Security or peep show? Airport tries new scanner

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • age: 15 Gender: Female
    May 30, 2009 3:57 p.m.

    I dont think the way grown-ups do in this category, your taking this a bit too far. You 40 year olds have (or so I believe) enough maturity to take this serious as a way to prevent another 9/11 from happening. But of course it wont happen to Utah, so why take the precautions? Lets just stick to the more primitive technology in an effort to become a target.. Think it though a bit more. It is a great idea.

    I can handle myself whether or not you men, who can bench 200 or what ever, think so. Woman not defenseless, and strength is not physical. Dont be as perverted to think that keeping eyes off girls will help history anymore then it has for thousands of years. Yes. We are here and thus going to be seen. Dont though a blanket over me in an effort to keep me innocent from the world Thats what true perverts do (just look around the world for proof).

  • tired of wimps
    March 18, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    When are YOU PEOPLE going to stop whining about rights? You have the right to opt out! Air travel is not a right, it's a luxury. I would like to see how expedient your business meetings and wasteful spending on taking your precious brats to Disney would go if the government said fine, the heck with you, no more flying for anyone except military flights. After all it's not like we're at war with merciless suicide bombers or anything.

  • Bea
    March 14, 2009 5:35 a.m.

    It's too bad all you folks with hip replacements, metal plates, etc, have bought into the TSA's false dichotomy: "either we will grope you or we'll see you naked." There's a third, much better alternative: abolish the TSA. It is nothing but make-work for McDonald's rejects. Remember that politicians, not security experts, foisted it on us after 9/11. Absolutely no research substantiates any of its premises or policies. And it costs us $6-7 BILLION every year. Abolition is the only answer to this totalitarian boondoggle.

  • aRC
    March 13, 2009 9:31 a.m.


  • The Real Solution
    March 11, 2009 8:09 p.m.

    Just a follow up to those who commented that the idea of letting law abiding citizens carry a gun on board an airplane. Just the fact that folks like the terrorists would realize that they might find some resistance would deter them from trying to cause trouble. In cities and states where there are lots of folks with concealed weapons permits, violence is down because criminals realize they might find resistance. We always have our worst problems when the government disarms the law abiding citizens.

  • Real American
    March 11, 2009 2:11 p.m.

    I can't believe how many "Calm down" ... "It's not mandatory" ... "It's needed to protect us" ... comments are posted here. Airport security is an illusion. It's never been very effective. So are we that gullible to believe the TSA's fear rhetoric and voluntarily surrender our constitutional rights? Air travel, even with just plain metal detectors, has been safer than automobile travel for decades. No metal detectors stand between me and the bus, subway, Trax, or Amtrax. This is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but it's especially egregious because it's completely unnecessary. Be an American. Stand up for your constitutional rights, even ... especially against our own government.

  • Founding Fathers
    March 11, 2009 9:45 a.m.

    "Stop the Whining" you have no idea about the bigger picture here. Read the whole blog and check your facts about 9/11. Those people would have still done what they did. Their 'weapons' were brought on in bags and luggage because security wasn't paying attention. This is a violation of our rights and if we allow this without a fight the government will continue to take away the rights that we allow them to take away. Wake up and see what is going on. TSA, HOMELAND SECURITY and ICE all operate as a result of 9/11. Read your Consitution unless you don't care about the history that makes America great.

  • Metal Plated
    March 10, 2009 8:02 p.m.

    Oh lord, I just had a metal plate put in with my surgery, I know I am going to beep everytime. Great, I wonder what I would look like on this Scanner????

  • Cosmo
    March 10, 2009 7:16 p.m.

    Re:DMH; I fully understand your concerns, as I have an artifical hip, and carry that worthless card from
    my surgeon. However I will not submit to this depraved concept at all, of being stripped search.
    My Father did not endure the hell of WWII in the Pacific,along with my humble service in the military to be subjected to this perversion. If the People say no more to the patdowns along with this "Nude Scope", then what are the tyrants going to do? They will do exactly what YOU allow them to do! If the Airlines start losing revenue, so do the Tyrants.
    I have been building those aircraft for 25 years, and believe me, the airlines, and government would have cows, if the people would quit acting like a bunch of wimps.

  • Stop the whining
    March 10, 2009 6:46 p.m.

    This new technology used at airports to peer through clothes to detect prohibited items seems to cause quite a commotion.Why imagine, using our tax dollars to do this to us. How dare they ! I mean why attempt to protect us at all, we don't need them risking their lives everyday to try and protect us from being amongst the thousands that died on September 11,2001. You would think we were at war with a group merciless killers or something.

  • RE: workreallybites
    March 10, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Actually your facts are wrong.

    A bullet hole in a plane is NOT dangerous, it does NOT depressurize a typical large passenger plane,

    in fact virtually nothing happens at all.

    you need a fairly big hole before ther is any danger.

    And an imaginary situation where dozens of people are shooting, is silly at best.

    And nothing but fearmongering.

    your "facts" are just plain wrong.

  • privacy screening
    March 10, 2009 4:33 p.m.

    if you are ever selected for a pat-down, you can demand a privacy screening. don't put up with being fondled in public.

  • DMH
    March 10, 2009 3:38 p.m.

    My husband has a very large metal plate in his left leg and every time we fly, we go through the biggest hassle with security over this. We have a doctor's note about the plate and we show it to security first, so they won't be suprised that the metal detector, but it doesn't seem to matter. The only airport security that has been very nice about this is Salt Lake International, but let me tell you the other airports out there, have asked my husband to actually strip, so they can see the scar before they believe him, or me about his plate. We have gotten to the point where we don't even want to fly anymore, so if these body scanners were in every airport it would be very beneficial for my husband to fly, and he would rather be scanned fully clothed, than have to take off his clothes just to pass through security.

  • Brad Pitt
    March 10, 2009 3:26 p.m.

    Pictures of me going through this thing will be on TMZ in a week.

  • I may...
    March 10, 2009 3:04 p.m.

    go along with it if they play the song, "Bust The Move" while I'm being scan.......LOL!!

  • Jenny Craig
    March 10, 2009 2:41 p.m.

    Lose some weight if you are worried about the scanner. I never agree with the ACLU

  • Founding Fathers
    March 10, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    Everytime we give in to these types of POWERS we give up more of our rights. I saw the news report on tv last night and I will tell you right now the guys "package" while not in color was very clear and obvious to see. It was disturbing knowing that they have the notion that it is their right to do this to protect our rights. Read the Constitution and then comment.

  • re: The Real Solution
    March 10, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    Yeah, allowing people to pack heat while they're packed in at close quarters in a flying metal cylinder for hours on end is a fabulous idea.
    There's absolutely no way a situation like that could end badly, especially if an argument ensued over who got to sit next to the window.

  • workreallybites
    March 10, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    "I think I would be worried if the world's greatest marksman were trying to kill the terrorist sitting next to me on a plane. Having 20 minimally trained civilians shooting in my direction is unthinkable. Not to mention the damage to the plane"

    Real Solutions are you serious? What could go wrong with 20 law abiding citzens taking aim in your direction to take our the terrorist. Lets say they all pull off 3 shots each. Thats only 60 bullets. I highly doubt your life would be in danger. Sure ive taken pilots lessons and I know one bullet going through a pressurized plane can and will bring it down. But what is the chance? 60 bullets? Im positive none of them will miss the target and all of them will not go through and through the terrorist and out of the plane or into your brain. Why are you so worried, seriously what could go wrong in that scenario?

  • to The Real Solution at 12:04
    March 10, 2009 12:50 p.m.

    "We should allow regular, law-abiding citizens to carry loaded weapons on board an airplane. Then if a criminal tried to do something, 20 law-abiding people would stop him dead."

    I think I would be worried if the world's greatest marksman were trying to kill the terrorist sitting next to me on a plane. Having 20 minimally trained civilians shooting in my direction is unthinkable. Not to mention the damage to the plane.

  • to Conejo
    March 10, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    Good point!

  • lost in DC
    March 10, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    Anonymous 10:42, in what way have conservatives said provacy is not a right?

  • Conejo
    March 10, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    I disagree with the ACLU about 99% of the time. However, the fact that the Airport is going through a lot of hoops to calm the fears of the public over a supposed non-issue, says a lot to me. How is it the scan can see through a shirt but not pants and a bra? Does that mean if I wear a levi shirt they won't be able to see my belly? Why don't they allow cell phones with cameras if nothing is being shown? Why are they worried about storing the images if there wasn't anything to show? These policies wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't anything to show. BTW, if someone does walk through with a gun I sure hope they are able to store that image for evidence!

  • The Real Solution
    March 10, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    We should allow regular, law-abiding citizens to carry loaded weapons on board an airplane. Then if a criminal tried to do something, 20 law-abiding people would stop him dead. No more searches, just let the public protect themselves.

  • All In Favor
    March 10, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    I fully agree with Anonymous (1055am). My wife has had a knee replacement. If this keeps her from being PHYSICALLY patted down everytime she goes through security, then I'm all for for it. Being physically patted-down is MUCH more privately invasive than some TSA agent viewing an out-of-focus screen image for a few seconds of someone he/she does not even know who it is.

  • notJoeKing
    March 10, 2009 11:50 a.m.

    To: Benjamin Franklin | 11:08 a.m., AMEN!

    People, seriously, it's time to really step back and look at the whole picture. America WAS designed to be a great nation of the people, by the people, and for the people and WE as Americans have let it turn it to the idiocy you see before you: A bloated gov't with entirely too much power gambling away our future as well as that of our children for the sake of what? Security? Temporary gain? Oppressing the majority for the sake of the minority?

    WAKE UP! People fought long and hard to their dying breath for what we freely give away just to make a line go faster... Truly Pitiful.

  • observer
    March 10, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    The terrorists won. All we've accomplished with all this stuff is making life more complicated for the law-abiding. The criminal and terrorist element will always find a way around these kinds of things.
    Suspicion reigns. When they (airport security) pull my 85 year old uncle for "extra security," you know something's wrong here.

  • D -
    March 10, 2009 11:32 a.m.

    I'm in! As a female with a hip replacement, I would MUCH rather be scanned rather than having a TSA rep get touchy with me in order to get through the security checkpoint. My opinion, it's less invasive to have someone in a booth see all of me for a brief period of time than have someone touch and wand me while I stand inside a glass corral for all the airport to see.

  • Nothing will make us 100% safe!
    March 10, 2009 11:28 a.m.

    I'm tired of the irrational attempts to "make us safe." If we can justify everything this way, then what else can they take away from me? China, and N. Korea created a communist regime to make things perfect . . .

    I fly a lot, and I hate this invasive technology. It is abusive to the 98% of good people that fly. Somehow we think that the 2% should be able to abuse everyone else. When are we going to make the punishment harsher towards would be criminals? Why should all of the good people with bottles of water be threatened in an airport? Come on! Let's get some common sense!

    Flying is already more of a prison transport system -- where we assume everyone is guilty. It is so hard to travel. Hey, to "protect" everyone, why don't we put sleeping gas in the air on the planes so no one can act up while they are traveling?

    This has really gone too far! How much more do we give up? Are there really no limits?

    I beg for common sense. Don't let the very miniscule minority reduce us to machine like robots!

  • Yes
    March 10, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    I have been reading in the news about all the terrorist attacks using plastic and ceramic, haven't you?

    Every notice how the literally million dollar/per "explosive residue" scanner lanes sit idle at the airports? The ones that blow air on you and your clothes and analyze for explosive residue.

    They are so slow they are unusable so the millions for those were essentially wasted.

    This machine could however be used when a more extensive body cavity search is warranted. Besides that it use is totally unnecessary for routine travel.

    Since it is unnecessary you can bet our govt will be spending millions to install them at airports everywhere soon.

    The fact is the security NOW misses serious banned items all the time that are not plastic or ceramic.
    How do I know? Post 9/11 I accidentally took two knives on a plane in a carry-on. They were dive knives I use when scuba diving. I mistakenly put them in my carry-on suitcase vs. my checked bag. Did not realize until arriving in hawaii.

    I hope you have no illusion of security. It is all basically a big charade to instill confidence in the public.

  • Cosmo
    March 10, 2009 11:19 a.m.

    It is nice to know how many of you are groveling sheep. You should crawl on all fours, this will make it easy for your masters, to pick you out.

    Another point: I am quite sure that the "Nude Scope"will not affect unborn children and their mothers, along with nursing mothers. Also it won't affect those brave souls going through Chemo and Radiation treatments. No No.. nothing here for you Slaves to see... move along. Ba! Ba! Ba! and a nice Seig Heil!

  • Benjamin Franklin
    March 10, 2009 11:08 a.m.

    Shortly before February 17, 1775, I was to offer this proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, variations of it has been written, but I offer the following for your consideration: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  • Anonymous
    March 10, 2009 10:55 a.m.

    It is absolutely worth it. As a mature woman with a knee replacement, I am sick of being groped each time I fly. I was sent through this machine last month in Las Vegas. No big deal. No shouts of "Female assist.", No lifting my shirt and rolling down my waistband to show them my pants zipper wasn't going to bring down the plane.

  • Anonymous
    March 10, 2009 10:42 a.m.

    Conservatives have argued that privacy isn't a right. Doesn't the mantra follow the line that if you have nothing to hide way out let a government employee search you family jewels? Notice, the government is never happy without having the ability to strip you? This is an allegory of our times.

  • Question...
    March 10, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    What about people who have had knee or hip replacements? Of course they'll show up. So will this new technology do away with the time-consuming, obnoxious personal exams every time we pass through security? If so, it's well worth it!

  • lighten up
    March 10, 2009 9:46 a.m.

    If we had these machines and more security 8 years ago there would still be 2 towers and alot more people alive. Just like doctors these reviwers will be bored and (sometimes disgusted) seeing peoples junk evry day all day long. I'm all for safety. If your rights have a chance at putting me at risk, then don't fly.

  • Hatuletoh
    March 10, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    Sig Heil, mein air travellers!

    So all questions of privacy and dignity aside, has there ever, ever been an attack on a commercial aircraft that this sort of technology would have prevented? For example, the Sept 11 hijackers just stuck some razors in their bags and sent them through the X-ray machine. As usual, the TSA agent was dozing through his or her shift and didn't catch the threat (you've seen this if you've flown enough; I've personally left live ammunition in my bag and been permitted to board an international flight). So now we have this great new invasive technology that won't help one bit with security because really the problem with security are the humans, not the machines. But hey, OF COURSE the government is going to waste our money on fancy, liberty reducing toys that don't actually increase public safety. It's what they do.

  • Anonymous
    March 10, 2009 9:18 a.m.

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

  • 0802
    March 10, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    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?

  • Get over it
    March 10, 2009 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • 3 seconds is the problem
    March 10, 2009 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • A true capitalist.........
    March 10, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC
    March 10, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Calm down everybody
    March 10, 2009 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • The real victims of this device
    March 10, 2009 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • tigerlily
    March 10, 2009 8:20 a.m.

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

  • Fat lady walking.....
    March 10, 2009 8:19 a.m.

    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.


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

  • Tenderheart
    March 10, 2009 8:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Tom
    March 10, 2009 7:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Seriously?
    March 10, 2009 7:53 a.m.

    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.

  • in favor
    March 10, 2009 7:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Even more
    March 10, 2009 7:32 a.m.

    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.

  • I rarely agree with the ACLU
    March 10, 2009 7:28 a.m.

    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.

  • no way!
    March 10, 2009 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Cosmo
    March 10, 2009 7:24 a.m.

    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!

  • hmm...
    March 10, 2009 6:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Unbelievable
    March 10, 2009 6:50 a.m.

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