TSA Scanners Defended

[3113]

Okay, boys and girls, try to stay on topic here. This is about this guy's defense of the scanners--let's keep exchanges civil and about the scanners, as I'm interested in your thoughts about them.

With increased airport security measures sparking passenger furor on Thanksgiving eve, the Torrance company that makes most of controversial full-body image scanners used across the country finds itself at the center of a heated debate over privacy rights and health concerns.

Rapiscan Systems Inc. manufactured 211 of the 385 image scanners in use at 68 airports nationwide. The machines, called the Secure 1000, use low levels of radiation to create what looks like a nude image of a screened passenger to detect weapons and contraband hidden under clothing. In an interview, Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan, defended the units, insisting that the scanners do not pose a health risk and saying the uproar over privacy concerns comes from a "vocal minority." He also talked about a proposed upgrade that he hopes will address privacy fears.

Among other things, the interview confirms that these scanners DO use radiation, abet very low levels. Mr. Kant argues that this type of radiation has been studied and found safe, and that his machines do not keep any of the images. All of which are part of the anti-scanner arguments.

Full interview here.

What do we think, granting that some 174 of the scanners out there are not of this make and might not work in the same way? Still skeptical? Still an issue? Still arguably unnecessary search and seizure?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Scanners, to me, aren't an issue. The problem is that not all airports have them, thus resulting in a high percentage of physical contact, that in some cases, might/could be inappropriate. That's the problem I have, it's the pat down because I set off the metal detector.

The logic behind that is just plain stupid. Explosives won't set off the metal detector, therefore the pat down is highly/slim to none to find said explosives. A weapon made of metal would just as easily be found by the magic wands and a single touch to the area that scares the damn thing into squealing.

If I was being placed into custody, I would expect a thorough search. Trying to get to my flight, which I paid for, not so much.

And if I'm a terrorist bent on killing myself, you can be dam sure I wouldn't be settin' off no metal detector, don't ya think?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Okay, boys and girls, try to stay on topic here. This is about this guy's defense of the scanners--let's keep exchanges civil and about the scanners, as I'm interested in your thoughts about them.



Among other things, the interview confirms that these scanners DO use radiation, abet very low levels. Mr. Kant argues that this type of radiation has been studied and found safe, and that his machines do not keep any of the images. All of which are part of the anti-scanner arguments.

Full interview here.

What do we think, granting that some 174 of the scanners out there are not of this make and might not work in the same way? Still skeptical? Still an issue? Still arguably unnecessary search and seizure?

I believe that the Founders of this country were just a "vocal minority", so he can stuff that argument. Besides, seeing as how he's making millions off the sale of his equipment, he's not exacly unbiased.

As for the rest of it, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I do know that these scans (and certainly the enhance pat downs) would be an unjustified and illegal search by any other law enforcement organization in the U.S. That tells me that they should be found unconstitutional and/or we should all be read our rights before being forced to endure them.

As for the good folks that say "then take a bus because flying isn't a right", I'd like to state that I have not freely given up the use of facilities and services that are partly or wholly funded by my tax dollars. If I'm paying for them then they are available for the ENTIRE American public not just the ones who are willing to waive their Constitutional rights.

 

[sr71plt]

Unfortunately, we have loads of examples about foods and machines and things that will do us no harm that end up maiming, sickening, and killing people. It's one of those "never say never" areas.

I think these machines are overkill. That said, it's in that area of if you consider it too much of an invasion of your privacy--or a possible health danger--take a train, boat, car, or don't go.

I don't think pilots and stewardesses should be required to go through a machine with any hint of radiation to it, though, just to be able to do and keep their jobs for which they trained before all of this happened.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I haven't finished reading this yet, but it does seem to be the most authoritative document available. http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf

In short, you don't exceed the annual limit for radiation exposure until you have 1000 scans per year.

But wait, there's more: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/nist_rapiscan_secure_1000.pdf

 

[3113]

Scanners, to me, aren't an issue. The problem is that not all airports have them, thus resulting in a high percentage of physical contact, that in some cases, might/could be inappropriate. That's the problem I have, it's the pat down because I set off the metal detector.

If you go back to the original thread on pat-downs, TSA asserts that only 3% of people are being patted down. Odds seem to be in favor of you not being patted down if they're telling the truth.

This thread is on the scanners, however. Not pat-downs. Return to first thread to discuss that.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[3113]

Do you pat us down if we don't?

Only 3% of you. And 1% get the intimate pat down

 

[Safe_Bet]

Only 3% of you. And 1% get the intimate pat down

UNLESS you opt to not go through the scanner, THEN it's 100%.

 

[TE999]

I saw a bumper sticker today that read: 'TSA (logo) If we were any more thorough we'd have to buy you dinner first'.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

If you go back to the original thread on pat-downs, TSA asserts that only 3% of people are being patted down. Odds seem to be in favor of you not being patted down if they're telling the truth.

This thread is on the scanners, however. Not pat-downs. Return to first thread to discuss that.

Yes, I realize this thread is about scanners, but you forget not all airports in the country have scanners, therefore the pat downs tend to be significantly higher at those "regional" airports than say JFK in New York.

As to Scanners, I belief I stated my feeling toward those too. But then I'm an old crotchety man who has no modesty issues.

And as I said about that 3% number...you gonna believe the TSA about that? And 3% is 3 out of a hundred...across the country...how many people fly each day...couple million? That's 30,000 people a day that are scanned and/or groped. Quiet a significant number I would say.

 

[Pure]

thanks.

the useful document cited by 3113 [correction: cited by soflabbwlvr]

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf


gives the individual dose as
.0155 microSv

the comparable figures for dental xrays are these:

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1193.html

For a dental panoramic radiograph, the effective dose is 26 microSv (microsevert), which is the equivalent of about 3.3 days of natural background radiation. A series of four intraoral radiographs is 38 microSv, which is the equivalent of 4.8 days of background radiation. To put this in perspective, the effective dose from a chest radiograph is 80 microSv (10 days) and from a lower gastrointestinal (GI) series 4,060 microSv (507 days). (Reference: White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: Principles and interpretation. St. Louis, Mosby, 2000, p 49.) Sharon L. Brooks, DDS, MS

 

[3113]

the useful document cited by 3113 gives the individual dose as
.0155 microSv

the comparable figures for dental xrays are these:

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1193.html

For a dental panoramic radiograph, the effective dose is 26 microSv (microsevert), which is the equivalent of about 3.3 days of natural background radiation. A series of four intraoral radiographs is 38 microSv, which is the equivalent of 4.8 days of background radiation. To put this in perspective, the effective dose from a chest radiograph is 80 microSv (10 days) and from a lower gastrointestinal (GI) series 4,060 microSv (507 days). (Reference: White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: Principles and interpretation. St. Louis, Mosby, 2000, p 49.) Sharon L. Brooks, DDS, MS

Sooooo, you're sayin' it's way little, right?

 

[Katyusha]

As for the rest of it, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I do know that these scans (and certainly the enhance pat downs) would be an unjustified and illegal search by any other law enforcement organization in the U.S. That tells me that they should be found unconstitutional and/or we should all be read our rights before being forced to endure them.

As for the good folks that say "then take a bus because flying isn't a right", I'd like to state that I have not freely given up the use of facilities and services that are partly or wholly funded by my tax dollars. If I'm paying for them then they are available for the ENTIRE American public not just the ones who are willing to waive their Constitutional rights.

The TSA's pat-downs and scans fall under the category of administrative search, as in all persons who wish to enter the sterile area of an airport are subject to them. The legality of it would be very different if only certain people were required to undergo screening, and others could pass without undergoing ANY screening at all (as in no passing luggage through x-rays, no having to walk through metal detectors, no dealing with ETD swabs, none).

The U.S. Marshal Service has been using scanners like these at various federal courthouses for years, again, where you *must* go through whatever screening procedures they have in place in order to gain entry regardless of why you're there. And the U.S. Marshal Service DOES store these images whereas the TSA (contrary to what the press says) does not and cannot (the images that have been circulating are demo images of people who volunteered to test the scanners a few years ago and agreed to allow their images to be disseminated).

Also, legally, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when flying. That's been determined by courts in years past. The courts have to make that determination again (as there are court cases pending against DHS and TSA over this issue), but until a ruling comes down that changes that, the scanners and pat-downs are legal and don't violate the 4th Amendment. It's the legal existence of that expectation that turns it into a 4th Amendment issue.

 

[Safe_Bet]

The TSA's pat-downs and scans fall under the category of administrative search, as in all persons who wish to enter the sterile area of an airport are subject to them. The legality of it would be very different if only certain people were required to undergo screening, and others could pass without undergoing ANY screening at all (as in no passing luggage through x-rays, no having to walk through metal detectors, no dealing with ETD swabs, none).

The U.S. Marshal Service has been using scanners like these at various federal courthouses for years, again, where you *must* go through whatever screening procedures they have in place in order to gain entry regardless of why you're there. And the U.S. Marshal Service DOES store these images whereas the TSA (contrary to what the press says) does not and cannot (the images that have been circulating are demo images of people who volunteered to test the scanners a few years ago and agreed to allow their images to be disseminated).

Also, legally, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when flying. That's been determined by courts in years past. The courts have to make that determination again (as there are court cases pending against DHS and TSA over this issue), but until a ruling comes down that changes that, the scanners and pat-downs are legal and don't violate the 4th Amendment. It's the legal existence of that expectation that turns it into a 4th Amendment issue.

You mean like airline pilots, airport janitors, children under 12 y.o. and off duty TSA employees???

As to the legalities, according to past Supreme court decisions, searches must balance a “reasonable” amount of privacy invasion against the likelihood of finding evidence of a crime before the dismissal of a citizen's rights against unreasonable searches can be constitutionally waived.

That is a legitimate question, when I read things like:

“It remains unclear whether the AIT [scanners] would have been able to detect the weapon Mr. Abdulmutallab used in his attempted attack”
March report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

and

"British scientists found that the scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but missed plastic, chemicals and liquids"
UK newspaper The Independent in January.

and

Italian security officials stopped using the scanners in September. "We didn't get good results from body scanners during testing,” said Vito Riggio, the president of Italy’s aviation authority, describing the scans as slow and ineffective.

 

[sr71plt]

What we really, really don't need roaming around on the Internet is a litany of the weapons the scanners won't pick up. Geezz.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What we really, really don't need roaming around on the Internet is a litany of the weapons the scanners won't pick up. Geezz.

waaaaay to late to worry about that.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

A perfect solution...

 

[Boota]

Maybe pop a Viagra and demand a pat down. Let them know I REALLY like it.

As far as the scanners, I just don't think they'll work as advertised and it's unwarranted to subject everyone to this. It's false security, which is as bad as no security.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lawyers arent screened at our local courthouses. If you put on a suit and tie, and pull a cart full of files into the building, security waves you thru without a check or question.