European scanners in America.
This is a discussion on European scanners in America. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by AgentX
Whether or not airline security, in general, is effective is another argument. And even if it's not perfect, arguing against improving ...
June 12th, 2008 04:35 PM
1) Based on what? They provide a thermal image. Just like the Big Beeper, they can be defeated. Security is social, not physical. Let's quit playing PC games, and encourage personal responsibility.
Originally Posted by AgentX
2) Smoke and mirrors is the substance of TSA. Sorry, you don't get good Personel Protection Specialists for $10/hour. Yes, they do catch people, stupid people. Anyone here think you're going to use a lighter to set the sole of your shoe on fire and not be interrupted, even pre-9/11? Jails and prisons are full of stupid people- they aren't the ones I need to worry about.
FWIW, the GB software, unless it was changed, gives something basically like a film negative image, clear enough to see body piercing jewelery. Granted, maybe they select "screeners" by finding those with hair-color fetishes, certainly no joy to them. This mechanism is highly invasive, and GB has seen no measurable benefit, in fact they now want the priveledge of random warrantless searches on the street. "But, Bobby, I thought that's what the cameras were for...!"
Never justify malfeasance by saying, "Well, we have to do something..."
June 12th, 2008 04:35 PM
June 12th, 2008 04:45 PM
It hurts my eyes looking at most people even when they have all of their clothes on.
Operating one of those scanners would not be a good job for me.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
June 12th, 2008 04:48 PM
Why don't you guys quit complaining ? Now you can legally FLASH someone and not get into trouble.
June 12th, 2008 05:04 PM
They're more effective because they detect things that are made of substances other than metal.
Originally Posted by Rob72
And I'm not justifying malfeasance because there is no malfeasance.
Conflating the use of these scanners in our airports with anything Britain is doing on the streets or its proposals for warrantless searches is a distraction. This is about our scanners in our airports, and we're not talking about anything remarkably new; just a better way to do what we've done for years and years and years. It's not a revolution, just a new piece of gear, for use in a very limited space.
Yes, the scanners are invasive. That's the point. It's a voluntary search. Get over it or don't fly. There is no legitimate civil rights angle to this issue.
Security does indeed have a social dimension, one I think we should embrace more. But that dimension doesn't eliminate a physical one, nor does a failure to be perfect make certain measures and methods undesirable to have as part of a larger plan.
I've never understood the argument that since a method doesn't work 100%, we shouldn't use it at all. How can someone get out of bed every day with such a mentality? Nothing's perfect. Furthermore, I don't understand why people who see a deficiency in security are often opposed to improving it.
Again, I don't think these scanners are a panacea, just a small part of a much larger security picture.
TSA hires a lot of people who are, in my opinion, of questionable ability and motivation. Most of the end-line jobs TSA has simply won't attract, nor are they designed to attract, anyone who's interested in more detailed or mentally demanding work. That's why they're mostly equipment-operators and procedure-enforcers. Just the facts of life there.
June 12th, 2008 09:46 PM
I work for the FAA, and during my trip into work I have been told my swiss army knife on my keychain has to go. The funny thing is after passing TSA I go into the tower where there is a full kitchen in our breakroom. We have Full size kitchen knives in there, but my two inch blade is illegal. Idiotic! Add to the fact that to an FAA employee in my line of work, the most dangerous tool (weapon)is the radio. Anyone see Die Hard Two?
It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.
June 12th, 2008 10:37 PM
I am going to have to differ with you on this one. The government (as far as I know) is not requiring you to fly on a commercial airline. If there are time issues with your travel that "force" you to fly, the issue is with your employer or whomever it is that you are dealing with that is not allowing you sufficient time to use another means of transportation.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
June 13th, 2008 12:52 AM
wow, reminds me of a WW2 movie "Nein, ich habe meine Papiere!" and the SS shoots him for not having his ticket :P
I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.
June 13th, 2008 07:01 AM
Wow! If I was a screener it would be awful hard for me not to print!
June 13th, 2008 07:05 AM
Screening someone for dangerous items before boarding a plane is exactly like shooting him.
Originally Posted by Duisburg
June 13th, 2008 10:43 AM
Knowledge of history is probably the most important knowledge we can have. Use of scanner in GB was "limited and voluntary" initially as well (high crime neighborhoods, Heathrow.)
Originally Posted by AgentX
Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stated several time that she believes US law should be modeled on international law, not some aged decrepit notion of "original intent."
To whit: a bureaucracy expands to fill the space it is allowed. Equally, given leeway, the bureaucracy will legislate.
What Is bureaucracy
Prisons/penology have clearly demonstrated that physical barriers and monitoring do not provide security. Personal interaction and individual assessment does (ala Tel Aviv Intl.)
June 13th, 2008 02:30 PM
Thank GOD, I thought I was the only one thinking this.
Originally Posted by charmincarmens
June 13th, 2008 02:56 PM
So a few Muslim women make a stink about it...they stop screening Muslim women.
Muslim MEN dressed as women smuggle whatever they want onto the plane under the burkas...BOOM...bodies falling from the sky.
NO security that doesn't take into account the actual threats instead of being politically correct BS will be effective. These scanners ARE a violation of the 4th amendment..but the sheep will go merrily along with it for the illusion of safety.
NO they won't stay in the airports, They'll turn up in NYC, LA and Chicago before you know it for random searches.
As long as it prefaced with "it's for the children" or "its the only way to stop the terrorists" the sheep would wear a pink tutu if the government told them it would make them safer without giving it much thought.
We need TRUE security at the airports and shipping terminals...at least that way the terrorists will have to trek through the mexican desert in order to blow something up.
"If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."
June 13th, 2008 03:08 PM
If I may folks...I'm going to rain on the "viewing naked folks" theory.
The equipment does not view you like you were naked. Backscatter techology CAN do that and originally, that was the hype from all the civil libertarians. The Govt was going to require you to be viewed naked. Not true.
The scanners have a chip PERMANENTLY installed that allows the Screener to only view an outline of your body. Your body mass looks pearl gray on the screen, no rolls or tucks.
If metal is present (like a concealed knife, firearm, etc.) it shows up clearly on the gray mass.
This equipment has been in testing for almost two years. I was in DC when it was viewed by ACLU types who were worried about violating rights, etc. Everyone who's anyone in the process has had an opportunity to view and comment on the scanners.
Just wanted to set the record straight. Thanks to all.
June 14th, 2008 08:55 PM
This is patently false. You're saying, essentially, that Tel Aviv needs no physical barriers or monitoring, because their personal interaction and individual assessment should provide all they need. Tell the Israelis they should dump their physical security and monitoring methods and watch them laugh. (Edit: Plus, those security measures work in tandem with behavioral profiling. The profilers need to provoke reactions to practice their trade. Nor is profiling foolproof--like any other security measure, physical or otherwise, it can be evaded. You need a multi-layered approach. And even your best effort is far from foolproof, because this is the real world.)
Originally Posted by Rob72
Yes, we agree that physical barriers and surveillance are not the be-all and end-all of security. They are part of a larger picture.
If your Great Britain analogy holds true, why are we not facing involuntary magnetometer screenings by the American Gestapo on the streets? Why has there been no mission creep with other airport security methods to intrude on our lives in general? Because the screening technologies are used in the airport. Whether you walk through a metal detector or one of these scanners, there's nothing that intrudes on any of your rights or threatens to expand to do so.
And if the government is out to steal your rights and oppress you (which isn't the argument at hand, and for the sake of the discussion, let's say they might be), they can do it with any number of search methods or technologies, not just these specific screening machines.
So to be inflamed that a long-standing point of screening (airports) are updating their technology simply makes no sense. If they set up mags, scanners, or just physical search points in a place where it does violate your rights, that IS an issue.
No, they're not. A piece of technology in and of itself simply cannot be a violation of anyone's rights by its mere existence. Its use in airports, as I've noted, is simply a better way to perform the searches we're already used to and which are reasonable for the purposes of voluntary air travel.
Originally Posted by dunndw
Again, as I've said, a simple physical search can be as invasive or moreso than this technology. It's a matter of where and why you're subjected to such a search which raises the question of constitutionality. Since this is a use of a search someplace where it's always been, there simply is no constitutional issue with these.
Last edited by AgentX; June 14th, 2008 at 10:20 PM.
June 15th, 2008 01:19 PM
I sure wouldn't want the job. Many of those scanned would, if working in a stripteae, have the audience hollering 'put it on, put it on!'
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
By Coder in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 25th, 2010, 09:45 AM
By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: September 21st, 2010, 11:44 AM
By BlackPR in forum Related Gear & Equipment
Last Post: March 24th, 2008, 10:58 PM
By alwysbroke in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: February 5th, 2008, 03:25 PM
By tj1231 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 10:07 PM
Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.