11 ms·
TSA Removes X-Ray Body Scanners From Major Airports
- crcsmnky 14y agoMaybe I'm just naive but it seems that if the TSA were significantly more transparent about how they deploy new screening procedures, US travelers would hate them a little less. Why not just say safety testing results were inconclusive and in the best interests of passengers we'd prefer a more efficient alternative? Meh, whatever. I'm still going to opt-out until I'm required by law to go through whatever contraption they have deployed.
- jemfinch 14y agoWhy should the TSA care how much US travelers hate them? Minimizing traveler ire does not affect their funding.
- cwb71 14y agoMaybe not in an immediate or significant way, but over time the negative public perception and constituent complaints might affect Congress come budget time. (Please don't downvote me for being naïve.)
- gknoy 14y agoA decade of people's ire seems to have done very little; unfortunately, there are a large subset of Americans willing to put up with it "to prevent terrorists" at all costs, and even more willing to be a sheep and just go along with it because it's more convenient. I'm one of the latter, frankly. I feel violated every time I go through airport security, and a little part of me cries inside every time I think about it... but if it means that I get to visit my family in an affordable manner, rather than losing two extra days of travel + vacation, I'll do it. I feel so much shame for admitting that.
- sukuriant 14y agoWelcome to part of the reason this system still remains in place. But I understand where you're coming from. I just opt-out. I don't mind the pat down. I understand what they're trying to do. I don't hate the agents for their work, they're just doing what they have to do to get money.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sologoub 14y ago""They're not all being replaced," TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. "It's being done strategically. We are replacing some of the older equipment and taking them to smaller airports. That will be done over a period of time."" In other words: "So, we have these machines that may be harmful and cause a PR disaster, so instead of doing the right thing (protecting people from harm, and all), let's move them to smaller airports, where it's much less likely to cause a stir." This is so messed up!
- ahelwer 14y agoBlatant speculation passed off as fact.
- moskie 14y agoHow about giving credit where credit is due? This shows that the situation is better today than it was yesterday. Yes, I know the ideal would be that all of our issues get resolved immediately. But how about we recognize that this could be a step towards that end?
- daeken 14y agoHow is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has actually done any good; it's just doing harm in a different place.
- HelloMcFly 14y agoIf something is harmful, I consider the situation "better" every time significantly fewer people are exposed to the harm. I'd rather have three backscatter scanners operating at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV than operating in Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
- zheng 14y agoOf course, if you live in Charleston, WV, then this doesn't really help you much personally.
- JagMicker 14y agoI went through security at the Dayton airport last year. I refused the L3 "body scanner" (backscatter) machine. The TSA worker asked me why. I told him I thought it was an unnecessary risk. He laughed and basically told me that I was wrong, and that the machine poses no safety risk. But I still opted for the pat-down. Shortly thereafter, the TSA issued a recommendation that backscatter workers wear "radiation badges" to monitor their exposure. Never trust manufacturers of security products (like L3) on their word alone...
- talmand 14y agoNever mind that having a person that stands next to that machine for hours on end wear such a thing is probably not a bad idea. It's the same thought behind an x-ray tech hiding behind the wall as they push the button. But you did give me a thought, it would be interesting to have several people who travel quite a bit to wear these badges to see how they turn out over time. For some people you have to show the danger, not just describe it.
- stfu 14y agoRadiation badges, now that sounds like a kickstarter I would get behind.
- potatolicious 14y agoWhy Kickstarter something you can buy on Amazon right now? http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determining-dosimeter/dp/B004VJ06CI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350669496&sr=8-1&keywords=dosimeter http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determ... To be more precise, there are also badges that are configured to change color once a dose threshold has been breached, and can provide a very precise dosage number if you send it into a lab. At the highest end you also have active dosimeters that can give accurate readings on the spot.
- rom16384 14y agoAirplane crews are exposed to more ionizing radiation than the rest of the population because at the high altitudes the planes fly the thinner atmosphere doesn't protect as well as when at ground level.
- marquis 14y agoI passed through one of the largest airports in the U.S. recently, being early and prepared to opt-out, and was pleasantly surprised to see the line moving faster than I'd seen it in a long time. Perhaps it's not just public perception but the very long waits this was causing.
- driverdan 14y agoBackscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight. The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously. X-ray, mm-wave, magic pixie scanners, I don't care what type they are, I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment (when mandated, staffed, and managed by the gov). I'll be celebrating when body scanners and other security theater is ended entirely. I'm not getting my hopes up.
- gallamine 14y agoPoison is about dosage and duration. The dose during the flight may be the same, but the duration certainly is not.
- bradly 14y ago> I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment Aren't you still being searched by hand when you opt out, though? It that much different?
- Karunamon 14y agoGiven the choice between getting felt up through my clothes and having a naked picture taken, i'll take the feel up every time. That, and I flatly do not trust these machines and who's administering them. It's a matter of when, not if someone (or lots of someones) gets a bad dose of radiation through these things.
- dp1234 14y agoAnd not just a naked picture taken. A naked picture taken of you and potentially stored on disk.
- tedunangst 14y agoIt's a naked picture of you that doesn't really look anything like you and contains no identifying metadata. Imagine if the last 100 naked pictures from Logan ended up on the internet. Would anybody be able to identify them?
- fjorder 14y agoI was rather encouraged by the headline, only to discover that instead of ripping out unnecessary security theater they're actually just wasting more money on new machines. Man do the companies making those things ever have good lobbyists! By screwing up they actually get even more business!
- mdc 14y agoI agree. I think this change is motivated by two things. First, it's a planned obsolescence by the manufacturers finally admitting a small health issue and offering a solution. Second, it's a move by the TSA to combat opt-outs and other pushback by providing the same privacy violations but now with slightly less cancer risk.
- cwb71 14y agoSo the TSA is saying “if something slows down the lines enough and costs us headcount, we will eventually make changes?” Sounds like a great argument to keep opting out!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- pnathan 14y agoMoney quote by the PR person. > The radiation risk and privacy concerns had no bearing on the decision, Castelveter said. /sigh
- rayiner 14y agoI find the people complaining about X-Ray scanners in airports as if they're some unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment to be a little bit silly. Where we're you guys in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when things like stop and frisk destroyed the 4th amendment for inner city minorities?
- zheng 14y agoPossibly not yet born (well, at least for the 70s/80s) and probably not of voting age.
- typicalrunt 14y agoI was not in the inner city and I was not alive/aware for the 70s and 80s (childhood innocence and all that). Just because we didn't stand up when it first happened, due to whatever reason, doesn't mean we can't be outraged.
- rayiner 14y agoCall me cynical, but if it didn't affect middle class white people I don't think there would be much outrage. As it is, the outrage is totally disproportionate to things like stop and frisk. Searches in high risk areas like airports seems less offensive to me than searches of people who are just walking around their own neighborhood, but you don't see middle class people complaining about the latter. Indeed, I wonder how much of the outrage is because the TSA is so ineffective. People seem to be pretty on board with how techniques like stop and frisk have helped bring crime rates in the big cities down dramatically over the last few decades.
- gfodor 14y agoPeople get upset about things that negatively affect them directly. As opposed to stop and frisk, which for many people does not affect them directly, and many feel might positively affect them indirectly. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying it's strange to be surprised by it. It's even a stretch to call it hypocritical because you are talking about two types of situations.
- jpdoctor 14y agoLet's see: Michael Chertoff was head of the TSA, oversaw the decision about the safety of the scanners, and held a financial interest in the company that made the scanners. Sounds legit, nice work Mike.
- markbao 14y agoDigging into this turned up this Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/11/23/fear_pays... Rapiscan (the scanner subsidiary of OSI) rebutted the claims: http://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/the-checkpoint/article/the_real_story_rapiscan_and_the_chertoff_group http://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/the-checkpoint/article/the...
- bcoates 14y agoThe Huffington post claims Chertoff's company was doing undisclosed public PR for Rapiscan's equipment in The Washington Post, etc. misrepresenting the capabilities of their equipment, which the WP partially confirmed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12... Rapiscan denies that they hired him to as a government lobbyist, so they're very specifically denying something other than what they're being accused of.
- emidln 14y agoThe name of the company that makes the scanners is actually called Rapiscan? How did I miss this?
- mh- 14y agodunno, I try to point out that irony every time I'm in line there..
- mikeash 14y agoExtremely misleading headline. The body-scanning machines are being replaced with newer body-scanning machines.
- majorlazer 14y agoAsked about the changes, John Terrill, a spokesman for Rapiscan — which makes the X-ray scanners — wrote in an email, "No comment on this." Rapiscan? Could they have chosen a worse name for their company?
- MattSayar 14y agoThey're going for "rapid scan," not what you're thinking of. Still terrible either way.
- hack_edu 14y agoThe most frustrating part of all this is the astronomical cost of the defunct X-ray scanners, and now the cost of their replacements :(
- listic 14y agoIs metal detector a different thing from full body scanner? In Russia they have installed metal detectors (I believe) on entrance to suburban and subway train stations. Of course, with the huge amount of traffic the police officers simply cannot inspect every person who rings positive, so they just ignore the detector altogether.
- sukuriant 14y agoVery different. "Backscatter X-ray is an advanced X-ray imaging technology. Traditional X-ray machines detect hard and soft materials by the variation in transmission through the target. In contrast, backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that reflects from the target. It has potential applications where less-destructive examination is required, and can be used if only one side of the target is available for examination." from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
- Tipzntrix 14y agoOne small step for mankind....and one giant leap for privacy
- lsiebert 14y agoFrom the article, "The Transportation Security Administration has been quietly removing its X-ray body scanners from major airports over the last few weeks and replacing them with machines that radiation experts believe are safer."
- Zigurd 14y agoThere should be plenty of time to test them now, to see if they are dangerous, and to see if they were correctly calibrated while they were deployed. Right?
- linuxhansl 14y agoI never went through one of these and will never go through one. I rather get a pat-down. I'm not that concerned about the health effects... This is a matter of principle. Everybody knows the security theater is just that... a theater. No need to participate in it any more than necessary. 9-11 by its very nature can never happen again. It could only work once, because the passengers still operated under the assumption that as long as they comply they will get out of this alive. After 9-11 this assumption is no longer valid and hence passengers will no longer comply. This, btw, is exactly what brought the 4th plane down. Some of the passengers heard what happened over cell phone and then decided to do something about their own situation. Edit: The usual spelling corrections.
- krickle 14y agoIt's infuriating that we have to buy tickets to the play from the manufacturer. The whole thing is a study in unethical business practices.
- gasull 14y agoRight on time for the presidential election.
- autodidakto 14y ago"... but the TSA has not confirmed which ones" and "No study comparing the two machines' effectiveness has been released. The TSA says its own results are classified." ... who do these people work for?