Comments about ‘Security or peep show? Airport tries new scanner’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 10 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Unbelievable

I don't know if I should be more scared of airport threats, or of security officers looking into my underwear.

hmm...

If it can't see through a pair of pants, what's the use? Either the pants were added to the image to calm our fears about privacy, or the technology is a waste of money.

Cosmo

Re:hmm; The image is false. These scanners strip you "NAKED". This is all P.R. razzle dazzle, and is being used to prep the People, for Electronic Chains of Slavery. Amazing that Utah is one of the first,to bow down, and submit to this perversion of technology. For you so called men, your wife or daughter is being stripped searched, right before your eyes, and you stand by like a stupid Slave, and do nothing. Those that operate these machines are sick and perverted. Oh, and the best part is, these pictures are dumped right away.... Ha Ha ,it is to laugh. These pictures are to be filed away, and I am sure they won't show up on the internet. Wink Wink, Nod Nod!

no way!

I have SEEN passive millimeter wave technology scans/pictures. To say you don't see every nook and cranny of the person's body is a lie. You can see how much hair there is: if they shave their pubic hair, you can tell, and you can tell how much.

There are a lot of security people who have been using this technology for a while. I have seen it used in a police cruiser, pointed at the sidewalk. From the outside it looks like a standard radar gun, so nobody can tell. On the inside, it's sort of like watching a group of nudists walking by on a small, sort of grainy, black-and-white tv screen.

You see their belt, wallet, cell phone, etc. If they have a knife or other weapon, you can see that, also. But you can also see his 'danglies,' how hairy his chest is, how large her chest is, what, and if, she shaves (or if he shaves), etc.

I rarely agree with the ACLU

but this time I do.

"The ACLU's official position is that the body scanners should not be used as part of regular screening of travelers but can be used in place of a body cavity search, only when there is probable cause for such searches"

This seems to me to be the correct use of this technology.

Even more

If it can see through any of your clothing, do you think it wouldn't be able to see through your bra? I don't want my wife going through that thing!
When will they decide it will be enforced on everyone?
It seems like I'm going to take more roadtrips in the near future.

in favor

Of course it is "better than a metal detector", it can detect weapons made of ceramic and plastic. The advantage that I see is the potential for a reduction in screening personel. A remote operator could evaluate scans from several security lanes. In addition, there is no longer a reason for the screener to be on site. Screening could be done from a remote city. We could operate the carry on viewers in a similar manner. This would allow a smaller isolated crew the advantage of working more efficiently in a reduced stress environment without the inherent on site distractions. Finally a way to modernize and reduce this government agency.

Seriously?

I would walk through the stupid line naked if it meant I could get through security faster. Who cares if a computer can generate a semi-clear image of what's under your clothes. I will be taking this line every time if it moves faster. Plus, I imagine I won't have to get the wand and extra searches like I usually do as a very large, bearded man.

Tom

I'm all for security but this seems to me to go way overboard. I don't want anyone scrutinizing my sweetheart like this. The answer, don't fly. I can't shake the notion some idiot will figure out a way to abuse this system to our detriment. Wand me, pat me down, do whatever you want but keep your eyes off my wife.

Tenderheart

We can believe the government's promise that images will never be saved, that faces will be blurred, and that images won't show anatomical details just as much as we can believe the promise they made that Social Security numbers would never be used for identification.
We have lost our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches and to be secure in our persons, papers and effects. These freedoms were won at great cost in the lives and fortunes of our ancestors and we are throwing them away for the illusion of security.
May God have mercy upon our great country and forgive us for concentrating on entertainment and vanity while our hard-one freedoms slip away unnoticed by the majority of our citizens.

Fat lady walking.....

Okay, this shouldn't be funny, but to me, it's hilarious! Oh, not the outright lies about the technology but the fact that they are going to see MY naked body. Serves them right! Hope they can distinguish fat right along with hair. I'm fairly sure I'll be their punishment.

ROFLOL!

After I'm done laughing...then we can address the invasion of privacy which is obvious.

tigerlily

as far as i'm concerned they ae doing too much to late.

The real victims of this device

are the security guards. Think about it, would you want to work in an environment where you're forced to see nude images of the general public? I'm guessing it wouldn't be a pretty sight (to quote Senfield: "Have ya been to the Motor Vehicle Bureau? Its a leper colony there").
So airport administration, be kind to your employees, and stop contributing to a hostile work environment.

Calm down everybody

I believe the images most of you are worried about are for the machines used in Australia and England. The images shown in this article and elsewhere on the web with people holding their hands up are clearly what is produced by the machines used in the US. They don't show much if any detail of the bodily features.

Plus, you have to realize that the person watching the images is only getting a maximum of about 30 seconds to look at the image. During that time, he/she is only going to really have time to look for anything that might appear to be contraband. They won't have time to study every bodily feature.

lost in DC

Cosmo, we're not the first - these machines have been in operation if Phoenix for quite a while now. I would suspect the dems in charge of homeland security are the ones behind forcing it on Utah before so much of the rest of the country - Salazar has already fired the first shots in BO's vendetta against us.

that being said, I wonder how many images they had to get through before they found one as non-revealing as the one they showed? They had one on channel 2 Sunday night and you could definitely see male genitalia. I've read other stories about these things where the designers and other experts say you can make out drops of sweat. So what if they obscure the face - would you pose for a porno magazine with a bag over your head? Yeah, I know some of you would, but most of us would not.

When these things become mandatory, I'll kiss goodbye to my 300,000+ airline miles and start taking the train. If they become mandatory in train stations, I'll start putting a lot more miles on my car.

A true capitalist.........

like myself, would see this as a money making opportunity. I can see someone starting a website selling t-shirts and undergarments with witty sayings on them.

Come on, the TSA job is fairly mundane. Some clever phrases on your underwear just might give them a chuckle, and make them a little more pleasant.

3 seconds is the problem

Who cares if they can "see" you in the scanner. 3 seconds per person is too long for regular screening. The ACLU has it right, if for incomplete reasons--this should be used in place of cavity searches. Of course, Muslims, etc., who's women can't be seen by others will have an issue with it. And I agree with "real victims," above, that it would be no picnic to see 90%+ of travelers "naked." Old, fat, misshapen, ugh. Special training required.

Get over it

Signs tell travelers they don't have to participate and TSA officers are also instructed to tell people it's voluntary. "They'll be able to opt out and go through another lane,"

It is not mandatory. I wouldn't mind if they were mandatory if that mean that plastic weapons would not slip through security.

Give me a break, you all get naked for you shower every morning, who cares if some security guard gets to see you naked. He won't be able to distinguish who you are. You will be a nude among hundreds for him.

0802

Sure, its voluntary now, but it won't be down the road. Just another sign that America is no longer the land of liberty. Just another socialist state heading toward fascism. But hey, its for our own protection, right?

Anonymous

I think that I would volunteer to go through that machine. I see nothing wrong with it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments