Aviation security

Must...

restist...
Tempt...
ta...
tion...

for...
an easy joke.

Regards

hedgefundguy - just what I was thinking. I'd be thinking about a name change if I were them.

On this web page thirteen domains want to run scripts†. For the IT paranoid who don’t want to enable these one at a time, and for those whose work computers can’t play the multimedia, please could there be a transcript. Please could there be a transcript on every page with audio.

† economist.com, facebook.com, apture.com, twitter.com, criteo.net, fbcdn.net, revsci.net, feedroom.com, quantserve.com, nexac.com, criteo.com, google-analytics.com, doubleclick.net. More than none of these are known to be undesirable.

Kotowski is right. The name "nude scanner" bothers people, not the actual scanner itself. Furthermore, he says the idea is not to produce nude pictures, but to identify threats and weapons.

It's just another case of a "fluffed-up" story by the media to create unnecessary concern over safety scanners. I have passed through airports that have utilized the full-body scanners, and there has been no issue coming from myself, my family, nor any other passenger going through security at the same time as myself. In addition, alternatives are also offered, including same-sex inspection for further privacy.

Therefore, my point is that there really isn't anything to worry about with the so-called "nude" scans. Think of it as getting an examination from your doctor - you trust him or her to inspect your body to find disease. Similarly, passengers must trust security officials to honestly do their jobs and inspect for possible explosives or weapons.

The issue, ultimately, is what level of intrusion by security forces are we, as a people, going to allow in order to achieve a certain level of security. This pertains not just to airports, for terrorists threats can appear anywhere, at any time. Shall we allow these full body scanners at the entrance to every public building and facility, then? Shall we allow them on every street corner? Shall we treble the police force and have them check the ID papers of people in the street? Or shall we form a special Internal Security Force with wide ranging powers and little accountability?

Air traffic is the current targetted threat, and people seem willing to put up with overbearing security in order to cope with it. Who doubts that governments are keenly aware of this willingness, and will begin installing such systems elsewhere with expanded capabilities? All in the name of better security.

*That* is the real threat, and people should not be putting up with these sorts of scanners, *anywhere*.

We are a nation of wimps. Just check out the book "Sissy Nation" for proof. When this country was founded, we revolted over issues less onerous than are now being foisted upon us by our Big Brother federal government. Enough is enough, as there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate these devices make us safer. In fact they only serve to enrich those like George Soros who have invested in the companies making them, and to create an ever growing and self-serving federal bureaucracy.

X-ray is a ionizing radiation and must be avoided because causes damage to living organisms. The Economist should not invite the seller of this device to say that the "thing" is safe.

One can and should argue the radiological health safety of scanners, along with privacy concerns. In a democracy, all viewpoints should be heard.

Mine is much simpler: What is the cost effectiveness of airport security? Nevermind the cost of the guards, the real cost is having people arrive ~1 h earlier to wait in lines or gate areas. The US does ~800 million screenings per year -- that is a cost of 800 million person-hours. Human beings only live 700,000 hours. Heightened security consumes more than 1,100 lifetimes each year in the US alone. This is too large a fraction of the 3000 that died on an unduplicatable 9/11, or the ~400 that would die in an induced airplane crash.

Note the pose one has to assume in order to be scanned. Now look at some pictures of the surrendered victims of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw circa May 1943. From J. Stroop to TSA in 68 years. This is what it looks like when Governments get into the habit of controlling people and suppressing dissent. I'll bet Himmler and Stroop slept just as soundly then as Kotowski and Pistole do today, comforting themselves that they are doing their job "for the common good".

Alice in Wonderland: you make a good point. Timothy McVeigh didn't get on a plane, he drove a truck. Where is the logical end to searching our bodies.

Robert in Houston: Good math. I would add that we've lost over 6,000 lives fighting for revenge of the 3,000 lives lost in 9/11. Imagine if we lost two policemen for every murder in the U.S. There have to be better ways than this.

I guess in the end we need to ask ourselves: Would I subject my fellow citizens to 800 million full body scans if it would save my own life? For me the answer is no: I have too much respect for my fellow human beings.

We had a shoe bomber, so ever since then we've been taking off our shoes. Then we had an underpants bomber, so now the TSA wants to examine the contents of my skivvies. I don't really care that a TSA agent confirms that the contents are not threatening - I object to the larger issue of the government claiming the right to subject me to a strip search, even if only a virtual one, in the name of "security." If I forget to take my toothpaste out of my bag, they don't notice it's there. If I remember to take it out they confiscate it - if the tube says it's 4 oz, even though there's only a squeeze left. Given that they can't find my toothpaste unless I show it to them, maybe they should just be ASKING me what's in my underwear, rather than trying to look there.

I can't wait to find out how they respond to the rectum bomber.

There has to come a point where it's not worth escalating security any further. The question is what is that point? Who balances the cost, intrusiveness and delays of security against the cost of the potential threat?

How to find a rectum bomber? Presumably by blowing smoke up our asses (as the Americans might say)

There seems to be a new ploy in this Rapiscan story: I was ushered into one of their scanners without even knowing it at LAX a few weeks ago.

Obviously I would prefer the grope to the scope given the chance: They seem to realise this and dont give you a chance now.

I got scoped AND groped last time I travelled -- a rediculous level of security. Security is an insatiable demand that produces diminishing returns on investment. In other words, we now get increasingly small increments of security in return for increasingly large increments of money. Enough! The American people need to reverse the trend towards litigation/safety/regulation before it consumes all of our freedoms.