TSA's Naked body scanner and pat-down procedures.

[ShiroiHikari]

Wait hold on.

Are there, like, armed law enforcement officers on every flight? I am asking honestly. If not there should be. I'd rather fly sitting next to a cop than get strip-searched for no apparent reason.

[blkmage]

I think his point being that you can't prove that terrorists were stopped from hijacking planes. Perhaps increased security deterred people from doing so. If so, nobody would know either way.

And I dunno. It's all still fear to me. Privacy, that is. We are, after all, a very fear-driven nation.

Well, yes, that's certainly a consideration, but your framing of it implies that that's the primary or even only consideration. I mean, yeah, elected officials are driven by the fear of getting turfed by the electorate and citizens are vigilant because of the fear of governments abusing their power. But I think it's pretty clear that it'd be silly to say that means that the nation is driven by fear.

[Nate]

Ann Coulter makes me want to barf whenever she speaks.

This x 1000000. Ann Coulter also says taking away women's right to vote would be the one of the best things this country could do. She's about as stupid as a bag of hammers.

I just really don't see why this is a big deal. Unless it's a health risk. If the amount of radiation people are exposed to is a dangerous amount, I'm against it completely. But otherwise, I don't see what the problem is?

Now I'm willing to admit maybe this is a thing that bothers people that I don't understand, like my irritation and annoyance at "Grill and Restaurant." People just don't get why that's a big deal to me, but it is. So this could be the same I guess, but...if the machine isn't harmful to people's health, I just don't see why everyone is complaining.

[blkmage]

As it turns out...

[Nate]

So the radiation exposure is less than that of an x-ray?

Oh geez. This is like the same crap I heard about nuclear power way back with "IF THERE'S A MELTDOWN THE POWER PLANT WILL EXPLODE LIKE A NUCLEAR BOMB!" and thinking that radiation will give you extra eyes or feet or something. People don't understand radiation, they just freak out when they hear about it.

So now, I really don't understand why anyone is complaining about this.

[ShiroiHikari]

Some of us will just have to agree to disagree with you, Nate.

[Peanut]

The Tel Aviv Airport hasn't had a successful terrorist attack since the 90's. I'm not terribly familiar with the security procedures there, but I know it does not involve naked body scanners. People who go through the Tel Aviv Airport (in my experience) complain that the security officers are paranoid and confiscate random objects for no reason, but they don't complain about privacy issues. The US could probably take a hint from Israel on this one.

You know, I'm just going to put this argument to rest right now since I do think I have some right to talk about security at Tel Aviv since I had to go through it. Here's why Tel Aviv shouldn't be used or looked at when we consider this issue:

1. Israel is the size of New Jersey so most of the flights coming into and out of Tel Aviv are international. This means that there security is closer to Customs then the security at our airports.

2. They get around these things by racially profiling like crazy. This is just Israel in general, but as I mentioned earlier, somebody who was in the group I traveled with in Israel was interrogated because he looked somewhat Arab. We've already established that this practice is not a good replacement for violating everyone's privacy, though, in Israel's case, it seems to have been very effective.

3. As you mentioned, security at Tel Aviv is pretty paranoid. I remember hearing a story about someone who was interrogated and had her's and her families luggage searched through because her name was on every piece of luggage. In the USA, all you would get is baggage fees.

4. I'm not sure the USA wants to copy Israel in terms of security. If you don't know why, just do some research on the wall they are building in Israel or injustice towards Palestinians and you'll understand why.

5. There is no guarantee that they won't add these machines to their security sometime in the future. Eventually, they will update the machinery they use for security, so I could easily see them adding these or something like these when that happens.

So, if anyone else wants to use Tel Aviv as an example of why these scanners shouldn't be used, the please address these points before you mention it.

Also, what has stopped terrorists in the past? Passengers who fought them. We need to stick to what works. Everyone is so focused on keeping the terrorists off the planes, but passengers need to know what to do if a terrorist does end up on the plane.

Even before 9-11, flight attendants had training to teach them what to do in the case of a hijacker. Obviously, this has changed since then but it's something to remember. Also, this doesn't solve the problem at all since you are still putting your passengers in harms way. Just because you fight off the Terrorists in a plane doesn't mean people aren't going to get severely hurt especially if they managed to smuggle some weapon in. So the answer really is stop them before they get on.

[Edward]

I think the biggest concerns with the radiation are pregnant women. Yes, one scan probably won't harm your kid (depending how far along the mother is). The same thing with one ciggerate, or one drink. But it still isn't something an unborn child should be exposed to at all, regardless of how likely it will give the baby a birth defect.

[Nate]

I think the biggest concerns with the radiation are pregnant women.

The risk to your baby from radiation is so small that most doctors would treat your pregnancy just like any other pregnancy. If you're really worried about your baby's risk, a radiation physicist can figure out exactly how much radiation your baby has been exposed to. Usually, an unborn baby shouldn't be exposed to more than 5 rad. Because most x-rays cause much less radiation than this, talk with your doctor to see if it will even help to find out the exact number of rads your baby was exposed to.

Since the link blkmage posted said that the scanners cause 1/50th to 1/100th the amount of radiation of an x-ray, that means since x-rays are practically harmless to pregnant women, these are even more harmless.

Technically a woman would have to go through this scanner around a thousand times to cause any problem to their baby. I can't imagine a pregnant woman having to fly that much.

ALSO, flying by itself can sometimes cause complications in pregnancy so if you're so worried about health risks to a baby, then a pregnant woman shouldn't be flying in the first place.

So sorry, Ed, but that's not a valid argument.

[blkmage]

So the radiation exposure is less than that of an x-ray?

Oh geez. This is like the same crap I heard about nuclear power way back with "IF THERE'S A MELTDOWN THE POWER PLANT WILL EXPLODE LIKE A NUCLEAR BOMB!" and thinking that radiation will give you extra eyes or feet or something. People don't understand radiation, they just freak out when they hear about it.

So now, I really don't understand why anyone is complaining about this.

Because in addition to privacy concerns, it's not cost-effective?

[Nate]

I don't understand the privacy concerns though. Though this seems to be solely an American point of view. I mean England has CCTV cameras installed throughout their cities, that have face recognition and database support to identify people on the streets. They also spend enormous amounts of money on the system. Whether or not this is a good idea or actually helps deter crime is up for debate, but that system would never fly in the US, and not just because of costs or the size of our country either.

Like I said, I just don't get how this is an invasion of privacy.

[Edward]

The reason it is considered an invasion of privacy is because it is like a virtual strip search. So it basically creates a nude image of the person being scanned. From what I know, the image is undetailed, like a barbie doll, so I don't see how it is such a problem. The images are not being relesed to the public so I don't see why it's such a big deal. I believe there is concern over whether images taken of young children would violate child pornography laws, and there are probalbly a lot of paranoid soccer moms who think some pervo security guard will take a picture of her son or daughter, turn it into a high res image, and then put it on the internet. But I seriously doubt if that will ever happen, or if it would even be possible.

From Wikipedia

Privacy concerns

Full-body scanning technology allows screeners to explicitly see the nude surface of the skin under clothing, prosthetics including breast prostheses and prosthetic testicles, which may require a potentially embarrassing, hands-on physical inspection once detected. The scanners also can detect other medical equipment normally hidden, such as colostomy bags and catheters. Other privacy concerns come from transgendered community, who may feel that the routine full-body scans are embarrassing and could potentially lead to harassment.

It could also violate the 4th Ammendment to the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized.

They might also be innefective

Opponents of full-body scanners claim that the technology is ineffective because terrorists have already evolved their tactics with the use of surgically implanted bombs or bombs hidden in body cavities.

In one test of the full-body scanners, the machines failed to detect bomb parts hidden around a person's body.

Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security expert who helped design security at Ben Gurion International Airport, has said:
"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747...That's why we haven't put them in our airport"

Just so you all know, I got this info from Wikipedia out of convienence, so it may not be entirely factual.

[Nate]

Yeah that's what I'm saying...it's just an outline of the body and as far as I can tell, the face is blurred. So I don't see how it's an invasion of privacy if there's no identifiable information on the scan...even more so if the public never sees them.

But ah, paranoia. Now there's a good explanation for why people are worked up. This is the same as "Fluoridation of water is a government mind control scheme!" or "The CIA created AIDS in a laboratory to try and kill blacks and gays!"

[Cognitive Gear]

I don't understand the privacy concerns though. Though this seems to be solely an American point of view. I mean England has CCTV cameras installed throughout their cities, that have face recognition and database support to identify people on the streets. They also spend enormous amounts of money on the system. Whether or not this is a good idea or actually helps deter crime is up for debate, but that system would never fly in the US, and not just because of costs or the size of our country either.

Like I said, I just don't get how this is an invasion of privacy.

Because then everyone who is compensating for something would feel the need to compensate even more.

But really, my primary concern is more with the very invasive pat-downs. I don't think that anyone should be forced into a situation in which their "private parts" are going to be felt by a complete stranger.

My secondary concern is that these scanners just simply won't be effective at catching someone intent on highjacking a plane. If someone is smart enough to evade the various intelligence agencies, then they are probably smart enough to think of a way to hide whatever weapon they want to bring.

Yeah that's what I'm saying...it's just an outline of the body and as far as I can tell, the face is blurred. So I don't see how it's an invasion of privacy if there's no identifiable information on the scan...even more so if the public never sees them.

But the public has already seen some. Granted, I don't think that anyone would be able to look at these and go, "Hey, that's Bill!"

EDIT: I looked at the pictures in that article for the first time, and it looks like there's some form of normal picture placed right next to the scan photo.... so I suppose that this is actually worse than I thought.

Double EDIT: Either the scans are not clear at all, or the scanner has better range than I would have thought. I'm not sure what to think of this in terms of invasiveness.

[Nate]

But really, my primary concern is more with the very invasive pat-downs. I don't think that anyone should be forced into a situation in which their "private parts" are going to be felt by a complete stranger.

But how invasive are the patdowns? I got patted down last month, when I had to pick up my mom at the prison because she couldn't drive out (her license was suspended). That was the day I mentioned before, with the huge searches of cars and stuff to make sure no one was bringing drugs or weapons into the prison. I had a patdown. They touched my butt, but not my junk. Is the TSA patdown somehow more invasive than a full police patdown? If so, where's the evidence for it? And I don't count "I went to an airport and they had a more invasive patdown" as evidence, any more than I count "My son had a vaccine and now he's autistic so vaccines cause autism" as evidence.

My secondary concern is that these scanners just simply won't be effective at catching someone intent on highjacking a plane. If someone is smart enough to evade the various intelligence agencies, then they are probably smart enough to think of a way to hide whatever weapon they want to bring.

Okay, granted, but you know what? Locking my door isn't going to be effective at deterring someone who wants to rob my house. They'll just break the window or kick in the door or something. But am I going to get doorknobs with no locks on them? Nope. Am I going to stop locking my doors at night? Nope.

So I don't see how this is an argument against the scanners, unless you want to have lockless doorknobs.

EDIT: Wow those look like nothing. I can't make out any details on those near-formless white blobs in that article you linked. Why are people upset over that? I can't make out ANYTHING, much less a face. I wouldn't even recognize some of those blobs as human-shaped if it wasn't for them telling me it was. But I guess paranoia trumps facts.

[Cognitive Gear]

But how invasive are the patdowns? I got patted down last month, when I had to pick up my mom at the prison because she couldn't drive out (her license was suspended). That was the day I mentioned before, with the huge searches of cars and stuff to make sure no one was bringing drugs or weapons into the prison. I had a patdown. They touched my butt, but not my junk. Is the TSA patdown somehow more invasive than a full police patdown? If so, where's the evidence for it? And I don't count "I went to an airport and they had a more invasive patdown" as evidence, any more than I count "My son had a vaccine and now he's autistic so vaccines cause autism" as evidence.

Here are some pictures of the new pat-downs in action.

[Nate]

That looks like a regular police patdown to me. I don't see them doing anything they didn't do when I went to the prison (though I can't speak to the female patdowns since I am obviously not a female). But it looks like a regular patdown.

[blkmage]

Okay, granted, but you know what? Locking my door isn't going to be effective at deterring someone who wants to rob my house. They'll just break the window or kick in the door or something. But am I going to get doorknobs with no locks on them? Nope. Am I going to stop locking my doors at night? Nope.

So I don't see how this is an argument against the scanners, unless you want to have lockless doorknobs.

The argument (both your rebuttal and the original) is oversimplified. It's not just a matter of effectiveness. It's a matter of effectiveness weighed against cost, whether it's monetary or otherwise. This is why things like probabilities matter, especially when you're talking about a nationwide deployment.

And I believe you're missing the point on those leaked scans. That's like me promising to catch you if you fall or something, but then I don't, but you're not really hurt. Oh well, you didn't get hurt so it's all good, but that doesn't make me any less of a jerk for not doing what I promised I'd do.

Anyhow, the British database surveillance thing isn't a perfect example. Yes, there are differences in culture, but there's also a lot of pushback on the National ID cards and other databasey stuff, to the point that the current government is in the process of dismantling all that stuff. The reason it was possible in the first place is likely because of the structural differences between the Westminster-style and US governments.

And, I'd rather you avoid comparing my views with those of crazy people, because while fluoridation and CIA AIDS are demonstrably false, this is not quite as simple.

[Cognitive Gear]

In my continuing quest to develop an opinion on all of this, I came across the following:

A letter from some qualified individuals who are concerned about the safety of the scanners, listing the reasons that they are concerned. (link is to a PDF)

The Red Flags

The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer
molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).

Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies
(28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying
tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume
of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic
ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this
comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-
rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately
understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport
scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two
orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.

In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,
ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation
quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]
has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that
emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low
when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.

In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it
would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and
adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential
concerns over radiation damage.

Our colleagues at UCSF, dermatologists and cancer experts, raise specific important
concerns:

• A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at
risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of
melanocyte aging.

• B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-
provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women,
who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer,
X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue
beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

• C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

• D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer
patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin
dose.

• E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to
have been fully evaluated.

• F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical
risks to the fetus are determined.

• G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for
sperm mutagenesis.

• H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

Moreover, there are a number of ‘red flags’ related to the hardware itself. Because this
device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch
in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the
device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will
oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems? The TSA is
already complaining about resolution limitations; who will keep the manufacturers
and/or TSA from just raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get
higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we
know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin
area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

After review of the available data we have already obtained, we suggest that additional
critical information be obtained, with the goal to minimize the potential health risks of
total body scanning. One can study the relevant X-ray dose effects with modern
molecular tools. Once a small team of appropriate experts is assembled, an
experimental plan can be designed and implemented with the objective of obtaining
information relevant to our concerns expressed above, with attention paid to completing
the information gathering and formulating recommendations in a timely fashion.

[Nate]

And I believe you're missing the point on those leaked scans.

Oh no, I agree that the fact that the scans were leaked is bad. I think it's something that needs to be addressed, and the people responsible for the leaks should be fired and/or charged. I'm just saying that the scans definitely are barely recognizable as human bodies some of the time, and so there's no identifying information. While that doesn't make it okay that they've been leaked, it does mean that their leakage proves that the scanning itself is hardly a violation of privacy, since there are no distinguishing marks or recognizable features. That's a completely separate issue from the leaking of the photos, which IS bad and should be taken care of.

Anyhow, the British database surveillance thing isn't a perfect example.

It isn't, but I was using it to show a point that this could never have happened in the US. I know that not every British person was totally okay with it and were like "Sure, this is a great idea!" But the fact that it got done at all is a pretty big thing, since this would be shot down immediately in the US if it was even considered.

On the lighter side,

Right To Privacy Not Guaranteed By Constitution, Says Supreme Court Justice Peeking In Bathroom Window

And, I'd rather you avoid comparing my views with those of crazy people, because while fluoridation and CIA AIDS are demonstrably false, this is not quite as simple.

Okay, I'll admit that. Fair enough. I won't make statements like that in the future. Though I still stand behind the fact that fearing people will be able to get naked photos of you because you went through an airport scanner is complete and utter paranoia.

The health risks, apparently, are still up for debate, and despite my earlier post about people thinking always radiation=bad and terrible, there's a lot more going on to it than first thought. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, since there's a lot of conflicting reports from the look of it.

[Tsukuyomi]

Ugh, I heard a pretty nasty story about a "search" story :blankstare: They were asking what TSA stories and someone called describing her travel experience with her sister and niece (I think)

[SPOILER]Her 11yr. old niece ended up with worms.. due to the one who did the search, not washing their hands... blankstare:[/SPOILER]

The above is wrapped with spoilers for a reason.. What has been read cannot be unread >_>;

[Nate]

I don't believe that story at all for a multitude of reasons.

[blkmage]

Okay, I'll admit that. Fair enough. I won't make statements like that in the future. Though I still stand behind the fact that fearing people will be able to get naked photos of you because you went through an airport scanner is complete and utter paranoia.

Well yeah, and I mean, it's like, what is the gubmint going to do with your naked pictures?

Anyhow, from a civil rights standpoint, the effectiveness of the measures is important, because if it's not effective, then such a search shouldn't be reasonable. And even if it were effective (which is debatable), whether such a search is reasonable is still up for debate.

[Yuki-Anne]

Honestly, while I am bothered by all this, I think I would be more bothered if the TSA said, "If you buy a plane ticket, you are implicitly agreeing to allow us to tap your phone until after your flight."

I also think it isn't right for the TSA to subject people to machines that could be harmful to their health without first testing everything. So despite my discomfort with having a stranger touching me, I'd much rather get the pat-down than go through the scanner machines.

EDIT: Also, I know I'm late on the uptake, but privacy isn't about fear. I think, at least in the case of wanting to keep what you've got going on to yourself, it's a desire to maintain your personal dignity.

[Nate]

I thought you couldn't use phones while you were flying anyway.

[Radical Dreamer]

For the record, these photos (which are linked in the article that Phill posted previously) are far more detailed: http://gizmodo.com/5692351/junk-security-naked-scanners-wont-keep-us-safe

Anyways, as a female, I can say that I'm pretty uncomfortable with both pictures that are that detailed and also the idea of an extreme full-body pat down. XD I'd really rather not have a complete stranger, female or not, touching every last inch of me when they have no reason to. XD

[Nate]

More detailed, I guess, but the face is blurred so...what's the problem? And it doesn't even look all THAT detailed to me. I can't really make out anything other than vague body shapes which you can see just fine even in clothes so... *shrug*

[Ella Edric]

Like I said, I just don't get how this is an invasion of privacy.

Nate, did you realize that with these scanners that you can see sweat droplets on a person's back? Yeah, its that powerful. You can see every detail of the person. And just think you'll have some security guy/girl whome you dont know from adam looking at you nude pretty much. oh, OR you could have a random person you dont know do an intrusive pat down touching you all over! OH FUN! *is being sarcastic* And also, you never know what kinda pervy ppl are looking at you or touching you. Just because these people passed the background check and got th job at the airport doesnt mean they arent total wierdos, child molesters and the such(maybe a bit overboard but still XD). That being said, not all security guards are like that of course. But still, I dont want some wacked out pervy dude looking at MY picture, nor patting me down. Sorry! DX

[Yamamaya]

You know what, why don't we all just fly naked so the TSA can stop this nonsense.

Ella you have no need to worry about that, because I would deal with that security person personally.

[Yuki-Anne]

I thought you couldn't use phones while you were flying anyway.

Most people buy plane tickets in advance. So we could be talking phone tapping for up to several months. Not that I'm saying this is what will happen or being paranoid, but I don't see it as that huge a leap from where we are, especially if we allow massive changes like this to go uncontested.