands of others doesn't make it ok, and the fact that a very few people are trying to blow up planes doesn't make it ok either, IMO.

Good to know they're at SFO - I won't be flying through there, or anywhere else they are. Period.

If it means I have to drive to Florida every year, so be it. I will not be subjecting myself or my wife to that kind of invasion.

[Liberal_in_LA]

33. No, haven't been in one yet. I'm sure it won't be an uplifting experience

[snagglepuss]

38. Sharing your nakedness might make it a more intimate human experience.

:evilgrin:

[damntexdem]

41. Maybe it is a teleportation device.

And they're keeping copies of you, to brainwash and replace you with when they're ready. ;-)