Body scanners coming to New York & Jersey airports

[General Zod]

Looks like I won't be flying to NYC for awhile. . .

Full body scanners that have stirred controversy for producing virtually naked images of airline passengers are coming to airports near you next month.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced that the hotly debated machines will be installed at Newark Liberty, John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia international airports in September. TSA officials contend that the technology allows security screeners to see non-metal weapons like explosives that go undetected by existing metal detectors.

In March 2010, the agency started sending out 450 machines, which were bought with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Forty-one airports across the country already have the imaging technology installed at security checkpoints, according to the Transportation Security Administration.

While the TSA calls the technology less invasive than a pat-down, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center is suing the Department of Homeland Security to stop the use of the machines, charging that the scanners are unconstitutional.

Body scanners produce detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals, the group states on its Web site. Security experts have described whole body scanners as the equivalent of a physically invasive strip-search.

Only passengers that are flagged for extra security screenings are asked to go stand in the machines for imaging.

The TSA has tried to allay the publics privacy concerns by stating that the scanners cannot store naked images of travelers, but through a Freedom of Information Act request EPIC found that one of these machines at a courthouse in Florida had stored 35,314 images.

Acting director of the TSA, Gale Rossides, said in a letter to EPIC, It seems that though the machines at airports are manufactured with the capability to store images, that capability is used in testing mode only and not at airports."

I'm just waiting for the day we hear about some dipshit TSA worker uploading thousands of these images to the internet.

[open_sketchbook]

That's great for people who want to look at blue contour models of fat tourists. It's not a pair of x-ray glasses, it's a fucking scanner. It makes a 3d model of you. Big fucking deal.

[Kanastrous]

I can't for the life of me understand why the fuck people object to this.

1) No one's 'seeing you naked.' They're seeing what looks like a lo-medium-res contour shade map, looking like it's carved from plastic, with the face blanked out. Those images are everywhere that the story crops up, so most everyone knows what the machine display really looks like. Are you *really* looking at them and seeing them as interchangeable with a real face-showing typical photograph of you, unclothed? Then you need to have your eyes checked.

2) The unfortunate son of a bitch who is stationed at the monitor is located such that he can't even tell which traveler he's looking at, while he's looking. And yes, the guy at the screen is the only player involved deserving of our consideration (if not pity) because his job is to sit staring at sort-of-looks-like naked pictures of every face-stuffing overbloated lardass whom we'd pay good money - and lots of it - to not have to see naked. Not to mention the grannies with tits hanging to their ankles, and every other wince-inducing visual specimen of humanity that a person should have the misfortune to have to see unclothed.

3) Get the fuck over yourself. Do you really think anyone is interested in seeing you sort-of-kind-of naked-like, and is getting jollies from it? In a day and age where all the actual porn in every flavor one can imagine is right there for free on the internet. Get fucking real.

Maybe the people with actual medical safety concerns might have an argument, but the 'oh-my-precious-PRIVACY-is-being-invaded-because-someone-can-see-a-gray-plasticky-faceless-representation-of-my-body' types can go take a fucking leap. Haven't you got anything important to worry about? Or is your body image so bad (maybe justifiably) that you are just too embarrassed to be seen, sort-of-kind-of anonymously quasi-bare-assed? Well, your self-consciousness is your problem and not worthy of ditching potentially useful screening tools, to appease.

So by all means if you can't handle the idea of some remote guy whom you'll never even see, briefly glimpsing a faceless representation of your body as part of screening - don't fly. It will make the process that much quicker and more pleasant, for the rest of us. *



*'You' being the generic 'you;' since Zod didn't specify his actual personal objections I'm not trying to address him directly.

[aerius]

If I'm going through one of these machines I'll pop a couple Viagras first so the operators and everyone else can enjoy my raging hard-on.

[Kanastrous]

And I will follow your praiseworthy example.

[Terralthra]

For not the first time, General Zod -

Please do NOT use yellow text for emphasis. On the low-bandwidth style (white background), the text rendered in yellow is completely illegible. If you want to emphasize something, use time-honored techniques such as bold, italic, or make your font bigger. If you simply must use colors, try to use one that is legible on all forum background colors, like red.

[General Zod]

My main objection is I see it as another wasteful addition to airport security that doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean what's the possibility of some douchebag actually hiding explosives in their ass? A million to one? Maybe they should just get us to start going through the airport completely naked and we can drop safety costs dramatically.

Please do NOT use yellow text for emphasis. On the low-bandwidth style (white background), the text rendered in yellow is completely illegible. If you want to emphasize something, use time-honored techniques such as bold, italic, or make your font bigger. If you simply must use colors, try to use one that is legible on all forum background colors, like red.

Maybe you should use themes that don't suck ass. I think I'll keep doing it just to piss you off.

[Terralthra]

Maybe you should use themes that don't suck ass.

I'm browsing the forum on a smartphone, you jackass. Loading a bunch of avatar and signature images that contribute only to the "noise" half of the signal:noise ratio is not a good use of EVDO bandwidth nor of limited screen real estate.

[aerius]

My main objection is I see it as another wasteful addition to airport security that doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean what's the possibility of some douchebag actually hiding explosives in their ass? A million to one? Maybe they should just get us to start going through the airport completely naked and we can drop safety costs dramatically.

Do you want terrorists with exploding breasts to blow up our planes?

[Kanastrous]

I think it's too early to determine how useful the scanners will prove to be. And IIRC these machines don't see deep enough to catch an ass-charge...

[Steel]

I went through one of these a couple of years ago in Moscow airport. It was pretty fun. Got to go over an look at the screen and see the image of myself. I'd only recognise myself because I knew it was me, I couldn't really distinguish other guys in the team despite spending a lot of time in the shower with them. I see no rational privacy concerns.

Also, going through Moscow airport security I realised I had half a bottle of water in my bag, so I went to throw it away, but the security guard said "No. Drink." so I had to finish it there. Not going to be trying to sneak liquid explosives through there...

[General Zod]

I think it's too early to determine how useful the scanners will prove to be. And IIRC these machines don't see deep enough to catch an ass-charge...

Then I'm really not seeing what purpose they serve that metal detectors and sniffer dogs can't accomplish aside from finding the occasional illicit sex toy.

[aerius]

I think it's too early to determine how useful the scanners will prove to be. And IIRC these machines don't see deep enough to catch an ass-charge...

Then I'm really not seeing what purpose they serve that metal detectors and sniffer dogs can't accomplish aside from finding the occasional illicit sex toy.

You do know that lethal non-metal weapons exist, right?

[General Zod]

You do know that lethal non-metal weapons exist, right?

Yes, but for now they're just being used on passengers being set aside for "extra" screening. Unless they're using them on everyone it still seems like a massive waste.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps they intend a pilot program for now, expanded to more passengers as more machines come available and they refine their use.

[FSTargetDrone]

I think it's too early to determine how useful the scanners will prove to be. And IIRC these machines don't see deep enough to catch an ass-charge...

Perhaps in the not-too-distant future:

[Zed Snardbody]

They will become the primary in the next couple of years, theres actually a few airports already that have torn down the metal detectors completely and just use these.

Most airports that have them now use them as the primary, with the metal detector handling overflow traffic only.

My checkpoint in Vegas is going completely scanner by the end of the month if the construction schedule holds.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My main objection is I see it as another wasteful addition to airport security that doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean what's the possibility of some douchebag actually hiding explosives in their ass? A million to one? Maybe they should just get us to start going through the airport completely naked and we can drop safety costs dramatically.

Please do NOT use yellow text for emphasis. On the low-bandwidth style (white background), the text rendered in yellow is completely illegible. If you want to emphasize something, use time-honored techniques such as bold, italic, or make your font bigger. If you simply must use colors, try to use one that is legible on all forum background colors, like red.

Maybe you should use themes that don't suck ass. I think I'll keep doing it just to piss you off.

Zod, dont be a fucking douche. I use the subsilver background because the darker ones are a problem due to my visual impairments. This one is higher contrast, which helps me out.

[Dalton]

Please do NOT use yellow text for emphasis. On the low-bandwidth style (white background), the text rendered in yellow is completely illegible. If you want to emphasize something, use time-honored techniques such as bold, italic, or make your font bigger. If you simply must use colors, try to use one that is legible on all forum background colors, like red.

Maybe you should use themes that don't suck ass. I think I'll keep doing it just to piss you off.

Or maybe you could, you know, not do it.

[Pelranius]

The only thing that concerns me is that could this be used to draw attention to pre operation transgendered persons? (Did I use the correct terminology?)

[Kanastrous]

I don't see why transgendered persons should require greater forebearance than amputees, the obese, women with small breasts who worry about it and men with small dicks who worry about that, etc etc etc. - that is, anyone with any one of whatever number of physique-related sensitivities.

Perhaps there is a good argument as to why transgendered people require separate treatment; I'm open to hearing it. But it's not readily apparent, to me.

Anyway, so long as the option to request a person-to-person pat-down etc is there transgendered travelers will presumably have the same experience as they do now, should they choose that option.

[Pelranius]

I don't see why transgendered persons should require greater forebearance than amputees, the obese, women with small breasts who worry about it and men with small dicks who worry about that, etc etc etc. - that is, anyone with any one of whatever number of physique-related sensitivities.

Perhaps there is a good argument as to why transgendered people require separate treatment; I'm open to hearing it. But it's not readily apparent, to me.

Anyway, so long as the option to request a person-to-person pat-down etc is there transgendered travelers will presumably have the same experience as they do now, should they choose that option.

I just thought that in the era of leaks and the Internet, that it would be more easier to spot pre operation transgender if footage of full body scans were made available (though this probably more of a theoretical question)

[Cecelia5578]

I don't see why transgendered persons should require greater forebearance than amputees, the obese, women with small breasts who worry about it and men with small dicks who worry about that, etc etc etc. - that is, anyone with any one of whatever number of physique-related sensitivities.

Perhaps there is a good argument as to why transgendered people require separate treatment; I'm open to hearing it. But it's not readily apparent, to me.

Anyway, so long as the option to request a person-to-person pat-down etc is there transgendered travelers will presumably have the same experience as they do now, should they choose that option.

Probably because a pre/non op trans person runs the risk of a security guard wondering why the gender on their ID mismatches their genitalia. And, given the general fuckedupness of airport security, most trans people would rather not have to deal with that.

Plus, I'd wager most trans people find it terribly invasive, I certainly do.

[Kanastrous]

Why should it be more or less invasive to a transperson, than anyone else?

I don't think that the operator viewing the screen has access to the ID of the person they're viewing, at least, not in the setup where the operator is in a remote location.

[KlavoHunter]

If the TSA idiots can't even keep from getting in fistfights with one another because of them going through the scanner and seeing and making fun of each other's small junk, how could you possibly trust them not to abuse these scanners in other ways?