Experts: Naked Scanners Will Miss a Lot of Things

[Guest]

All i have to say is

TERRORISTS WIN

 

[extremepcs]

Lawsuits waiting to happen from the TSA / airport staff running the machines. I assume they use some form of radiation, and I doubt being near one for 8+ hours a day can be good for you. They used to have x-ray machines in shoe stores in the early 20th century, so one could see how their foot fit in the shoe. The shoe store personell were exposed to way too much radiation and got sick. They ended up banning the machines.

 

[Guest]

ErikO 06/15/2010 12:27 PM: "...a small stick of dynamite..." "She'd just look like a well hung dude..."

Your standard for a 'well hung dude' is minimal.

 

[NuclearShadow]

I personally do not mind myself going through them. I'm not worried about privacy concerns when it comes to my body. I lost that concern ever since basic training. But I can understand and respect those who do not feel the same.

As for weapon detection and security goes I do not think this should be a alternative method used but rather a extra one on top of everything else if it is used at all.

I however believe that all of this is simply a paranoia reaction that in the end does little to no good. Ever since 9/11 people live in fear which now can be seen as unwarranted.
The 9/11 attack was done by hijackers while armed with box cutters they were still heavily outnumbered and could have easily
been stopped but the people had no idea what their plan was so they complied. Today if they try to hijack a plan of any significant size they are doomed to fail because they would simply be overrun. As far as airport security measures go it seems to be generally worthless in the end as we only get stories of terrorists failing on board with bombs rather than them being caught before hand.

I personally would be more concerned about terrorists obtaining and using modernized AA weaponry. This would enable them to easily shoot down a large aircraft which civilians board while in mid-flight with the attack happening from the ground or even the sea.

 

[CTT]

"As for weapon detection and security goes I do not think this should be a alternative method used but rather a extra one on top of everything else if it is used at all."


This. Physical security is the same as network security, layered defense is the only way to go.

 

[gm0n3y]

I've been saying for the last 10 years that there is no need to improve security on airplanes. You are 10x more likely to be killed driving to the airport than on your flight. If we just went back to the security levels we had in the early 1990s, our flights would be 25% cheaper and we would be just as safe.

 

[Parrdacc]

There is no such thing as a fully secure or for that matter fool proof system. There is always a way around or through it. Most of the time it just comes down to making a system so that wards off attackers that the attackers themselves view as not worth the trouble.

 

[blurr91]

Maybe we should do something radical...like...focus on the people who are likely to be terrorists instead of scanning all those people who aren't?

Profiling works.

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]Flying Next Week[/nom]I find this article to be highly inaccurate in relation to the current state of security technology.I feel very confident getting on a plane that I am indeed secure.[/citation]
I don't feel comfortable flying anymore. They have gone nazi over this whole 'terrorist' crap. If someone really wanted to kill me, they'd just do it.
For me, it's more dangerous going to work and back because of traffic.

 

[Guest]

This scanner is pointless and is just an extreme measure. Those with personal modesty find this abhorrent and this can be abused- what some staff did in an terminal.
Society needs to uphold persons own respect and self belief

 

[h2o_skiman]

There are additional risks in that we do not scan or check what actually goes on the plane.

Two ounces of a liquid agent/explosive might cause little damage. But nothing stops 50 terrorists (headed for different destinations) from carrying small amounts through the security check point. They can meet, pass along and combine all the small amounts for one person to carry aboard.

What was once a carry-on with clothes when going through the security check point could be filled entirely with explosives or chemical agents when boarding the plane.

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]h2o_skiman[/nom]There are additional risks in that we do not scan or check what actually goes on the plane.Two ounces of a liquid agent/explosive might cause little damage. But nothing stops 50 terrorists (headed for different destinations) from carrying small amounts through the security check point. They can meet, pass along and combine all the small amounts for one person to carry aboard. What was once a carry-on with clothes when going through the security check point could be filled entirely with explosives or chemical agents when boarding the plane.[/citation]

Despite people thumbing you down you actually have a point there. It would be very costly and time consuming for the terrorists and failing would be a disaster for them as it would lead to many sleeper cell arrests. But it is a plausible scenario. They wouldn't even have to contain the liquids in the luggage it would be possible to hide it within their bodies like drug smugglers.

This could be made real easy for terrorists to find their other sleeper cell contacts as they could all simply have cell phones like a iphone to get large picture of whom they are suppose to meet up and pass it along to.

It would take a very good planner to get it right with flight timings and avoid suspicion. I guarantee you if this was more of a intelligence agency than terrorists just doing it as a test to see if it would work they would no doubt succeed.

 

[hoofhearted]

Will they scan children too? I can see the pedos lining up for security jobs now.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]ErikO[/nom]All I can say, if it works - use it.You'd be cursing your scepticism as you head the ground in a ball of flames...[/citation]

Whoever is willing to give up privacy for a false sense of security deserve neither.

 

[steve999]

Let me see if I have this right.

2 million passengers per day (in the US only) for the past 9 years (since 9/11) equals about 6.5 BILLION passengers.

One nut tries to blow up a plane with explosives in his underwear which failed. (BTW: You can’t put enough explosives in your underwear to down a plane) and now OUR GOVERNMENT wants to strip search or physically pat down all AMERICAN travelers at a cost of billions of dollars.

Nobody has been killed by terrorists on an American aircraft since 9/11!

Odds: 1 in 6.5 billion ? or less? the bombs didn't work!
Powerball 1 in 40 million?
State lottery 1 in 14 million.

I'm 465 times more likely to win the state lottery, than to be killed by terrorists on a plane!

WHAT ARE OUR LEGISLATORS SMOKING?

Billions to strip search Air Travellers? Teachers all over the country out of work?
Cities & Towns going bankrupt?

What about the 300,000 killed in car crashes in the same period?

What's wrong with this picture? Anybody see it like me?

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]steve999[/nom]Let me see if I have this right.2 million passengers per day (in the US only) for the past 9 years (since 9/11) equals about 6.5 BILLION passengers.One nut tries to blow up a plane with explosives in his underwear which failed. (BTW: You can’t put enough explosives in your underwear to down a plane) and now OUR GOVERNMENT wants to strip search or physically pat down all AMERICAN travelers at a cost of billions of dollars.Nobody has been killed by terrorists on an American aircraft since 9/11!Odds: 1 in 6.5 billion ? or less? the bombs didn't work!Powerball 1 in 40 million?State lottery 1 in 14 million.I'm 465 times more likely to win the state lottery, than to be killed by terrorists on a plane!WHAT ARE OUR LEGISLATORS SMOKING?Billions to strip search Air Travellers? Teachers all over the country out of work?Cities & Towns going bankrupt?What about the 300,000 killed in car crashes in the same period?What's wrong with this picture? Anybody see it like me?[/citation]
+1

My sentiments exactly. This is another instance of the government putting money where they can get votes, not where its actually needed.