Transportation Security Administration - Security Techniques

[Draken]

The "Backscatter" type of body scanner uses low energy X rays, or so I understand.

And actually I'd be cautious about unnecessary non-ionising radiation. We always used to retire to a safe distance in my old job when we swept test equipment with radio waves very similar to those used in the millimetre wave scanners. Of course, we can't assume every new use of technology will kill us or we'll get nowhere - but some health issues take a long time to be proven.

As for background radiation - that's not the point. I'm aware that living somewhere where the local rock is granite is far more dangerous than many man-made radiation hazards, for instance. However, what nature throws at us is arbitrary and pretty much unavoidable - that's no reason for it to be topped up as a matter of policy.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Draken

Hard to see how screening for religion could be done. Offer everyone in the queue a bacon butty, maybe? Would weed out the vegetarians, at least....

I hope everyone understands that I was being slightly sarcastic when I suggested screening for religion. It was my way of pointing out what you were pointing out, Draken; that every kind of discrimination in these cases will lead nowhere in the long term. Unless we actually start reading thoughts..

Apart from all the other security stuff at the airports, one thing that really, really bugs me every time I fly, is the issue of water. If they're allowed to take away people's water bottles, cold, fresh, drinkable water should really be freely available on the other side of the security check. Instead, most places have those taps in the bathrooms where you can't regulate the temperature of the water, and super-expensive bottles of water for sale. Water is sort of an essential part of life, and just forcing people to buy bottled water at high prices should be banned. Argh, it really annoys me. >.<

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Draken

The "Backscatter" type of body scanner uses low energy X rays, or so I understand.

...

As for background radiation - that's not the point. I'm aware that living somewhere where the local rock is granite is far more dangerous than many man-made radiation hazards, for instance. However, what nature throws at us is arbitrary and pretty much unavoidable - that's no reason for it to be topped up as a matter of policy.

I thought the scanners employed infra-red technology but maybe it is x rays then.

As for natural background radiation, I wouldn't say it's arbitrary at all. If anything it provides a goodly perspective on individual dosage of radiation. I mean, a trip from Europe to America and back again exposes you to approximately 0,01 millisieverts worth of cosmic radiation, which is about the same amount you'd get from a chest x-ray.
Thus, a frequent flyer who's nervous about the radiation from a mere dental x-ray, should think again.

[inked]

Scanning is only as effective as the weakest airport security in the entire world.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...030232,00.html

Do you really think that every passenger on every plane in all the airports in all the world are scanned effectively before transporting to hubs?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...032786,00.html

Even the ACLU has second thoughts and more: see any at
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ff...ight+screening

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

For once, BJ and I agree: "But in the end it's simply an admiss(i)on that we have lost. We can trust no one. Even our own citizens. We've let irrational fear, and the terrorists, dictate our lives." While it is true that the rarum avis Americanus has bombed planes, it is correct that there are an identifiable group that have attacked America and Great Britain and numerous locations around the world, even their own kith and kin. The Unabomber is an historical example that you may recall of the rarum avis (though not on planes), and the response was criminal profiling without regard to race or appearance that lead to appropriate intervention. I do not recall the mail of every American being held at the Post Office for scanning with full body scans or gropes or those entering the PO.

Terrorism, period, is an extremely rare event, unless one decides to place oneself in the hornet's nest (i.e. occupying another country). Your trip to the airport is infinitely more dangerous than the flight.

Much of the current terrorism could be dealt with by slowly removing our support for the despotic societies in the Middle East and moving away from Israel as well. Let them work their own problems out. There has been, and will continue to be, terrorism all around the globe. We just need to stop bringing it home.

And, even if we can't do that, we have to look at it objectively. It's extremely far down the list of things that can hurt or kill us. There are much better places to focus money and resources than airports.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As a language geek, I just have to note that "rarum avis Americanus;" here, we have a feminine noun, with one masculine and one neuter adjective. All three genders rolled into one! A rare bird, indeed.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Even the ACLU has second thoughts and more: see any at
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ff...ight+screening

Even the ACLU has objections to intrusive government searches of private citizens?

Isn't that sort of like saying "even the KKK objects to affirmative action for African-Americans"?

"Even the Communist Party objects to Wall Street plundering the country"

"Even the Republican Party supports lower taxes for rich people"

"Even liberal Democrats support more government spending"

"Even the Pope thinks Christianity is a good thing"....

[inked]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As a language geek, I just have to note that "rarum avis Americanus;" here, we have a feminine noun, with one masculine and one neuter adjective. All three genders rolled into one! A rare bird, indeed.

It iz gut dat du notisd de inklusivnes, GW. I habt oftn ben akusd ov de inon-inklusivnes, ja?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Even the ACLU has objections to intrusive government searches of private citizens?

Isn't that sort of like saying "even the KKK objects to affirmative action for African-Americans"?

"Even the Communist Party objects to Wall Street plundering the country"

"Even the Republican Party supports lower taxes for rich people"

"Even liberal Democrats support more government spending"

"Even the Pope thinks Christianity is a good thing"....

GM - don't go off at inked over this one. For one, most US conservatives consider the ACLU to have a strong liberal bias, rather than to be objective (some nickname it "Anti-Christian Litigation Union" - it often seems that way, though there ARE some exceptions in the cases they take).

Also - I think inked expects conservatives to be opposed to TSA techniques and for liberals to be more amenable to those techniques.

What I find interesting about this particular issue though - is that it seems to cut across the liberal-conservative divide. We find liberals who are in favor and those who oppose - and the same with conservatives.

[Aikanáro]

Originally Posted by Valandil

What I find interesting about this particular issue though - is that it seems to cut across the liberal-conservative divide. We find liberals who are in favor and those who oppose - and the same with conservatives.

The divide here seems to be more a libertarian-authoritarian one, and there are liberals and conservatives on both sides.

The UK introduced the body scanners to certain airports last year, without a right of refusal - if you're selected for it, and don't want to go through, you don't fly.

Personally, I won't be flying anywhere (especially to the US!) while these measures are in place.