Full Body Scans

[Conan71]

Olberman interviewed the former chief of security for El Al. an airline that's faced terrorist threats for far longer than we have.  One thing they do is to interview every person before they board.  He said that security personnel approach passengers as they wait in line at the ticket counter.  Anyone suspicious gets secondary screening, but he didn't specify what that entailed.

Now, it's tempting to say this could lead to racial profiling, but at the same time it may be a better approach than our gadget-based one. 

Of course he didn't elaborate. People in the intel community still understand why you don't let enemies know what you look for to foil their attacks. American politicians and bureaucrats would do well to heed this.

As well Israel does engage in profiling. They put the need to protect their citizens above the fear of offending someone. Its a fact that profiling works in preventing crime. If profiling becomes such a burden to Islam, then perhaps that will bring about pressure from within to jettison radicals who are fomenting terrorism from their ranks.

What are we trying to accomplish with enhanced airport security post 9/11?  Are we trying to make air travel safer or trying to foster better relations by appeasing Muslims via TSA?  We pat down blue-haired women while we give a pass to those who are far more likely to commit an act of terrorism.

[nathanm]

Conan, the thing you're missing is that basing your security on profiling opens you up to further avenues of attack. A completely random screening system (as in selection for extra screening is totally random) can't be defeated by testing the profile. The adversary cannot just send lots of people through security and see which sorts of people are more or less likely to get secondary screening.

[Conan71]

Conan, the thing you're missing is that basing your security on profiling opens you up to further avenues of attack. A completely random screening system (as in selection for extra screening is totally random) can't be defeated by testing the profile. The adversary cannot just send lots of people through security and see which sorts of people are more or less likely to get secondary screening.

I simply don't see it that way.  You treat everyone equal in the screening process and pay particular attention to those who fit the profile of of terrorists. 

It seems to be working quite well for the Mossad and ISA.

Until yesterday I was unaware that airport managers had the option of using private screening companies or TSA.  I hope TSA gets booted from the majority of airports and eventually disbanded.  There was never a need to create an entire new agency as private security could have been brought up a notch or two with Federal supervision.  TSA was most definitely a FAIL in the Bush legacy.  DHS overall is a huge joke under Napolitano.

[guido911]

Found this "show my you prosthetic breast" story on Drudge.

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

Drudge is taking a fairly in depth look at stories of TSA pat downs.

[Hometown]

I want machines to scan and analyze every creature and every piece of cargo that enters our public transportation systems and every transportation system that has access to the United States.  I want every commuter on every train every day routinely scanned as they enter the system.  I do not want fallible and prejudiced human beings making flawed judgment calls.  The days of privacy (as well as smuggling) in our public transportation systems is coming to an end.   We will adjust to the new order as we have adjusted to the fact that there is no real privacy on the internet or in our various computer systems.  Remember that poem ... All watched over by machines of loving grace.

[nathanm]

TSA was most definitely a FAIL in the Bush legacy.  DHS overall is a huge joke under Napolitano.

You can blame Congress for that one, Bush reportedly didn't want a new agency. The fear was that the private companies would be focused more on saving money than effective screening. Properly implemented, TSA wouldn't be such a joke. Unfortunately, as it stands it seems to attract idiots and power trippers who can't get a job as a LEO.

Also, arguing against statistics isn't the wisest of battles to take up.

There is a limited amount of secondary screening one can do with the funds available. If you're busy secondarying people who fit a particular profile, all a terrorist organization has to do is find someone who doesn't fit the profile and they're less likely to get an intensive screening. They get an essentially unlimited number of tries in which to evaluate the system before attempting to smuggle contraband through the screening.

Of course, there are far easier ways to get contraband airside than through the security checkpoint...

TBH, I don't know why I'm even going this far to defend our present security practices. They're utterly stupid. The procedures we had pre-9/11 were perfectly sufficient. The only reason the attacks worked was that box cutters were allowed, cockpit doors were flimsy, and passengers had been trained for a long, long time to wait out a hijacking. None of those are the case today. That attack would be highly unlikely to succeed, so now we worry about bombing, which we had been dealing with reasonably well since the 70s.

The supreme irony in that is that we're doing our best to avoid finding bombs. Richard Reid's shoe bomb would have been caught by an ETD portal. What did we do after his attempt? We stopped using ETD portals and started X-Raying shoes. pancakes? The backscatter x-ray machines can't tell if you're carrying a bomb in your rectum. An ETD machine would likely detect traces of explosives.

Moreover, our long lines make a great soft target. The only reason I can see that nobody has bothered to exploit that is that we're doing a good enough job frakking ourselves up for al-Qaeda to feel the need to make any major effort. Why bother doing hard work when half-assing it works just as well at whipping us into a frenzy?

Edited to add: Thanks, Admin, for changing the swear filter.

[Conan71]

I think that's been the point missed all along:  No one would have ever dreamed of a box cutter or straight blade being used to disable a couple of pilots before 9/11.  You could have a razor in your carry-on as well as screwdrivers, a small pen knife, nail clippers, etc.

When I was a manager in the chemical business, I had an open territory in Memphis which went un-filled for a few months.  We had existing accounts in the MEM area which had to be serviced on a regular basis or they could cancel our contract.  So I had to take with me a chemical reagent kit to do testing.  I had thorium nitrate, two different percentages of sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, silver nitrate, hexavalent chromium and a few other nasty reagents.  All in about 2 oz bottles.  Plus I had a screwdriver kit, channel locks, pen knife, a small UV light ballast and probe which were used to digest a particular reagent, etc.  I never explained any particular hazards of any of the reagents as there really weren't other than if you got them in your eye or purposely ingested them.  They were all very low percent active, but I did keep MSDS sheets in the box just in case.

It was a good sized tackle box.  I flew Northwest on a Saab 340 turboprop and would gate check the kit to keep it from getting upset by baggage handlers as there was also glassware in it.  IOW, I used to be able to go through security with that thing plus a lap top.  If I tried that these days, I'd be spread-eagle on the ground in no time.

After awhile it got to be a PITA to have to explain the whole thing to the security agents at TUL and MEM and I ordered an entire kit from HQ to leave at a customer's in MEM so I didn't have to lug it around.

Sorry for the off-tangent, basically pointing out we were pretty naive about what could be used to disable an airliner, and agreeing that the immediate modifications made in security after the 9/11 were more than sufficient to prevent another such hi-jacking.  I think passengers are far more aware and vigilant now and having random sky marshalls has gone a long way as a deterrent.

It simply pisses me off that the reaction to failed bomb attempts like the shoe bomber and crotch bomber has been a much more invasive intrusion into privacy and personal liberty when it's really done nothing to make the airlines any safer than they were before these isolated incidents.  I simply don't think there's a way for any passenger to get sufficient explosives to bring a plane down on board on their body.  If anything, luggage or cargo should be a more intense focus.

[Conan71]

I want machines to scan and analyze every creature and every piece of cargo that enters our public transportation systems and every transportation system that has access to the United States.  I want every commuter on every train every day routinely scanned as they enter the system.  I do not want fallible and prejudiced human beings making flawed judgment calls.  The days of privacy (as well as smuggling) in our public transportation systems is coming to an end.   We will adjust to the new order as we have adjusted to the fact that there is no real privacy on the internet or in our various computer systems.  Remember that poem ... All watched over by machines of loving grace.

Do you think all those people should have to carry and show ID on demand?  We've been having some interesting discussions lately about that. 

[Townsend]

Do you think all those people should have to carry and show ID on demand?  We've been having some interesting discussions lately about that. 

To travel on an airplane with me?  yes.

To vote in an election?  If the ID is supplied free of charge but not charged to me as a taxpayer, yes.  So if we can find someone to supply these ID's to vote gratis, let's do it. 

[Conan71]

To travel on an airplane with me?  yes.

To vote in an election?  If the ID is supplied free of charge but not charged to me as a taxpayer, yes.  So if we can find someone to supply these ID's to vote gratis, let's do it. 

They already supply the ID to the voter when they register.  It's a total non-issue so I would expect the lawsuit to be thrown out in short order.

[Townsend]

They already supply the ID to the voter when they register.  It's a total non-issue so I would expect the lawsuit to be thrown out in short order.

A picture ID?  Isn't this all about a picture ID?

If it's changed to just a voter registration card, I'm good with that.

Anyway, You think the general public will get used to these extra steps or do you think it will be pulled back over time?

[Conan71]

A picture ID?  Isn't this all about a picture ID?

If it's changed to just a voter registration card, I'm good with that.

That's what it's said all along on the question.  In the absence of a photo ID, a voter registration card was considered acceptible identification.  The question was basically saying: bring a friggin' ID to vote.  Did anyone even read the text of the questions before they voted?

Here's the exact text of the measure:

"This measure amends statues relating to voting requirements. It requires that each person appearing to vote present a document proving their identity. The document must meet the following requirements. It must have the name and photograph of the voter. It must have been issued by the federal, state or tribal government. It must have an expiration date that is after the date of the election. No expiration date would be required on certain identity cards issued to person 65 years of age or older.

In lieu of such a document, voters could present voter identification cards issued by the County Election Board.

A person who cannot or does not present the required identification may sign a sworn statement and cast a provisional ballot. Swearing to a false statement would be a felony.

These proof of identity requirements also apply to in-person absentee voting. If adopted by the people, the measure would become effective July 1, 2011.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal

Yes: __________

Against the proposal

No: __________ "

[Hometown]

Do you think all those people should have to carry and show ID on demand?  We've been having some interesting discussions lately about that.  

Paper documents are easy to forge.  I want a national data bank with an electronic record of each citizen's unique iris pattern.  Guest workers in the U.S. will have their iris patterns added to the data bank as well.  I want nations that have access to the U.S.' transporation systems to have the same technology and a treaty provision guarantying they will apply it.  A beam of light will find each traveler's iris and compare it to the data bank.  The technology should be unobtrusive, automatic, work at the speed of a super computer and along with cargo scanners and body scanners it should be routinely applied to all people and cargo upon entering any public transportation system.

[Gaspar]

Why not just ask for a photo ID?  That'll stop about a majority of the fraud.  Sure there will be forgery and ID duplication, however the fraud will be thousands of times less prevalent. 

What is so hard about that? 

Why are my rights "violated" when someone at the polls asks for my ID, but not when someone at the gas station asks for it?

Why do I have to present an ID to enter the White House, but not to put someone in the White House?

Geezzz!

[Townsend]

That's what it's said all along on the question.  In the absence of a photo ID, a voter registration card was considered acceptible identification.  The question was basically saying: bring a friggin' ID to vote.  Did anyone even read the text of the questions before they voted?

Eh, I'm good with a voter ID card.  I always carry mine anyway.  Now if that clears the way for "quizzes", I'm back to being out again.

I'm actually getting tired of the whole issue.  If you vote, you vote.  It's not like we get a huge say in the process anyway.