Tired of TSA's Expanding Power?

[skyrider 0]

How's this for "profiling" 3 yearolds?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzEadUBYyLQ&feature=player_embedded

[skyrider 0]

another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04&feature=player_embedded

[piisfish 140]

when people want to dick around with other people who are given some kind of authority by your paranoiac government (or the former governments), well I have no pity for them...
It pisses me off to have SO MUCH security to go through.. but if you refuse all alternatives proposed, then you have to accept the consequences.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[nigel99 615]

Quote

another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04&feature=player_embedded

I don't believe that this practice will last long in the USA with the suing culture. It is not going to be long before multiple lawsuits are brought alleging sexual harassment. I mean in reality what is the difference between a TSA agent playing with your balls and simply checking you over - probably nothing other than atmosphere and perceived intentions?

Another thing I didn't realise that the full body scanners were using backscatter x-ray (ionising radiation) that adds a whole new dimension for frequent fliers as the West still hasn't caught up with Russia in terms of understanding dosimetry and our thresholds for "safe" are generally still to high. In the UK the scanners are THz based on non-ionising radiation and I thought that it was the media getting it wrong when talking about x-rays.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

when people want to dick around with other people who are given some kind of authority by your paranoiac government (or the former governments), well I have no pity for them...
It pisses me off to have SO MUCH security to go through.. but if you refuse all alternatives proposed, then you have to accept the consequences.

Or get of your lazy ass and help "CHANGE" things back to what they used to be , rather than sit around saying "suck it up"!

[Andy9o8 2]

Do you still look like your avatar? If yes, I'm surprised you didn't get a "cavity" search.

Anyhow, Sponge Bob's best friend is Patrick, right? And Patrick is a starfish, right? And starfish look just like Oriental throwing stars. So there you go.

http://www.tbotech.com/images/rainbow-throwing-star.jpg

http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Shows/S_Z/Si_Sp/Spongebob_Squarepants/season1/sponge-bob-square-pants12.jpg

[billvon 3,107]

>The millimeter wave scanners use the T-ray portion of the EM band.
>There isn't much known about real-world exposure to this portion of the
>spectrum as there haven't been a lot of practical applications for it.

Scanners operate in the terahertz frequencies. Those are frequencies between microwaves and infrared light. There are plenty of practical applications for these frequencies, but until recently we haven't been able to generate energy at those frequencies.

>For the frequent flyer that takes 2-4 flights a week or the airline crew
>that goes through it every day there's concerns.

Exposure due to a backscatter terahertz scanner: .05uSv (nonionizing)
Exposure due to flying: 6.5uSv/hr (ionizing)

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

.. but if you refuse all alternatives proposed, then you have to accept the consequences.

I agree... but unfortunately the US is full of self-righteous assholes with nothing better to do than bitch about anything and everything. Fact is, you increase security and people get all pissed off... you decrease security and others get pissed off. People will ALWAYS find something to bitch about when it comes to airport security.

You can't profile, you can't pat-down, you can't scan, people bitch about taking their shoes off, they bitch about liquid carry-on restrictions, and on and on and on...

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

.. but if you refuse all alternatives proposed, then you have to accept the consequences.

I agree... but unfortunately the US is full of self-righteous assholes with nothing better to do than bitch about anything and everything. Fact is, you increase security and people get all pissed off... you decrease security and others get pissed off. People will ALWAYS find something to bitch about when it comes to airport security.

You can't profile, you can't pat-down, you can't scan, people bitch about taking their shoes off, they bitch about liquid carry-on restrictions, and on and on and on...

I wonder how much bitching the anti security guys would be doing if they found themselves with pieces of the terrorist in front of them imbedded in thier chest.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

I wonder how much bitching the anti security guys would be doing if they found themselves with pieces of the terrorist in front of them imbedded in thier chest.

Stop wondering, been there, done that.

I think airport security is a joke and slap in the face to the Constitution.

- Dan G

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

People need to start getting mad. Quietly mad. The type of mad that gets things changed, and brings the "big brother" attitude to it's knees.

I agree we ned to start getting mad. Quietly mad is IMHO the wrong way though. Quiet is what is allowing them to do shit like this.

We need to take to the streets and start protesting and scare the shit out of the Govt. All of this is getting way out of hand!!

Dom

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how much bitching the anti security guys would be doing if they found themselves with pieces of the terrorist in front of them imbedded in thier chest.

Stop wondering, been there, done that.

I think airport security is a joke and slap in the face to the Constitution.

I am hoping that you didn't mean that you were an anti security guy and got blown up.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

That's exactly what I meant. I'm anti-security theater, and I've been blown up by a terrorist.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

That's exactly what I meant. I'm anti-security theater, and I've been blown up by a terrorist.

That's horrible. Who was it? Which one of the thirty?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[nigel99 615]

Quote

>The millimeter wave scanners use the T-ray portion of the EM band.
>There isn't much known about real-world exposure to this portion of the
>spectrum as there haven't been a lot of practical applications for it.

Scanners operate in the terahertz frequencies. Those are frequencies between microwaves and infrared light. There are plenty of practical applications for these frequencies, but until recently we haven't been able to generate energy at those frequencies.

>For the frequent flyer that takes 2-4 flights a week or the airline crew
>that goes through it every day there's concerns.

Exposure due to a backscatter terahertz scanner: .05uSv (nonionizing)
Exposure due to flying: 6.5uSv/hr (ionizing)

Are you saying that the media are wrong and that there are no x-ray based machines? I am quite happy with THz radiation because frankly there is so much non-ionising radiation in our lives that if there are side-effects that are yet to be discovered for low level exposure we are all pretty screwed

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[DanG 1]

Yeah, it sucked. It was Mohammed, #29.

Technically, I don't consider him a terrorist, he was an insurgent. His attack was an act of combat, not terrorism, but since all Muslims are terrorists ([sarc]), and this one had a bomb, it's close enough.

I guess my larger point is that not everyone who is against security theater is a pansy liberal. Some of us just happen to love the Constitution.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Yeah, it sucked. It was Mohammed, #29.

Technically, I don't consider him a terrorist, he was an insurgent. His attack was an act of combat, not terrorism, but since all Muslims are terrorists ([sarc]), and this one had a bomb, it's close enough.

I guess my larger point is that not everyone who is against security theater is a pansy liberal. Some of us just happen to love the Constitution.

Ok - so what is your solution to unobtrusive, security, that actually keeps us safe?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You can't profile, you can't pat-down, you can't scan, people bitch about taking their shoes off, they bitch about liquid carry-on restrictions, and on and on and on...

And yet for all the crap passengers have to put up with, people still manage to accidentally bring their CCW handguns through checkpoints without being discovered.

and that is the problem. Putting up with these violations for actual progress in one question, but putting up with it for no actual safety gain is a no brainer FUCK NO answer.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Exposure due to a backscatter terahertz scanner: .05uSv (nonionizing)
Exposure due to flying: 6.5uSv/hr (ionizing)

Is that the TSA supplied figure, one that has been challenged as off by a factor of 20? With the number of lies they're told already, I don't care how low they claim it is. It's non zero, and since it isn't detecting the problems we've already had, it's an unnecessary hit (and expense that could be better used elsewhere).

[billvon 3,107]

>Are you saying that the media are wrong and that there are no x-ray
>based machines?

I don't know. The "new scanners" that everyone is talking about (the ones that give you an image of the person minus clothing) are terahertz devices. Someone may be using X-ray based devices to scan people, but I haven't seen any.

But based on their track record, I have a feeling the media got it wrong.

[dgskydive 0]

Here is a quote from a CNN article about the scanners and the tests that they have done on them.

***In a report posted on the FDA website, scientists say full-body X-ray scanners pose "very low health risks." The FDA evaluates radiation-emitting products as well as foods and medications.

But a representative for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory said the group did not evaluate the advanced imaging machines for passenger safety. "That was not our role," spokeswoman Helen Worth said. "We measured the level of radiation, which was then evaluated by TSA."

Quote

Link to the full story.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/index.html

Dom

• Quote

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

I don't know. The "new scanners" that everyone is talking about (the ones that give you an image of the person minus clothing) are terahertz devices. Someone may be using X-ray based devices to scan people, but I haven't seen any.

From what I have been reading there are two versions of these scanners and one of the two uses xrays. Which is a problem since they really arent upfront about that. Some people (breast cancer patients) really shouldn't be around xrays.

Dom

[billvon 3,107]

>From what I have been reading there are two versions of these
>scanners and one of the two uses xrays.

I'd be interested in seeing that. I suspect many media types use the term "X-ray" to describe anything that can see through clothing, the way some people use the term "Xerox" or "Kleenex" as a generic description of the thing.

>Some people (breast cancer patients) really shouldn't be around xrays.

The issue I've heard with breast cancer patients is that the terahertz scanners make prosthetic breasts very noticeable.

If they really are using xrays, children are at much greater risk than cancer patients (they have longer for cumulative damage to make itself apparent.)

[DanG 1]

First of all, I think we're already pretty safe flying. You can't 100% ensure that no bomb, gun, or knife is ever going to get through. The flying public needs to accept that. Recruiting quality screeners and training them well will go a long way. Psychological profiling, a no-fly/watch list that is not a dumping ground for every name in the phone book, and better coordination between the screening agency and the airlines. The goal should be to stop the terrorists before they even get to the screening area.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,107]

OK, did a little research -

As you suggested, there are indeed two kinds of devices - terahertz scanners and X-ray backscatter devices. (Both really use backscattering, but the X-ray technique is a new one.) The terahertz devices are what we've all seen the images of the "naked person" from; it gives you a 3D image of the person beneath the clothing. These emit no ionizing radiation.

The X-ray backscatter machines do use higher frequency ionizing radiation. The current specs are such that you will receive less radiation from the device than you'll receive during 2 minutes of flight in an airplane.