Deseret News | House passes Chaffetz amendment limiting 'whole body' imaging

Reader comments
House passes Chaffetz amendment limiting 'whole body' imaging

Hitting home | 5:33 p.m. June 4, 2009

Isn't Chaffetz the guy that said we need to get rid of all illegal immigrants- even putting them in concentration camps- oh sorry Tent cities- in order to protect our borders?
Now along comes something that keeps our country safe but has a direct impact on his life he is against it?
Sounds like someone doesn't want his personal space invaded but doesn't mind racial profiling people and locking them up in inhuman ways.

Jpjazz | 5:50 p.m. June 4, 2009

The representative is wrong on this issue. The reason for screening is to detect hazards being carried by terrorists and not to inconvenience the everyday traveler. So we finally have a device that can do just that, only to hold it off the market for fear that someone will expose their body contour to TSA employee trained to read such images.

The same reasoning would limit whole body scanning in health clinics where a physical image is actually saved and printed. Are we afraid that some sleazy technician might distribute such images or look at them in an unseemly way?

Where will Rep Chavitz stand when it's revealed that a repeat 9-11 disaster could have been averted if we only had used the equipment designed as a result after years of research and millions dollars?

Please, let's use the technology available before we regret the consequences.

This is great | 6:09 p.m. June 4, 2009

I'm so glad that I have the option NOT to go through this machine. It sounds to me like a win win situation for everybody.

Comments continue below

arc | 9:04 p.m. June 4, 2009

This is the right answer. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. There are other methods that will and do work.

Congratulations Rep. Chaffetz. You just showed you don't have to be there 12 years to get something done.

viking | 5:34 a.m. June 5, 2009

I travel through Moscow, Russia, often and they have these scanning machines and they are great! There used to be long lines to get out to the airplanes and now there is very little delay. No removing shoes or anything. I am sure the technician monitoring the machine does not care about seeing someone "naked". Preserve a line for me to be scanned in the US.

Nice going | 8:09 a.m. June 5, 2009

Chaffetz. This is the right balance of safety and privacy rights.

Ragin' Cajun | 8:23 a.m. June 5, 2009

TSA is another BIG-government spending sham. Their sole purpose is to instill the traveler with a false sense of security.

If a terrorist really wants to blow up, high-jack, or commandeer an airplane...this machine will not stop them.

It is only for calming Joe-Q-public.
--------------------
"It's all about the economy, stupid!" - Jim Carville.

disgusted with the stupidity | 8:35 a.m. June 5, 2009

I can't figure out why these machine have to show a body image. If something is detected, why can't it be displayed on a stick figure? This technology and the programmers are as dumb as rocks. I'm a programmer and could solve this problem inside of a week.

Anonymous | 8:35 a.m. June 5, 2009

We can torture for our safety, he wants to kick out the Mexicans for our safety but please, please don't look at me "naked". It's fine when it's used for those other people. I'm surprised he didn't suggest it be used in all the other counties except America.

Utah Lady | 8:46 a.m. June 5, 2009

A win for decency. Thank you, Chaffetz!

Agree | 8:49 a.m. June 5, 2009

Rep. Chaffetz used good common sense with this bill. Full body scanning as the first-line is indeed an invasion of privacy.
Secondary or Tertiary would be a more appropiate application.

Man of Steel | 8:54 a.m. June 5, 2009

Of course, Superman with his X-ray vision would be exempted, wouldn't he?

to utah lady | 9:07 a.m. June 5, 2009

A win for decency doesn't matter a whole lot when a plane blows up does it.

Helen | 10:04 a.m. June 5, 2009

I have 2 artificial hips and would welcome a simpler screening method. As I understand the scanning process, it's very impersonal, and the TSA worker viewing the scan is in a separate room and does not see the person being screened. I would have no objection at all.

Utah Lady | 10:06 a.m. June 5, 2009

Invading my privacy does not protect anyone. To stand for decency and good moral judgment is always a good thing.

Another Utah Lady | 10:22 a.m. June 5, 2009

I'm fine with the purpose behind it (I appreciate airport safety), but I'm with Disgusted @8:35. Why show detailed images of our naked bodies instead of stick figures? Men already stare at my chest with clothes on which isn't flattering. I can only imagine what the nasty airport guy is doing in that back room. If I wanted everyone in the airport to see what I looked like without clothes on, I'd just walk through the line naked and save everyone the trouble.

OH well. | 10:41 a.m. June 5, 2009

This was the closest I was going to get posing nude. I am disappointed. Now only my wife will get to see me naked, sorry world.

lima | 10:56 a.m. June 5, 2009

Personally, I feel sorry for the TSA agent in the room reviewing the images. Darn few of those images would be pleasant to look at. The images are not saved and there is no way to identify them. I hope the Senate has more sense.

to utah lady | 11:11 a.m. June 5, 2009

"invading my privacy does not protect anyone"
Well actually it does.
"To stand for decency and good moral judgement is always a good thing"
Where was this arguement when we tortured for safety.

Re: Hitting Home | 11:31 a.m. June 5, 2009

You are one of those freaks that enjoys spreading lies about others. You justify it to yourself and others by inserting a tiny fragment of truth, but you've altered it to the point it is just an assault on another persons character. Shut up.

Why not stick figures | 11:53 a.m. June 5, 2009

Hey. Good idea "Disgusted"! Why not stick figures? Seems like a great solution. Knock Knock, Is anybody home, TSA?

Soul | 12:22 p.m. June 5, 2009

I see TWO solutions:

First, the FAST lane using the new imaging devices to get through airport security. It is intrusive but quick, conveinient, and safe? Cost less??

Second, the SLOW lane using the old method with fewer lanes. It worked for 8 years, no need to fix?? Cost less??

Authorities should give passengers these choices and they will gravitate to the lane of their choosing.

I think that is the desired outcome. Effective and cost effective security checks. And less money to operate too???

Run a pilot test program to find out the people's preference?

lost in DC | 12:33 p.m. June 5, 2009

I wonder how many commenters criticizing Chaffetz have also posted comments critical of many of the steps bush took, saying they infringed on our rights. you can't have it both ways, folks. if chaffetz is a hypocrit for pushing some security measures but backing off on this one, so are many of those commenters. I don't see how wiretaps on calls to foreign countries placed by non-citizens is an infringement of my rights, but making me basically go nude through airport screening is not.

This was a dumb bill.... | 1:00 p.m. June 5, 2009

I fly a lot and if this scanner means that I can leave my shoes, belt and jacket on, not have to use that disgusting gray tub that doesn't get cleaned - EVER, or walk on an equally dirty floor to put my shoes back on, while hopping on one foot, get dressed again, put on my jacket on while keeping track of my purse and camera/laptop so someone else doesn't grab them, then run to my flight because the idiot in front of me can't read the instructions before hand, that have been in place for 7 years, then by ALL means, bring the full body scanner on, let someone see my image, like they will remember ME! If it gets me through security faster I'm all for it! Have you been through customs at JFK at 5:00 p.m., what a NIGHMARE, this would be wonderful thing, think you flying people! Doesn't Chavitz have to take off his shoes like us normal American flying public do?

Anonymous | 2:33 p.m. June 5, 2009

Chaffetz is really afraid that others will see him for the small person with the big ego he really is.

Hatuletoh | 2:35 p.m. June 5, 2009

The TSA has a failure-to-detect rate on weapons of about 35%. Meaning that a little more than a third of the time when an undercover officer attempts to get a gun or a knife or a simulated explosive on the plane, he or she succeeds. As much as I'm sure they'd love some cool new toys, they can first fulfill with a modicum of competency the important task assigned them, and prove they can effectively utilize 40 year old technology, and some simple common sense (and a basic level of courtesy) before we spend a single cent for new toys. Some of the screeners can't even tell, after all this time, what a quart sized bag is. And what is the rule on shoes? No one seems to know. Must EVERYONE take off their shoes every time, or can some not under certain conditions? Why don't the people charged with enforcement of these pointless rules even undertand them themselves? Why do we as travellers tolerate this waste that does nothing to keep us safe?

As you can probably tell, I fly regularly. Consequently, I detest the TSA. Incompetence embodied.

NL | 2:46 p.m. June 5, 2009

Let the person make the choice. I fly 80,000 plus miles a year and have knee and shoulder replacements. The full body scanner takes only a few minutes and does not require a pat down. I have no problem with the system, it is my choice to use it. Why all the fuss the traveler makes the choice.

lost in DC | 3:06 p.m. June 5, 2009

what seems to be lost on many making comments here is what NL is asking for, that the traveler have the choice. those who had read the article and didn't just use the headline as a chance to cheap-shot Chaffetz would have seen that THE TRAVELER HAS THE CHOICE whether or not to go through the nake-u-fier.

WatchDog | 6:13 p.m. June 5, 2009

Our 4th Amendment:

"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, and the persons or things to be seized."

WatchDog | 6:15 p.m. June 5, 2009

The comments in this thread tend to ignore the above amendment and its meaning. The issue is not about nudity, it's not about taking off the kids shoes either.

It is about the fact that we have caved in on fundamental civil rights given to us by the amendment above. We are under NO obligation to allow anyone to treat us, as citizens, like suspects - or terrorists.

We are under NO MORE threat today than we were before 9/11. Sure, we will always have the Tim McVey's among us. We intentionally chose to live with those threats until 9/11.

WatchDog | 6:16 p.m. June 5, 2009

Now, we seem to cower in fear and then as a result of that fear, choose to harass our citizens - when the threat to which we are responding came from foreigners who did not belong here in the first place! It amazes me that we can be so dumb as to believe that harassing our citizens instead of kicking out the foreigners, ridding ourselves of illegal aliens, holding employers and our political leaders accountable for their insane behavior, is the obvious solution to the problem brought upon us by 9/11.

If we are not willing to fight for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we do deserve to lose them!

The problem, people, is NOT our citizens, it is our foreigners!!!!

You know you're extreme | 6:57 p.m. June 5, 2009

...when the right gets so extreme that it meets the left extreme. Did you notice that this bill was endorsed by the ACLU. I've decided extremism doesn't get us anywhere. Chaffetz is extreme and this bill is a waste of time.

student | 7:41 p.m. June 5, 2009

WatchDog i agreed with your last string of comments until you began to get too nationalistic. The problem is not just people from other countries. That is an ignorant thought. In america we have the same crime rate as anyother nation around the world. And most of the terrorist attacks on america has been performed by its own citizens. So we shoud stop blaming everything on the 'foreigners' because they are just as human as we are.

student | 7:51 p.m. June 5, 2009

addressing 'You know you're extreme'
i find myself disagreeing with every single statement you make.
I dont know why an endorsment by the ACLU is a negative thing. They are an organization which is set up to protect our constitution. This seems like a noble thing to do considering americans pride themselves on being the land of the free and the brave. They try to make us free...aka a good thing.
Thats why i appreciate this bill. it is trying to make us free from unreasonable searches.
next statement that is flawed is the one about extremism. Yes extremism does get us light years ahead. that is the motivation behind all change in the world. that is why we ended slavery. why america broke away from england. and why we arent stuck in the dark ages.
so now with your comment i can start to like Congressman Chaffetz.

re; Student | 8:25 p.m. June 5, 2009

Maybe you should go back and study a little bit more history and look at where extremism has taken countries. Our education system must really be flawed.

tigerlily | 11:29 p.m. June 5, 2009

it's an invasion of privacy and if others want to use it they can

Jane | 10:35 a.m. June 8, 2009

I think that Congressman Chaffetz has come up with a reasonable amendment by having the imaging as a second level security check. If those with artificial limbs, for whom the imaging is more convenient and/or preferred, had the option to choose it as a first check, that would be acceptable to me, but I don't like the thought of imaging as the new security for everyone. I agree that it is an invasion of privacy. If it could indeed be done on a stick figure or a generic figure, that would be okay too.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.