New security machine sees everything..

[shaft]

Here's a picture of how cute you will look going through security with a nice six-shooter tucked in your back and pound of narcotic tucked in the bread-basket.
http://www.rapiscan.com/images/Secure_f.jpg
What do you guys think? Ditch the drugs and the arsenal, and then hit the local Jenny Craig? That's what I thought. Oh no wait a second... you now have cancer so who cares about how fat we look??? I'm still undecided on this topic.

 

[I.P. Freley]

Low-Level Radiation

I don't object to the scanners on principle, but I do object to the idea of being subjected to "harmless low-level radiation" on a daily basis. I don't buy the "harmless" part... And this says nothing of the effects on the SCREENERS. Beware radiation, any amount of it...

 

[jaybird]

Husband: Honey does this gun make me look fat?

Wife: It's not the gun that makes you look fat. It's the fat that makes you look fat.


Alright, I'm not gonna pick on this guy anymore.

 

[ifly4food]

IFF Quote :
"We need to stop this madness. I have gotten used to the stuff we have now, but this new system is too much. A deffinite invasion in privacy IMO. "

How is this an invasion of privacy in your opinion? It is an xray machine, not xray nudity glasses. Ever seen an xray of the hips and pelvic area? All you see is bone. Unless, your full of die so they can see other areas. Everyone has been screaming about new security measures that need to take place and now no one wants them or they are not politically correct.

Now that you've seen the pix, I'll let you take that back.

"Also, what of the effect of those "low dose xrays" on those of us who pass through security more than the average person who travels once a week or less? What about those who have medical conditions or crewmembers with pregnancy? "

I would rase this question myself, but I think we half way have to trust that someone has already done testing to see if they are dangerous. I'm not one for sitting back and just believing they are safe or just believing the govnm't, but I'm sure there is documentation to show that the rad levels are acceptable. Lets not get too freaked out about this "new technology" just because it is new in this capacity.

I don't trust the "We're here to help you" FAA to be looking out for my safety any more now than I did before 9/11. Especially when it goes out of their area of expertise. They couldn't care less about the long term effect of additional xrays on crews. That's not their job. They just want one more security level.

"I don't see this catching on. I hope not."

I don't think it matters if it "catches on". Did metal detectors ever "catch on"? NO. It was just policy.

By "catching on" I meant widespread implementation. I hope it is never implemented in its present form. It IS an invasion of privacy.

Would you rather be xray'd or hijacked?

Let's see. To hijack me they'd have to get a weapon through the current metal detectors and "random" searches. Then they'd have to get through the reinforced cockpit door. That's assuming someone even wanted to.
They've done the "airplane thing". Terrorism is all about fear and surprise. It wouldn't have the same effect twice so they will try something else.

Come on IFly, you usually have more of a solution to a problem than just complaining about a system.

Solution: Accurate profiling (not blanket profiling like the present) and computer databases to weed out suspects. "Face identification" technology currently available to the FBI installed at checkpoints. Competent screeners, not the same Argenbrights working for the government. "Smart Card" universal identification systems for crew members. Need I go on?

There is nothing wrong with the present metal detection and bag xray systems. They just need to be used more effectively.
Unfortunately, fear from 9/11 is being used to force in a new system that will take away even more of our privacy and dignity. The crews will be most affected because unlike the passengers, we have no choice but to fly.

We as Americans need to stop basking in fear and isolationism from 9/11. We need to stand up for our rights. It is a classic situation for a nation as a whole to come under martial law when the people cry out to be "secured" by the government. The only way to be 100% secure is to have no rights of privacy.

Yes, I would rather take a minimal risk of being hijacked than give up these rights.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Anyone thought abought one of the real problems concerning smuggling weapons on to aircraft? Inside help! Ya, the same way the hijackers got their box cutters. Someone planted them on the aircraft prior to departure. Hence, the reason the crew has to do security checks! So how are all of these new machines going to stop would be hijackers when none of the rampers, cleaners, or food personnel are not required to go through them?
Additionally, the low dose radiation used in these machines is less that the amount of radiation you would get from going outside in the sun for a couple of mins, but I understand the point. Personally, I could care less as I have nothing to hide but I dont think the machines will fix the problems.

 

[aero99]

IFF,

Yes, I spoke before I saw the pics. I have removed my foot from my mouth.

You mention the "smart cards". These are actually already being used in corporate capacities (beta versions)for security within companies. With the card the employees can access any company computer as if it were their own computer. They just swipe like a credit card and wa-la. The problem is cards can be stolen. So, they are trying to interface a fingerprint security feature in which the owner of the card has to be the one swiping with his/her finger on the fingerprint recognition pad. The card actually has a microchip inside to figure all this out. The brain balls behind all this see all Americans using these cards in the future for one universal ID. It can be used as your drivers license, passport, credit card, banking, secure areas, etc....

Would be a great devise if they can figure out how to get everyone in the US to use one. Maybe the airline industry will pick up on it once it is out of beta.

 

[AWACoff]

As far as I know, the hijackers did NOT have inside help smuggling box cutters onto the aircraft. Box cutters were LEGAL to carrier onto aircraft at that time.

Did you hear the one about the ground crews that smuggled ice cream sandwiches onto the hijacked planes. Apparently it's Islamic militant tradition to have ice cream sandwiches before joining the 20 virgins.

 

[need2AV8]

Hmmmm.....

Hey, if these airport screeners can see what I look like naked, perhaps they'll see fit to give back my tweezers!?

 

[dav8or]

Anyone thought abought one of the real problems concerning smuggling weapons on to aircraft? Inside help! Ya, the same way the hijackers got their box cutters. Someone planted them on the aircraft prior to departure. Hence, the reason the crew has to do security checks! So how are all of these new machines going to stop would be hijackers when none of the rampers, cleaners, or food personnel are not required to go through them?
Additionally, the low dose radiation used in these machines is less that the amount of radiation you would get from going outside in the sun for a couple of mins, but I understand the point. Personally, I could care less as I have nothing to hide but I dont think the machines will fix the problems.

Saw a food handler in CYOW go through security. She took all the boxes of drinks off the cart and put them through the machine, but they just rolled the cart through with out takeing a look at it. Hell there could have been a RPG under it. But they still made me take my flash light out and turn it on, I feel safe now

 

[waka]

SDD,
"First the democrats had to make them federal employees, which makes them more powerful and impossible to fire....."

The federalizing of security screeners was a republican idea. It was the typical knee-jerk republican reaction.

 

[InHot]

Uh, I don't think so...

Hey Waka,

Go back to school and take a civics course... and then take away this concept:

"The democrats like Big Gov't, the republicans don't."

President Bush was in favor of the gov't providing oversight of the airport screeners, the Senate Democrats wanted (and succeeded in getting) the screeners federalized.

This quote is from an Aviation Week and Space Technology editorial, 12 Nov 2001:

The thorny issue in the dispute between House Republicans and the Senate, expressed in the airport security bills passed in each chamber, is whether the passenger and baggage screeners will be federal employees or work for private contractors. The Senate bill, passed by a vote of 100-0, would mandate a federal workforce. The House measure, passed by four votes, would keep the contractors...

...If a compromise that truly sets improved security above all contending considerations--such as political bickering--cannot be reached quickly, President Bush should call the argument to a halt by saying he wants to sign the Senate bill to federalize airport screeners. Sure, that would be a reversal in his position, but he himself has said acting quickly is what matters most, and he would be admired for his statesmanship. While we have not yet taken back the skies from the fear of terrorists, resolving the airport security bill quickly will be a step in the right direction.

Questions?

 

[skydiverdriver]

Thank you inhot. It's actually kinda funny to me, that when the liberals come up with stupid ideas, and then after they don't work, they blame the people who tried to tell them the truth. Oh well, I guess since the media is so liberal, not many people will find out the truth.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Waka, just like the above post, the republicans did everything that they could to keep the screeners from being Gov employees. The reason being, is that it almost takes an act of congress to fire one. So if you remember (which you probably dont) there were stipulations put in place to be able to fire these individuals if need be without the normal Gov employee red tape.

 

[waka]

InHot,

Sorry pal. The "Democrats like big gov't and Republicans don't" cliche is just partisan rhetoric from right wing spin meisters and is not part of any civics course. Sure, the Democrats have been propenents of wasteful gov't programs but, so have the repubs. It is just that the repubs have been for different programs and your repub spinmeisters have tried to disguise them as something else. History is full of examples of government absues from BOTH sides. To suggest that efficient gov't is exclusive to republicans and wasteful gov't is exclusive to democrats is abject nonsense. I don't buy into what is spoonfed to you by Limbaugh or whomever it is that you depend on for your politics.

Now, why don't YOU let your politics be determined by your OWN thoughts instead of letting them be spoonfed to you?

Ernest Hollings(D) AS WELL as John McCain(R) of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation drafted S1447 which covers federalization of screeners. McCain was quoted saying that he and Trent Lott(R) discussed federalizing screeners and how he would propose it to Hollings (the committee chair) before it officially went into committee.

 

[ifly4food]

Allow me to make an observation...

InHot,
I don't buy into what is spoonfed to you by Limbaugh or whomever it is that you depend on for your politics.

Now, why don't YOU let your politics be determined by your OWN thoughts instead of letting them be spoonfed to you?

Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with someone else here, they assert that the other's ideas are "not thier own" or "spoonfed" by some extremist faction?

People are allowed to disagree. They can even form opposing viewpoints on their own. Just because they dare not to agree with your viewpoint doesn't make them unable to think for themselves or ignorant or even wrong. It just makes them different. You don't win a debate with personal attacks, you win it with supported facts.

I fear a nation where people are discredited for questioning the majority party in its government or for espousing viewpoints that are politically unpopular. I fear when these individuals are repeatedly pushed to the fringes as "wackos" or extremists. I recall reading about something similar happening around 1945 in the Soviet Union.
Is this where this nation is headed? We all march in lockstep to the same party line, Waka? I hope not.