What the TSA Isn't Saying About Body Scanners

Since January 2010 the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been rolling out what they term Advanced Imaging Technology, or Whole Body Imaging, at airports around the United States. These devices are used to perform a virtual strip search of passengers, looking beneath the clothes to display a picture of the skin. The TSA originally said that these machines would be used only for secondary screening, for those passengers that set off an alarm at the walk-through metal detector or Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) machine. They are now being used as primary screening at 45 airports, to take nude images of passengers who have done nothing more suspicious than present a boarding pass.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 


What did you think of this article?

  • Trackbacks are closed for this entry.

  • 11/2/2010 5:47 PM Jackie wrote:
    Yea, the scanner is awful. I had to do it when I attended a game developers conference in Austin a few weeks ago. You feel degraded just looking at it. Personally, I think the person who looks at the scans should have to sit in a glass room so we can all see who it is and what they are doing. We don't get any privacy, so why should he/she?

    Of course, the pat down is no better. A few years ago I took an emergency flight using a ticket purchased the night before the 6 am flight. I guess that set off the TSA that I may be a terrorist. That was incredibly intrusive.

    It's in airports and in some government buildings. If we allow this to continue, we will have to go through one of these things to step out of our homes.
    Reply to this
  • 11/2/2010 6:40 PM Lindsey wrote:
    Forgive my language but the whole thing nothing but utter crap. The TSA/Dept. of Homeland Security in my opinion have gone way too far.
    We had a pilot here in Salt Lake who was refused entry to the terminal because he refused to do a body scan, pat down or full strip search. He insisted to the TSA that it violated his personal rights and he should be allowed to go through the normal screening.
    The result of that little incident was he was suspended, pending a hearing by the FAA, TSA and the airline.
    I’m curious as so few are standing up against these measures when so many oppose them. What level of invasion on our natural rights will it take to make more people stand up and say no more?
    Reply to this
  • 11/4/2010 10:19 PM Gard wrote:
    The involvement of the US government in what they call "air security" is an immoral imposition into voluntary market exchange. It is also unconstitutional, and stems from the insinuation of the federal gubment starting in the 1920s, when certain north-south and east-west air routes were reserved for the "lighted air routes" of the postal service planes. Then... 1930s, when the feds began handing out money to localities to build airports. The encroachment has grown, hence the airports often being named for politicians. In a private market, airlines would have to operate based on their liability/insurance expenses, and the security measures would weigh those costs along with the preferences of passengers. No such calculus can exist with government, because it uses FORCE. Always.
    Reply to this
  • 11/5/2010 8:07 PM Jackie wrote:
    Agreed Gard. Besides it being unconstitutional that we are all guilty before a violation of the fourth amendment "deems us" innocent, it's a complete lack of common sense.

    I'm not interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but one thing I've heard that makes sense is that the flights that were targeted for attacks were chose because they were cross country flights. This would cause the planes to have a lot of fuel thus would burn longer upon impact and do more damage. Okay, assuming that's true, it doesn't explain why we are all searched like criminals. With that argument, not all flights would be targeted. The flight I mentioned earlier where I received everything short of a cavity search was a flight from El Paso to Knoxville. Hardly cross country. It's just a way to get us used to big brother involved in our lives in every invasive, irrational and intrusive way possible.
    Reply to this
  • 11/6/2010 7:52 PM Lindsey wrote:
    One thing that I've always found interesting is prior to the government handling security there were very few attacks on air travel. Maybe it's the fact that any potential threat is more heavily reported than it was prior to 9-11
    It could be my imagination but "security" was more secure when the local governments or airports handled it rather than the federal government. Sure you could walk straight through it half the time but they seemed to know what they were looking for as opposed to the TSA, who doesn't.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.