Airport Body Scanners

[d_drew12]

You came into the world nude, when you die, someone will likely see you nude not to mention all those other times you went to the doctor for a physical, surgery or something else that required you to expose yourself to strangers who are right infront of you. A body scanner is much more discrete than that. If you have a problem with it, they do offer the alternative, a pat down so you still have the option. However, now your having someone directly infront of you physically touch you where as a body scanner is set so the person viewing the image can't even see you and is touch free.

Anyway, those that don't want people to "see" them, can opt for the pat down, if you can't handle either, don't fly.

There are consequiences for most laws, flying is no different. Follow the rules, or don't fly. Officials aren't going to ask if you like the rules, it's not a debate. How many of us like half the laws in the world. I'd like to not obey speed limits and do 100mph everywhere but if I did, my driving privilages would be revoked thus not permiting me to drive. It is what it is.

[fairfaxdl]

I have traveled cross country recently from Dulles and National. I wear Tranquility brief through the scanners and then put on an Abena diaper in the restroom near the gate. This way I don't have any bulk in my waist but will be ok when we sit on the tarmac for hours.

[d_drew12]

You still have two other options, get a pat down or don't fly. Nobody should really worry about it. You'll never see these people again probably.

[sarah_ab]

if the gentlemen who posted on another board about flyer from seattle to phoenix were telling the truth 1. he wouldn't still have his hoodie on as you have to take off all jackets and sweatshirts before going through security and 2. seattle does not have full body scanners. at least they did not in january when i flew out of there!

[AbenaBoy]

Not that i actually care about the body scanner thing, but it really is just a waste of money. After 9/11 they "cracked" down on security but when the father of the terrorist that blew his shorts up specifically told our government that his kid was in cahoots with said terrorists, something still happened. In conclusion...if they government can't prevent a fiasco with a direct "heads up", why are we relying on security guards at the airport that have a nifty new toy?

It really just boils down to the whole statistics of how ya die, and i, for one, am going to gamble that it won't be in a plane crash which was a direct result of terrorism every time.

[curiositykilledthecat]

I love how mindlessly stupid sheeple are when they're told something will make them safer. It's amazingly easy to strip people of their fundamental rights with a little fear mongering. The same failed logic that taking guns away stops crime is being used here. Terrorists/criminals will always be one step ahead, stop harassing the law abiding so a few imbeciles can get off on feeling safe or morally superior.

[d_drew12]

It still makes me wonder why people feel they are being stripped of their rights here. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You voluntarily do it. It's your choice to fly.

Terrorist or not, I don't see why it's such a big deal to prevent as many incidents as possible from happening 8 miles in the sky. In airplanes, there's little room for error. One bonehead, again, terrorist or not could easily kill hundreds and even thousands. Tell me again why we shouldn't do anything to prevent such an event??? Airports aren't just trying to stop terroristic groups but also stopping Joe Blow who's about to snap since his nasty divorce or Crazy Eddy down the street who lacks the will to live and wants to go out in a blaze of glory. Keep this in mind. How many of these idiots have we prevented from killing masses of people? Guess we'll never really know unless someone confesses.

[adriansurley]

I for one hate flying so don't got to worry about that lol. But, if I were ever forced - there is a degree of privacy and if anyone were to make any sort of humiliating comments about your diaper during security...they probably would have a lawsuit...

[enfant]

"Tell me again why we shouldn't do anything to prevent such an event???"

That's an ambiguous question. By "why shouldn't we do anything", do you mean: "Why should we do nothing?" Or do you mean: "Why should we not do absolutely anything and everything we can think of?"

If you meant the first one, then that's a straw-man argument. No one has advocated doing nothing.

If you meant the second one, then the answer is that some of the things we might think of to do are stupid, costly, ineffective, or a combination of all three. This is all too common a logical fallacy in the political world. "Problem X is a real problem, and we have to do something to solve it! Hitting ourselves in the face with a hammer is something! Therefore, we must hit ourselves in the face with a hammer to solve problem X!" The thing is, problem X has nothing to do with a hammer to the face, and so it won't be solved... and, even if it would be solved, a hammer to the face actually hurts more than problem X did in the first place, so you've replaced a small problem with a bigger one.

I mean, we had the shoe bomber in 2001 and then the crotch bomber in 2009. If the price of keeping the existing security system in place is that every eight years some dickhead will try to light himself on fire and fail, while 90 million flights successfully reach their destinations with no problems at all, then I think that's a price I'm willing to live with. Then maybe the half million dollars per body scanner could be spent on something more useful, and millions of wasted passenger-hours with concomitant productivity costs to the economy could also be avoided. And as a nice little bonus, maybe then I wouldn't have to explain to some overblown rent-a-cop why I'm wearing a diaper. It's win-win-win.

[WallaWalla]

I mean, we had the shoe bomber in 2001 and then the crotch bomber in 2009. If the price of keeping the existing security system in place is that every eight years some dickhead will try to light himself on fire and fail, while 90 million flights successfully reach their destinations with no problems at all, then I think that's a price I'm willing to live with. Then maybe the half million dollars per body scanner could be spent on something more useful, and millions of wasted passenger-hours with concomitant productivity costs to the economy could also be avoided. And as a nice little bonus, maybe then I wouldn't have to explain to some overblown rent-a-cop why I'm wearing a diaper. It's win-win-win.

This poster knows what is up. ^

Increasing security measures, making people paranoid, and the subsequent productivity costs/cognitive dissonance that follows is the intentional outcome of a terrorist's actions. Everybody needs to step back, look at the reality(which amounts to a handful of incidents, and less than fatalities total than what smoking cigarettes causes worldwide daily), and accept that there is some inherent risk to doing anything.

[sarah_ab]

more people die each year in car accidents than plane crashes.. so i say lets outlawing driving.

[bedwetter73]

So I had a thought last night as I was falling asleep:

What about cloth diaper wearers with pins? Are pins considered a weapon? I mean I could use a pen to hurt someone and they let those threw. I am sure pins would show up on a scan, heck even a metal detector would probably pick up those. So are diaper pins for adult going to make you go threw extra security checks?

[bedwetter73]

I for one hate flying so don't got to worry about that lol. But, if I were ever forced - there is a degree of privacy and if anyone were to make any sort of humiliating comments about your diaper during security...they probably would have a lawsuit...

I agree about the lawsuit thing, it would totally happen in this world.

As far as hating flying, I used to really be terrified but I found some little blue pills that make flying SO much better. IF your Dr. is cool he'll give you a script for a few Valium for your flights. Oh what a joy to just chill out, heck I even fell asleep on the plane. My wife loves it because she doesn't end up with broken fingers from my squeezing her out of fright.

[d_drew12]

Enfant, my post was in response to Curiosity's post "Terrorists/criminals will always be one step ahead, stop harassing the law abiding so a few imbeciles can get off on feeling safe or morally superior."

It sounded as though he was annoyed by the security measures in place as though we should just let everyone walk straight from the curb to the plane with no check point since in his opinion, there's no way to stop terrorist as they are ahead of all our security measures and we're just punishing everyone else. That's what I got from it. Do nothing since you can't stop it.

Either way, most of us as you said enfant, want something to be done. I don't see why it's such a big deal with advances in technology to put in more advanced equipment for detecting weapons in an airport. Other business do it such as some office buildings or skyscrapers for example. One thing throughout time has always seemed consistant. People hate change. There was a time when cell phones first came out and nearly everyone hated them, ringing in restaurants, on the bus, driving and talking and now it's become so main streem, there's hardly a care. When airports started installing security equipment, each an every piece they added pissed off a crowd for a while and then it became accepted by most after some time and they moved on. There's quit a few here complaining about the expense of the body scanners. Really? Really stop and think about it. Yes there's the initial investment of the equipment but thousands of people will walk through it a day for years and years. How much is that per person in the end. What, it'll add a nickle to your ticket price, big deal. A half million dollar machine in an airport is a drop in the bucket when compared to the expense of everthing else. Airplanes can cost tens of millions of dollars and be fueled with over $100,000 in fuel for just one flight.

Another thing to point out. Airports have to look at cost vs convenience and find a happy medium. One checkpoint line for the whole airport may cut down cost of operation and your ticket will be cheaper but passengers don't want to show up 12 hrs early either so that's not feasable. A hundred checkpoints will increase cost but get you through in minutes, in turn, the increased cost will wind up on your ticket. More convienient, more expenses, less, less. So, airports try to come up with a happy medium and have enough checkpoints to keep cost down but not make you wait too long.

The whole millions of wasted passenger hours statistics kill me. I think stats like that are so dumb because you're taking like an extra minute of wait time if any from a body scanner from millions of passenger and making it into a huge number. You ever sat at a red light when there's no traffic in sight. Sitting there think, geez this is so dumb, why can't I just go, nobody's coming, but you wait the minute for it to turn green for you and then go. Well, if you take the worlds population and add up all the minutes people sit at red lights for no reason, it'd be in the millions too, but it was only one minute for YOU, not a million. It was a minute of your life "wasted" so why not go to the law makers and get them to change the laws that if the lights red and I don't see anyone, I can just go because I don't want to waste my precious minute sitting there for no reason.

I'd think a body scanner would make many people happy so they wouldn't have to be physically touched during a pat down but then you'll have the people who don't want a pat down or a body scan so then what. They'll never make everyone happy at the airports. Eventually, the body scanners will be put it, some people will rebell at first, most will eventually get over it and go on with the life as, that's just the way it is. The rest will just be pissed of at the world because the can't get their minute back (as if they've never wasted a minute or hours else where on other things) or they feel their privacy has been invaded. Either way, no matter what, in most instances, majority rules and the majority want stepped up security and are willing to wait and pay so that's what happens. The rest of the people have to suck it up and deal with it.

[enfant]

Yeah, lots of people want "something" to be done. Most of them are too stupid to know what actually works or to estimate risk sensibly, but they want to see something being done. So we hire people, put them in uniforms, and make them harass everybody, and the effect on actual security is nil, but the stupid people can go back to sleep, and that's the main thing.

The TSA checkpoints are not a security system, they're a system for annoying people. If I wanted to get forbidden substances into the secure area of an airport--hell, I thought of six ways to do it while typing the first part of this sentence. Starting with "get a job at the airport". The TSA accomplishes nothing except for wasting, yes, millions of passenger hours (because you have to get to the airport an hour in advance, JUST IN CASE there's a delay at the security checkpoint, and then sit in the gate for most of that extra hour). And now, because some idiot lit his junk on fire and got arrested, you're required to get to the airport TWO hours in advance.

I mean, there are things to do that make actual sense--like reinforcing cockpit doors. There are things to do that don't really help against a determined attacker, but do at least discourage the amateurs, and aren't particularly costly or the costs are already mostly sunk, so we might as well continue doing them--like metal detectors. But then there are things to do that are just idiotic wastes of time and money.

Half a million dollars per body scanner, times an average of two scanners per airport (which is a low estimate), times a thousand airports, is a billion dollars--with a B. All so that they can reduce the frequency of terrorists-on-airplanes to some number that's less than "one guy every eight years"--and won't even succeed at that, most likely. If I gave you a billion dollars and told you to find some way to help society with it, is that what you'd decide to spend it on? Making sure guys on airplanes only manage to light themselves on fire every ten years instead of every eight? Really?

And let's not forget about inaccuracies, and in particular false positives. I mean, supposing for the sake of argument that those body scanners and other "security" mechanisms were ridiculously effective at finding terrorists (and they aren't, but just supposing). Let's say they were 99% accurate (though they aren't anywhere near that good). Let's say one person in a million is a terrorist. Now, in actual real life, people fly about 100 million times a month, so if it were really as high as one in a million, then there would be one hundred terrorists per month. Our hypothetical 99%-effective terrorist-catching system would catch 99 of them... and allow one terrorist in, every single month. Meanwhile, the 99%-effective system would allow 99% of the law-abiding passengers through, while misidentifying a million people as terrorists. So now you've got about a million people you think are terrorists, including 99 of them who actually are (and good luck finding the needles in that haystack), and airplanes are still getting blown up on a monthly basis. Great system! Really effective!

Honestly, I wear diapers and suck my thumb and I'm still not as much of a baby as most Americans are.

[d_drew12]

Well enfant, it seems like you have it all figured out so why don't you become the head of airport security and talk to your gov't officials about implimenting your plans.

A billion dollars gets tossed around in the US all the time especially in the aviation industry It's really not that much money anymore in todays standards especially when like here, you're spreading it out across a nation. With sooooo many people in the world or just in the US even, billion this or that happens all the time. It's like the Austin Power movies where Dr. Evil asks for $1 million dollars thinking it's a lot, it was in his previous era but not today and everyone just laughed at him. As the population continues to grow, so do our numbers in our statistics. An example could be, there was say $10 million spent on security measures at airports 60 years ago and now there's $10 billion. Seems like a huge leap but not when you take into account, how many people traveled by airplane 60 years ago, the number of airports, etc. compared to todays numbers. You have to keep the number relative to the changes. Also, not sure where you got the half million per scanner, most I've read is 250k or less.

Every year, advances in technology are promting more and more equipment to be added to the airplanes to improve safety. One of the more recent addition was the invention of TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). It can prevent mid-air collisions between aircraft in the event of an error upon air traffic control, a pilot deviation from there clearance, general aviation aircraft not talking to ATC, etc. The expense to install such equipment was up to several hundred thousand per aircraft. It will likely never be used in nearly every aircraft and mid air collisions are extremly rare but the money was spent to equip nearly EVERY commercial airplane flying. Probably Trillions of dollars. Here's another stat, three F-22 cost us a billion dollars right now, three.

Anyway, I think we'll both agree to disagree here. I couldn't care less if they add the body scanners. Definately not going to jump up and down over it. Big deal, they make me wait a little longer. That's life, you wait, you wait in traffic, you wait in line at the grocery store, you wait at the bank, the doctor, the drive through. And so what it cost some money for this equipment. Your banks put it in the CEO's pockets or the marble floors in the entry way. The gov't needlessly spends money in much larger quanities and worse places then in the airports in my opinion. It hasn't even been determined if our tax dollars will pay for these scanners or if it'll be the airport and in turn you the customer. Nothing I can do but live in the world and go about my life paying my taxes and trying to follow the laws of the land whether I agree with them or not.

[Dubious]

here is a tought

there is nudist airplanes, so why not demand that u strip before going on the plane and eventually put on a diaper

all clothes u have in the luggage in the crago bay, nothinging allowed inside the plane

[d_drew12]

Would you really want to see everyone on your plane naked. Think about it. Maybe 1 out of 20 would be someone that'd be good looking naked. You'd have a few hairy obese guys, old saggy ladies, and whatnot on the plane too. Kind of like a nude beach. Sound like it's going to be a day at the playboy mansion but it's typically far from it. Bad idea.

[anned]

I am a DL and a nudist and i have no problem showing off my diaper.

I would make sure it was thick and wet. but it would be fun getting a reaction from the TSA people.

Oh by the way years ago i was a federal security officer on a navy research base so if they ran my name that would get them a interesting background printout as i had a very high security clearance.

I can bet i would embarrass the TSA person enough they would be beet red.

[curiositykilledthecat]

World full of useful idiots. Where does the quest for the ill-conceived notion of 'feeling' safe end?

[d_drew12]

I don't get the obsession with some of the people here wanting to piss of, humiliate or get reactions out of the TSA? Do you REALLY think they care? Must live a boring life if your thrill is to get a rise out of a TSA employee at the airport.

As far as the whole "feeling safe" thing goes curiosity, the quest ends when you feel safe. What?, you've never felt unsafe in a situation before? All the other times you didn't feel unsafe, you were escentially feeling safe. I have a security system at my house, pretty basic, nothing real fancy. Feel safe having it. I don't need the security system of a bank vault for my home in my neighborhood to feel safe but just some added peace of mind for when I'm home and not. If I lived in a worse neighborhood, I'd probably ramp up my security system a little bit to feel safe in that setting. Might cost a little more but I'd have peace of mind knowing I feel safe in that neighborhood. Could I still get robbed on the basic or upgraded system, sure, I'm sure it could be done, I could probably tell you how knowing my own system. Now, if I did get robbed, I'd probably immediately upgrade the system and plug all the holes in it so it'd be better then before to prevent a repeat incident. It'd cost more money but until it happens and your level of safe goes away, typically, myself or anyone else in this situtation probably didn't want to spend the extra money to upgrade at the time because the threat level was low and you felt safe with what you had. It all changes once your systems been breached. Now I'll spend the money. Same thing is kind of what happens at the airports.

Unfortunately as in many things but I'd say especially aviation, their rules and regulations are all written in blood. Escentially, something had to happen that cost lives for something to change. The panty bomber didn't cost any lives but the body scanners have been trying to get in the doors of airports for a while now and this incident pushed the door open for these to be installed. The majority of people wanting them now to try and prevent future incident like this from happening and they're willing to pay for body scanners now but they maybe weren't before this incident. People aren't willing to spend tax dollars on things they don't feel are necessary until it's been somewhat proven necessary. No different then an intersection getting a traffic signal after there's been a number of fatalities at it. If the city proposed a traffic light costing $5 million for the intersection and there's been no accidents at that intersection, it's going to be hard to get the money to do so. As soon as some guy pulls out infront of someone by no one elses fault of but there own and dies, suddenly the town is pissed there's not a light at the intersection and now suddenly people are willing to pay for the light to prevent future accidents.

I'm not a big fan of "knee jerk reactions". However, I know for a fact I'm guilty of it and I'm sure almost everyone is including the gov't. Say you ride motorcycle without a helmet, you crash, bang your head, the next day you buy a helmet and wear it. I've said it, "not doing that again" even though it may have worked 99 out of 100 times for me but the 1 time scared me so I change my way, whatever it maybe. The problem the gov't faces and I'm glad I'm not in charge is your damned if you do, damned if you don't. To do nothing is not what the public wants to see being done when it comes to the panty bomber, to do something pisses of a whole other crowd but as it's typically said, majority rules and people want something to be done to prevent stuff like this from happening again, so we live under what the majority of people want. That's everyday life, majority rules, it's what we all live by.

[Babby_Jeremy]

Well enfant, it seems like you have it all figured out so why don't you become the head of airport security and talk to your gov't officials about implimenting your plans.

A billion dollars gets tossed around in the US all the time especially in the aviation industry It's really not that much money anymore in todays standards especially when like here, you're spreading it out across a nation. With sooooo many people in the world or just in the US even, billion this or that happens all the time. It's like the Austin Power movies where Dr. Evil asks for $1 million dollars thinking it's a lot, it was in his previous era but not today and everyone just laughed at him. As the population continues to grow, so do our numbers in our statistics. An example could be, there was say $10 million spent on security measures at airports 60 years ago and now there's $10 billion. Seems like a huge leap but not when you take into account, how many people traveled by airplane 60 years ago, the number of airports, etc. compared to todays numbers. You have to keep the number relative to the changes. Also, not sure where you got the half million per scanner, most I've read is 250k or less.

Every year, advances in technology are promting more and more equipment to be added to the airplanes to improve safety. One of the more recent addition was the invention of TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). It can prevent mid-air collisions between aircraft in the event of an error upon air traffic control, a pilot deviation from there clearance, general aviation aircraft not talking to ATC, etc. The expense to install such equipment was up to several hundred thousand per aircraft. It will likely never be used in nearly every aircraft and mid air collisions are extremly rare but the money was spent to equip nearly EVERY commercial airplane flying. Probably Trillions of dollars. Here's another stat, three F-22 cost us a billion dollars right now, three.

Anyway, I think we'll both agree to disagree here. I couldn't care less if they add the body scanners. Definately not going to jump up and down over it. Big deal, they make me wait a little longer. That's life, you wait, you wait in traffic, you wait in line at the grocery store, you wait at the bank, the doctor, the drive through. And so what it cost some money for this equipment. Your banks put it in the CEO's pockets or the marble floors in the entry way. The gov't needlessly spends money in much larger quanities and worse places then in the airports in my opinion. It hasn't even been determined if our tax dollars will pay for these scanners or if it'll be the airport and in turn you the customer. Nothing I can do but live in the world and go about my life paying my taxes and trying to follow the laws of the land whether I agree with them or not.

TCAS is not that recent. It's been deployed for almost 20 years. We'll never know how close they might have come, but in 20 years I have seen TCAS play a role in preventing two A/C from getting too close nearly a hundred times; and read about TCAS preventing hundreds more near-miss situations. As for airport security, you're right, it doesn't work anywhere near what they want want you to believe and we're wasting Billions on it.

[Repaid1]

This is a Email I received:

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at the airports. Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you.

It would be a win-win for everyone, and there wold be none of this crap about racial profiling and this method would eliminate a long and expensive trial. Justice would be quick and swift.

Case Closed!

[curiositykilledthecat]

Epic WIN!!!!!!

[Missy Q]

I just don't fly anymore. v v

They've made it such a hassle to even fly a short distance that they've lost a paying customer.