NEW AIRPORT XRAY MACHINE AND PRIVACY

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ORCABOMBER@May 23 2005, 10:09 PM
Well, I suppose it's the price paid for personal safety, a lack of personal privacy.

[post=313993]Quoted post[/post]​

this has nothing to do with personal safety. it's not about saving lives; it's about saving face. the government is perfectly aware that it is powerless to prevent determined, organized terrorist attacks.

 

[dolf250]

I had an x-ray done of my wrist over the weekend and I noticed one thing; they gave me a lead apron to protect the “boys.” If I recall correctly x-rays are not very good for a reproductive system and may lead to deformities and other such problems. How good would it be to be a business traveler passing through 5 or 6 of these machines each week? I’m sure that they are “perfectly safe” according to both the government as well as the manufacturers, but then again, so was falidamide.

I also feel that somebody ought to point out that el-al airlines have not had an incident with a hijacked plane since 1969. The terrorists’ lack of success, I am quite positive, is not from a lack of trying, but rather good security. I am also quite sure that they did not have these x-ray machines to help them maintain their record over the last 25 years. Perhaps rather than relying strictly on technology, as we so often do, we should look at what a country that has dealt with terrorism for a generation has done to secure its skies.

 

[Irvy]

Surely the rendering software used for this could be altered to isolate the "body" parts of theimage, and simply not show them? This would leave just any suspicious objects floating in nothing.

In essence, this scanner means that every person going to get on the plane is strip searched before they get on. If this was done physically, there would be groups up in arms about it. How much will we allow to be done to us under the auspices of "well, if it's for my safety, ok then"?

As I said in the thread about comfort levels, I'm not shy or bothered by people seeing me naked. However, I have a problem with an airline saying that they must see me naked before I can board their plane. I'm afraid I'd have to insist that all their cabin crew were naked throughout the flight, if that was the case.

 

[malito]

The SOP (standard operating proceedure) requires that screeners NOT remove or allow to be removed any prosthetic device.
It also fobids the passenger from having to leave their wheel chair if they do not want to.
They are instructed to assist any and all persons through the walk through metal detector.
If any passenger feels or is humiliated in any way contrary to SOP then get some names. Those screeners should not be doing the job!!! Because they are not doing the job!!!
The whole screening process is an inconvenience, though a necessary one. It should never be a humiliating one!!!
You can request a private screening at any time and it should be offered everytime.

 

[jay_too]

malito..

Thanks for the clarification on SOP for screening. However, I wonder that if one asked for or demanded "special" processing, they would not have the same experience that the ex-Republican Congresswoman had last spring when she asked to see the screening regulations. Yep, as I remember, she was pulled aside for special attention and questioned for a couple of hours. She missed her flight and ended up driving to Denver.

Maybe we need a special ombudsman for air travelers. Someone to call with authority to sort things out.....make sure that SOPs are being followed.

jay

 

[jay_too]

Dolf..

As I remember the info from a biophysics class four or five years ago, radiological injury of either celluar or genetic components is a function of the number of ionizations caused by an x-ray passing through the body. Hard x-rays [high energy] produce relatively few; they pass through the body unimpeded. Soft x-rays, on the otherhand, produce more ionizations along thier paths; in the absence of shielding, soft x-rays are potentially more harmful. So what do the new scanners use? Why, soft of course! "All the better to see you with," the big bad wolf told Little Red Riding Hood.

Radiological exposure causes mutations, early cell death, suppresses the immune system, yada, yada. Yea, it is associated with birth defects and the big C.

jay

 

[jwc1978]

Originally posted by ORCABOMBER@May 23 2005, 10:09 PM
Well, I suppose it's the price paid for personal safety, a lack of personal privacy.

Rather communist, no?

[post=313993]Quoted post[/post]​

I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:

"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."

 

[Papa Kork]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+May 23 2005, 11:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; May 23 2005, 11:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ORCABOMBER@May 23 2005, 10:09 PM
Well, I suppose it&#39;s the price paid for personal safety, a lack of personal privacy.

[post=313993]Quoted post[/post]​

this has nothing to do with personal safety. it&#39;s not about saving lives; it&#39;s about saving face. the government is perfectly aware that it is powerless to prevent determined, organized terrorist attacks.

[post=314082]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
The screening that is done at airports to passengers is not a x-ray. They are metal detectors and not x-ray. The only x-ray machines that are used are used on carry on luggage that the passenger wants to carry on the plane. The TSO uses a sniffer unit that simply checks the luggage for explosives and does not use x-ray either. So if you go through the screening process at an airport, you are not subjected to and x-ray machine. Only your carry on luggage passes through this machine and it is on a belt and the rays can only pass through objects that are in your luggage. The machine thatyou walk through does not use X-rays. Again it is a metal detector machine and uses magnetics to operate. This is a very small price to pay for your safety and the safety of the other passengers and crew. The crew members pass through the same procedures that the passengers do. Their luggage and personal carry-on luggage is also screened. I have worked at most of the major airports and most of the military bases and the measures are indeed necessary to insure the safety of everyone. I get screened and I welcome it. I have nothing to hide. Traveling on an airline is one of those things that we take for granted. The airlines have responsibilities to every passenger and not to just a few. I have friends and buddies that use a wheelchair and they welcome the close inspection of their gear. Who knows if that person is really handicapped or if they have explosives inplanted in their prosthetics or body. They all welcome the security check and do everything possible to aid in it&#39;s execution.

 

[dolf250]

Careem;
From what I could gather from the posts, this is about a new machine that is being tested in select airports and is not just about a standard metal detector. I traveled a number of times and have no problem with passing through a metal detector. (O.K.- when I flew to New York I was wearing my steel toe garrisons and set off enough stars above the detector to raise a few eyebrows and cause the security personal to all look in my direction. ) Anyhow, some bars employ them along with certain government offices and court houses. I do not think that anybody is objecting to a simple metal detector. People are objecting to an x-ray machine being used indiscriminately on passengers in the name of safety.

Originally posted by jay_too@May 24 2005, 05:15 PM
Soft x-rays, on the otherhand, produce more ionizations along thier paths; in the absence of shielding, soft x-rays are potentially more harmful. So what do the new scanners use? Why, soft of course&#33;

[post=314226]Quoted post[/post]​

Jay- it’s good to know that they are at least concerned enough to use the best (and most harmful) machines that they could find.

 

[dolf250]

Originally posted by jwc1978@May 24 2005, 07:38 PM


I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:

"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."

[post=314273]Quoted post[/post]​

I love that one of the best and most relevant quotes for the times in which we live was written all those years ago. Thanks&#33;

 

[geist]

didn&#39;t they do that one the movie "airplane"?

 

[Bananaman]

Originally posted by dolf250+May 25 2005, 12:25 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dolf250 &#064; May 25 2005, 12:25 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jwc1978@May 24 2005, 07:38 PM


I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:

"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."

[post=314273]Quoted post[/post]​

I love that one of the best and most relevant quotes for the times in which we live was written all those years ago. Thanks&#33;

[post=314465]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Ditto&#33; In spades&#33;

B-man

 

[KinkGuy]

If I actually thought any of the grandstanding and showboating by the Fed&#39;s would really curb or prevent aircraft terrorism, I would gladly strip down in the middle of the airport. However, it is ONLY the flying public being subjected to "advanced security measures." Our ports are wide open. US mail carried on the very same aircraft with strip searched passengers is only rarely if ever screened; parcels and air cargo fly unchecked on virtually all passenger aircraft. And your checked baggage is loaded unscreened as well at hundreds of airports. Security my hairy, traveling ass.


Edit: And let us not forget the amazing security of our open borders.

 

[Papa Kork]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 25 2005, 01:35 PM
If I actually thought any of the grandstanding and showboating by the Fed&#39;s would really curb or prevent aircraft terrorism, I would gladly strip down in the middle of the airport.  However, it is ONLY the flying public being subjected to "advanced security measures."  Our ports are wide open.  US mail carried on the very same aircraft with strip searched passengers is only rarely if ever screened; parcels and air cargo fly unchecked on virtually all passenger aircraft.  And your checked baggage is loaded unscreened as well at hundreds of airports.  Security my hairy, traveling ass.


Edit: And let us not forget the amazing security of our open borders.

[post=314582]Quoted post[/post]​

I am not sure about every airport however, I do know that Continental Airlines does screen every piece of checked luggage before it is put on the plane. The TSO opens every bag, inspects it for anything suspicious and also uses the machine that checks for explosive chemicals. The carry on luggage that passengers carry on is then run through the X-ray machine before it is carried on. I am not aware of the new so called X-Ray machine that will X-Ray the entire body. This certainly would cause health concerns and I am sure the ACLU would be on top of that with more than one lawsuit. We all know the tragic outcome of lax security (911) and hopefully someone is trying to do something about it. As stated before , I work at airports and do know the seriousness of security and all the procedures that are being carried out. Hopefully something will be invented to keep the terrorist off of airplanes and out of airports. Until then, we will just have to pay the price for safety.

 

[EFH33]

Originally posted by Gdmuscle@May 22 2005, 06:45 AM
After watching a news story on the new Xray machine they are running a field test on in selected airports. It has left me disgusted at how the airline industry is allowing such a device to screen passengers for safety reasons. The problem with the machine is that not only does it give you a higher dose of Xrays it actually strips your cloths away layer by layer to see what&#39;s underneath. Imagine security watching you as the machine strips away your cloths front and back. Sure it can outline weapons and other devices that can be concealed under clothing, but how about other things we hide under our clothes. Sure many of us with large penises don&#39;t mind sure we&#39;d leave most of the security guards with mouths wide open. But how about some of us that are modest and like to only share our naked bodies in privacy and with someone we&#39;d rather be with? How mature can the screeners be, and how can we know that they are doing their jobs like their suppose to do and not use us as their amusment? Think about it, your body is totally outlined for they say a man for a man and a women for a women, but who&#39;s to say that man isn&#39;t sizing you up too? Tell me what you think and tell me if this is something that you&#39;d avoid getting into?

Gdmuscle.

[post=313563]Quoted post[/post]​

In the interest of safety I really don&#39;t care if it outlines my body layer by layer. Living in NY on 9/11 I can tell you it was the most horrible experience I have ever had, and if this is another way to keep those psychotic jerkoffs from doing that again, so be it.

 

[EFH33]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 25 2005, 06:35 PM
If I actually thought any of the grandstanding and showboating by the Fed&#39;s would really curb or prevent aircraft terrorism, I would gladly strip down in the middle of the airport. However, it is ONLY the flying public being subjected to "advanced security measures." Our ports are wide open. US mail carried on the very same aircraft with strip searched passengers is only rarely if ever screened; parcels and air cargo fly unchecked on virtually all passenger aircraft. And your checked baggage is loaded unscreened as well at hundreds of airports. Security my hairy, traveling ass.


Edit: And let us not forget the amazing security of our open borders.

[post=314582]Quoted post[/post]​

If you feel this way then don&#39;t you think this is a good thing? I agree with you, but the way they got us the last time was by hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. I&#39;ll do whatever they ask me to if it means my safety.

 

[ashlar]

Blah. It&#39;s just become another reason to get us used to not having any of our freedoms anymore. As long as the gov&#39;ment sticks the word "terror" in, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want.

 

[txquis]

mmmmmm......i&#39;ll give up some freedoms......
most of us who were in NYC on 9/11 would say the same....

My worry is that the government can&#39;t keep us safe anyway,
.........barefoot and naked-on-screen,
and still unsafe. (sigh)

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by jwc1978@May 24 2005, 07:38 PM
I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:

"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."

[post=314273]Quoted post[/post]​

and reminds us that we are not the first in the U.S. to face death and injury while going about daily life. Death, injury, and torture in colonial and the early national periods were if not common at least a possibility. Yet, they persevered.

Maybe I need to rethink my position.

jay

 

[txquis]

I dont think freedom at the airport gate was the freedom Ben Franklin was talking about.

I lost people on 9/11, so I dont like to think we would sit
and do nothing about homeland security.

However, the fatalist in me says that searching a few people
a day isnt making a difference at the airport anyhow and what is going to happen
is going to happen.

As usual, i can see both sides of this.
I see the urgency for more security but i see the futility of it as well.

I&#39;m not saying any of this very well.