×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boston Airport Replacing X-ray Body Scanners

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the we-have-all-kinds-of-light-waves-to-blast-you-with dept.

Transportation 119

OverTheGeicoE writes "Boston's Logan International Airport is in the process of replacing its X-ray body scanners with millimeter-wave ones. According to the article, nine of the new scanners have been installed already, and ultimately 27 of these scanners will replace the 17 X-ray backscatter scanners that were installed in March of 2010. The new devices are 'being installed come with software that replaces "passenger-specific images" — or nearly naked views of travelers — with generic outlines that highlight only anomalies such as belts, jewelry, wallets — or guns or bombs.' Perhaps this will help TSA workers avoid being part of a cancer cluster. Some speculate that TSA will ultimately eliminate all of its X-ray body scanners."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

Who makes them? (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560597)

Is it the same company profiting by replacing their old useless hardware with the new?

Re:Who makes them? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560645)

That was exactly my first thought. Has Michael Chirtoff's company released a new product?

Re:Who makes them? (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560647)

Is it the same company profiting by replacing their old useless hardware with the new?

Whatever the company is that makes them, you can be sure the TSA have shares in that company.

Re:Who makes them? (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561023)

Here's the citations, I'm sure you left them out by accident...

Michael Chertoff, [gawker.com]George Soros [current.com]

Re:Who makes them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561655)

He probably left them out because it's an established fact by now.

Re:Who makes them? (2)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562847)

All that's left is for the TSA to replace the complete assholes and morons that man the check points.

Interesting (4, Interesting)

tool462 (677306) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560635)

I wonder if ..um... shall we say "abnormally endowed" men will have their endowments highlighted as a generic outline?
If not, countdown until we hear about the "dildo-bomber" on the news...

Re:Interesting (5, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560671)

Is that a bomb or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Interesting (4, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560757)

Touch it and see if it goes off ;)

Re:Interesting (5, Informative)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561209)

I think that has already happened before... http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573 [deadseriousnews.com] Not a pleasant outcome though... :(

Re:Interesting (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561251)

Considering your comment I was figuring I would probably cringe when the site loaded, instead I laughed.

There may have been handcuffs involved, but who is to say that didn't make it even more enjoyable for him?

Re:Interesting (3, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561449)

A TSA spokesperson declined to comment on this specific case, but said that anyone ejaculating during a pat-down would be subject to arrest.

I don't think the TSA understands cause-and-effect.

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562095)

Does the 90 ml liquid limit still apply?

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560857)

My johnson *can be* pretty explosive......

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561487)

Sony batteries?

Re:Interesting (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560797)

Finally, a second reason to be glad if you don't have an abnormally large schlong :-P (the first being "sometimes it just won't fit")

Re:Interesting (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561061)

(the first being "sometimes it just won't fit")

Hint: Girls come in different capacities.

Whenever you hear a girl say "I prefer big ones" she's really saying "I have a cavernous bucket of a vagina". Remember that and you won't go far wrong in life.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561177)

Yea, the wife hates it when I hit her cervix and when I do show her porn her first response is usually about them being too large.

Also, I have heard that Asian women are rather happy with the real small Asian penises.

Re:Interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562507)

Girls come in different capacities.

I also come in different capacities. Sometimes it's as a boyfriend, sometimes as a sperm donor, sometimes as an ass-man, sometimes as a boob-man, all depends on my mood. Oh, wait... by capacities, did you mean different volumes of ejaculate? Because that's still me... sometimes a pint, sometimes a quart... all depends on how long it's been, and how hot the chick is! If it's been 10 years, and she looks like Jesse Jane, I think I would dislocate her uterus... lemme put it this way: you remember those rockets you had as a kid that you filled most of the way with water, then pumped up with air? Like that. I'd turn her into a fucking cum-rocket...

I'm sorry, is this slashdot? I thought I was blogging in Hustler Forum... Please forgive me. I'll go get a towel.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562029)

I wonder if ..um... shall we say "abnormally endowed" men will have their endowments highlighted as a generic outline?
If not, countdown until we hear about the "dildo-bomber" on the news...

Listen little dick, you're the "abnormal" one. Someone see that little thing in your pants and they'll think you're trying to smuggle a toothpick on board.

tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560673)

if these scanners are so important why is rapiscan allowed to make a profit on them?

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560717)

Waddaya mean, no benefit? I'm sure the shareholders of Rapiscan are benefiting greatly!

Oh, you meant benefit to the public. Nah, the TSA isn't interested in that.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560877)

I suspect it's because we don't live in a communist country.
You're welcome to leave BTW. Sounds like you might enjoy life in a country more agreeable to your personality.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (2)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561151)

remember when we use to make fun of communists and their "show me your papers" paranoia? Now you appear to be a fan of it.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (3, Interesting)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561445)

The problem wasn't the communism. The problem was the "show me your papers." We just learned how to import the second part without the first, it seems.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561661)

True, I believe the Nazis started the "show me your papers", the communists just picked it up faster than we did.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41563671)

Communism was only a red herring.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561967)

I suspect it's because we don't live in a communist country.

Actually, it would seem we kinda do live in a communist country

In a capitalist country, airports would purchase the devices if these were needed by shopping around and choosing the best provider. And then if the public wanted the devices in the airport, the airports that had the devices would flourish (or vice versa). Also, in a capitalist country, devices that were demonstrably flawed (at actually detecting things) would be returned for a refund

Now in a communist country, the government might mandate that the devices must be built, irregardless of whether these devices actually work and installed everywhere. By the one contractor chosen by their government friends

Which country are we living in, again?

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562119)

Thats not communist, thats fascist. Fascism is where the Gov and Business collude.

It is NOT the same thing. Please get your terminology correct.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560957)

Food is essential but farmers are allowed to make a profit on it. The scanners are offensive because of the loss of freedom they represent, not because someone is making a profit on them.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (3)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561137)

my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (2)

JazzHarper (745403) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561241)

my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.

There would be no airlines if no one could make a profit... oh wait.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561917)

my contention is there would be no scanners if no one could make a profit on them.

Yeah - Free market rules!

Oh, wait, these are government mandated devices (pushed through with Chertoff's help who also consults with the contractor). And no one does any quality control - they are proven to be ineffective at actually detecting dangerous items, but more are bought anyway

It's like saying that if the speeding ticket/toll booth collection wasn't profitable it wouldn't exist.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (3, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561521)

Food is essential but farmers are allowed to make a profit on it. The scanners are offensive because of the loss of freedom they represent, not because someone is making a profit on them.

People _need_ food.
The scanner are _mandated_ by law.

Profiting from something that had been decreed necessary and made a monopoly by the government is the problem. Where are my non-TSA airports so that I could vote with my wallet? They would probably be cheaper, but I'd pay more to make my point.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (4, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561391)

What is your objection to them making money on a specialized product like that?

Now, I can understand being upset if lets say the person majorly involved in getting them instituted turns out to own a very large part of that company.

The politicians shouldn't profit from it, but the manufacturer should.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (2)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561569)

What is your objection to them making money on a specialized product like that?

They make money even after devices have been shown unsafe (I believe the old xray machines have been banned in Europe for some time due to health concerns) and even after the devices have been shown ineffective.

They should be making zero profit (maybe just cover the costs) from a device that has not delivered on the specifications. Without stringent quality control, that's literally just money being shuffled to contractors.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561643)

Ok, I can understand that point, but lets just say for the sake of argument that it does actually work.

Any objections then?

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562333)

They make money even after devices have been shown unsafe (I believe the old xray machines have been banned in Europe for some time due to health concerns)

The latter is true: X-ray backscatter machines were banned in Europe because of health concerns. The former is not true: they have not been shown to be unsafe. (It's probably most accurate to say that they've been shown to be safe, but that the level of evidence is unconvincing to many.)

It shouldn't surprise you that the Europeans, too, sometimes make decisions based on the feelings of their politicians and populace and not on hard evidence.

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561571)

How is this a real question? Cars are important, automakers make money. Food is important, farmers make money. Clothes are important, clothing manufacturers make money. Are you for real?

Re:tsa blowing taxpayer money for no benefit (2)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561683)

I think it is the government mandated part that rubs him the wrong way.

just to be clear (4, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560687)

1. its still an invasion of privacy as the outline concept or any other concept related to the technology cannot be verified
2. its still a health risk [technologyreview.com]
tin foil bonus round: it would also be much easier considering the entirety of the TSA revolves around security theater to simply remove the existing units, replace the chassis, and reinstall them with livery to suggest millimeter wave scanning is in progress.

Re:just to be clear (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41563187)

I absolutely should not have to pose nude for an audience and a camera in order to fly. The same goes for entering a courthouse.

I hate my fellow citizens for being so willing to give up their personal sovereignty so willingly. THEY make the world a worse place for ME.

 

Re:just to be clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41563323)

tin foil bonus round: it would also be much easier considering the entirety of the TSA revolves around security theater to simply remove the existing units, replace the chassis, and reinstall them with livery to suggest millimeter wave scanning is in progress.

I Just Bought Shares of Alcoa: How do we know they're not doing this? *looks around suspiciously*

That's not the most important problem (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560697)

The key problems with the X-ray machines were:
1. They were invasive searches without anything remotely similar to probable cause.
2. They don't actually stop people from carrying bombs onto aircraft (as has been tested several times).

Re:That's not the most important problem (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560865)

The potentially cancer-causing radiation is not a key problem? I think the standards for security screening need to start with "First, do no harm."

Waste and ineffectiveness is a problem, but it comes second to directly harming innocent people.

Re:That's not the most important problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561179)

I think the fact that they were unregulated x-ray equipment operated by un-certified amateur radiologists hired through ads on pizza boxes might qualify as a problem.

Re:That's not the most important problem (3, Informative)

slimak (593319) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561899)

In the US virtually all x-ray machines (including medical) are operated by un-certified radiologists. Radiologists interpret the images, they do not (typically) run the imaging devices. Radiographer or radiologic technologist (or just "tech" as they are typically called in the field) run the devices. Fortunately, the techs in medicine are typically well trained and certified. I'm not sure about the TSA team, but probably not so much. So your overall point is probably still accurate.

Re:That's not the most important problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561233)

They don't need probable cause or individualized suspicion because it's an administrative search that you consent to by placing your stuff on the belt or walking through the portal. What they are doing is perfectly constitutional and legal. That doesn't mean you have to put up with it but the courts will not stop it. The President could order them to stop or Congress can pass a law but the courts cannot. Write your reps and the White House.

Re:That's not the most important problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561319)

I tried that and all I got was a canned response of "thank you for your support".

Looking back at history (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560727)

We're going to look back at this era in disbelief. It will be like us looking back at early medicine where people took elixirs full of Mercury.

Re:Looking back at history (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560839)

We're going through the Gilded Age and McCarthyism for the second time now, how many times does history have to repeat itself until we learn?

Re:Looking back at history (3, Interesting)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560965)

We're going through the Gilded Age and McCarthyism for the second time now, how many times does history have to repeat itself until we learn?

Fear is instinctual, so learning can't possibly win that fight.

Re:Looking back at history (4, Funny)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560981)

With our luck lately, we will look back at this era as the "good old days" when the TSA was only in the airport and they only irradiated us instead of doing a strip and full-cavity search.

Calibration; Europe (2)

KaiBeezy (618237) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560873)

I always thought the problem was calibration, and more specifically that the company responsible for building and selling these was also responsible for ongoing testing, calibration and certification -- a clear conflict of interest. After that series of articles in the NYTimes a couple years ago about people getting fried to death in misconfigured x-ray machines, fear of ending up like Spock (before re-genesis of course, but I digress) was my main reason for taking the pat-down every time.

Secondary reason was European airports banning them, but that has since been reversed. UK doesn't let you opt for pat-downs, not sure about the rest of Europe.

The whole ionizing radiation deal gives me the creeps. Let's hope they do all switch over to millimeter wave. Right? Or is there a fatal flaw with those too?

No longer used in Europe (2)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561317)

Secondary reason was European airports banning them, but that has since been reversed. UK doesn't let you opt for pat-downs, not sure about the rest of Europe.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm about to cite the Daily Mail), but it looks like [dailymail.co.uk] they're no longer in use in the EU -- the Manchester use was a temporary extension [metro.co.uk], an exception to the general ban last year.

According to this [metro.co.uk] the Manchester machines will be replaced by the end of October.

America's downward spiral (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560881)

The majority of the American public approves of the TSA and their tactics. If you want to fix this broken system, fix the people that continue to support it. That means kicking your neighbor in the balls when they say or do anything in support of the TSA. That means slapping your girlfriend when she says something retarded like "if it means I arrive safely then it's okay".

The morons in this country who think the TSA is a good idea must be dealt with or we have no hope of seeing liberty again.

Re:America's downward spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41560969)

That means kicking your neighbor in the balls when they say or do anything in support of the TSA. That means slapping your girlfriend when she says something retarded like "if it means I arrive safely then it's okay".

So what do we do with the idiots who advocate violence in response to someone freely expressing their personal beliefs?

Re:America's downward spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561075)

Force them to talk to roman_mir about government for eternity.

Re:America's downward spiral (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561103)

That means kicking your neighbor in the balls when they say or do anything in support of the TSA. That means slapping your girlfriend when she says something retarded like "if it means I arrive safely then it's okay".

So what do we do with the idiots who advocate violence in response to someone freely expressing their personal beliefs?

Assert our Second Amendment rights and shoot them, of course!

Big whoop... (2)

jasno (124830) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560891)

As my upper-middle-class, female, New Yorker friend just found out, the problem with the sanitized images is that forgetting a dime in your pocket will cause it to trigger a general alert and you'll be whisked aside for gate-rape.

And let's not forget that a butt-bomb, like that used by terrorists in Saudi Arabia in 2009, is still undetectable by gropers and scanners.

Re:Big whoop... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41560971)

Butt-bombs are relatively small. Instead imagine a skinny guy who is turned into an explosive hambeast through surgery.

Re:Big whoop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561725)

You would be surprised what you can fit up there. google "anal bellybuster" (NSFW) if you want to see.

Re:Big whoop... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561329)

Butt bombs tend to shape the charge in such a way that they usually end up blowing it out their ass, the rest of their body shields those not behind him.

Re:Big whoop... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561475)

That sounds like the aftermath of a trip to the local curry house.

Re:Big whoop... (3, Informative)

jasno (124830) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562219)

Yeah, but some of us have rectums capable of allowing objects to exit as well as enter. So it may be possible that a terrorist has this capability as well, along with, say, a few of his friends, who could then assemble the device outside their anal cavity.

Re:Big whoop... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41563093)

Wow, and I figured someone would have replied with "Well then they just stick their ass to the window of the plane and kiss it goodbye."

But yes, it is possible for a few people to get on a plane, go to the bathroom, pull bomb parts out of their ass, and then assemble them on the plane. There are simpler ways of going about it, but it is possible.

Re:Big whoop... (2)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561847)

That happened to me recently. Actually it was two dimes in one pocket that set off the machine. The process went a little like this: I got asked a few times what I had in my right pocket, waited for a male TSA employee to come over, waited for the TSA agents to stop bickering, got a quick patdown (including a few squeezes of my pockets), turned my pocket inside out, discovered two dimes, went on my way. All the while I was staring at an outline of my body with a couple of red squares highlighting the areas of interest.

My problem with the pornoscanners is twofold: they're extremely invasive and they're (potentially) dangerous. These newer machine address the first issue pretty well IMO, and as long as they're safer I'm pretty much satisfied. Now if only they could get rid of the bullshit liquid, gel, spreadable rules...

Re:Big whoop... (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562383)

Dime? That's high-density metal, of course they can detect it! I was more surprised when I failed the backscatter scan because of a folded-over receipt in my shirt pocket.

Slippery Slope is no longer a logical fallacy (2)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561001)

When the multimeter wave scanners were installed, it was a lot of "don't worry, only a subset of travelers will be subjected to it" and "you can choose to be sexually molested instead". Fast forward a few years and now they're replacing regular X-ray machines with them.

How soon before you have to pass through one to go into a government building? A grocery store? Outside your own home?

Re:Slippery Slope is no longer a logical fallacy (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561047)

How soon before you have to pass through one to go into a government building?

This is already required at some courthouses in the US, they were there before they were in airports IIRC.

Re:Slippery Slope is no longer a logical fallacy (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561279)

How soon before you have to pass through one to go into a government building?

This is already required at some courthouses in the US, they were there before they were in airports IIRC.

I guess it's been that long since I've been to the courthouse... last I recall there were metal detectors but that's about it.

Except.... (5, Interesting)

Luthair (847766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561057)

millimeter wave scanners may unzip dna strands and no studies have been done about the long term effects of human exposure, hurray!

Re:Except.... (4, Informative)

claar (126368) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562767)

Whoever marked this as flamebait should read this article [technologyreview.com] posted by numbius above. Worth study, it seems.

anonymous (2)

fulldecent (598482) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561069)

When anonymous gets a hold of the image data and tags it to passenger's facebook wall... that will be the day public has had enough. It is hard to get people off the theater. When anonymous puts a hold of the image data and publishes senator's likenesses, that will be the day they outlaw it.

Re:anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561579)

it must be nice to be that naïve.

Least of their problems (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561079)

Boston airport sucks great big dirty donkey dicks with a side order of shit.

If you have to go to any other terminal in the building you have to go though security again, and again. It can take well over half an hour to move from one part of the airport to another. It is fucking stupid and frustrating, the wife and I will do our best to avoid that airport from here on out considering the fun we had last time going though.

Re:Least of their problems (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561403)

Boston isn't really all that bad. Occasionally, you do get stuck in a security line behind 19 guys trying to bring box cutters on a flight. But other than that, its OK.

Re:Least of their problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562793)

Another fun aspect of the Boston airport: all ways out cost money.

No, really, there's a toll to leave the airport. You can also take the subway, but that's again a fee to leave. (And, apparently, crime-ridden and dangerous.)

If for whatever reason you're thinking of going to Boston - don't. There's no reason to. Never has been, never will.

Just great... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561385)

Now we've gone from x-raying people to microwaving them.

Re:Just great... (2)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561435)

Yes, now that we can see all these wonderful tasty organs it's time to cook them.

Saw these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41561743)

They are in the Tampa Airpoint already, i was a lot more comfortable going through this scanner with a boner than previously.

No more hand searches (3, Insightful)

tgibbs (83782) | about a year and a half ago | (#41561829)

Good, I can stop requesting on a hand search when I fly out of Boston. It's not that I consider the exposure particularly hazardous--I don't; I've voluntarily exposed myself to far more radiation over the years--I just saw no point in additional exposure to ionizing radiation when I can avoid it, and I don't really mind the hand search.

Re:No more hand searches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564065)

I make it a point to always opt out. This saves others from being forced to go through the machine. Hopefully others return the favor.

This thing can't detect shit (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562025)

They tried it on Mayor Menino's skull and found nothing. He was shocked at the results, saying "bwafa nogga rifl plart." Strong words, indeed.

Reliable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562087)

Went through one with quite heavy continence protection. Saw the markup on screen - nothing in the groin area, some false positives on bare bits of skin (so not hiding anything there). Not convinced they work that well.

I thought they weren't using naked images anymore (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41562523)

Or did they lie to us?

Former Boston and Israel frequent flyer here... (2)

DSS11Q13 (1853164) | about a year and a half ago | (#41562797)

At the risk of beating a dead horse... I'd like to share my experience with beating these systems. I'm personally much more interested in Boston's integration of Israeli style interview tactics. I lived in the Middle East for a couple years and went through the borders on an almost daily basis, and several times through the Tel Aviv airport (Israel's only international airport). Israel doesn't use anything resembling our body scanners, and instead relies on brief interviews of every person flying to determine what additional screening will be necessary (all the way up to strip searching), supplemented with American bomb sniffing machines. Their security works. Were it not for the fact that I went through it so often, I wouldn't have been able to beat it.

You could imagine my surprise when on one of my most recent flights to/from (I can't remember which way) Boston I was treated to such an interview. I was caught off guard, but immediately recognized it as the identical setup. I quickly put on my "set off no alarms" interview demeanor and made it through fine. Frankly I hope this catches on. I would like to think of myself as something of a "getting through borders" professional, I've gotten through Israeli and American airports and onto planes with everything from a can of pepper spray to a live scorpion. You can scan my body (though I always opt out) and my bags all day, but sit me down for an interview and after long enough even the best person will crack if they are hiding something.

I don't think cancer of TSA empl radiation-origin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41563011)

Human bodies are chemical factories. They emit chemicals and they affected by chemicals in environment. Now, imagine TSA employee staying his shift in a middle of people traffic, when each of them are hate him. Just plain hate him and want him to die. People emit chemicals when they experience emotions. When the love, affraid or when they hate. Later cannot be good for you. It is not good for TSA employee. I wonder if anybody ever checked heart problems rate in TSA workforce. Those numbers should be even worse.

ymod do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41563017)

Parts. The cuRrent hand...don't

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41563125)

Project. Today, as house... pathetic. 486/66 with 8 out of bed in the Hobbyist dilettante

Goons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41564159)

They can replace the scanners with whatever they want. I don't care if they are carved out of dead unicorns and rain magic fairy dust on every traveler that goes through them... I'm still not going through them on principle. When I absolutely have to fly, I'll take the pat down. If my rights are going to be violated, somebody is going to have to physically get off their dead ass and do the violating... But mostly I just travel by rail, which is sheer luxury compared to air travel...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...