The latest on the airport body scanners:
Still don't have a problem with that? If not, you aren't alone. According to a recent Gallup survey of 542 regular airline travelers, 78% approve of the scanners. The survey also shows that Americans prefer virtual strip searches to beingfelt up patted down at the airport:
What if someone gets explosives past the body scanners? A virtual body cavity search:
And if that doesn't work? Mind-reading machines:
Even further down the slippery slope:
Where do we draw the line between the need to "keep us safe" and the need to protect what's left of our civil liberties? When do we stand up and say, 'now you've gone too far.' Or do we? Are we so terrified that we're willing to go to these extremes for safety's sake? If we are, the war on terror is over. Terror won.
"A privacy group says the Transportation Security Administration is misleading the public with claims that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their graphic images...The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said...In the documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in "test mode."
Still don't have a problem with that? If not, you aren't alone. According to a recent Gallup survey of 542 regular airline travelers, 78% approve of the scanners. The survey also shows that Americans prefer virtual strip searches to being
"Air travelers would most likely not be required to undergo body scans at airports; they could instead opt to be searched or "patted down" by an airport security agent. Among air travelers, the choice is clearly in favor of body scans -- 70% say they would be more uncomfortable with being patted down, while 22% would be more uncomfortable in undergoing a body scan."
What if someone gets explosives past the body scanners? A virtual body cavity search:
"Nesch, a company based in Crown Point, Indiana, may have a solution. It's called diffraction-enhanced X-ray imaging or DEXI...Rather than simply shining X-rays through the subject and looking at the amount that passes through (like a conventional X-ray machine), DEXI analyzes the X-rays that are scattered or refracted by soft tissue or other low-density material. Conventional X-rays show little more than the skeleton, but the new technique can reveal far more, which makes it useful for both medical and security applications.
"Our patented technology can detect substances such as explosive materials, narcotics, and low-density plastics hidden inside or outside of the human body," company CEO Ivan Nesch claims."
And if that doesn't work? Mind-reading machines:
"The system ... projects images onto airport screens, such as symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image only a would-be terrorist would recognize...The logic is that people can't help reacting, even if only subtly, to familiar images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places.
The reaction could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a nervous twitch or faster breathing, he said. The...system would use humans to do some of the observing but would rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise in body temperature and heart rate."
Even further down the slippery slope:
"Another Israeli company, Suspect Detection Systems, has developed a technology that reads a person's "hostile intent" by measuring bodily responses, through the person's hand, while being asked questions. That system was field-tested at the Knoxville, Tennessee, airport last summer...Between 2005 and 2006, SDS received $460,000 in grants from the TSA and the science directorate of Homeland Security. The company appears to have ramped up its public relations in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt."
Where do we draw the line between the need to "keep us safe" and the need to protect what's left of our civil liberties? When do we stand up and say, 'now you've gone too far.' Or do we? Are we so terrified that we're willing to go to these extremes for safety's sake? If we are, the war on terror is over. Terror won.
Jeeze Louise do I have to do all the thinnin' for you right wingers?
Spirit of Ipecac Enemas. Works both ways.
You got me SSTM. 22% unretouched. Details, details.
This scanner has flaws. If they place bombs or other items inside there bodies like drug mules do(got the visual yet), it will not detect them.
Is it that bit that's only "nearly" unretouched that makes you account for 22% of the U.S. population, bubba?
The "zero risk" syndrom. Ain't going to happen one way or another. There's only so much that can be done. Deal with it.
As carguy implied, flying is not a birth right.
Ok I admit to being a closet exhibitionist. Does that apply to the other 78% of Americans too?
Autographed copy of my scan available upon request. Guaranteed nearly unretouched.
Haven't you heard? Terror won.
Everyone is so freaking scared. They want to be "safe".
Well, a prison keeps a person "safe" (or claims to....although everyone knows otherwise). But they are not FREE.
Life isn't safe.
Frankly, I'm much more concerned about excess radiation exposure than anyone seeing a high-relief body image. But as intelligence personnel have mentioned in connection with the attempted Christmas attack, what happens at the airport should be the last line of defense. And then, once we get to what happens at the airport, we're making a big mistake in putting our reliance primarily on high tech scanners and the like rather than (also) on well-trained and discerning human instinct. As long as we treat TSA employees as low-wage, low-level functionaries with little need for intellect, higher level training or responsibility, then we're going to have problems.
Ya' know.....these new buses are really pretty nice.
The "mind reading" machine gets my vote.
OTOH, if you just hold somebody's hand, stare them straight in the eye, and ask "Are you one of them frickin' A-rab terrorists?" I'll bet you could weed out most of 'em that way.